The main thesis of this book is that Pelagianism as such did not exist and that it is an invention of its opponents.Footnote ¹ This thesis is not new and is in fact discussed in a more thorough way and on the basis of a much broader dossier by others. It is a pity that the groundbreaking work of O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius,Footnote ² is omitted in the bibliography (what is present on Wermelinger in the bibliography is simply a shame). Wermelinger and his students dismantled in a detailed way the ‘Pelagian’ construction thesis. The nuanced positions of Drecoll on Pelagius/Pelagianism in Augustinus Lexikon are unknown to the author. One is looking in vain to the impressive studies of Cipriani (defending Augustine), Dupont, Löhr, only to mention a few other authors who discussed this thesis and came to sometimes different conclusions. The list of literature that is relevant for this topic and the thesis as held by Bonner, but is not mentioned or used, could be easily enlarged. In any case, for decades now a rehabilitation of Pelagius has found its way into patristic scholarship and Bonner’s book offers still another proof that such rehabilitation is justified.

Before discussing Bonner’s filling in of the thesis, I first mention that a substantial part of the book (pp. 29-110) is focusing on the Vita Antonii, the anonymous translator and Evagrius’s translation of the Life of Anthony. The tenor of this section is that if Pelagius was to be condemned for the positions he held, the same should be done with both Athanasius and Evagrius for they promoted the same positions as Pelagius after them. This reader appreciates the way Bonner shows the amazing similarities in phrasing by Pelagius and Evagrius (see e.g. p. 38), while also paying due attention to the fact that the translation of Evagrius often differs from Athanasius’s original (pp. 46-47; 50-52; 59-62; 66-68; 83-85, etc.). Bonner offers an in-depth presentation of the concept of charis in Athanasius, the anonymous translator and Evagrius (pp. 85-97), a presentation that makes clear that charis in these works is substantially different from what the apostle Paul himself intended when using the term.

I suggest that Bonner could have done more with the texts of the predecessors quoted. These texts also speak about the salvation of the sinners through Christ (p. 54) and give an important place to prayer (cf. pp. 57, 59), which also creates another dynamic of dependence, something which is, on p. 62, when referring to Pelagius’s idea that grace was given in accord with merit, not taken up. The position presented there is, in my view, a simplification of Pelagius’s ideas on Christ as saviour (see J. Rivière, ‘Hétérodoxie des pélagiens en fait de rédemption’, RHE 41 [1946], pp. 5-43, proving Pelagius’s orthodoxy in this important matter; not mentioned in the bibliography). In my view, Pelagius was in line with the previous ascetic tradition (there is scholarly agreement that in this regard, Pelagius was not really original) but also did more in the new context of the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, when, with the return of interest to Paul (let us not forget that Pelagius wrote a commentary on the letters of Paul), aspects such as grace, righteousness and the activity of the Holy Spirit received more and eventual new attention (the reference to Pelagius on p. 85 is rather poor). In passing, I think it is a bit anachronistic to look for a doctrine of original sin in the works of Athanasius and Evagrius (pp. 34, 82-85). In any case it does not do justice to historical research on the roots of original sin.

The main problem this reader has with Bonner’s thesis is the composition of the dossier. A first problem is that the author, because of ‘interpolations’ (the use of the term affirms that there is also authentic Pelagian material in the work), Pelagius’s most substantial work, the Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, is excluded from the dossier. Everybody knows the complexity of the manuscript tradition with regard to the Expositio in Epistolas sancti Pauli, in nucleo a work of Pelagius. By excluding this major work of Pelagius (with all problems the text causes), Bonner has dramatically reduced the corpus discussed. Discovering the thoughts of Pelagius in this work, is, on the one hand, left to a next generation of scholars, and, on the other hand, does not do justice to the tremendous effort as made by S. Thier, Kirche bei Pelagius,Footnote ³ a work not referred to. I insist on this point because Bonner simply puts aside the longest treatise of Pelagius. As a result, the Pelagian dossier becomes very small: Ad Demetriadem, Ad Celantiam, De virginitate, De divina lege, and Libellus fidei (p. XVII).Footnote ⁴ I do not understand why the fragments of De natura and Pro libero arbitrio, Epistula ad Innocentium, only to mention a few genuine works of Pelagius, are not listed here, even though experts such as W. Löhr, Y.-M. Duval and O. Wermelinger considered them as valuable information about how to understand and interpret Pelagius. The way Rufinus the Syrian (pp. 207-12) is presented does not do justice to the detailed and in many senses ground-breaking research of Walter Dunphy, which in a sense questions the ‘Pelagius’ character of Liber de fide – thus questioning one of the cornerstones of Bonner’s book – without denying that a Pelagian editor has intervened in it after the condemnation of Pelagius in 418 (thus showing that Pelagius had, during his lifetime, his supporters). In other words, already at the time of his condemnation, people felt the need to defend Pelagius against attacks. One can discuss whether defenders of Pelagius should be qualified as Pelagians and whether their defence is proof of the existence of Pelagianism, but one has to admit that what is said on p. 211 does not meet the basic standards in this domain and dossier. In fact, this book excludes cornerstones, makes use of an arbitrarily limited dossier, and avoids the real problems in this dossier (authorship, fragments, interpolations). At the same time, 14 theses, present in De gestis Pelagii 35.65, are taken seriously and compared with what one can find in a very limited dossier, in order to conclude that half of them are not held by Pelagius (cf. p. 25). If you reduce the dossier to an absolute minimum, it will be easy to prove that something does not exist.

But what about the dossier of Pelagius as retained by Bonner?

In Chapter 3 (pp. 111-96), Bonner first argues that Pelagius’s teachings (in the selected works) were present in Jerome’s letters and exegesis up to 410 (pp. 111-83). Discussed are Jerome’s views on the innate goodness of human nature and the achievability of goodness by means of willing, the will, habit and effort of human goodness, free will (although well elaborated, this section should have taken more into account that a Scriptural text binds its interpreter; quite often Scripture itself is not very coherent), grace, perfection as a goal and the possibility of human sinlessness, the abandonment of property (Jerome’s attitude towards wealth is very ambiguous and this could have been better elaborated, for I do think that Jerome is not so systematic as presented by Bonner; many of his writings and ideas are occasional writings). Original sin as such is not present in Jerome. However, Bonner does not really distinguish between Erbübel and Erbsünde, the first present in Jerome: there are significant texts in favour of consequences of the fall of Adam for humanity. Texts, such as Commentary on Ezechiel, X,31 or on Hosea 3.13, are dealing with the impact of Adam’s sin on humanity, suggesting a different position in comparison to Pelagius. But such aspects are not discussed in this book and this reviewer thus is not convinced by Bonner’s argument, partly also because Jerome is presented as a coherent writer, quod non.

What is said about the correspondence between Jerome and Augustine (pp. 168-69) needs to be rewritten in light of the impressive publications of A. Fürst (nowhere mentioned!). In any case, Bonner does do injustice to Jerome, summarizing his overall message in two pages. In passing, it should be said that Jerome often does not know what is at stake in the Pelagian controversy and this explains why Augustine in Contra Iulianum I-II seldom refers to him, for, apart from his enmity with Pelagius, Jerome causes more problems for Augustine than he solves. But even the Ambrose dossier is poorly presented: this crucial figure in the debate between Pelagius (who quoted him) and Augustine (who considered Ambrose as an important source of inspiration) only receives half a page (p. 184).

In Chapters 4 (pp. 197-217) and 5 (pp. 218-59), Bonner argues that no organized Pelagian movement existed, an idea that has been accepted in patristic research for more than 50 years. Research into Pelagius and Pelagians has made clear, long before Bonner (see pp. 227-59), that the so-called corpus Pelagianum is hard to define. There are scholars who enlarge or reduce the Pelagian dossier, thus making clear that there is no precise definition on this. However, reducing Pelagius’s work to an absolute minimum does not help to solve this problem. Further, I do regret that in the section on Rufinus the Syrian (pp. 207-12) the well underpinned thesis of Dunphy, identifying this Rufinus with Rufinus of Aquileia, is not even mentioned. On the level of Pelagius’s network, this is a missed chance. In the context of the network, it is to be said that Julian was positive about Pelagius (Ad Forum, IV, 112) and that he protested against the use of Pelagianus and Caelestianus as a concept to threaten those who defend the free will (cf. Ad Turbantium, I, frag. 1). Julian thus considered the positions of Pelagius as correct and defended them. Augustine considered Julian not as the founder of a doctrine/heresy, but as a disciple of Pelagius and Caelestius (Opus imperfectum, VI, 25). Diospolis, and the temporarily distancing from Caelestius by Pelagius, makes clear that they had some things in common and that they knew each other. At least on the level of contacts, there was interaction between Pelagius and sympathizers, while some were perceived by the opponents as followers of Pelagius’s ideas. Anyway, the discussion of the (im)possibility of defining ‘Pelagian’ as a ‘group event’ is fair, but does not offer an extra step in the research. In any case, Pelagius himself remained, in many senses, a man in the shadow, certainly after 415.

I do believe that Pelagius was less ‘Pelagian’ than suggested by both his contemporaries and recent scholarship, but I still believe that the adjective Pelagian remains valid, for it refers to works of Pelagius (contra p. 238).

In Chapter 6 (pp. 260-87), Bonner examines the motive and means for the invention of ‘Pelagianism’. For this she makes use of the interpretative model of interactionist theory, a theory already adapted to Pelagianism by É. Rebillard in 2000. Unlike Rebillard, Bonner suggests that Augustine and the other opponents of Pelagius manipulated the debate, falsely accusing Pelagius, making of him a heretic. I am not sure that all this can be derived from the model used. In any case, at the beginning of the fifth century, the unshaken trust in human free will and autonomy was seriously questioned. The rediscovery of Paul might have played a role in that, another reason why I regret that Bonner left out Pelagius’s commentary on Paul. However, defending with sympathy and tenacity the case of Pelagius, she presents Augustine cum suis in a way that does not do justice to their positions.

Contrary to Bonner, I do think that predestination was not at stake in the Pelagian controversy (pp. 263-64): not once have I encountered a text in Augustine where predestination was brought in as an argument against Pelagius. A good number of the Augustinian views on predestination were considered by many as problematic. They were not present as such in the decrees of the councils of 411 and 418. The first opposition to it came from the monastic milieus (in the midst of the 420s), milieus in which the later writings of Pelagius would flourish. Indeed, if everything is predestined, the validity (and the pains) of monastic life are annihilated.

The last chapter (‘The Manuscript Evidence and its Implications’, pp. 288-301) shows the popularity of Pelagius’s works on the basis of manuscript traditions. It also makes clear that anonymity can help to spread one’s ideas. For those starting to study Pelagius, it offers interesting information. I do hope that Bonner and other scholars will make use of the valuable work of people like Peter van Egmond in order to do justice to the manuscript traditions and the texts: Pelagius, the man in the shadow, and his works deserve it.

In the years to come, the work of Bonner will serve as a reference point in the debates about the Pelagian controversy and this reviewer is looking forward to the reactions of experts in the field of Augustinian studies. Also this is a reason to be grateful to Bonner and her outspoken positions.