characterization of Tiberius; others, with less probability, have denied any such influence. A few isolated parallels between Dio and Sallust, also Pliny the Elder, have been pointed out; but they are not of sufficient importance to establish any direct influence. In a few instances Dio refers to the memoirs of emperors (Augustus, Hadrian, and Severus), as if he had consulted them. He excels the other historians of Rome in the attention paid to constitutional and administrative matters, and it has been argued that he must have consulted some of the public records, at least the lists of magistrates. In general it may be said that his history gives evidence of being based on various sources for a given period, and he seems to have made an honest attempt to arrive at the truth. Unfortunately he was not always equal to the task of reconciling the discrepancies in his sources and thus manages to contradict himself at times.
Dio's point of view is thoroughly Roman. He writes from the standpoint of a senator who, while jealous of the prerogatives of his order, is at the same time a thorough believer in the monarchy; in fact he makes the relations of the emperors to the senate the central idea in his account of the empire. His impatience with all opposition to the monarchy is probably responsible for the almost
- Compare his own statements in Frg. 1, 2 and Book LIII, 19, 6.