Customer Reviews

The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Lovejoy was a professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. This book represents an expanded version of a series of lectures given by Lovejoy at Harvard during the second half of the academic year 1932-33. The fact that this book remains in print over 60 years later is testimony to the fact that it has become a classic.

The book concerns the Great Chain of Being, a way of looking at reality that can be traced to Plato and Aristotle. We begin with the supposition that existence is superior to non-existence. A good God, Plato argues, would allow any non-contradictory being to exist. God thus created a Universe full of all possible things. This Lovejoy calls the principle of plenitude, the maximally full World. From Aristotle later writers evolved the idea that changes in Nature were continuous; that "Nature makes no leaps." This became the principle of continuity. Eventually, philsophers would postulate a vast chain of Beings stretching from the perfect (God) to the nearly non-existent (lifeless matter). Mankind was somewhere in the middle of the chain - above the animals (specifically the Ape), but below the Angels.

The principles of continuity and plenitude were integral to the thinking of many philosophers and scientists. Lovejoy traces how numerous thinkers - St. Thomas, Liebniz, and Schelling figure most prominently - wrestled with the implications of plenitude and continuity. Could plenitude explain evil? How could one account for change if God had created the chain at the beginning of History? Lovejoy also traces the fate of two contradictory Platonic conceptions of God. Plato had painted God as an Other-Worldly and self-sufficient being on one hand while also describing how God had manifested his thought in the real world. The chain was God's thought concretely expressed.

This is not a book for someone who is a neophyte to philosophy. However it is an important book, particularly for understanding the intellectual foundations of much scientific and philosophical speculation of the past several hundred years. Lovejoy succeeds in showing how the Great Chain of Being lead to a number of surprising intellectual developments including Romanticism's appreciation for diversity. His writing is very clear. At times the book is amusing and it is always pleasurable to read.

This is the landmark book of the field Lovejoy single-handedly invented (and of which perhaps he is still the sole master): the history of ideas. He wrote some other essays about different ideas and their histories (one of my favorites is about the concept of the "fortunate fall"), but this is his magnum opus and it reads like a thrilling detective story. He's a sleuth looking underneath the various intellectual currents over a 1500 year period in western thought, finding a culprit lurking in many of the failed philosophies and fashions we think we know -- the idea of the "great chain of being" foisted on us by Plato and his heirs.

The book is worth the first two exhilarating chapters alone. After that, the book can get pretty heavy at times; and Lovejoy's long-thought-train, multi-disciplinary, multi-lingual approach can leave one a little lost in some passages. Keep going to the end, though -- the book gradually builds up to an amazing set of climaxes in the last few chapters. He shows how the various thinkers draw out all of the contradictory implications of the the original idea until the thing peters out into a strewn splatter of waste.

It's funny and thought-provoking, and it will peel your mind like an onion.

I'm not going to review this work as much as recommend it. They simply don't make scholars like Lovejoy anymore. I remember reading this as an undergrad in the 80s (bought to supplement my summer reading) and found it a most refreshing read compared to most of the trendy post-modernist "see-how-clever-I-am" works a la DeMan, Foucault, Derrida and their epigones that were de rigeur at the time. Read this to see how one can be a great thinker and write lucidly all at the same time. Amazing!

_The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea_ is a publication of the William James Lectures delivered at Harvard in 1933 by philosopher and historian of ideas Arthur O. Lovejoy, by Harvard University Press. Arthur O. Lovejoy (1873-1962) was a professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins University who had studied under William James and Josiah Royce. He developed the study of the history of ideas, which study he outlines and explains in the first lecture presented in this volume. The lectures presented here develop the history of an idea ("the great chain of being") which played a central role in the development of Occidental philosophy. Lovejoy explains in his preface to these lectures that the use of the phrase "the great chain of being" to describe the universe was used to refer to three characteristics of the constitution of the world: that these characteristics implied a certain conception of the nature of God, that this conception was conjoined with another to which it was in latent opposition to itself, and that most of the religious thought of the West has thus been at variance with itself. Lovejoy further maintains that the "great chain of being" was used to supply the basis for resolving the problem of evil and showing that the scheme of things was both intelligent and rational. Two further principles play a central role in Lovejoy's explication of the "great chain of being": "the principle of plenitude" and "the principle of continuity". The principle of plenitude may be traced back to Aristotle and simply states that all things that are possible will be, and it lies behind the ontological proof for the existence of God of Saint Anselm. The principle of continuity maintains that the qualitative differences of things must constitute a linear or continuous series. In providing a history of this central concept, Lovejoy traces the development of Western philosophy from the ancient Greeks (Plato and Aristotle), through the medieval period, to the rationalists (Leibniz and Spinoza), through some Eighteenth Century attempts to understand the universe, to the Romantic period (the German romantics and the metaphysical poets), to the modern day (in which the "great chain of being" was overturned and temporality came to play a unique role in the philosophies of individuals such as Bergson, Whitehead, and James). Lovejoy's lectures are very learned and show an incredible depth of philosophical understanding, as he traces the history of this idea. At the end, Lovejoy is to maintain that the idea eventually was overcome because it involved a static picture of the universe, and new philosophical systems (mentioning those of Schelling and Whitehead for example) came to allow for a temporal understanding of the universe and a God that evolves with it. (While his rejection of the notion of the "great chain of being" is perhaps over-hasty, particularly in light of what we now know about the "Big Bang" and the creation of the universe, these lectures nevertheless provide an enlightening tour through the history of ideas.)

Lovejoy begins his lectures by defining what he means by the "history of ideas" (the framework which he will use in his presentation of this particular concept). Lovejoy maintains that the "history of ideas" is both more specific and less restricted than the history of philosophy. Lovejoy suggests that the "history of ideas" is much like analytical chemistry and that "Though it deals in great part with the same material as the other branches of the history of thought and depends greatly upon their prior labors, it divides that material in a special way, brings the parts of it into new groupings and relations, views it from the standpoint of a distinctive purpose." Lovejoy then proceeds to further explicate what he means by the "history of ideas" and the role that the concept of the "great chain of being" plays in that history. In his next lecture, Lovejoy focuses on the genesis of the idea in ancient Greek philosophy. Lovejoy begins by noting that Whitehead regarded Western philosophy as "consist[ing] of a series of footnotes to Plato", and thus he begins by explaining the role of "otherworldiness" in Western philosophy and the philosophy of Plato and the Platonists. Lovejoy mentions Plato's _Dialogues_, Plato's notion of "the Good" and "Absolute Being" (comparing this to the Vedanta), and the NeoPlatonists such as Plotinus. Lovejoy also examines the thought of Aristotle and explains the development of the principles of plenitude and continuity from his philosophy in the _Metaphysics_. Lovejoy also explains the role of "the One" in Plotinus, and then turns his attention to the medieval thought in the subsequent lecture. Here, Lovejoy mentions the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. Lovejoy explains the role of the principle of plenitude in the thought of Saint Thomas (noting the tendency of Thomism towards "illusionism" or otherworldliness, similar to the Vedanta) and the other Schoolmen. Lovejoy also mentions Jewish sources, the philosophy of Robert Fludd, and the role of Christian heresies (Gnosticism and Manicheanism). Lovejoy's next lecture deals with plenitude and the new cosmography. Here, Lovejoy explains the Copernican hypothesis (and how it would lead to subsequent attempts to rectify the notion of the "great chain of being"), the beginnings of modern science in Roger Bacon, and mentions Bruno and Galileo. Lovejoy also mentions the philosophies of Descartes and Pascal and the beginning of the modern era. Lovejoy next turns his attention to the principle of plenitude and the "principle of sufficient reason". The principle of sufficient reason (which was to play a role in both the philosophies of Spinoza and Leibniz) states that everything that happens does so for a definite reason. Lovejoy expounds upon the philosophies of Spinoza (mentioning his pantheism) and Leibniz (mentioning his _Theodicy_ and attempt to solve the problem of evil). The next lecture consists of Lovejoy's reflections on the "great chain of being" in Eighteenth Century thought. Lovejoy explains the subsequent attempts to maintain the concept of the "great chain of being" among the philosophers of the Eighteenth Century, noting attempts to rectify religion with science, the philosophy of optimism (that this is the best of all possible worlds), and the role of Eighteenth Century biology (mentioning the concept of design as seen in the writings of Paley for example and contrasting this to Darwinism). Lovejoy next turns his attention to temporalizing the chain of being. Here, Lovejoy mentions the thinking of Kant, Bergson, and others and their attempts to provide a temporal understanding for this concept. Lovejoy next turns his attention to Romanticism and the priniciple of plenitude. Lovejoy notes the role of this concept in the Romantic poets as well as in the philosophy of German idealism. Finally Lovejoy ends by noting the culmination of this concept and its eventual overcoming by modern philosophers. Lovejoy mentions for example the concept of God (as evolving) as seen by thinkers such as Schelling and Whitehead.

This book provides an excellent introduction to an important concept in the history of ideas in Western thought. Lovejoy was to found this study and his thinking is both profound and unique. Lovejoy's learning is very impressive and his references are sure to provide much source material for further reading in philosophy.

With this book Lovejoy invented the area of study called ' The History of Ideas'. His tracing of a single idea through all its historical transformations gave a new interpretation to the concept of ' idea itself'. Ideas were not 'eternal unchanging concepts' but were evolving forms who took on new meanings in new situations.

Lovejoy's classic in history of ideas is a vestige of an antiquated British classical ed tradition. This is precisely the sort of humanities that would cause John Dewey to roll over in his grave. Because it is written in such a verbose and pompously literary prose, I'd only read it if quality secondary works are not satisfactory for your goals. (or Cliff Notes if History of Sciences is your interest.)


He gets 3 stars from me for weaving an original, comprehensive history of several seminal ideas which cross many traditional fields, including comparative lit, philosophy and theology. This book influenced my decision to keep history of sciences a hobby & pursue a more practical science / engineering-related profession.
Lovejoy became a model for scholarship in the history of ideas (a cross-disciplinary subfield of intellectual history). This is a life-long scholar's insights into Plato's subtle & 'fertile ambiguities' so keep Plato, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, & a Dictionary of History of Ideas on hand. (or just buy the Cliff Notes)

Basically, Lovejoy's point is that
A)Renaissance 'neo-PLATOnist' cosmology is based upon parts of Plato that are inconsistent, if not antithetical / paradoxical to
B) parts of Plato that resulted in Great Chain closed world cosmology of Aristotle and Christian Scholastics

For purposes of undergrad class in history of sciences, I used 2 geometric 'thought experiments' applied to Republic's 3 interrelated metaphors which can be interpreted as a single allegory. This is not far-fetched since Plato was deeply interested in geometry.

Mental Experiment for A -- Connect visual images implcit in the 3 metaphors of Republic. From /Cave to Divided line as 'ladder' with rungs between 'realms' which leads to Sun. Place a compass point in Sun then make concentric circles through each realm rung and the outermost through Cave. The result is a crude version of the heliocentric closed world of Alexandrian Neo-Platonists like Plotinus (many Renaissance Neo-platonists had infinite cosmic conceptions). This cosmos supported an immanent deity associated with the One / Sun from which emanated a virtuous, incoreal elan until it dissipated into the outermost, most corporeal realm ('dark, like prisoners in cave').

Mental Experiment for B -- Connect the images of the 3 metaphors of Republic. From Cave to Divided line as 'ladder' with rungs between 'realms' which leads to Sun. Place a compass point in Cave then make concentric circles trough each realm rung and the outermost through Sun. The result is a crude version of the geocentric closed world of Aristotle, early Christians, Ptolemy, Dante. This cosmos was contrasted with a transcendent, infinite, divine Being.

Its most interesting concepts are the latter as described as a medieval chain of being. This begins with Plato, then Christian philosophy & Dante, becoming an ever more complex synthesis of theological, biological, & cosmological interrelated ideas. Lovejoy makes this unnecessarily complicated because , in his passion for words, he stubbornly will not use diagrams to describe the 3 or 4 important stages in the Chain of Being. These are B) of above:

1) Plato's Republic,3 metaphors -- the Cave, the Divided Line, the Sun

2) Scholastic / medieval conception, basically, Dante's Cosmos, Hell & all,
see wikipedia or Cliff Notes -- Dante's cosmos, Tillyard, Elizabethan World-picture


3) setting the Chain into motion, which Lovejoy describes as 'temporalizing the chain' This is a creationist unfolding with fixed species as links on chain.

If you are interested in the historical context of the Renaissance's Scientific (Copernican) Revolution, or as backdrop to Darwin, this is THE authority for understanding the obstacle (Chain of Being) that intimidated Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, & Darwin so much they would not confront it. Self-validating, without any relation to the empirical world, the chain was divinely ordained. By means of ad hoc theological refinements the Chain was fine-tuned to prevent advances in empirical science to progress (or at the risk of heresy).

I read this as a challenge over 4 or so years, going back to it occasionally as I wrote a thesis on Western cosmology & theology -- Plato to Isaac Newton, as a continuing ed evening student.
My summary of Lovejoy's erudition (based upon mental experiments with compass & 3 metaphors) is sufficient for the purposes of history of sciences. It is much more comprehensible to general history buffs than this often rambling and disorganized exercise in 'scholarship for scholarship's sake.'

I have a slightly different perspective than the other reviewers of "The Great Chain of Being." This book is central to understanding the debate about the origins of the Christian position of right to life. Because God is Good, God gives everything that comes into his mind the right to live. This is called the 'best of all possible worlds,' because the billions and billions of life forms obtain the right to exist as a reflection of the will of God, the Goodness of God.

At the time this philosophy was adopted by the Christians, right to life did not exist in Roman - European society. Slaves, babies, old and infirm people, could be killed with no consequence. This philosophy of 'the best of all worlds that results in right to life' can be seen as a commentary or critique of the materialist world-view predominant in the Roman Empire. Right to life would form one of the cornerstones of the Christian worldview, which,if nothing else, can be seen as a response to the excesses of the Roman Empire.

So, I think it is important that we understand that either everything has a right to life, or everything does not have a right to life, it's not just a debate about unborn babies. All people, old people, deformed people, useless people, have a right to life, as an expression of the goodness of God. The test for the right to life is that the will of God brought each of us into this world, therefore all of us have a right to be here without any further defense. We do not have to pass the materialists test of 'utility,' to prove our value.

Basically, as we combine "right to life," with other conceptual ideas, we can no longer rely upon empirical materialism to understand the world. A conceptual reality (such as Idealism) is a consequence of such logic. Idealism or conceptualism is a worldview based on a story rather than on the here and now of empirical observations.

The ideas presented in The Great Chain of Being were adopted by early Christians to provide a philosophical defense for the theology of Jesus.

The book is a must read. The logic, philosophy, point of view, is not obsolete. Dr. Lovejoy is making some subtle points in this book. This book can be read in the context of a post World War I reassessment of Modernism.

If you enjoy this type of investigation, there are a number of great books you should put on your reading list:

"The Life of the Mind I & II," by Hannah Arendt.
"Natural Symbols," and "Purity and Danger" by Mary Douglas.
The Greeks and the Irrational, E.R. Dodds
Literary Modernism, The Struggle for Modern History, by Dr. Jeffery Perl
Shame and Necessity by Bernard Williams


A general study of the difference between a shame based society, such as Classical Greece, (Homer's Iliad and Odyssey) must be understood within the context of a shame based society, and then the birth of a sin based society with Zoroaster.

This book is one of the most historically enlightening books I have ever read that covers 4,500 years of thinking in all circles of life, theological, artistic, and scientific. If I ever read something that originated over two hundred years ago it will be read with a different perspective.
I always wondered about one of Marshall McLuhan's aphorisms: "The missing linking created far more interest than all the chains and explanations of being". This book answered this notion in spades.
If you think the missing link originates in Darwinism, you are in for a surprise.
It's not an easy read, but worth it to the end.

No one should read this book (or, for that matter, Tillyard's "The Elizabethan World Picture") without supplementing it with some of the later counterarguments to the "chain of being," or so-called "natural order"--e.g. Persig's dismantling of Platonic dialectic in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and Derrida's deconstructing of Plato's logocentric cosmology in numerous essays. Above all, when reading Chaucer, Spenser, Milton, Dante and, especially, Shakespeare, the reader must resist the temptation to interpret the text through the template. At best, it's no more than an organizing tool or convenient metaphor for the poet, an alloy that can be disposed of once the text is in place, inviting the reader's participation in the life of the language.

It took me 30 years to realize the limitations of Lovejoy's scheme, which can be as deadly to the life of the text as the litmus tests conducted by feminists, Marxists, new historians, and those who "use" literature to practice group identity politics. The dismissal of the character of Falstaff is just one example of what happens when readers bring to literature an agenda other than experiencing the life and play of the language, the sheer pleasure of the text. As for an artist like Shakespeare, to the extent that the scheme outlined by Lovejoy is abstracted from human experience and limited to a "pre-modernist" mentality, it would best be taken with a grain of salt. The Bard's instincts about life, language, and consciousness insure that he can no more be held hostage to a dated, heirarchical scheme than to the flawed character whose articulation he entrusts it to (Ulysses in "Troilus and Cressida").