Overview

This book offers the first English translation of the funerary speech for John Chyrsostom delivered by one of his former clergy in a city close to Constantinople in the autumn of 407 when news arrived of John’s death on a forced march in eastern Asia Minor. The speech is the earliest and fullest account of John’s activities as bishop of Constantinople between 397 and 404. It replaces the slightly later Historical Dialogue on John by Palladius as the prime source for John in Constantinople The translators are both Late Roman Historians, and their introduction and notes illustrate the importance of this new text, which was first edited critically and published as recently as 2007.

Full Product Details

9781846318870

Table of Contents

Reviews

It is widely recognised that the period of Graeco-Roman civilization that has attracted most attention from historians and classicists in recent decades has been Late Antiquity. This, however, has not prevented Barnes and Bevan from producing a valuable and original work. The book provides us with a translation of a coherent corpus of works on John Chrysostom, one of the most important Christian authors of Early Christianity and a figure vital to understanding the religious and cultural changes of Late Antiquity, and therefore constitutes a valuable addition to late antique studies. In addition to the translation of the funeral oration for John Chrysostom, a rhetorical piece that was composed by a close follower of John soon after his death in exile, the book offers a long and useful introduction to the translation and several appendixes. Since Chrysostom is one of the more well-known figures of the cultural and religious landscape of Late Antiquity, the introduction (pp. 1-5) contains little biographical data but rather emphasizes those aspects of John's life that were important to and influential in his career: from his early period as a monk in the mountains surrounding Antioch to his appointment as bishop of the capital of the Eastern part of the Empire (Constantinople); from preaching and advocating a simpler life-style to becoming entangled in imperial and political intrigues. These were the facets that constituted a controversial persona, a bishop who dared to confront earthly powers in order to defend the prevalence of the heavenly city to come. In this sense, the authors of the translation explore in detail the intricate relationship between John Chrysostom and the empress Eudoxia after the former became bishop of Constantinople. This complicated relationship remains obscure, as our main sources of information (the Church historians Socrates and Sozomenus, and Palladius-author of the Historical Dialogue on John) resorted to sermons and homilies allegedly composed by Chrysostom but which had in fact been invented. As for the text itself, Barnes and Bevan consider that the author composed this funeral oration in Nicaea or Nicomedia once news of John's death reached that part of the Empire (ca. 407/408). The encomiastic content of the oration was aimed at restoring John's reputation, which may be one of the reasons why the author closely followed Chrysostom's style-although as Barnes and Bevan point out, the anonymous author did not manage to attain the literary quality of a real work of John Chrysostom (pp. 5-9). Attention to the transmission of the funeral oration (either in manuscripts or modern editions) is one of the signatures of this work. It is noteworthy that Barnes and Bevan have devoted effort and long passages of the book to elucidating the authorship of the substantial corpus of works attributed to John Chrysostom. This is not gratuitous but indicative of two main issues: first, that the prestige of Chrysostom as orator made him (p. 2) the liveliest and most accomplished Greek orator since Demosthenes , hence an author whose style was imitated; second, that Barnes and Bevan have scrutinized what sources are authentic and relevant with regard to the composition of this oration, thus bringing to the light not only historical issues but also posing stylistic problems. The translation of the Funeral Oration is revealing of the literary Zeitgeist of late antique rhetoric, a discipline and literary genre that was undergoing a transitional period at the time this oration was composed. Formally indebted to pagan/Classical rhetorical strategies (see a collection of Classical topoi in chapters 1-5), the oration develops an apologetic programme in order to restore John's reputation. Thus, it is unsurprising that only a few passages (chapters 6-12) are dedicated to his formative period in Antioch. Conversely, his preaching activity in Constantinople-the city in which he acquired both enemies and notoriety- comprises chapters 13-27, in which John appears as peerless in more than one aspect: the content of his speeches, his involvement in city affairs and his ascetic lifestyle are dealt with in this section. From chapter 28 onwards, the oration becomes a catalogue of the misfortunes that the bishop suffered. As the anonymous author acknowledges in ch. 59, Since my subject involves both praise of our father and recrimination against those men . Those men were those who plotted against him: from the ubiquitous menace of the Devil to his numerous enemies within the Church and the imperial Court, the Funeral Oration is an account of the political and religious obstacles that Chrysostom had to overcome. In this context, the oration is thematically divided into two clearly separated sections: in the first, the chapters are devoted to the narration of Chrysostom's charitable deeds in the face of an unfavourable situation. In this sense, we are told that the support of the people and some elites (ch. 60-82) facilitated his return from his first exile. The second section is given over to attacks against contemporary figures that propitiated John's second exile-particularly after he refused to give up his Church (ch. 87). It is remarkable that this part of the oration reaches its climax (ch. 92-93) in a comparison in which Chrysostom suffers like Christ. His sacrifice is likened to Christ's crucifixion and the persecutions he had to endure are compared to those of the scribes and Pharisees. This Funeral Speech is complemented by the translation of a selection of letters written by Chrysostom during his second exile in order to (p. 123) illustrate John's political isolation and the reluctance of even those who had supported him before 20 June 404 to write to him in exile. This stands in sharp contrast to the willingness of many eastern provincials, who were not close to the imperial court and hence not subject to direct political pressure . After a prosopographical list of Chrysostom's selected addressees, thirty letters are translated in which the main leitmotif is Chrysostom's interest in and attempts to maintain his social and personal network. In addition to the long introduction and the translation of the abovementioned texts, the book contains numerous indexes, tables and appendices that help to frame the historical and biographical background of the composition of this oration. At the beginning of the volume, a chronology of John's life highlights the most important events of his life, particularly those related to his relationship with the imperial court at Constantinople. In the pages following the translations several appendices are provided: Photius' notice of the Council of the Oak; Theodoret's lost orations on John; Chrysostom's presence in the calendar of the Church of Constantinople -an important document that shows us to what extent his reputation was restored despite the fact that he had suffered two exiles; concordances to the Funerary Speech, to Palladius' editions of his Historical Dialogue, and to Chrysostom's letters to Olympias. Barnes and Bevan's work is praiseworthy and there is very little to argue against here. Only two pieces of information may require revision: first, on p. 1 it is taken for granted that Chrysostom was a pupil of the famous sophist Libanius of Antioch. In this context, the arguments of Prof. P.L. Malosse Jean Chrysostome a-t-il ete l' eleve de Libanios? (Phoenix 62, 2008, pp. 273-280) should be taken into account as his work suggests a re-evaluation of the literary evidence that has historically related Libanius and John Chrysostom. Second, there is only one paragraph, on page 6, which deals with the literary genre of the Funeral Speech. In a period in which rhetoric and literature were disciplines that reflected the atmosphere of those tumultuous times, further insights into the literary dimension of the speech would have been more than welcome. However, the contribution of Barnes and Bevan should be praised as they have added a truly valuable work to the field of late antique religious and historical studies by supplementing an accurate commentary on an important text with a scrupulous philological reading of the manuscripts and editions. ... the contribution of Barnes and Bevan should be praised as they have added a truly valuable work to the field of late antique religious and historical studies by supplementing an accurate commentary on an important text with a scrupulous philological reading of the manuscripts and editions.

It is widely recognised that the period of Graeco-Roman civilization that has attracted most attention from historians and classicists in recent decades has been Late Antiquity. This, however, has not prevented Barnes and Bevan from producing a valuable and original work. The book provides us with a translation of a coherent corpus of works on John Chrysostom, one of the most important Christian authors of Early Christianity and a figure vital to understanding the religious and cultural changes of Late Antiquity, and therefore constitutes a valuable addition to late antique studies. In addition to the translation of the funeral oration for John Chrysostom, a rhetorical piece that was composed by a close follower of John soon after his death in exile, the book offers a long and useful introduction to the translation and several appendixes. Since Chrysostom is one of the more well-known figures of the cultural and religious landscape of Late Antiquity, the introduction (pp. 1-5) contains little biographical data but rather emphasizes those aspects of John's life that were important to and influential in his career: from his early period as a monk in the mountains surrounding Antioch to his appointment as bishop of the capital of the Eastern part of the Empire (Constantinople); from preaching and advocating a simpler life-style to becoming entangled in imperial and political intrigues. These were the facets that constituted a controversial persona, a bishop who dared to confront earthly powers in order to defend the prevalence of the heavenly city to come. In this sense, the authors of the translation explore in detail the intricate relationship between John Chrysostom and the empress Eudoxia after the former became bishop of Constantinople. This complicated relationship remains obscure, as our main sources of information (the Church historians Socrates and Sozomenus, and Palladius-author of the Historical Dialogue on John) resorted to sermons and homilies allegedly composed by Chrysostom but which had in fact been invented. As for the text itself, Barnes and Bevan consider that the author composed this funeral oration in Nicaea or Nicomedia once news of John's death reached that part of the Empire (ca. 407/408). The encomiastic content of the oration was aimed at restoring John's reputation, which may be one of the reasons why the author closely followed Chrysostom's style-although as Barnes and Bevan point out, the anonymous author did not manage to attain the literary quality of a real work of John Chrysostom (pp. 5-9). Attention to the transmission of the funeral oration (either in manuscripts or modern editions) is one of the signatures of this work. It is noteworthy that Barnes and Bevan have devoted effort and long passages of the book to elucidating the authorship of the substantial corpus of works attributed to John Chrysostom. This is not gratuitous but indicative of two main issues: first, that the prestige of Chrysostom as orator made him (p. 2) the liveliest and most accomplished Greek orator since Demosthenes , hence an author whose style was imitated; second, that Barnes and Bevan have scrutinized what sources are authentic and relevant with regard to the composition of this oration, thus bringing to the light not only historical issues but also posing stylistic problems. The translation of the Funeral Oration is revealing of the literary Zeitgeist of late antique rhetoric, a discipline and literary genre that was undergoing a transitional period at the time this oration was composed. Formally indebted to pagan/Classical rhetorical strategies (see a collection of Classical topoi in chapters 1-5), the oration develops an apologetic programme in order to restore John's reputation. Thus, it is unsurprising that only a few passages (chapters 6-12) are dedicated to his formative period in Antioch. Conversely, his preaching activity in Constantinople-the city in which he acquired both enemies and notoriety- comprises chapters 13-27, in which John appears as peerless in more than one aspect: the content of his speeches, his involvement in city affairs and his ascetic lifestyle are dealt with in this section. From chapter 28 onwards, the oration becomes a catalogue of the misfortunes that the bishop suffered. As the anonymous author acknowledges in ch. 59, Since my subject involves both praise of our father and recrimination against those men . Those men were those who plotted against him: from the ubiquitous menace of the Devil to his numerous enemies within the Church and the imperial Court, the Funeral Oration is an account of the political and religious obstacles that Chrysostom had to overcome. In this context, the oration is thematically divided into two clearly separated sections: in the first, the chapters are devoted to the narration of Chrysostom's charitable deeds in the face of an unfavourable situation. In this sense, we are told that the support of the people and some elites (ch. 60-82) facilitated his return from his first exile. The second section is given over to attacks against contemporary figures that propitiated John's second exile-particularly after he refused to give up his Church (ch. 87). It is remarkable that this part of the oration reaches its climax (ch. 92-93) in a comparison in which Chrysostom suffers like Christ. His sacrifice is likened to Christ's crucifixion and the persecutions he had to endure are compared to those of the scribes and Pharisees. This Funeral Speech is complemented by the translation of a selection of letters written by Chrysostom during his second exile in order to (p. 123) illustrate John'author of the Historical Dialogue on John) resorted to sermons and homilies allegedly composed by Chrysostom but which had in fact been invented. As for the text itself, Barnes and Bevan consider that the author composed this funeral oration in Nicaea or Nicomedia once news of John's death reached that part of the Empire (ca. 407/408). The encomiastic content of the oration was aimed at restoring John's reputation, which may be one of the reasons why the author closely followed Chrysostom's style-although as Barnes and Bevan point out, the anonymous author did not manage to attain the literary quality of a real work of John Chrysostom (pp. 5-9). Attention to the transmission of the funeral oration (either in manuscripts or modern editions) is one of the signatures of this work. It is noteworthy that Barnes and Bevan have devoted effort and long passages of the book to elucidating the authorship of the substantial corpus of works attributed to John Chrysostom. This is not gratuitous but indicative of two main issues: first, that the prestige of Chrysostom as orator made him (p. 2) the liveliest and most accomplished Greek orator since Demosthenes , hence an author whose style was imitated; second, that Barnes and Bevan have scrutinized what sources are authentic and relevant with regard to the composition of this oration, thus bringing to the light not only historical issues but also posing stylistic problems. The translation of the Funeral Oration is revealing of the literary Zeitgeist of late antique rhetoric, a discipline and literary genre that was undergoing a transitional period at the time this oration was composed. Formally indebted to pagan/Classical rhetorical strategies (see a collection of Classical topoi in chapters 1-5), the oration develops an apologetic programme in order to restore John's reputation. Thus, it is unsurprising that only a few passages (chapters 6-12) are dedicated to his formative period in Antioch. Conversely, his preaching activity in Constantinople-the city in which he acquired both enemies and notoriety- comprises chapters 13-27, in which John appears as peerless in more than one aspect: the content of his speeches, his involvement in city affairs and his ascetic lifestyle are dealt with in this section. From chapter 28 onwards, the oration becomes a catalogue of the misfortunes that the bishop suffered. As the anonymous author acknowledges in ch. 59, Since my subject involves both praise of our father and recrimination against those men . Those men were those who plotted against him: from the ubiquitous menace of the Devil to his numerous enemies within the Church and the imperial Court, the Funeral Oration is an account of the political and religious obstacles that Chrysostom had to overcome. In this context, the oration is thematically divided into two clearly separated sections: in the first, the chapters are devoted to the narration of Chrysostom's charitable deeds in the face of an unfavourable situation. In this sense, we are told that the support of the people and some elites (ch. 60-82) facilitated his return from his first exile. The second section is given over to attacks against contemporary figures that propitiated John's second exile-particularly after he refused to give up his Church (ch. 87). It is remarkable that this part of the oration reaches its climax (ch. 92-93) in a comparison in which Chrysostom suffers like Christ. His sacrifice is likened to Christ's crucifixion and the persecutions he had to endure are compared to those of the scribes and Pharisees. This Funeral Speech is complemented by the translation of a selection of letters written by Chrysostom during his second exile in order to (p. 123) illustrate John'author of the Historical Dialogue on John) resorted to sermons and homilies allegedly composed by Chrysostom but which had in fact been invented. As for the text itself, Barnes and Bevan consider that the author composed this funeral oration in Nicaea or Nicomedia once news of John's death reached that part of the Empire (ca. 407/408). The encomiastic content of the oration was aimed at restoring John's reputation, which may be one of the reasons why the author closely followed Chrysostom's style-although as Barnes and Bevan point out, the anonymous author did not manage to attain the literary quality of a real work of John Chrysostom (pp. 5-9). Attention to the transmission of the funeral oration (either in manuscripts or modern editions) is one of the signatures of this work. It is noteworthy that Barnes and Bevan have devoted effort and long passages of the book to elucidating the authorship of the substantial corpus of works attributed to John Chrysostom. This is not gratuitous but indicative of two main issues: first, that the prestige of Chrysostom as orator made him (p. 2) the liveliest and most accomplished Greek orator since Demosthenes , hence an author whose style was imitated; second, that Barnes and Bevan have scrutinized what sources are authentic and relevant with regard to the composition of this oration, thus bringing to the light not only historical issues but also posing stylistic problems. The translation of the Funeral Oration is revealing of the literary Zeitgeist of late antique rhetoric, a discipline and literary genre that was undergoing a transitional period at the time this oration was composed. Formally indebted to pagan/Classical rhetorical strategies (see a collection of Classical topoi in chapters 1-5), the oration develops an apologetic programme in order to restore John's reputation. Thus, it is unsurprising that only a few passages (chapters 6-12) are dedicated to his formative period in Antioch. Conversely, his preaching activity in Constantinople-the city in which he acquired both enemies and notoriety- comprises chapters 13-27, in which John appears as peerless in more than one aspect: the content of his speeches, his involvement in city affairs and his ascetic lifestyle are dealt with in this section. From chapter 28 onwards, the oration becomes a catalogue of the misfortunes that the bishop suffered. As the anonymous author acknowledges in ch. 59, Since my subject involves both praise of our father and recrimination against those men . Those men were those who plotted against him: from the ubiquitous menace of the Devil to his numerous enemies within the Church and the imperial Court, the Funeral Oration is an account of the political and religious obstacles that Chrysostom had to overcome. In this context, the oration is thematically divided into two clearly separated sections: in the first, the chapters are devoted to the narration of Chrysostom's charitable deeds in the face of an unfavourable situation. In this sense, we are told that the support of the people and some elites (ch. 60-82) facilitated his return from his first exile. The second section is given over to attacks against contemporary figures that propitiated John's second exile-particularly after he refused to give up his Church (ch. 87). It is remarkable that this part of the oration reaches its climax (ch. 92-93) in a comparison in which Chrysostom suffers like Christ. His sacrifice is likened to Christ's crucifixion and the persecutions he had to endure are compared to those of the scribes and Pharisees. This Funeral Speech is complemented by the translation of a selection of letters written by Chrysostom during his second exile in order to (p. 123) illustrate John's political isolation and the reluctance of even those who had supported him before 20 June 404 to write to him in exile. This stands in sharp contrast to the willingness of many eastern provincials, who were not close to the imperial court and hence not subject to direct political pressure . After a prosopographical list of Chrysostom's selected addressees, thirty letters are translated in which the main leitmotif is Chrysostom's interest in and attempts to maintain his social and personal network. In addition to the long introduction and the translation of the abovementioned texts, the book contains numerous indexes, tables and appendices that help to frame the historical and biographical background of the composition of this oration. At the beginning of the volume, a chronology of John's life highlights the most important events of his life, particularly those related to his relationship with the imperial court at Constantinople. In the pages following the translations several appendices are provided: Photius' notice of the Council of the Oak; Theodoret's lost orations on John; Chrysostom's presence in the calendar of the Church of Constantinople -an important document that shows us to what extent his reputation was restored despite the fact that he had suffered two exiles; concordances to the Funerary Speech, to Palladius' editions of his Historical Dialogue, and to Chrysostom's letters to Olympias. Barnes and Bevan's work is praiseworthy and there is very little to argue against here. Only two pieces of information may require revision: first, on p. 1 it is taken for granted that Chrysostom was a pupil of the famous sophist Libanius of Antioch. In this context, the arguments of Prof. P.L. Malosse Jean Chrysostome a-t-il ete l' eleve de Libanios? (Phoenix 62, 2008, pp. 273-280) should be taken into account as his work suggests a re-evaluation of the literary evidence that has historically related Libanius and John Chrysostom. Second, there is only one paragraph, on page 6, which deals with the literary genre of the Funeral Speech. In a period in which rhetoric and literature were disciplines that reflected the atmosphere of those tumultuous times, further insights into the literary dimension of the speech would have been more than welcome. However, the contribution of Barnes and Bevan should be praised as they have added a truly valuable work to the field of late antique religious and historical studies by supplementing an accurate commentary on an important text with a scrupulous philological reading of the manuscripts and editions. Digressus 13, 32-36 ... the contribution of Barnes and Bevan should be praised as they have added a truly valuable work to the field of late antique religious and historical studies by supplementing an accurate commentary on an important text with a scrupulous philological reading of the manuscripts and editions. Digressus 13, 32-36

It is widely recognised that the period of Graeco-Roman civilization that has attracted most attention from historians and classicists in recent decades has been Late Antiquity. This, however, has not prevented Barnes and Bevan from producing a valuable and original work. The book provides us with a translation of a coherent corpus of works on John Chrysostom, one of the most important Christian authors of Early Christianity and a figure vital to understanding the religious and cultural changes of Late Antiquity, and therefore constitutes a valuable addition to late antique studies. In addition to the translation of the funeral oration for John Chrysostom, a rhetorical piece that was composed by a close follower of John soon after his death in exile, the book offers a long and useful introduction to the translation and several appendixes. Since Chrysostom is one of the more well-known figures of the cultural and religious landscape of Late Antiquity, the introduction (pp. 1-5) contains little biographical data but rather emphasizes those aspects of John's life that were important to and influential in his career: from his early period as a monk in the mountains surrounding Antioch to his appointment as bishop of the capital of the Eastern part of the Empire (Constantinople); from preaching and advocating a simpler life-style to becoming entangled in imperial and political intrigues. These were the facets that constituted a controversial persona, a bishop who dared to confront earthly powers in order to defend the prevalence of the heavenly city to come. In this sense, the authors of the translation explore in detail the intricate relationship between John Chrysostom and the empress Eudoxia after the former became bishop of Constantinople. This complicated relationship remains obscure, as our main sources of information (the Church historians Socrates and Sozomenus, and Palladius-author of the Historical Dialogue on John) resorted to sermons and homilies allegedly composed by Chrysostom but which had in fact been invented. As for the text itself, Barnes and Bevan consider that the author composed this funeral oration in Nicaea or Nicomedia once news of John's death reached that part of the Empire (ca. 407/408). The encomiastic content of the oration was aimed at restoring John's reputation, which may be one of the reasons why the author closely followed Chrysostom's style-although as Barnes and Bevan point out, the anonymous author did not manage to attain the literary quality of a real work of John Chrysostom (pp. 5-9). Attention to the transmission of the funeral oration (either in manuscripts or modern editions) is one of the signatures of this work. It is noteworthy that Barnes and Bevan have devoted effort and long passages of the book to elucidating the authorship of the substantial corpus of works attributed to John Chrysostom. This is not gratuitous but indicative of two main issues: first, that the prestige of Chrysostom as orator made him (p. 2) the liveliest and most accomplished Greek orator since Demosthenes , hence an author whose style was imitated; second, that Barnes and Bevan have scrutinized what sources are authentic and relevant with regard to the composition of this oration, thus bringing to the light not only historical issues but also posing stylistic problems. The translation of the Funeral Oration is revealing of the literary Zeitgeist of late antique rhetoric, a discipline and literary genre that was undergoing a transitional period at the time this oration was composed. Formally indebted to pagan/Classical rhetorical strategies (see a collection of Classical topoi in chapters 1-5), the oration develops an apologetic programme in order to restore John's reputation. Thus, it is unsurprising that only a few passages (chapters 6-12) are dedicated to his formative period in Antioch. Conversely, his preaching activity in Constantinople-the city in which he acquired both enemies and notoriety- comprises chapters 13-27, in which John appears as peerless in more than one aspect: the content of his speeches, his involvement in city affairs and his ascetic lifestyle are dealt with in this section. From chapter 28 onwards, the oration becomes a catalogue of the misfortunes that the bishop suffered. As the anonymous author acknowledges in ch. 59, Since my subject involves both praise of our father and recrimination against those men . Those men were those who plotted against him: from the ubiquitous menace of the Devil to his numerous enemies within the Church and the imperial Court, the Funeral Oration is an account of the political and religious obstacles that Chrysostom had to overcome. In this context, the oration is thematically divided into two clearly separated sections: in the first, the chapters are devoted to the narration of Chrysostom's charitable deeds in the face of an unfavourable situation. In this sense, we are told that the support of the people and some elites (ch. 60-82) facilitated his return from his first exile. The second section is given over to attacks against contemporary figures that propitiated John's second exile-particularly after he refused to give up his Church (ch. 87). It is remarkable that this part of the oration reaches its climax (ch. 92-93) in a comparison in which Chrysostom suffers like Christ. His sacrifice is likened to Christ's crucifixion and the persecutions he had to endure are compared to those of the scribes and Pharisees. This Funeral Speech is complemented by the translation of a selection of letters written by Chrysostom during his second exile in order to (p. 123) illustrate John's political isolation and the reluctance of even those who had supported him before 20 June 404 to write to him in exile. This stands in sharp contrast to the willingness of many eastern provincials, who were not close to the imperial court and hence not subject to direct political pressure . After a prosopographical list of Chrysostom's selected addressees, thirty letters are translated in which the main leitmotif is Chrysostom's interest in and attempts to maintain his social and personal network. In addition to the long introduction and the translation of the abovementioned texts, the book contains numerous indexes, tables and appendices that help to frame the historical and biographical background of the composition of this oration. At the beginning of the volume, a chronology of John's life highlights the most important events of his life, particularly those related to his relationship with the imperial court at Constantinople. In the pages following the translations several appendices are provided: Photius' notice of the Council of the Oak; Theodoret's lost orations on John; Chrysostom's presence in the calendar of the Church of Constantinople -an important document that shows us to what extent his reputation was restored despite the fact that he had suffered two exiles; concordances to the Funerary Speech, to Palladius' editions of his Historical Dialogue, and to Chrysostom's letters to Olympias. Barnes and Bevan's work is praiseworthy and there is very little to argue against here. Only two pieces of information may require revision: first, on p. 1 it is taken for granted that Chrysostom was a pupil of the famous sophist Libanius of Antioch. In this context, the arguments of Prof. P.L. Malosse Jean Chrysostome a-t-il ete l' eleve de Libanios? (Phoenix 62, 2008, pp. 273-280) should be taken into account as his work suggests a re-evaluation of the literary evidence that has historically related Libanius and John Chrysostom. Second, there is only one paragraph, on page 6, which deals with the literary genre of the Funeral Speech. In a period in which rhetoric and literature were disciplines that reflected the atmosphere of those tumultuous times, further insights into the literary dimension of the speech would have been more than welcome. However, the contribution of Barnes and Bevan should be praised as they have added a truly valuable work to the field of late antique religious and historical studies by supplementing an accurate commentary on an important text with a scrupulous philological reading of the manuscripts and editions. Digressus 13, 32-36 2013 ... the contribution of Barnes and Bevan should be praised as they have added a truly valuable work to the field of late antique religious and historical studies by supplementing an accurate commentary on an important text with a scrupulous philological reading of the manuscripts and editions. Digressus 13, 32-36 2013

Author Information

Timothy D. Barnes is Honorary Professorial Fellow at the University of Edinburgh. George Bevan is Assistant Professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available