Rousseau, ed., A Companion to Late Antiquity; Scott Johnson, ed., Handbook to Late Antiquity
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
27 The reign of Diocletian is poorly documented, and has to be understood mainly on the
basis of documentary and numismatic evidence: see Alan K. Bowman, ‘Diocletian and the
fi rst tetrarchy, A.D. 284–305)’, in Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron,
eds., The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193–337, Cambridge Ancient History XII (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2005), 67–89; Simon Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial
Pronouncements and Government, AD 284–324, rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000).
28 For instance, Peter Garnsey and Caroline Humfress, The Evolution of the Late Antique World
(Cambridge: Orchard Academic, 2001); Clifford Ando, The Matter of the Gods. Religion and the
Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). Constantine’s early publicity
explicitly emphasized descent from the third-century emperor Claudius Gothicus (268–
70); on the model provided by Aurelian (270–75) see Alaric Watson, Aurelian and the Third
Century (London: Routledge, 1999). On the historiography of the third-century ‘crisis’, see
L. De Blois, ‘The crisis of the third century A.D. in the Roman empire: a modern myth’, in
De Blois and J. Rich, eds., The Transformation of Economic Life under the Roman Empire (Amster-
dam: J.C. Gieben, 2002), 204–17.
29 T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981),
is a classic work which by rehabilitating the evidence of Eusebius of Caesarea, presents
Constantine as a fi rmly committed Christian, but disagreements continue; see now out of
a huge literature Noel Lenski, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); R. Van Dam, The Roman Revolution of Constan-
tine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). In sharp contrast with the favourable
accounts in Christian authors, Zosimus’ New History II preserves a very hostile pagan ver-
sion, claiming also that Constantine built new temples in Constantinople.
30 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I. 41–42; the so-called ‘Edict of Milan’, declaring religious tol-
eration and issued in connection with an uneasy meeting in Milan in the winter of 312–13
between Constantine and Licinius, promised religious toleration (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History 10.5.2–14), but was hardly an innovation, since the persecution of Christians had
already been called off by Galerius in 311 (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 8.17).
31 Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica I.6, 10. On the emperor’s invitation see also Eus., Life of
Constantine III.15 (commenting on the awe felt by the bishops at being invited to the impe-
rial palace and the drawn swords of the guards).
32 For Constantius see especially T.D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in
the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993).
33 Ammianus Marcellinus, Histories. 16.10. On Ammianus’ historical technique see Timothy
D. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca and London:
Cornell University Press, 1998) and Gavin Kelly, Ammianus Marcellinus, The Allusive Historian
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
34 Amm., Hist. 20.4.
35 See Polymnia Athanassiadi, Julian. An Intellectual Biography, rev. ed. (London: Routledge,
1992); Rowland Smith, Julian’s Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the
Apostate (London: Routledge, 1995); translated extracts with discussion, Samuel N.C. Lieu,
The Emperor Julian. Panegyric and Polemic, 2nd ed. (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
1992); Shaun Tougher, Julian the Apostate, Debates and Documents in Ancient History
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007).
36 Amm., Hist. 23.1.2.
37 Amm., Hist. 25.5.1–7; 7.5–11.
38 Amm., Hist. 25.9.12. For the Emperor Valens see Noel Lenski, Failure of Empire. Valens and
the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).
39 See the discussion in John Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London: Duckworth,
1989), 191–203.The challenger Procopius sought to mobilise his connection with the house
of Constantine (Amm., Hist. 26.7.10).
40 Amm., Hist. 29.3.9; 29.1.27.
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION