Study Guide

Ammianus Marcellinus

Ammianus Marcellinus Essay - Critical Essays

Ammianus Marcellinus

Introduction

Ammianus Marcellinus c. 330-c. 395

Syrian-born Roman historian.

Ammianus is regarded as the greatest Roman historian of the fourth century. His major work, Rerum Gestarum Libri (c. 390; The Book of Deeds; also translated as The Chronicles of Events), consisted of thirty-one books that chronicled the years 96 through 378, but only the final eighteen volumes—beginning with the year 353 and covering the reigns of Constantius, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens—are extant today. Historians consider Ammianus's work invaluable since it is the sole source for much of what he describes and many scholars judge it the best contemporary source on fourth-century Britain.

Biographical Information

Ammianus was born in Antioch, Syria, into a noble Greek family. Nothing is known of his education. He entered the Roman army as a young man and became a member of the imperial bodyguards at age twenty, serving under General Ursicinus, who was governing Nisibis. In 357 Emperor Constantius ordered Ammianus to accompany him on a military campaign against the Persians; he again fought the Persians in 363, under Emperor Julian. Upon Julian's death that summer in Mesopotamia, Ammianus served under Emperor Jovian. He stayed for a time in Antioch, but by 383 he was settled in Rome, where he spent most of the remainder of his life. It was in Rome that he composed and recited his history, which he envisioned as continuing the work of the Roman historian Tacitus.

Major Works

In its original form, the Rerum Gestarum Libri began in the year 96 with the reign of Nerva. Since the first thirteen books are no longer extant, the surviving volumes begin with the year 353. Scholars have long speculated about the contents of the missing volumes, but they know that the narratives would have had to be very compressed to cover 257 years, compared with the eighteen volumes allotted to the last quarter-century. Timothy D. Barnes has provided evidence that the surviving books may be incorrectly numbered, arguing that the original work consisted of thirty-six volumes, and that the eighteen extant books should properly be numbered volumes nineteen through thirty-six. Even with the possibility of an additional five volumes covering earlier years, it is clear that Ammianus devoted significantly more attention to the period closest to his own time. Rerum Gestarum Libri is notable for being the work of a professional soldier who thoroughly understood military life.

Critical Reception

While significant in its own right, Ammianus's work has received even greater praise when compared to that of his peers, whose writings were little more than brief summaries of events and collections of anecdotes. By contrast, Ammianus candidly recounted Rome's many problems, including heavy taxation and low army morale, thereby suggesting some reasons for the fall of the empire. E. A. Thompson has asserted that a fairer appraisal of Ammianus may be made by comparing him to Tacitus, his model, and has even claimed that in some respects Ammianus was the superior historian. R. C. Blockley has described Ammianus as primarily a moralist—a posture that may be seen, for instance, in his litanies of the virtues and vices of his subjects. Gary A. Crump examines Ammianus's digressions, which are sometimes scorned by critics as merely occasions for the author to display his knowledge. While many critics have credited Ammianus for his sympathetic portrayal of Christians, especially in light of the fact that he himself was a pagan, E. D. Hunt notes that scholarly perceptions regarding Ammianus's religious views vary widely, from those who contend he was secretly a Christian, to those who conclude he was strongly anti-Christian. Hunt finds it remarkable how frequently Ammianus comments on Christianity, whereas other historians of the time often neglected this subject. For the most part, commentators view Ammianus's appraisals of the figures and events he depicted as frank, although some criticize him for being overly laudatory of Julian. Scholars point out that Ammianus undoubtedly benefited by ending his narrative at the point he did, thereby sidestepping the possibility of offending contemporary politicians.

Principal Works

Rerum Gestarum Libri [Book of Deeds] (history) c. 390

Ammianus Marcellinus (translated by J. C. Rolfe) 1940

The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354-378): Ammianus Marcellinus (edited and translated by Walter Hamilton) 1995

Criticism

E. A. Thompson (essay date 1947)

SOURCE: Thompson, E. A. “Ammianus as an Historian.” In The Historical Work of Ammianus Marcellinus, pp. 121-33. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1947.

[In the following excerpt, Thompson evaluates Ammianus as an historian, commenting that he is the best of his time period.]

Some idea of his enormous stature may be obtained by contrasting him with the other Latin historians—if they deserve the name—of his day. Latin historiography at the end of the fourth century consisted of meagre epitomes or uncritical and insignificant collections of anecdotes. Perhaps the illiberal tendency of the various governments of the age was one of the several factors which inclined to deter men from attempting detailed and really revealing studies, especially of their own times. At any rate, with this poverty of contemporary historians Ammianus had little sympathy, although he might pay a slight compliment to a man whom he personally respected like Eutropius by borrowing a sentence or two from him. But his general contempt for the historians of his day is well illustrated by his bitter remark about their widely read model Marius Maximus.1

How then does Ammianus compare with the best of the older imperial historians, that is, with his model, Tacitus? (Livy and Sallust cannot fairly be compared with him, while Caesar's military history is a work of a different kind and so cannot be taken into consideration.) It is necessary to emphasize that we are considering Ammianus as an historian, not as a stylist; for this is a distinction which students of his work do not always draw, an omission that has had disastrous results on his reputation. Yet we must insist that despite his cumbrous and obscure style there is not a single dull page in his book, and where he deals with his own adventures he is perhaps more exciting than any other writer of antiquity. His freedom from tediousness is largely due, as scholars have often noticed, to his extraordinary ability to depict character: no one of any importance appears in his pages without at once becoming a real and living person. To illustrate this well-known quality of our historian we may quote in full his magnificent portrayal of Sextus Petronius Probus, the head of the Anician house. Other pages in his book are equally fine, many perhaps better—such as his description of the career of Gallus, of Constantius' visit to Rome, of the siege of Amida, of Julian's great Persian expedition, of the campaign which culminated in the fearful disaster of Adrianople, his chapters on the social life at Rome, and so on. I have chosen the account of the character and career of Probus because in all the eulogies of Ammianus' powers of depicting character which I have read I have not found a single reference to this, perhaps the finest example of all. (An exception should be made of Gimazane (pp. 284 ff.), but he mentions the chapters on Probus not least for the purpose of criticizing their author.)

‘About this time (368) Vulcacius Rufinus passed away while still holding office, and Probus was summoned from the City to take up the Praetorian Prefecture. Because of his power, and the reputation of his family, and the enormous mass of his wealth, he was known to the Roman world—throughout almost the whole extent of it he possessed ancestral estates, whether justly or not is not for my humble judgement to declare (non iudicioli est nostri). A kind of innate good luck bore him, as the poets say’ (he is referring to Aeneid, VI, 15) ‘on swift wings, displaying him at one moment as a kindly person and one who raised his friends to high station, but at another as a fearful plotter bearing the guilt of bloody enmities. Although he had great power as long as he lived owing to his lavishness and his continuous succession of high offices, yet he was sometimes nervous when brought face to face with courage, so that in his moments of self-confidence he seemed to roar in tragic buskin, but, when he lost his self-assurance, to be humbler than any clown. And as fish when cast out of their native element breathe for only a short time on the land, so he wasted away when he held no Prefectures, offices which he was compelled to hold because of the quarrels of great families,2 who, owing to their immeasurable cupidity, are never innocent of crime, and who, in order that they might perpetrate their great mischief with impunity, plunged their master into political life. It must be admitted that, endowed as he was with greatness of soul, he never ordered a client or slave to commit an illegal act; but if it came to his ears that any one of them had committed a crime, then, even though Justice herself fought against it, he would defend him without any inquiries and without any respect for what was good and honourable. Cicero reprehends this vice when he says, “What difference is there between one who incites to an act and one who approves of it? What is the difference between my having wished it done and my rejoicing that it has been done?”3 Yet Probus was suspicious and fortified by his own genius as he smiled a little bitterly or flattered an enemy before he struck him down. But this is an outstanding flaw in characters of that kind (especially when it is thought possible to conceal it): he was so implacable, so inflexible, that when once he had made up his mind to injure anyone, prayers could not bend him, and he could not in any way be made to pardon mistakes, and his ears therefore seemed to be stopped, not with wax, but with lead. At the very height of riches and glory he was anxious and troubled, and consequently he was ever afflicted with slight illnesses. …’4

‘Valentinian was harsh in punishing common soldiers, but indifferent towards men of greater fortune even when they should have been reprimanded sharply. Probus alone he attacked with bitter hatred, never ceasing to threaten him, never showing him any mildness from the very first time he saw him. The reasons for this were neither obscure nor trifling. Probus (not for the first time) had acquired the Praetorian Prefecture and relied more upon flattery than upon candid friendship in his yearning to prolong his office at any cost; and would that I could approve of the methods he used, for they were not such as were urged by the glory of his stock. Being well aware of the Emperor's principle of tracking out means of making money indiscriminately with no distinction between justice and injustice, Probus did not bring him back to the honest path when he had strayed from it (and steady advisers have often done that), but he even followed his inconstant and perverse ways. Hence grievous disasters befell his subjects, hence came the imposition of ruinous taxes, long experience in extortion finding out pretext after pretext, one more effective than another for hamstringing great and humble fortunes alike. Hence, owing to the weight of the tribute and the doubled and redoubled taxes, Probus forced some men of the highest rank, driven by fear of the utmost calamity, to abandon their homes, while others, overwhelmed by the bitterly persistent collection of the taxes, were confined to gaols for the remainder of their lives when there was nothing left wherewith they could pay. Some of them, weary at last of life and of the light of day, hanged themselves as a welcome remedy. A persistent rumour declared that these horrors were going on with ever more treachery and pitilessness, but Valentinian knew nothing of them as though his ears were stopped with wax. He was concentrating on the indiscriminate extortion of money even from the most tenuous sources and was thinking only of what was offered to him. Yet perhaps he would have spared the provinces of Pannonia’ (Valentinian was a native of Pannonia) ‘if he had learned sooner of these lamentable profits, of which in fact he was made aware all too late by the following accident. The Prefect compelled the Epirotes like the other provincials to send envoys to express their gratitude to the Emperor. The Epirotes forced a philosopher named Iphicles, a man noted for the strength of his mind, to proceed against his will to carry out this task. When he met the Emperor and was recognized and asked the reason for his coming, he gave his answers in Greek, and when the Emperor inquired in detail whether those who had sent him regarded the Prefect highly in their hearts, Iphicles replied like a philosopher who professed the truth. “They think of him with groans”, he said, “and against their will.” Valentinian was struck by these words as though by a dagger. Like a keen-scented animal he pried into all Probus' deeds, asking in his native language about persons whom he had known—where so and so was, for instance, who outshone his countrymen in rank and repute, or about that other rich man, or another who was first of his class. When he learned that one had perished by hanging, that another had emigrated across the sea, that yet another had committed suicide or had had his life torn from him by the knout, he blazed out into a boundless anger.’5

Apart from illustrating Ammianus' power of character drawing, I would submit that this passage is unequalled by any chapters of similar length in Tacitus. We may digress somewhat to point out that it is not a little surprising to find that Ammianus, after building up this fine climax, leaves it in the air and at once proceeds to describe Valentinian's preparations for war against the Germans. Did Valentinian take action against Probus whose villainy he thus dramatically discovered, or was the Prefect too strong even for the Emperor? The historian gives us no hint. He says immediately after this passage that it was at Carnuntum, where the scene described at the end of the quotation took place, that Probus watched the execution of one Faustinus who had been accused of killing an ass with the intention of practising magic. (The defence was that Faustinus hoped to use the carcass to cure the baldness with which he was threatened!) Thereafter we hear nothing of Probus from Ammianus. A more abrupt termination to a story about which the writer obviously had very deep feelings could scarcely be imagined. We can only conclude that Valentinian was helpless before his great Prefect, for, despite the historian's silence, we know that the vast power with which Probus oppressed the provincials remained unbroken until his death in 389.

The truth of Ammianus' characterizations need not be stressed. It is now well known that Tacitus' portrait of, say, Tiberius, which occupies six books of the Annals, is little more than a subtle and almost persuasive caricature of that Emperor; it is, in fact, a travesty of the truth. On the other hand, as Gimazane (p. 348) says, ‘jamais impartialité d'historien n'a été plus universellement reconnue que celle d'Ammien Marcellin’. We have, indeed, found reason to modify our opinion of his impartiality, but even if all our conclusions be admitted, there still remains a comfortable margin of superiority over Tacitus and all other historians of imperial times. Although many modifications may be made in detail, it is certain that Ammianus' pictures of Constantius, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens will stand for ever substantially unchanged.

It is at once clear that the course of Ammianus' life gave him a far better training for the duties of an historian than Tacitus could derive from his quiet and comparatively sheltered existence. Our historian's wide travels and his all too close familiarity with the rough and tumble of active military service (which so nearly cost him his life) gave him opportunities for observing conditions in many provinces and for studying the problems which faced the military leaders of his times. Such opportunities were denied to Tacitus even though he may have languished for a few years in the passive defence of a quiet frontier. Ammianus' ability as a military historian may best be judged by those who compare in turn the account of Germanicus on the Rhine frontier with that of Julian's campaigns in the same area, or Tacitus' narrative of Tacfarinas in Africa with Ammianus' narrative of the marches and counter-marches of Theodosius there. Most revealing of all perhaps is a comparison of Corbulo's activities in the East with those of Julian on his Persian expedition. It is often objected to Ammianus that he is vague and inaccurate in his use of military terms. Every general tends to be a dux, although that word specified a particular military rank in his day. Magistri easily become comites, and the various types of comites are not distinguished as often as we could wish. All military detachments tend to be legiones or cohortes, and we are disturbed by references to cohorts, centuries, and maniples in the Persian army (a point which is developed by A. Müller, pp. 574 ff.).6 On this we may remark that it was traditional for Roman historians to avoid ‘vulgar’ language and even technical terms, and especially a repetition of the latter, and no one adhered to this tradition more closely than Tacitus. Ancient historians never wrote military histories in our sense of that term. They never occupied themselves to any great extent with dates, distances, numbers, tactics, strategical moves preliminary to battles, and so on, for the simple reason that they were aiming primarily, not at producing text-books of military history, but at writing literary works which masses of figures and similar data would spoil from an artistic point of view. This obvious difference between the modern and the ancient conceptions of historiography can never be excessively emphasized. Hence...

(The entire section is 5618 words.)

R. C. Blockley (essay date January-March 1973)

SOURCE: Blockley, R. C. “Tacitean Influence upon Ammianus Marcellinus.” Latomus 32, no. 1 (January-March 1973): 63-78.

[In the following essay, Blockley investigates the extent of Ammianus's borrowings from Tacitus and concludes that there is no convincing case that Tacitus was a major influence.]

During the late fourth and fifth centuries a.d., a period which saw a revival of interest in, and study of, some of the great works of Latin literature, Tacitus, after a period of neglect, found a measure of popularity. He was known, to a greater or lesser extent, by, amongst others, Aurelius Victor, Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, Ambrose and Sidonius...

(The entire section is 7297 words.)

R. C. Blockley (essay date 1975)

SOURCE: Blockley, R. C. “Gallus: Dramatic and Moralizing History.” In Ammianus Marcellinus: A Study of His Historiography and Political Thought, pp. 18-29. Bruxelles, Belgium: Latomus, 1975.

[In the following excerpt, Blockley argues that Ammianus wavers between the personae of objective historian and didactic moralist, using Ammianus's book on Constantius Gallus for illustration.]

Much of book XIV, the first surviving book of Ammianus' History, describes the later part of the reign and the death of Constantius Gallus. Gallus, who, with his half-brother Julian, survived the massacre of the kinsmen of Constantine I carried out at the accession of his...

(The entire section is 4783 words.)

Arnaldo Momigliano (essay date 1977)

SOURCE: Momigliano, Arnaldo. “The Lonely Historian Ammianus Marcellinus.” In Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography, pp. 127-40. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1977.

[In the following essay, Momigliano reflects on Ammianus's motives in depicting himself as “intellectually isolated” and in keeping his emotions and opinions in check.]

I

In the second part of the fourth century the Greek East became economically stronger, militarily safer and religiously more Christian than the Latin West. The rise of Constantinople to the position of a new Rome was the most tangible expression of the new situation; but Antioch was...

(The entire section is 5297 words.)

N. J. E. Austin (essay date 1979)

SOURCE: Austin, N. J. E. “Strategy: The Collection and Evaluation of Strategic Intelligence.” In Ammianus on Warfare: An Investigation into Ammianus's Military Knowledge, pp. 22-41. Bruxelles, Belgium: Latomus, 1979.

[In the following excerpt, Austin considers Ammianus's understanding of military intelligence.]

It has been shown above [in N. J. E. Austin, Ammianus on Warfare: An Investigation into Ammianus's Military Knowledge] that Ammianus, as part of his duties as a protector domesticus, was personally involved in the collection of intelligence of a military nature which was of use more in the long term than immediately. He is also familiar with...

(The entire section is 8775 words.)

E. D. Hunt (essay date 1985)

SOURCE: Hunt, E. D. “Christians and Christianity in Ammianus Marcellinus.” Classical Quarterly n.s. 35, no. 1 (1985): 186-200.

[In the following essay, Hunt discusses Ammianus's attitudes toward Christianity and Christians.]

Ammianus Marcellinus, by common consent the last great historian of Rome, rounds off his obituary notice of the emperor Constantius II (d. 361) with the following observation:

The plain simplicity of Christianity he obscured by an old woman's superstition; by intricate investigation instead of seriously trying to reconcile, he stirred up very many disputes, and as these spread widely he nourished them with...

(The entire section is 9773 words.)

T. E. J. Wiedemann (essay date 1986)

SOURCE: Wiedemann, T. E. J. “Between Men and Beasts: Barbarians in Ammianus Marcellinus.” In Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing, edited by I. S. Moxon, J. D. Smart, and A. J. Woodman, pp. 189-201. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

[In the following essay, Wiedemann explores Ammianus's use of animal metaphors in describing individuals and groups of people.]

Dietary practices are among the more obvious ways in which one group of people can differentiate itself from another. What I eat and drink is normal and natural. A person who does not eat or drink what I do is peculiar: in structuralist jargon, I am central and he is...

(The entire section is 5583 words.)

Timothy D. Barnes (essay date 1998)

SOURCE: Barnes, Timothy D. “The Impartial Historian” and “Reality and Its Representation.” In Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality, pp. 1-19. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998.

[In the following excerpt, Barnes explores how reliable Ammianus is as an historian and discusses the divergent critical evaluations of his work.]

At the close of his history, Ammianus Marcellinus described himself as “a soldier and a Greek” (31.16.9). He was born about 330 into the local aristocracy of one of the cities of Roman Syria or Phoenicia, and his father was probably a career soldier who rose to a position of some importance in the...

(The entire section is 8698 words.)