This monograph is a very welcome addition to the field of Evagrian studies. Julia Konstantinovsky argues that his work needs to be examined in its fourth-century context, rather than in the light of the hostile thinking of some 150 years later. Little attempt has been made up until now to look at Evagrius' thought as a whole, taking the doctrinal, mystical and ascetic writings together. Also, many studies have focused entirely on the Greek corpus, omitting those works that survive in Syriac and which contain his more mature thought. Misconceptions and mistranslations abound. Consequently a careful re-evaluation of current Evagrian scholarship is much needed. This book examines in detail the Kephalaia Gnostica's treatment of natural contemplation, light mysticism, the doctrine of Christ and eschatology. Since there was no universally accepted terminology for the Christological union during the lifetime of Evagrius, his Christology should be considered on its own merit, rather than simply dismissed as heresy. The same is true for his thinking on the last things, particularly as eschatology is central to his whole system. Rather than denigrating the body and sense perception, as some have claimed, Evagrius regards them as an integral part of the soul's ascent to perfection. His theory of images also needs more careful thought than it has received so far. Although freedom from images is a necessary condition for attaining mystical union, Evagrius is not an advocate of radical iconoclasm. Konstantinovsky re-examines the question of Cappadocian influence. The possibility of influence by Rufinus and/or Melania is considered, and the thinking of Evagrius is compared with that of the author of the Macarian homilies, Clement and Origen and some Stoic and Neoplatonist thinkers. But perhaps too much stress has been placed on influences; Evagrius was a creative and original thinker in his own right. Moreover, his theology arises from his own experiences, particularly that of the divine light. Particularly welcome are the English translations throughout. Since no English editions of the Kephalaia Gnostica or Gnosticus appear in the bibliography, these are presumably the author's own. It is a pity that the Syriac script is so small as to be almost unreadable. The proof-reader has missed a few typos, the most serious of which is the misspelling of Alexander Golitzin's name (in text, bibliography and index). References to footnotes would be easier to locate if they were given numbers in the index, rather than (for example) p. 12n.