_prænomen_, _nomen_, _cognomen_. It is objected, first, that the
Greeks _sometimes_ followed the regular Latin order, and, second, that
the Romans _sometimes_ followed the regular Greek order (e.g., Cicero,
in his _Letters_). But the Greek exception cannot here make Dio the
_nomen_ and Cassius the _cognomen_: we _know_ that the historian
belonged to the gens Cassia (his father was Cassius Apronianus) and
that he took Dio as cognomen from his grandfather, Dio Chrysostom. And
the Latin exception simply offers us the alternative of following a
common usage or an uncommon usage. The real question is whether Dio
should be regarded rather as Greek or as Roman. To be logical, we must
say either Dion Kassios or Cassius Dio. Considering the historian's
times and his _habitat_, not merely his birthplace and literary
dialect, I must prefer Cassius Dio as his official appellation. Yet,
because the opposite arrangement has the sanction of usage, I deem it
desirable to employ as often as possible the unvexed single name
_Dio_.

Dio's prænomen is unknown, but he had still another cognomen,
Cocceianus, which he derived along with the _Dio_ from his maternal
grandfather. The latter, known as Dio of Prusa from his birthplace in
Bithynia, is renowned for his speeches, which contain perhaps more
philosophy than oratory and won for him from posterity the title of
Chrysostom,--"Golden Mouth." Dio of Prusa was exiled by the tyrant
Domitian, but recalled and showered with favors by the emperor
Cocceius Nerva (96-98 A.D.); from this patron he took the cognomen
mentioned, Cocceianus, which he handed down to his illustrious
grandson.

Besides this distinguished ancestor on his mother's side Dio the
historian had a father, Cassius Apronianus, of no mean importance. He