‘Christianity is mimesis of the divine nature.’ So states Gregory of Nyssa, thereby providing a rare late antique summary description of the religion. This assessment is the point of departure for M.'s monograph. The study sketches the outlines of Gregory's concept of mimetic theory and practice, considering his views on divine infinity and humanity's ‘epektatic’ pursuit of divine likeness, while situating his thought within a wider array of late antique perspectives on mimesis. By understanding mimesis somewhat flexibly, so as to include various forms of imitation and representation – whether literary, visual or existential –, M. is able to cover a wide range of themes. He does so thoughtfully and with a commendable grasp of Gregory's texts and his broader vision.
Chapter 1 begins with the fifth-century Neoplatonist Proclus’ attempt to reconcile ostensibly divergent appraisals of mimetic art within Plato's texts: one that sees Homer as a ‘divine poet’ and another that pegs him as ‘third in line from the truth’ (p. 16). Proclus ‘smoothes out [the] wrinkle in Plato by distinguishing between accurate and inaccurate imitations’ (p. 17), calling the accurate ones symbolic, rather than mimetic, and thus finding ‘a path beyond mimesis’ (p. 19). Yet, for Gregory, M. contends, ‘Christianity is not a symbol of the divine nature; it is an imitation of it’ (ibid.). M. then explores the Platonic texts, first offering a synthetic reading of mimetic art in the Republic and then discussing Diotima's speech in the Symposium concerning the transformational power of beauty. He contrasts these texts with Timaeus’ ruminations on the mimetic structure of being. Here ‘two tracks’ of mimesis emerge. One is the aesthetic or representational track, in which mimesis as both image-making and image-loving can arouse eros for ill or good in the formation of souls. The other is the ontological and participatory track, in which the simultaneous likeness and dependency of beings-in-becoming towards Being – of image towards archetype – also sparks the flame of eros, but not, M. argues, in a manner that gives due place to the intimate desires of life in finite time and space.
In Chapter 2 M. examines various Neoplatonic attempts to redress the apparent bifurcation. The contrast lies between two conceptions of the soul's return to the divine. The first proceeds by way of mimesis as intellectual contemplation, precisely for the purpose of reaching a state beyond mind (Plotinus/Porphyry). The second posits a return by way of material symbols, such as theurgic rites and divine names (Iamblichus). On this reading, ‘Plotinus combines Plato's two conceptions of mimesis and offers his own account of philosophical desire that eventually moves beyond mimetic participation and into union with the one [sic]’ (p. 50). That process of moral and intellectual refinement is likened by Plotinus to the work of the mimetic arts, for example sculpting (p. 56 [Enn. 5.1]). It remains unclear, though, whether these artistic analogies mean that for Plotinus actual mimetic arts help souls ‘overcome the gap in which representations dwell’ by helping to ‘usher in an ontological union’ in which those representations are ‘swallowed up’ (p. 57). Iamblichus, M. argues, overcomes the disjuncture instead by valorising the power of material symbols. And, following the work of S. Elm, M. helpfully frames Gregory's contributions within the long wake of the Emperor Julian's Iamblichean-inspired religious and socio-political reforms.
Chapter 3 considers earlier Christian conceptions of mimesis, from the New Testament to Origen and Athanasius. A core concern is the tension M., following P. Brown, detects between imitation of and reverence for the saints. M. also notes the implications of the trinitarian debates for a Christian theology of mimesis. Nicene theology innovates by positing an ‘image’ that is perfect, i.e. not caught between likeness and unlikeness (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί); yet that eternal image's incarnation also presents humanity with a historical and material image to be perceived and imitated.
Chapters 4–6 treat Gregory's thought directly. In the fourth chapter De perfectione takes centre stage. There, Gregory states that one must focus on the various names given to Christ by Paul, distinguishing between those that are to be imitated and those that are to be revered. The implication seems to be that Gregory risks reifying the bifurcation by understanding mimesis, in the form of active imitation, as irreconcilably distinct from participation as reverence or worship. Yet M.'s claim is that for Gregory this is a distinction that is posited only to be overcome (p. 118). Mimesis of the infinite divine is necessary to the creature's journey: ‘those seeking perfection need not rush past all representations to achieve an ontological union’ (p. 123).
The fifth chapter explores Gregory's conception of mimesis with respect to ‘places’ and the sixth with respect to ‘characters’. The former deals with his ambivalent (or perhaps nuanced) views concerning physical places as uniquely capable of mediating one's union with God. M. navigates the ambivalence by broadening the notion of ‘place’ to include literary places – both literary sequence (ἀκολουθία) and literary ‘images of space’ –, which ‘are mimetic, that is, concerned with participation and representation’ (p. 153). Of central concern here are Gregory's Treatise on the Inscription of the Psalms and Homilies on the Song of Songs. Chapter 6 showcases Gregory's effort to uphold human exemplars who mediate Christ's perfecting work. Contextualising Gregory by discussing late antique pagan moral formation through character imitation, M. suggests that for Gregory such imitation ‘was not a stepping-stone to a larger goal; Christians never mastered or got beyond mimesis’ (p. 157). Humans need exemplars, such as Moses and Macrina, who are further along to provide ‘the access point to the life of Christian perfection, a crossing of infinitude, virtue, and humanity’ (p. 159). Within this concept of divinising union, M. suggests, ‘[t]here is no ontological fusing that swallows difference’; rather, ‘[w]hat was impossible ontologically can still be achieved mimetically’ (p. 167).
Readers will appreciate that M. puts Gregory into conversation with various cultural, religious and philosophical traditions. Doing so while engaging a range of texts means that this monograph will be a point of reference for those interested in studying Gregory and contemporaneous thinkers on a number of topics. M.'s careful attention to his sources’ lexical and syntactical peculiarities will benefit fellow scholars, whether theologians, philosophers or Classicists. As for the core of M.'s multifaceted argument, this reader has been persuaded that Gregory's unique perspective on humanity's epektatic pursuit of likeness to the divine enables him to deploy mimesis in a similarly unique manner. In light of that general agreement and appreciation, I pose several interrelated questions for further inquiry.
M.'s study relies heavily on his understanding of the divergence between two Platonic conceptions of mimesis and, concomitantly, two modes of relation between the divine and the creaturely – the one ‘aesthetic’ and ‘representational’ and the other ‘ontological’ and ‘participatory’. Yet M. recognises that even within the earlier Neoplatonic tradition a way of seeing these as interwoven had already emerged. What, then, would change if one detected greater continuity stretching all the way through the shared pagan and Christian Platonic tradition? That is, what if Plotinus, Proclus and others were simply correct to see all (true) representation as depending upon an underlying ontological structure of participation, and vice versa? How would it reshape the question of mimesis as either merely provisional or enduring, of the relationship between symbolic mediation and mimetic representation, and of the distinction between active imitation and worshipful reverence? It would not, I suggest, undermine our appreciation of Gregory's distinctive approach. It may, however, help us to sort out more clearly the various modes that mimesis takes – whether moral imitation, literary and artistic representation or otherwise – as well as the complex correlations between the structure of being (ontology as mimetic) and the shape of creaturely action (dynamic representation as mimetic). Indeed, perhaps there is for Gregory and others no need to posit a trade-off between ontology and mimesis, while there does remain a need to articulate clearly the question of likeness, difference and the possibility for union. My hunch is that this line of questioning would dovetail with another major feature of Gregory's distinctly Christian world view – i.e. his Christology, as shaped by other late fourth-century debates – and that the reconciliation of likeness and unlikeness in Christ may prove to be even more central to Gregory's thought than it might initially seem. Ultimately, it is because of the provocation of such considerations that I am thankful for M.'s scholarly contribution.
