Libanius,^[1] a key figure in fourth-century Antioch, offers invaluable insights into the city’s complex social and religious landscape in this period. Our primary source for understanding his life comes from his own writings. Especially the work titled Autobiography, Oration 1,^[2] (published first in 374 CE, and later revisited)^[3] in modern editions, which appears as a sophistic essay on one’s own Fortune (Tyche, τυχή).^[4] Apart from this, his orations, his letter collection (one of the most extensive ones that survived from antiquity),^[5] and Eunapius’ Lives of Philosophers and Sophists provide valuable insights about his life.^[6] All these accounts expose a man whose thinking was deeply embedded in the traditions of Hellenism.^[7]

Libanius was born in 314 in Antioch into a wealthy curial family that held influence in the city administration. As he proudly declares in his Autobiography, his family excelled in “education, wealth, the provision of shows and games, and in oratory which opposes itself to the excesses of governors.”^[8] According to Libanius, his maternal great-grandfather was at least bilingual (he also knew Latin) and was skilled in prophecy. He foresaw his sons’ execution during Diocletian’s reign in 303, following the revolt of Eugenius I.^[9] After this revolt and Diocletian’s punishments, the family’s wealth suffered greatly due to the confiscations.^[10] His maternal grandfather was also a famous rhetorician and died of illness after leaving the management of the city council to his two sons.^[11] As for his father, he died while Libanius was still a child, during a period when some of the confiscations from the Diocletian era had begun to be recovered, leaving behind three sons, of whom Libanius was the middle one.^[12]

After the death of her husband, Libanius’ mother took on the responsibility of caring for her sons, and it appears that during this period, she could send them to school using her own resources. However, Libanius mentions that during this time, he spent most of his days in the countryside rather than focusing on his studies. Yet, at the age of 15, something happened, and he was suddenly filled with a passion for learning.^[13] What Libanius wrote afterward provides important insights into the social life of that time and, as we will later examine, into Libanius’ worldview. Once Libanius experienced this transformation, he relinquished the idyllic life he had been living in the countryside and even sold his pigeons – the pet in vogue with boys at the time. Furthermore, he renounced everything related to the stage, including chariot races and gladiatorial combats. This decision surprised everyone, including his maternal uncle Panolbius, who was responsible for presenting the games.^[14]

Libanius received his initial education in Antioch. During this time, he says he attended the lessons of an eloquent instructor, and after this teacher’s death, Libanius remarked that the teachers he attended thereafter were merely shadows of the deceased.^[15] In one section of his Autobiography, Libanius offers a retrospective observation on the potential career paths for a boy from the curial class during that period. He reflects that had his father been alive, he would have pursued a significantly different path from the one he ultimately chose, namely, the pursuit of rhetorical education. Libanius says that he would have been expected to either engage in local politics, study law, or pursue a career in the imperial administration, as was customary for young men of his class.^[16] However, Libanius did not desire any of these options. At one point, he devoted himself exclusively to memorizing the works of classical authors.^[17] It appears that this period of Libanius’ life lasted for five years, during which he experienced the first of the serious health problems that would plague him throughout his life.^[18]

Libanius, influenced by a friend named Iasion, who constantly charmed him with stories about Athens, developed a strong desire to go to Athens and continue his education there.^[19] Convincing his family, Libanius departs for Athens in 336. He remains in Athens from 336 to 340, where he attends the lectures of Diophantus and two other teachers, whose names he does not give, i.e., Epiphanius and Prohaserius.^[20] During his time in Athens, Libanius is appointed as a professor. According to Libanius, the proconsul of Achaea, whom he does not name but describes as merely an Italian, dismisses the teachers after a student riot, criticizing them for not being good “shepherds.” Three candidates emerge for the position, and Libanius is chosen at the age of 25.^[21] Later, Libanius settles in Constantinople and begins teaching privately in 340/341. According to Libanius, his school has become so popular that, within a short time, more than 80 students have attended his classes. Proudly, Libanius remarks: “People who had been all of a flutter about the chariot races or the theatrical performances had changed to a sudden interest in rhetoric.”^[22] Indeed, the emperor issued a decree stating that he should remain in the city. However, due to competition and intrigue, Libanius is forced to leave, driven out by rivals and officials, Constantinople in 342 following a revolt.^[23] Fortunately, during this time, Libanius receives an invitation from the city of Nicomedia (actually, the invitation comes from the governor (vicar of Pontus). On his way, Libanius stops in Nicaea, “the city of Dionysus,” where the Nicaeans—or rather, the curia of the city—send envoys pleading for him to stay. After spending some time in Nicaea, Libanius establishes himself in Nicomedia and continues his work.^[24]

Libanius describes his five-year period in Nicomedia (c. 343 to c. 348) as “the spring of the flower of my life.”^[25] This period represents a time of success and well-being for him, both mentally and physically. He reflects on the frequency of the public speeches he delivered, the large number of students he had and their developments, and the long hours he spent working, which brought him great joy: “My pleasures were not those of eating and drinking, but arose from the excellent progress of my oratory and from the hue and cry that was set up at Athens against Bithynia, for all the world like some farmers complaining against others of their kind about the diversion of a watercourse from its original channel.”^[26] His lectures in Nicomedia become so popular that Libanius even begins teaching in the baths, and, as he puts it, the entire city becomes his classroom.^[27] In Nicomedia, Libanius composed his famous panegyric for Constantius II and Constans.^[28]

In 349, after his productive and happy years in Nicomedia, Libanius was summoned back to Constantinople by the Emperor to serve as the official sophist of the city. Though he was reluctant, he felt compelled to comply: “I grieved as prisoners grieve, who have lost land and liberty and go into slavery in a foreign clime.”^[29] In Constantinople, despite his growing fame and the continued respect from a succession of governors, Libanius was unhappy.^[30] In 353, through Strategius Musonianus, he was offered a teaching position in Athens, but he rejected it.^[31] Instead, excusing his poor health (although in truth, he also hated Constantinople and being there),^[32] Libanius first made a brief summer visit to Antioch in 353, and then he returned to Antioch permanently in 354.^[33] Upon his return to Antioch, however, Libanius encountered a series of misfortunes: his fiancée had passed away; Gallus Caesar was terrorizing the city, with some citizens, including members of curia, already executed and others imprisoned awaiting execution; accusations of magic against Libanius had already begun; Zenobius, who had previously promised to vacate the official rhetorician position, had changed his mind;^[34] and Libanius found himself embroiled in a sophistic rivalry. Initially, Libanius began teaching by instructing his students at home, including those he had brought from Constantinople. Then, he rented a private property near the agora. This move increased his student numbers, but he still faced disadvantages against his rivals, as he claims, who had the significant advantage of being able to use the “Museum” for their lessons.^[35]

Libanius, following the death of Zenobius, proudly recounts how he took over the bouleutērion (the city hall, or rather a space dedicated to his teaching in the city hall), stating, “I had such a large class that I could not get through them all before sunset.”^[36] From this point on, Libanius had become the city’s official rhetorician.^[37] Following this period, a series of tragedies befell Libanius. On August 24, 358, an earthquake struck his beloved city of Nicomedia, resulting not only in the city’s destruction but also in the loss of his close friend, Aristaenetus.^[38] Then, in 359, he suffered further personal losses with the deaths of his uncle Phasganius and, shortly thereafter, his mother.^[39]

Three years after these events, one of the most significant developments in Libanius’s life took place: Julian ascended to the throne (361-3). Libanius welcomed this with great joy.^[40] In his Autobiography, he dedicates a significant portion to recounting the time Julian spent in Antioch.^[41] Libanius was deeply shocked by Julian’s untimely death during the Persian campaign: “My first impulse was to look to my sword, for life would be harder to bear than any death.”^[42]

From Libanius’s writings, we learn that during the reign of Valens, he was frequently in danger, accused of having supported the usurper Procopius and of engaging in soothsaying and magic.^[43] During Theodosius’s reign, after the Riot of the Statues, his accounts portray him as acting as a spokesman for Antioch.^[44]

Libanius actively participated in civic life, even though he was not a member of the curia, and he was exempt from curial duties since he was the official sophist of the city.^[45] Throughout his life and through his letters and orations, he was advocating for the city’s interests with the institutions of traditional Hellenic culture in his mind.^[46] Hence, a defining characteristic of him was his unwavering commitment to traditionalism.^[47] He always propounded traditional culture, a vision that clashed with the growing Christian influence of the period. This genuine passion and commitment to traditional Greek modus vivendi^[48] and religion explain his close relationship with Emperor Julian. Libanius felt a deep kinship with Julian and, upon the emperor’s death, contemplated even taking his own life.^[49] The passing of Julian dashed Libanius’ hopes for a return to the old order, yet he remained steadfast in his beliefs.

While some of his orations might suggest a naive perspective, Libanius was not blind to the changing world around him.^[50] He acknowledged the decline of traditional manners, education in rhetoric, and the civic life he constantly promoted, adherence to the traditional religion in the face of Christianity’s increasing dominance, or new trends in the imperial and provincial life, such as the growing interest in law and Latin education.^[51] However, Libanius continued to wield his most potent weapon, rhetoric, to uphold the world he believed in.^[52] His orations, containing a wide range of topics, addressed not only the people of Antioch but also influential figures of his time, including emperors and the holders of the most important offices.^[53] Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize the essence of rhetorical writing. Libanius, like many orators, employed exaggerations and manipulations and strategically selected information to promote his agenda (as he acknowledges).^[54] Therefore, a critical approach is vital when analyzing his writings. 

 

The life of John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom,^[55] the “the Golden Mouth” (Χρυσόστομος),^[56] was born in Antioch between 340 and 350 AD, with 349 being a highly probable,^[57] though not definitively confirmed, date.^[58] He would spend nearly 50 years of his life in this city until his appointment as Archbishop of Constantinople on February 26, 398 AD. As Kelly aptly notes, if John was indeed born during this time, then he was considerably younger than the Cappadocian Fathers—Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa—who were born around the 330s and 335, respectively, yet he was approximately the same age as his Latin-speaking contemporary Jerome.^[59] When Libanius eventually returned to Antioch in 354, John was still a child and, compared to Libanius, was evidently very young. Born around 345, Theophilus, who would later become the Archbishop of Alexandria and play a crucial role in John’s exile,^[60] was roughly the same age as John. John does not mention the names of his parents in any of his writings, but the church historian Socrates (c. 380-450) names them as Anthusa and Secundus, noting that John was born into a noble family.^[61]Kelly asserts that Anthusa’s name is undoubtedly Greek, whereas Secundus’s name suggests a Latin origin. According to Palladius, John had an aunt named Sabiniana on his father’s side, which aligns with his father’s Latin-rooted name.^[62]

While it cannot be said that John’s family was among the most prominent, it is evident that his family was relatively affluent,^[63] especially considering the education John received. Palladius writes that John’s father held the rank of military commander in Syria.^[64] However, modern scholarship reveals that this statement is a misapprehension and that Secundus, John Chrysostom’s father, worked in the office of the magister militum per orientem, thus indicating that Secundus was a high-grade civil servant.^[65] This view aligns with John’s description of his family as neither excessively rich nor noble but possessing moderate wealth in his De Sacerdotio.^[66] In the same work, John, speaking as if through his mother, notes that it was not his father’s estates but his mother’s dowry that provided his education.^[67]

It is known that at least John Chrysostom’s mother was a Christian.^[68] As was common at the time,^[69] John was not baptized as a child, but he was baptized after he turned eighteen.^[70] According to John’s writings, his father Secundus died when he was a child, long before his baptism.^[71] After her husband’s death, Anthusa did not remarry but dedicated herself to managing the household and raising her children.^[72]

Given the lack of specific information about John’s early education, we can infer a framework based on what is known about early education in the Graeco-Roman world of that period, as Kelly argues.^[73] It is likely that Chrysostom followed a standard educational program for Christian children of his time. This would have involved attending an elementary school (with a γραμματιστής; grammatistes) around the age of seven, where he learned to read, write, and do basic arithmetic.^[74] Subsequently, between the ages of ten and fourteen or fifteen, he would have attended a grammar school (with a γραμματικός; grammatikos) where Classical Greek literature was taught,^[75] including especially passages from Homer, Euripides, Menander, and Demosthenes, which students were required to memorize.^[76]

            The next step after grammar school was a rhetoric school (under the supervision of a rhetor [ῥήτωρ or σοφιστής]).^[77] Here, students received training in public speaking and in the preparation and delivery of speeches across various genres. According to Socrates, John Chrysostom studied rhetoric under “Libanius the Sophist” and philosophy under Andragathius.^[78] Sozomen also states that he studied rhetoric with Libanius and philosophy with Andragathius.^[79]Sozomen even asserts that Chrysostom possessed such eloquence and persuasive power that “Libanius the Syrian” claimed he surpassed all orators of his time. Sozomen further reports that, on his deathbed, when Libanius was asked by his friends who should succeed him, he replied, “It would have been John, had not the Christians taken him from us.”^[80]Socrates additionally notes that Theodore, who would later become the bishop of Mopsuestia and a significant exegete,^[81] and Maximus, who would become the bishop of Seleucia, studied alongside John in Libanius’ school.^[82] While the accuracy of what both Socrates and Sozomen recount on this matter can be questioned,^[83] it is nonetheless certain that Christian students attended the school of Libanius, who held the official chair of rhetoric in Antioch from 354 until his death.^[84]

            Given the limited information about John’s early education, many assumptions must be made. For instance, while Greek was central to his curriculum, Latin had little place in it. Nevertheless, it can be said that he had some familiarity with Latin.^[85] Socrates notes that, for example, John was once on the verge of pursuing a legal education.^[86] Sozomen supports this statement, indicating that while John was expected to begin legal studies and become a lawyer, he dedicated himself to the Scriptures and began studying the philosophy prescribed by “the law of the Church.”^[87] Regardless of the level of his Latin knowledge, it is not an exaggeration to say that he was one of the greatest figures of Greek prose of his time. Modern scholars have recognized him as the only one comparable to Demosthenes in his time; Pernot also considers him one of the eminent figures of Greek Christian rhetorical writing in the fourth century, alongside Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil of Caesarea.^[88] Classical Greek education and its legacy are central tenets of John’s literary career;^[89] and, as argued in this study, Chrysostom adheres to the rhetorical tradition of his time: although he fervently critiques Hellenistic/Pagan culture in his writings, he utilizes the rhetorical education drawn from that culture as a tool.^[90]

            After completing his rhetorical education,^[91] according to Palladius, at the age of 18, “he revolted against the sophists [with plural] of word-mongering” and dedicated all his attention to “living knowledge.”^[92] During these years, according to Palladius, John Chrysostom came under the influence of Meletius.^[93] Kelly also writes during this period (after 368), John assisted Meletius with various liturgical, pastoral, and administrative duties.^[94] Socrates’ sentences on this period of John Chrysostom’s life do not immediately speak of Meletius but indicate that John turned his back on secular career prospects and pursued a more “tranquil” life. John devoted himself to reading the Holy Scripture and attending church frequently; furthermore, he persuaded two of his friends, Theodore and Maximus, to “embrace a life of greater simplicity.”^[95] According to Socrates, the three of them, under the guidance of Diodorus^[96] and Carterius, who were then at the head of a sort of monastic institution in Antioch,^[97] began to live an ascetic lifestyle. However, this should not be confused with the life of a hermit in the desert or a monk living in a proper monastery.^[98] According to Kelly, the life lived by Diodorus, Carterius, and their students, including John, resembled a fellowship of committed Christians. They lived in their own homes and within the urban environment, following a set of rules and principles they imposed on themselves while periodically gathering in some houses for prayer, reading the Scriptures, and listening to their interpretations.^[99]

            We know of two early works that John wrote around this time. One of these, Comparatio regis et monachi (A King and a Monk Compared),^[100] suggests that the true king is the monk who has surrendered himself to God. Based on the philosophical affiliations of the work with the Stoicism, Kelly posits that John Chrysostom likely wrote this piece immediately after leaving Libanius’ school.^[101] During this period, we also know that John Chrysostom wrote a letter to Theodore (his former fellow, and future bishop of Mopsuestia) titled Ad Theodorum lapsum 1 (To Theodore Who Has Fallen). In this letter, John advises his former companion, who had become entangled in the distractions of worldly life, to refocus on God and true knowledge. According to Socrates and considering Theodore’s later career as a biblical exegete and bishop, John Chrysostom’s letter was successful. ^[102] Palladius, in his brief passage about John’s youth, recounts also how Meletius recognized the young man’s intelligence and bright future and kept him close. Furthermore, during this time, John was baptized by Meletius and, after staying with him for about three years, was appointed as a reader (ἀναγνώστης; lector).^[103]

            As Kelly also notes, around 371/2, the church authorities in Antioch attempted to ordain John (as a deacon); however, it was precisely during this period that John decided to leave city life behind and embrace the life of a monk.^[104] According to Palladius, although John was of sound mind, he concluded that living in the city would not suit his youthful nature, and so he withdrew to Mount Silpius. There, John met an ascetic named Syrus and, impressed by his self-discipline, strove to emulate him.^[105] While Palladius recounts this, as Kelly suggests, the decision to leave may also have been influenced by the renewed persecution of the Orthodox in the city following Meletius’ exile in 371.^[106] Of course, as John confesses in De Sacerdotio (On the Priesthood), the desire to suppress worldly passions also plays a role in this decision.^[107] It is not surprising that John chose to retreat to Mount Silpius, located to the northwest of the city center of Antioch, to lead an ascetic life for some time. It appears that by the fourth century, Mount Silpius had become an important location for Syrian asceticism.^[108] Theodoret, in his Historia ecclesiastica, writes about Mount Silpius, withouth naming it: “But the mountain which is in the neighborhood of the great city was decked like a meadow, for in it shone Petrus, the Galatian, his namesake the Egyptian, Romanus Severus, Zeno, Moses, and Malchus, and many others of whom the world is ignorant, but who are known to God.”^[109] Hence, John spent four years (between 372-6) practicing asceticism, this time not within the city but outside of it. Although Palladius claims that John withdrew alone to a cave immediately,^[110] the ascetic life he led during this time was more of a communal life rather than complete solitude.^[111]After following this semi-communal life, according to Palladius, John Chrysostom made an even more radical decision: he moved to another cave where he lived alone for 24 months, spending much of his time in intense study of the sacred scriptures, often without sleep: 

“[After] He spent four years battling it out with the crags of voluptuousness. When he suppressed these temptations more easily, not so much by hard toil but by pure reason, he retired to a cave all alone, eager to dwell in obscurity. There he stayed for twenty-four months, most of that time not partaking of sleep while he thoroughly learned the covenants of Christ to dispel ignorance. He never relaxed for that two-year period, not in the days nor at night, and his gastric organs became lifeless and the proper functions of the kidneys were impaired by the cold.”^[112]

John’s transition from a semi-communal to an entirely solitary life, along with his activities during this time, closely aligns with the ascetic practices of late antique Syria.^[113] After his illness, Chrysostom eventually decided to return to the city. According to Palladius, this is a sign of divine providence, as God sent John this illness to compel him to abandon his ascetic life and return to the city for the benefit of the Church.^[114]

            John Chrysostom likely returned to the city shortly after the death of Emperor Valens, who supported the Arian heresy, in 378.^[115] This was followed by the restoration of Meletius to Antioch as the bishop. Prior to his ordination as a deacon by Meletius in 380/81, Chrysostom held the position of a reader in the Antioch church, as previously stated.^[116]In 381, following Meletius’s death during the Council of Constantinople,^[117] Flavianus succeeded him as bishop (381–404).^[118] Chrysostom became a priest on 26 February 386 while Flavianus was in office.^[119] Despite the difficulty in dating these texts, John Chrysostom had written several works prior to 386, but he did not have the authority to preach before this ordination. These writings consisted of correspondence and essays on several subjects. Kelly contends that it is impossible to evaluate these works without considering the rhetorical instruction that Chrysostom received.^[120] Still, they were a part of his diatribes against the pagan world.

            Among the most significant works written by Chrysostom during this period (381-386) is De Babyla contra Iulianum et gentiles (On Babylas against Julian and the Greeks).^[121] The most potent message of this work is the evident triumph of Christianity even in Chrysostom’s own time. For example, he refers to the remains of Babylas, initially interred at the city’s old cemetery and then translated to Daphne by Gallus. After Julian relocated the relics of the saints to his former resting place, the Temple of Apollo in Daphne was engulfed by flames, destroying the chryselephantine statue of the god inside. Another notable aspect of this work is its inclusion of excerpts from and direct responses to Libanius’s monody, Oration 60, written after the destruction of this temple, which survives only in fragmentary form.^[122] The work also seeks to reassure Christians perplexed by why God delayed punishing Julian. Chrysostom’s message here is clear: God’s power will manifest eventually; He is full of mercy, but His punishment is equally severe. Another apologetic work authored by John Chrysostom during this period is Adversus Iudaeos et Gentiles demonstratio quod Christus sit Deus(That Christ is God Proved Against the Jews and Greeks).^[123] Here, Chrysostom’s principal message is that the power of Christ is of divine origin, as evidenced by the fulfillment of prophecies in the Old Testament and Christ’s own prophecies, such as the inevitable destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. These two apologetic works indicate how alive the Christian-pagan polemic still was in Antioch during Chrysostom’s time. Evidently, it would be an oversimplification to evaluate Chrysostom’s works solely within the framework of anti-pagan polemics. In many of his writings, Chrysostom endeavored to correct the behavior of his own Christian community, aiming to illustrate how a Christian life should be led. Additionally, he authored works against Jews and Judaizing Christians.^[124] His writings about Meletius and Flavianus also cannot be understood outside the context of intra-Christian polemics of the period.^[125] Moreover, he did not write a series of homilies against the Manicheans, but we do find references to them in his writings.^[126]

            As a priest, John had numerous roles and responsibilities within the Antiochian Church, but undoubtedly, the two most significant were preaching and providing instruction to his congregation. Every Sunday and on major feast days, there was always one sermon after each Mass, and sometimes even several. During Lent and Easter, there were also sermons before evening prayer on weekdays. Thus, before becoming the Archbishop of Constantinople on 26 February 398,^[127] John addressed the Christian community of Antioch from the churches and martyria for approximately twelve years.^[128] According to Kelly, after John Chrysostom was ordained as a priest, he was officially appointed to serve in the Palaia^[129] (Old Church);^[130] however, in practice, he regularly preached in the Great Church,^[131] which was under the charge of Bishop Flavian. Wendy Mayer has demonstrated that John Chrysostom did not have a specific congregation.^[132] Similarly, Shepardson supports this by noting that John Chrysostom preached to different congregations in various churches throughout the city.^[133] Additionally, he delivered sermons at the shrines of martyrs.^[134] The majority of these sermons, as they have come down to us, were transcribed by scribes as the sermons were being preached,^[135] and were sometimes edited before publication. It seems that immediately following his ordination, Chrysostom began delivering sermons on the book of Genesis.^[136] He later proceeded to deliver homilies against the Anomoeans^[137] (extreme Arians) in Antioch between 386-387.^[138] It seems that although Arianism began to lose its influence in Antioch by 378, the Anomoean interpretation continued to affect certain members of the Christian community. Following this, we have John Chrysostom’s series of eight homilies collected under the title Adversus Iudaeos (Against the Jews).^[139] In these discourses, John warns his Christian congregation against being drawn to the beliefs and practices of their Jewish neighbors.^[140] During this period, John also composed sermons, particularly for major feast days and on the occasions celebrating holy persons or martyrs. Among these are five panegyrics dedicated to local saints.^[141] One of the most important series of sermons from this period, and one frequently referenced in this work, is the series known as Ad Populum Antiochenum, (To the Antiochians) delivered to console the city’s inhabitants following the riot and violence of 387. Traditionally comprising 21 homilies,^[142] the first of these was actually delivered before the outbreak of these events.^[143] As Kelly notes, in these homilies, John Chrysostom continued to provide religious and moral instructions.^[144] The homilies convey a clear message: the people of Antioch should remember these occurrences, transmit them to future generations, and consistently express gratitude to God, while never forgetting how God rescued the city and its residents: 

For although the evils we dreaded have passed away, we should not suffer the memory of them to disappear; not indeed that we may grieve, but that we may give thanks. For if the memory of these terrors abide with us, we shall never be overtaken by the actual experience of such terrors. For what need have we of the experience, whilst our memory acts the part of a monitor? Seeing then that God hath not permitted us to be overwhelmed in the flood of those troubles when upon us, let us not permit ourselves to become careless when these are passed away. Then, when we were sad, He consoled us, let us give thanks to Him now that we are joyful. In our agony He comforted us, and did not forsake us; therefore let us not betray ourselves in prosperity by declining into sloth.^[145]

Through these writings, Chrysostom paints resolutely the picture of Antioch as a Christian city, one where pagan influences are either bereft or met with disdain. While this portrayal might appear highly biased, it serves as a valuable counterpoint to Libanius’ perspective.

---

^[1] For the biography of Libanius, modern studies include Jorit Wintjes, Das Leben des Libanius; the introductions by Jean Martin and Paul Petit in Libanios Discours Tome I : Autobiographie; by A. F. Norman in Selected Orations I, xxxix-xlv; His contributions in Libanius: Autobiography and Selected Letters. Vol. 1, and in Antioch as a Centre of Hellenic Culture as Observed by Libanius are important. Bernard Schouler, “Libanios en son temps, Libanios aujourd’hui,” 151–64; Pierre-Louis Malosse, “Orientation Bibliographique Sur Libanios,” 251–57, provides a concise bibliographic overview. J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch: City and Imperial Administration, 1-39 also discusses Libanius’ life and his works. For an overview one might consult PLRE I, s.v. “Libanius I,” 505–7. The older studies namely, L. Petit, Essai sur la vie et la correspondance du sophiste Libanius (1866); G. R. Sievers, Das Leben des Libanius (1868) remain useful. In addition to the translations, for some modern contributions to the scholarship of Libanius, see Paul Petit, Libanius et la vie municipale à Antioche au IVe siècle après J.-C.; Paul Petit, Les étudiants de Libanius; Raffaella Cribiore, Libanius the Sophist: WRhetoric, Reality, and Religion in the Fourth Century; Lieve Van Hoof, ed., Libanius: A Critical Introduction. About Libanius’ rhetorical school in Antioch and his educational methods see Raffaella Cribiore, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch.

^[2] The Oration 1 of Libanius has been translated into modern languages several times. For English: Libanius’ Autobiography (Oration I): The Greek Text, Edited With Introduction, Translation and Notes, trans. A. F. Norman; Libanius, Autobiography and Selected Letters, Volume I, trans. A.F. Norman, 51-338. German: Libanios, Autobiographische Schriften, trans. P. Wolf. French: Libanios, Autobiographie (Discours I), trans. Paul Petit (Paris: 1979). Spanish: Libanio, Discursos, I – Autobiographia, trans. A. Melero, (Madrid: 2001). In this thesis, Norman’s 1992 translation is used. The text is from Förster, Libanii opera, vol. 1, 79-206. For a critical approach to Libanius’ Autobiography, see: Lieve van Hoof, “Libanius’ Life and life,” in Libanius. A Critical Introduction, 7-38.

^[3] Lieve van Hoof, “Libanius’ Life and life,” 11. 

^[4] Hence the title: Βίος η περί της εαυτού τύχης (Life or Concerning One’s Own Fortune) 

^[5] For partial translations of his letters, in English: Selected Letters of Libanius: From the Age of Constantius and Julian, translated by Scott Bradbury (2004); The Letters of Libanius from the Age of Theodosius, trans. Scott Bradbury and David Moncur (2023); Autobiography and Selected Letters, Volumes 1-2, translated by A. F. Norman (1992). In French: Lettres aux hommes de son temps translated by Bernadette Cabouret (2000). 

^[6] Eunapius, Vitae sophistarum, 495-497 (= CUFr 508. 16.1-22). Text and English translation in Philostratus and Eunapius, The Lives of the Sophists, trans. Wilmer Cave Wright. A more recent edition with a French translation: Eunape de Sardes, Vies de philosophes et de sophistes, trans. R. Goulet, CUFr 508.

^[7] Cribiore, “The rhetorical context: traditions and opportunities,” 59. 

^[8] Libanius, Oration, 1.2 (Norman, Autobiography 1, 55; Förster (F) 1, 80): “ἐν δὴ μεγίστῃ μεγίστους εἶναι συνέβη γένος τοὐμὸν παιδείᾳ τε καὶ πλούτῳ καὶ χορηγίαις καὶ ἀγῶσι καὶ λόγοις, ὅσοι φοραῖς ἀρχόντων ἀπαντῶσιν.”

^[9] On this revolt: Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria, 330-31; Sievers, Das Leben des Libanius, 4-5; cf. Libanius, Oration, 11.158-162; 19.45-46, 20.18-20; and he made allusion to this revolt in Oration 1.3. On Eugenius, see: PLRE s.v. “Eugenius I,” 291. This revolt was also mentioned by Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, 8.6.8 (English translation: NPNF 2.1, 81-387 and with a Greek text: Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, trans. K. Lake and J. E. I. Oulton, 2 vols., Loeb Classical Library (Hereafter LCL) 1: 153; 2: 265. Text in this edition is from E. Schwartz, ed., Eusebius Caesariensis. Werke: Band 2, Teil 1-3: Die Kirchengeschichte, 3 vols., Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte (Hereafter GCS) 9/1-3 [n.f. 6/1-3]. French translation with a text: Eusèbe de Césarée. Histoire Ecclésiastique, ed. and trans. G. Bardy, 4 vols. SC 31 (1); 41 (2); 55 (3); 73 (4). 500 soldiers stationed at the harbor of Seleucia protested their inadequate rations. They declared their commander Eugenius as emperor, against his will. They marched to Antioch, looting farmhouses, and getting drunk on the wine they found. When they reached the city at sunset, they tried to take the palace. The citizens fought back and managed to defeat the rioters during the early part of the night. However, the imperial authorities punished the citizens of Seleucia and Antioch. Many prominent individuals in both cities were executed, and their properties were confiscated. Downey suggests that the imperial authorities may have thought that Christians were behind the uprising. That is why they imposed such harsh penalties to prevent similar events, although he adds that we cannot be sure whether the Christians were involved in these events. 

^[10] cf. Libanius, Oration, 11.158 ff., 19.45.

^[11] One of these was Panolbius, the other Phasganius. After the death of Libanius’ father, they assumed guardianship of Libanius. Panolbius (See PLRE I, s.v. “Panolbius I,” 665) was one of the decurions; in 328, he presented the Olympia in Antioch (cf. Libanius, Oration, 1. 5; 10.9; 53.4). According to Libanius, he died while serving in the city administration (c. 336): Libanius, Oration, 1. 3, 13. 

^[12] Libanius, Oration, 1.4. 

^[13] Libanius, Oration, 1.4-5. Norman suggests that this conversion occurred in 328, before the Olympics presented by Libanius’ uncle Panolbius: Norman, trans., Autobiography and Selected Letters 1, 57 note b.

^[14] Libanius, Oration, 1.5. Gladiatorial combats were banned in 325 by Constantine, cf. Codex Theodosianus (Hereafter CTh.; standard work of reference: Mommsen and Meyer, Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum Pertinentes, 27-906), 15.12.1. However, it appears that the law was not very effective in practice, as evidenced by a law proclaimed by Constantius in 357, which indicates that gladiatorial games were still ongoing; the law imposed a fine on those who induced soldiers and palace officials to participate in these combats. Still, it is evident that gladiatorial combat was regarded as a debased practice (CTh. 15.12.2). In a law issued by Arcadius and Honorius in 397, it is clear that gladiatorial games were still being held (CTh. 15.2.3). According to Theodoret, after a monk named Telemachus was stoned to death by spectators at a gladiatorial contest, Honorius put an end to these games (Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 5.26 [NPNF 2, 3, 151]). Text in L. Parmentier and F. Scheidweiler, eds., Theodoret Kirchengeschichte, 2nd ed., GCS 44, 1-351. However, the effectiveness of this ban is questionable; nevertheless, it can be said that gladiatorial games lost their former popularity during the fifth century. 

^[15] Libanius, Oration, 1.8. This teacher’s name was Ulpianus, cf. Eunapius, Vitae Sophistarum, 487 (= CUFr 508, 10.20.5) and PLRE I, s.v. “Vlpianus I,” 973. Ulpianus was a prominent rhetorician in the city during Constantine’s reign. While Libanius does not mention Ulpianus by name in his Autobiography, as noted in PLRE and Norman’s translation, it is likely that Ulpianus was Libanius’ first teacher.

^[16] Libanius, Oration, 1.6.

^[17] According to Norman’s commentary, Libanius deviates from the usual path by discontinuing his rhetorical education under Ulpianus and instead resumed elementary-level studies under a grammatikos: Autobiography and Selected Letters I, trans. Norman, 61 note b. 

^[18] Libanius, Oration, 1.9. 

^[19] Libanius, Oration, 1.11. 

^[20] Libanius, Oration, 1.15-26. Diophantus: PLRE I, s.v. “Diophantus I,” 260-1 and Eunapius, Vitae sophistarum, 494 (CUFr 508, 12.1), cf. Vitae Sophistarum, 495 (CUFr 508, 16.2). Norman writes that the other teachers were Epiphanius and Prohaserius: Autobiography and Selected Letters I, p. 73, note c. Epiphanius: PLRE I, s.v. “Epiphanius I,” 280; Eunapius, Vitae sophistarum, 483 (CUFr 508, 9.3), 487 (CUFr 508, 10.29), 494 (CUFr 508, 11.1), 495 (CUFr 508, 16.2). Proaeresius: PLRE 1, 731; Eunapius, Vitae sophistarum, 486-488, 494 (CUFr 508, 10.18-24, 12.1-4).

^[21] Libanius, Oration, 1.24-25. 

^[22] Libanius, Oration, 1.37 (Förster 1.102, 8-10) : οἵ τε ἐπτοημένοι περὶ τὰς τῶν ἵππων ἁμίλλας καὶ τὰ τῆς σκηνῆς θεάματα πρὸς τὰς ὑπὲρ τῶν λόγων μετερρυήκεσαν σπουδὰς (…).

^[23] Libanius specifically criticizes the proconsul of the city at that time (c. 342), Limenius (PLRE II, s.v. “Vlpius Limenius 2,” 510). Libanius, Oration, 1.45 (F 1.106): “I would not go so far as to assert that he was a member of the conspiracy against me, but, even if he were not, his attitude was the same as theirs. He assumed the airs of the almighty, but I did not regard him seriously even as a man—his only serious aim was to play the fool.” ( […] συνωμότῃ μὲν οὐκ ἂν φαίην, ἀνωμότῳ δὲ καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ βουλομένῳ· θεὸς μὲν γὰρ ἤθελεν εἶναι δοκεῖν, ἐγὼ δὲ αὐτὸν οὐδὲ σπουδαῖον ἐνόμιζον ἄνθρoπον, ᾧ γε ἦν ἡ σπουδὴ γελασθῆναι.) It appears that Limenius played a significant role in the accusations against Libanius, including charges of magic, and in his departure from the city. See Libanius, Oration 1.45-47.

^[24] Libanius, Oration, 1.48-49.

^[25] Libanius, Oration, 1.51. 

^[26] Libanius, Oration, 1.53 (Förster 1, 109) : (…) ἐποίει δέ μοι τὰς ἡδονὰς οὐ τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν, τὸ δὲ τὰ τῶν λόγων εὖ καὶ καλῶς χωρεῖν καὶ τὸ τὰς Ἀθήνας τῆς Βιθυνίας καταβοᾶν, ὥσπερ γεωργοὶ γεωργῶν ῥύακος ἀρχαίου κωλυθέντος ᾗ πρότερον ῥεῖν.

^[27] Libanius, Oration, 1.55.

^[28] This speech is Libanius’ Oration 59 (349). This work has been translated by M.H. Dodgeon (revised by Mark Vermes and Sam Lieu), in S. Lieu and D. Montserrat, From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views, 164-209. An introduction to the speech was provided by Sam Lieu and Dominic Montserrat in the same volume, pp. 147-164. A German translation is available in Fatouros, Krischer, and W. Portmann, Libanios, Kaiserreden. For the French translation: Libanios, Discours LIX: texte établi et traduit, trans. Pierre-Louis Malosse. This speech has also been examined in the context of the interaction between the genres of panegyric and history and Libanius’ role in the use and merging of two genres in Alan J. Ross, “Libanius the Historian? Praise and the Presentation of the Past in Or. 59.”

^[29] Libanius, Oration, 1.75 (Förster 1, 120): “ἐγὼ μὲv δὴ τὴv τῶν αἰχμαλώτων ἐλυπούμην λύπην, οἳ πατρίδα καὶ ἐλευθερίαν ἀποβαλόντες ἔρχονται ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ δουλεύσοντες.” Libanius would later revisit Nicomedia, see Libanius, Oration, 1.77.

^[30] Libanius, Oration, 1.80. 

^[31] Libanius, Oration, 1.82-5. For Musonianus, see PLRE I, 611-612. Before 353, he was the proconsul of Constantinople, but around 353, he became the proconsul of Achaea, appointed by Constantius after the revolts of Vetranio and Magnentius were suppressed: cf. Libanius, Oration1.81. He would later serve as praefectus praetorio Orientis between 354-358.

^[32] Libanius, Oration, 11.93; cf. 1.48, 52. In Oration, 1. 52 (Norman, Autobiography 1, 115; Förster 1, 109), he compares Constantinople with Nicomedeia: “(…) there [in Constantinople] they revelled in the delights of the stage, here, in Nicomedeia, in the fruits oflearning; there they had not the wit to keep the good things they had, here they knew how to gain possession of those they had not.” ([…] ὡς ἡ μὲν εὐθηνοῖτο θεάτρων ἡδοναῖς, αὐτὴ δὲ φορᾷ παιδείας καὶ ὡς ἡ μὲν οὐδὲ φυλάξαι παρὸν εἰδείη καλόν, αὐτὴ δὲ καὶ ἀπὸν κτήσασθαι.)

^[33] Summer visit: Libanius, Oration, 1.86. His return to Antioch: Libanius, Oration, 1.94. 

^[34] His fiancée: Libanius, Oration, 1.95; Gallus: 11.96; accusations: 11.98; Zenobius: 11.100. 

^[35] Libanius, Oration, 1.102 (Förster 1, 133): “(…) τὸ Μουσεῖον δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἦν, ῥοπὴ τοῖς ἔχουσι μεγάλη.” Libanius’s complaint offers valuable insight into the spatial aspect of Late Antique rhetoric. Catherine Saliou, in her article “Parole et religion à Antioche au IVe siècle. Une approche spatiale,” 90–104, demonstrates how, in fourth-century Antioch, numerous new locations emerged that could accommodate a Christian discourse, creating an imbalance within the city. As Christian discourse gained new spaces, the areas where traditional religious beliefs could be expressed gradually diminished. Previously, education, including public speaking, was closely tied to traditional religion, but this connection was steadily weakening. However, Saliou notes, using the example of Libanius’s reference to the “Museum” and the Tychaion in Antioch, that some spaces used for rhetorical training were also metaphorically regarded as places of worship. For a detailed discussion on the “Museum,” see pp. 100-104 in the same article. Saliou also examines the usage of the term μουσεῖον in this context. She highlights that Libanius often uses the term in its plural form, suggesting that it could refer to general intellectual education, schools within a city, or directly to Libanius’s own school and teaching. However, in the cited passage (Libanius, Oration, 1.102), Libanius uses the singular form of the term, which Saliou argues refers to an urban toponym, indicating a specific building within the city. For further references on the “Museum” in Antioch, see also Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria, 229, 270, 622f.; cf. Malalas, 11.30; 12.33; Chronicon Paschale, 585, in L. Dindorf, ed., Chronicon paschale, vol. 1, CSHB 11.

^[36] Libanius, Oration, 1.104 (Förster 1, 134): “(…) εἶναι τὸ ποίμνιον, ὥστε μὴ οἷόν τε εἶναι, πρὶν ἥλιον δῦναι, διὰ πάντων ἰέναι.”

^[37] The significance of this period in Libanius’s life, particularly in terms of rhetoric and spatial politics, has been analyzed by Christine Shepardson. As Shepardson observes teaching in the bouleutērion has a powerful message and the impact of such a space and the fact that Libanius assumed the chair there cannot be separated from his role as the city’s official sophist and as the spokesperson for many of its inhabitants. For a broader discussion on the relationship between rhetorical education, space, and spatial politics, based on Libanius’s works, see Christine Shepardson, Controlling Contested Places, 31-50, especially pp. 38-39, where this period in Libanius’s life is examined in this context.

^[38] cf. Libanius, Oration 61, The Monody for Nicomedia; Oration 1.118

^[39] Libanius, Oration, 1.117. 

^[40] Libanius, Oration, 1.119 (Förster 1, 140): “I laughed and danced, joyfully composed and delivered my orations (…).” (καὶ ἐγέλασά τε καὶ ἐσκίρτησα καὶ σὺν ἡδονῇ λόγους καὶ συνέθηκα καὶ ἔδειξα […].)

^[41] Libanius, Oration, 1.120-132.

^[42] Libanius, Oration, 11.135 (Förster 1, 148): εὐθὺς μὲv οὖv εἰς ξίφος εἶδον, ὡς ἁπάσης σφαγῆς ἀλγεινοτέρας τῆς ζωῆς ἐσομένης.

^[43] Libanius, Oration, 1.146, 156-78.

^[44] Libanius, Oration, 1. 252-4

^[45] cf. Libanius, Oration, 11.9; 2.54. 

^[46] For city councils, e.g.: Libanius, Oration, 49. 2-3; 2. 33-36, 54; 2. 74; Orations 48 and 49 are especially in support of city councils; see e.g., 48.3-4, 22; 48.42 and 43 (F 3, 449): “Cast off this excessive slackness [To the councillors] and reveal the council in its prime once again.” Also, Oration, 49.27-33. For classical education and rhetoric: Libanius, Oration, 1.214-5; 1.154; 62. 8ff, 27ff; 11.234; 43.4-5; 2. 43-46. 

^[47] Van Nuffelen, “Not the last pagan: Libanius between elite rhetoric and religion,” 294. By traditionalism, we refer to Libanius’s profound attachment to the past and to traditional institutions. Libanius’s intense sensitivity toward the past and his sense of nostalgia were also criticized by his contemporaries: Libanius, Oration, 2. 47. 

^[48] Essentially, living like a Greek involves speaking the Greek language, living in a city structured in the form of a polis, taking part in public events, and wearing clothing in Greek fashion; cf. M. Sartre, “The nature of Syrian Hellenism in the late Roman and early Byzantine periods,” 25. 

^[49] Libanius, Oration, 1.135. 

^[50] Cribiore, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch, 29; Van Hoof, Libanius: A Critical Introduction, 3.

^[51] cf. Libanius, Oration, 1.214, 234; Oration, 2.43-44.

^[52] Cribiore, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch, 29; Cribiore, Libanius the Sophist: Rhetoric, Reality, and Religion in the Fourth Century, 44. 

^[53] e.g., Oration 19, Oration 20, Oration 30 to the emperor Theodosius; Oration 21, To Caesarius, Master of Offices; Oration(s), 12- 15, to Emperor Julian. 

^[54] Wiemer, “Emperors and Empire in Libanius,” 188. 

^[55] On his biography: Robert E. Carter, “The Chronology of Saint John Chrysostom’s Early Life”; C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 2 vols., trans., M. Gonzaga; J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop; John H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Ambrose and John Chrysostom: Clerics between Desert and Empire; Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom. Following biography mainly relies on Kelly’s Golden Mouth. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, Vol. 1, xix-xlv, gives a detailed list of ancient sources for John Chrysostom’s life. 

^[56] Indeed, this nickname or a derivation of it was applied to some others in Antiquity. e.g., Dio Chrysostom (c. 40–115 CE) who was a Greek orator and philosopher and was also deemed as part of the Second Sophistic; Peter Chrysologus (c. 380-450), although not “Chrysostom,” his name “Chrysologus” (Χρυσολόγος) means “Golden-worded.” He was the bishop of Ravenna from c. 433 until his death. 

^[57] Kelly suggests that although earlier dates have been proposed, it is certain that John was born between approximately 340 and 350, during the reign of Constans. This conclusion is based on John’s work Ad viduam iuniorem 4-5 (PG 48.605-06) from 380/1, in which John states that during his lifetime, nine emperors ruled, of whom only two died natural deaths. These emperors would include Constans (d. 350), Gallus Caesar (d. 354), Constantius II (d. 361), Julian (d. 363), Jovian (d. 364), Valentinian I (d. 375), and Valens (d. 378). For a broader discussion of John’s birthdate, see Kelly, Golden Mouth, pp. 296-298. Kelly argues that John was born in 349 or thereabouts based on his writings and some historical sources. For an earlier discussion of his early life, and date of birth see: Robert E. Carter, “The Chronology of Saint John Chrysostom’s Early Life,” 357–64 (also argues that Chrysostom was born in 349).

^[58] J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth, 4; Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 3 asserts that Chrysostom’s birth date falls between 344 and 354, with the year 354 being the most likely date.

^[59] Jerome was born around 347 CE, and during 373-379, he was in Antioch and its vicinity: Downey, A History of Antioch, 412-413. For a detailed study of his visit to Antioch, with reference to his letters and a chronology of events: F. Cavallera, Saint Jérôme: sa vie et son œuvre, vol. 1, 26ff. Also see, B. J. Kidd, A History of the Church to A.D. 461, vol. 2., 321-23. In 373-75, he was in Antioch; in 375, he retired to the desert of Chalcis, east of Antioch and he spent his time studying and writing; in 379, to take part in the Church disputes in Antioch, he returned there, and was ordained priest by Paulinus, one of two Nicene bishops of Antioch at that time. In Antioch he was in touch with Apollinaris of Laodicea. In 379, he left Antioch to study in Constantinople. In 385, on his way to Jerusalem, he visited Antioch again. 

^[60] He was known in his role in the destruction of Serapeum of Alexandria; cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 5.16. 

^[61] Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 6.3: “Ἰωάννης … υἱὸς δὲ Σεκούνδου καὶ μητρὸς Ἀνθούσης, ἐξ εὐπατριδῶν τῶν ἐκεῖ …” Text: Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire ecclésiastique (Livres I-VII), trans. P. Maraval and P. Périchon, Greek text by G.C. Hansen (GCS n.f. 1) 4 vols., SC 477 (1), 493 (2), 505 (3), 506 (4). English translation in NPNF, Series 2, Vol. 2. 1-179. 

^[62] Palladius, Historia lausiaca, 41.4 (The Lausiac History of Palladius, trans. W. K. Lowther Clarke, 142). Text: Palladius, Palladio. La storia Lausiaca, ed. Gerhardus J. M. Bartelink, 4-292. Kelly, Golden Mouth, 4. Liebeschuetz, Ambrose and John Chrysostom, 126 suggests that Chrysostom came from a family of imperial officials with origins in the Western part of the empire. Also see Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 1. 

^[63] R. L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 4, also says his family was “undistinguished” but among the “educated upper classes.” 

^[64] Palladius, Dialogue, 5. Translation: Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom, trans. and ed., Robert T. Meyer; Text: Palladii dialogus de vita S. Joanni Chrysostomi, ed. P. R. Coleman-Norton, 28. 

^[65] A. H. M. Jones, “St. John Chrysostom’s Parentage and Education,” Harvard Theological Review 46, no. 3 (1953): 171–73; Kelly, Golden Mouth, 5; Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom, 5; Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 5.

^[66] John Chrysostom, De sacerdotio, 1.2. (SC 272.62) Text: A.-M. Malingrey, Jean Chrysostome. Sur le sacerdoce, SC 272, 60-362. In NPNF 1, vol. 9: Treatise Concerning the Priesthood was translated by Rev. W. R.W. Stephens into English, pp. 25-83 (the one used in this thesis); for another English translation also see: John Chrysostom, The Priesthood: A Translation of the Peri Hierosynes of St. John Chrysostom, trans. W. A. Jurgens (New York: Macmillan, 1955). 

^[67] John Chrysostom, De sacerdotio, 1.5 (SC 272.68): “(…) I spared no expense which was needful to give you an honorable position, spending for this purpose some of my own fortune, and of my marriage dowry.” [(…) καὶ τῶν ὀφειλόντων εἰς τὴν εὐδοκίμησιν δαπανηθῆναι τὴν σὴν ἐνέλιπον οὐδέν, ἐκ τῶν ἐμαυτῆς καὶ ὧν ἦλθον οἴκοθεν ἔχουσα δαπανῶσα χρημάτων.] 

^[68] W. Mayer and P. Allen, John Chrysostom, 5. 

^[69] For discussion on the historical development of infant baptism see: D. F. Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective: Collected Studies. Also see: Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 2. John himself had warned those who continually deferred baptism, e.g. In Acta apostolorum I, i. 1, 2. (NPNF 1. 11, 9-10); cf. Gregory of Nyssa, De iis qui baptismum differunt (On Those Who Delay Baptism) (PG 46, 416-432); Gregory of Nazianzus, In sanctum baptisma (Oration 40: On Holy Baptism) (PG 36, 360-425), (Translation in NPNF 2. 7). See: Everett Ferguson, “Preaching at Epiphany: Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom on Baptism and the Church,” 1–17. 

^[70] Palladius, Dialogue, 5; Kelly, Golden Mouth, 5; Liebeschuetz, Ambrose and John Chrysostom, 124; Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 2. 

^[71] John Chrysostom, De sacerdotio 1.5 (SC 272.66).

^[72] John Chrysostom, De sacerdotio 1.5 (SC 272.66-68); Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 3-4. 

^[73] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 6.

^[74] For this primary education in the antiquity, one must see: H. I. Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, 229-42. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 10. 

^[75] Certainly, this educational program was entirely pagan, which increasingly became a problem for Christians. However, outside of the home or church, Christian parents had no alternative but to send their children to traditional schools. Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, 460: “(…) parfaitement consciente de la nécessité où le caractère “savant”, lettré, de la religion chrétienne mettait le fidèle d’avoir accès à la culture littéraire, l’Église n’a vu d’autre solution que de laisser la jeunesse se former dans les écoles du type hellénistique traditionnel.” St. Basil addressed this dilemma in his work Address to Young Men on How They Might Derive Benefit from Greek Literature (Πρὸς τοὺς νέους, ὅπως ἂν ἐξ ἑλληνικῶν ὠφελοῖντο λόγων; Lat. De legendis gentilium libris). In this text, St. Basil emphasizes the educational value of Greek texts but advises Christian youth to read them with discernment. While certain moral lessons can indeed be extracted from Greek literature, faith must always take precedence. Text and English translation: Saint Basil, Letters, vol. 4, trans. by Roy J. Deferrari, LCL 270, 379-435; cf. Saint Basile. Aux jeunes gens sur la manière de tirer profit des lettres Helléniques, ed. and trans. F. Boulenger, CUFr 77, 41-61. See also Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, 456-463; Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 10-11. For the “dilemma” of Christian writers taught in classical education also see: Cameron, The Later Roman Empire, 152-154. 

^[76] This list can be extended to include Hesiod, Apollonius of Rhodes, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Thucydides, etc. However, these four were essential as Marrou says, “En résumé, Homère (et d’ Homère, surtout l’Iliade), Euripide, Ménandre et Démosthène : tels sont les quatre piliers de la culture classique ; mais cette prédominance n’a rien d’exclusif : plus peut-être que la nôtre, l’école antique s’ouvrait aux écrivains de second plan et même aux « contemporains. »” For this secondary education see: Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, 243-264, the specific quotation from p. 248.

^[77] For more information on rhetorical education in Antiquity, see Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, 292-307. The starting age for students at Libanius’ rhetorical school varied between 14 and 18 years, see: Festugière, Antioche païenne et chrétienne, 187 n. 4.

^[78] For more on philosophical education in Antiquity, see Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, 308-322. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 6.3: “μαθητὴς δὲ ἐγένετο Λιβανίου τοῦ σοφιστοῦ καὶ ἀκροατὴς Ἀνδραγαθίου τοῦ φιλοσόφου.” 

^[79] We have no further information on this Andragathius.

^[80] Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 8.2: “(…) λέγειν τε καὶ πείθειν δεινὸς καὶ τοὺς κατ’ αὐτὸν ὑπερβάλλων ῥήτορας, ὡς καὶ Λιβάνιος ὁ Σύρος σοφιστὴς ἐμαρτύρησεν· ἡνίκα γὰρ ἔμελλε τελευτᾶν, πυνθανομένων τῶν ἐπιτηδείων, τίς ἀντ’ αὐτοῦ ἔσται, λέγεται εἰπεῖν Ἰωάννην, εἰ μὴ Χριστιανοὶ τοῦτον ἐσύλησαν.” Text: Sozomenus. Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. C. Hansen and J. Bidez, GCS 50 (n.f. 4) (Berlin: Academie-Verlag, 1960); Based on Hansen and Bidez (GCS 50, n.f. 4) text and French translation: Sozomen, Histoire ecclésiastique (Livres I-IX), trans. A. J. Festugière, B. Grillet, and G. Sabbah, 4 vols., SC nos. 306, 418, 495, 516; English translation in NPNF 2, Vol. 2. 236-427. 

^[81] Theodore was one of the leading exponents of the Antiochene School and its rational and literal approach to biblical exegesis; one of the most significant aspects of this approach was the emphasis placed on Christ’s human nature, and in this context, the belief that Christ’s two distinct natures coexisted in a single person. McLeod, Theodore of Mopsuestia; cf. also Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 5.39 (NPNF 2.3, 159; GCS 44, 347-48): “He [Theodore] had enjoyed the teaching of the great Diodorus, and was the friend and fellow-worker of the holy John, for they both together benefited by the spiritual draughts given by Diodorus.” (οὗτος [Θεόδωρος ὁ Μοψουεστίας] τῆς μὲν Διοδώρου τοῦ πάνυ διδασκαλίας ἀπήλαυσεν, Ἰωάννου δὲ τοῦ θειοτάτου γεγένηται κοινωνός τε καὶ συνεργός·κοινῇ γὰρ τῶν πνευματικῶν Διοδώρου ναμάτων ἀπήλαυον.)

^[82] Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 6.3. 

^[83] Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 5 says that John Chrysostom studied under Libanius; Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom, 5, claims that John Chrysostom was educated under a professional orator and this might have been Libanius; Kelly, Golden Mouth, seems to be convinced about Socrates and Sozomen’s testimony about that Libanius was the rhetorical teacher of John Chrysostom. Cribiore, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch, also claims that John Chrysostom was a student of Libanius (with Basil the Great), 2, 28. Cribiore also claims that they (John Chrysostom and Basil the Great) continued the rhetorical skills that they had acquired from Libanius, p. 28 (Though Basil was a student of Libanius, it was not in Antioch and for not too long, Cribiore, The School of Libanius, 100). Some other sources that name Libanius as John Chrysostom’s teacher: NPNF, First Series, Vol. 9, 34 n. 42; R. E. Carter, “The Chronology of Saint John Chrysostom’s Early Life,”: 357–64; Liebeschuetz, Ambrose and John Chrysostom, 127; E. Burr, “Libanius of Antioch in Relation to Christians and Christianity: The Evidence of Selected Letters,” 65 and 71. According to Fabricius, the similarities between the texts of Libanius and Chrysostom serve as significant evidence supporting the tradition that Libanius was Chrysostom’s teacher: Fabricius, Zu den Jugendschriften des Johannes Chrysostomos, see esp. p. 132: “Bemerkenswert sind die Anleihen bei Libanios, (…). Sie sind ein entscheidendes Argument fär die Richtigkeit der Tradition, die ihn zum Lehrer des Joh. Chrys. macht.” Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 22-23, acknowledges some doubts but still maintains that Libanius was Chrysostom’s teacher. For instance, Louis Petit argues that there is a generational gap between John Chrysostom and Libanius. Sozomen’s claim (hence Socrates’), which is the only evidence that Chrysostom was a student of Libanius, is considered unreliable. Additionally, Chrysostom’s name does not appear in Libanius’s extensive works, casting doubt on the claim. Therefore, it is unlikely that John was a student of Libanius. Petit suggests that John Chrysostom might have attended Libanius’s lectures but considers this to be a very slim possibility: L. Petit, Essai sur la vie et la correspondance du sophiste Libanius, 131-2.

^[84] e.g., Basil (the Great), see Cribiore, The School of Libanius, 100-4. cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 4.26. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 20. Or Amphilochius, the future bishop of Iconium in 373, see PLRE 1 “Amphilochius 4,” 58. Cribiore, The School of Libanius, 161; Libanius, Epistulae, 634, 670-1 (F). Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 5 says in his earlier writings John Chrysostom took Libanius as a model; Liebeschuetz also contends that Libanius was Chrysostom’s teacher and that Chrysostom’s writings reflect the education he received from Libanius, see: Liebeschuetz, Ambrose and John Chrysostom, 127,129. The similarities between John’s early writings and Libanius’ style have been studied in F. Fabricius, Zu den Jugendschriften des J. Chrysostomus; Cajus Fabricius, “Vier Libaniusstellen bei Johannes Chrysostomus.” 

^[85] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 7. Latin was still the official language of the empire, and as shown, John’s father was an important civil official in the office of magister militum per orientem. Pseudo-Martyrius suggests that John Chrysostom was quite skilled in Latin: see Pseudo-Martyrius, Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom, 50.6-10. Text: M. Wallraff and C. Ricci, eds., Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi: epitaffio attribuito a Martirio di Antiochia; Translation: T. D. Barnes and G. Bevan, trans., Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom, 68. Also see Liebeschuetz, Ambrose and John Chrysostom, 126. However, in contrast, Baur insists that Chrysostom neither spoke nor knew any language other than Greek: Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 2, 24. 

^[86] Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 6.3. 

^[87] Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 8.2 (GCS 50, n.f. 4, 350): “προσδοκηθεὶς δὲ δίκας ἀγορεύσειν καὶ τοῦτον μετιέναι τὸν βίον, ἐγνώκει τὰς ἱερὰς ἀσκεῖσθαι βίβλους καὶ κατὰ θεσμὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας φιλοσοφεῖν.” 

^[88] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 7, referring to Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. 3, 353, who asserts that John Chrysostom was a preacher unmatched in the East during his time, and in the Western world, he could be compared only to Augustine; who in turn refers to the bold claims made by Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, who regarded Chrysostom as an almost pure Atticist, asserting that in this respect, he surpassed all Hellenes of his time, who, when compared to Chrysostom, are considered “barbaric incompetents” (“barbarische Stümper”), and that he is worthy of comparison only with Demosthenes. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 104, calls him “the greatest of the Christian sophists.” Pernot, La rhétorique dans l’Antiquité, 271. 

^[89] Indeed, according to Fabricius, Demosthenes, Homer, and Plato had a profound influence on him; Zu den Jugendschriften des J. Chrysostomus, esp. 131-2: Kelly, Golden Mouth, 8.

^[90] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 8; Cribiore, The School of Libanius, 2; Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, 172, 178-9, 182; For a more detailed discussion on this matter: Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 95-127, especially pp. 101-106. For Chrysostom borrowing phrases from Libanius, see C. Fabricius, Zu den Jugendschriften des J. Chrysostomus, esp. pp. 119-121, 131-32; and C. Fabricius, “Vier Libaniusstellen Bei Johannes Chrysostomus,” 135–36. Also see Marius Soffray, “Saint-Jean Chrysostome et la littérature païenne,” 82–85. The influence of the Second Sophistic on the writings of John Chrysostom was studied in Ameringer’s “The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of St. John Chrysostom. A Study in Greek Rhetoric.”

^[91] Kelly asserts that he completed his rhetorical education under Libanius in 367: Kelly, Golden Mouth, 14. Carter proposes the same date: Carter, “The Chronology of Saint John Chrysostom’s Early Life.”

^[92] Palladius, Dialogue, 5: “ἐκεῖθεν ὀκτωκαιδέκατον ἔτος ἄγων τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἡλικίαν, ἀφηνίασεν τοὺς σοφιστὰς τῶν λεξυδρίων· ἀνδρυνθεὶς δὲ τὴν φρένα, ἤρα τῶν ἱερῶν μαθημάτων.” Coleman-Norton, Palladii dialogus, 28.

^[93] One of the bishops of Antioch at that time, however, the Church of Antioch was officially ruled by Arian Euzoius (360-76). He became the bishop of Antioch in 360, and due to three periods of exile, he held this position until 381 with interruptions. He had been very influential in Chrysostom’s life: he wrote De sancto Meletio Antiocheno (On the Holy Meletius of Antioch)(PG 50. 515-520; translation in W. Mayer with B. Neil, The Cult of the Saints. John Chrysostom, 39-48) which he delivered in 386, five years after Meletius’ death. Meletius would play an important role in church politics in Antioch and beyond -he would later preside over the Council of Constantinople in 381. Meletius personally initiated and oversaw the construction of the church on the opposite bank of the Orontes, initially built for the burial of Babylas’s relics (for this church: Mayer and Allen, Churches of Syrian Antioch, 32-49) and where he himself would later be interred, cf. Chrysostom, De sancto hieromartyre Babyla, 3 (PG 50.533-534; SC 362, 310-313; trans. İn NPNF 1, 9. 143). 

^[94] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 14.

^[95] Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 6.3 (GCS n.f. 1, 314) : “(…) τοῖς ἀναγνώσμασι τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων προσεῖχε τὸν νοῦν καὶ συνεχεῖς ἐποιεῖτο τὰς περὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν σπουδάς. Πείθει δὲ καὶ Θεόδωρον καὶ Μάξιμον, (…) καταλιπεῖν μὲν τὸν χρηματιστικὸν βίον, μετιέναι δὲ τὸν λιτόν.”

^[96] Later became the bishop of Tarsus; between 361 and 365, he was appointed bishop along with Flavianus by Meletius. 

^[97] For the functioning of this “monastic” institution, see Kelly, Golden Mouth, 19. 

^[98] For the eastern monasticism see: S. Rubenson, “Asceticism and Monasticism, I: Eastern,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 2, ed. A. Casiday and F. W. Norris, 637–68; S. H. Griffith, “Asceticism in the Church of Syria: The Hermeneutics of Early Syrian Monasticism,” in Asceticism, ed. V. L. Wimbush et al., 20–45. For Late Antique and Byzantine monasteries and ascetism: J. A. McGuckin, “Monasticism and Monasteries,” in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, ed. R. Cormack, J. F. Haldon, and E. Jeffreys, 611–20; likewise, D. F. Caner, “‘‘Not of This World’’: The Invention of Monasticism,” in A Companion to Late Antiquity, ed. Philip Rousseau. Speaking of Late Antique monasticism we should also refer to D. Chitty, The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire. For the Late Antique asceticism in general, see P. Brown, “Asceticism: pagan and Christian,” in Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 13, A. Cameron and P. Garnsey, eds., 601-631. For the development of Christian asceticism, see: J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Ambrose and John Chrysostom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); especially sub-chapters titled “The Development of Christian Asceticism,” pp. 23-34 and “Christian Asceticism Becomes a Mass Movement and Institutionalized: The Role of Antony,” pp. 34-42. In the same work also see in the part devoted to Chrysostom, the chapter titled “Asceticism in Syria and Mesopotamia,” 97-112.

^[99] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 19. 

^[100] The Greek title given is Σύγκρισις Βασιλικῆς Δυναστείας καὶ Πλούτου καὶ Ὑπεροχῆς, πρὸς Μοναχὸν Συζῶντα τῇ Ἀληθεστάτῃ καὶ κατὰ Χριστὸν Φιλοσοφίᾳ (A Comparison to the Royal Power, Wealth, and Superiority to a Monk Who Lives According to the Truest and Christ-like Philosophy). PG 47, 387-392. This work is dated to 379. For an English translation see: D. G. Hunter, A Comparison between a King and a Monk. For doubts about the authenticity of this work, see: J. A. de Aldama, Repertorium Pseudochrysostomicum, 327 (p.120). 

^[101] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 21. 

^[102] J. Dumortier, ed. and trans., Jean Chrysostome. A Théodore. SC 117, 80-218. The Greek title given is Πρὸς Θεόδωρον ἐκπεσόντα καὶ περὶ μετανοίας λόγος α (To Theodore Who Has Fallen and On Repentance Discourse 1). Also see Kelly, Golden Mouth, 22. cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 8.2 (GCS 50, 351), notes that John, while still a young man, sent a letter to Theodore, who would later become the bishop of Mopsuestia: “John composed an epistle, more divine in language and thought than the mind of man could produce, and sent it to him. Upon reading it, he repented and immediately gave up his possessions, renounced his intention of marrying, and was saved by the advice of John, and returned to the philosophic career.” [μαθὼν δὲ Ἰωάννης ἐν πράγμασιν αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ περὶ γάμον σπουδάζειν, θειοτέραν ἢ κατὰ νοῦν ἀνθρώπου φράσει καὶ νοήμασι συντάξας ἐπιστολὴν διεπέμψατο πρὸς αὐτόν. ὁ δὲ ταύτῃ ἐντυχὼν μετεμελήθη· αὖθίς τε τὴν οὐσίαν καταλιπὼν ἀπειπών τε τῷ γάμῳ ταῖς Ἰωάννου συμβουλαῖς ἐσῴζετο καὶ πρὸς τὸν φιλόσοφον ἐπανῄει βίον·] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 23. 

^[103] Palladius, Dialogue, 5 (Coleman-Norton, Palladii dialogus, 28); cf. According to Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 6.3, the bishop who appointed John as reader was named Zeno, but there is no record of a bishop by that name serving in Antioch. 

^[104] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 28. 

^[105] Palladius, Dialogue, 5 (Coleman-Norton, Palladii dialogus, 28). 

^[106] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 28-29. 

^[107] John Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio, 6.12 (SC 272, 342-6). 

^[108] John Chrysostom writes about these monks, who came to the city when it was in danger after the Riot of 387: Ad populum Antiochenum, 17.6-8. His other writings about monks: In Matthaeum homiliae, 55.5-6, 68.3.5, 69.3-4, 70.5, 72.3-4 (PG 58, 545-50; 643-8; 651-4; 660-2; 670-4); In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia, 14.3-6 (PG 62, 574-80); also note his work Adversos oppugnatores vitae monasticae (Against the Enemies of Monasticism) (PG 47.349-86). 

^[109] Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 4.28 (GCS 44, 249; NPNF 2, 3, 128): καὶ τὸ ὄρος δὲ τὸ τῇ μεγίστῃ παρακείμενον πόλει λειμῶσι παραπλησίοις ὡράϊστο· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τούτῳ Πέτρος ὁ Γαλάτης διέλαμπε, καὶ ὁ τούτου γε ὁμώνυμος ὁ Αἰγύπτιος, καὶ Ῥωμανὸς καὶ Σευῆρος καὶ Ζήνων, Μωϋσῆς τε καὶ Μάλχος καὶ ἄλλοι πλεῖστοι, παρὰ μὲν τῶν πολλῶν ἀγνοούμενοι, παρὰ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ γινωσκόμενοι.

^[110] Palladius, Dialogue, 5 (Coleman-Norton, Palladii dialogus, 28). 

^[111] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 30. Of the Type of Pachomius? On Pachomius see: P. Rousseau, Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt. 

^[112] Palladius, Dialogue, 5: “(…) χρονίσας παρ’ αὐτῷ δὶς δύο ἔτη, ἀπομαχόμενος ταῖς τῆς ἡδυπαθείας σπιλάσιν. ὡς δὲ ῥᾷον περιεγένετο τούτων, οὐ πόνῳ τοσοῦτον, ὅσον λόγῳ, ἀναχωρεῖ ἐν σπηλαίῳ μόνος, γλιχόμενος ἀδηλίας· κἀκεῖ διατρίψας τρὶς ὀκτὼ μῆνας, ἄϋπνος διετέλει τὸ πλεῖστον, ἐκμανθάνων τὰς τοῦ Χριστοῦ διαθήκας πρὸς ἐξοστρακισμὸν τῆς ἀγνοίας. μὴ ἀναπεσὼν δὲ τὸν τῆς διετίας χρόνον, μὴ νύκτωρ, μὴ μεθ’ ἡμέραν, νεκροῦται τὰ ὑπὸ γαστέρα, πληγεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ κρύους τὰς περὶ τοὺς νεφροὺς δυνάμεις.” Coleman-Norton, Palladii dialogus, 28-29.

^[113] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 33. Although not from Syria, can we think of Chrysostom’s example without the example of Antony in Egypt that would be a model for all ascetics in Late Antiquity? For the life of Antony see, Life of Antony written by Athanasius of Alexandria c. 360 CE, whose English translation is included in Caroline White, trans., Early Christian Lives.

^[114] Palladius, Dialogue, 5: “οὐκ ἐπαρκῶν δὲ ἑαυτῷ χρησιμεύειν, πάλιν καταλαμβάνει τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν λιμένα. καὶ τοῦτο τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος προνοίας, πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον τῆς ἐκκλησίας διὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας τῶν τῆς ἀσκήσεως πόνων αὐτὸν ἀπελασάσης, ἵν’ ἐμποδισθεὶς τῇ ἀδυναμίᾳ ἀπόσχηται τῶν σπηλαίων.” Coleman-Norton, Palladii dialogus, 29. 

^[115] On Valens’ Arianism: Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 4.1, 4.3, 4.6, 4.9, 4.17; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 6.6, 6.10, 6.14, 6.36; Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 4.11, 4.12. On his death, see: Ammianus Marcellinus, 31.13.12, cf. Libanius, Oration, 24.2; Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 4.38; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 6.40; Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 4.32. 

^[116] Palladius, Dialogue, 5 (Coleman-Norton, Palladii dialogus, 28). 

^[117] See Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 5.9. 

^[118] He was ordained as the archbishop of Antioch by the supporters of deceased Meletius, however, since previously taken oath between Meletius and Paulinus, the leader of the other Nicene party in Antioch, was broken, Rome did not recognize his ordination. On the ascension of Flavian and this affair see: Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 5.9, 5.15; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 7.11; Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 5.23. 

^[119] Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, Vol. I., 180. 

^[120] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 40. 

^[121] PG 50.533–572; A critical edition of this text was prepared by M. Schatkin in SC 362. The Greek title given in the edition is Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου λόγος εἰς τὸν μακάριον Βαβύλαν καὶ κατὰ Ἑλλήνων. An English translation is presented in John Chrysostom, Apologist, trans. M. A. Schatkin and P.W. Harkins, 75-152.

^[122] Libanius, Oration 60. Monody on the Daphnean Temple. A translation into English was made in Select Works of the Emperor Julian and Some Pieces of the Sophist Libanius, in 2 vols., trans. John Duncombe (1784), 243-251. St. John Chrysostom, Apologist, trans. M. A. Schatkin and P.W. Harkins, 75-152 has the translations of the excerpts as written in the Chrysostom’s De Babyla contra Iulianum et gentiles. Likewise, M. A. Schatkin, Jean Chrysostome: Sur Babylas. SC 362 (Paris: 1990) has the French translation. 

^[123] PG 48.813–838.

^[124] e.g., Adversus Iudaeos (Homilae 1-8) (PG 48.843-942). For a translation: John Chrysostom, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, trans. P.W. Harkins. See e.g., Adversus Iudaeos, 1. 5: τοὺς δὲ τὰ Ἰουδαϊκὰ νοσοῦντας, εἰ μὴ νῦν θεραπεύσαιμεν, ὅτε ἐγγὺς καὶ ἐπὶ θύραις εἰσὶν αἱ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἑορταὶ, δέδοικα μή ποτε ὑπὸ τῆς ἀκαίρου συνηθείας καὶ τῆς πολλῆς ἀγνοίας μετάσχωσί τινες τῆς παρανομίας ἐκείνων, καὶ μάταιοι λοιπὸν οἱ περὶ τούτων ἡμῖν γένωνται λόγοι. (PG 48.845) [“But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease, I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may partake in the Jews’ transgressions; once they have done so, I fear my discourses on these transgressions will be in vain.”] (trans. P.W. Harkins, 5)

^[125] For example, his writings against Anomoean Christians, John Chrysostom, De incomprehensibili dei natura (Contra Anomoeos, homiliae 1-5): John Chrysostom, Sur l’incompréhensibilité de Dieu (SC 28 bis.), 92-322.

^[126] cf. John Chrysostom, In Genesim 1.1 (PG 54.581); In Genesim 7.4 (PG 54.613); In diem natalem (PG 49.359); In Genesim 2.1 (PG 54.581); Contra Anomoeos, Hom. 11 (PG 48.798); In epistulam ad Hebraeos, Homilia 8 (PG 63.73-26; In epistulam ad Galatas commentarius (PG 61.668-42). John Chrysostom on Manichaeism and Manicheans also see: Chris L. De Wet, “John Chrysostom on Manichaeism.” 

^[127] Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, Vol. I., 180.

^[128] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 56-7. 

^[129] For Palaia (Old Church or Apostolic Church) at Antioch, see: Mayer and Allen, The Churches of Syrian Antioch, 100-102; Mayer and Allen state that it is the only church for which we have any evidence before the period of Constantine. It was located in the old part of the city (Eltester, “Die Kirchen Antiochias,” 272-78, suggests that the name Palaia derives from this location; however, Downey, A History of Antioch, 336 note 82, argues that it was called Palaia for chronological reasons). According to Theodoret’s Historia ecclesiastica 1.2, during the archbishopric of Vitalis (c. 314-20), the church was restored, and his successor, Philogonius (320-24), completed the reconstruction. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1.2, writes that it had been destroyed by the “tyrants” (during the reigns of Galerius and Maximinus [293-313], according to Mayer and Allen, The Churches of Syrian Antioch, 100). According to Theodoret’s Historia ecclesiastica 3.2, when Meletius was exiled and the homoean Euzoius was appointed bishop of Antioch, the Nicene Christians of Antioch worshipped in this church (cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2.44 [GCS n.f. 1, 182], writes that during this time the followers of Meletius withdrew from communion with the homoean Christians). According to the Chronicon paschale (a.362 [Dindorf, pp. 547-48]) and Theodoret, Hist. Eccl., 2.27, Meletius attended this church after his initial exile in 362 and worshipped alongside those who had distanced themselves from the homoeans (cf. Socrates, Hist. Eccl., 3.9 and Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., 5.13. According to them, Meletius and his followers performed their religious rituals outside the city during this time. Mayer and Allen propose that Socrates (and so Sozomen) may have confused the time span between Meletius’ initial and subsequent exile: Churches of Syrian Antioch, 101 n. 190.) Athanasius indirectly refers to the followers of Meletius as those gathered έν τῇ Παλαιᾷ, although it is uncertain whether he means the Old Church itself or simply that they were worshiping in the old part of the city. (Athanasius of Alexandria, Tomus ad Antiochenos, 3-4 [H. C. Brennecke, et al. eds., Athanasius Werke 2.8 Die Apologien, 342.]) For more: Eltester, “Die Kirchen Antiochias,” 272-78; Downey, A History of Antioch, pp. 336, 345, 396, 434 n. 135; Shepardson, Controlling Contested Places, 20-21; Wendy Mayer, “John Chrysostom and His Audiences. Distinguishing Different Congregations at Antioch and Constantinople,” 70-75; A. Martin, “La topographie d’Antioche dans les Histoires ecclésiastiques de la première moitié du Ve siècle,” 101-118 (esp. pp. 107-109 and 115 for Palaia) in Catherine Saliou et al., Les sources de l’histoire du paysage urbain d’Antioche sur l’Oronte ;”; A. Martin, “Des sources pour la topographie d’Antioche. Les Histoires ecclésiastiques de la première moitié du Ve siècle,” 403–20, esp. pp. 411-12; C. Saliou, “À propos de quelques églises d’Antioche sur l’Oronte,” 629–61, esp. pp. 631-638, proposes the hypothesis that the Old Church could be identified with the Kasianos Church of the Middle Ages. 

^[130] As Mayer and Allen demonstrate (Mayer and Allen, The Churches of Syrian Antioch, 101-102), the titles of three of John Chrysostom’s homilies indicate that they were delivered in Palaia. The title of Ad populum Antiochenum 1 (PG 49.15-16) specifies that this homily was delivered while John was still a presbyter at the “Old Church” (Palaia). According to Mayer and Allen, since this homily was delivered just prior to the beginning of Lent in 387 (before the Riot of Statues), this information appears reliable. In principium Actorum Hom. 2 (PG 51.77), John’s own statements confirm that this homily was given in Palaia. Here, John refers to this church (Palaia) as the “mother of all churches,” not only because of its antiquity but also because it was founded by apostolic hands (A similar expression is found in In s. Lucianum [PG 50.521, 3-10]). Thirdly, in In illud: In faciem ei restiti (PG 51.371-73; trans. Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 140-41), the title indicates that John delivered this homily at the Old Church following his synaxis with Bishop Flavian at the “New Church” (i.e., The Great Church). For an insightful interpretation, particularly concerning how Chrysostom, remembering well the division within the church in Antioch during his youth, highlights the unity of the apostles in this sermon based on this incident told in the Bible, and suggesting that, in a way, this homily serves as an encomium to Antioch, the city where the unity of the apostles was realized: Griffith, “Apostolic Authority and the ‘Incident at Antioch’: Chrysostom on Galatians 2:11-14.”

^[131] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 57; Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 31, contends that John Chrysostom preached in Palaia, but he also adds that it was the Great Church in which John Chrysostom delivered his sermons for twelve years. For the Great Church, see infra n. 292. 

^[132] Wendy Mayer, “John Chrysostom: Extraordinary Preacher, Ordinary Audience,” in Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, ed. M. B. Cunningham and P. Allen, 105–37; Wendy Mayer, “John Chrysostom and His Audiences: Distinguishing Different Congregations at Antioch and Constantinople,” 70–75; Wendy Mayer, “Who Came to Hear John Chrysostom Preach? Recovering a Late Fourth-Century Preacher’s Audience,”73–87.

^[133] Christine Shepardson, Controlling Contested Places: Late Antique Antioch and the Spatial Politics of Religious Controversy, 100. 

^[134] e.g., De sancto hieromartyre Babyla (PG 50. 527-534)

^[135] Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 6.4 (SC 505, 270-72; GCS n.f. 1, 316): “How eloquent, convincing, and persuasive his sermons were, both those which were published by himself, and such as were noted down by short-hand writers as he delivered them, why should we stay to declare? Those who desire to form an adequate idea of them, must read for themselves, and will thereby derive both pleasure and profit.” [Ὁποῖοι δέ εἰσιν οἵ τε ἐκδοθέντες παρ’ αὐτοῦ λόγοι καὶ οἱ λέγοντος αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τῶν ὀξυγράφων ἐκληφθέντες ὅπως τε λαμπροὶ καὶ τὸ ἐπαγωγὸν ἔχοντες, τί δεῖ νῦν λέγειν, ἐξὸν τοῖς βουλομένοις αὐτοὺς ἀναλέγεσθαι καὶ τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν ὠφέλειαν καρποῦσθαι;]

^[136] Sermones in Genesim (1-9): PG 54.581-630.

^[137] Anomoeanism was a different form of Arianism. The term came from the Greek ἀ(ν)ὅμοιος (dissimilar). They held the belief that Jesus was neither of the same nature as God nor of a similar nature; cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 2. 35; 2. 40. 

^[138] John Chrysostom, De incomprehensibili dei natura (Contra Anomoeos, homiliae 1-5): John Chrysostom, Sur l’incompréhensibilité de Dieu(SC 28 bis.), 92-322. For the date: Chrysostom, Sur l’incompréhensibilité de Dieu, 9. John Chrysostom continued write homilies against Anomoeans in Constantinople. 

^[139] PG 48.843-942. The Greek title given in the editions is Τοῦ ἐν Ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου Ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου Λόγοι κατὰ Ἰουδαίων. They seem to be delivered in 386-387; see W. A. Meeks and R. L. Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch, 83. In the same book, the first homily (pp.85-104) and eighth homily (pp.105-126) are translated into English. 

^[140] For more on John Chrysostom and the Jews: R. L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews; W.A. Meeks and R. L. Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era. For more on the Jews of Antioch, see Bernadette J. Brooten, “The Jews of Ancient Antioch” in Antioch, Kondoleon, ed., 29-38. 

^[141] De sancta Pelagia virgine et martyre (PG 50.579-84); In sanctum Ignatium martyrem (PG 50.587-96); De beato Philogonio (= Contra Anomoeos, homilia 6) (PG 48.747-56); De sancto Meletio Antiocheno (PG 50.515-520.); De sancto hieromartyre Babyla (PG 50. 527-534); In sanctum Lucianum martyrem (PG 50.519-26); De sanctis Bernice et Prosdoce (PG 50. 629-640); De sancta Droside martyre (PG 50.683-694).

^[142] According to the tradition that follows the edition made by Montfaucon (Bernard de Montfaucon, S. P. N. Ioannis Chrysostomi opera omnia quae extant vel eius nomine circumferuntur, 13 vols. (Paris: 1718-1738) and hence Migne’s Patrologia graeca: Ad populum Antiochenum(Homiliae 1-21), (PG 49, 15-222). English translations of these 21 homilies are in NPNF 1, Vol.9, 315-489. See also F. van de Paverd, St John Chrysostom: The Homilies on the Statues, (Rome: 1991), which contends that the Homilies on the Statues was composed of 22 homilies saying that Chrysostom’s Ad illuminandos catechesis 2 (PG 49, 231-240), which was left out in Montfaucon’s edition, originally belonged to these homilies. Valevicius, “Les 24 homélies De statuis de Jean Chrysostome : Recherches nouvelles” demonstrates that there are some other versions of Homilies on the Statues that involve 24 homilies. See also W. Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom – Provenance, 52, 76, 116-17, 139, 237, 246-7. 

^[143] Ad populum antiochenum 1 (PG 49.15-22.).

^[144] Kelly, Golden Mouth, 76. 

^[145] John Chrysostom, Ad populum Antiochenum, 12.1 (PG 49.127): Εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὰ δεινὰ παρῆλθεν, ἀλλ’ ἡ μνήμη τῶν δεινῶν μὴ παρερχέσθω, οὐχ ἵνα ἀλγῶμεν, ἀλλ’ ἵνα εὐχαριστῶμεν. Ἐὰν γὰρ ἡ μνήμη τῶν δεινῶν μένῃ, ἡ πεῖρα τῶν δεινῶν οὐδέποτ’ ἐπιστήσεται. Τί γὰρ δεῖ τῆς πείρας, τῆς μνήμης ἡμᾶς σωφρονιζούσης; Ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ ἀφῆκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς καταποντισθῆναι παρόντων τῶν λυπηρῶν, οὕτω μὴ ἀφῶμεν ἑαυτοὺς ἐκλυθῆναι παρελθόντων ἐκείνων. Παρεκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ἀθυμοῦντας τότε, εὐχαριστήσωμεν αὐτῷ χαίροντες νῦν· παρεμυθήσατο ὀδυνωμένους καὶ οὐ προέδωκε, μὴ τοίνυν μηδὲ ἡμεῖς ἑαυτοὺς εὐθηνουμένους προδῶμεν, εἰς ῥᾳθυμίαν ἐκκλίνοντες·