indicated.) The Tauchnitz text with all its inaccuracies endeavors to
present a coherent and readable narrative, and this is something which
the exactitude of Boissevain does not at all times permit. In the
translation I have striven to follow a conservative course, and at
some points a straightforward narrative interlarded with brackets will
give evidence of its origin in Tauchnitz, whereas at others loose,
disjointed paragraphs betray the hand of Boissevain who would not
willingly let Xiphilinus and Dio ride in the same compartment. My main
desire through it all has been not so much to attain a logical unity
of form as to present a history which shall look well and read well in
English. For this reason also I have banished most of the Fragments
(which must have only a comparatively limited interest) to the last
volume and have replaced them in my first by portions of Zonaras
(taken from Melber) which have their origin in Dio and are at the same
time clear, comprehensible, and connected.

Should any person object that even so my text does not offer eye and
ear a pellucid field for smooth advance, I must reply that the
original is likewise very far from being a serene and joyous highway;
and it has not appeared to me necessary or desirable to improve upon
the form of Dio's record further than the difference in the genius of
the two languages demanded. I am reminded here of what Francisque
Reynard says regarding the difficulties of Boccaccio, and because of a
similarity in the situation I venture to quote from the preface of his
(French) version of the Decameron:

"Dans son admiration exclusive des anciens, Boccace a pris pour modèle
Cicéron et sa longue période académique, dans laquelle les incidences
se greffent sur les incidences, poursuivant l'idée jusqu'au bout, et
ne la laissant que lorsqu'elle est épuisée, comme le souffle ou