The basic claim of Brian Gronewoller's book is that Augustine used rhetorical economy as the logical framework by which to explain God's arrangement of creation, history and evil. The intended consequence of his argument is a ‘new movement within the field of Augustine studies: that we must admit a new fountainhead of documentary evidence into our research on Augustine's theology – in terms of both influence and content’ (p. 5). Gronewoller frames his study as building upon several others that pay greater attention to the role of rhetoric in Augustine's theology and as a novel analysis that suggests rhetoric as a fourth wellspring in research of Augustine alongside philosophy, theology and exegesis.

The book breaks down into two parts consisting of five chapters overall followed by an epilogue. In the first part, Gronewoller intends to establish ‘foundations’. The first chapter introduces the notion of rhetorical economy (alongside related technical terminology), outlines existing scholarship on Augustine's use of rhetorical economy and argues that by the winter of 388/9 Augustine had incorporated rhetorical economy within his ‘scriptural hermeneutic’. Economy, Gronewoller suggests, is a subset of accommodation, the arrangement of particulars according to their fittingness with other elements of a text or speech (internal) and the occasion for the sake of persuading an audience (external). In the second chapter, Gronewoller argues that Augustine speaks of creation, history and divine activity by reference to the primary media of literary and rhetorical theory: the book and the speech. Gronewoller establishes that Augustine conceptualises creation and its history as a book from as early as 396 and as late as 430, conceives of divine activity as a speech in 409, and frames history as speech from 403 to 405. As a whole, the chapter concludes that Augustine envisions ‘pieces’ of creation and history as akin to the words of a book or speech; describes God as ‘arranging temporal things into the whole of history’ in parallel fashion to an orator arranging syllables in a speech; and characterises God's activity by means of the rhetorical concept of eloquence.

The second part of the book attempts to demonstrate more squarely the material impact of rhetorical economy upon Augustine's theology. Chapter iii argues that Augustine uses rhetorical economy to ‘justify the goodness of all creation and God's providence over all creation’ (p. 64) vis-à-vis the evil and fragmentation characteristic of human experience. Gronewoller intends this chapter to build upon Michael Cameron's demonstration that Augustine uses rhetorical economy in his arrangement (dispositio) of creation and history. The upshot of this chapter, Gronewoller intimates, is that rhetorical economy is the operative logic any time Augustine speaks of a complex arrangement of particulars into a whole.

Gronewoller turns in the fourth chapter to claim that Augustine defends his theology of history by reference to rhetorical economy as an accommodative principle. Gronewoller points out further instances in which Augustine draws upon rhetorical economy. First, before his priesthood Augustine already used rhetorical economy to defend the goodness of visible creation's temporality in the face of Manichaean dualism. Second, Gronewoller establishes that Augustine used rhetorical economy in the mid-to-late 390s to account for God's arrangement of human beings; God's ordering of history; and humans’ inability to grasp history's order or logic. Lastly, Gronewoller demonstrates Augustine's continued use of rhetorical economy to support his theology of history. Gronewoller also shows how Augustine uses it as the logical framework by which he makes sense of the different modes of worship (i.e. sacrifice) in the Old and New Testaments and explains God's inclusion of sinful human beings into history.

The final chapter considers the utility of rhetorical economy to Augustine's ‘theodicy’, his account of the goodness of God despite the presence of evil in creation. Gronewoller takes the two pillars of Augustine's theodicy to be his attribution of evil to the free will of rational creatures and his use of rhetorical economy to defend the universal scope of God's providence. Another noteworthy insight that Gronewoller identifies is Augustine's application of the notion of rhetorical fittingness (aptum) to God's ordering of all things across the history of creation.

Overall, Gronewoller's monograph successfully commends itself as a technical treatment of the concept of rhetorical economy in ancient rhetoric and in Augustine's theology. The broader significance of God's arrangement of Scripture, creation and history to Augustine's theological project is undeniable, as has been shown in enduring contributions by the likes of Michael Cameron, Robert Dodaro and Carol Harrison. But I also come away from this study with several questions. First, might a treatment of ‘economy’ in Augustine's theology not benefit from some consideration of the Pauline notion of οἰκονομία, a concept received in Latin with the same language used for rhetorical economy? Second, is Gronewoller right to say Augustine studies have so neglected the importance of rhetoric to Augustine's theology? While Gronewoller rightly identifies the major voices calling for greater attention to the rhetorical tradition, I remain unconvinced that Augustine scholars do not recognise this reality and draw it into the conversation when it is indeed pertinent. Furthermore, does Gronewoller provide sufficient warrant for his claim that rhetoric bears so much potential for illuminating Augustine's theology? Many of Gronewoller's discussions of rhetorical economy in Augustine's theology were effective in establishing the likelihood that he was applying the concept in parallel to how it functioned in its native context. But it was often unclear what explanatory power it lent besides suggesting a likely source domain. While there is of course value in that project, without showing why this background is more important than the exegetical or theological, or how it adds to these, it remains unclear to what extent Gronewoller has effectively demonstrated that Augustine's theology depends on rhetorical economy ‘in a consequential manner’ (for example at p. 97). Finally, I wonder if shifting all of the analytic attention to rhetorical economy actually distracts, if not detracts, from appreciating the larger philosophical and theological issues Augustine is negotiating as he uses it.

Despite these and other residual questions I have for Gronewoller, his analysis of rhetorical economy is clear, learned and, well, economical. Students of Augustine will benefit from engaging with this book if for no other reason than to hear the call not to neglect the importance of Augustine's rhetorical training for the interpretation of his theological writings.