Just a word first in regard to the lost works with which Suidas credits Dio. He probably never wrote the "Persia": perhaps it belonged to Dio of Colophon, or possibly Suidas has confused _Dion_ with _Deinon_. It is certain that he did not write "The Getae": this composition was by his maternal grandfather, Dio of Prusa, and was the fruit of exile. "Journey-signs" or "Itineraries" is an enigmatic title, and the more cautious scholars forbear to venture an opinion upon its significance. Bernhardy, editor of Suidas, says "Intelligo _Librum de Signis_" and translates the title "De Ominibus inter congrediendum." Leonhard Schmitz (in the rather antiquated _Smith_) thinks it means "Itineraries" and that Dio Chrysostom very likely wrote it, because he traveled considerably. Concerning "In Trajan's Day" two opinions may be mentioned,--one, that the attribution of such a title to Dio is a mistake (for, if true, he would have mentioned it in his larger work): the other, that its substance was incorporated in the larger work, and that it thereby lost its identity and importance. The "Life of Arrian" is probably a fact. Arrian was a fellow-countryman of Dio's and had a somewhat similar character and career. It may be true, as Christ surmises, that this biography was a youthful task or an essay of leisure, hastily thrown off in the midst of other enterprises. Coming to Dio's personality we have at the outset to decide how his name shall be written. We must make sure of his proper designation before we presume to talk about him. The choice lies between Dio Cassius and Cassius Dio, and the former is the popular form of the name, if it be permissible to speak of Dio at all as a "popular" writer. The facts in the case, however, are simple. The Greek arrangement is [Greek: Dion ho Kassios]. Now the regular Greek custom is to place the gentile name, or even the praenomen, _after_ the cognomen: but the regular Latin custom (and after all Dio has more of the Roman in his makeup than of the Greek) is to observe the order _praenomen_, _nomen_, _cognomen_. It is objected, first, that the Greeks _sometimes_ followed the regular Latin order, and, second, that the Romans _sometimes_ followed the regular Greek order (e.g., Cicero, in his _Letters_). But the Greek exception cannot here make Dio the _nomen_ and Cassius the _cognomen_: we _know_ that the historian belonged to the gens Cassia (his father was Cassius Apronianus) and that he took Dio as cognomen from his grandfather, Dio Chrysostom. And the Latin exception simply offers us the alternative of following a common usage or an uncommon usage. The real question is whether Dio should be regarded rather as Greek or as Roman. To be logical, we must say either Dion Kassios or Cassius Dio. Considering the historian's times and his _habitat_, not merely his birthplace and literary dialect, I must prefer Cassius Dio as his official appellation. Yet, because the opposite arrangement has the sanction of usage, I deem it