{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019672131147540985, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003278688524590164, 'mean_word_length': 4.761006289308176, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Marginalia on the Norman Anonymous

Some years ago, while preparing for one of John Mundy's medieval seminars at Columbia University and leafing through the pages of the Norman Anonymous, I was surprised to find myself reading a passage which I had read a short time earlier in an equally anonymous Pelagian work of the fifth century. While I found it a little disturbing to discover so pronounced an Augustinian as the Norman Anonymous silently borrowing material from a Pelagian source, there was nothing distinctively Pelagian about the passage itself, and I did not think the discovery important enough to deserve publication. I now feel that I was mistaken. I have recently found the latest editor of the Norman Anonymous, Karl Pellens, supporting his “pedagogic theory” of the purpose of the C.C.C. 415 tractates with the passage in question and, on looking closer, find that it has led others astray as well.