Ancient sermons hold the greatest potential for modern scholars if they can be placed in a particular context of delivery; at the very least a particular city and preferably a particular church. If they know this context, scholars can link the content of particular sermons with a specific audience and a specific social situation as well as with the particular issues that were pertinent to local Christians. For this reason, Wendy Mayer's book is essential reading for anyone undertaking a serious study of the preaching of John Chrysostom. It reveals some acute problems with the ways in which scholars have previously assigned provenance to Chrysostom's preaching and lays the foundations for a new methodology for deciding which sermons were delivered where. Anyone who makes any kind of argument that relies heavily on linking Chrysostom's preaching to a particular context in the future will now have a clear set of guidelines to follow when deciding which sermons to use and will no longer have to make do with the contradictory scholarship on the subject that has developed over the last four centuries.

Chapter i of Mayer's work outlines the views of previous scholars on the provenance of Chrysostom's preaching from Savile in the seventeenth century until the present day. Here it becomes clear that previous scholars have favoured a chronological or biographical approach that first decided when in his career Chrysostom preached particular sermons and then automatically assigned them to a provenance at Antioch or Constantinople on that basis. This is particularly problematic because it has often relied on the assumption that sermons that have come down to us as a cohesive series in the manuscript tradition were originally delivered as a series. In fact some series contain individual sermons that were delivered in different cities, so undermining the idea that references to chronology in one sermon in a series can necessarily apply to the series as a whole. Chapters ii and iii (part ii) of the book categorise and assess the criteria on which previous judgements about provenance have been made. In so doing, Mayer puts aside purely chronological criteria as less useful to start with and instead focuses on criteria that relate directly to the question of provenance. Chapter ii outlines the main criteria used by previous scholars and is probably the least exciting chapter of the book. Chapter iii, which in many ways forms the heart of the book, then discusses these criteria in more depth and explores the extent to which they can be seen as sufficient proof that a sermon was delivered in a particular context. There is far too much detail contained in this chapter to give a full summary in such a short review but one example will be revealing of the whole. One of the most common criteria used to assign a homily to a particular city is reference to Chrysostom's status as either presbyter (Antioch) or bishop (Constantinople). In contrast to the far wider type of reference used by earlier scholars, Mayer insists that the only reference that actually provides ‘a secure indication of provenance’ is one in which Chrysostom explicitly describes himself as presbyter or bishop (p. 322). The trouble is that such unequivocal references are actually rare because, as Mayer puts it, ‘Chrysostom is well aware of his own status, as is his audience’ so ‘it is more common for him to allude to his position’ (p. 322). These allusions can be hard to evaluate as evidence for Chrysostom's actual status. For example, in passages where he discusses the episcopal office in general terms but occasionally shifts into the first person, does this mean that Chrysostom is himself a bishop, or is this simply a rhetorical device (pp. 323–4)? Authoritative tone on Chrysostom's part has also been used as evidence that Chrysostom was a bishop and so that he was preaching the sermon in question in Constantinople, but this relies on a modern assumption that there was a sharp distinction between the role and authority of presbyter and bishop in Chrysostom's mind. In fact, Chrysostom appears to use a similarly authoritative tone when speaking in sermons that we know to have been delivered when he was a presbyter and at one point even states that there was little difference in the authority held by presbyters and bishops (In 1 Tim. Hom. 11) (pp. 325, 332–5). Finally, chapter iv completes Mayer's reassessment of how to approach the question of provenance by summarising the deficiencies of the old approaches and by suggesting a more reliable methodology. Here, and throughout the work as a whole, Mayer places great emphasis on logical reasoning, on following through the implications of any decision made and on the need for consistency and caution. She also makes clear the problems that accompany reading works that are so determined by issues of genre and rhetorical purpose, as well as the difficulties that result from our own assumptions about provenance. She always prefers a more subtle approach even if this leads to inconclusive results.

The contribution that Mayer's work makes to the study of John Chrysostom should not be underestimated. To start with, any scholar embarking on a study of Chrysostom's preaching will be able to trace debates about the provenance of particular sermons or series of sermons much more easily than before by using the historiography provided in Mayer's chapter i. Secondly, Mayer provides an easy-to-use resource by summarising her findings at the end of each chapter in clear and useful tables. Particularly valuable will be the tables at the end of chapters iii and iv showing which individual sermons have had their provenance firmly fixed. Finally, scholars will be placed in a much stronger position to make their own assessments about the provenance of sermons or at least to be more realistic about the kind of statements that can be made about this matter.