Editing Orosius (section)

=== Optimism and pessimism ===
Another interesting point is the pessimism with which Orosius deals with certain themes and the exaggerated optimism with which he refers to others. In general he is pessimistic about anything to do with paganism or the past and optimistic regarding Christianity and his present, which is remarkable given the difficult times that he was living in.<ref name="torres63">Torres Rodríguez, Casimiro, "Paulo Orosio…", p. 63.</ref>

These characteristics infuse all the others, it is particularly noticeable in his narration when he places a special emphasis on the suffering of the defeated,<ref name="torres65">Torres Rodríguez, Casimiro, "Paulo Orosio…", p. 65.</ref> and the terrors of war.<ref name="alonso377">Alonso Ñúñez, José Miguel, "La metodología…", p. 377.</ref>  This characteristic can clearly be attributed to the influence of Augustine, as Orosius is showing us the two sides of a coin in the purest style of Augustinian dualism.<ref name="torres64">Torres Rodríguez, Casimiro, "Paulo Orosio…", p. 64.</ref>

Orosius is thereby able to present the past as a series of adversities with concrete examples, from [[Flood myth|Noah's flood]] to the shipwrecking of ships in the Mediterranean Sea, and the future as something positive despite the reality of the times in which he lived.<ref name="torres64"/>

In order to follow a narrative of suffering and tragedy he often concentrated on defeats, which was different from the usual Roman historiography which normally gave pre-eminence to victories.<ref name="torres65"/>  However, from a historiographical point of view this approach led to some inconsistencies, as, in order to bring the reader round to his point of view, Orosius sometimes described [[myth]]s and [[legend]]s as if they were historic fact.<ref name="torres66">Torres Rodríguez, Casimiro, "Paulo Orosio…", p. 66.</ref>

Another traditional criticism of Orosius's work relates to this dichotomy of pessimism/optimism, which often causes him to offer a narrative that in many ways lacks an objective viewpoint.<ref name="torres68">Torres Rodríguez, Casimiro, "Paulo Orosio…", p. 68.</ref> This divides historians into those that view him as biased and others that reject this criticism and justify his approach by saying that Orosius viewed history in the same way as Christians view life.<ref name="torres68"/> Put another way, his approach is justified as being founded in the author's Providentialist character.<ref name="rabade377"/>