mind volume 46 issue 183 1937 [doi 10.2307%2f2250227] review by- john laird -- the great chain of...

8/20/2019 Mind Volume 46 issue 183 1937 [doi 10.2307%2F2250227] Review by- John Laird -- The Great Chain of Being- A S…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mind-volume-46-issue-183-1937-doi-1023072f2250227-review-by-john-laird 1/7

Mind ssociation

The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. by A. O. LovejoyReview by: John LairdMind, New Series, Vol. 46, No. 183 (Jul., 1937), pp. 400-405Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2250227 .

Accessed: 21/06/2014 08:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press and Mind Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Mind.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:05:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mind

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2250227?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2250227?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mind

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup



400

CRITICAL NOTICES:

The Great

hain

ofBeing:

A Study f theHistory fan Idea. The

William James Lectures,delivered

t Harvard

University,

1933. By A. 0. LOVEJOY.Harvard Universityress,1936

(London: Humphrey ilford). Pp. ix.,

392. Price n

England,

17s. net.

IT

was

in

the

eighteenthentury,

Mr.

Lovejoy says,

that the

conception f

the

universe

s

a

Chain

of Being,

nd the

principles

which

underlay

his

conception-plenitude,

ontinuity,

radation

-attained theirWidest

iflusion

nd

acceptance

. .

Next to

the

word

Nature',

'the Great

Chain

of

Being'

was the sacred

phrase

Qfthe eighteenthentury, laying partsomewhatnalogous o

thatoftheblessedword

evolution

in the ate

nineteenth

. That

is

the keynote f the present ook, nd Mr. Lovejoy,whose

know-

ledge of the eighteenthenturys even

more

xtensive nd precise

than his knowledgefany other,

ets

out to record he

rise,

the

zenith nd the

declineof

this central

onception

f his

favourite

period. The rise, ndeed,

was

slow,

nd nvolved

wo

millennia.

It

therefore

equiresmanypages

fromts

commentator;

nd

although

the

declinewas more apid

t also needs

a

certain pace.

On the

whole,however,

he

preamble nd

the

appendix

re

subordinate

o

thecentral hapters ndthecentral heme.

Since

Mr.

Lovejoy s studying he history

f an idea he is

entitled o theprivilegesfthatparticular

ursuit.

In other

words,

he is not bound o showthat the dea

as it shaped

tself

n

so and

so's writings ad such and such a provenance.

His is

a

study

n

metaphysicaltmosphericsather han

an

accountof the

sources

deliberately

tudied y particularuthors.

The habitat

f an

idea

is very ftenn the irwherets currentsnd cross-currentsre ikely

to

be and to remainnvisible,nd Mr.

Lovejoy's uggestion,think,

is rather This is a syndrome f a generalpresumption than

This preciselys what ed to that . On the otherhand,his book

is most generously ocumented ith

passages seldom hackneyed

but

nevermerely urious, nd consequently

s

a mine f

fascinating

information.n the mine he galleries

hatare stillpartially ctive

arenot ess nterestinghanthe disused hafts.

Accordingo Mr. Lovejoy the

storybegins

with

Plato,

who had

two

gods diametricallypposed o one

another. On the one hand

Plato

believed n a self-sufficingerfection,

n the

otherhand n a

self-transcendingecundity. If the

firstwere true, the second

wouldbe pointless, orperfection,eingperfect,annot e bettered

by emanations rom tself nd indeed

he totalitymust

be

spoiled

since

he emanation, eingnecessarily

ess perfecthan nother od,

must lwaysbe an inferiorupplement. This

would also be true

if

creationwere essentially redemption rama.] Nevertheless,

Plato and the Platonists eveloped theory f emanation

r

be-

comingwith n eagerness ot inferior

o theirworship f other-

worldly perfection.As the Timaeus

ays, Beingdevoid f envy,







A.

0.

LOVEJOY,

The

Great

Chain

of Being. 401

God

desired

hat

verything

hould

e so far s

possible

ike

himself

.

That is the principle f emanationismr,

in

the later

scholastic

phrase, he view that omnebonumest diflusivumui . For

Platonists t gives

he reason or

ll

becoming,

nd

it becomes

he

principle f

plenitude hen

t is

pushed

o its

ogical xtreme.

The

more hat

emanates

he

stronger

he

proof

hat God

is

not

ealous.

Therefore

aximum lenitude s enjoinedwiththe sole

limitation

that

there annot e

a second

God.

AlongwithplenitudeMr. Lovejoy oins

the notion

f

continuity

(whose chief ponsor, e declares,was

Aristotle) nd

the

kindred

principle f gradation. As Pope put it, All must

full

or

not

coherent e, And all that rises rise in due degree

.

The fuller

elaboration f these deas was more Plotinian

han Platonic and

was likened y Macrobiusn the fifthentury o

Homer'sgolden

chain -although the chainwasn't Homer's.

Moreover,he work

went on

during he patristic,

he

prescholastic

nd

the

scholastic

centuries. t

was stimulated y Augustine non

essent

mnia i

essent aequalia

] as well as by the pseudb-Dionysius,nd Mr.

Lovejoy has

much o say in praiseof Abelard,

ince

that

author,

like Mr. Lovejoy

himself,

elieved hat

the

principle

f

plenitude

logically mplies

necessitarianptimism

.

For the same reason

Mr.Lovejoy everelyriticises quinas or cceptingheprinciplef

plenitude God

wills hings o be multiplied

nasmuch

s he

wills

and loves

His

own perfection] and yet denying

ecessitarianism.

I

think, owever, hat this

part

of Air.

Lovejoy's

argument

ould

have

beenmore

mpressive

fhe had

not gnored

quinas's

istinction

between

iberty

f

election nd liberty

f indifterence.

o far

as

I

can see,Mr.

Lovejoy,

n

the

passages

he

quotes,

ucceeds n con-

victing quinas

nly f one contradiction,

nd

thatquite diflerent

one.

ForAquinas dmits

hatGod

couldhave

made

better

world,

which

would

be

impossible

f the creation

were n

full

ccord

with

theprinciplefplenitude.

In his

fourth

hapter

n Plenitude

nd

the New

Cosmography

Mr.

Lovejoy

makes nearer

pproach

o

his

central

heme. Indeed

he

treats f certain

matters

own

o

the time

of

Kant.

He

begins

by exploding

certain

prevalentfallacies. The

universe

of

the

fifteenth

entury,

e

shows,

was

a

walled but not

a

small

affair,

even f

t was

ignorantf the astronomical figures

hat are now

so

gliblygiven.

Again,

man's

supposed entrality n geocentric

assumptions

served ather orhis humiliationhanforhisexalta-

tion . His earthwas at thegreatest istance rom hepure,ncor-

ruptible

alls

ofthe cosmos

nd

was in fact

upposed

o be

a

dim

and squalid cellarof theuniverse. Againthe

heliocentricypo-

thesis forwhichKepler, ccordingo our

author,

was

responsible

rather

hanCopernicus)idnot greatly lter he

standards

f those

who

had

a

classical

aste

n

universes

.

What

was much

more

unsettling

as

an

acentric

iew.

Bacon

said as much

nd

Cusa took

the

theory and with

t the

staggering roblems

f

infinity

nd







402 CRITICAL

NOTICES:

relativity)

eriously,lthough

lways

n

the service

of his

docta

ignorantia.

But Bruno

was the principal epresentativef thedecentralised,nfinite nd infinitely opulous universe; and

Bruno s one

of Mr.

Lovejoy's

heroes

nd

the mmediate

recursor

of he

theodicy-mongers.

runo's

ttitude,

ndeed,

was

very

argely

the attitude

with which

Mr.

Lovejoy's entire

ssay

is

concerned.

Why

hould rhow

an we

uppose

he

divine

otency

o be

idle?

Because of the

countless

rades f

perfection

n

which

he

ncor-

poreal

divine

excellence

must needs manifest

tself n

a

corporeal

manner,

there

must

be

countless individuals such

as

.

.

. the

Earth.

Whatever s

small,

rivial

r

mean

serves

o

complete

the splendour f the whole. Although escartes, ccordingo

Mr.

Lovejoy,

had

probably

he

greatest

irect

nfluence

pon

the

late seventeenth-nd

eighteenth-centurypeculations

pon the

plurality

f

inhabited

worlds nd

the

problems

f

infinity,runo

illustrates he

change-over

rom

medikvalism

more

precisely.

Infinity lusplenitude

ecame

heady

metapliysical

rew.

It was

fitted

ndeed o

inculcate

man's

nsignificance,

nd

Descartes,

mong

others,

o

interpretedt. The human

spirit,

however, volved

compensatory

rationalisations

. Hence

the

paradoxicalresult

that

it

was not in

the

thirteenth

entury

ut in

the

nineteenth

that homo apiensbustled boutmostself-importantlyn his in-

finitesimalorner f

the cosmic

tage

.

Leibnizwas

a

greater

hilosopher

han Bruno.

He

was also the

chief

xponent

f

an

optimismf

plenitude,

nd his

views

re a

sort

of

standard

control

of

Mr.Lovejoy's

nterpretation

f

the Chain

of

Being.

Among he

great hilosophic

ystems f

he

eventeenth

century,Mr.

Lovejoy

says [and

Leibniz

survived hat

century],

it

is in

that

of

Leibuiz

thatthe

conception

f

the Chainof

Being

is

most

conspicuous, ost

determinativend most

pervasive. The

essential haracteristicsftheuniverse re forhimplenitude,on-

tinuity nd

linear

gradation.

Mr.

Lovejoy,

however,

s

chiefly

concerned ith he

relation

etween eibniz's

principle

fsufficient

reasonon the one

hand,

and the Great

Chain

of

Being uponthe

other.

In

debating his

uestion

e allows

himselfeveral

xcursions

into

he

views f

other

uthors, ut n the

main

s concernedo

show

that

Leibniz

ought

ogically o have

been

a

necessitarian

there

being

no

intelligible

eaning n

an

inclination

hat does

not

neces-

sitate),

that

the

sufficienteason

for

existence) s

ultimately

n

exigentia

ssendi

nherentn

every

ssence, nd that the limitation

to compossiblesnstead fmerepossibless a minor onsideration.

A

mere

possible s

a

thing

rustrate,

r.

Lovejoy

explains: and

the

principle

f

plenitude oes

the rest.

As

Leibniz

himself

aid,

From

the

conflict f all

the

possibles

emanding

xistence,

his

at

once

follows, hat

there xists

hat

series f

things y which s

many fthem

s

possible xist;

in other

words, he

maximal eries

of

possibles

;

and,

again,

the

actualuniverses the collection f

the

possibles

qui

forment

e plus riche

compose

.

Furthermore,







A. 0. LOVEJOY, The

Great

Chain of Being.

403

Just

as there

s no

vacuum n the varieties

f

the

corporeal

orld,

so theres nolessvariety mongntelligentreatures.With hese xplanations r.Lovejoy's tory eaches tshighnoon

in the

eighteenthentury,nd it is here

hatthe

passages quoted

at the

beginning

f

this

review ccur. The

situation

s

surveyed

n

successive

hapters pon

ighteenth-centuryhought

nd

eighteenth-

century

ptimism, ith

supplementaryhapter oncerningiology.

The later

chapters escribe ow

the

conception an

almost

iterally

to romantic

eed.

Quotations

rom

ddison nd

from

dmund

aw

enforce

he

moral

that has

alreadybeen made so

abundantly lain. According o

Addison, Had God madeonlyonespecies fanimals, oneofthe

rest

would

have

njoyed

he

happiness

f

xistence;

he

has

therefore

specifiedn

his

creation very egree

f

ife, very apacity

f

being

.

And Law

said the same.

Mr.

Lovejoy

s more

oncerned

ith he twists

nd

turns he

dea

took once t

may be

said

to

have

become stablished,nd

his

com-

ments bound

n

varied nterest.

As

he

shows,

he

metaphysical

necessity or

the chain was really

an argument gainst

man's

hegemonyn

nature-for he Whole

was

the

thing, nd

not

any

particularink n the chain.

He also

shows

hat this

consequence

was notinvariably isregarded.Again, fman occupied n inter-

mediate ink n the

chain,

he had

no particulareason or

vaunting

himself.

ndeed,

s

Mr. Lovejoy

showsby citingAddison,-

oling-

broke nd some

others,

t

was

quite

commonly

eldthatthe

grades

of

ntelligenteings bove manwere

morenumeroushain he

grades

below.

[Thetrouble, f course,was to

find mpirical

orroboration

of

these

majestic onceits, t any rate

n the neighbourhoodf

the

terrestrial

all; but Kant in 1755 cheerfullyoncluded hat t

was

very nearly

ertain hat the entire xtentof the perfection

f

thinkingatures ecamemore nd more ompleten proportionothe

remoteness f theirdwelling-placerom he sun .]

Further,

although

man was

the

highest

nhabitant f

the

earth, heprinciple

of

gradation

revented ny abruptdivision etweenhim and his

animal

kindred.

What hinpartitionsense rom hought ivide

was

one of the

things ope said; and

Soame Jenyns,much ead

n

his

time, emarkedhat animal ife

risesfrom his ow

beginning

in

the

shell-fish,hroughnnumerablepecies f nsects, ishes, irds

and beasts, o

the confinesfreason,

where,n the dog, he

monkey,

the

chimpanze,

t

unites o closely

withthe lowestdegree f that

quality nman, hattheycannot asilybe distinguishedrom ach

other .

And

astly metaphysicsf

man's neluctablemediocrity

was

readily nterpreteds an

injunction

o

mankind

o

remain

mediocre.

According

o

Jenyns,

God cannot nstruct mole n

astronomy

r

an

oyster

n

music

.

By the same ogicmenof

owly

station

hould

not attempt o change heir ankor their ot.

The

relation

f

these deas to optimism is at least of

equal

interest. To

us, looking ack, t seems

perfectlylain that f

per-







404 CRITICAL NOTICES:

fection

meansfullness,

nd if the best s

simply

he

fullest, either

optimism ormeliorism

n

their

rdinary

enses

need

be so much

s

suggested.By optimism we usuallymean the doctrine hat

virtue,

appiness

nd

beauty

must

reponderate

ver

vice,wretched-

ness

andugliness.

That s

a doctrine

f

selection, ot

doctrine

f

plenitude.

Existence s

the fuller

f it

contains

in,misery

nd

aesthetic

yesores.

It

does

not

even follow rom he

premises

hat

the wholemass

should

be

a

paradise

lthough

verypart

of

it

is

full fvice.

Again, y

meliorism

emean

qualitative

mprovement

of

reality n

respect f

happiness, irtue nd

beauty;

and

eternal

plenitude,

hether r not it is

interpreted

tatically,

ivesno

hint

of such

a rosy

future.

These

things,

ndeed,

re

so

very

lear

that

theyhaveonly o be stated to be seen. Mr.Lovejoy'snarrative,

however,

as

the

greatmerit f

howing

n

detailhow his

grimype

of

optimism was

accepted,

lthough

ot without

undry ualms,

by

King,Law,

Leibniz

nd others. Thus

King

said,

If

you

say,

God

might

ave

omitted

he

more

mperfect

eings,

grant t, and

if

that

had

been

best,

he

would

undoubtedly

ave done

t. But

it

is

thepartof

nfinite

oodness

o

choose he very

est; from

hence

it

proceeds,

herefore,hat he

more

mperfecteings

ave

existence;

for

t

was

agreeable o

that,not to omit

the very east

good

that

could be produced. Finite goodnessmightpossiblyhave been

exhausted n

creating

he

greatereings, ut

nfinite

xtends o all

.

On

the

other

hand,

t

seems o

me

to

bemisleadingo

say

withMr.

Lovejoy hat his

ype

f

optimism

implies hat

the

desirability

of

a

thing's

xistence

ears no

relation o

its

excellence

.

The

trouble

omes

from

dentifying

erfection

ith

fullness,nd

then

holdinghat

perfection

lone s

excellent

nd alone

sdesirable.

In

short,

here s

simply

failure

o detect n

ambiguityn the word

perfection

.

Mr.

Lovejoy's

chapter

upon

eighteenth-century

iology ontains

interestinguotationsregarding he missing ink and other

attempts

f

the

centuryo

showhow

the maxim hat

Nature

does

nothinger

altum

hould e

nterpretedn

a biological

ense.

I

must

hurry n, however,

o his

accountof the

decline

f the

theory

f'

plenitude,nd

here he

beginningsre made

with

hischapter

pon

temporalizing

hechainof

being

.

Mr.

Lovejoy

obviously

elieves hat

the

logic of

the

theory

was

on the

side of

those

who held

that

plenitudewas

immutable,

nd,

with

atheress

plausibility,is

comments

perfectlyational

nd

perfectly

opeless

. The

idea,

however,

hat the scale

of nature

was a ladder o beclimbed lsomade ts ppearance eforendduring

the

eighteenth

entury, nd

romanticism

ame hard on

its heels.

Addison, or

xample,

iously

emarked

hat the

Cherubim

hich

now

appears s a

Godto

a

human

oul, knows

verywell that the

periodwill

ome

bout n

eternity,

hen he

human oul shallbe

as

perfects he

himselfs now

,

and

the dea of the

nevitableness

f

gradual

reative

dvance won

a gooddeal

of

recognition.

Leibniz







A.

O.

LOVEJOY, The

Great

Chain

of Being.

405

had

said

that rational

ouls advance

and

ripen

ontinually,

ike

'the

world

tself,

f which

hey

re but

images

. Akensides

well

as Kant believedn temporaldvance. [As Akensidewrote, In

their

tations ll

may persevere,

o climb he

ascentof

being,

nd

approach,

orevernearer

o the lifedivine .]

Similarly obinet

gave

illustrationssometimes

antastic)

n

support

f

the

view

that

a

single

tock,given nfinite

ime,

might ngender

n

infinity

f

variations.

Such

opinions

may

have

engthened

he ife f

the

theory,

espite

Voltaire's

riticism

f the

entire onception on

the

ground

hat

Nature

does

make

leaps)

and-this

is stillmore

nteresting-the

highly ialecticalrguments

f

Dr.

Johnson

n his

review

f

Soame

Jenynso the effecthat ntrueplenitudeheremustbe an infinity

of

grades

etweenny

two

points,

owever

ear,

hat

may

be

chosen

in an infinite

eries-and

hencethat currentnterpretations

f

the

principle

f

plenitude

re

absurd.

But when

omanticism

nvaded

the

conception

f

plenitude,

he

principle

f

infinite iversification

began

o

oust all

the

others,

nd

a

diversitatarianlenitude

ecame

a

straggling

nd

a

formless

hing.

Mr.

Lovejoypursues

his heme

in

an account

f

Schiller, chlegel

nd

Schleiermacher.

emember-

ing,

n

due

season,

o

honour

William

James,

e

concedes certain

benignity to themovement.

The climax,

he

goes

on

to

say,

came with

Schelling's

iewthat

God

himself

as in

the

making,

nd

the

moral,

ccording

o

Mr.

Lovejoy,

s that he two

gods

ofPlatocannot

oth

be

believed

n

and

that

a world f time

nd

change

s a

worldwhich

an neither

be

deduced

from

nor

reconciled

ith

the

postulate

hat

existence

is

the

expression

nd

consequence

f

a

system

f

'eternal' and

'n

ecessary

truths

nherent

n

the

verylogic

of

being .

He

concludes

with

he

suggestion

hat

there s

greater

ope

for heism

in

the

idea

(rather

entatively

redited

o

Whitehead)

hat God

is

a principle f limitation than in the infinite ecundityf

emanationism

.

These

essons

re

perhaps

oo

easily

drawn.

If

the

GreatChain

of

Being

be

dissolved

o-day,

he

relations

etween ime

nd eternity

are still

he

object

of

modish

iscussionnd

will

not

be silenced y

the

biography

f

a

dead

idea.

On

the

other

hand,

this

s a very

good

biography,

nd

would

be

little

he

worse f the death of its

subject

were n

exaggerated

eport.

I have

attempted,

n

a

sketchy

way,

to

give

a

rough

ndication

f

the

landscapethrough

which

Mr.Lovejoyhas conducted isreaders, ut thedetail s evenmore

engrossing.

n

short,

he book is whata book

should

be-very

good

to read.

JOHN

LAIRD.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:05:22 AM



mind volume 46 issue 183 1937 [doi 10.2307%2f2250227] review by- john laird -- the great chain of...

Documents