In setting out the impetus for this investigation, Fr. Silouan writes: “The letters of Basil remain largely unutilised with respect to their contribution to ecclesiology. . . . In response to this neglect, this book will attempt, first to bring to the surface the contents of these letters and their notion of ecclesial communion, and second, to show how for Basil the very act of letter-writing was itself an instrument of communion. . . . The argument will show how Basil used his letters to facilitate communion in the Nicene church.” (7–8, 9)

This book falls into three discrete parts. The first (introductory) part deals with fourth-century letter writing in general and then more specifically with Basil's great testimony of letter writing, recapitulating the progress of scholarly research on the transmission of his epistolarium. The second part (37–179) is a survey of the character, life, and ministry of St. Basil himself. It comes across as the author's endeavor to assimilate the person of Basil into his own life and thought—with a view to the issues of communion and episcopal ministry in the church above all. Only then (183–349) do we begin the analysis of Basil's letters to see how he used them in his struggle to restore to the communion of the Nicene church all the local churches of the Eastern Roman Empire that were bending and buckling under the emperors’ coercive Arianizing policies (245). Fr. Silouan synthesizes his findings in the last forty pages (318–349), wherein surely is his most substantial contribution to Basil studies.

The author is an Australian priest-monk of the Greek Orthodox Church who has pursued theological studies in the secular university world, as such possibilities are available in Australia, and in a circle given to a more or less secular academic approach to early Christian studies—all while not letting go of his faith and piety. Consequently, the argument of the book is a blend—sometimes a strained tension—of approaches. Two examples should serve to illustrate my meaning. Despite his profound respect and deep listening to St. Basil, Fr. Silouan appeases an impartial, “value-free” historicization and refers, not to Arianism in its various shades (from Homoianism to Anomoianism) that stalked the church between 325 and 381, but to a vague, non-committal “non-Nicenism.” It jars a little. Similarly, he nods to modern linguistic ideology by referring to the Holy Spirit as an “it” rather than “He” (the Force perhaps?). The pronoun “it,” however, retains nonpersonal connotations in English, and if there is anything the Spirit is not, it is nonpersonal. “He” in unideologized English denotes two things: a masculine entity and a common personal identity, usually inferred from the context. Nevertheless, when Fr. Silouan engages intensely with the Spirit, he reverts to “He” (110). The English-ing of hypostasis and “person” seems a little befuddled at times (101). Better to have consistently transliterated hypostasis wherever it occurs, in my opinion, and retained “person” to render prosopa.

There are minor errors, but not much more than the level of the typos we all have to contend with. For example: In the explanation that the letters of Theodoret and of Severus were destroyed for not conforming to anti-Chalcedonian sentiments (26), the “not” or the “anti-” should have been deleted. Eusebius of Nicomedia is referred to as “Emperor” (40). After Athens, Basil is said to have gone on pilgrimage with Eustathius of Sebasteia (51), which he did not do. Fr. Silouan refers to Basil's “native province of Caesarea” (52), but Caesarea was not a province, and Basil was not a native of Cappadocia. The women and men of the proto-monastic community at Annisa are portrayed as living on opposite sides of the river (56), which is not true, as the last pages of the Life of Macrina attest. And finally, “the ensuring communion with heretics” (301) should be “the ensnaring communion,” perhaps?

Occasionally one notices an incoherent argument, or maybe they are paradoxes. An example from page 235 should suffice. Fr. Silouan is at pains to stress what one might call the limits of analogy, writing: “The perfect divine persons of the simple God cannot serve as a model for limited, created, finite human beings.” Then on the next page (236), taking in Zizioulas, he writes: “In the life of the church, communion with the other reflects fully the relations between communion and otherness in the Holy Trinity.” (Emphasis added.) I might suggest that if the communion of persons in the Trinity is deemed the true and ultimate model for man, such would not be a question of “anthropomorphizing God” but of remediating and deifying man through humble, tentative, and maturing participation.

This reviewer can assure anyone taking up this book that he or she will be led through significant coverage of much of Basil's writing and theological and ecclesial thinking and of his far-reaching pastoral and social initiatives. Much of the book may be considered a good introductory course in St. Basil. The letters of Basil have been read very searchingly—so have Contra Eunomium and On the Holy Spirit. Fr. Silouan gives a good account of Basil's Trinitarian theology, particularly in the thickets of “unbegottenness,” the essence of God and the distinguishing marks of the hypostases (97). He has consulted the relevant scholarly writing in this field going back decades, which he summarily lists on pages 8 and 9. Occasionally, Fr. Silouan misses important details. Finally, in the last forty pages or so, he distills what the title of the book announced he would investigate: St. Basil's letters as instruments of ecclesial communion. It is as if the author is grateful for the opportunity to ask questions of Basil's writings in this way and to put out a few ideas that he hopes may be developed in the future, by others or by himself. Thus, he ends quite humbly and invitingly: “This book, as a single book, has made no claim to exhaust all that there is to say about Basil's letters. . . . In fact, each letter could be a thesis topic itself, such is the depth of theology and the richness of meaning in his letters. . . . It remains the task of students of Basil to verify this claim and compliment the work that has been undertaken in this book” (347–348).

I recommended this as a good introductory book to aspects of Basil's Trinitarian theology and to his ecclesiology of communion that flows from it. I especially recommend it to anyone who wishes to take up Fr. Silouan's challenge and pursue his theme further.