many mistakes through his headstrong opinions. It was not enough for him to know everything: he wanted to be the only one who knew anything. It was not enough for him to have all power: he would be the only one with any power. Hence it was that he employed no counselor and was jealous of such men as knew something worth while. He never loved a single person and he hated all those who excelled in anything; and most did he hate those whom he affected most to love. Many of these he destroyed in some way or other. Of course he had many men murdered openly, but others he would send to provinces not suited to them, fatal to their physical condition, having an unwholesome climate; thus, while pretending to honor them excessively, he quietly got rid of them, exposing such as he did not like to excessive heat or cold. Hence, though he spared some in so far as not to put them to death, yet he subjected them to such hardships that the stain [Footnote: This is very likely an incorrect translation of an incorrect reading. The various editors of Dio have a few substitutes to propose, but as all the interpretations seem to me extremely lumbering I have turned the MS. [Greek] chêlidoysthai (taken as a passive) in a way that may be not quite beyond the bounds of possibility. The noun [Greek] chêlhist like the English "stain," often passes from its original sense of "blemish" to that of the consequent "disgrace."] of murder still rested on him.

The above describes him in general terms.

[Sidenote: A.D. 213(?)] [Sidenote:—12—] Now we shall state what sort of person he showed himself in war. [Abgarus, king of the Osrhoeni, when he had once got control of the kindred tribes, inflicted the most outrageous treatment upon his superiors. Nominally he was compelling them to change to Roman customs, but in fact he was making the most of his authority over them in an unjustifiable way.] He tricked the king of the Osrhoeni, Abgarus, inducing him to visit him as a friend, and then arrested and imprisoned him. This left Osrhoene without a ruler and he subdued it.

The king of the Armenians had a dispute with his own children and Antoninus summoned him in a friendly letter with the avowed purpose of making peace between them: he treated these princes in the same fashion as he had Abgarus. The Armenians, however, instead of yielding to him had recourse to arms and not one of them thereafter would trust him in the slightest particular. Thus he was brought by experience to understand how great the penalty is for an emperor's practicing deceit toward friends. [The same ruler assumed the utmost credit for the fact that at the death of Vologæsus, king of the Parthians, his children proceeded to fight about the sovereignty; what was purely accidental he pretended had come about through his own connivance. He ever took vehement delight in the actions and dissensions of the brothers and generally in the mutual slaughter of foreign potentates.] He did not hesitate, either, to write to the senate regarding the rulers of the Parthians (who were brothers and at variance) that the brothers' quarrel would work great harm to the Parthian state. Just as if barbarian governments could be destroyed by such procedure and yet the Roman state had been preserved! Just as if it had not been, on the contrary, almost utterly overthrown! It was not merely that the great sums of blood money given under such conditions to the soldiers for his brother's murder served to demoralize mankind: in addition, vast numbers of citizens had information laid against them,—not only those who had sent the brother letters or had brought him presents [Footnote: Reading [Greek: dôrophorhêsantest] (Reimar) for the MS. [Greek: doruphoraesantes].] when he was still Cæsar or again after he had become emperor, but all the rest who had never had any dealings with him. If anybody even so much as wrote the name of Geta, or spoke it, that was the end of him then and there. Hence the poets no longer used it even in comedies. [Footnote: Geta was a common name for slaves in Latin comedy. It came into Rome through Greek channels and was originally merely the national adjective applied to a tribe of northern barbarians.] The property, too, of all those in whose wills the name was found written was confiscated.

[Many of his acts were committed with a view to getting money. And he exhibited his hatred for his dead brother by abolishing the honor paid to his birthday, by getting angry at the stones which had supported his images, and by melting up the coinage that displayed his features. Not even this sufficed him, but more than ever from this time he began his practice of unholy rites and often forced others to share his pollution by making a kind of annual offering to his brother's Manes.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 213 (a.u. 966)] [Sidenote:—13—] Though holding such views and behaving in such a way with regard to the latter's murder he took delight in the dissension of the barbarian brothers, on the ground that the Parthians would suffer some great injury as a result of it.

[The Celtic nations, however, afforded him neither pleasure nor any pretence of cleverness or courage but proved him to be nothing more nor less than a cheat, a simpleton, and an arrant coward. Antoninus made a campaign among the Alamanni and wherever he saw a spot suitable for habitation he would order: "There let a fort be erected: there let a city be built." To those spots he applied names relating to himself, yet the local designations did not get changed; for some of the people were unaware of the new appellations and others thought he was joking. Consequently he came to entertain a contempt for them and would not keep his hands off this tribe even; but, whereas he had been saying that he had come as an ally, he accorded them treatment to be expected of a most implacable foe. He called a meeting of their men of military age under promise that they were to receive pay, and then at a given signal,—his raising aloft his own shield,—he had them surrounded and cut down; he also sent cavalry around and arrested all others not present.

¶Antoninus commended in the senate by means of a letter Pandion, a fellow who had previously been an understudy of charioteers but in the war against the Alamanni drove his chariot for him and in this capacity was his comrade and fellow soldier. And he asserted that he had been saved by this man from a portentous danger and was not ashamed to evince greater gratitude to him than to the soldiers, whom in their turn he regarded as our superiors.[Footnote: There is a gap of a word or two here (Dindorf text), filled by reading [Greek: hêlen hechôn] (with Boissevain).]

¶Some of the most distinguished men whom Antoninus slew he ordered to be cast out unburied.

¶He made a search for the tomb of Sulla and repaired it, and reared a cenotaph to Mesomedes, who had written a compilation of citharoedic modes. He honored the latter because he was himself learning to sing to the zither and the former because he was emulating his cruelty.]

Still, in cases of necessity and urgent campaigns, he was simple and frugal, toiling with painstaking care in menial offices as much as the rest. He trudged beside the soldiers and ran beside them, not taking a bath nor changing his clothing, but helping them in every labor and choosing absolutely the same food as they had. Often he would send to distinguished champions on the enemy's side and challenge them to single combat. The details of generalship in which he certainly ought to have been most versed he managed least well, as if he thought that victory lay in the performance of those services mentioned and not in this science of commanding.

[Sidenote:—14—] He conducted war also against a certain Celtic tribe of Cenni. These warriors are said to have assailed the Romans with the utmost fierceness, using