This begins with discussion of possible influences on Ignatius, which is probably an unjustly neglected approach: scant details of Ignatius’ life are not the only way to provide context to the letters. There’s rather a lot of lead-in regarding Antioch, though (and she repeats it for the cities addressed in his letters, even including what their present-day sites are like), which I’m not sure is wholly necessary when we know little to nothing about Ignatius’ actual activities within the city, nor the context of his arrest (which therefore may or may not be related to factionalism within the Antiochene church). However, she has an interesting and plausible reading of what may have actually happened to Ignatius there, and both why he was arrested and takes the self-self-effacing (guilty?) approach and tone that he does in his letters. The systematic discussion of each city he addresses, and what their religious environment relative to his reforms might have been like, is also very useful.

All in all, this contains some great general discussion of Ignatius’ letters and impact as a historical figure, I think her particular strength is making the most of textual interpretation to fill in the many gaps in the record. I particularly like her closing comments in response to the attack on Ignatius as an egomaniac (or, as the legendary classicist E.R. Dodds called him, characterised by “pathological self-obsession”). “Had he been a less determined and visionary person his letters might not have had the impact to survive. Had there not been Christians who recognised the validity of his concerns they would not have survived. Vision and ambition were probably Ignatius’s greatest assets. In Antioch they may also have been his downfall.” If she has seen him, in her eyes, unfairly condemned, she has provided him with a great defence.