Jan den Boeft, Ph.D. (1970) in Latin, Leiden University, is emeritus Professor of Latin at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam and of Hellenistic Religions at Utrecht University. He has published on i.a. Ambrose, Augustine and Erasmus.Jan Willem Drijvers, Ph.D. (1989) in History, University of Groningen, is Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Groningen. He is author of i.a. Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City (Leiden 2004).Daniël den Hengst, Ph.D. (1981) in Latin, University of Amsterdam, is emeritus Professor of Latin at the University of Amsterdam. He has published on Late Antique Historiography.Hans Teitler, Ph.D. (1983) in Ancient History,Utrecht University, was formerly Senior Lecturer in Ancient History at Utrecht University. He is the author of Notarii and Exceptores (Amsterdam 1985).

The Dutch Ammianus commentary is a glorious example of collaborative scholarship. (…) Before any disagreements uttered in this review, it should be said that the achievement is magnificent, a model of linguistic, literary, and historical learning; this work will be consulted with profit for generations. And before a review focusing mainly on chronology and textual criticism, it should be emphasized that the authors’ coverage is wide-ranging—from the nuances of Latin particles through subtleties of characterization to detailed questions of topography—and the bibliography comprehensive.Gavin Kelly (Journal of Roman Studies 103, November 2013, pp 351 – 353)

Jan den Boeft, Ph.D. (1970) in Latin, Leiden University, is emeritus Professor of Latin at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam and of Hellenistic Religions at Utrecht University. He has published on i.a. Ambrose, Augustine and Erasmus.Jan Willem Drijvers, Ph.D. (1989) in History, University of Groningen, is Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Groningen. He is author of i.a. Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City (Leiden 2004).Daniël den Hengst, Ph.D. (1981) in Latin, University of Amsterdam, is emeritus Professor of Latin at the University of Amsterdam. He has published on Late Antique Historiography.Hans Teitler, Ph.D. (1983) in Ancient History,Utrecht University, was formerly Senior Lecturer in Ancient History at Utrecht University. He is the author of Notarii and Exceptores (Amsterdam 1985).

The Dutch Ammianus commentary is a glorious example of collaborative scholarship. (…) Before any disagreements uttered in this review, it should be said that the achievement is magnificent, a model of linguistic, literary, and historical learning; this work will be consulted with profit for generations. And before a review focusing mainly on chronology and textual criticism, it should be emphasized that the authors’ coverage is wide-ranging—from the nuances of Latin particles through subtleties of characterization to detailed questions of topography—and the bibliography comprehensive.Gavin Kelly (Journal of Roman Studies 103, November 2013, pp 351 – 353)

Jan den Boeft, Ph.D. (1970) in Latin, Leiden University, is emeritus Professor of Latin at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam and of Hellenistic Religions at Utrecht University. He has published on i.a. Ambrose, Augustine and Erasmus.Jan Willem Drijvers, Ph.D. (1989) in History, University of Groningen, is Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Groningen. He is author of i.a. Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City (Leiden 2004).Daniël den Hengst, Ph.D. (1981) in Latin, University of Amsterdam, is emeritus Professor of Latin at the University of Amsterdam. He has published on Late Antique Historiography.Hans Teitler, Ph.D. (1983) in Ancient History,Utrecht University, was formerly Senior Lecturer in Ancient History at Utrecht University. He is the author of Notarii and Exceptores (Amsterdam 1985).

The Dutch Ammianus commentary is a glorious example of collaborative scholarship. (…) Before any disagreements uttered in this review, it should be said that the achievement is magnificent, a model of linguistic, literary, and historical learning; this work will be consulted with profit for generations. And before a review focusing mainly on chronology and textual criticism, it should be emphasized that the authors’ coverage is wide-ranging—from the nuances of Latin particles through subtleties of characterization to detailed questions of topography—and the bibliography comprehensive.Gavin Kelly (Journal of Roman Studies 103, November 2013, pp 351 – 353)