The Ecclesiastical history of the Eunomian Philostorgius was composed at some point between 425 and 440. Of a clearly anti-Nicene bias, it has not been preserved in full. Because of Byzantine scholarly interest, traces of its use can be found in a wide range of later Greek texts. Of these, a long summary by Photius, preserved outside the Bibliotheca, holds pride of place. In 1913 J. Bidez published the standard edition, of which P. Amidon made an English translation which was published in 2007. Philostorgius studies are flourishing at the moment. The volume under review is the Sources Chrétiennes edition, whereas B. Bleckmann and M. Stein are preparing a completely new edition, including re-editions of the fragments, a German translation and a commentary. The present volume reprints the second edition (F. Winkelmann, 1981) of the Bidez version, but has inserted the fragments discovered by Bidez himself after 1913 at their appropriate place in the collection. With its accurate French translation, the Sources Chrétiennes edition will be a crucial tool for the study of Philostorgius and church history in general. Philostorgius deserves more attention. His history is full of interesting details, including material on secular events, besides revelling in sheer fantasy. Indeed, Philostorgius has an outspoken tendency to appropriate leading figures of the past for his faith and to group all enemies of Eunomianism as homoousians. As such, it informs on the perception and construction of the past by a minority group in the Theodosian Empire. An uninformed reader of Philostorgius is bound to be led astray, but the introductory chapters help him to contextualise the work by introducing Eunomian theology and explaining Philostorgius' use of sources. The most innovative part of that introduction is by Doris Meyer, who highlights the remarkable interest Philostorgius has in scientific debates and demonstrates how this is to be explained by the theological polemics against paganism. She also underscores the highly rhetorical style that shimmers through the later summaries. Thanks to her work, we now have access to a more complex intellectual portrait of Philostorgius. The danger in any collection of fragments, and particularly of the ones that are well done (as is this one), is that readers may be tempted not to treat Philostorgius as a fragmentary author. This is all the more the case if one possesses, as is the case for Philostorgius, a substantial amount of text, even if it is just a fraction of the original. Yet the reader should still do a careful work of comparison, as becomes clear, for example, by reading how the Life of Constantine in Codex Angelicus A (=F1.6c) reworks Philostorgius. I noticed only a few slips: ‘16 moins équilibrée’, read ‘plus’; p. 52: ‘sur la victoire de l'usurpateur Jean’, read ‘la défaite’; p. 177 at 1.8: wrong heading (‘Avis sur l'oeuvre d'Eusèbe de Césarée’); p. 251: in translation of F4b add ‘par des paroles’; p. 283 n. 5 the reference to Nicetas seems missing; p. 304 n. 1: I fail to see how the anonymous Homoean historian turns the usurper Magnentius into a pagan; p. 355 n. a is missing: p. 408 n. 1 read ‘Cyril’ instead of ‘Cyrill’; p. 491 n. 1 regarding 10.2: the logic of this passage is different from what the note suggests. The argument that Arius renders God composite is based on the idea imputed to him that man cannot grasp God fully. The underlying reasoning is that, if one does not grasp God fully, one grasps a part of him and hence he must be composed of parts; p. 491 regarding 10.3: the translation is slightly misleading: the point is that the first say that the Father and the Son are both God according to their capacity to be prescient. These are mere minor points. With this edition, Sources Chrétiennes has again proved itself to be the leading series for accessible, high-quality editions and translations of ancient church historians. The team around the late lamented Jean-Marc Prieur is to be thanked for their achievement.