Mind Association

The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. by A. O. Lovejoy

Review by: John Laird
Mind, New Series, Vol. 46, No. 183 (Jul., 1937), pp. 400-405
Published 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 support@jstor.org.

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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

400

CRITICAL NOTICES:

The GreatChainofBeing: A StudyoftheHistoryofan Idea. The

William James Lectures,deliveredat Harvard University,
1933. By A. 0. LOVEJOY.Harvard UniversityPress, 1936
(London: Humphrey
Milford). Pp. ix.,392. PriceinEngland,
17s.net.
"IT was in the eighteenth
century,"Mr. Lovejoysays, " that the
conceptionof the universeas a Chainof Being,and the principles
whichunderlaythis conception-plenitude,
continuity,
gradation
and acceptance. . . Next to the
-attained theirWidestdiflusion
word'Nature', 'the GreatChainof Being' was the sacredphrase
Qfthe eighteenth
century,playinga part somewhatanalogousto
". That
thatoftheblessedword' evolution' in thelate nineteenth
is the keynoteof the presentbook,and Mr. Lovejoy,whoseknowledgeof the eighteenth
centuryis even moreextensiveand precise
than his knowledgeof any other,sets out to recordthe rise,the
zenithand the declineof this centralconceptionof his favourite
period. The rise,indeed,was slow,and involvedtwomillennia. It
therefore
requiresmanypagesfromits commentator;and although
the declinewas morerapidit also needs a certainspace. On the
to
the preambleand the appendixare subordinate
whole,however,
the centralchaptersand the centraltheme.
Since Mr. Lovejoy is studyingthe " historyof an idea " he is
pursuit. In otherwords,
entitledto theprivileges
ofthatparticular
he is not boundto showthat the idea as it shapeditselfin so and
so's writingshad such and such a provenance. His is a studyin
metaphysical
atmospherics
ratherthan an accountof the sources
studiedby particularauthors. The habitatof an idea
deliberately
andcross-currents
arelikely
is veryoftenin theairwhereitscurrents
to be and to remaininvisible,
I think,
and Mr.Lovejoy'ssuggestion,
" than
is rather" This is a syndromeof a generalpresumption
" Thisprecisely
is whatled to that". On the otherhand,his book
is most generouslydocumentedwith passages seldom hackneyed
but nevermerelycurious,and consequently
is a mineoffascinating
information.In theminethe galleriesthatare stillpartiallyactive
are not less interesting
thanthe disusedshafts.
According
to Mr. Lovejoythe storybeginswithPlato, who had
two gods diametrically
opposedto one another. On the one hand
Plato believedin a self-sufficing
on the otherhandin a
Perfection,
self-transcending
Fecundity. If the firstwere true, the second
cannotbe bettered
wouldbe pointless,
forperfection,
beingperfect,
by emanationsfromitselfand indeedthe totalitymustbe spoiled
sincetheemanation,
less perfect
thananothergod,
beingnecessarily
mustalwaysbe an inferior
supplement.[This wouldalso be true
if creationwere essentiallya redemptiondrama.] Nevertheless,
Plato and the Platonistsdevelopeda theoryof emanationor beto theirworshipof " othercomingwithan eagernessnot inferior
" perfection.As the Timaeussays," Beingdevoidof envy,
worldly

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A.

0.

LOVEJOY,

The GreatChain of Being.

401

shouldbe so faras possiblelikehimself

Goddesiredthateverything
".
That is the principleof emanationism
or, in the later scholastic
phrase,the view that " omne bonumest diflusivumsui ". For
Platonistsit givesthe reasonforall becoming,and it becomesthe
principleofplenitudewhenit is pushedto its logicalextreme. The
morethatemanatesthe stronger
the proofthat God is not jealous.
Therefore
maximumplenitudeis enjoinedwiththe sole limitation
thattherecannotbe a secondGod.
AlongwithplenitudeMr. Lovejoyjoins the notionof continuity
(whosechiefsponsor,he declares,was Aristotle)and the kindred
principleof gradation. As Pope put it, " All must full or not
coherentbe, And all that risesrise in due degree". The fuller
elaborationof these ideas was morePlotinianthan Platonicand
was likenedby Macrobiusin the fifthcenturyto " Homer'sgolden
chain"-although the chainwasn'tHomer's. Moreover,
the work
and the scholastic
went on duringthe patristic,
the prescholastic
centuries. It was stimulatedby Augustine[" non essentomniasi
essent aequalia "] as well as by the pseudb-Dionysius,
and Mr.
Lovejoy has muchto say in praiseof Abelard,since that author,
like Mr. Lovejoy himself,
believedthat the principleof plenitude
logicallyimplies" necessitarian
". For the same reason
optimism
Mr.Lovejoyseverelycriticises
of
Aquinasforacceptingtheprinciple
plenitude[" God willsthingsto be multiplied
inasmuchas he wills
and loves His own perfection
"] and yet denyingnecessitarianism.
I think,however,that this part of Air.Lovejoy'sargumentwould
havebeenmoreimpressive
ifhe hadnotignoredAquinas'sdistinction
So far as
betweenlibertyof electionand libertyof indifterence.
I can see, Mr. Lovejoy,in the passageshe quotes,succeedsin conand thatquitea diflerent
victingAquinasonlyofone contradiction,
one. For AquinasadmitsthatGod couldhavemadea betterworld,
whichwouldbe impossibleif the creationwerein fullaccordwith
the principleof plenitude.
In his fourthchapteron " Plenitudeand the New Cosmography"
Mr.Lovejoymakesa nearerapproachto hiscentraltheme. Indeed
he treatsof certainmattersdownto the timeof Kant. He begins
by explodingcertain prevalentfallacies. The universeof the
fifteenth
century,he shows,was a walled but not a small affair,
" figures
thatare now
evenifit was ignorantofthe " astronomical
so gliblygiven. Again,man's supposedcentralityon geocentric
" servedratherforhis humiliation
assumptions
thanforhis exaltation". His earthwas at the greatestdistancefromthe pure,incorruptiblewallsofthe cosmosand was in factsupposedto be " a dim
and squalid cellarof the universe". Againthe heliocentric
hypothesis(forwhichKepler,accordingto our author,was responsible
ratherthanCopernicus)
did not greatlyalterthe standardsofthose
who had " a classicaltaste in universes
". What was muchmore
was an acentric
view. Bacon said as muchand Cusa took
unsettling
the theory(and with it the staggeringproblemsof infinity
and

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

402

CRITICAL

NOTICES:

relativity)seriously,althoughalways in the serviceof his docta

ignorantia.But Bruno was "the principalrepresentative
of the
decentralised,infiniteand infinitelypopulous universe"; and
Brunois one of Mr. Lovejoy'sheroesand the immediateprecursor
ofthetheodicy-mongers.
Bruno'sattitude,indeed,was verylargely
the attitudewithwhichMr. Lovejoy's entireessay is concerned.
" Whyshouldorhowcan wesupposethedivinepotencyto be idle? "
" Because of the countlessgradesof perfection
in whichthe incorporeal divineexcellencemustneeds manifestitselfin a corporeal

manner, there must be countless individuals such as . . . the

Earth." " Whateveris small,trivialor mean servesto complete

the splendourof the whole." AlthoughDescartes,accordingto
Mr. Lovejoy,had probablythe greatestdirectinfluence
upon the
late seventeenthand eighteenth-century
speculationsupon the
pluralityof inhabitedworldsand the problemsof infinity,
Bruno
illustratesthe change-overfrom medikvalismmore precisely.
Infinity
plusplenitudebecamea headymetapliysical
brew. It was
fittedindeedto inculcateman'sinsignificance,
and Descartes,among
others,so interpretedit. The human spirit,however,evolved
compensatory" rationalisations
". Hence the paradoxicalresult
that " it was not in the thirteenth
centurybut in the nineteenth
that homosapiens bustledabout most self-importantly
in his infinitesimal
cornerofthe cosmicstage".
Leibnizwas a greaterphilosopher
thanBruno. He was also the
chiefexponentofan optimism
ofplenitude,
and hisviewsare a sort
ofstandard" control" of Mr.Lovejoy'sinterpretation
ofthe Chain
ofBeing. " Amongthegreatphilosophic
systems
oftheseventeenth
century,"Mr. Lovejoy says [and Leibniz survivedthat century],
" it is in thatof Leibuizthatthe conception
of the Chainof Being
is mostconspicuous,
mostdeterminative
and mostpervasive. The
essentialcharacteristics
of the universeare forhimplenitude,continuityand lineargradation." Mr. Lovejoy, however,is chiefly
concernedwiththe relationbetweenLeibniz'sprincipleof sufficient
reasonon the one hand,and the GreatChain of Being upon the
other. In debatingthisquestionhe allowshimself
severalexcursions
intotheviewsofotherauthors,butin themainis concerned
to show
that Leibniz oughtlogicallyto have been a necessitarian(there
beingno intelligible
meaningin an inclination
that does notnecessitate),that the sufficient
reason (forexistence)is ultimatelyan
exigentiaessendiinherentin everyessence,and that the limitation
to compossibles
insteadof merepossiblesis a minorconsideration.
" A merepossibleis a thingfrustrate,"
Mr. Lovejoyexplains: and
the principleof plenitudedoes the rest. As Leibnizhimselfsaid,
" From the conflictof all the possiblesdemandingexistence,this
at once follows,that thereexiststhat seriesof thingsby whichas
manyof themas possibleexist; in otherwords,the maximalseries
of possibles"; and, again," the actualuniverseis the collectionof

the possibles qui formentle plus riche compose".

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Furthermore,

A. 0.

LOVEJOY,

The Great Chain of Being.

403

"Just as thereis no vacuumin thevarietiesofthe corporealworld,

so thereis no less varietyamongintelligent
creatures
".
Mr.Lovejoy'sstoryreachesits highnoon
Withtheseexplanations
in the eighteenth
century,
and it is herethatthe passagesI quoted
ofthisreviewoccur. The situationis surveyedin
at the beginning
successivechaptersuponeighteenth-century
thoughtand eighteenthcenturyoptimism,
witha supplementary
chapterconcerning
biology.
The laterchaptersdescribehowthe conceptionran almostliterally
to romanticseed.
fromAddisonandfromEdmundLaw enforce
themoral
Quotations
that has alreadybeen made so abundantlyplain. Accordingto
Addison," Had God made onlyone speciesof animals,noneof the
restwouldhaveenjoyedthehappinessofexistence; he has therefore
specified
in hiscreationeverydegreeoflife,everycapacityofbeing".
And Law said the same.
Mr.Lovejoyis moreconcerned
withthetwistsand turnstheidea
took onceit may be said to have becomeestablished,
and his commentsabound in variedinterest. As he shows,the metaphysical
necessityfor the chain was really an argumentagainst man's
hegemonyin nature-forthe Whole was the thing,and not any
particularlinkin the chain. He also showsthat thisconsequence
was not invariablydisregarded.Again,if man occupiedan intermediatelinkin the chain,he had no particularreasonforvaunting
himself. Indeed,as Mr. Lovejoyshowsby citingAddison,Bolingbrokeand someothers,it was quitecommonly
heldthatthe grades
ofintelligent
beingsabovemanweremorenumerous
thainthe grades
below. [The trouble,of course,was to findempiricalcorroboration
of thesemajesticconceits,at any rate in the neighbourhood
of the
terrestrial
ball; but Kant-in 1755 cheerfully
concludedthat it was
very nearlycertainthat "the entireextentof the perfection
of
thinking
naturesbecamemoreand morecompletein proportion
to
the remoteness
of theirdwelling-place
fromthe sun ".] Further,
althoughman was the highestinhabitantofthe earth,the principle
of gradationpreventedany abruptdivisionbetweenhim and his
animalkindred. " Whatthinpartitions
sensefromthoughtdivide"
was one of the thingsPope said; and Soame Jenyns,
muchread in
his time,remarkedthat " animalliferisesfromthislow beginning
in the shell-fish,
through
innumerable
speciesofinsects,fishes,birds
and beasts,to theconfines
ofreason,where,in thedog,themonkey,
the chimpanze,it unitesso closelywiththe lowestdegreeof that
qualityin man,that theycannoteasilybe distinguished
fromeach
other". Andlastlya metaphysics
of man's ineluctablemediocrity
was readilyinterpreted
as an injunctionto mankindto remain
mediocre. Accordingto Jenyns," God cannotinstructa mole in
oran oysterin music". By the samelogicmenoflowly
astronomy
stationshouldnot attemptto changetheirrankor theirlot.
" is at least of equal
The relationof these ideas to " optimism
interest. To us, lookingback,it seemsperfectly
plainthat if per-

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

404

CRITICAL

NOTICES:

fectionmeansfullness,
and if the best is simplythefullest,neither
normeliorism
optimism
sensesneedbe so muchas
in theirordinary
" we usually mean the doctrinethat
suggested. By " optimism
virtue,happinessand beautymustpreponderate
overvice,wretchedness and ugliness. That is a doctrineof selection,
nota doctrineof
plenitude. Existenceis the fullerif it containssin, miseryand
aestheticeyesores. It does not even followfromthe premisesthat
the wholemass shouldbe a paradisealthougheverypart of it is
fullofvice. Again,bymeliorism
wemeana qualitativeimprovement
of realityin respectof happiness,virtueand beauty; and eternal
plenitude,whetheror not it is interpreted
statically,givesno hint
of such a rosyfuture. Thesethings,indeed,are so veryclearthat
theyhave onlyto be statedto be seen. Mr. Lovejoy's narrative,
has thegreatmeritofshowingin detailhowthisgrimtype
however,
" was accepted,althoughnotwithoutsundryqualms,
of " optimism
by King,Law, Leibnizand others. Thus King said, " If you say,
God mighthave omittedthe moreimperfect
beings,I grantit, and
if that had been best,he wouldundoubtedly
have doneit. But it
is thepartofinfinite
goodnessto choosetheverybest; fromthence
it proceeds,
therefore,
thatthemoreimperfect
beingshaveexistence;
forit was agreeableto that,not to omitthe veryleast good that
could be produced. Finite goodnessmightpossiblyhave been
exhaustedin creating
thegreaterbeings,butinfinite
extendsto all ".
On the otherhand,it seemsto me to be misleading
to saywithMr.
" impliesthat" thedesirability
Lovejoythatthistypeof " optimism
of a thing'sexistencebears no relationto its excellence". The
troublecomes fromidentifying
perfection
with fullness,
and then
holdingthatperfection
alone is excellentand aloneis desirable. In
short,thereis simplya failureto detectan ambiguity
in the word
perfection
".
Mr. Lovejoy's chapterupon eighteenth-century
biologycontains
interestingquotationsregardingthe " missinglink" and other
attemptsof the centuryto showhow the maximthat Naturedoes
nothing
persaltumshouldbe interpreted
in a biologicalsense. I must
hurryon, however,to his accountof the declineof the theoryof'
plenitude,and herethe beginnings
are made withhis chapterupon
"temporalizing
the chainof being".
Mr. Lovejoy obviouslybelievesthat the logic of the theorywas
on the side of thosewho held that plenitudewas immutable,and,
withratherless plausibility,
his commentis " perfectly
rationaland
perfectly
hopeless". The idea, however,that the scale of nature
was a ladderto be climbedalsomadeitsappearancebeforeand during
the eighteenth
century,and romanticism
came hard on its heels.
Addison,forexample,piouslyremarkedthat the " Cherubim
which
now appearsas a God to a humansoul, knowsverywell that the
periodwillcomeaboutin eternity,
whenthe humansoul shallbe as
perfectas he himselfis now", and the idea of the inevitableness
of
gradualcreativeadvance won a good deal of recognition.Leibniz

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A.

O.

LOVEJOY,

The GreatChain of Being.

405

like
had said that rationalsouls " advance and ripencontinually,
'theworlditself,of whichtheyare but images". Akensideas well
as Kant believedin temporaladvance. [As Akensidewrote," In
To climbthe ascentof being,and
theirstationsall may persevere,
approach,Forevernearerto the lifedivine".] SimilarlyRobinet
fantastic)in supportof the viewthat
(sometimes
gave illustrations
of
a singlestock,giveninfinitetime,mightengenderan infinity
variations.
thelifeofthetheory,despite
Such opinionsmayhave lengthened
Voltaire'scriticismof the entireconception(on the groundthat
Nature does make leaps) and-this is still more interesting-the
of Dr. Johnsonin his reviewof Soame
highlydialecticalarguments
thatin trueplenitudetheremustbe an infinity
Jenynsto theeffect
ofgradesbetweenanytwopoints,howevernear,thatmaybe chosen
of the
series-and hencethat currentinterpretations
in an infinite
invaded
principleof plenitudeare absurd. But whenromanticism
diversification
the conceptionof plenitude,the principleof infinite
plenitudebecame
beganto oustall the others,and a diversitatarian
and a formless
thing. Mr.Lovejoypursuesthistheme
a straggling
in an accountof Schiller,Schlegeland Schleiermacher.Remembering,in due season,to honourWilliamJames,he concedesa certain
"benignity" to the movement.
The climax,he goes on to say, came withSchelling'sview that
God himselfwas in the making,and the moral,accordingto Mr.
Lovejoy,is thatthe" twogodsofPlato cannotbothbe believedin "
and that " a worldoftimeand changeis a worldwhichcan neither
be deducedfromnor reconciledwiththe postulatethat existence
is the expressionand consequenceof a systemof 'eternal' and
'n ecessary' truthsinherentin the very logic of being". He
thatthereis greaterhope fortheism
concludeswiththe suggestion
creditedto Whitehead)that God is
in the idea (rathertentatively
" than in the "infinitefecundityof
a " principleof limitation
emanationism".

Theselessonsare perhapstoo easilydrawn. If the GreatChain

betweentimeand eternity
ofBeingbe dissolvedto-day,therelations
are stillthe objectof modishdiscussionand willnot be silencedby
the biographyof a dead idea. On the otherhand,thisis a very
and wouldbe littlethe worseif the death of its
good biography,
in a sketchy
report. I haveattempted,
subjectwerean exaggerated
way, to give a roughindicationof the landscapethroughwhich
Mr.Lovejoyhas conductedhis readers,but the detailis evenmore
engrossing.In short,the book is what a book should be-very
goodto read.
JOHN LAIRD.

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions