Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology) [Hardcover]

Timothy D. Barnes (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 24, 1998 | Series: Cornell Studies in Classical Philology (Book 56)

The Townsend LecturesMuch of what we know today of Rome in the fourth century has its source in Res Gestae, the sole surviving work of the historian Ammianus Marcellinus. The accuracy of Ammianus' reporting has come under question over the past fifty years, however, and Timothy D. Barnes here offers new grist for skepticism.This is the first book on Ammianus to place equal emphasis on the literary and historical aspects of his writing. Barnes assesses Ammianus' depiction of historical reality by investigating the Res Gestae's strengths and weaknesses, as well as its literary qualities. He examines its structure and arrangement, emphasizes its Greek and pagan features, and points out the extent to which Ammianus drew on his imagination in shaping the narrative.Ammianus, raised as a Christian, became an apostate when Julian seemed to promise a return to traditional religion and values. In Res Gestae, he expressed strongly held views, often in vivid and extreme language. Barnes explores the historian's biases and personal prejudices, documenting seemingly intentional distortions and demonstrating that Ammianus advanced a pessimistic and anti-Christian interpretation of the Roman Empire.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"The work is both original and accessible. . . An outstanding feature of the work is Barnes's mastery of the scholarship, evident on every page. . . Valuable to students and scholars at every level. A rare work of remarkable insight. Highly recommended."-Choice. July/August, 1999

"A provocative study that deserves the attention of students of historiography and the fourth century."-Bradley P. Nystrom, Religious Studies Review. October, 1999

"An enjoyable and valuable book, always stimulating and right more often than not, to be welcomed by all with a serious interest in the author and the period."-Bryn Mawr Classical Review

"Readable and provocative. . . Barnes's book should be of great use to those interested in historiography as well as in the later Roman Empire."-Robert M. Frakes, Letters in Canada, 1998

"This is a book with a message, in fact several messages, both seen and unseen. It is written from a conviction and is therefore revealing of the author as well as about his chosen subject."-Averil Cameron, Keble College, Oxford. Phoenix, 53:3-4, Fall/Winter 1999

"Barne's investigations are a forceful reminder that alert skepticism is always needed when reading Ammianus."-Michael Whitby, University of Warwick. The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, Vol. 90, 2000

Product Details

• Hardcover: 336 pages
• Publisher: Cornell University Press; First Edition edition (September 24, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0801435269
• ISBN-13: 978-0801435263
• Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.4 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #818,541 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars A Very Biased Take on Late Antiquity's Greatest Historian, December 13, 2011

By 

Stuart McCunn (New Haven, CT) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology) (Hardcover)

This is a rather biased work. I love it for that. I used it as a straw dog once for a paper on Ammianus. His chapter on Ammianus and Christianity is subtly hilarious. He believes that Ammianus was a religious fanatic on the level of Libanius or Zosimus. Anyone who's read either of those should know how serious that accusation is and how impossible to support. The basic argument is that Ammianus has criticized Christians on occasion, therefore this is done because of their religion. All Christians whom he doesn't criticize must have their stories analyzed to find the secret criticisms which must be hidden beneath the surface. The fact that he doesn't mention church councils (in the same way that all classical historians avoid mentioning them) shows that he is subtly trying to make Christians seem minor players in the Roman Empire. There is also some linguistic evidence that depends on certain words being the same as Greek words which are occasionally used harshly. Any differences between what Ammianus says and what Christian ecclesiastics say is an indication of his overpowering bias, never theirs.

The purpose of the book is to argue that Ammianus is hopelessly biased because the vision he held of the Roman Empire is not the same as that held by Christian writers. Not being Christian is a sure sign of bias. Later historians are completely oblivious to his radicalness. One of Barnes' real obsessions is with order and structure. He uses it as proof that Ammianus' books were misnumbered. His first surviving book is 14 (xiiii) which Barnes believes is really 18 (xviii) because that way it is halfway through his work. His vision of structure is unfortunately not in keeping with other contemporary authors who did exactly what Ammianus appears to have done. They wrote a brief summary of history in one or two books followed by a more thorough look at the main era they were covering. Which doesn't prove anything but shows how inconclusive an analysis of the structure can be, especially when almost half the work is missing. Without even an introduction explaining the intention of the work any assumptions about the structure are entirely guesswork. Assuming that because he is a good writer he will structure the book in the same way you would (which was a fairly uncommon way for the period) is entirely lacking in support.

I don't understand why Barnes felt such a need to write a book analyzing an author he clearly hated. I suppose he felt a desire to "correct" what other authors have said but this book takes the argument way too far. He actually accuses Ammianus of being a novelist more than a historian. The portions of the work which do not deal with bias are fairly solid, but there are very few of them. Barnes maintains an admirable focus on his main point. It's simply unfortunate that he didn't choose a better one.