Rewriting Julian’s Legacy: John Chrysostom’s On Babylas and Libanius’ Oration 24
Libanius’ Oration 24 and John Chrysostom’s On Babylas represent contemporaneous and competing efforts to reshape narrations of the emperor Julian and thus influence local and imperial politics fifteen years after his death. Following the emperor Valens’ death at the battle of Adrianople in 378, which echoed Julian’s death in battle in 363, Libanius and Chrysostom revived the memory of Julian in order to address the strength of the gods and define ideal imperial behavior as Theodosius I came to power. Reading these two texts in light of each other highlights the renewed importance that Julian’s legacy carried immediately following Valens’ death, and the late fourth-century implications of that legacy for Antiochene and imperial politics.
'Let Us Die That We May Live': Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria (c. AD 350-AD 450) (review)
of which nature suffers in the Passion, the critical point being the dynamic of salvation, whether Jesus Christ effected salvation through his divinity or his humanity. Orthodox reasons that it must be the human Jesus, for by definition God is impassible. By claiming that it is God the Word who suffered by means of assuming humanity, Eranistes resists the division of the one Lord Jesus Christ into two natures and thus two Sons according to the monophysite camp. The dialogue goes in circles until Orthodox exposes Eranistes’ understanding that the immutable divinity must change in substance at the union, contradicting the agreement of the first dialogue. The third catena returns to Apollinarius and Eusebius of Emesa to assert Orthodox’s points. In an unnamed final section, which Ettlinger labels “Epilogue,” Theodoret offers a concise summary of the arguments. Ettlinger’s translation adopts a tone of cordial conversation and joint investigation (although Orthodox does betray flash points of anger and condescension) which enlivens a complex subject and produces an intriguing and insightful debate that opens a window on this volatile drama in Christian doctrine. Robert A. Kitchen, Regina, Saskatchewan
Urban Identities and Catastrophe: Izmir and Salonica at the End of the Ottoman Empire*
Two huge fires dramatically influenced the urban development of Salonica and Izmir, in 1917 and in 1922, respectively. These catastrophes occurred after the Ottoman Empire fell, and Salonica and Izmir had shifted into new national contexts. The fires mainly destroyed the districts that were transformed during the late‐Ottoman period. These districts became the cosmopolitan façades of modern Izmir and Salonica. The post‐fires' tabula rasa provided an opportunity for Greek and Turkish politicians and European planners to change the urban identity of both cities. Moreover, the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 transformed their multicultural societies also. Reconstruction plans had been thought to de‐Ottomanize and remove the previous idea of the towns and their multiplicity, interpreting new cultural and nationalist feeling. Here, I emphasize how modernity was interpreted before and after the fires, and point out contradictions between ideological aspects of planning and how the first urban districts were built during the 1920s.