In a previous chapter, Simon Price considers the Latin apologists who wrote before the accession of a Christian emperor. He notes that they exhibit certain generic similarities, employing as they do a range of arguments which, far from being original or peculiar to Christianity, were the stock-in-trade of pagan rhetoric. He also shows that, despite their African origins and the indifference of their Greek contemporaries, they are all aware of being in some sense Roman, though they cannot be said to speak of Rome in accents of conventional patriotism. All these traits can be discerned again in the last two authors who regarded the defence of Latin Christendom as their principal occupation; yet Arnobius and Lactantius, though by far the most voluminous, are also the most neglected of the tribe. This, no doubt, is because, unlike their forerunners, they tell the historian little of their own times, and they offer even less to the theologian, who can at least read Tertullian and Cyprian with an eye to the development of dogma. A kinder way of putting this is to say that their endeavours are essentially—one could even say, quintessentially—rhetorical; I shall argue here that both, in their capacity as teachers, chose to flaunt their education and play host to a wider variety of arguments, in order to rob the pagans of that arsenal which Greek writers had employed in their attacks on Christianity, and to make their readers ask themselves what it is to be a citizen of Rome.