Kallistos Ware and I examined Brian Daley's doctoral dissertation on Leontius of Byzantium. We knew we were dealing with somebody special; and so it has proved, for here I am (is it thirty years on?) – the editor supplies no dates for Brian's curriculum vitae – delighting to review this tribute from friends and pupils to a distinguished scholar and ornament of his Society. The title derives from an exegetical conceit of Origen: Christ's soul is his shadow in imitation of which his disciples walk. The contributors are Basil Studer (writing on Origen and Augustine Loving Christ), Rowan Williams (giving here his 2003 Oxford Patristic Conference paper Augustine's Christology) and eleven others, some of whom are scarcely less well known and respected. All the essays are compact; all responding to issues, some broader than others; none being unworthy of the occasion. Rowan Williams's is the best and asks the most interesting question: why does Augustine's account of Christ chime in so well with that of Cyril of Alexandria? This answer ‘shadows’ Augustine's mind, with his ‘holistic’ understanding of Christ to which the parcelling out of words and attributes into human and divine is irrelevant. Does it make Augustine a ‘monenergist’? Probably, I say, but does that matter? How does Origen's account of the friendship between Christ and believers compare with Augustine's, Basil Studer asks. His answer, rich in references, is that for both the idea of Christ as Truth and saving revelation of divine love is the fundamental datum. Augustine's Christology as account of the union of nature understood by analogy with the union of body and soul is Lewis Ayres's theme, expounding in detail letter 137. For him, as somewhat similarly for Rowan Williams too, Augustine understands the mode of union as inexplicable because the work of incomprehensible divine power. Augustine through his interpreter brings that hackneyed truth to life. Jeffrey Bingham points out the ‘apocalyptic’ (better ‘eschatological’) elements in the account of the martyrs of Gaul in 177. Khaled Anatolios responds to Karl Rahner's mild critique of ‘classical christology’ as too ontological and too ‘from, above’. The essay shows that so soon as a specific representative, here Athanasius, is examined the critique loses its force. Two contributors write on Hilary: Michael McCarthy on eschatology in the Psalm Commentary, saying not much but neatly; Carl Beckwith accounting for Hilary's ‘scandalous’ view that Christ suffered without pain. In this Christology Christ is perfectly human and thus humanly perfect, with a will superior to human weakness and, so it is suggested, stoically rejecting ‘pain’ as a false opinion. Christopher Beeley writes (correctly) on Gregory Nazianzen as basically a monist in Christology. Kelley Spoerl explores a kinship in Christology between Eustathius and Marcellus. David Maxwell explains the surprising absence of Augustine as authority on Christology for the theopaschite Scythian monks: it was too ‘Nestorian’. John O'Keefe says that the Alexandrines, Cyril and Athanasius took the right measure of phthora. John McGuckin (whom I much admire) teases with fascinating rubbish from beginning to end on the Chalcedonian definition. Andrew Louth gives a suggestive interpretation of Maximus on the Transfiguration. This is a good volume of essays. But, dear Brian, when will you publish your edition of Leontius?