Note 151 — TRANSLATION

Syria was under L. Staius Murcus, followed by Q. Marcius Crispus (App. 3, 77) until the advent of Cassius (Dio 47, 27-28; Cic., Fam., 12, 11, 1; 12, 12, 3). There is confusion among the historians as to what provinces were actually assigned to Brutus and Cassius for the year 43. Appian 3, 2; 3, 7-8; 3, 12; 3, 16; 3, 24; 3, 36; 4, 37, states that Brutus and Cassius were appointed for Macedonia and Syria. Florus 2, 17, 4 says also that Caesar had given them Macedonia and Syria. Plutarch, Caes., 57; Ant. 14; Cic. 42; Brut. 19, as consistently state that Brutus and Cassius received no provinces until after Caesar’s death; the senate ultimately assigned Crete and ‘Libya’ (Plut., Brut., 19). Dio 47, 21 explicitly states that Macedonia and Syria never were given to Brutus and Cassius, but that Crete and Bithynia were. Appian 3, 8 mentions Cyrenaica and Crete, and as an alternative report, Cyrenaica and Crete for Cassius and Bithynia for Brutus. The sequel is, of course, well known. Brutus and Cassius seized Macedonia and Syria forcibly. W. Sternkopf, Hermes 47, pp. 340-347, has shown that the versions of Appian and Florus, that Caesar had given Macedonia and Syria to Brutus and Cassius for the year 43, are incorrect. Perhaps his most cogent point is that Cicero nowhere condemns Antony and Dolabella for having diverted from Brutus and Cassius provinces originally ordained for them. In fact Cicero (Phil. 11, 27-30) endorses Brutus and Cassius for having appropriated provinces which belonged, according to written law (legibus scriptis) to others (Macedoniam alienam; Syriam, alienam provinciam). It should be noticed that the phrase of Nicolaus regarding Brutus, ‘Μακεδονίᾳ δὲ Γ. Βροῦτος ἔφεδρος ἦν’ is not entirely clear. It is just possible that Appian’s grave error is due to a misunderstanding of Nicolaus or of Nicolaus’ source if that also contained some ambiguous expression like ἔφεδρος.