[Footnote 14: The phrase yields no particular sense and is probably corrupt, but a correction is not easy. "To state his reasons" has been suggested; and a very slight change in the Greek produces "to eat something" another conjecture.] [Footnote 15: Probably from the _Bellerophon_ of Euripides.] [Footnote 16: Compare Euripides, Phoenician Maidens, verse 393.] [Footnote 17: Dio is in error. The date was really about ten days earlier.] DIO'S ROMAN HISTORY 59 The following is contained in the Fifty-ninth of Dio's Rome. About Gaius Cæsar, called also Caligula (chapters 1-6). How the Heroüm of Augustus was sanctified (chapter 7). How the Mauritanias began to be governed by Romans (chapter 25). How Gaius Cæsar died (chapters 29, 30). Duration of time, the remainder of the consulship of Gnæus Acerronius and Pontius Nigrinus, together with three additional years, in which there were the following magistrates here enumerated. M. Aquilius C. F. Iulianus, and P. Nonius M. F. Asprenas. (A.D. 38 = a. u. 791 = Second of Gaius.) C. Cæsar Germanicus (II), L. Apronius L. F. Cæsianus. (A.D. 39 = a. u. 792 = Third of Gaius, from March 26th.) C. Cæsar (III). (A.D. 40 = a. u. 793 = Fourth of Gaius.) C. Cæsar (IV), Cn. Sentius Cn. F. Saturninus. (A.D. 41 = a. u. 794 = Fifth of Gaius, to Jan. 24th.) This last year is not counted, because most of the events in it are recorded in the sixtieth book. _(BOOK 59, BOISSEVAIN)_ [A.D. 37 (_a. u._ 790)] [-1-] This, then, is the tradition about Tiberius. His successor was Gaius, son of Germanicus and Agrippina, who was known also, as I have stated, by the nicknames of Germanicus and Caligula. Tiberius had left the empire partly in charge of his grandson Tiberius; but Gaius had his will carried to the senate by Macro and caused it to be declared null and void by the consuls and the rest (with whom he had made previous arrangements) on the ground that the author of the document had not been of sound mind. This was evidenced by his allowing a mere boy to rule them, who had not yet the right even to enter the senate. Thus did Gaius at this time separate the lad from imperial office, and later in spite of having adopted him he slew him. Of no avail was the fact that Tiberius in his testament, still extant, had written the same words over in a number of ways, as if this would lend them some force, nor yet that all of it had been at this time read aloud by Macro before the senatorial body. For no injunction can have weight against the intentional misunderstanding or the power of one's successors. Tiberius suffered the same treatment he had accorded to his mother's wishes, save that he discharged none of the obligations imposed by her will in the case of any person, whereas all his bequests were paid to all the beneficiaries, save to his grandson. This, of course, made it perfectly plain that the whole fault found with the will had been invented on account of the lad. Gaius need not have