Richard Flower makes a worthy addition to a fine series. His handsome volume complements his Emperors and bishops in late Roman invective (Cambridge 2013; rev. this Journal lv [2014], 878–80). There he defined the genre to which belong these exercises of calculated abuse and negative critique by Athanasius, Hilary and Lucifer. It is culled from classic literary models seasoned freshly with biblical allusions and exempla. But elastic: these invectives, united in their object (Constantius, ‘the AntiChrist’), are different in scope. Athanasius proceeds like a hostile political journalist reporting facts before inveighing violently; his piece is much the longest and certainly of most importance for the church-political as against the literary historian. Hilary argues with the emperor in a studied exercise of negative rhetoric. Lucifer was a menace to friends and foes but in particular to the church of Antioch where he multiplied the rifts in its much-riven body. A ‘radicalised’ pro-Nicene zealous for martyrdom or its reputation, like Shimei he cursed his sovereign at a safe distance. Athanasius wrote his piece, Flower concludes, after Constantius’ death; Hilary his, according to the majority vote as Flower records it, while the emperor was in life. (I am quoted as the only dissenting voice. My excuse: I did not think you should always doubt Jerome here, who, yes, sometimes made up things but had no reason I could see to do so in this case and was certainly much better placed to know than was I.) As for the inveighed against, it might be a useful exercise for close readers of texts to filter out of these invectives, under Flower's guidance, reluctant admission of Constantius’ achievements and his intentions. They could well begin with Hilary's chapter five where Constantius is called a ‘flattering persecutor’ and ‘AntiChrist’ who (I filter the language) does not invoke the full rigours of the law, is conciliatory, seeks the unity of the Church, suppresses heresy, assists the inferior clergy, builds churches and is a committed Catholic churchman. I supplement this with Constantius’ own description of his duties in the directive to bishops assembled at Rimini as reproduced by Hilary (Against Valens and Ursacius ii,11). I paraphrase: ‘the moral basis of law and the wellbeing of the Empire rest on the good order and discipline of the Church, as maintained through its bishops, which it is his duty to reinforce’. His duty as Christian emperor bound him to encourage and enforce the Church's unity, which is why he tried to get the bishops to agree in avoiding the divisive and novel word οὐσία in their creeds. He repudiated unlike in οὐσία without, I suggest, understanding its rationale (usefully explained to the disgusted Hilary and passed on, para 14 ad fin) and banished Aetius its proponent; he could not get the bishops to agree to anything without οὐσία in it. Hilary puts the case for the word at para 16. Constantius lost the argument. The word was here to stay. He had miscalculated disastrously, of course, but surely did not deserve the evil memory that these invectives encouraged. The inveighers, of course, had agendas of their own, as Flower makes plain. This is a good book; the translation accurate, the introduction concise without over-simplication, the notes adequate.