This is an important and stimulating volume that situates one of the seminal works of late antique Latin Christian historiography – the Historiae adversus paganos, which was written by the presbyter Paulus Orosius in 416/417 – within the mainstream of classical historiographical and rhetorical tradition. V.N. argues, generally persuasively, that rather than reading the Historiae as largely underpinned by theological and polemical concerns, the text deployed the full range of ‘rhetorical tools that classical historians used, with the ultimate aim of undermining the traditional glorious view of the Roman past’ (p. vii). On this interpretation, Orosius was not an innovator who rejected classical historiographical conventions in favour of a new-fangled form of Christian history-writing, but instead utilised the classical tradition better to put across his own interpretation of the past, present and future of the Roman-Christian world.

The book comprises an introduction and eight substantive chapters, each of which deals with either a key feature of classical historical rhetoric (e.g. the use of exempla, panegyric and history) or a central theme of the Historiae adversus paganos (e.g. its views of Rome, the barbarians, Christianity and paganism). There is a comprehensive bibliography, an index of sources and a short subject index. In what follows I will offer a brief summary of the contents and arguments of each chapter before commenting on the value of the volume as a whole.

The introduction outlines previous scholarship on the Historiae, which has not often taken a positive view of Orosius as either historian or theologian, his optimism jarring with modern scholars' knowledge of the impending dissipation of imperial Roman power in the West. Augustine is usually thought to have had a significant influence on Orosius and the relationship between the authors receives extensive coverage in the introduction, especially the extent to which the Historiae and the City of God were in any way related. V.N. suggests that scholarly obsession with the Augustine–Orosius nexus has led to an excessive focus on the historical theology of the latter and a failure to appreciate the Historiae on their own terms. V.N. then outlines his own approach to Orosius: to treat the Historiae as literature, through analysis of the rhetorical framework of the text, rather than theology. This discussion is related effectively to the ways in which other works of ancient and late antique literature, especially historiography, have been subjected to deconstructionist analyses. V.N. closes the introduction with sections that explore Orosius' biography, the intended audience of the Historiae and the supposed multiple redactions of the work.

Chapter 1, ‘Unexpected Pearls: Prefaces and the Rhetoric of Deference’, examines the prefaces of the Historiae and another of Orosius' works, a much shorter text to Augustine on the errors of the Priscillianists and the Origenists. V.N. demonstrates that the prefaces to both works make strategic use of Virgilian allusions. Such allusions were designed to boost Orosius' standing as an author and suggest strongly that he had received a high level of rhetorical training. This last point is particularly important because it helps to explain how (and why) classical rhetorical tropes can be found throughout the Historiae.

Chapter 2, ‘A Tale of Two Cities: Book 2 and the Fall of Rome’, follows up the Virgilian theme of the first chapter. The argument here is that the entirety of Book 2 of the Historiae is intended as an exploration of the potential fall of Rome, inspired by the events of 410 and patterned throughout on Virgil's description of the sack of Troy. The third chapter, ‘The Past as Literature: exempla and the Culture of Rhetoric’, provides, through a study of Book 4 of the Historiae, further evidence for Orosius' knowledge of and engagement in traditional rhetorical education. The twist here is that rather than use the past as a mine of positive examples, as classical rhetoricians were wont to do, Orosius deploys negative exempla to present a ‘true’ vision of the past. Chapter 4, ‘(Re)sources of Narrative’, argues against the conventional scholarly wisdom that in general Orosius relied on one source. V.N. suggests, through a close reading of the texts, that a key source was the exempla collection of Valerius Maximus and that in order to expand on the brief notices in his sources Orosius made extensive use of the technique of amplification.

In Chapter 5, ‘A Sense of the Past: the Truth of Rhetoric’, V.N. demonstrates that Orosius' attempts to undermine in his readers any rose-tinted view of the past by evoking an emotional response were based in well-established classical techniques as much as in Christian apologetic traditions. The sixth chapter, ‘A Past for a Present: on Metaphors and Panegyric’, examines Orosius' use of metaphors, conceptual models (especially the ‘four empire theory’) and panegyrical techniques. Chapter 7, ‘Beyond Rome: Universal History and the Barbarian’, shows that the Historiae were presented rhetorically as universal in order to destabilise the traditional Romano-centric vision of the past and that Orosius was flexible in his depiction of the barbarians: ‘the barbarian functions in the Historiae as a figure of contrast, much as he did in earlier Roman histories. Depending on the context of his narrative, Orosius can hence efface the distinction between barbarians and Romans or stylise pagan barbarians as the archenemies of the day’ (p. 22).

The book makes a convincing case for interpreting Orosius and his Historiae as products of a late Roman classical education. V.N. leaves little doubt that Orosius was able to deploy and manipulate rhetorical conventions and sources to put across his own particular vision of the past in order to influence the present. The findings of the book can thus be closely related to a whole range of recent works on late antique churchmen that have demonstrated just how classical they really were. One question remains open, however: if most, if not all, late antique Christian authors were deeply influenced by the classical tradition, even those who argued for its utter rejection, to what extent can we distinguish between Christian and classical identities, epistemologies and historiographies? This volume will hopefully inspire further studies of the relationship between late antique (and even early medieval) historiographers and the classical traditions and thus a better answer to both this and the question that serves as the title for V.N.'s eighth chapter: ‘What Difference Does Christianity Make?’