The preface of this book on Ammianus Marcellinus’ Julian begins with a quote from a preface of Gore Vidal's Julian (first published in 1964), which recognises the perceived pre-eminence of the history of Ammianus as a source for Julian, the last pagan Roman emperor (Caesar from ad 355, and sole Augustus from 361–363). This would have pleased Ammianus, who, according to this book, set out to write the definitive account (in Latin) of Julian. It is a well-known fact that, although Julian only reigned as sole Augustus for three years, he completely dominates the history, being the central focus of ten (Books 16–25) of the extant seventeen books (Books 14–31, which cover the years ad 354–378); Book 16 famously opens with Ammianus’ declaration that his account of Julian will verge on panegyric. Thus there is no doubt that the question of Ammianus’ depiction of Julian is a subject of the first interest.

R.’s book, developed from his Oxford D.Phil. thesis of 2011, reflects the shift in the nature of the study and understanding of Ammianus and his history, from the view of him as a reliable historical source by Edward Gibbon through the treatments of E.A. Thompson and J. Matthews to the literary approaches adopted by T. Barnes and G. Kelly, as R. charts himself. R. is clearly most in tune with Kelly, but does not just echo him. In his book R. adopts explicitly theoretical methodologies in his examination of Ammianus’ depiction of Julian, utilising narratology and intertextuality. The book is very tightly focused, consisting of five main chapters, preceded by a preface and followed by an epilogue, an appendix on ‘The Res Gestae’s Discourse on Greek’, and bibliography and index. There are no figures, perhaps indicative of the literary concerns of the book.

Chapter 1, ‘In Search of a Latin Julian’, introduces Ammianus and establishes the nature of his project as well as R.’s own approach. The following four chapters all focus on specific case studies that chart the development of the depiction of Julian in the history of Ammianus. Chapter 2, ‘The Narrator and the Participant. Gallus and Silvanus in Preparation for Julian’, addresses Ammianus’ emergence in the narrative as an internal narrator not just as the primary external one, in relation to the episodes of the fall of the Caesar Gallus (Julian's half-brother) and the general Silvanus. These have especial value for establishing how perceived imperial rivals to the emperor Constantius II (as much a focus of the book as Julian himself, since he is the essential bad to Julian's good) fared, setting the scene for Julian's own experiences with his imperial cousin. The next two chapters do not feature Ammianus as an internal narrator, so intertextuality comes more to the fore. Chapter 3, ‘Julian's Elevation. Tradition and Innovation in Speech and Narrative’, examines in particular the speech Constantius made on the elevation of Julian to the Caesarship, in the light of other failed adoptions in Latin historiography, Sallust on the Numidian king Micipsa's adoption of Jugurtha and Tacitus on the Roman emperor Galba's adoption of Piso. These earlier unhappy episodes illuminate Ammianus’ presentation of the case of Julian, marked again by hostility to Constantius. Chapter 4, ‘Strasbourg. Legitimizing Julian’, engages with the nature of battle narratives in the historiographical tradition and in the more recent treatment by Libanius in order to show that Julian is perceived by his own troops if not yet by himself as capable of being Augustus. In this, emphasis is placed on divine approval of Julian rather than dynastic claim. R. shows how the account of the battle of Strasbourg is central to the history, serving as the ‘linchpin’ (p. 135) between Constantius’ notorious civil war triumph in Rome in 357 and the climactic battle of the history, the defeat of the Romans by the Goths at the battle of Hadrianople in 378. Chapter 5, ‘Narrating Failure. Julian and Ammianus in Persia’, returns us to the subject of Ammianus as internal narrator and takes us dramatically from the success of Strasbourg to the failure of the Persian campaign. Here the role of omens and exempla in the narrative is explored especially. Attention is also devoted to Julian's speech to his troops at the crossing of the Arbora River, in which he cites successful Roman imperial assaults on Persia. Julian is seen to become a historian and is elided with the narrator himself, though the external narrator draws on exempla of failure such as the defeat of Crassus. Ultimately R. highlights that the failure of Julian in Persia is at least a Roman one. Beginning with Ammianus’ observation that Julian should have been buried in Rome, the epilogue usefully summarises the aims and arguments of the book and points to future research that needs to be undertaken, not just on Ammianus but on Roman historians more broadly, utilising the theoretical approaches embraced here.

This book succeeds convincingly in the task it set for itself. It is tightly organised and demonstrates the value of using the theoretical approaches of narratology and intertextuality to appreciate what Ammianus is trying to achieve; it highlights the limitations of straightforward positivist approaches to Ammianus and his history. Along the way there is much to stimulate and enjoy, such as the reflections on military leadership and later Roman emperors in relation to the battle of Strasbourg. The bringing of Ammianus and his history into dialogue with a host of other authors and texts is one of the notable features and pleasures of the book; not just classics such as Sallust, Tacitus and Polybius, but a wide range of late-antique contemporaries, both Greek and Latin, such as Eunapius, Libanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Festus, Philostorgius and Vegetius. This feature enriches our understanding of Ammianus within the culture of the Roman empire in the fourth century ad. As R. himself admits, however, his book is not comprehensive. He has intelligently focused on four case studies that reflect the development of Julian in Ammianus’ history, but there is more to be said. He remarks especially that the subject of religion requires further attention. He points to other topics to be pursued, such Ammianus’ attitude to Constantinople, which he has indeed since written about. At times one feels that R. had the scope to comment further on the topics he does deal with. Given the rewarding consideration of generalship in the Strasbourg chapter, it was a shame that this was not also explored in relation to the Persian campaign. The exemplum of the fate of Pompey ‘to give the eunuchs pleasure’ (p. 75) could have led on to comments on the involvement of a eunuch (Constantius’ infamous praepositus sacri cubiculi Eusebius) in the fate of Gallus and in the experiences of Julian. On the central issue of the Romanisation of Julian by Ammianus there was surely more to say about Claudius Mamertinus, who in his speech of thanks to Julian of 362 beat Ammianus to this point by decades. The engagement with Ammianus’ suggestion of the burial of Julian in Rome could have noted that in reality there were contemporary imperial burials in Rome, of Constantinian women, including Julian's own wife Helena. I was left uncertain as to Ammianus’ overall take on Julian. The focus on the failure of the Persian campaign in the final chapter did not engage with Ammianus’ defence of Julian, such as the assertion that it was Constantine who had stirred up the conflict with Persia in the first place. Such reflections, however, serve to demonstrate just how stimulating this book is. It is enriching and compelling, and will be vital in future assessments of both Ammianus and Julian.