Antioch
Ammianus Marcellinus: Biographical Record in the Res Gestae
Ammianus Marcellinus is often proclaimed as the ‘last great Roman historian’ and his Res Gestae (history from AD354-378) as an accurate and objective account of events in the fourth century. But just how useful and reliable is this text in relation to the recounting of events? How does the author himself affect the way these events are portrayed in the Res Gestae? And how does it stand as an autobiographical text?
The Res Gestae is often acclaimed as a reliable history as told by its author, Ammianus Marcellinus; but can this interpretation really be upheld? Matthews asserts that Ammianus’ depiction of the period from Nerva to the battle of Adrianoplein in 378 is an accurate representation of the authors own times.[1] An assessment of the Res Gestae could also suggest a different view. Ammianus’ works are recognised as our fullest source for the period of the fourth century but their objectivity is also questioned. Barnes maintains a conviction quite opposite to Matthews and states that “Ammianus failed in his obligation as a historian to strive to transcend personal bias.”[2]
Ammianus belonging to a select canon of great historians, who are known for reliability, immediately has an affect on the assessment of the Res Gestae.[3] One is tempted to believe that Ammianus’ history is truly an objective account. But how can any author really create a work, factual or fictional, that does not contain any amount of bias? When Gibbon examines the ecclesiastical politics of Constantius’ reign, he gives Ammianus praise as an ‘unbiased witness’[4]. This view of Ammianus and his Res Gestae is debatable because no writing can ever be free of the author’s own bias and self-involvement.
An analysis of the Res Gestae as a historical account of events suggests that it is highly subjective. Barnes asserts that Ammianus writes with unusual violence and ferocity indicating a subjective view of depicted events.[5] This is in contrast to the ideas of Gibbons and Matthews. Matthews does not appear to regard Ammianus as a historian but as a writer of the present period.[6] Gibbons praises Ammianus as the author of an ‘objective history’. Matthews views the Res Gestae more as a narrative that accurately depicted the period of Ammianus through the eyes of the author and the ideologies of the time. The Res Gestae has been critically discussed in two dimensions, one portraying it as a purely historical work and another as a narrative depicting the times as viewed by the author.
The Res Gestae in modern analyses is seen as a “work of imaginative literature” which “exhibits the creative and imaginative powers of a novelist.”[7] Matthews even likens the author’s writing to scenes from a play. The confrontation, for instance, between Leonitus and Peter Valvomeres[8] exhibits “contrasting emotions and postures” leading to “ritual violence.”[9] This suggests that the Res Gestae was created in part as an entertainment piece, written for a certain audience. In order to formulate this type of work the author has clearly emphasised and omitted several events. This assessment indicates that as an account of the times, the Res Gestae may well be incomplete and inaccurate, more to the likening of a narrative than a distinctly objective work.When critically assessing the Res Gestae as an account of the author’s times one notices several inconsistencies within the text in comparison to contemporary works suggesting that the Res Gestae does not fully incorporate the most significant events and issues but more so those that concerned the mind of its author. With this in mind, it is indicative that the Res Gestae does not serve the purpose of a history due to its inability to present events in an objective manner. For instance, the lack of references to the uprising Christian values could be seen as a failing on behalf of Ammianus. Ammianus leaves out the majority of ecclesiastical events and affairs such as those that occupied Constantius’ reign. Elliot describes Ammianus as a pagan apologist who treats Christianity unfairly and it appears that there is an irremovable inconsistency in what the author does say about Christianity.[10] Despite the debates, the Res Gestae still is the fullest account of the fourth century that survives to the present day. The surviving half of Ammianus’ works provides an overview of events and subjects from the Caesar Gallus to the siege of Adrianople.[11] Particularly significant is its use as a source for Roman policy. Seager examines the account of events on the Rhine and the Danube, asserting that such accounts show that policy was “fundamentally defensive” with a priority of keeping out barbarians or to drive them out.[12] This theme of action in response to barbarian frontier violations is a constant throughout the narrative.
Ammianus also appears to manipulate events subtlety to imply alternate motives of those concerned. This is seen in the account of Constantius on the Rhine against the Alamanni in 354; where Constantius took responsibility in the new found peace.[13] Ammianus recounts that the peace was in fact a result of a fluke and offers religious grounds for the Alamanni seeking peace rather than the actions of Constantius.[14] What Ammianus thought of those concerned shaped his narrative, such as his favourable tone with the emperor Julian and unfavourable tone in reference to Constantius. This while showing the great bias, within the writings which would be unsuitable for a historian, gives the reader an important look at the character of important figures through the eyes of someone who lived under their influence.
The Res Gestae provides a look into the character of the empires and important people of the times. This shows a biographical streak to the writing which is often not so closely associated with the writing of a history. For example, Ammianus gives us an overview of Julian which is almost unrivalled. Ammianus both praises and criticises Julian and provides a unique look into his personality. Ammianus tells us that Julian had an inclination towards pagan practices and gods from a young age but kept up the pretence that he was a Christian for survivals sake, and later his Christian education influenced his take on paganism.[15] This is a view which is in contrast with many others such as Browning’s who asserts that Julian broke completely away from Christianity.[16] Ammianus in regards to this biographical theme discloses both his likes and dislikes of the individuals concerned with an unusual vigor. The Res Gestae in terms of this could be seen as more a record of personalities and critics of them, rather than a history of the author’s times.
The question still remains whether or not Ammianus faithfully reflects the world that he describes or a completely subjective view. Auerbach analyses Ammianus as portraying a highly grim view of the events of the fourth century and failing to adequately indicate historical and social contexts.[18] This idea is criticised by Matthews who believes that scholars are purely being evasive and that the Res Gestae can not be judged in this manner.[19] Ammianus should instead be seen as a writer of his own times; it will of course have been subject to Ammianus’ pessimistic and optimistic views on certain events which he himself witnessed and was affected by.
While the events of the Res Gestae are open to interpretation, Ammianus’ writing does give us a rare look into the attitudes of certain social groups. Firstly, Ammianus was a military man and his writings were subject to the attitudes that accompanied this status. One could assert that the Res Gestae can be used as a source for Military attitudes, especially those of the common soldier with which Ammianus was acutely conscious of.[20] The use of the first person in the text within the campaigns he describes indicates that Ammianus had indeed lived and worked hard throughout his life and understood the workings of the military and war.[21] Ammianus’ direct involvement in the events of the fourth century provides a rare outlook. Matthews clearly defines this assessment, stating that “Ammianus deserves to be treated as the living product of time, place and memory.”[22] With this in mind, the account of the author’s times in the Res Gestae regains ground as a significant fourth century text.
From the Res Gestae the reader also gets a look into the priorities and attitudes of the Roman upper classes from Ammianus’ treatment of them. One of the most defined of these is their attitude towards foreigners. Thompson states that Ammianus doubted the existence of “sincere friendship at Rome.”[23] The Res Gestae accounts several incidents where the attitude towards foreigners is severely negative in the minds of the Roman citizens. Often Ammianus finds significant fault with the Upper classes and their prizing of pride, popularity, wealth and superstition over the intimacy of their fellows, lower classes and foreigners.[24] He also brings particular attention to how they quickly lost interest in new comers when they did greet them.
In the surviving books of the Res Gestae, Ammianus only makes one clear reference to his background. This appears in the closing statements when he reveals ‘haec ut miles quondam et Graecus…pro virium explicavi mensura’[25] that he is writing as a soldier and a Greek. Apart from this statement, the life of Ammianus must be interpreted through the many indirect references and the grammar used in the Res Gestae, which holds a strong autobiographical tone. This is firstly illustrated by the author’s use of the first person plural with the events of 363 onwards.[26] The assessment that Ammianus was a military man who served in Julian’s expeditions is noted from his account of the crossing of the Khabur at Cercusium during Julian’s advance in book 23.[27] Here, Ammianus changes his writing to include first person plurals opposed to the third person plurals he had been using in previous books. The Res Gestae provides us with a fair timeline of the author’s life through his associations with the military campaigns he recounts, and an overview of his status and background. Ammianus first appears on the staff of Ursicinus in 354 as it clearly states “…Ursicinus, to whose staff I had been attached by the Emperor’s order, was summoned from Nisibis…”[28] Ammianus’ personal involvement in events becomes more pronounced in progressing Books. He often associates himself with the trials and tribulations of Ursicinus to whom he had great loyalty, as well as indicating his involvement in campaigns of Julian and events close toAntioch, where he may have originated from. Ammianus’ on occasion seems to omit himself from the text where one may expect to see him. This suggests that in the intervening years in Julian’s reign he was not himself held highly-regarded. What the reader gathers from the Res Gestae about the life of Ammianus is itself bias material which is subject to the author’s own wish to glorify himself and his peers and proclaim his own ideas.
Scholars have made reference to a letter of Libanius to a Marcellinus residing in Rome, and regard it as a strong standpoint as to which one can reconstruct the background of Ammianus Marcellinus. There is however argument for and against this Marcellinus being the Marcellinus who penned the Res Gestae. Where Matthews asserts that this Marcellinus is indisputably the author of the Res Gestae, other scholars have critically analysed it with the belief that this letter could have been penned to another with a similar name. Fornara, Bowerstock and Barnes are three such scholar that in recent years have challenged the traditional identification of the recipient.[29] These three scholars have brought to light disputes concerning the place of origin for the recipient being Antioch, however in more recent debates Barnes has moved slightly towards Matthews’ view.
With this in mind the modern scholar should turn their attention back to the writing of the author himself and the indications that he personally makes to his life. Barnes asserts that it is necessary to use both indirect indications within a text and any explicit external evidence to recreate the author’s life.[30] While this is indeed an important way of exploring evidence and interpretation, in the case of Ammianus where the most accessible external reference is in dispute, the Res Gestae becomes the most significant source of information for the author’s own life.
Ammianus Marcellinus’ Res Gestae can be assessed from several standpoints. As a historical account it is full of bias and subjectivity that many scholars believe is a failing on the part of the author. But when seen as an account of the author’s own life and times, as an account of the present day rather than a historical work these failings emerge as a unique eyewitness view of events. In critically analysing the Res Gestae one sees that the inconsistencies in the text obscure much of the history and as an account of events may be seen as unreliable. The Res Gestae on the other hand provides a record of social ideologies and caricatures, as well as an autobiographical streak that allows for a fair account of the life of the author through indirect references. Ammianus is by no means an objective historian and his works are subject to fault and omission but as an account of his life and times they are invaluable.
[1] Matthews, J., ‘Ammianus’ (1989), p.228
[2] Barnes, T.D., ‘Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality’ (London, 1998), p.viii
[3] Such authors in this canon include Tacitus and Livy which Ammianus’ works are often read in relation and comparison to
[4] Gibbon, E., ‘A Vindication of Some Passages in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ (London, 1779), p.110-111; ‘The English Essays of Edward Gibbon’ ed. Craddock, P.A., (Oxford, 1972), p.299
[5] Barnes, op.cit., p.8
[6] Matthews, op.cit, p.28
[7] Barnes, op.cit., p.198
[8] Ammianus, op.cit., 14.11
[9] Matthews, J., ‘Homo Victor. Classical Essays for John Bramble’ (Bristol, 1987), p.279
[10] Barnes, op.cit., p.18
[11] Ammianus, op.cit, 15
[12] Seager, R., ‘Roman Policy on the Rhine and the Danube in Ammianus’ The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol.49, No.2 (1999), p.579
[13] Ammianus, op.cit., 10
[14] Seager, op.cit., p.580
[15] Ammianus, op.cit., 25.3-7
[16] Browning, The Emperor Julian (Los Angeles, 1978), p.109
[17] Ammianus, op.cit., p.248 – Julian’s extensive sacrifice made even the pagans uneasy, Ammianus’ criticism as a pagan scholar illustrates this uneasiness
[18] Auerbach, ‘Mimesis’ (1953), p.53-60
[19] Barnes, op.cit., p.14
[20] Thompson, E.A., ‘Ammianus Marcellinus and the Romans’Greece andRome, Vol.11, No.33 (1942), p.132
[21] ibid.134
[22] Matthews, J., ‘The Roman Empire of Ammianus’ (Baltimore, 1989), p.7
[23] Thompson, op.cit., p.133
[24] ibid.132
[25] Ammianus, op.cit., 31.16.9
[26] Barnes, op.cit., p.1, Ammianus, op.cit., 23.5.7
[27] Ammianus, op.cit., 23.5.7
[28] Ibid., 14.9
[29] Barnes, op.cit., p.56
[30] Ibid., p.55
Share this:
The Fall of the Ancient Olympics: The Theodosian Code
It is a common idea in modern authored histories of the Olympic Games that Theodosius I literally abolished the Olympic Games through specific edicts. Was this the product of historians projecting the laws of Theodosius on such a prestigious event and hence claiming direct prohibition, or did Theodosius really literally ban the Olympic Games in his edicts?
The idea that Theodosius I literally banned the Olympic Games is firstly discredited by there being no direct references to the Ancient Olympic Games in the Theodosian Code.[1] The Theodosian code was based on the enforcement of the Christian faith and on the ideologies of Christian dogma.[2] Spivey explains that “There was nothing in the Christian faith that actively underminded the practice of athletics.”[3] An assessment of this suggests that Theodosius I would not have paid particular attention to athletic events, such as the Olympic Games, when authoring his edicts but rather to the ideas and activities that surrounded the ‘pagan’ faiths which governed such events.
Theodosius I was the first emperor to “prohibit the whole established pagan religion of the Roman state.”[4] Hillgarth comments that by the time of Theodosius the church was a part of the “political and social structure of the oppressive empire.”[5] It was necessary for Theodosius to prohibit the traditional pagan practices in order to fully establish his dominance over the empire. Young explains that around 391AD Theodosius issued an edict “that all pagan temples be closed.”[6] These edicts against the worship of the pagan/Ancient Greek faith led to the decline in many areas of traditional Greek life such as the Olympic Games.
Despite the debate, the title of the ‘Olympic Games’ continued to be used elsewhere after the decline of Olympia. Downey asserts that the “Olympic Games at Antioch must have ranked among the most important of the local festivals of the Roman East.”[7] The idea that the title was adopted by games at Antioch and continued throughout the time of Theodosius’ edicts suggests that the Games at Olympia as an event were not prohibited; otherwise events that carried the name elsewhere would have been inclined to dismiss the title and the associations surrounding it as a heresy. However, the Games at Antioch were not prohibited until the early sixth century AD long after the Theodosian code had been established. The Olympiakon stadium itself was still in use till the sixth century.
Theodosius I banned the pagan practices associated with the Olympic Games and made Christianity the primary religion of the Empire for a number of reasons. Greenslade comments that “Theodosius…crowned the work of Constantine,”[8] attempting to create a unified Empire “with a unified faith.”[9] Theodosius attempted this partly in the hope that his laws would decrease the pagan religions and standardise Christianity. Theodosius was also subject to the Judaic and monotheistic ideas of Christianity. Williams and Friell explain that the new Christian regime inherited the “jealous, militant monotheism of Exodus, as well as pre-eminent Judaic concern with the law.”[10] The pagan religion was hence a heresy.
Though Theodosius does not target the Games specifically, his laws contributed to the eventual downfall of the Games at Olympia due to the prohibition of pagan practices. It appears that this point can be held as a source for histories blaming Theodosius for the prohibition of the Olympic Games. Downey assesses that the laws affected the character of the Games but, though many pagans such as in the letters of Libanius saw the Games as unaltered, the festival could no longer be seen as in honour of Olympian Zeus and lost some of their traditional Greek identity.[11] Fowden specifies that the “externals of the pagan cults were dismantled.”[12]
Hillgarth explains that Theodosius I banned the use of areas of pagan worship such as temples and sanctuaries in XVI, 1, 2 (380).[13] Theodosian code cites that “their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches,”[14] and that all pagan sites of worship should be abandoned in sight of the law and the new Christian dogma. Young explains that the focal point of Olympia was the sanctuary of Zeus and the “renowned temple of Olympian Zeus.”[15] The Olympic Games focused significantly on becoming closer to the gods, to be the very best, and the sanctuary was an important and essential part of this ancient Greek ideal.[16]
The Sanctuary of Zeus played a significant part in the Olympic festival as seen through the excavation of hundreds of votive offerings in and around it.[17] However, with the introduction of Theodosius’ code in the late fourth century, important sanctuaries and temples were forced into closure, including that at Olympia. Finley explains that the edict “was followed at Olympia almost immediately by the conversion of one of the more suitable buildings into a Christian church, and it is unthinkable that the games were permitted to coexist with a Christian community and Christian worship.”[18]
Theodosian code states that “no person at all, of any class or order whatsoever of men or of dignities,…shall sacrifice an innocent victim to senseless images in any place at all or in any city.”[19] As much of traditional Greek festivities and Games included sacrifice to the gods as a key aspect, the prohibition of such acts would have had a direct effect on events such as the Olympic Games.
The extent of sacrificial activity at Olympiacan be seen through excavations of the altar in the sanctuary of Zeus. Over the many centuries of use the Altar became a mound containing large deposits of bone and ash left by offerings to the gods.[20] Sacrifices were especially important to the worship of Olympian Zeus as he was “hekatombaios – deserving of a hundred oxen.”[21]
Archaeological evidence suggests that not only did Theodosius I not literally ban the Olympics, but that his edicts weren’t completely complied with at Olympia. Young explains that though Theodosian law prohibited the use of places of worship such as the sanctuary of Zeus, Zeus’ temple and his Olympic Games may well have lasted beyond the 391 edict and into the fifth century.[24] Archaeological evidence in some cases wouldn’t date the end of the Ancient Olympics at Olympia to Theodosius I at all but rather a significant decline, the termination of the Games being attributed to the time of his successor Theodosius II. Hillgarth also assesses that the edicts of Theodosius I were not complied with, and uses as his evidence the stricter later laws being set out by succeeding Emperors, “culminating to the threat of the death penalty in 435”[25] years after Theodosius I’s reign.
The idea that Theodosius did not literally ban the Olympic Games is also supported by the circumstances under which the 293rd Olympiad of 392 did not take place.[26] Koromilas assesses that the decline of Olympia’s Games was not due to Theodosian law but rather to the sanctuary no longer existing, and that there were several factors apart from the expansion of Christianity over a long period of time which led to its downfall.[27] Young agrees with this assessment, stating that Olympia had become inhospitable and was subject to earthquakes, floods and the flight of barbarians.[28]
In most modern histories the prohibition of the Olympic Games is attributed to the Emperor Theodosius in the fourth century. However, this theory is largely discredited through the study of Theodosian law. Theodosius I did not ban the Olympic Games specifically but rather the pagan practices that were associated with them. Theodosius evidently did ban the pagan practices that were associated with the Games in response to Christian dogma and the desire to create and control a unified empire under one religion.
Note that this website can be followed by pressing the ‘Follow by Email’ option on the right hand side of the screen 
[1] Young, D.C., A Brief History of the Olympic Games (Cornwell, 2004), p.136
[2] Spivey, N., The Ancient Olympics (New York, 2005), p.204
[3] Ibid., p.204
[4] Hillgarth, J.N., Christianity and Paganism, 350-750: The Conversion of Western Europe (Pennsylvania, 1969), p.45
[5] Ibid., p.46
[6] Young, op.cit., p.136
[7] Downey, G., The Olympic Games at Antioch in the Fourth Century AD, in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.70 (1939, p.428
[8] Greenslade, S., Church and State fromConstantine to Theodosius (London, 1976), p.30
[9] Williams, S. and Friell, G., Theodosius: The Empire at Bay (London, 1994), p.47
[10] Ibid., p.47
[11]Downey, op.cit., p.434
[12] Fowden, G., Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Empire A.D. 320-435 (1978)
[13] Hillgarth, op.cit., p.46
[14] Theodosian Code, XVI, 1, 2, (380) in Hillgarth, J.N., Christianity and Paganism, 350-750: The Conversion of Western Europe (Pennsylvania, 1969),, p.46
[15] Young, op.cit., p.60
[16] Tyrrell, B., The Smell of Sweat: Greek Athletics, Olympics, and Culture (Illinois, 2004), p.4
[17] Raschke, W.J., The Archaeology of the Olympics (Wisconsin), p.21
[18] Finley, M.I., and Pleket, H.W., The Olympic Games (London, 1976), p.13
[19] Hillgarth, op.cit., p.46
[20] Spivey, op.cit., p.131 – the deposits are an important indication of the sheer number of sacrifices that were conducted over a long period of time
[21] Ibid., p.131
[24] Young, op.cit., p.136
[25] Hillgarth, op.cit., p.45
[26] Koromilas, M., On the Stadium (2004)
[27] ibid
[28] Young, op.cit., p.137
GraecoMuse 