¹ Syme, R., ‘Livy and Augustus’, HSCP 64 (1959) 27-87, at 75 Google Scholar. Syme also describes the history as ‘the enduring monument of the spirit and the majesty of the Augustan court’ (57) and Livy as the ‘official Roman historian’ (64) – but his analysis of the triumviral history, to the official version of which he claims Livy had access, is simply a replay of the The Roman Revolution, adducing no text of Bornecque, Livy. H., Tite-Live (Paris 1933) 7 Google Scholar, places Livy in the emperor's literary circle which favoured historians no less than poets. Burck, E., ‘Livius als augusteischer Historiker’, WS 1 (1935) 448–87Google Scholar = Wege zu Livius (Darmstadt 1967) 96–143 Google Scholar, does not examine the question, but rather assumes that Livy was Augustan: his poor opinion of the Greeks, his supposed connections with Vergil, his rejection of Hellenistic theories of fate and chance. The Preface is dismissed as deriving from the circle of Scipio Nasica. Taylor, L.R., ‘Livy and the Name Augustus’, CR 32 (1918) 158–61, at 158: ‘Livy was a warm supporter of the emperor and his policies’ (noting the three mentions of him)Google Scholar. Luce, T.J., Livy: The Composition of his History (Princeton 1977) 290–4Google Scholar, described Livy as ‘“Augustan” in temperament and sympathies’, citing his approval of moral legislation, the Augustan peace and the repair of temples. Much is subsequently admitted: that Livy looked forward to leaders who might introduce reform but not a lifelong monarchy which was then to be transmitted to relatives. And thirteen years later, in ‘Livy, Augustus and the Forum Augustum’, in Raaflaub, K. and Toher, M. (eds), Between Republic and Empire (Berkeley 1990) 123-38, at 128 Google Scholar: ‘it is doubtful that he believed Augustus to be the last and greatest in a long line of great men of the Republic’ Jaeger, Mary, Livy's Written History (Ann Arbor 1997) 183 Google Scholar: ‘it appears that Livy welcomed Augustus as the vir unus who can restore the state.’ Mineo, Bernard, Tite-Live et l'histoire de Rome (Paris 2006)Google Scholar, argues passim that Augustus was the man to whom Livy looked to restore the state – although he disapproved of the dynastic nature of the régime, clear by 17 BC (159). Miles, Gary, Livy. Reconstructing Early Rome (Cornell 1995)Google Scholar, probably fits here: Augustus is the ‘refounder’ (94, 97, 126, 132), but Livy's attitude to him is ‘complex’ (93), even ‘impossible to determine’ (109). See also Woodman, Anthony, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (London 1988) 136 ff.Google Scholar; Schiatti, Serafino, ‘L'età augustea nel giudizio di Tito Livio e di Pompeio Trogo’, in L’età augustea vista dai contemporanei e nel giudizio dei posteri (Mantova 1988) 107 ff., at 114 Google Scholar; Fantham, Elaine, Roman Literary Culture (Baltimore 1996) 99–100 Google Scholar. A special word should be said about Hellmann, Fritz, Livius Interpretationen (Berlin 1939)Google Scholar, who described Livy's history as an ‘interpretatio Augustea’ (4, 25) – although there are the rarest mentions of Augustus (77, 79, 103). Hellmann goes much further: Livy's aim in a post-Actium world was to arouse those aspects of the power of the people and state which remained sound by examples from the past – but also to render harmless whatever in the history of the Republic could provide material for opposition to the monarchy.

² Taine, H., Essai sur Tite-Live (Paris 1856, 2nd edn 1874) 8 Google Scholar (but note that Jal, Pierre, Tite-Live, Book 45 and Fragments [Paris 1979] 214 Google Scholar, proposed that the text should be read ‘de C. Mario’, not ‘de Caesare malori’). Weissenborn, W. and Müller, H., T. Livi ab urbe condita (Berlin 1880, 9th edn 1908) 122–23Google Scholar, described Livy's views as treating Augustus ‘with a certain irony’ and evincing ‘sentimental enthusiasm for a long-vanished system’, but his comparison of past and present as producing melancholy, bitterness, pain and blame. Laistner, M.L.W., The Greater Roman Historians (Berkeley 1949) 98 Google Scholar, rejected the idea that Livy in his positive figures from the past was offering subtle propaganda for Augustus. Hoffmann, W., ‘Livius und die römische Geschichtsschreibung’, A&A 4 (1954) 171–86Google Scholar = Wege zu Livius (n. 1) 68-95. Walsh, P.G, ‘Livy and Augustus’, PACA 4 (1961) 26–37 Google Scholar, wrote explicitly in rebuttal of Syme: Livy exhibited ‘a patently Republican bias’, and in his Livy, his Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge 1970) 272 Google Scholar, he drew attention to the fact that ‘at the very time when Augustus’ studied moderation was causing an upsurge of optimism in Republican breasts, Livy was explicitly stating his scepticism of a return to Republican greatness.’ Cf. Petersen, H., ‘Livy and Augustus’, TAPA 92 (1961) 440–52Google Scholar; Penna, A. la, Aspetti del pensiero storico latino (Torino 1978) 103 ffGoogle Scholar. von Haehling, R., Zeitbezüge des T. Livius in der ersten Dekade seines Geschichtswerkes (Stuttgart 1989) 184 Google Scholar, provides a very useful and nuanced analysis of Livy's ‘time references’ and declares roundly that Augustus cannot be Livy's ideal statesman. Livy, in fact, rejected the traditional view that military virtue was the prime requirement of the Roman leader. Capitolinus as consul togatus (4.10.8) equalled his military colleague's fame; Fabius showed that it was more difficult to govern citizens than to defeat the enemy (2.43.10); and moderatio (‘selflessness’) was all important: rejection of glory increases it (2.47.11) and high office comes more easily to those who do not seek it (4.57.6): Toher, M., ‘Augustus and the Evolution of Roman Historiography’, in Between Republic and Empire(n. 1) 139-54, at 151 Google Scholar. He also stressed the vital changes that occurred in the kinds of history which could be written after 31, with the political and military focus of the state shifting from the aristocracy to one man and his family. Badian, E., ‘Livy and Augustus’, in Livius. Aspekte seines Werkes (Konstanz 1993) 9-33, at 19 Google Scholar: “There was no enthusiastic welcome for the novus status reipublicae.’ Glucker, J., ‘Augustiora’, Ge 19 (1993) 51–101 Google Scholar, saw only one positive reference to Augustus (4.20.7), while Livy was so sceptical about Aeneas and Romulus. Glucker pointed out that Livy could hardly say to Augustus’ face that the state was beyond repair – but his attitude is spelled out in the Preface and on many other occasions; Kraus, C., Livy Book 6 (Cambridge 1994) 108 Google Scholar.

³ Bolchazy, L., Hospitality in Early Rome. Livy's Concept of the Humanizing Force (Chicago 1977)Google Scholar; Moore, T., Artistry and Ideology: Livy's Vocabulary of Virtue (Frankfurt 1989)Google Scholar. It was rightly pointed out by one of Antichthon's readers that Bolchazy relies on appearances of these words in the text, disregarding the many sections where they are implied.

⁴ Ogilvie, R.M., A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5 (Oxford 1965) 2 Google Scholar; Ogilvie, , Cambridge History of Classical Literature, Vol. 2, Latin Literature (Cambridge 1982)459 Google Scholar; Nesselrath, H., ‘Die gens Mia and Romulus bei Livius’, WJA 16 (1990) 153-72, at 166 Google Scholar.

⁵ Schwartz, E., RE 3.1703 = Griechische Geschichtsschreiber (Leipzig 1959) 423–5Google Scholar.

⁶ Mette, H., ‘Livius und Augustus’, Gymnasium 68 (1961) 278–85 = Wege (n. 1) 156-66Google Scholar.

⁷ Galinsky, K., Augustan Culture (Princeton 1996) 28 Google Scholar.

⁸ Badian (n. 2) 19 f.

⁹ Syme, , Tacitus (Oxford 1959) 1.337, 2.517Google Scholar. For earlier cases of the statement of this ‘fact’ without the merest mention of a speech by Cremutius Cordus, see Klotz, Alfred, RE 13 (1927) 817 Google Scholar; Bornecque (n. 1) 7, who even embellishes: ‘l'empereur en riant’. For later examples, Walsh, , Livy (n. 2) 12 Google Scholar; Townend, Gavin, CAH 10² (1996) 909 Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Badian (n. 2)11.

¹¹ Weissenborn-Mueller (n. 2) 1.1.9; Klotz (n. 9) 818; Bayet, J. (ed.), Tite-Live (Paris 1940) 1.xvii fGoogle Scholar; Syme (n. 1) 42 f; Luce, , ‘The Dating of Livy's First Decade’, TAPA 96 (1965) 209–40Google Scholar; Badian (n. 2) 17 f.

¹² Walsh, ‘Livy and Augustus’ (n. 2) 29; Luce, ‘Livy, Augustus and the Forum Augustom’ (n. 1) 128. Mineo (n. 1) 160 suggested that Livy was following Dionysios’ reticence, avoiding ‘showy propaganda’.

¹³ Von Haehling (n. 2) 180.

¹⁴ See Badian's careful analysis of this (‘Livy and Augustus’ [n. 2] 14), proving that there was no personal communication. A desperate attempt to save Augustus has claimed that only he as pontiff could enter the adyton where the spoils were kept: Cassola, Filippo, ‘Livio, il tempio di Giove Feretrio e l'inaccesibilità dei santuarii in Roma’, RSI 82 (1970) 5–31 Google Scholar. See Miles (n. 1 ) 40-7 for an excellent analysis: Livy is ‘devastatingly subversive’.

¹⁵ Perizonius, J., Observationes Historicae (Amsterdam 1684) chap. 7Google Scholar; Ridley, R., The Historical Observations of Jacob Perizonius (Rome 1991 ) 258 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Glucker (n. 2); Ogilvie, Commentary (n. 4) 60 accepts the Augustan allusions.

¹⁷ According to Dionysios, Aeneas was succeeded by his son Euryleon, who in the flight from Troy had been renamed Ascanius (1.65.1). He was succeeded by Silvius, son of Lavinia, who was born after his father's death (1.70.1), although he was challenged for rule by Ascanius’ eldest son Julius, who became pontifex maximus (1.70.4-5) – an office still held by them. According to Vergil, Ascanius, now called lulus ( Aen. 1.267 Google Scholar), was the son of Aeneas and Creusa (2.677), who escaped from Troy and came to Italy where he founded Alba (8.48), but Aeneas’ son in old age by Lavinia was the ancestor of the Alban kings (6.760 f).

¹⁸ Syme (n. 1) 48; Nesselrath (n. 4) 159; Glucker (n. 2) 90; Bayet (Budé) l.xviii. Mineo (n. 1) 158 offers the excuse that Livy was at this stage trying to establish his credentials as a critical historian – even his impartiality.

¹⁹ Taylor, , “The Rise of Julius Caesar”, G&R 14 (1957) 10–18 Google Scholar; Syme (n. 1) 49 rejoined that ‘there is no evidence that Augustus (or anyone else) bothered about the Julii of the fifth century.’ Modern parallels suggest otherwise; unkind allusions to the madness of King George still cause a ripple in his distant descendants.

²⁰ Von Haehling (n. 2) 82.

²¹ Ogilvie, Commentary (n. 4) 58 refers to the RG, but von Haehling (n. 2) 54 claims that there is ‘no intended allusion to Augustus because the RG was not yet published.’ Mineo (n. 1) 156 stresses the connection.

²² Von Haehling (n. 2) 191-212. Hellmann (n. 1) 53 accepted the reference to 28 BC, taking it even as a justification of Agrippa's position. Ogilvie, Commentary (n. 4) 522 was less certain: “There may be an allusion to the status of Agrippa in 28 BC’

²³ Syme (n. 1) 47; Walsh, , ‘Livy and Augustus’ (n. 2) 31 Google Scholar; Ogilvie, , Commentary (n. 4) 536 sided with Syme against WalshGoogle Scholar. Miles (n. 1) 134 claims that 4.4.2-3 are a major key to Livy's own political values.

²⁴ Oakley, Stephen, A Commentary on Livy Books 6-10, 4 vols (Oxford 1997-2005) 3.261 Google Scholar; von Haehling (n. 2) 180.

²⁵ Niebuhr, B.G, Lectures on Roman History, 3rd edn (London 1870) 35 Google Scholar; Oakley (n. 24) 3.467.

²⁶ Weissenborn-Müller (n. 2) 9.1.130 offer Cie. Verr. 4.119 Google Scholar f and Livy 44.7.3. Briscoe, John, A Commentary on Livy Books 31-40, 3 vols (Oxford 1973-2008) 3.424 Google Scholar, recalls Suet. Aug. 28.3 Google Scholar: the city of brick and marble.

²⁷ Galinsky(n. 7)48,163.

²⁸ Oakley (n. 24) 3.261 detected a topos in the danger of internal discord during a foreign threat. That has been one of Livy's themes during the Conflict of the Orders, but now that he is assessing Rome's military capabilities as a citizen of the Augustan empire, it is irrelevant.

²⁹ Syme(n. 1)55.

³⁰ Weeber, K., ‘Abii, nuntia Romanis: Ein Dokument augusteischer Geschichtsauffassung in Livius 1.16?’, RhM 127 (1984) 326–43Google Scholar; von Haehling (n. 2) 170 Stresses Livy's scepticism over the deification story.

³¹ Nesselrath (n. 4) 159 f. There is no comment on any of this in Ogilvie, Commentary (n. 4), save that in the apotheosis Livy was following Antias, who was favourable to Romulus (85). On Livy's originality, see Miles (n. 1)137-50, and parallels with Augustus, 164 f.

³² Glucker (n. 2) 93. On earlier versions, see Classon, C., ‘Romulus in der römischen Republik’, Philologus 106 (1962) 174–204 Google Scholar. Mineo (n. 1) 163-75 cites Augustan connection with Romulus via the Palatine. Greek cults (Hercules for one, Apollo for the other); the recovery of ancestral kingdoms (1.15.6-7); and 1.10.7 as a justification for the refusal of the spoils to Crassus; but Concordia is hardly a virtue of either, and the temple of AD 10 is entirely misrepresented (cf. Platner and Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome [Oxford 1929] 139)Google Scholar.

³³ Hirschfeld, O., in Festschrift L. Friedlander (Leipzig 1895) 125–38Google Scholar; Taubler, E., ‘Camillus and Sulla’, Klio 12 (1912) 219–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bayet (Budé) 5.155; Münzer, F., RE 7 (1912) 348 Google Scholar. Oakley (n. 24) 1.377 makes no suggestions.

³⁴ Burck, , ‘Die Gestalt des Camillus’, Gymnasium 54 (1964) 22-30, 41-5 = Wege (n. 1) 310–28Google Scholar.

³⁵ Hellegouarc'h, J., ‘Le principat de Camille’, REL 48 (1970) 112–32Google Scholar. See also Miles (n. 1)79-97. The parallels are never explicitly drawn, but would have been obvious. Mineo (n. 1) 232-7 adds as elements for an ‘analogy’ with Augustus Camillus’ enthusiasm for his triumph (5.23.2-7), the senate's begging of Camillus not to abdicate his dictatorship (sic) (5.50.8-9), and his attachment to Apollo (5.21.2, 23.8).

³⁶ See Kraus (n. 2) 174, 176, 177. Jaeger (n. 1) 57-93 is interested only in topography.

³⁷ Syme, , The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 305 Google Scholar, cf. 283, and ‘Livy and Augustus’ (n. 1) 48; Petersen (n. 2) 440; Miles (n. 1) 91-2. Ceausescu, , ‘Altera Roma: histoire d’une folie politique’, Historia 25 (1976) 79–108, is unjustly neglectedGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Ogilvie, Commentary (n. 4) 742. The matter is not discussed by Buchheim, Hans, Die Orientpolitik des triumvim M. Antonius (Heidelberg 1960)Google Scholar.

³⁹ That Livy cannot be referring to an Augustan marriage law of the early 20s was definitively proven by Badian, , ‘A Phantom Marriage Law’, Philologus 129 (1985) 82–98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Propertius 2.7.13 is referring to the repeal of triumviral legislation, such as a tax on the celibate. Yet Mineo (n. 1) 111 still sees Livy as referring to Augustus' immediate attempts at moral reform. The extreme Augustan interpretation of this phrase was probably offered by Cochrane, Charles, Christianity and Classical Culture (New York 1940) 108 Google Scholar: ‘a situation has arisen which calls for nothing less than the intervention of a second [sic] founder. And, finally, it is to point to Augustus Caesar as the man.’

⁴⁰ Ogilvie, , Commentary (n. 4) 194 Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Why does Ogilvie search for Greek precedents (ibid. 197)?

⁴² Hellmann (n. 1 ) 48 sees this passage as having Augustan references, but does not explain. Von Haehling (n. 2) 163; for the unfavourable conditions, 211.

⁴³ Von Haehling (n. 2) 182, 203, detects the criticism of the Augustan present.

⁴⁴ Walsh, , ‘Livy and Augustus’ (n. 2) 30 Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ ‘Sentiments typical of the Republican attitude to monarchy’: Ogilvie, , Commentary (n. 4) 271 Google Scholar, comparing Sail. Cat 33.4 Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Oakley (n. 24) 1.506. Von Haehling (n. 2) 30 f. omits the passage because there is no temporal adverb. 2.43.10 might be thought appropriate for discussion: excellent minds are more likely to be lacking the skill to govern fellow citizens than to conquer the enemy. Hellmann (n. 1) 68 took this as a comment on the last century BC. It can hardly be contrasting Marius, Sulla, Pompey and Caesar with Augustus (as Ogilvie, , Commentary [n. 4] 351 Google Scholar) -because, whatever his political skills, the last thing Augustus was was a brilliant general.

⁴⁷ Von Haehling (n. 2) 183 identified the virtue here as moderatio. Hellmann (n. 1) 79 took it as a reference to Augustus’ resignation in 28/27! On Augustus’ own virtus, Ridley, , ‘A Fanatical yet Rational Devotion’, Antichthon 39 (2005) 48-76, at 58 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ Dismissed as typical of Livy by Hellmann (n. 1) 30; Walsh, , ‘Livy and Stoicism’, AJP 79 (1958) 355-75, at 358 Google Scholar; Ogilvie, , Commentary (n. 4) 431 Google Scholar. The passage is referred to only in passing by liro Kajanto, , God and Pate in Livy (Turku 1957) 36 Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Von Haehling (n. 2) 172 notes that the same comments appear in Dionysios (10.17.6), but also recognises that Cincinnatus is Livy's prototype statesman.

⁵⁰ Ogilvie, , Commentary (n. 4) 516 Google Scholar. Von Haehling (n. 2) 163 similarly sees the sentiment as Livy's conviction, but blames him for not offering a more profound analysis of the causes of the Conflict of the Orders.

⁵¹ Weissenborn-Müller (n. 2) 2.2.17 thought that this only came from Livy's source. Von Haehling (n. 2) 177 more properly saw it as an ‘emphatic judgement’. Hellmann (n. 1) 62 f. drew attention to the vocabulary: modestia, not moderatio, and altitude, not magnitudo animi, because he was referring to the whole people and not the aristocracy.

⁵² Taine (n. 2) 196. Hoffmann (n. 2) 85 saw Gracchan parallels (as Ogilvie, , Commentary [n. 4] 555 Google Scholar) and an allusion to Caesar's assassination.

³¹ Oakley (n. 24) 1.505; Garnsey, Peter and Sailer, Richard, The Roman Empire. Economy, Society and Culture (London 1987) 72–3Google Scholar. The reality of the crisis is upheld by White, Kenneth, Roman Agriculture (London 1970) 71 Google Scholar; Hopkins, Keith, Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge 1978) 2 Google Scholar; Kuziscin, Vasilij, La grande proprietà agraria nell'Italia romana (Rome 1984) 80 ff.Google Scholar; Zvi Yavetz, Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Rome (New Brunswick 1988) 7. Hellmann (n. 1) 33 f. added 7.25.79 and 25.33.6: it was a ‘burning present problem’. There is no comment, according to the index, in Brunt, Peter, Roman Manpower (Oxford 1971)Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Oakley (n. 24)2.71.

⁵⁵ Ibid. 2.235; Bayet-Bloch (Budé) 7.43; von Haehling (n. 2) 178; Syme, , CAH¹ 10 (1934) 379 Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Weissenborn-Müller (n. 2) 3.1.166; von Haehling (n. 2) 212; Oakley (n. 24) 2.273.

⁵⁷ Weissenborn-Müller (n. 2) 3.1.229; von Haehling (n. 2) 187.

⁵⁸ Luce saw the point in another way: ‘Under Augustus the old feeling of the community of Rome as a function of the achievement of successive generations of men in her service became impossible to maintain’: ‘Livy, Augustus and the Forum Augustum’ (n. 1) 151.

⁵⁹ Von Haehling (n. 2) 178 saw the remark as throwing light on the contemporary ‘moral deficit’; Oakley (n. 24) 4.135 f. is occupied with the reading. One should note here 22.12.12, where Livy comments on the abuse of Fabius by his magister equitum: this ‘most evil technique has increased by the all too successful outcome for many.’ As Weissenborn-Müller (n. 2) 4.2.34 note, the reference is not so much to his own times; the outstanding example was Marius’ defamation of Metelius (Sail. Cat 64). And at 22.54.10 Livy states that no other people would not have been overwhelmed by the disaster at Cannae. At this point we are tempted to recall reactions, especially by Augustus himself (Suet. Aug. 23.2 Google Scholar), to events of AD 9. The historian himself, however, was writing in the 20s BC.

⁶⁰ Jal (Budé) 16.13 Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Ibid. 18.121.

⁶² Hellmann (n. 1) 81 ; Briscoe (n. 25) 2.42.

⁶³ Feldherr, Andrew, Spectacle and Society in Livy's History (Berkeley 1998) 177 Google Scholar, is interested in the contrast between Republic and Empire, not between historian and princeps.

⁶⁴ Hellmann (n. I) 103; Briscoe, , Commentary (n. 26) 2.247 Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Weissenborn-Müller (n. 2) 9.1.44. Anne-Marie Adam, Tite-Live (Budé) 29.31, gives the wrong flavour completely with her translation ‘avec une richesse et une variété presque dignes (sic) de notre époque.’

⁶⁶ Weissenborn-Müller (n. 2) 10.1.29; Linderski, J., ‘Roman Religion in Livy’, in Livius. Aspekte seines Werkes (n. 2) 53-70, at 64 Google Scholar. Kajanto (n. 48) 48 again offers only an allusion, not an analysis.

⁶⁷ Luce, ‘Livy, Augustus and the Forum Augustum’ (n. 1). Feldherr (n. 63) 35, discussing the elogia, still attempts to see ‘analogies’ here, while Mineo (n. 1) 138 claims a ‘strict correspondence’, despite a long discussion trying to reconcile the differences.

⁶⁸ The author especially wishes to thank most warmly the two anonymous readers for the journal, who between them disbelieved almost every word of the original version, and in so doing saved him from many errors, ambiguities and oversimplifications.