The title and subtitle here would be better reversed: this is a book in the first place about Jovinian and Jovinianism, and is all the better for it. That initial tight focus allows Hunter to place Jovinian and his ‘resistance to the ascetic ideal’ (p. 2) in the context of contemporary Christianity, orthodox and otherwise, and also to bring in a whole range of other material that might have become overwhelming if it were not so convincingly related to this single figure and the controversy he inspired. Following an illuminating excursus covering Jovinian's contested status in the Reformation and since, Hunter describes in turn Jovinian's particular beliefs and his social circle; the historical development of the ideas about celibacy and marriage which would come to a head in the Jovinianist controversy; and the rhetorical construction of heresy in late antiquity, both by Jovinian in his own polemics and, in the end successfully, by his doctrinal opponents. Hunter is particularly good on the attractions of asceticism for the aristocratic Christians of Rome, and on the persistent fear – articulated in accusations of Manichaeism and encratism – that the Church might find itself promoting a separate ascetic elite. For me, however, the most fascinating aspect of the book is the account in the final two chapters of the various responses to Jovinian's views, by which Siricius, Ambrose and Jerome – powerful enemies but unlikely allies – came to be united in their condemnation of the scriptura horrifica which denied any special place to ascetic discipline; and which led Augustine to attempt to steer between the two extremes in assigning a value both to celibacy and to ‘good’ Christian marriage. All these responses are handled with a welcome sensitivity: so that where it might seem at first sight that the Church had simply closed ranks against ‘Jovinianism’, Hunter instead brings out the different interests of Siricius (in church discipline) and Ambrose (in defending his own doctrine of Mary's ‘virginibus in partu’), and notes that the violence of Jerome's reply and the exaggerated care of Augustine's later comments reflect the extent to which Jovinian had identified a real weakness in the Christianity of his time. In the end it is impossible not to be convinced by Hunter's central contention, that Jovinian is to be understood not as a ‘laxist’ advocate of unrestrained immorality but as a sincere and serious thinker. These same questions would be asked and answered again, from Pelagius to Martin Luther and beyond; and Hunter is right to restore them to a central place in the history of Christian ideas.