Paulus Orosius, a ‘disciple’ of Augustine of Hippo and a presbyter from the Iberian peninsula, was an able apologist and historian, although in recent criticism his reputation has suffered in comparison with that of his patron. The Historiae adversus paganos, composed around ad 417, is a secular history from a Christian perspective, and was unique for its time. The work was enormously influential in the medieval period, becoming a standard point of reference for antiquity and a model for imitation by subsequent authors. The object of Peter Van Nuffelen's excellent book, which is an important contribution to the current renaissance in Orosian studies, is to re-evaluate the Historiae, situating it in the context of history-writing in the fourth and fifth centuries ad, and the rhetorical education of the period (p. 1). Van Nuffelen proposes to take Orosius seriously as a writer of history and to re-place the text within late antique historiography, a tradition fully continuous with that of ‘classical’ antiquity (p. 24). In eight rich chapters, van Nuffelen surveys rhetoric and the preface; the fall of Rome; exempla and rhetoric; the sources used for the Historiae; truth, rhetoric and emotion; metaphors and panegyric in the Historiae; universalism and the barbarian; and the difference that Christianity makes.

Any person interested in Orosius and the Historiae, or rhetoric in the ancient world, will surely find this book immensely useful and stimulating. It is lucid and easily accessible, and excellent signposting is sustained throughout. But the book's brevity – 206 pages excluding the bibliography and indices – inevitably necessitates presupposition. Considering the centrality of ‘rhetoric’ to the book's argument it is a shame that van Nuffelen does not engage with this concept on its own terms, expecting it to be self-evident and already defined for the reader, and explaining it only in opposition to the more traditional theological approach which he eschews (p. 9).

Van Nuffelen's sensible and measured scholarship avoids unsubstantiated claims and is evidence-based, offering original thinking on the Historiae. His broad knowledge of Greek as well as Latin sources across the ancient world allows the citation of interesting and useful comparisons in the footnotes, which provide a treasure-trove of information. His familiarity with numerous modern languages enables engagement with a wide range of secondary literature, particularly German scholarship. The extensive and up-to-date bibliography is a valuable resource for the study of Orosius.

Van Nuffelen firmly rejects naive and overly optimistic views of Orosius – his revisionist argument does not ‘aim at catapulting him [Orosius] among the stars of late antique literature’ (p. 24). Indeed, it is possible to argue that, in his caution, van Nuffelen does not sufficiently deconstruct the traditional value judgements that scholars have used to suppress or condemn the Historiae. Van Nuffelen. sees it as understandable that within the study of late antique historiography more attention has been given to Ammianus (pp. 13, 61–2). Van Nuffelen does not escape the commonplace observation that the Historiae is deficient as a ‘factual’ source for the early fifth century. Whilst it is true that Orosius does not provide an objective, dated and detailed account of events that occurred during his lifetime, to condemn the work as substandard on this account risks misunderstanding the text. Although van Nuffelen recognises that this deficiency should not be explained by a lack of ability on the part of the author, he does not dismiss this condemnation as a limited and subjective value judgement that is firmly embedded in an ideology of historicism – that texts from antiquity are useful only insofar as they allow us accurately to reconstruct a narrative of the past.

The final chapter offers van Nuffelen's most challenging thesis. His approach to the text as historical and rhetorical rather than theological is presented in binary terms. This is extended to the opposition between the thought of Augustine and Eusebius, and to the question of which of these two authorities exercised the most influence on Orosius. In order to align Orosius firmly within the Augustinian camp van Nuffelen dramatically downplays the importance of the Roman Empire, a position not reconcilable with the ‘Eusebianism’ often identified in the Historiae: according to van Nuffelen the Roman Empire is simply a tool of God, stripped of any real force or impact in history (pp. 152, 143 n. 46). Van Nuffelen argues that ‘secular history is thus devalued in favour of ecclesiastical history’ (p. 152). Van Nuffelen sees Orosius' view of history as ecclesiastical, with the Church occupying the prime role as the agent of historical change (p. 189). But the Historiae is not concerned with the institution of the Christian Church; only when establishing the error of heterodoxy, specifically Arianism, does Orosius explicitly engage with the notion and language of ‘the Church’ (7.33.17–19). The Historiae is organised in geo-political terms, specifically through a series of empires, with the Roman Empire as the culmination. Whilst the perspective is firmly Christian, secular events are given prominence over ecclesiastical affairs. Van Nuffelen's minimising of the significance of Rome therefore overstates the case (see pp. 190–1). Although Orosius does claim as part of his apologetic that eternal life is ultimately what matters and that the earthly life is only temporary, this is not stressed as much as the importance of a Christian Roman empire and the secular authority of a Christian emperor. To see Orosius as ‘decentring’ Roman history in favour of church history, as van Nuffelen does, is difficult to reconcile with the statement of Christian Roman nationalism found in the Historiae at 5.2.

This is an important book which merits a large and serious readership. The Historiae is engaged with as a deserved subject of scrutiny, and the author's approach avoids exaggeration or pretention. There is little filler in the work; indeed, each chapter is rich enough to function independently. Van Nuffelen's methodology of re-contextualising the Historiae through the subject of ancient rhetoric is the main aim of the work and is convincingly achieved.