The term “imitation” has also the following special uses:—
1. In Art-theory.—According to Plato all artistic production is a form of imitation (μίμησις). That which really exists is the idea or type created by God; of this type all concrete objects are representations, while the painter, the tragedian, the musician are merely imitators, thrice removed from the truth (Rep. x. 596 seq.). Such persons are represented by Plato as a menace to the moral fibre of the community (Rep. iii.), as performing no useful function, drawing men away from reality and pandering to the irrational side of the soul. All art should aim at moral improvement. Plato clearly intends by “imitation” more than is connotated by the modern word: though in general he associates with it all that is bad and second-rate, he in some passages admits the value of the imitation of that which is good, and thus assigns to it a certain symbolic significance. Aristotle, likewise regarding art as imitation, emphasizes its purely artistic value as purging the emotions (κάθαρσις), and producing beautiful things as such (see [Aesthetics] and [Fine Arts]).
2. In Biology, the term is sometimes applied to the assimilation by one species of certain external characteristics (especially colour) which enable them to escape the notice of other species which would otherwise prey upon them. It is a form of protective resemblance and is generally known as mimicry (q.v.; see also [Colours of Animals]).
3. In Music, the term “imitation” is applied in contrapuntal composition to the repetition of a passage in one or more of the other voices or parts of a composition. When the repetition is note for note with all the intervals the same, the imitation is called “strict” and becomes a canon (q.v.); if not it is called “free,” the latter being much the more common. There are many varieties of imitation, known as imitation “by inversion,” “by inversion and reversion,” “by augmentation,” “by diminution” (see Grove’s Dictionary of Music, s. v., and textbooks of musical theory).
IMITATION OF CHRIST, THE (Imitatio Christi), the title of a famous medieval Christian devotional work, much used still by both Catholics and Protestants and usually ascribed to Thomas à Kempis. The “Contestation” over the author of the Imitation of Christ is probably the most considerable and famous controversy that has ever been carried on concerning a purely literary question. It has been going on almost without flagging for three centuries, and nearly 200 combatants have entered the lists. In the present article nothing is said on the history of the controversy, but an attempt is made to summarize the results that may be looked on as definitely acquired.
Until quite recently there were three candidates in the field—Thomas à Kempis (1380-1471), a canon regular of Mount St Agnes in Zwolle, in the diocese of Utrecht, of the Windesheim Congregation of Augustinian Canons; John Gerson (1363-1429), chancellor of the University of Paris; and an abbot, John Gersen, said to have been abbot of a Benedictine monastery at Vercelli in the 12th century. Towards the end of the 15th century the Imitation circulated under the names of the first two; but Gerson is an impossible author, and his claims have never found defenders except in France, where they are no longer urged. The Benedictine abbot Gersen is an absolutely mythical personage, a mere “double” of the chancellor. Consequently at the present day the question is narrowed to the issue: Thomas à Kempis, or an unknown author.
The following is a statement of the facts that may be received as certain:—
1. The earliest-known dated MS. of the Imitation is of 1424—it contains only Bk. I.; the earliest MSS. of the whole work of certain date are of 1427. Probably some of the undated MSS. are older; but it is the verdict of the most competent modern expert opinion that there is no palaeographical reason for suspecting that any known MS. is earlier than the first quarter of the 15th century.