This book compares the careers of Ambrose and John Chrysostom with a focus on their asceticism and readiness to critique secular authorities. The book's structure is unusual: the first two chapters survey the classical roots and Christian development of asceticism and freedom of speech (parrhesia). The second part focuses on Ambrose and the third on Chrysostom. Liebeschuetz aims to understand Chrysostom's asceticism against the background of Syrian and Mesopotamian practices. L. notes that this third theme resulted in the book becoming ‘somewhat unbalanced’(4), with more pages on Chrysostom and asceticism, and less on Ambrose and freedom of speech.

In their outspokenness and asceticism, both men reflected their times. In the late fourth century, the imperial court was ‘for the first time overwhelmingly Christian’ (1). As a result, imperial authorities recognized episcopal power, but the extent of this power had not yet been settled — perhaps the lack of precedents explains why these two important bishops stood up to imperial power. L. does not draw a causal relationship between asceticism and outspokenness, but in both respects Ambrose and Chrysostom distinguished themselves as men who ‘practised what they preached’(2).

The first chapter provides an overview of asceticism in antiquity. The topics covered here range from Essenes to Vestal Virgins, from Socrates to Gnostics. L. argues persuasively that intellectuals' views of asceticism did not necessarily differ from those of ordinary people (19). Ch. 2 examines freedom of speech in antiquity. The Roman value of outspokenness originated in the Republic, and continued during the Principate among philosophers, whom emperors sometimes persecuted, sometimes tolerated. Ambrose and John Chrysostom drew on these traditions as well as a Christian critique of authority that developed during the persecutions (47–8). Two factors were unique to freedom of speech in a Christian empire: a bishop might feel compelled to rebuke the emperor out of pastoral concern; also, once emperors began attending church, they became vulnerable to pastoral critique (53–4).

Part Two surveys Ambrose's ecclesiastical career, with an emphasis on his ascetic treatises and his interaction with imperial authorities. His ascetic treatises emphasized celibacy, which he required of his clergy (66). L. observes that asceticism must have been an especially appealing topic for Ambrose and Chrysostom because it was ‘theologically neutral ground’ for Nicene and Homoian Christians (71, 140). In his account of priestly duties, Ambrose includes resistance to authority when the laws of God are at stake. His sermons teach that kings must accept criticism from priests, or face exclusion from church and salvation (82–3, 91–4). Ambrose followed these instructions when he resisted imperial demands. When Valentinian II and his mother, Justina, asked for a church for the Homoians, he refused (85–9). In his most famous act of outspokenness, Ambrose required the emperor Theodosius to repent for the massacre in Thessalonica (89–91). Although nothing like this had happened before or would happen again, the authority of the Church over the emperor was brought out of the realm of theory and into reality.

The section on Chrysostom begins with a background chapter on asceticism in Syria and Mesopotamia, where an even greater emphasis on celibacy and a wide variety of ascetic lifestyles prevailed. The following chapters focus on Chrysostom's early life and writings, many of which deal with asceticism. L. compares Chrysostom vividly to a ‘student radical’ who hoped to convince ordinary Christians to embrace asceticism (139). After gaining pastoral experience, Chrysostom remained idealistic, but developed more empathy for laypeople (177–84; 199). His writings propose that priests hold authority over rulers (148–52; 216–17). His career shows that he lived according to this precept. L. provides a lengthy account of Chrysostom's conflict with the imperial court (ch. 15). Standing his ground, Chrysostom refused a Gothic general's request for a church for the Arians. Later, when faced with a powerful empress, Chrysostom criticized her greed and vanity despite her power to retaliate against him.

In his conclusions, L. summarizes his comparisons of the two men: both were educated men who were raised by single mothers and drawn to the ascetic life (251–4). Both wrote treatises on the duties of priesthood and both acted on these beliefs with varying measures of success. Their similarities resulted in large part from the unity of Christian culture in East and West at this time. L. argues persuasively that Ambrose's success and Chrysostom's failure to wield authority over emperors were due to the different political situations rather than to the differences in their personalities (257–61). While there is no proof that Chrysostom read anything by Ambrose, L. suggests that Chrysostom was likely influenced by Ambrose's refusal to provide a church for Homoian Christians (5, 89, 229, 240, 261–4).

This book contributes to current scholarship on bishops in Late Antiquity. L. convincingly argues that these two famous Church Fathers were products of their times in their asceticism, their advice for laypeople, and their complex relationships with imperial authorities. The main weakness of this book is the structure: the seventeen short chapters are not all clearly related to the main themes of the book (especially chs 7, 13 and 17). L. acknowledges in the introduction that the book is lopsided in Chrysostom's favour, but one would still expect, for example, an introductory chapter on Western asceticism as a counterpart to the chapter on Syrian and Mesopotamian asceticism.