four chapters reconsider what is known about the background of its author and what this might tell us about his work (including the suggestion that Ammianus' language reveals him to have been, like Julian, an apostate Christian); four chapters survey Ammianus' tecniques of characterization and his views of women, eunuchs, and emperors (including, of course, Julian; (...)). In the last two chapters B. reconstructs Ammianus' overall conception of the course of Roman history, and compares his approach to writing history to that of Tacitus and of Macaulay. The key to understanding the work is seen to be Ammianus' overt paganism and carefully concealed hostility to Christianity. (...) B. constantly compares Ammianus' version of events to those of other accounts and identifies deliberate distortions. Finally, B. offers a theory of the overall conception and aim of the work. Ammianus presents an alternative version of history to that of christian triumphalism' a deeply pessimistic interpretation, in which the old religion survives despite everything but is betrayed by the failure of Julian to heed the omens which warned against his expedition to Persia. Rome's decline, encapsulated in the disaster at Adrianople, is shown to be a direct consequance of the actions of Constantine in converting to Christianity and reviving hostilities with Persia. This picture of Ammianus as anti-Christian polomicist, drawing on his literary talent to disguise his attacks and present the appearance of objectivity, is often persuasive and certainly thought-provoking. It is unfotunate that B. does not stick to arguining this case, but instead tries to offer a complete analysis of the Res Gestae. The resulting work is immensely learned, and makes contributions to numerous ongoing debates on Ammianus, but its most important argument is often obscured or neglected.' (NEVILLE MORLY in The classical Review (New Series), 2000, pp.85-86).