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. [152] Caesar had not bequeathed his position in the state to Octavian, though he had doubtless intended, should he live long enough, to be able eventually to name his successor. This passage is interesting in revealing the point of view of Octavian, whose memoirs Nicolaus used. 29. [153] According to App. 3, 28, Octavian himself, accompanied by a following of civilians, canvassed the plebeians, endeavoring to excite their anger against Antony. [154] In Appian’s account (3, 29-30, 39) Antony is said to have been in need of Octavian’s assistance in order to procure the exchange of provinces. [155] A lacuna here intervenes, so that the account of the actual reconciliation is wanting. Appian, 3, 29-30, 39, agrees in the main with Nicolaus; Antony is influenced by his military tribunes, former soldiers of Caesar. In Dio 45, 8 Octavian and Antony are said to have made mutual concessions. According to Plutarch, Ant., 16, Antony became apprehensive on finding that Octavian had joined forces with his more powerful foes, among whom was Cicero. 30. [156] For a commentary on the swing of public opinion from Antony to Octavian, see App. 3; 12, 21, 23, 24, 29; Dio 45, 8; Plut., Ant., 16. R. Duttlinger, op. cit., pp. 77-78, directs attention to the fact that Appian presents Antony in a fairer light in this connection than do Nicolaus, Dio, or Plutarch, thus indicating a probable diversity of sources. [157] On the authority of the ‘lex de permutatione provinciarum’ of June 1-2, 44 B.C. W. Sternkopf, Hermes 47, p. 357 ff. and Ciceros ausgewählte Reden, vol. 8, p. 9 and note, declares that this act is identical with the ‘lex tribunicia de provinciis,’ both having been ratified at the same meeting. The former term is employed by Livy, Epit., 117; the latter by Cicero, Phil., 5, 7. The combined result was that Antony should have part or all of Gaul in place of Macedonia, and that both consuls should enjoy an imperium extended for five years. In the historians the references to the exchange of provinces are: Dio 45; 9, 20, 25; 46; 23, 24; Appian 3; 27, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 52, 55, 63. [158] Antony left Rome October 9: ‘Antonius autem ... a.d. VII Id. Oct. Brundisium erat profectus’ (Cic., Fam., 12, 23, 2). Also App. 3, 40.