BMCR 2009.05.27: Woods on den Boeft, Philological and Historical Commentary of Ammianus Marcellinus XXVI

J. den Boeft, J.W. Drijvers, D. den Hengst, H.C. Teitler, Philological
and Historical Commentary of Ammianus Marcellinus XXVI.  Leiden:
Brill, 2008.  Pp. xxix, 356.  ISBN 9789004163461.  $156.00.

Reviewed by David Woods, University College Cork ([email protected])
Word count:  2163 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-05-27.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/05/20090527.html
-------------------------------

This is the thirteenth volume in the ongoing Dutch commentary on
Ammianus Marcellinus, an epic task begun by P. de Jonge, who completed
the commentary upon Books XIV to XX, and continued by J. den Boeft, D.
den Hengst, and H.C. Teitler for Books XX to XXI, finally joined by
J.W. Drijvers for Books XXII onwards. This commentary is an
indispensable tool for all students not only of Ammianus Marcellinus,
but also of the military and political history of the mid-fourth
century more generally. The strength of the more recent volumes of this
commentary has lain in their detailed treatment of both philological
and historical matters, and the authors maintain the same scrupulous
balance in this volume.

The format is the same as in the more recent volumes. There is a short
introduction to Book XXVI as a whole followed by a brief description of
the chronology of the events described in this book, and a short
explanation of the abbreviations used throughout the commentary. There
then follows a detailed commentary upon every line of text, divided
into chapters following the chapters within the Latin text itself.
Next, there is a bibliography of all items referred to in the
commentary arranged in alphabetical order by the surnames of the
authors. The latest items in this comprehensive list date to 2007, and
one will strive hard to detect an omission.[[1]] Finally, there is an
important set of nine indices which serve to make the riches of this
volume much more accessible than they might otherwise have been. All
logical, neat, and easy to use. However, there is one weakness in that
this volume does not contain a single map. The last volume had at least
contained one rather rudimentary map focussed on the political
geography of the Eastern frontier along the Tigris in accordance with
the subject matter of Book XXV. This volume would have also profited
from a similar map focussed on the geography of the Western part of
Asia Minor in accordance with its subject matter.

Book XXVI of Ammianus' history begins with the decision by the senior
civil and military officers to appoint Valentinian I to succeed Jovian
as their new emperor, formally proclaimed Augustus at Nicaea on 25
February 364, and ends with an account of the great tsunami which
struck the eastern Mediterranean basin on 21 July 365. However, most of
the book is devoted to a description of the rebellion by Procopius,
hailed as Augustus at Constantinople on 28 September 365 and finally
executed on 27 May 366. There is no-one who will not learn more about
the events described therein by consulting this commentary, and one may
benefit from the succinct summaries of the state of the debate on many
textual or historical matters without necessarily subscribing to the
same conclusions as the authors themselves. If there is any pattern, or
weakness, to be discerned in their analysis of various literary or
historical problems raised by this text, it is that the authors seem
incapable of speaking ill of Ammianus, or rather, treating him as a
flawed and fallible human subject to the same prejudices and weaknesses
as the rest of us.

Two examples will illustrate this. The first concerns the decision by
Ammianus to include a long digression on the performance of Apronianus
as prefect of Rome (26.3) between his descriptions of the proclamation
of Valentinian I as Augustus on 25 February and of the latter's
promotion of his brother Valens as his fellow Augustus on 28 March 364.
The problem here is that Apronianus had actually served as prefect of
Rome from about January 363 until about April 364. So why did Ammianus
decide to postpone his description of Apronianus' prefecture to Book
XXVI rather than include it in Book XXV? The authors claim that 'he
gave precedence to coherence over strict chronology', explaining that
'he did not want to break up his account of the Persian campaign,
including the peace treaty with Persia and the death of Jovian' (p.
59). Unfortunately, this explanation cannot suffice because the
resultant coherence in his description of the Persian campaign was only
obtained at the cost of incoherence elsewhere, that is, his failure to
break up his account of the Persian campaign resulted in his breaking
up his account of the rise of the brothers Valentinian and Valens to
power as joint emperors instead. In fact, it is arguable that the real
reason that Ammianus postponed his description of Apronianus'
prefecture to Book XXVI was in order to distance his vigorous campaign
against poison and magic from the reign of Julian. Hence although
Ammianus does admit that it was Julian who had originally appointed
Apronianus as prefect, the position of this chapter within his work
creates the vague impression that these trials actually occurred at or
about the time that Jovian died and Valentinian came to power, that is,
during the brief reign of Jovian, if not during the early reign of
Valentinian also, rather than during the reign of Julian. Now, it may
well be correct that Apronianus did only begin his campaign against
poison and magic during the reign of Jovian, perhaps in an attempt to
ingratiate himself with the new Christian regime. My point is only that
Ammianus did not want to risk any possibility that his readers might
assume otherwise, correctly or not, and that this was in accordance
with his consistent bias in favour of Julian.

The second example concerns an apparent instance of reduplication
within Ammianus' text which, if accepted as such, makes him seem rather
careless in his work. In his initial description of how Procopius came
to power, Ammianus reports that he took advantage of the fact that the
Divitenses and Tungricani Iuniores were in Constantinople at the time,
stopping for two days while on their way to Thrace, to persuade them to
support his revolt (26.6.12). Later, following a description of the
success of the revolt, and how Valens reacted to news of it, he
describes how Procopius managed to win over some units of infantry and
cavalry which happened to arrive in Constantinople at that point while
on their way to Thrace (26.7.9). The similarities between these
descriptions are so pronounced that it is difficult to believe that
they do not refer to the arrival of the same group of units at
Constantinople. Unfortunately, the authors of this commentary do not
accept this possibility. However, they proceed to argue against the
identification of 26.7.9 as an abridged version of sections 26.6.12-14
as if anticipating a claim that Ammianus himself had deliberately used
the same source in these two sections. They do not seem to envisage the
possibility that Ammianus may have accidentally repeated himself as he
used two different sources in the composition of his account. Hence
their arguments against the identification of the military units
described at 26.7.9 with those described at 26.6.12 fail utterly. The
disconcerting feature, however, is their determination not to admit
that Ammianus could have carelessly repeated himself.

The commentary diplays another weakness also, a common failure even to
try to identify the precise office held by several key individuals.
This weakness is directly related to the last in that it reveals an
inability by the authors to distance themselves from the authorial
viewpoint. If Ammianus does not think it worth his effort to identify
these individuals by their office, then our authors do not seem to
think it worth their efforts to inquire too closely either, although
the identification of these offices ought to be of prime importance for
a correct understanding of what is being described. Two examples will
illustrate my point. Ammianus records that when the emperor Julian
invaded Persia, he left Procopius in Mesopotamia in joint command of a
large army with Sebastian (26.6.2). The present commentary does not
attempt to identify the precise office held by Sebastian at that time,
simply referring us back to the commentary on 23.3.5 which proves
equally unenlightening (p. 129). Now, nothing is more certain than that
Sebastian must have held some military office in 363, since he had
previously served as dux Aegypti and would later die as a senior
infantry commander at Adrianople in 378. I have suggested elsewhere
that he probably held the office of magister per Orientem during the
Persian expedition.[[2]] Such a possibility deserves some comment at
least. Next, there is the failure even to consider to what office
Valens may have appointed his father-in-law Petronius following his
accession. Ammianus reports that Petronius had been commander of the
Martenses, that Valens had promoted him to the rank of patricius, and
that he had fiercely pursued debts to the state dating back even as far
as the emperor Aurelian (26.6.7-9). Here it is important to distinguish
between rank and office. The fact that Petronius had been promoted to
the rank of patricius did not in itself give him the right to pursue
debts in the way that he did. The obvious suggestion is that he had
been appointed to a senior financial post also, perhaps as either comes
sacrarum largitionum or comes rerum privatarum. Certainly, some
stronger comment is necessary here than a brief statement that it is
not known whether he had held any other office before he became
patricius apart from command of the Martenses (p. 140).

Interesting ideas abound, although it occasionally difficult to
establish whether the idea is original or not. For example, the authors
read 26.9.8 to mean that the tribune Barchalba was an old comrade of
Procopius since the reign of Constantius II (p. 255). This is a very
different interpretation of the text to that in the two most common
English translations by J.C. Rolfe and W. Hamilton, but this is not
properly acknowledged or explained. Whatever the case, I find it
convincing. However, there remains a problem. The authors continue to
refer to Barchalba as if he had been a military tribune, and refer us
back to earlier comments on the military tribunate. However, Procopius
had served as a tribune and notarius under Constantius II (26.6.1), so
the probability is that Barchalba had become acquainted with him when
he had served in the notarii also, and that he was a tribune and
notarius by 363, if not much earlier already, rather than a military
tribune.[[3]]

Ammianus preserves the most detailed surviving account of the rebellion
by Procopius to which one necessarily compares all other accounts in
the hope that they might shed some light upon one another. It is
noteworthy, therefore, that a series of ecclesiastical historians
provide very different accounts of the death of Procopius to that
preserved by Ammianus. Whereas Ammianus is quite clear that Valens had
Procopius beheaded (26.9.9), the mid-fifth century ecclesiastical
historian Socrates reports that two trees were bent down, that one of
his legs was attached to each tree, and that the trees were then
released once more, so tearing him in two (HE 4.5.4). Several later
historians follow Socrates, or his source. So which is the correct
account? The present commentary follows Seyfarth in dismissing
Socrates' account as a literary topos (p. 257). The problem with this
approach, however, is that it pays too little attention to Socrates'
text. Socrates initially describes the deaths of two traitors whom he
identifies with the generals Gomoarius and Agilo before he then
proceeds to describe the death of an usurper whom he identifies as
Procopius. However, since Ammianus is clear that Gomoarius and Agilo
had been well received by Valens, but that Florentius and Barchalba,
who had finally surrendered Procopius to Valens, had only received
death for their treachery, it has long been suggested that Socrates
mistakenly attributes the deaths of Florentius and Barchalba to
Gomoarius and Agilo. Here it is important to remember that a certain
Marcellus staged a brief usurpation following the death of Procopius,
but that Valens' forces quickly captured and scourged him before they
finally killed him (26.10.5). Unfortunately, Ammianus does not describe
how exactly they killed him. It is my suggestion, therefore, that
Socrates, and related authors, mistakenly attribute the death of
Marcellus to Procopius in the same way that they mistakenly attribute
the deaths of Florentius and Barchalba to Gomoarius and Agilo. Again,
one feels that the commentary could have paid a little more attention
to this problem, a serious contradiction between Ammianus and our other
sources, from which, I am glad to say, Ammianus emerges victorious.

It is possible to disagree with the authors on many minor points of
interpretation, and some not so minor, but that is the nature of
scholarship. However, I doubt that anyone will be found to disagree
that this volume marks another fine contribution to the study of
Ammianus by this team of authors, and it is a credit both to their
scholarship and their industriousness that it was published a mere
three years after their commentary on Book XXV. Here is a team that
actually works, and I look forward to their next volume too.

------------------
Notes:


1.   They should include a reference to M. Humphries, 'The Lexicon of
Abuse: Drunkenness and Political Illegitimacy in the Late Roman World',
in G. Halsall (ed.), Humour, History, and Politics in Late Antiquity
and the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2002), 75-88, in the commentary
upon the abusive description of Valens as a sabaiarius (26.8.2).

2.   See D. Woods, 'The Final Commission of Artemius the Former Dux
Aegypti', BMGS 23 (1999), 2-24, at 8-9.

3.   The neglect of this point is curious given that one of the authors
produced the standard work on the notarii in late antiquity. See H.C.
Teitler, Notarii and Exceptores (Amsterdam, 1985).