^{page 194 note 1} Commentatio de Epistolarum Scriptoribus Graecis, Lips. 1851, Pt IV.

^{page 194 note 2} Symbola Critica ad Epistolographos Graecos. Diss. Bonn. 1883, pp. 23–29.

^{page 194 note 3} Rheinisches Museum 1915, LXX 315fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 194 note 4} Brutus ch. 2, 6 foll.

^{page 194 note 5} I since find this to be the view ofPaukstadt, in his edition of the Life, Gotha, 1891Google Scholar, though he does not attempt any discussion on the point.

^{page 194 note 6} Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci No. XXVGoogle Scholar.

^{page 194 note 7} Hercher p. 16 No. VI.

^{page 194 note 8} P. 318.

^{page 195 note 1} P. 318.

^{page 195 note 2} For a discussion of the style of Greek letters cf.Welles, C. Bradford, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period pp. XLIGoogle Scholar foll.

^{page 195 note 3} P. 317–18.

^{page 195 note 4} Cf. Pliny I, I which is hardly, however, to the point for our purposes; one can hardly compare the publication of private letters with that of official letters to communities, as is the present case. If Brutus kept copies of his letters, he kept them on some system, either chronologically or geographically; if, however, they were collected after his death, then again the case of Pliny would not affect the question. Pliny says he collected them ‘non servato temporis ordine sed ut quaeque in manus venerat’. But a person collecting Brutus' letters after his death would have to go to the various communities; there would be no question of their sending a prospective editor copies of the letters, and therefore in this case, too, we should expect an arrangement according to some system.

^{page 195 note 5} Whether anyone could have obtained the letter to Damas, No. XXXIII, in this way, is doubtful.

^{page 196 note 1} The news of Trebonius' death reached Rome about the end of February, cf.Holmes, RiceThe Architect of the Roman Empire Vol. I, p. 206Google Scholar.

^{page 196 note 2} Cicero, Philippic XI 6, 15Google Scholar.

^{page 196 note 3} Ad. Fam. XII 14, 8, Ad. Brutum I 6, 1.

^{page 196 note 4} Ad. Fam. XII 14 1.

^{page 196 note 5} Ad Brutum I 2.

^{page 196 note 6} Ad Brutum I 6.

^{page 196 note 7} Brutus' movements at this time are none too clear; I am satisfied that Brutus did not cross twice into Asia, once now and once towards the end of the year, as seems the general opinion of scholars on the somewhat slender evidence of Dio XLVII 24; but as the question does not affect the Greek letters, it need not be discussed.

^{page 196 note 8} Livy, Epitome CXXGoogle Scholar.

^{page 196 note 9} Livy, Epitome CXXIIGoogle Scholar, after Dolabella's death; both Livy and Dio XLVIII 25 are wrong in dating it after C. Antonius' death.

^{page 196 note 10} Plutarch, Brutus ch. 27. 1 ff. says that he was about to cross to Asia, when he heard of Octavian's consulship and the Lex Pedia which followed soon after. Octavian entered on his consulship on August 19th; the news of this and the Lex Pedia would probably reach Brutus in the second half of SeptemberGoogle Scholar.

^{page 196 note 11} Plutarch, Brutus ch. 28, 3Google Scholar, Dio XLVII 25.

^{page 196 note 12} Plutarch, Brutus ch. 28, 3Google Scholar.

^{page 196 note 13} Dio XLVII 32,Appian, B.C. IV 65Google Scholar, 276,Plutarch, Brutus ch. 28, 6Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 1} He says that Brutus imposed the same fines and punishments on the citizens of Patara οἵοις και Κάσσιος έκήρυξεν Ρόδῳ This does not mean necessarily that Rhodes fell first, but I believe it may do here.

^{page 197 note 2} Cf. Appian, B.C. IV 72Google Scholar, 305.

^{page 197 note 3} Appian, B.C. IV 82Google Scholar, 344.

^{page 197 note 4} Cf. Dio XLVII 34 end.

^{page 197 note 5} XLVII 34.

^{page 197 note 6} ThoughPlutarch, Brutus 30Google Scholar, 4 ff. mentions fighting of a sort.

^{page 197 note 7} Cf.Appian, B.C. IV 74Google Scholar, 313 Κάσσιος ήδόμενος τῇ ταχυεργΙᾳ τ⋯ς άλώσεως.

^{page 197 note 8} Appian, B.C. IV 72Google Scholar and 3 302–312.

^{page 197 note 9} Ad Brutum II 4, 3. I see no reason for the remark in Tyrrell and Purser's note ad loc: that this is obviously false, because we see from Lentulus' letter that Rhodes admitted Dolabella Rhodes may well have refused at first, but thought better on seeing Dolabella's methods, It may have been rumour, but not necessarily so.

^{page 197 note 10} Cf. Ad Fam. XII 14, I where Lentulus speaks of a visit he paid Brutus in Macedonia; from paragraph 8 it appears that this must have been in the latter half of March; the latter part of February, therefore, when Lentulus left Asia, Dolabella was plundering the province. Cf. also Ad Brutum II 3, 5; it may be to news received from Lentulus that Brutus here refers.

^{page 197 note 11} Appian, B.C. IV 60Google Scholar, 258. Cf. Ad Fam. XII 15, 5 which implies that the ships came from parts nearby.

^{page 198 note 1} Ad Brutum I 2, 1.

^{page 198 note 2} Ad Brutum 1, 6, 3.

^{page 198 note 3} Ad Fam. XII 12, 5.

^{page 198 note 4} P. 324–5.

^{page 198 note 5} δεδωκέναι and ⋯δικεῖν in No. 1 clearly indicate this.

^{page 198 note 6} This includes days for deliberation at both ends.

^{page 198 note 7} I assume here what seems to be the case, namely that Nos. 1, 3, 5, go together, and Nos. 7, 9. Gelzer, however, in P.W.X. col. 1004, 1007, 1010, splits them up, on the assumption that they are not in chronological order. There seems little justification for this, as the series forms a perfectly understandable group, and was, we venture to say, intended to be taken in order. But Gelzer's rearrangement is by no means satisfactory; he dates No. 1 as May; now No. 7 cannot be later than the end of May; suppose No. 1 preceded No. 7, then we must assume that Brutus makes a curt demand for money on the ground that they have given Dolabella money and only afterwards explains the relations existing between himself and Dolabella; This might be the case, but it is doubtful when the two letters must have followed closely on one another. To put No. 7 before No. 1 is more difficult; if Brutus wanted money from Pergamum, and was aware of the help given by that city to Dolabella, he would surely have included the request in the same letter. Even more difficult is Gelzer's dating of No. 9 as June end (col. 1007) and Nos. 3, 5 as towards the end of the year–September–October (1010). If a town had given Brutus 200 talents and passed decrees in his favour, it is too improbable to be possible that within less than six months he should not only demand further money of the same city, but be curtly insistent on it and grumble at the smallness of the sum.

^{page 199 note 1} Historically I find the phrase τ⋯ν άπ′ Ιταλιας στρατιαν έπισκοπουμένψ difficult; Gelzer (col. 1007) assumes this to be legions though it seems rather an unnecessary periphrasis, if it is. The natural assumption would be that Brutus was reviewing an army sent him from Italy, and of such an army our historical sources are silent.

^{page 199 note 2} Plutarch, Brutus ch. 30, 6 follGoogle Scholar; Appian, B.C. IV 80Google Scholar, 335 foll. Dio makes no comment.

^{page 199 note 3} Appian, B.C. IV 82, 345Google Scholar.

^{page 199 note 4} If either Plutarch or Appian were using Asinius Pollio, we should expect the truth, since he would have no reason for being favourably disposed towards Brutus.

^{page 199 note 5} Appian, B.C. IV 81, 341Google Scholar.

^{page 199 note 6} Dio XLVII 34.

^{page 199 note 7} Brutus ch. 32, 4.

^{page 199 note 8} Rühl asserts that Plutarch was aware of Brutus' harsh treatment of the Xanthians, but failed to mention it, because it did not give an impression of Brutus, in harmony with his own portrayal. This is unfair to Plutarch; in ch. XLVI of the Brutus, he tells us that Brutus gave Sparta and Thessalonica to his soldiers for plunder; it is perfectly legitimate to ask, on Rühl's hypothesis, why this, too, was not suppressed. But suppose Rühl right, quid sequitur? Surely the narration of those events did serve to bring out the favourable side of Brutus' character, and one of these we must certainly call the gift to Patara of 50 talents and remission of tribute. The argumentum ex silentio is here of force.

^{page 200 note 1} Appian, B.C. IV 72Google Scholar, 305.

^{page 200 note 2} In the time of Hierocles it seems to have become part of Lycia; but we cannot safely conjecture a date for the letter from this fact.

^{page 200 note 3} One solution would be to make it part of the Caunian correspondence, which would make it a more feasible threat; especially since Caunus was part of the Rhodian mainland, which is here given its chance of being spared the fate of Rhodes. But there seems no justification for this.

^{page 200 note 4} Col. 1010.

^{page 200 note 5} We may rule out the campaign of Philippi; this would entail their refusing help after receiving the gift of Proconnesus but a short time before; and I agree with Marcks (p. 25) that such a supposition is too improbable.

^{page 200 note 6} Appian, B.C. IV 82Google Scholar, 344.

^{page 201 note 1} This leaves out of account No. 53, which might, just conceivably, be presumed to have been written on the receipt of further news from Tralles, but before Brutus' first letter reached them. This is not the natural explanation, for καІ πρόσθεν ύμῖν έπέστειλα seems to imply that Brutus' first letter could have reached them, and that they had not obeyed his orders contained therein. If his first letter could not have reached them, it was idle to refer to it. If it does imply that hi s first letter had reached them, then Dolabella's camping days at Tralles must be lengthened by some days. But I prefer to ignore it, as an imitation of No. 51. The calculations also leave out of account an almost certain three days to a week of encampment before the messenger set off to Brutus in the first place. It is most unlikely that the day Dolabella arrived someone set off to Brutus.

^{page 201 note 2} It would more likely be second half of March and first half of April.

^{page 201 note 3} The correspondence, with the omission of Nos. 53 and 55, might be possible. No. 57 could have suggested No. 55 by the mention of Menodorus, just as No. 51 perhaps suggested No. 53.

^{page 201 note 4} Dio XLVII 31, I.

^{page 201 note 5} In Ad Brutum I 7, 3 we hear that Cimber defeated Dolabella.

^{page 201 note 6} Ad Fam. VII 13, 3.

^{page 201 note 7} Appian, B.C. IV 60Google Scholar, 258 makes no mention of Bithynian ships. In No. 67 there seems no support for Brutus' statement of the sources of his naval supplies, though he may in fact have derived help from those quarters.

^{page 201 note 8} The only Damas of whom we know anything in this period is a Declamator mentioned several times by Seneca, and twice by Strabo; but he can hardly be referred to here.

^{page 201 note 9} Commentatio de Epistolarum Scriftoribus Graecis, Pt. IV, p. 3 foll.

^{page 202 note 1} He tentatively suggests Bibulus as the source.

^{page 202 note 2} Römiscke Studien, p. 434 foll.

^{page 202 note 3} Cf. Wichmann, De Plutarchi in vitis Bruti et Antoni fontibus, Diss. Bonn. 1874, p. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 4} P. 325.

^{page 202 note 5} We may notice that the last part of the chapter, dealing with the letters, seems to be rather loosely attached to what has gone before, which may suggest that it is not from the same source as the preceding part; though this is anything but conclusive.

^{page 202 note 6} Cf. Marcks op. cit.

^{page 202 note 7} Cf. Westermann, op. cit. Pt. I, pp. 10–11Google Scholar Dziatzko in P.W. s.v. Briefe, col. 841.

^{page 203 note 1} Plutarch, Brutus ch. 53, 7, refers to a letter—εΪπερ ӓρα τ⋯ν γνησІων έστІν. The letter in question was probably written in Latin, as were Brutus' others to friends, and therefore there would be no question of its authenticity. The explanation would seem to be this: by this time there were some Greek letters which were known not to be genuine, though they may not have been collected and published yet. Plutarch, for this chapter, was using a source which quoted Nicolaus, Valerius Maximus and the letter, and he was not aware in which language the letter was written. As a Greek himself he may have thought of the letter as being in Greek. He therefore entered the proviso about the genuineness merely to show that in his opinion the two historians may have been right. All that we can infer from this statement is that forged letters of Brutus were known to exist; we may not assume that this or any of the other letters quoted by Plutarch belong to a larger collection of Greek letters.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 2} This is clearly only one of many tenable hypotheses; it might be held that Mithridates was the Sophist responsible for the original publication of the letters, who included the introduction and answers to create the impression of their having been for long in circulation. It may also be argued that additional letters with answers have been interpolated into an originally smaller collection. What is set forth above is put forward merely as a possible, and, to the writer, likely account of their origin.