Henning Ohst has produced an edition, German translation and commentary of 65 fragments and testimonia of Augustus’ private letters, accompanied by a substantial introduction, synthesis and two appendices (a concordance of the fragments in O.’s and previous editions as well as a list of clausulae used in the fragments). These letters O. calls Epistulae ad familiares, although he is quick to point out that the title does not refer to a letter collection à la Cicero’s Ad familiares (11, n. 43), but only to a particular type of letter, the Privatbrief. He defines a private letter as ‘a letter whose sender assigns a private social role to themselves and their addressee’ (9, my translation) and thus distances his selection and editorial approach from that of Malcovati, whose Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti operum fragmenta classified private letters based on their content. Comparing two birthday letters — Pliny to Trajan (Ep. 10.88) and Augustus to his grandson Gaius Caesar (Gell., NA 15.7 = 39F Ohst) (9–11) — he gives convincing reasons for his definition of private letters and classification of the fragments.

An introduction, extensive discussion of the reception history of Augustus’ private letters and detailed explanation of O.’s editorial principles constitute roughly a third of the book (1–97). Tracing their publication and reception from the first to the seventh century c.e., O. establishes in ch. II that there was particular interest in Augustus’ epistles from c. 60 to 120 c.e. and that Cicero’s letters are an important parallel, and precedent, for their circulation. While I found the chapter valuable, I think that its length created a slight imbalance with the edition, translation and commentary proper, which make up about half of the book (99–238), and that it led to a fair amount of repetition both within the chapter and within the book as a whole. Instead of discussing every source separately and thus repeating whether the individual authors relied on published letters or on an epistolary archive, the chapter could have presented the findings more concisely. As someone who has read the book from cover to cover, I noticed that the commentary repeated some of the material already discussed in ch. II; however, I acknowledge that a more selective reader might appreciate just that. I need to point out the exemplary clarity of O.’s preliminary remarks explaining his editorial principles and the presentation of the fragments, which allowed for easy navigation of the commentary and demonstrated the care and reflection with which the material was chosen and arranged.

The testimonia and fragments are arranged by addressee and presented in chronological order, based on the addressee’s year of birth. A short note provides the historical context necessary to understand the fragments. Through consistent use of the typesetting, O. distinguishes clearly between direct quotes, indirect quotes and paraphrases within the edition. The translations that follow the text are clear and rather literal, sometimes producing slightly clunky results (compare, e.g., his translation of 21F on p. 140), but are certainly useful for anyone looking up a particular fragment. O.’s philological commentary is in some cases summative, e.g. on 1T (99–100), and in most cases a lemmatised, line-by-line explanation of the text, e.g. on 2F (103–4). The commentary is very rich, detailed and thorough. I much enjoyed reading O.’s commentary on a letter by Augustus to Maecenas (Suet., vita Hor. p. 2*, 3–8 Kl = 14F Ohst) (125–8), which he interprets as a joking reply to a very common epistolary complaint, namely a lack of letters, and on a letter to Horace (Suet., vita Hor. p. 3*, 7–14 Kl = 21F Ohst) (140–6) in which Augustus’ wit shines through. These are just two examples worth highlighting, but there is much more in the commentary that is commendable. At times, however, the commentary leans more towards paraphrase than exegesis — compare, for instance, the commentary on Cic., Att. 16.8.1 = 2F Ohst, a letter that itself paraphrases a letter by Augustus — and I wish it discussed some aspects of the shorter texts in more detail, for example Octavian’s letters to Atticus (Nep., Att. 20 = 1T Ohst), which reveal more about their content and Octavian’s interests than the commentary lets on. But these are minor quibbles, and I appreciate that a commentary cannot cater to every reader’s interests and needs.

On the other hand, the synthesis with which the book concludes is in my opinion less successful. It is not so much a synthesis as a catalogue of linguistic and stylistic characteristics found in Augustus’ letters, such as his preference for nouns (242–4), and it does not manage to convey a clear picture of his epistolary style or others’ opinions on his style.

O. describes the goal of his work in rather modest terms: he does not want to replace previous editions, but aims to provide a ‘critical-evaluative study of some of the material [presented by Malcovati]’ (15, my translation) and a decidedly philological commentary. He has succeeded in doing that, and then some more: he has given us easy access to, and insight into, the private letters of Augustus, allowing us to see a different, more private side of the Emperor. Scholars working on Augustus, Augustan history and literature, historiography and epistolography will find a very valuable resource in this well-produced book.