¹ Or so we may assume. Owing to the imperfect state of Dio's text, only twenty-three indices have survived in the manuscripts of Dio's work. For the manuscripts of Dio's history, see discussion in Section I, below. All references to Dio are from Boissevain, U.P., Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt (Berlin, 1898–1931)Google Scholar. Where there is discrepancy between the ‘traditional’ book divisions (derived from the editions of Leunclavius) and those of Boissevain, the ‘traditional’ book numbers will be placed in brackets ( ) after Boissevain's. For a succinct description of the two book-numbering systems, see Swan, P.M., The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History, Books 55–56 (9 b.c. – a.d. 14) (Oxford, 2004), 383–5Google Scholar.

² H.S. Reimarus, Τῶν Δίωνος τοῦ Κασσίου Ῥωμαϊκῶν ἱστοριῶν τὰ σωζόμενα. Cassii Dionis Historiae Romanae quae supersunt (Hamburg, 1750), 2.1538. The scholarly consensus is that they are not by Dio: Swan (n. 1), 33–4.

³ L. Dindorf, Dionis Cassii Cocceiani Historia Romana (Leipzig, 1863–5) collected the indices with the addition of Latin summaries of Leunclavius (for those books which did not possess indices) at the beginning of the fifth volume of his edition of Dio's history. Bekker, I., Cassii Dionis Rerum Romanarum libri octoginta (Leipzig, 1849)Google Scholar banished them entirely.

⁴ E.g. J. Melber, Dionis Cassii Cocceiani Historia Romana (Leipzig, 1890–1928); Boissevain (n. 1); E. Cary, Dio's Roman History (London, 1914–27). This editorial practice applies to the ongoing Budé edition of Dio's work as well.

⁵ For some general comments, see Gibson, R., ‘Starting with the index in Pliny’, in Jansen, L. (ed.), The Roman Paratext. Frame, Text, Readers (Cambridge, 2014), 33–55, at 38–9Google Scholar; cf. Favuzzi, A., ‘L'ultimo libro di Cassio Dione’, QS 15 (1989), 189–97, at 190–1Google Scholar.

⁶ See Kelly, G., ‘Adrien de Valois and the chapter headings of Ammianus Marcellinus’, CPh 104 (2009), 233–42Google Scholar.

⁷ For Skelton's translation which exists in one MS (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge 357), see the EETS edition by Salter, F.M. and Edwards, H.L.R. (edd.), The Bibliotheca Historica of Diodorus Siculus, translated by John Skelton (Oxford, 1955)Google Scholar.

⁸ As was the case with the Livian epitomes and the prologues of Trogus. For the transmission of the Periochae (which are preserved in the MSS of Florus), see Reeve, M.D., ‘The transmission of Florus’ Epitoma de Tito Livio and the Periochae ’, CQ 38 (1988), 477–91Google Scholar, and Reeve, M.D., ‘The transmission of Florus and the Periochae again’, CQ 41 (1991), 453–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Trogus’ prologues, see Seel, O., Epitoma historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi (Stuttgart, 1972), xiii-xiv Google Scholar.

⁹ Polyb. 11.1a.1–5, with Walbank, F.W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume II (Oxford, 1967), 266–7Google Scholar. Polybius also tells us that the last book of his work seems to have functioned as a summary epilogue (Polyb. 39.8.8), but unfortunately nothing is known of its layout or contents. For discussion of this passage, see Walbank, F.W., Polybius (Berkeley, 1972), 16–17 n. 82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Gell. NA praef. 25; Plin. HN praef. 33. For comments, see Holford-Strevens, L., Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and His Achievement (Oxford, 2003 ²), 30–1 (on Gellius)Google Scholar; Gibson (n. 5), 34–6 (on Pliny).

¹¹ Butterfield, D., The Early Textual History of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura (Cambridge, 2013), 136–202 Google Scholar.

¹² This might account for the temporal statements in the indices of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, which must have been added at some point after the mid fourth-century date, and thus may post-date the book summaries. We know that Diodorus produced a summary of his work so as to guard against the circulation of unofficial copies of his history (Diod. Sic. 40.8; cf. 1.4.6–1.5.2), but the relationship (if any) between this and the book indices found in the MSS is uncertain. Be this as it may, it has been asserted that the indices were compiled by Diodorus himself: Rubincam, C. ‘How many books did Diodorus Siculus intend to write?’, CQ 48 (1998), 229–33, at 232 n. 15Google Scholar.

¹³ Boissevain (n. 1).

¹⁴ For V, see de'Cavalieri, P. Franchi, Cassii Dionis Historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt, Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1288 (Leipzig, 1908), 1–14 Google Scholar; Mazzucchi, C.M., ‘Alcune vicende della tradizione di Cassio Dione in epoca bizantina’, Aevum 53 (1979), 94–134, esp. 94–122Google Scholar; cf. Irigoin, J., ‘L'Italie méridionale et la tradition des textes antiques’, JÖB 18 (1969), 37–55, at 44–5Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Two lacunae are of particular relevance to this discussion. The loss of several folios, which encompass the beginnings of Books 58 and 60, has resulted in the loss of the indices of those books. For the dating of M, see Wilson, N.G., Scholars of Byzantium (London, 1983), 139 Google Scholar; Mazzucchi (n. 14), 125–6; cf. Irigoin, J., ‘Centres de copie et bibliothèques’, in Mango, C. and Ševčenko, I. (edd.), Byzantine Books and Bookmen. A Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium (Washington, 1975), 17–27, at 22Google Scholar. A. Diller, ‘Notes on Greek codices of the tenth century’, TAPhA 78 (1947), 184–8, at 184 n. 3 posited a ninth-century date for M, similarly Mioni, E. and Formentin, M. (edd.), I codici greci in minuscola: dei sec. IX e X della Biblioteca nazionale marciana (Padua, 1975), 31 Google Scholar; cf. Freyburger-Galland, M.-L., ‘L’établissement du texte des livres 41 & 42’, in Freyburger-Galland, M.-L. et al. (edd. and trans.), Dion Cassius Histoire Romaine Livres 41 & 42 (Paris, 2002), lxvi-lxix, at lxvi-lxviiGoogle Scholar. Yet, this date seems too early. Nigel Wilson has drawn to my attention the fact that the hand of the scribe of M bears a strong similarity to that of the scribe of the Ravenna codex of Aristophanes (Biblioteca Classense, MS 429), which supports the assignment of a mid to late tenth-century date to M. Similarly, against the dating of Mioni and Formentin, note Mazzucchi (n. 14), 126 n. 137.

¹⁶ Here one lacuna is of particular relevance: the beginning of Book 36 (along with its index) is lost in L. For the date of L, see Diller (n. 15), 184–5; Irigoin (n. 15), 21; Wilson (n. 15), 139. A full digital facsimile of L is available via the Laurentian library website: http://www.bml.firenze.sbn.it

¹⁷ Boissevain (n. 1), lxxxvii. Subsequently it has been asserted that L might be a copy of M: Freyburger-Galland (n. 15), lxvi-lxvii; cf. Irigoin (n. 15), 22. This contention is based on the belief that M belongs to the latter ninth or early tenth century. If, however, M and L date to the same century, which seems likely, or if in fact L is earlier than M, as suggested by Wilson (n. 15), 139, then this position cannot be sustained. Either eventuality has no effect on the following argument.

¹⁸ This is the format of the indices to the historical works of Diodorus Siculus, Socrates, Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, Theophylact Simocatta and others.

¹⁹ Cf. Boissevain (n. 1), 2.393.

²⁰ This is certain in the case of L and M. There is no way of determining with any certainty whether the index in V is derived from the same archetype, but the presence of the characteristic temporal statement and the fasti suggest that it is. In later MSS, such as codex Laurentianus plut. 70 n. 10 (fifteenth century), the layout of the indices deviates from that found in L, M and V (and especially in the presentation of the summaries). This variation seems to be scribal, as codex Laurentianus plut. 70 n. 10 is derived from both L and M: Boissevain (n.1), 1.lxxiv-lxxv; Freyburger-Galland (n. 15), lxvi-lxvii.

²¹ Evidence suggests that it was important for a titulus to contain both the name of the author and the title of the work as a mark of a work's genuineness: e.g. Galen, De Libris Propriis, praef. 1–2 Boudon-Millot = 19.8 Kuhn. For the convention of affixing titles (in the form of tags) to rolls, see E.G. Turner (rev. P. Parsons), Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (BICS Supplement 46) (1987), 13–14.

²² V (fol. 10^v) = Franchi de'Cavalieri (n. 14), Plate 20. Each folium of V originally contained three columns of text. It should be noted also that in other MSS of Dio, similar subscriptions take the role of an explicit, denoting the number of the completed book (e.g. L, fol. 48^v).

²³ See Boissevain (n. 1), 3.viii-ix; cf. Mazzucchi (n. 14), 97.

²⁴ E.g. the indices to Josephus, Diodorus, Ptolemy, Socrates and others all contain the basic incipit τάδε ἔνεστιν ἐν and so on. These similarities do not indicate a common provenance any more than the similarities of tables of contents or indices found in modern works.

²⁵ See Boissevain (n. 1), 1.lxiv, lxxiv for examples.

²⁶ For Dio's name, see Swan (n. 1), xiv; cf. Gowing, A.M., ‘Dio's name’, CPh 85 (1990), 49–54 Google Scholar; Salomies, O., ‘Polyonymous nomenclature in consular dating’, Arctos 39 (2005), 103–35, at 108–9Google Scholar. The first-known attestation of Dio as ‘Dio Cocceianus’ is by Photius in the ninth century (Phot. Bib. cod. 71), but this was derived from an earlier source: Gowing (n. 26), 49.

²⁷ Especially important, as the various books of the Roman History would have circulated initially either individually or in perhaps in clusters of several books.

²⁸ The comments of Genette, G. (trans. Lewin, J.E.), Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation (Cambridge, 1997), 41 Google Scholar seem especially apt: ‘The author's name fulfils a contractual function whose importance varies greatly depending on genre: slight or non-existent in fiction, it is much greater in all kinds of referential writing, where the credibility of testimony, or of its transmission rests largely on the identity of the person reporting it […] and this is all the more true when the witness himself plays a part in the narrative.’

²⁹ See further the (by no means exhaustive) comments of Regenbogen, O., ‘Πίναξ’, RE 20.2 (1950), cols. 1472–4Google Scholar.

³⁰ Dio frequently uses the word τεμένισμα to denote a sacred precinct, usually one set aside for an emperor or a member of the Imperial family. His usage is also unusual: of the prose authors before Dio, τεμένισμα only appears in Josephus (e.g. AJ 4.242).

³¹ 80(79).9.3. Elsewhere, Xiphilinus shows no reluctance in using ἀειπαρθένος (e.g. Xiph. 333.29 = 78(77).16.1; Xiph. 218.18 = 67.3.3), which suggests the wording at 80(79).9.3 is close (if not identical) to Dio's original.

³² E.g. ‘Caligula’ appears as Καλιγόλας in the text of Book 57 (57.5.6) but as Καλλιγόλας in the index to Book 58. The error is likely to be the result of scribal inconsistency, as the form Καλλιγόλας appears in the body text of Book 58 as well (58.1.1). All examples come from M. For discussion of the Dionian fasti, see Section II, below.

³³ Note, however, that the formulation found in the index (οἱ κερεάλιοι ἀγορανόμοι), while unattested in literary sources, is paralleled on an honorific statue-base from western Anatolia (Akmoneia), commemorating a certain T. Fl. Montanus Maximianus, dated to c. a.d. 231: MAMA 11.104, line 6 (ἀγορανόμον κερεάλιον). I thank Caillan Davenport for bringing this inscription to my attention.

³⁴ Cf. Freyburger-Galland, M.-L., Aspects du vocabulaire politique et institutionnel de Dion Cassius (Paris, 1997), 163 Google Scholar, who draws attention to the adoption of the Latinism in Dio's description of the aediles curules at 39.32.2 (περὶ τοὺς ἀγορανόμους τοὺς κουρουλίους). For a list of Dio's transliterations, see Nawijn's uocabula Latina in his index to Boissevain's edition:  Boissevain (n. 1), 5.880.

³⁵ For comparison, the index to Book 13 of Diodorus has 48 items and the index to Book 1 of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities has 19 items.

³⁶ Interestingly, there is no mention of the celebration of triumphs in the Dionian summaries: cf. Chaplin, J.D., ‘The Livian Periochae and the last Republican writer’, in Horster, M., and Reitz, C. (edd.), Condensing Texts – Condensed Texts (Stuttgart, 2010), 451–67, at 456Google Scholar.

³⁷ The same is true for the corresponding sections of other works derived from Livy, such as Eutropius’ Breuiarium.

³⁸ Hieron. Chron. p. 156 (ed. Helm).

³⁹ Jews: Cass. Dio, ind. 37; Parthians: Cass. Dio, ind. 40; Baiae: Cass. Dio, ind. 48.

⁴⁰ Although such exercises in erudition might be said to be trivial, ethnographic or geographical digressions were, of course, an important feature of Greco-Roman historiography. For an overview, see Thomas, R.F., Lands and Peoples in Roman Poetry: The Ethnographical Tradition (PCPhS Supplement 7) (Cambridge, 1982), 1–5 Google Scholar; and for Dio specifically, Millar, F.G.B., A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), 177–9Google Scholar.

⁴¹ For the date of Obsequens, see now Cameron, A., The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford, 2011), 225 Google Scholar.

⁴² Points of comparison and contrast can be made here with the Periochae, where the author generally ignores Livy's catalogues of portents, but includes some individual portents: e.g. Livy, Per. 55; cf. Chaplin (n. 36), 453 n. 7.

⁴³ Cf. Millar (n. 40), 77; Rich, J.W., Cassius Dio: The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53–55.9) (Warminster, 1990), 12 Google Scholar; Swan (n. 1), 8–13.

⁴⁴ For the list of speeches in Books 37–56, see E. Schwartz, ‘Cassius (40)’, RE 3.2 (1899), cols. 1718–19.

⁴⁵ As was the case with Xiphilinus’ choice of speeches: Mallan, C.T., ‘The style, method, and programme of Xiphilinus’ Epitome of Cassius Dio's Roman History ’, GRBS 53 (2013), 610–44, at 618–21Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Moreover, it is possible that these dialogues were deemed more suitable for the purposes of recitation than, say, the Agrippa-Maecenas set piece.

⁴⁷ Chaplin (n. 36), 460–3.

⁴⁸ Both were exemplary: 43.10.1–43.11.6; 39.22.1–39.23.4; cf. Plut. Cato min. 38; Livy, Per. 104, 114.

⁴⁹ E.g. Livy, Per. 103; Plut. Cato min. 32.1–2, Caes. 14.9; Suet. Iul. 20.1–2; and others.

⁵⁰ In the index to Book 45, the compiler notes in his summary περὶ Γαΐου Ὀκταουίου τοῦ μετὰ ταῦτα Αὐγούστου ἐπικληθέντος, which corresponds to Dio's similar statement at 45.5.1.

⁵¹ Reimarus (n. 2), 2.1538, cf. 1.340 (on the index to Book 43). Note also the omission of the consuls Pansa and Hirtius in the fasti attached to Book 45 (cf. 45.17.1). For examples of the various literary and epigraphic fasti for the years 65 b.c. – a.d. 13, see the tabulation of Degrassi, A. (ed.), Inscriptiones Italiae Academiae Italicae Consociatae ediderunt. Volumen XIII, Fasciculus I: Fasti consulares et triumphales (Rome, 1947), 489–533 Google Scholar.

⁵² For the latter two categories, see Cass. Dio, ind. 42, ind. 43, ind. 44, ind. 45.

⁵³ Note the comments of Burgess, R.W. and Kulikowski, M., Mosaics of Time: The Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD. Volume 1: A Historical Introduction to the Chronicle Genre From its Origins to the High Middle Ages (Turnhout, 2013), 158–9Google Scholar, on the ‘Romanness’ of consular dating.

⁵⁴ Cass. Dio, ind. 59: οὗτος ὁ ἐνιαυτὸς οὐ συναριθμεῖται διὰ τὸ τὰ πλείω αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ξ´ γεγράφθαι.

⁵⁵ As far as we can judge from our fragmentary text, Dio seems to have maintained his annalistic structure with consular dating throughout his work. It is worth noting that Dio's own calculation of regnal years for the Imperial books was assiduous: Snyder, W., ‘On chronology in the Imperial books of Cassius Dio's Roman History ’, Klio 33 (1940), 39–56 Google Scholar. Only once (in the extant text) does Dio resort to using Olympiads: Cass. Dio F 32.

⁵⁶ First published as P.Oxy. 668. It may be noted that Obsequens too organized his catalogue of portents according to consular years.

⁵⁷ Whether these statements were part of the original summaries or added at a later time is unknown.

⁵⁸ Cod. Theod. 8.11.2, 3; cf. Bagnall, R.S., Cameron, A., Schwartz, S.R., Worp, K.A., Consuls of the Later Roman Empire (Atlanta, 1987), 26 Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ For which, see in general Burgess, R.W., The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana (Oxford, 1993), 175–86Google Scholar; Burgess and Kulikowski (n. 53), 136–7.

⁶⁰ Cassiod. Chron. 634/31 [= Chron. Min. 2, p. 136]. According to Burgess, R.W., ‘‘Non duo Antonini sed duo Augusti’: the consuls of 161 and the origins and traditions of the Latin consular fasti of the Roman empire’, ZPE 132 (2000), 259–90, at 261–3Google Scholar, this became conventional after the middle of the third century. See, further, Burgess and Kulikowski (n. 53), 133–4; cf. Salomies (n. 26), 105–6 n. 10. For the shift away from the use of the praenomen more generally, see Salway, B., ‘What's in a name? A survey of Roman onomastic practice from c.700 b.c. to a.d. 700 ’, JRS 84 (1994), 124–45Google Scholar, at 130–1 and passim.

⁶¹ Which was the point at which Cassiodorus began following the fasti recorded by Victorius of Aquitaine: Burgess (n. 60), 260.

⁶² This applies to non-Imperial consuls only. For the years 219–222 (Cass. Dio, ind. 80[79]), the fasti cease to cite filiation, but continue to name the non-Imperial consuls with full tria nomina.

⁶³ PIR ² N 165.

⁶⁴ Cf. Boissevain (n. 1), 2.558. Cassiodorus (Chron. 620/19 [= Chron. Min. 2, p. 136]) also names the consul as C. Norbanus. The fact that Cassiodorus compiled his list either directly or indirectly from Aufidius Bassus makes the suggestion particularly tantalizing. For the relationship between Cassiodorus and Aufidius Bassus, see now FRHist 3.604–5 (Levick).

⁶⁵ Tac. Ann. 2.41; cf. fasti Ostienses (Inscr. It. XIII.1 p. 185), and the fasti Antiates minores (Inscr. It. XIII.1 p. 303) name the consul ‘Caelius’. Again, Cassiodorus (Chron. 618/17 [= Chron. Min. 2, p.136]) shows a closer affinity with the Dionian fasti, naming him C. Caecilius. The confusion is also present in our epigraphic sources. The fasti Lunenses (Inscr. It. XIII.1 p. 310) too preserve the name ‘Caecilius’.

⁶⁶ That is, a Caecilius Nepos adopted by a Caelius Rufus: cf. PIR ² C 141.

⁶⁷ Note that the Dionian fasti in V are riddled with scribal errors and have been corrected significantly by modern editors: Boissevain (n. 1), 3.452–3 (with apparatus criticus). Theon's consular fasti, preserved in one of the manuscripts of Ptolemy's Useful Tables, cover the years a.d. 138 to 372. The only edition is that of H. Usner, printed in Chronica Minora 3.375–381, from which the sample has been copied.

⁶⁸ Theon's identification of Σαβινιανὸς καὶ Σέλευκος reveals a fundamental misreading of a fuller consular list, either by Theon or by an earlier compiler.

⁶⁹ E.g. Cons. Const. (ed. Burgess [n. 53], 232); Chron. 354 [= Chron Min. 1, p. 59]; Chron. Pasch. (ed. Dindorf 1, p. 498).

⁷⁰ ‘Pseudantoninus’ appears once in the Latin tradition. Significantly, it is not applied to Elagabalus but to Diadumenianus, the son of the Emperor Macrinus (SHA, Heliogab. 8.4). The closest we get to Dio's ‘Pseudantoninus’ is in a fragmentary quatrain from Ausonius (Caes. 138–9 [ed. Green]): tune etiam Augustae sedis penetralia foedas, | Antoninorum nomina falsa gerens? This is, doubtless, due to the fact that a significant strain of the Latin tradition believed that Elagabalus was the child of Caracalla and thus had some claim to the name Antoninus: e.g. SHA, M. Ant. 9.2; Victor, Caes. 23.1; [Vict.] Epit. 23.1; but note the more agnostic statements in SHA, Marc. 7.6; SHA, Heliogab. 1.4–2.1; Eutr. 8.22.

⁷¹ Pseudantoninus is one of the several pejorative names Dio uses for the emperor (80[79].1.1). We may wonder why the compiler chose this one.

⁷² The obvious example among the surviving indices would be the fasti to Book 59, where the compiler names the emperor properly as either ‘C. Caesar Germanicus’ (Γ. Καῖσαρ Γερμανικός) or ‘C. Caesar’ (Γ. Καῖσαρ) rather than by the nickname Caligula, which is supplied in both the narrative of Book 59 (59.1.1) and in the index (Cass. Dio, ind. 59: Περὶ Γαΐου Καίσαρος τοῦ Καλλιγόλου; cf. ind. 80[79]: Περὶ Ἀβίτου τοῦ καὶ Ψευδαντωνίνου).

⁷³ Such as that evident in the compiler of the Chronicon Paschale, who ascribes to Caracalla the first two consulships of Elagabalus.

⁷⁴ For which, see Icks, M., The Crimes of Elagabalus: The Life and Legacy of Rome's Decadent Boy Emperor (London, 2011), 79–83, and especially, 87–8Google Scholar; cf. SHA, Heliogab. 17.4.

⁷⁵ Swan (n. 1), 34 n. 142.

⁷⁶ Zosimus (3.11.3) tendentiously attributes the construction of the library to Julian: Paschoud, F., Zosime: Histoire Nouvelle, Livre III (Paris, 2003), 99 Google Scholar. For skeletal comments on the Imperial library at Constantinople, see Wilson, N.G., ‘The libraries of the Byzantine world’, GRBS 8 (1967), 53–80, at 60–1Google Scholar; Wilson (n. 15), 50–1; Cameron (n. 41), 426. Cavallo, G. ‘La trasmissione dei “moderni” tra antichità tarda e medioevo bizanto’, Byz. Zeit. 80 (1987), 313–29Google Scholar, and Lemerle, P., Le premier humanisme byzantin: notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle (Paris, 1971), 54–60 Google Scholar =  Lemerle, P. (trans. Lindsay, H. and Moffatt, A.), Byzantine Humanism: The First Phase (Canberra, 1986), 57–63 Google Scholar perhaps exaggerate the extent of this programme, given the slender evidence for it.

⁷⁷ Alföldi, A. (trans. Mattingly, H.), A Conflict of Ideas in the Late Roman Empire: The Clash Between the Senate and Valentinian I (Oxford, 1952), 116–17Google Scholar. The notion of the ideal emperor as a patron of the arts is a familiar topos in pre-fourth-century panegyric (cf. Plin. Pan. 47.1–3; [Aristid.], Or. 35.20).

⁷⁸ Cod. Theod. 14.9.2: antiquarios ad bibliothecae codices componendos uel pro uetustate reparandos quattuor Graecos et tres Latinos scribendi peritos legi iubemus. This constitution, which was addressed to the urban prefect Clearchus (PLRE 1.211–12 [Clearchus 1]), is dated to 8 May 372.

⁷⁹ Liban. Argum. 1.1 [= ed. Foerster, 8 p. 600]. Almost certainly Montius Magnus: PLRE 1.535–6 (Magnus 11).

⁸⁰ Such as the Latin and Greek scribes copying texts for the library at Constantinople described in the Imperial constitution mentioned above (n. 78).

⁸¹ Cassiodorus seems to have prepared his work for the son-in-law of Theodoric, Eutharic, the western consul of 519 (Cassiod. Chron. 1363/519 [= Chron. Min. 2.161]; PLRE 2.438 [Fl. Eutharicus Cilliga]). Cf. J.J. O'Donnell, Cassiodorus (Berkeley, 1979), 36–43. Ausonius’ work appears to have been intended initially for Gregorius (PLRE 1.404 [Proculus Gregorius 9]), but was rededicated to Ausonius’ son, Hesperius: Green, R.P.H., The Works of Ausonius (Oxford, 1991), 554–5Google Scholar; cf. PLRE 1.427–8 (Decimius Hilarianus Hesperius 2). With the exception of a few dedicatory epigrams (Auson. 22 [OCT]) we know nothing for certain about the form Ausonius’ Fasti took. Burgess, R.W., ‘ Principes cum tyrannis: two studies on the Kaisergeschichte and its tradition’, CQ 43 (1993), 491–500, at 495 n. 18Google Scholar; Burgess (n. 60), 285 n. 97 contends that the work was a prose consularia—that is, an annotated consular list. Green ([this note], 555; reasserted in Green, R.P.H., ‘Ausonius’ Fasti and Caesares revisited’, CQ 49 [1999], 573–8Google Scholar) believes it to have been in verse, similar to the author's Caesares.

⁸² These men were hardly ‘editors’ in the modern sense of the word, nor was the result of their labours an ‘edition’ of Livy. For further details and discussion of these subscriptions, see Zetzel, J.E.G., ‘The subscriptions in the manuscripts of Livy and Fronto and the meaning of emendatio ’, CPh 75 (1980), 38–59, especially 38–49Google Scholar; Cameron (n. 41), 498–526; cf. C.W. Hendrick, History and Silence: Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity (Austin, 2000), 177–90.

⁸³ PLRE 2.1160–1 (Tascius Victorianus 2); PLRE 1.345 (Nicomachus Flavianus 14); PLRE 2.357–8 (Appius Nicomachus Dexter 3).

⁸⁴ For Livy as a source of moral exempla for late antique authors, see Ogilvie, R.M., The Library of Lactantius (Oxford, 1978), 42–3Google Scholar. But Cameron (n. 41), 511–13 notes how relatively few authentic references to Livy occur in both non-Christian and Christian authors of the fourth and fifth centuries.

⁸⁵ Cf. Favuzzi (n. 5); Mazzucchi (n. 14), 119. Egger, A.E., Examen critique des historiens anciens de la vie et du règne d'Auguste (Paris, 1844), 286 Google Scholar, drawing on analogy with the indices of Gellius and the Elder Pliny, asserted that Dio himself was the author of the indices.

⁸⁶ For which, see Swan (n. 1), 158–72.

⁸⁷ It is likely that the uigiles ceased to exist by the early fourth century: Furhmann, C., Policing the Roman Empire: Soldiers, Administration, and Public Order (Oxford, 2011), 132 Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Dio's own statement on the question of his audience is suitably vague: Cass. Dio F 1.1.

⁸⁹ Aalders, G.J.D., ‘Cassius Dio and the Greek world’, Mnemosyne 39 (1986), 282–304, at 291Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ For this affectation, see the comments of A. Cameron, Agathias (Oxford, 1970), 75–88 (on Agathias); and Stadter, P.A., ‘Plutarch's Lives and their Roman readers’, in Ostenfeld, E.N. (ed.), Greek Romans and Roman Greeks: Studies in Cultural Interaction (Aarhus, 2002), 123–35, at 123–4Google Scholar; reiterated in Stadter, P.A., Plutarch and his Roman Readers (Oxford, 2014), 45–6 (on Plutarch)Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Gowing, A.M., The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio (Ann Arbor, 1992), 292–4Google Scholar; Hose, M., Erneuerung der Vergangenheit: die Historiker im Imperium Romanum von Florus bis Cassius Dio (Stuttgart, 1994), 421 Google Scholar. This conforms to what we know about the circulation of literary texts in the Roman world. As noted by Starr, R.J., ‘The circulation of literary texts in the Roman world’, CQ 37 (1987), 213–23Google Scholar, works were circulated initially amongst the author's close friends. Cf. Johnson, W.A., Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (Oxford, 2010), 85–8Google Scholar.

⁹² For Pomponius and his Enchiridion, see Nörr, D., ‘Pomponius oder “Zum Geschichtsverständnis der römischen Juristen”’, ANRW 2.15 (1975), 497–604, at 512–39Google Scholar. Note also the comments of Kemezis, A.M., Greek Narratives of the Roman Empire under the Severans: Cassius Dio, Philostratus, and Herodian (Cambridge, 2014), 137–8Google Scholar, on Dio's keen interest in the history of senatorial magistracies.

⁹³ Cf. Mazzucchi (n. 14), 120, who suggests rolls rather than codices. Codices were becoming increasingly common from the second century onwards: Reynolds, L.D. and Wilson, N.G. (edd.), Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford, 2013 ⁴), 34–5Google Scholar. For a partial survey of known early codices, see Turner, E.G., The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia, 1977), 89–100 Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ For comments on where we do have pagination in early codices or on the numbering of columns in rolls, see Turner (n. 21), 16.

⁹⁵ The marginalia of V provides a partial concordance with the material provided in the summary. However, these notes were added at a later date by a reader other than the copyist.

⁹⁶ For reading habits, see now Johnson (n. 91).

⁹⁷ Cf. Favuzzi (n. 5), who argues that the index to Book 80(79) was the final index, and that the work originally terminated with the accession of Alexander Severus in a.d. 222. Photius (Bib. cod. 71) knew of Dio's work in an eighty-book edition, which concluded with the death of Elagabalus, although the patriarch shows knowledge of Dio's appendix-like summary of the reign of Alexander Severus down to a.d. 229.

⁹⁸ For Dio's residence in Italy (Capua), see 77(76).2.1; cf. Millar (n. 40), 10–11.