Translating Ammianus Marcellinus, Book 14

This piece was written for the new blog of the Last Historians of Rome project, a collaboration between the Universities of Edinburgh and Nottingham funded by a Standard Grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). I have cross-posted it here both for completeness and because we do not yet have a comment function on the Last Historians blog. 

The centrepieces of the Last Historians of Rome project are the team’s new critical editions of the five historians we are studying, and for me in particular, the biggest task is to edit Ammianus Marcellinus, the longest and greatest of the five. But we are also producing translations: at the moment, Justin Stover and George Woudhuysen are polishing off Aurelius Victor, and I am in the very final stages of the translation of Ammianus, which has occupied me for many years, off and on. The translation is for Robert Strassler’s Landmark series, will be published by Oxford University Press in New York, and is a collaboration with Michael Kulikowski: he is the volume editor and responsible for everything that isn’t the translation – the introduction, notes, lavish maps and illustrations, and appendices – as well as for working over the translation with me and making sure that it is as stylish and readable and clear as possible. 

Right now, however, rather than discussing style, readability, or the explanatory help for readers which we hope will make this markedly more accessible than previous translations, I am going to discuss the most fundamental task of a translation: working out what the original actually means. Something can have been translated many times but there will be occasional passages where translators go different ways – or where they all go one way but might be wrong. There is a rider, especially in the case of texts in ancient languages that survive because people made a series of manuscript copies: namely, that you need to be willing to ask ‘Is this actually the original?’ 

Let me give three examples from the first surviving book of Ammianus Marcellinus’ history, though it is one of the later ones I translated, at the start of this year (I started with the books that had the benefit of commentaries by the Dutch team of Den Boeft, Den Hengst, Drijvers and Teitler). In the first case, I translate in a way different from everybody else. In the second, I concluded that what I was translating was not the original and that some text has been lost. In the third, I spent time wondering if the transmitted text was correct, before concluding that it was but that it didn’t mean quite what I had originally thought – and I found that though most translators had gone slightly astray, two Italian translations had nailed it. 

1. How to fight the Isaurians (14.2.7) 

The Romans of the fourth century thought that there were baying barbarians encircling their empire’s frontiers. The Isaurians were an exception – they were barbarians inside the empire, in the rugged heart of the Taurus Mountains in central Anatolia. Isauria was a province, but some of its population were prone to raiding their prosperous neighbours and fighting Roman troops.

Isauria as imagined in the late Roman Notitia Dignitatum; copy made in Basel, 1436 (Oxford, Canon. Misc. 378) 

In chapter 2 of book 14, Ammianus gives a memorable account of Isaurian raids in the year 353, which begin as retaliation when some Isaurians were thrown to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre at Iconium (Konya). There is an unforgettable story of their capture of merchant shipping at anchor off the Cilician coast –the attackers climbing silently up the ropes by night and slaughtering the sailors without mercy. In neighboring Lycaonia, they keep defeating small Roman garrisons, in part by their extraordinary surefootedness and speed in the uplands. Ammianus continues (14.2.6): 

And at times, our infantrymen were compelled to climb up high cliffs in order to pursue them, and even if they reached the mountaintops, grasping at thickets or brambles when their feet slipped, still they could not, in the narrow and trackless places, extend a battle line or gain a firm footing despite all their powerful efforts, since the ubiquitous enemy rolled broken rocks on to them from above; they either made a perilous withdrawal downhill or else, battling bravely in their desperate necessity, were flattened by the vast weights crashing down. 

The problem lies in the following section, which I give first in Rolfe’s translation and then in Latin (14.2.7): 

Therefore extreme caution was shown after that and when the marauders began to make for the mountain heights, the soldiers yielded to the unfavourable position. When, however, the Isaurians could be found on level ground, as constantly happened, they were allowed neither to stretch out their right arms nor poise their weapons, of which each carried two or three, but they were slaughtered like defenceless sheep. 

Quam ob rem circumspecta cautela obseruatum est deinceps,| et cum edita montium petere coeperint grassatores,| loci iniquitati milites cedunt;| ubi autem in planitie potuerint repperiri,| quod contingit assidue,| nec exertare lacertos| nec crispare permissi tela quae uehunt bina uel terna| pecudum ritu inertium trucidantur.| 

This is Rolfe’s translation, and it is more or less the same as all others of which I am aware. The problem is, however, that except for obseruatum est the main verbs are in the present tense, and the verbs in the subordinate clauses are either perfect subjunctive following cum iterativum or present. Ammianus does sometimes use the historic present main verb, but if it was talking about events in the past, he would at least have put quod contingit assidue, ‘which constantly happens’ in the perfect (and even though the perfect contigit would be an easy emendation we know that he did write contingit, since the perfect would require a different word order, assídue cóntigit, to make the prose rhythm work). It seems that Ammianus is talking about a permanent change in Roman strategy towards the Isaurians in response to their experience in 353, nearly forty years before: 

Accordingly, it has been the practice since that time to show circumspection and care; whenever the raiders start making for the highest uplands, the soldiers give up in the face of the unequal terrain. But whenever the Isaurians happen to be caught on the plain – which constantly happens – they are given no chance to thrust out their strong arms or to hurl the two or three javelins each of them carries, and they are slaughtered like helpless cattle. 

2. Warding off the Isaurians near Laranda 

Somewhat later, after a setback against the legions wintering at Sidē, the Isaurians arrive by a back route near Laranda, modern Karaman (we can tell from the prose rhythm that Ammianus pronounced it Láranda, following the Greek accentuation). There they attack some wealthy villages but are beaten off. Again I give Rolfe’s translation and the Latin text (14.2.12): 

There they were refreshed with food and rest, and after their fear had left them, they attacked some rich villages; but since they were aided by some cohorts of cavalry, which chanced to come up, the enemy withdrew without attempting any resistance on the level plain; but as they retreated, they summoned all the flower of their youth that had been left at home. 

Ibi uictu recreati et quiete,| postquam abierat timor,| uicos opulentos adorti| equestrium adiumento cohortium, | quae casu propinquabant, | nec resistere planitie porrecta conati| digressi sunt, | retroque cedentes| omne iuuentutis robur relictum in sedibus acciuereunt.| 

Rolfe’s translation accurately captures what the passage must mean, but does not escape from the awkwardness (‘they were aided’ must in context mean ‘the villages’, as the equestrian cohorts are assuredly Roman troops). If we look at Ammianus’ other uses of adiumento, ‘with the help of’, followed by a genitive, it is quite clear that we need reference to the action in which they helped and probably also the actors whom they helped. It seems an inescapable conclusion that a few words have been lost after adorti. As a minimum, one might suggest et aegre repulsi (‘and were with difficulty held off’), perhaps better et ab incolis aegre repulsi (‘and were with difficulty held off by the inhabitants’). Best of all might be if repulsi were replaced by a participle ending in -ti so that we could explain the loss of the words as an eye-skip, a scribe having jumped from the ending of adorti from a similar ending a little later. I will be very grateful for suggestions! 

Accordingly, I translate: 

There they recovered their strength with food and sleep, and once their fear had left them, they attacked some opulent villages, but were with difficulty driven off, with help from some cavalry cohorts who happened to be nearby. And they made no attempt to resist on the broad plains, but withdrew, and, as they retreated, they called up all the strong young men who had been left at home. 

A footnote will explain the textual problem. In the edition, meanwhile, I will probably simply mark a lacuna rather than inserting text, as the omission could only be two or three words, as translated here, or something longer – perhaps a whole line. That text is lost seems overwhelmingly likely, but the wording is a complete guess. 

3. Senior officers with mixed loyalties (14.10.7-8) 

My final example comes from the following year, 354. The emperor Constantius’ forces are gearing up to fight the Alamanni based on the far side of the Rhine from Rauraci (modern Kaiseraugst, near Basel). I give my translation, except for the phrase on which I got stuck, which I give in Latin (14.10.7-8): 

But lo and behold, there arrived all of a sudden an informant with expertise in these regions, and after taking a payment he showed them a shallow place by night where the river could be forded. And with the enemy’s focus elsewhere, the army would have been able to cross here, not expected by anybody, and to create devastation everywhere, were it not that a few individuals from that nation, quibus erat honoratioris militis cura commissa, informed their countrymen of this attack through secret messengers – or so some thought. 8. At any rate, this suspicion blotted the reputation of Latinus the Count of the Domestici, Agilo the Tribune of the Stables, and Scudilo the commander of the Scutarii, who were respected at that time as if they carried the Republic in their own hands. 

If one were translating verbatim in the manner of a teenage Latinist, this might come out as ‘to whom the care of a/the more honoured soldier had been entrusted’. Most translators proceed as if this is verbiage, and paraphrase (‘who had achieved high rank in our army’, Hamilton; ‘who held military positions of high rank’, Rolfe; ‘qui s’étaient vu confier les plus hauts grades dans notre armée’, Galletier; ‘die bei uns als höhere Offiziere dienten’, Veh; ‘die bei uns höhere militärische Stellen bekleideten’, Seyfarth). But this seems like a fudge. 

At this point we might consider an emendation or two. Gelenius’ edition of 1533 wrote militiae instead of militis. Now Gelenius had access to the lost Hersfeld manuscript, since lost, which was on the whole slightly better than its twin, the Fulda manuscript, from which our text derives. It is also easy to imagine that an s could be written in place of ae (or e or ę, all possible spellings in a medieval manuscript), especially when the change is from the rarer to the commoner word. On the other hand, Gelenius was a bold conjectural emendator who consulted his own instincts more often than the Hersfeld manuscript. Honoratioris militiae cura could mean ‘an office of high rank in the service’, and this reading could perhaps result in a translation like those cited above. But is it needed? I wondered about emending to honoratior militis cura, ‘who had a more highly-ranked command of the soldiers’ – here taking militis as a collective singular for the soldiery, as Ammianus often does. But once I had made that step, I realised that the transmitted text is fine, and honoratioris militis cura means ‘command over elite troops’. And that point I realised that I really should have thought about the individuals who are later named: the protectores domestici, commanded by Latinus, are Ammianus’ own regiment; the scutarii of this period are another elite regiment; and the Tribunus stabuli commanded the corps of stratores, who had responsibility for publicly owned horses. 

After I had fixed on the translation ‘who had been entrusted with command of elite troops’, I found that two Italian scholars had already reached the right conclusion, Selem (‘che ... comandavano i reparti migliori dell’esercito’) and Viansino (‘che comandavano militari di grado elevato’). Of course the distinction in meaning is not a huge one, but it does make the passage much more pointed. It also reflects Ammianus’ consistent interest in his own unit of the protectores et domestici. 

And there is one final implication for another passage. After the emperor Julian had been killed, the council to appoint a successor was stalled, when an anonymous soldier intervenes to suggest that the high command lead the army out of Persia and elect a new emperor once back in Roman territory and reunited with the other army in Roman Mesopotamia. The soldier is called honoratior aliquis miles (25.5.3). Based on this passage, I would suggest that the sense here is ‘a soldier from an elite regiment’: it is about prestige not rank. This soldier has sometimes been identified, since the Abbé de La Bléterie and Gibbon in the eighteenth century, with Ammianus himself. That is highly speculative, but the implication of this passage is that we cannot rule it out. 

* * *

I hope that these three passages give a sense of the challenge of the translation as well as the pleasure that comes from the progress of hundreds of small advances. And examples also show the truth of a point made by many famous textual scholars – it is always a good idea for an editor to translate the text first.

A detail in the manuscript transmission of Sidonius

I still haven’t made up my mind about Twitter (where I may be found as @GavinKellyLatin). On the one hand, there is all sorts of useful information and one discovers that all sorts of people one doesn’t know well or at all are humane, knowledgeable, and fascinating; on the other hand it reveals and encourages the posturing, sanctimony, and silliness of many others, and sometimes things darker than that. The following blogpost is the result of the positive side. 

On 5 February ‘Ennius’ (@Red_Loeb) shared an image from a Durham manuscript, Cathedral Library A.II.4, the bible of William of St Calais, bishop of Durham, from AD 1096. This bible is said to originate in Normandy, like its owner. On f. 1v there is a list of the books that the bishop gifted to the library. In a retweet, my friend and colleague Justin Stover (‘Transmission of the Latin Classics’ = @OxGTLC), pointed out that it contained references to the works of Justin and Sidonius. Sure enough, two thirds of the way down you can see a paragraphus sign (¶) followed by Sidonius Sollius Panigericus. I forwarded it to Joop van Waarden who reproduced it on the sidonapol.org website.

There is a potential significance to this observation. As Franz Dolveck has shown in his chapter in the Edinburgh Companion to Sidonius Apollinaris (2020), Sidonius’ works were originally transmitted with the letters first and then the poems (first panegyrics and then the shorter poems). Most extant manuscripts of Sidonius begin with the letters and it would be their title that one would expect to see. Indeed, Dolveck observes that ‘the manuscripts ‘containing only the poems (which are very few in number) are late and all derive from more complete manuscripts – in other words, they are the result of an editorial choice to omit the letters’ (483). So much for the surviving manuscripts, but Dolveck also shows that at one other point in the transmission a manuscript family was formed from different sources for letters and poems. This is what he calls the English family, consisting of six manuscripts from the late eleventh to early thirteenth centuries: these are Dolveck’s numbers 19, 23, 35, 36, 38, 49:

-Hereford, Cathedral Library, O. II. 6 (Gloucester, s. XII², letters only)

-London, British Library, Royal 4 B. IV (B) (Worcester, s. XII¹, complete)

-Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 5. 25 (‘maybe England’ (Dolveck), ‘French hand’ (Chronopoulos), s. XI², less likely s. XII¹, letters 1-5.3 with lacunae)

-Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 61 (olim B.N. 6) (s. XII^ex, letters 3.12 to end and Carm. 1-2)

-Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawl. G. 45 (England, s. XII, letters and poems with lacunae)

-Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, lat. 9551 (F) (England, s. XIII^1/4, letters and poems)

In this family, the texts of the letters and of the poems come from separate sources. That of the letters lies fairly low in the stemma (a few steps below ζ in the stemma below), but that of the poems is close to the top (γ). Indeed, as I have suggested in a recent article on the paratexts of Sidonius’ poems (Kelly 2022, n. 8) the unity of γ and δ for the carmina is not wholly certain and there is a possibility that γ could be seen as a separate family.

The list from the Durham bible, it may be plausibly conjectured, fills in part of the story of this family. There was an authoritative text of Sidonius that omitted the letters and thus began with the Panegyrics. At some point it was combined with a text of the letters from a less excellent source and the oeuvre thus restored to its full length. Of course it is possible that the oldest of Dolveck’s English family, Oxford Auct. F. 5. 25, may not have contained the poems even before it was reduced to its current state, nor does Hereford O II. 6 contain them (Dolveck does not think any of the rest of the family are descended from these). William of St Calais’ manuscript, perhaps brought over with the Conqueror, could be either the source of the poems in this family, or perhaps a descendant or sibling of that source. At any rate, my main point is that England just after 1066 is exactly where you would expect to find evidence of a manuscript of Sidonius poems without the letters; it fits very nicely with Dolveck’s reconstruction.

Two further notes. First, the name Sidonius Sollius reverses the order of the two names Sidonius was most often known by. The manuscripts of the poems waver between giving the full glory of Sidonius’ nomenclature (Gaius Sollius Modestus Apollinaris Sidonius) and abbreviating in various ways: Modestus appears only very occasionally, though across the whole tradition, while some manuscripts shorten to GSAS or GSMAS. In the English family, the first panegyric is introduced thus: Gaii Sollii A. Sidonii panigerici dicti Anthemio augusto bis consuli praefatio incipit. The spelling panigericus, found in the Durham Bible, is absolutely consistent across the manuscripts of Sidonius.

Secondly, there are other fragmentary or partial manuscripts of Sidonius written in post-conquest England other those listed above (see Dolveck’s catalogue), and much other interesting material, including a life of Sidonius by none other than William of Malmesbury, and many glosses on manuscripts of the letters: Tina Chronopoulos has very well on written on both topics.

Works cited

T. Chronopoulos, ‘Brief lives of Sidonius, Symmachus, and Fulgentius written in 12th-cent. England?’ Journal of Medieval Latin 20 (2010), 232–291.

T. Chronopoulos, ‘Glossing Sidonius in the Middle Ages’, in G. Kelly and J. van Waarden (eds), The Edinburgh Companion to Sidonius Apollinaris (Edinburgh, 2020), 643–664.

F. Dolveck, ‘The Manuscript Tradition of Sidonius’, in G. Kelly and J. van Waarden (eds), The Edinburgh Companion to Sidonius Apollinaris (Edinburgh, 2020), 479–542. [The first part of this chapter has been made freely available by the publisher here]

G. Kelly, ‘Titles and Paratexts in the Collection of Sidonius’ Poems’, in A. Bruzzone, A. Fo, and L. Piacente (eds), Metamorfosi del classico nell’età romanobarbarica (SISMEL – Edizioni del Galluzzo: Florence, 2021 [2022]), 77–97. [I am not allowed to post this on my website till five years after publication, but I will happily send a copy to anybody who e-mails me; my text of the paratexts can be found on the sidonapol.org website here]. 

Manuscripts and Early Editions of Ammianus Marcellinus, and How to Find Them

 

The digitisation of a high proportion of the surviving manuscripts of the Classics is one of the most transformative scholarly developments of the last decades, yet somewhat unsung. I thought it would be useful and interesting to list the manuscripts of Ammianus Marcellinus’ history. Unsurprisingly, the two crucial manuscripts from the Carolingian age, the Fuldensis and the fragmentary Hersfeldensis, are digitised – but so are 12 out of the other 16: it is a pity in particular that the Florence manuscript of Niccolò Niccoli, the first Italian copy and source of many of the rest, is not among them, and the same for the Venice manuscript that once belonged to Cardinal Bessarion and before that was filled with the annotations and corrections of Biondo Flavio. After that, I list and give links to the first 20 editions, a round number which takes us down to the immensely useful Variorum edition of Gronovius in 1693. 

Manuscripts are assumed to be on vellum/ parchment unless otherwise indicated. To the bibliography on the liked websites you should add, for the Carolingian manuscripts, G.A.J. Kelly and J.A. Stover, ‘The Hersfeldensis and the Fuldensis of Ammianus Marcellinus: A Reconsideration’, Cambridge Classical Journal (2016), 62, 108-129 (available here or here). Although the Renaissance manuscripts, all of them Italian, are all derived from one of the two Carolingian ones, their study is of legitimate interest in itself. In the steps of Charles Upson Clark’s 1904 doctoral thesis and the many contributions of Rita Cappelletto in the 1970s and 1980s, I should signal the splendid doctoral thesis of Agnese Bargagna (‘Ammiano Marcellino e l’Umanesimo: tradizione e ricezione delle Res gestae a partire dai testimoni del xv sec. fino alle prime edizioni a stampa’, University of Macerata and Sorbonne University, 2020), downloadable here. Although I have seen many of the manuscripts in person as part of my preparations for my planned Oxford Classical Text, I should acknowledge having consulted Bargagna's work for many statements about these manuscripts below; moreover, what I say about them has no pretension to be comprehensive (for example, I have named only a selection of the known annotators).

 

For the editions, I have used above all the immensely useful work of Fred W. Jenkins, Ammianus Marcellinus: An Annotated Bibliography, 1474 to the Present (Leiden, 2017), whose recording of the precise titles I follow; see my review here and my supplements here.

 

And before beginning, I should add a stemma to indicate the manuscript relationships – it differs only very little from that of Charles Upson Clark from over 100 years ago. 

 

A.   Carolingian manuscripts

1.     V: Fulda s. IX^1/3 (the Fuldensis/ the Vaticanus). Vatican City, Vaticanus Latinus 1873: Contains books 14-31 (bifolium between 31.8.5 and 31.10.18 lost in the Renaissance); contains many annotations including contemporary correctors against the model (V²) and from the Renaissance (V³), including: Poggio Bracciolini (its rediscoverer), Niccolò Niccoli, Biondo Flavio, Pomponio Leto, Mariangelo Accursio. Digitisation.  

 

Highlights: too many to mention, but observe the gap where the Greek of 17.4.17-23 was left out on ff. 41v-42f. Look for the difference a change of scribe can make on f. 58v, between lines 13 and 14. Scroll through and look at the omitted lines written in the margin. And look at the effects of a damaged exemplar in the lacunae of ff. 170v-172v in book 29.

f. 41v, where the scribe started recording a long passage of Greek, before deciding to leave it to a specialist who never appeared. See also the first half of an ownership mark in the top margin (it reads 'monasterii'; the word 'Fuldensis' is at the top of the next page. Two Renaissance scholars have left comments in the left-hand margin.  

2.     M: ?Fulda s. IX^1/2 (the Hersfeldensis/  Marburgensis). Contains contemporary corrections and early modern ones probably in the hand of Sikmund Hruby z Jelení (Gelenius): Kassel, Landesbibliothek 4o Ms. chem. 31 (= 18.5.1 (1r) and 3 (1v), 18.6.12-15 (2r), and 16-17 (2v); both folia highly fragmentary). Digitisation  + 2o Ms. philol. 27 (formerly in Marburg) (3r (formerly I) = 23.6.37-41, 3v (II) = 23.6.41-45; 4r (III) = 28.4.21-25, 4v (IV) = 28.4.25-29; 5r (V) 28.4.30-33, 5v (VI) = 28.4.34-5.2 (the first seven lines on each side have been cut from this folium); 6r (VII) = 28.5.11-6.1), 6v (VIII) = 28.6.1-5; 7r (IX) = 30.2.5-10, 7v (X) = 30.2.10-3.2 (this folium, which with f. 8 formed the central bifolium of a gathering, has been cut vertically so that about a third of the text is lost, at the start of the line recto and at the end of the line verso); 8r (XI) = 30.3.2-5, 8v (XII) = 30.3.5- 4.2). Digitisation.

 

Highlights: The beauty of the hand, which surpasses the scribes of the Fuldensis. You can see what are almost certainly Gelenius’ corrections on p. iv of the second set of fragments (4v), lines 13-14. 

28.4.26 on 4v: Inbus changed to in rebus, sit to sic (with a full stop before it), and bos to bonum. The same changes are made in Gelenius' edition.            

A.   Renaissance manuscripts: copies of V

 

1.     F: Florence, 1423 (copied by Niccolò Niccoli, on paper). Florence, San Marco J V 43.

 

Highlights: no digitisation, alas, but Niccoli had a very beautiful hand.

 

2.     E: Rome, 1445 (circle of Poggio Bracciolini, on paper; contains annotations by various scholars including Poggio). Vatican City, Vaticanus Latinus 2969. Digitisation. 

 

Highlights: the marginal and in-text corrections throughout as an intelligent humanist emends the text of V as he copies. There are also annotations by others, notably Poggio and an intelligent early sixteenth-century scholar.

175r: A later annotator notes where the scribe turned over two pages of the Fuldensis in copying: error est unius chartae / vide in codice veteri :-

 

3.     N: Rome, 1455/1464 (Francesco Griffolini, Valesius’ ‘Codex Regius’, on paper, later emended against W after Biondo’s interventions (W²)). Paris, BNF, Parisinus Latinus 6120. Digitisation. 

 

4.     D: Rome, 1445/1457 (Pietro del Monte; on paper; stops at 25.3.13). Vatican City, Vaticanus Latinus 1874. Digitisation. 

 

B.    Renaissance manuscripts: copies of F 

 

5.     W: ?Florence, before 1455 (belonged to Biondo Flavio, who annotated it and collated against V (W², 1455/1462), and Cardinal Bessarion; on paper). Venice, Marciana Z. 388. 

      Highlights: the acute emendations of Biondo, and his claim to remember a lost passage in book 16 from another manuscript. See R. Cappelletto, Ricuperi ammianei da Biondo Flavio (Rome, 1983). 

 

6.     K: Florence/ Cesena (copied by Iohannes Moguntinus, 1441/1460, for Malatesta Novello). Cesena, Malatestianus, S.XIV.4. Digitisation and Catalogue.  

      Highlight: a fine illuminated capital in this luxury manuscript.

 

7.     Y (also Z): copied at Florence, contains annotations by Antonio Beccadelli (Panormita, d. 1471). Vatican City, Vaticanus Latinus 3341. Digitisation. 

 

8.     U: copied at Florence for Federico da Montefeltro (d. 1482) by Nicolaus Antonii de Ricciis, working closely with Vespasiano da Bisticci. Vatican City, Urbinas Latinus 416. Digitisation.

      

      Highlights: sheer beauty (pity about the slip in the author's name!)

 

9.     Q: copied at Florence, 1488 (Alessandro da Varrazzano). Modena, Biblioteca Estense Universitaria, Estense, Lat. 425 = alfa.Q.4.7. Catalogue. 

 

10.  C: Italy, s. XV^ex (Codex Colbertinus, on paper); Paris, BNF, Parisinus Latinus 5821 (runs from 15.1.3 to 31.15.9, thereafter fragmentary until 31.16.2). Digitisation. 

 

C.   Renaissance manuscripts: copies of W

 

11.  H: 1462 (copied by Petrus Honestus for Gregorio Loli Piccolomini, cousin and secretary of Pius II, from W after the interventions of Biondo (W²)). Paris, BNF, Parisinus Latinus 5819. Digitisation. 

 

12.  T: c. 1467 (Tolosanus; copied for Giovanni Stefano Bottigella, bishop of Cremona 1467-1476; from W): Paris, BNF, Parisinus Latinus 5820. Digitisation. 

 

D.   Renaissance manuscripts: copies of o (a lost copy of F).

 

13.  P: probably before 1434 (Petrinus; for the Orsini family, probably Cardinal Giordano Orsini, d. 1434) Vatican City, Archivio Capitolare di San Pietro E. 27 (books 14 to 26). Digitisation.  

      Highlight: an illuminated first capital. 19th-century scholars thought that P was a witness to a different pre-Poggio tradition. Not so, but it is very attractive:

       

 

14.  R: between 1423 and 1474, probably later in the period (source of Sabinus’ editio princeps, 1474) Vatican City, Reginensis Latinus 1994 (books 14 to 26 only). Digitisation.   

 

E.    Renaissance florilegia

 

15.  Excerpta, especially on geography, 1455/1465 (Pomponio Leto, from N). Vatican City, Vaticanus Latinus 7190, 104r-123v. Digitisation. For the identification of the copyist, see A. Bargagna, ‘Gli excerpta ammianei del Vat. Lat. 7190 e uno sguardo sullo studio pomponiano delle Res Gestae’, Sileno 47 (2021), 9-47.

16. Excerpta with ‘Summa rerum sex Caesarum ex Ammiano Marcellino, s. XV, Padua (Marco Lucio Fazini, Padua), Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile MS. 288, 112r-135r.

Editions of Ammianus Marcellinus

 

1.    S = Sabinus, Rome, 1474. Sabinus, Angelus, Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum liber quartusdecimus. Rome: Georgius Sachsel and Bartholomaeus Golsch, June 7, 1474. Books 14-26 only. Digitisation. 

      Highlight: quite how bad the text is. 

2.     B = Castellus, Bologna, 1517. Ammiani Marcellini opus castigatissimu(m) nuper a Petro Castello instauratum omni cura ac diligentia, ab infinitimis errorum monstris enixissimo labore vindicatum et multa quae hactenus desiderabantur ad professorum utilitaem sunt addita. Bononiae: Ammianum Marcellinum historicum typis excussoribus impressit Hieronymus de Benedictis Bononiensis …, 1517. Books 14-26 only. Digitisation.

      Highlight: the recherché hendecasyllabic poem written for the frontispiece by Giovanni Battista Pio. Pio's involvement and the choice of marginal keywords make it clear that Ammianus was of interest for his exotic vocabulary.

 

3.     b1 = ‘Erasmus’, Basel, 1518 (in fact the responsibility of Beatus Rhenanus). Ex recognitione Des. Erasmi Roterodami C. Suetonius Tranquillus. Dion Cassius Nicaeus. Aelius Spartianus. Iulius Capitolinus. Aelius Lampridius Vulcatius Gallicanus V.C. Trebellius Pollio. Flavius Vopiscus Syracusius. Quibus adiuncti sunt Sex. Aurelius Victor. Eutropius. Paulus Diaconus. Ammianus Marcellinus. Pomponius Laetius Ro. Io. Bap. Egnatius Venetus. Basileae: Apud Iohannem Frobenium, 1518. pp. 564-768: books 14-26 only; reprints B with few changes. The copy linked to here was given by Froben to the Augsburg humanist Konrad Peutinger. Digitisation.  

 

4.     b2 = Reprint of ‘Erasmus’ edition, Cologne, 1527. Ex recognitione Des. Erasmi Roterodami, C. SuetoniusTranquillus. Dion Cassius Nicaeus. Aelius Spartianus. Iulius Capitolinus. Aelius Lampridius Vulcatius Gallicanus V.C. Trebellius Pollio. Flavius Vopiscus Syracusius. Quibus adiuncti sunt Sex. Aurelius Victor. Eutropius. Paulus Diaconus. Ammianus Marcellinus. Pomponius Laetius Ro. Io. Bap. Egnatius Venetus. Coloniae: In aedibus Eucharij Cervicorni, 1527. pp. 429-584: books 14–26 only. Digitisation.

 

5.     A = Accursius (Augsburg, 1 April 1533): Accursius, Mariangelus, Ammianus Marcellinus a Mariangelo Accursio mendis quinque millibus purgatus, & libris quinque auctus ultimis, nunc primum ab eodem inventis. Augustae Vindelicorum: In Aedibus Silvani Otmar, 1533. Books 14-31. Digitisation. 

      

      Highlights: The editio princeps of books 27-31! Accursius' claim to have corrected 5000 errors from Castellus' edition (which may not be far off); the copyright in the name of the Pope, the Emperor, and the Republic of Venice.

6.     G = Sigismundus Gelenius (Basel, 1533): Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum Libri XVII Quorum Postremi IIII. Nunc Primum Excusi, in Omnia quam antehac emendatiora. Annotationes Des. Erasmi & Egnatii cognitu dignae. C. Suetonius Tranquillus. Dion Cassius. Aelius Spartianus. Iulius Capitolinus. Aelius Lampridius. Vulcatius Gallicanus. Trebellius Pollio. Flavius Vopiscus. Herodianus Politiano interp.  Sex. Aurelius Victor. Pomponius Laetus. Io. Baptista Egnatius. Ammianus Marcellinus quatuor libris auctus. Cum indicibus copiosis. Basileae: In Officina Frobeniana, 1533. Books 14–30.9.6 of Ammianus are found on pp. 545–786. Digitisation.

      Highlights: Gelenius' textual acuity; Froben's preface on p. 546, explaining how they borrowed the Hersfeld manuscript (M) from the Abbot and used to it to restore numerous passages; the long passage of Greek missing from V and all surviving manuscripts - the largest of the many additions introduced from the now lost parts of M - on p. 598.

      

 

7.     Robertus Stephanus (Robert Estienne) (Paris, 1544) Ammiani Marcellini Rerum gestarum libri XVIII à decimoquarto ad trigesimum primum. nam XIII priores desiderantur. Quanto vero castigatior hic scriptor nunc prodeat, ex Hieronymi Frobenii epistola, quam hac de causa addimus, cognosces. Librum trigesimum primum qui in exemplari Frobeniano non habetur, adiecimus ex codice Mariangeli Accursii. Parisiis: Ex officina Rob. Stephani typographi Regij, 1544. A reprint of Gelenius, with book 31 added from Accursius (chapter 30.10 was left out). Digitisation.  

 

8.     G2 = Gelenius’ second edition, Basel 1546. Vitae Caesarum quarum scriptores hi C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Dion Cassius, Aelius Spartianus, Iulius Capitolinus, Aelius Lampridius, Vulcatius Gallicanus, Trebellius Pollio, Flavius Vopiscus, Herodianus, Sex. Aurelius Victor, Pomponius Laetus, Io. Baptista Egnatius, Eutropius libri X integritati pristinae redditi, Ammianus Marcellinus longe alius quam antehac unquam. Annotationes D. Erasmi Rot. & Baptistae Egnatij in vitas Caess. Accesserunt in hac editione Velleii Paterculi libri II ab innumeris denuo vendicati erroribus, addito Indice copiosissimo. Basileae: Froben, 1546. This, like subsequent editions mentioned, contains all 18 books: from pp. 473-681. Digitisation.

Highlight: the little known fact, observed by Guy Sabbah in his Budé edition of books 29-31, that many vulgate corrections of the text usually attributed to Lindenbrog (1609) were in fact made in this edition. The next editor (i.e. I) will have to take this into account. 

 

9.     Gryphius, Lyon 1552. Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum libri decem et octo. Lugd.: Apud Seb. Gryphium, 1552. Digitisation. 

 

10.  Henricus Stephanus, Geneva, 1568. Varii historiae romanae scriptores, partim Graeci, partim Latini, in unum velut corpus redacti, De rebus gestis ab Urbe condita usque ad imperii Constantinopolin translati tempora. 4 vols. Excudebat Henricus Stephanus, 1568. Digitisation. 

 

11.  Syllberg, Frankfurt, 1588. Sylburg, Friedrich. Historiae Augustae scriptores latini minores; qui Augustorum, necnon et Caesarum tyrannorumque in Romano imperio vitas ad posteritatem litterarum monumentis propagarunt: Suetonius Tranquillus: Aelius Spartianus: Iulius Capitolinus:Vocatius Gallicanus: Aelius Lampridius: Trebellius Pollio: Flavius Vopiscus: Ammianus Marcellinus. Adiecti sunt et recentiores historiae continuatores; Pomponius Laetus, Ioan. Baptista Egnatius. Item Ausonii Burdeg. epigrammata in Caesares romanos: Imperatorum catologus: Romanae urbis descriptio. Additae in eosdem adnotationes Ioannis Baptistae Egnatii, et Erasmi Roterodami; cum Henrici Glareani et Theodori Pulmani adnotationibus in Suetonium. Ad haec graecorum allegantur, interpretatio nova: et rerum verborum notatu digniorum Index amplissimus: opera Friderici Sylburgii. Tomus alter. Francofurdi: Apud Andreae Wecheli heredes, Claudium Marnium and Ioan. Aubrium, 1588. Ammianus is on pp. 2.304-518. Digitisation. 

 

12.  Le Preux, Lyon, 1591. Ammiani Marcellini Rerum sub Impp. Constantio, Iuliano, Ioviano, Valentiniano et Valente, per xxvj annos gestarum historia, libris XVIII comprehensa, qui e xxxj hodie supersunt. Cui nunc primum accesserunt breviaria singulis libris praefixa. Perpetuae ad marginem Notae morales ac politicae. Chronologia Marcelliniana, seu Temporum supputatio, ab Imperio Nervae usque ad Valentis obitum. instar brevis alicuius Supplementi xiiij priorum librorum, qui temporis iniuria perierunt. Gnomonologia Marcelliniana. Orationum et Rerum insignium Index. Lugduni: Apud Franciscum Le Preux, 1591.  Digitisation. 

Highlight: The first edition to contain chapter headings: see G. Kelly, ‘Adrien de Valois and the Chapter Headings of Ammianus Marcellinus’, CP 104 (2009), 233-242 (available here).

 

13.  Le Preux, Lyon, 1600. Ammiani Marcellini Rerum sub Impp. Constantio, Iuliano, Ioviano, Valentiniano et Valente, per xxvj annos gestarum historia, libris XVIII comprehensa, qui e xxxj hodie supersunt. Cui nunc primum accesserunt breviaria singulis libris praefixa. Perpetuae ad marginem Notae morales ac politicae. Chronologia Marcelliniana, seu Temporum supputatio, ab imperio Nervae usque ad Valentis obitum. instar brevis alicuius Supplementi xiiij priorum librorum, qui temporis iniuria perierunt. Gnomonologia Marcelliniana. Orationum et Rerum insignium Index. Lugduni: Apud Franciscum Le Preux, 1600. A reprint of the 1591 edition. Digitisation. 

 

14.  The Geneva Corpus, 1609. Historiae Romanae Scriptores Latini Veteres, Qui Extant Omnes, Qui Regum, Consulum, Caesarum Res gestas ab urbe condita continentes: nunc primum in unum redacti corpus, duobus Tomis distinctum copiosissimóque non vero modò, sed etiam verborum & phraseωn notatu digniorum indice, locupletatum: in quo non historici solum, verùm etiam Iurisconsulti, Politici, Medici, Mathematici, Rhetores, Grammatici, quin et theologi atque adeo pene omnium disciplinarum Professores, quod usibus ipsorum inservire queat, invenient. 2 vols. Aureliae Allobrogum: Petrus de la Roviere, 1609. For Ammianus see volume 2, pp. 411-556. Digitisation. 

 

15.  Friedrich Lindenbrog, Hamburg, 1609. Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum Qui De XXXI. Supersunt Libri XVIII. Ad fidem MS. & veterum Codd. recensiti, et Observationibus illustrati ex bibliotheca Fr. Lindenbrogi. Hamburgi: Ex Bibliopolio Frobeniano, 1609. Digitisation.

Highlight: the first really detailed and scholarly annotations

 

16.  Janus Gruterus, Hannover, 1611. Historiae Augustae Scriptores Latini minores, A Iulio fere Caesare ad Carolum Magnum: L. Annaeus Florus. Velleius Paterculus. C. Suetonius Tranquillus. Aelius Spartianus. Iulius Capitolinus. Vulcatius Gallianus. Aelius Lampridius. Trebellius Pollio. Flavius Vopiscus. Ammianus Marcellinus. Aurelius Victor. Paulus Diaconus. Landulphus Sagax. Iornandes, &c. Priores quidem, ex optimâ cuiusque Editione, Comparati Confirmatique ad codices MSS. Bibliothecae Palatinae: Posteriores verò Mille Locis Emendati Suppleti operâ Jani Gruteri Cuius etiam additae Notae. Hanoviae: Impensis Claudii Marnii heredum …, 1611. Ammianus on pp. 453-691. Digitisation and Notes (starts with new pagination after p. 127): 

Highlight: the second edition to divide into chapters with headings, on a different principle to Le Preux.

17.  Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn, Leiden, 1632. Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum Quae extant. M. Boxhorn Zuerius Recensuit et Animadversionibus illustravit. Historiae augustae scriptorum minorum latinorum, 4. Lugduni Batavorum: Ex officinâ Joannis Maire, 1632. Digitisation.   

 

18.  Henricus Valesius (Henri de Valois), Paris, 1636. Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum Qui De XXXI. Supersunt Libri XVIII. Ex MS. Codicibus emendati ab Henrico Valesio & Annotationibus illustrati. Adjecta sunt Excerpta de gestis Constantini nondum edita. Parisiis: Apud Joannem Camusat …, 1636. Digitisation. 

Highlight: the scholarly brilliance of de Valois' annotations.

 

19.  Hadrianus Valesius (Adrien de Valois), Paris, 1681. Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum Qui de XXXI. Supersunt, Libri XVIII. ope MSS. codicum emendati a Henrico Valesio, et auctioribus Adnotationibus illustrati. Necnon Excerpta vetera de Gestis Constantini et Regum Italiae. Editio Posterior, Cui HadrianusValesius, Historiographus Regius, Fr. Lindenbrogii JC in eumdem Historicum ampliores Observationes, et Collectanea Variarum Lectionum adjecit; et beneficio codicis Colbertini Ammianum multis in locis emendavit, Notisque explicuit: Disceptationem suam de Hebdomo, ac Indicem rerum memorabilium subjunxit. Praefixit et Praefationem suam, ac Vitam Ammiani à Claudio Chiffletio JC compositum. Parisiis: Ex Officina Antonii Dezallier …, 1681. Digitisation. 

Highlights: Further afterthoughts from Henri de Valois, edited and supplemented by his younger brother, also a great scholar. The edition that introduced the chapter divisions and headings still in use (see G. Kelly, ‘Adrien de Valois and the Chapter Headings of Ammianus Marcellinus’, CP 104 (2009), 233-242 here). 

 

20. Jacobus Gronovius, Leiden, 1693. Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum, Qui de XXXI Supersunt, Libri XVIII. Ope MSS. codicum emendati ab Frederico Lindenbrogio & Henrico Hadrianoque Valesiis cum eorundem integris Observationibus & Annotationibus, Item Excerpta vetera de Gestis Constantini et Regum Italiae. Lugduni Batavorum: Apud Petrum van der Aa, 1693. Digitisation.

      Highlights: The notes of his predecessors and himself are conveniently laid out at the bottom of the page. There are splendid illustrations of the battle of Strasbourg and the siege of Amida (below).