just how far he has progressed; he can compare the relative
significance of events happening at the same time in widely separated
lands: he is, as it were, _living_ in the past, and receives from week
to week or month to month reports of the world's doings in all
quarters. On the other hand, this plan lacks dramatic force; there are
sub-climaces and one grand climax: and the interest is apt to flag
through being obliged to divide itself among many districts. The same
results, both good and bad, are observable in Thukydides, whom Dio
follows in constructive theory as well as style. It has already been
said that our historian sacrifices sharpness of dates to the Onkos,
depending, doubtless, on his chronological arrangements to make good
the loss. Usually it does so, but occasionally confusion arises.
Whether because he noticed this or not, he begins at the opening of
the fifty-first book to be accurate in his dates, generally stating
the exact day. Rarely, Dio lets his interest run away with him and
mixes the two economies.

If we read the pages closely, we find that by Dio's own statement his
work falls properly into three parts. The first consists of the first
fifty-one books, from the landing of Æneas to the establishment of the
empire by Octavianus. Up to that time, Dio says (in LIII, 19),
political action had been taken openly, after discussion in the senate
and before the people. Everybody knew the facts, and in case any
authors distorted them, the public records were open for any one to
consult. After that time, however, the rulers commonly kept their acts
and discussions secret; and their censored accounts, when made public,
were naturally looked upon by the man in the street with doubt and
suspicion. Hence, from this point, says the historian, a radical
difference must inevitably be found in the character of his account.