[Footnote 7:  This sentence in the MS. is faulty.  Oddey and Bekker supplied words for the necessary sense.]

[Footnote 8:  Compare Roscher, II, column 2399.];

DIO’S ROMAN HISTORY

57

The following is contained in the Fifty-seventh of Dio’s Rome: 

About Tiberius (chapter I ff.).  How Cappadocia began to be governed by Romans (chapter 17).  How Germanicus Caesar died (chapter 18).  How Drusus Caesar died (chapter 22).

Duration of time, 11 years, in which there were the following magistrates here enumerated: 

Drusus Caesar Tiberi F., C. Norbanus C. F. Flaccus (A.D. 15 = a. u. 768 = Second of Tiberius, from Aug. 19th.)

T. Statilius T. F. Sisenna Taurus, L. Scribonius L. F. Libo. (A.D. 16 = a. u. 769 = Third of Tiberius.)

C. Caecilius C. F. Nepos [or] Rufus, L. Pomponius L. F. Flaccus. (A.D. 17 = a. u. 770 = Fourth of Tiberius.)

Tib.  Caesar Augusti F. (III), Germanicus Caesar Tib.  F. (II). (A.D. 18 = a. u. 771 = Fifth of Tiberius.)

M. Iunius M. F. Silanus, C. Norbanus C. F. Flaccus or Balbus. (A.D. 19 = a. u. 772 = Sixth of Tiberius.)

M. Valerius M. F. Messala, M. Aurelius M. F. Cotta. (A.D. 20 = a. u. 773 = Seventh of Tiberius.)

Tib.  Caesar Augusti F. (IV), Drusus Iulius Tib.  F. (II). (A.D. 21 = a. u. 774 = Eighth of Tiberius.)

Decimus Haterius C. F. Agrippa, C. Sulpicius Serg.  F. Galba. (A.D. 22 = a. u. 775 = Ninth of Tiberius.)

C. Asinius C. F. Pollio, C. Antistius C. F. Vetus. (A.D. 23 = a. u. 776 = Tenth of Tiberius.)

Sergius Cornelius Sergi F. Cethego, L. Visellius L. F. Varro. (A.D. 24 = a. u. 777 = Eleventh of Tiberius.)

M. [or C.] Asinius [M. or] C. F. Agrippa, Cossus Cornelius Cossi F. Lentulus. (A.D. 25 = a. u. 778 = Twelfth of Tiberius.)

(BOOK 57 BOISSEVAIN)

[A.D. 14 (a. u. 767)]

[-1-] Tiberius was a patrician of good education, but he had a most peculiar nature.  He never let what he desired appear in his talk, and about what he said he wished he usually cared nothing at all.  Thus his words indicated just the opposite of his real purpose:  be denied any interest in what he longed for and urged the claims of what he hated.  He would exhibit anger over matters that were very far from arousing his rage and made a show of affability where he was most vexed.  He would pity those whom he severely punished and retain a grudge against those whom he pardoned.  Sometimes he would regard his dearest foe as his nearest friend and again he would act toward his most intimate companion as if the latter were thoroughly hostile.  In general, he thought it bad policy for the independent sovereign to reveal his state of mind; this was the source, he said, of great failures, but by the opposite course even more successes, and greater, were attained.  If he had merely followed this method without complications,