{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02653342522398346, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004824259131633356, 'mean_word_length': 4.864646464646465, '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}}
Book Review: Thomas Finan: Collected Writings

43 Proclus, Elements of Theology, proposition 103; Dodds, ed. and tr., Elements of Theology, ed. 92 and tr. 93: ‘Πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν, οἰκείως δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῳ’. Before Proclus, Syrianus attributed this broadly used saying to the Pythagoreans, and Iamblichus, to Numenius; see Dodds, Elements of Theology, 254. of the old Neoplatonic maxim which says that ‘all things are in all things, but in each thing according to its proper nature.’43 Bonner clearly has the enviable scholarly gift of being able to discern the way that all things may be found (and may be said to be at stake) in the chosen object of study. The result is an unusually engaging argument which appears likely to attract a much broader and more varied readership than is typical for a scholarly book on late antique theology. Thus it seems well positioned to succeed (if any book is to succeed) in changing the character of the received assumptions that are broadly held concerning Pelagius. He was not against grace, but affirmed (or came to affirm) the moment-to-moment help that the soul received from the Holy Spirit, in accordance with its merits: in political terms, a Blairite rather than a Thatcherite, if you will. This, in itself, would be a major achievement, even if similar arguments, with less popular effect, have previously been made. However, it is not, as a whole, a disciplined argument. Significant methodological oversights put the conclusiveness of her findings into question from the very outset. Her mischaracterization of Augustine’s thought introduces systemic distortions throughout her interpretation of the evidence. The attempt to provide an account of the theoretical basis for her study undermines rather than strengthens its apologetic purpose. Thus its value to scholarship, while undeniable, is more in the parts than the whole, and more to experts than to the broader audience to which it will likely appeal, since they will not have the same means of distinguishing between its illuminating moments and those of the contrary tendency. It is hoped that this review may aid those who find themselves in the latter category in making good use of its significant, if complicated, contribution. The Myth of Pelagianism reveals a scholar whose future contributions to this field will be well worth anticipating. One would wish to hear more from her on the relationship of Pelagius to his predecessors, for example. But the question remains: will these future contributions likewise have the character of majestic ruins, having been dominated by the same polemicism that prevailed in and over this initial monograph, or will such titanic energies somehow be made to serve the nuances of argument, rather than overthrow them when and where they will? If such a sea change can be brought about, I expect that the result could not fail to be unambiguously praiseworthy.