Lovejoy Reflections

download Lovejoy Reflections

of 22

Transcript of Lovejoy Reflections

  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    1/22

    Reflections on the History of IdeasAuthor(s): Arthur O. LovejoySource: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 1940), pp. 3-23Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2707007 .

    Accessed: 31/07/2013 03:45

    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].

    .

    University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

    Journal of the History of Ideas.

    http://www.jstor.org

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2707007?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2707007?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    2/22

    VOLUME I, NUMBER 1 JANUARY, 1940

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS1BY ARTHUR O. LoVEjoY

    IWhatever ther efinitionsfmanbe trueorfalse, t s generallyadmittedhathe is distinguishedmong he creatures y thehabitof entertainingeneral deas. Like Br'er Rabbithe has alwayskeptup a heap o' thinking;nd it has usuallybeen assumed-

    thoughhe ssumptionasbeennominallyisputed ysome choolsofphilosophers-thatis thoughtsaveat all timeshad a gooddealtodowithhis behavior, is institutions,ismaterial chievementsintechnologyndthe rts, ndhisfortunes.Everybranch fhis-toricalnquiry,onsequently,aybe saidto ncludewithints scopesomeportion fthehistory fideas. But as a resultofthesub-division nd specializationncreasinglyharacteristicf historicalas ofother tudies uringhe asttwocenturies,heportionsfthathistorywhich re pertinento separatehistorical isciplines ametobe treated sually n relative, hough eldom ncomplete,sola-tion. Thehistoryfpolitical vents nd socialmovements,f eco-nomic hanges, freligion, fphilosophy,f science, f literatureandtheother rts,ofeducation, avebeen nvestigatedy distinctgroupsofspecialists,many fthem ittle cquaintedwith hesub-jectsandthe researches f the others. The specialization hich-the imitationsfthe ndividualmind eingwhat hey re-had thisas its naturalconsequencewas indispensable ortheprogressofhistorical nowledge; ettheconsequence roved lso, in theend,

    I It has been thought esirablebythe Board of Editorsthatthe first umber fthis ournal should contain some prefatory bservations n the nature and aims ofthestudieswhichthe ournal is designed o promote, nd for some of thefruitsofwhich t may provide suitablevehicleofpublication. The Editorto whom he taskhas been assignedhas, however, lreadywritten omewhatengthily lsewhere n thegeneral subject (in The Great Chain of Being,1936, Lecture and in Proc. of theAmer. Philos. Soc., vol. 78, pp. 529-543), and somerepetition,n substance f not inphraseology, f theseprevious disquisitions n the same topichas beenunavoidable.Some aspectsof it,on the otherhand,whichhave been theredealtwith,have beenhere passed over, n orderto have space for commentsn certain relevantbut cur-rentlycontroverted uestions. For the opinionsexpressedon these questions thewriter loneis responsible. 3

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    3/22

    4 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOYan impedimento suchprogress. For the departmentalization-whether y subjects,periods,nationalities, r languages-of thestudy f the history fthoughtorresponds,orthemostpart,tono real cleavages mong hephenomenatudied. The processes fthehumanmind,n the individual r thegroup,whichmanifestthemselvesnhistory,o not run n enclosed hannels orrespond-ingto theofficiallystablished ivisions f universityaculties; venwhere heseprocesses, r theirmodesof expression,r the objectsto which heyare applied,are logicallydiscriminablentofairlydistinct ypes, hey re in perpetualnterplay.And ideas are themostmigratoryhings n the world. A preconception,ategory,postulate, ialecticalmotive, regnantmetaphor r analogy, sacredword," moodofthought,r explicit octrine, hichmakes ts firstappearance upon the scene in one of the conventionallyistin-guishedprovinces fhistory mostoften, erhaps,n philosophy)may, nd frequentlyoes,cross over nto a dozen others. To beacquainted nlywith tsmanifestationn one ofthese s, inmanycases, to understand ts natureand affinities,ts inner ogic andpsychologicalperation,o inadequatelyhateventhatmanifesta-tionremainsopaque and unintelligible.All historians-even,ntheir ctualpractice, hose whoin theory isclaim ny suchpre-tension-seek n some sense and to somedegreeto discern ausalrelations etweenvents;butthere s, unhappily, o law of naturewhich pecifieshat ll,or eventhemost mportant,ntecedentsfa givenhistoricffect,r all or themostmportantonsequentsfagiven cause,will lie within ny one of theacceptedsubdivisionsofhistory. In so far as the endeavor o tracesuchrelations topsat theboundaries f one or anotherof thesedivisions, here salways highprobabilityhat omeofthemost ignificant-thats,themost lluminatingnd explanatory-relations ill be missed.It has even ometimesappened hat conceptionfmajor historicinfluencend importance as long gone unrecognized,ecause itsvarious manifestations,hepartswhichmakeup the wholestory,are so widelydispersed mongdifferentields fhistorical tudy,thatno specialistnanyone ofthesefields ecamedistinctlywareof tatall. Historiography,nshort, or xcellentractical easons,is divided,but the historicprocessis not; and thisdiscrepancybetween heprocedurend thesubject-matteras tended, t best,toproduce erious acunae nthestudy fthehistory fman, ndatworst, heer rrors nd distortions.

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    4/22

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 5Of such considerationss these, cholars n manybranches fhistoricalnquiry ave nrecent earsbecome ncreasinglyensible.None, ertainly,uestions he ndispensabilityf specialization; ut

    more ndmorehavecometo see thatspecializations notenough.In practice hissometimesmanifeststself n a crossing-overfindividual pecialistsntoother ields han hose owhich heyhadoriginallyevotedhemselvesndforwhich hey avebeentrained.Administrativefficersf educationalnstitutions ave sometimesbeenknownocomplain, ith certain uzzlement,fteachersndinvestigators ho willnot"stickto their ubjects." But in mostcases thispropensityo disregard cademicfences s not to beattributedo a wandering isposition r a coveting f neighbors'vineyards;tis,on thecontrary,sually he nevitableonsequenceoftenacityndthoroughnessn the ultivationf one'sown. For-torepeat n observation hich hepresentwriter as alreadymadeelsewhere, ith rimaryeferenceo iterary istory-'the questofa historical nderstandingven of singlepassages in literatureoften rives he tudentnto ieldswhich tfirst eemremotenoughfromhis original opicof investigation.The moreyou press intowards heheart of a narrowly oundedhistorical roblem,hemore ikelyyouare to encountern theproblemtself pressurewhich rivesyououtward eyond hosebounds." To givespecificillustrationsf this fact wouldunduly engthen heseprelusiveremarks2 exampleswill doubtless ppear in abundancen subse-quentpagesofthis ournal. It is sufficientere onote, s a highlycharacteristiceature fcontemporaryorknmany fthebranchesofhistoriographyhat re in any wayconcerned ith hethoughtsof men (and their relatedemotions,modes of expression, ndactions), hat hefencesre-not, ndeed, enerallyreaking own-but, ta hundredpecificoints, eingbrokenhrough; ndthat hereasonforthis s that, t leastat thosepoints, hefences avebeenfound o be obstacles o theproper omprehensionfwhat ies oneither ideof them.There s, unquestionably,omedanger o historicalcholarshipin this newer endency. t is thedangeralready ntimated,hatscholars oundlyrained n themethods ndwidely cquaintedwiththe literature f one limited-eventhough t be an arbitrarilylimited-fieldmayprove nadequatelyquipped orexploringther

    2 Some havebeenadduced bythewritern a paper abovementioned,roc. of theAmer. Philos. Soc., Vol. 78, pp. 532-535.

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    5/22

    6 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOYprovinces ntowhich heyhave, nevertheless,een naturally ndlegitimatelyed bythe ntrinsiconnectionsf the ubjects hat heyare investigating.Mostcontemporaryistorians f anynationalliterature,orexample, r of science r a particular cience, ecog-nize nprinciple-though any tillrecognize oo ittle-that deasderived rom hilosophicalystems avehad a wide, ndsometimesa profoundnddecisive,nfluencepontheminds nd thewritingsof the authorswhoseworks hey tudy; nd they re constrained,therefore,o deal with hese ystems nd toexpound hese deasfortheir eaders. But theydo not-it is perhapsnot too unmannerlytosay-always do itverywell. When his s thecase, thefault, odoubt, ften ies partlywiththeexistinghistories f philosophy,whichfrequentlyail to give the non-philosopherhathe mostneeds forhis special historicalnquiry;but they re, in any case,unsatisfyingothe scholarwhohas learnedfrom xperiencenhisownspecialty herisksof too implicit elianceupon secondary rtertiary ources. Even more,however, hanan extensive eadingof philosophical extsis neededfor the accurate and sufficientunderstandingftheworkingfphilosophicaldeas inliteraturerin science-a certain ptitudefor the discriminationnd analysisof concepts,nd an eyefornotimmediatelybvious ogical rela-tionsor quasi-logical ffinitiesetweendeas. These powersare,by a happygiftof nature, ometimes ound n historicalwriterswhowoulddeprecatehe itle f"philosophers" but nmost ases,when hey re attained t all, they we much, lso,to a persistentcultivationnd training,f which he student fphilosophy atu-rallygetsmorethanspecialistsn thehistory fliterature r sci-ence and for ackof which he atter ometimes eemto the phi-losopher o go more r ess widely stray ntheir ecessary ivaga-tions ntophilosophy.They, n turn-especially he historian fscience-coulddoubtless ot nfrequentlyespondwith tuquoqueto thehistorian fphilosophy;fso,thepresent oint s thebetterillustrated; nd manyother llustrationsf itmight ll too easilybe found.Theremedy ortheeffects efectivefspecializationnhistori-cal inquiry,hen, oes not ie in a generalpractice, n thepartofspecialists, f simplynvading ne another's erritories r takingoverone another'sobs. It lies in closerco6perationmong hemat all thosepointswhere heir rovinces verlap, heestablishmentofmoreand better acilities orcommunication,utualcriticism

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    6/22

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 7and mutual id-the focussingponwhat re, n theirnature, om-monproblems,f all thespecialknowledgeshatare pertinentothem. It is one of thepurposes fthis ournaltocontribute,o faras its resources ermit,owards uch more ffectiveiaison amongthose whose studieshave to do withthe diversebutinterrelatedpartsofhistory,n so faras historys concerned ith heactivitiesof man'smind ndthe effectsftheseuponwhathehas been andhas done-or (to changethe metaphor)to assist towardsmorecross-fertilizationmongthe severalfieldsof intellectual istori-ography. It is hopedthat the journalwill serve amongotherthings-as a usefulmedium or hepublicationf researcheswhichtraverse hecustomaryoundary-lines,r are likely obe of nter-est and value to studentsn otherfields hanthose nwhich heyprimarilyie. Its prospectus as already ndicated,y way of llus-tration, ometopicsconcerning hich ts editorsbelievefurtherinvestigationo be potentiallyrofitable,ndon which ontributionswillbe especiallywelcome:

    1. The influence f classicalon modern hought,nd ofEuro-peantraditionsndwritingsnAmericaniterature,rts,philoso-phy, ndsocialmovements.2. The influencef philosophicaldeas in literature,he arts,religion, nd social thought,ncluding he impactof pervasivegeneral onceptionsponstandards f tasteandmoralityndedu-cational heoriesndmethods.3. The nfluencef scientificiscoveriesnd theoriesnthe ameprovinces fthought,nd inphilosophy;he cultural ffectsf theapplications fscience.4. Thehistory f thedevelopmentnd the effectsf individualpervasive nd widelyramifyingdeas or doctrines,uchas evolu-tion,progress, rimitivism,iversetheories fhumanmotivationandappraisalsof humannature,mechanismicnd organismicon-ceptionsfnature ndsociety,metaphysicalndhistorical etermin-ism andindeterminism,ndividualismndcollectivism,ationalismand racialism.But thefunction f this ournal s not solelyto helpto bringabout a fruitful orrelation etween lder and morespecializeddisciplines. For thestudy f thehistoryf deas doesnot need tojustifytself y tspotentialervices-however reat-to historical

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    7/22

    8 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOYstudiesbearing thernames. It has its ownreasonforbeing. Itis not merely ncillary o the others; t is rather hey hat are, ngreat part, ncillary o it. To know, o far as may be known, hethoughtshat have beenwidelyheld amongmen on mattersofcommonuman oncernment,o determine owthese houghtsavearisen, ombined,nteracted ith, rcounteracted,neanother,ndhowtheyhaveseverally een related o the magination nd emo-tions ndbehavior f thosewho have heldthem-this, hough ot,indeed, hewhole f thatbranch f knowledge hichwe call history,is a distinct nd essentialpart of t, and itscentral nd mostvitalpart. For,while hefixed rchangingnvironmentalonditionsfhuman ife, ndividual nd collective, nd conjunctionsf circum-stancewhich rise fromno man's thinkingr premeditation,refactorsnthehistoric rocessnever o be disregarded,he actor nthepiece, tshero-somewould nthesedayssay, tsvillain-is stillhomo apiens; and thegeneral askof ntellectualistoriographysto exhibit,o far as may be,thethinkingnimalengaged-some-timesfortunately,ometimes isastrously-inhis most character-istic occupation. If-as some wouldbe contento say-the justi-ficationfany study fhistorys simply hehumannterestingnessboth f tsepisodes nd of themoving ramaof the ifeof our raceas a whole,then this studyhas that ustificationn thehighestdegree. Or if historical nquiry n general s defended n theground-which ome contemporary istorians ppear to reject-that heknowledge hichtyields s "instructive," hat t providesmaterial owardspossible generalconclusions-conclusions hichdo notrelatemerely o theoccurrencend successions fpast andparticular vents-thenno partofhistoriographyeems o offerbetter romise fthis ortofserviceablenesshan duly nalyticaland criticalnquirynto henature, enesis, evelopment,iffusion,interplay nd effects f the ideas which he generations f menhave cherished, uarreled over, and apparently een moved by.Thattheknowledge hichman needsmost s knowledge f himselfis a sufficientlyld and respectable pinion; nd intellectual istorymanifestlyonstitutesn indispensable,ndthemostconsiderable,partofsuchknowledge,n so far as any study f thepast maycon-tribute o it. At nomoment,ndeed,nthe ife ofthe racehas thepertinencyftheDelphian mperative eenmore ragically ppar-ent;for tmustnowbeplainto everyone hat heproblem f humannature s thegravest nd mostfundamentalf our problems,hat

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    8/22

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 9thequestionwhichmorethanany othersdemands nswer s thequestion, What's thematterwithman?"

    IIThe generalobservation hatknowledge oncerninghehistoryofideas has an independent alue,and is notmerelynstrumentalto other tudies,mightwellseemtoo obvious o require mphasis,were t not that t has consequences, ot alwaysclearlyrealized,with respectto themethods nd aims of literaryhistory. Thethoughts fmenofpast generations avehadtheirmost xtensive,and often heirmostadequate and psychologicallylluminating,expressionn those writingswhichare commonly ifferentiatedfrom therwritings-though y criteria otusuallyvery lear-as"literature." Wherever heline of divisionbe drawn, t wouldgenerally e agreedthat iteratures, at least amongother hings,an art. Since there s no universal onsensus s to themeaningof "art," thisclassificationoes not,of itself, reatly larify hesubject;butonemayperhaps ay,without oomuch iskofdissent,thata workof "art" is suchbyvirtue f its relation ither o anartistwhoproducest or to a potential eader,heareror beholderofit (or to both). And,consideredolely n thesecondrelation,thework fartmaybe said to be differentiatedrom thervisibleor audible artificialbjects by its capacity o produce n theper-ceiver distinctiveomethingalledan "aesthetic njoyment,"rat least an "aesthetic xperience,"which though efinitionf t ishere udiciouslyvoided) s at all eventsnot simply dentical itherwith ognitive xperience r with recognitionfa possible lteriorutilitywhichthe object may serve. Worksof art, further,reusuallyheld to differwidelyn respect f their esthetic alues-however hese re tobemeasured. Now t has,especially y somerecentwriters, eenmaintained hata work of art, so conceived,must ontain ts aesthetic alue, hat s, the sources f theaestheticexperiencet evokes, n itself, nd not in anything xtraneous oitself. It makesno difference,o far as theaesthetic uality ndefficacyfa poem reconcerned,howrote t,orwhen, r what ortofpersonhewas,orfromwhatmotive ewrote t, or evenwhathemeant oconvey y t; and fthereaderpermits ismind o be occu-pied with uchquestions s these,he weakens r wholly oses theexperience hich t s thefunction fthepoem, s a work f art, o

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    9/22

    10 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOYafford.And t s consequentlyrgued, y somewho repreoccupiedwith this aspect of literature,hat the studyof literaryhistoryresults hieflyn theaccumulationfcollateralnformationbout,e.g.,poems,which dds nothing otheaesthetic xperiences such,but,on thecontrary,mpedes r annuls t,by interposing hat saestheticallyrrelevant etween hepoemand the reader. ThusMr. C. S. Lewis observes hat"any and everyresultwhichmayfollow rommyreading fa poem annot e includedn mypoeticalapprehensionfit,andcannot, herefore,elong o thepoemas apoem,"and,startingrom his in itself ndisputable) remise, eattacks,withan argumentativeerveand skillwhichhas itselfgood deal ofart n it,thenotion hat poetry s tobe regarded san 'expression fpersonality,' andlaments the steadilyncreas-ing role of biographyn our literary tudies." "When we readpoetry s it ought obe read,wehavebefore s no representationwhich laims to e thepoet, ndfrequentlyo representationfaman, character,r a personalityt all." Therecan, n fact,be"poemswithout poet -i.e., writings hich likepassages in theEnglishBible) have in thecourse oftime cquired poeticvaluewhich snotdue toanythinghat nyone verput nto hem.3 Anyessentialdistinctionetween heexperience f beauty n naturalobjects and in works of art is hereapparently bliterated.) Ifknowledgebout thepoet's "personality" s thusforeign o the"poetical apprehension" f thepoem, tillmoreforeignmustbetheother ortsofknowledge hich he iterary istorians o busilypursue, about his experiences, ducation,associations,"back-ground," ources, hilosophicalpinions,ontemporaryeputation,later nfluence,nd the ike.These views are not cited hereprincipallyorthepurposeofdiscussing he ssuesofaesthetic heorywhich heyraise; yetoneofthese ssues has somepertinencyo thepresent ubject, nd isworth rief onsideration eforepassingto themainpoint. It isthe generalquestionwhethernformationbout, ay, a poem,notcontainedn it, s necessarilyncapableof enhancing heaestheticexperience,r "poeticalapprehension,"fthereader; and I sug-gestthat heanswermustbe in thenegative. Onemay,of course,so defineheterms aesthetic" or"poeticalapprehension"hat naffirmativenswer o thequestion ecessarily ollows;but the con-

    3The PersonalHeresy: A Controversy.ByE. M.W. TillyardndC. S. Lewis,1939, p. 1,4,5,16.

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    10/22

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 11sequence is thena purelyverbal one, havingnothing o do withanymatterofpsychologicalfact. But it is hard to see howanyone can,except through uchverbal inference, indplausibility n the thesisthat the sources of whatwould commonly e recognizedas the aes-thetic enjoyment of a poem, or of any work of art, must consistwholly n its own iteral and explicitcontent.4 For-upon theveryviewwhichhas been illustratedby some sentencesof Mr. Lewis's-the aesthetic value of the poem depends upon its effecton thereader; and this in turn, surely, depends much upon the reader-upon what thepsychologistsonce liked to call "the mass of apper-ception" which he brings to the reading. The external stimulusgiving rise to the experienceconsists, t is true, n theactual wordsofthe poem; but the capacity,even of the separatewords,to suggestimagery or to arouse emotion,not to say to convey deas, is due tothe associations which they already possess in the reader's mind,and these may be, and oftenare, the products of other reading.Any allusive word or passage illustrates this.

    Perhaps he elf-sameong hat ound pathThrough he adheart f Ruth,when, ickforhome,She stoodntears mid he lien corn.

    The poem does not tell you who Ruth was, nor where she is else-wherementionedn literature;that s a piece of extraneous histori-cal information-thoughone, fortunately, amiliar to all Occidentalreaders. Will anyoneventureto assert that, for mostof them, heaesthetic enjoymentof the lines is diminished,and not, rather,heightened,by theirpossession of this knowledge? And is thereany reason to suppose that knowledge of a similar kind, eventhough ess generallypossessed,maynotsimilarly nrich-for thosewho have it-the aestheticvalue ofmanyotherpassages ? Instancesinwhich t quite certainlydoes so mightbe adduced by the hundred,if therewere space forthem. The historical perspectiveswhich aword or a poem may bring, clearly or dimly,to mind are often(given thenecessaryacquaintancewithhistory)a great part of theaestheticexperiencewhich t evokes-an augmentation f its imagi-nativevoliminositv. Nor are thenossibleeontributions f the his-4The subjecthasbeen dealt with lluminatingly,nd more dequately han s pos-sible here,by Louis Teeter n an essay ("Scholarship and the Art of Criticism," LHSeptember, 938) which houldbe requiredreading for anywho concern hemselveswith hisquestion.

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    11/22

    12 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOYtorian othe poetical apprehension" f thereader imitedo obvi-ouslyallusiveor evocative ingle passages. It is he, often,whoenablesthe reader to recapture,n writings f earliertimes, es-thetic alueswhich ad been ostbecause heframe freference,hepreconceptions,hemood,which ncegave themuchvalue for heircontemporarieserenolonger urrent.Howmeagerwouldbe theaesthetic ontent ftheDivine Comedyas a whole, r of mostof tsparts, to a modern reader-especially a non-Catholic eader-wholly gnorant fmedieval deas and feelings nd pieties, r in-capable,whilereading t,ofmaking hese n somedegreehis own,byan effortf the magination! ndeed, heexercise fthehistori-cal imagination,venapartfromtsfunctionn therevitalizingfthis or othermasterpieces, as itselfbeen, sinceWesternmenbecamehistorically-minded,ne of thechief sourcesof aestheticexperience-thoughhat s another tory. Obviously, otall his-toricalor otherknowledge ertinento,butderivedfrom ourcesextrinsico,a givenworkof art thus adds to its potency. Somedoes and some does not; no generalrule can be laid downon thesubjectnadvance. Butit is by nomeans vident hat venknowl-edge from xternal ources bout theartist,his "personality"orhis life, s one of the sortsofcollateral nformation hichneces-sarilydo not havethiseffect,nd thatbiographical tudies onse-quently annotcontribute o the enjoyment f literature.Theaesthetic rrelevancef a considerable artofthe chronicles,can-dalous or edifying,f thelives of authors, an hardlybe denied.Whether ny of the discoveries bout Shakespeareheighten heeffect f theplays s at leastdebatable; nditis more handubiouswhethern acquaintancewith heprivate ifeoftheReverend . L.DodgsonmakesAlice in Wonderlandmore enjoyable. But thereare many nstances n the other ide of the account. Doubtlesstherewould be a touching athos n "All, all are gone,the oldfamiliar aces," if the poemwere anonymous,ut there s muchmore when knowthat t was written y Charles Lamb-a factwhich s no partof the poem-and know omethingf the tragiccircumstancesn his life. Or considerColeridge's Dejection,anOde": ourpresent nowledgewhichweoweto hisbiographersndthecollectors fhis etters)oftheexperiences ut of which t arose,and of thefactthat tmarked heend of his greatcreative eriodas a poet,makesthepoemfar moremoving han t can have beentothegeneralityf thereaders f theMorningPost in 1802. Such

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    12/22

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 13knowledgeadds what may be called a new dimensionto a workofart,the dramatic dimension-as, in a play, a single poetic passage,though t may have beauty in isolation, owes its full effect o thereader's knowledgeof the fictitious ersonalityof the speaker andof the situationwhichevokesit and makes it dramatically pposite.

    For God s sake, etus sit upon hegroundAndtell adstories f hedeath fkings....The whole passage mightbe taken out of its contextand given aplace in an anthology; but would one who had knownit only asa detached fragmentfind his "imaginative apprehension" of itdiminishedupon learning that it is, in theplay, spokenby a king,and thatking,Richard II, and at a crisis in his fortunes allingforresolute action rather than self-pityingmusings on the ironiesofroyal state? The increment f aestheticcontentwhich the linesgain fromsuch knowledgeof their dramatic setting s essentiallysimilar to thatwhicha poem or otherwritingmay sometimesgainfrom the reader's knowledge of its authorship,its place in theauthor's life and its relation to his character. This is not, to besure, an element n the art, i.e., the design, of the creator of thework; but it is not the less on that account an enrichment f aes-theticexperienceon the side of the reader-which is presumablyone of the purposes of the "teaching of literature."5 And if thework be consideredwithrespect to the skill, or "artistry," of itscreator,the "aesthetic appreciation" of this is least of all possiblewithoutgoingbeyondthe workitself. For it is dependentupon aknowledge-or an assumption-about what he was trying to do,5 n the debateof Lewis and Tillyard,to whichreference as beenmade,two"personalheresies,"not sufficientlyiscriminated,eem to be at issue. One is theassumption hat a poem (and a singlepoem s usuallymeant) necessarily ells us any-thing bout the"personality" f thepoet. In maintaininghenegativeon this ssue,Mr. Lewis seemsto me to have thebetter f theargument. But the correct nswer,I suggest, s that no generalization n the pointis legitimate;somepoems do, andsome don't. The more seriousquestionconcernsMr. Lewis's view that,when"weread a poem as it ought o be read,"we oughtnottoknow,or wantto know, nythingabout thepoet,sincethis nterferes ith the"imaginative xperience." And this isa part ofthe argerquestion, bove discussed,whetherny extrinsic nowledge bouta poemcan contributeo theaesthetic xperience enerated y reading t. This moregeneral and fundamentalssue,however, s not verydefinitelyonsidered y eithercontributoro this, n many respects,brilliantexample of the gentleart of con-troversy.

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    13/22

    14 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOYwhich can byno means always be safelyor fully nferredfromtheobvious contentof the work; and it is also dependentupon anacquaintancewith other extrinsicmatters, uch as his subject (if orin so far as his purpose is assumed to be descriptiveor realistic),the limitationsof his medium,otherexamples of the treatment fthesame subjector ofessays in the samegenre, nd (whenthey anbe certainlydetermined)the sources of whichhe made use. Thiselement n the appreciation of (for example) "Kubla Khan" has,surely, not been decreased by the publication of The Road toXanadu.The verynotion, hen,of a work of art as a self-contained indof thing s a psychologicalabsurdity. It functions s art throughwhat it does for the experiencerof it; nothing n it has aestheticefficacyxceptthroughts powerto evokecertainresponsesin him;so thatone may say that, except in a physical sense, its content sas much n himas in itself. And thisgeneral considerationalone,even apart from hecitationofparticularexamples,seems to estab-lish a sufficientresumption against the doctrine,now somewhatfashionablein various quarters,that, n the reading of literature,ignorance is always bliss, that the best reader is the one who hasleast in his mind, and that, consequently, he sort of knowledgewhichmay result fromthe historical study of literature s neverserviceableto the aestheticpurposes of that art. But thoughmanyand notable servicesof this kind can be and have been renderedbysuch study, t is still needfulto insist-and this is the point chieflypertinent o the presenttheme-that thatis not its only,or even itsprincipal,function. "Literary history," as the late Edwin Green-law wrote,"looks on literatureas one phase of thathistoryof thehuman spiritwhich is one of the chieflearnings, s humanism t-self."6 It is, in short, part,and a major part,of thequest ofthatknowledgeof theworkingsof man's mind n historywhich,havingits own excuseforbeing, s not subservient ven to ends so valuableas theaestheticappreciationor thecriticism f individual works ofart. But so conceived,the province and the methods of literaryhistorymustbe determined y its ownhistorical-psychologicalur-pose, and not by contemporarycritical appraisals either of theaestheticexcellenceor the philosophicalvalidityof thewritingsofmenofformer imes. Evident as thismay appear, some confusionof ideas withrespectto thematter still seems common,not only n

    6 The Provinceof LiteraryHistory,1931, p. 38.

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    14/22

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 15the public mind, nd among iterary ritics,but also among studentsand teachers of literature. Because, as an art,it exists to be "en-joyed" (in the wider sense of the term), it is sometimes, acitly fnot explicitly, ssumed that the purpose of studyingor teaching tis exclusively to increase or communicate hat enjoyment; and, inso far as this assumption prevails, the natural resultis the limita-tionofthestudy owhat s nowregardedas "good" literature-thewritingswhichstillhave (or are, often omewhatnaYvely, akenbyacademic teachersto have) a high aestheticvalue for mostreadersof our own time. Thus a distinguishedEnglish scholar who hasrecently rediscoveredan almost forgottenbut admirable Englishprose writer of the seventeenth entury (Peter Sterry), and hasedited selectionsfromhis works, explains that his (the editor's)"aim has been to exhibitnot so muchthoseaspects ofSterry'sworkthat probably made thegreatest impressionon his contemporariesas those elementswhich appear to me to have the universal andenduringqualities of great literature." Here, obviously,the partof the contents fthis author's writingswhich s ofgreaterhistori-cal value-the part which throwsmost ight upon whatwas distinc-tive of thethoughts, hemoods,thetaste,of his age and group-istreated as more or less negligible,because it has (or, for thatveryreason, s presumed to have) less "literary" value. Now, to makeavailable to thecontemporaryeader a forgotten iece of"great"-or at all events,still enjoyable-literature, is assuredly a laudablething. But it is a strange thing odisregard, n such a writing,whatis most pertinent o that"one of the chief earnings"-that essen-tial portionofthe"historyofthehumanspirit '-to which t is theprime office f the literary historian, qua historian, to contribute.It is not now in general true that those who devote themselvestothis study neglect theirfunction s historians of ideas (includingartisticmethods and aestheticvaluations and tastes); but,becauseof the confusion of the two aims, they are sometimessubject toreproachforoccupying hemselves o much withwhat is not "goodliterature," perhaps not even "literature"' at all; and they them-selves often seem a little apologetic about it. Something like adeclaration of independencefor the genuinelyhistorical study ofliterature,n itselfand in its relationsto otherphases ofthehistoryofman thinking, eeling, magining nd evaluating, s evennownotwholly superfluous. In this journal, the independence which doesnot implytheindifference) f thehistoriography f literaturewith

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    15/22

    16 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOYrespect o all non-historicalriteria f relevance nd importance,and also its inseparable onnection ithmost of the otherpartsof that otalhistory,re assumed b initio. As a source fdelightand a meansto thewidening nd deepening f innerexperience,literature as onevalue; as "criticism flife" it has another forthe ppraisalofwhich knowledgef tshistorys one of theneces-sary means); and it has a third s an indispensableodyof docu-ments orthe tudy f manand ofwhathe has donewith deasandwhatdiverse deas havedoneforand to him.

    IIITo avertpossiblemisunderstanding,et t be said that heterms"ideas" and "intellectual" re not hereused in a sense mplyingany assumption f the solelyor chieflyogical determinationfopinions nd behavior nd of the historicalmovement f thought.There s nowwidely urrent venamong hegeneralpublic doc-trine hat hebeliefs,ndprofessed rounds f belief, s wellas theacts,of ndividualsnd ofsocialgroups re not shapedby"intel-

    lectual processes,utbyunavowed r "subconscious"non-rationaldesires, assionsor interests. This "discovery f the rrational,"a recentwriterhas declared, makes thegeniusof our age.The intellectual evolution f the twentieth enturys likely toprovethecharting ftheterra ncognita f the rrationalnd theextractionf its implicationsorevery rea ofhuman hought."It is "nothing hort f a Copernican evolutionn ideas," since tmeansthat "the rational, ight-thinkingan has as surely easedto be consideredhecenter f our intellectualystem s the earthhas ceased to be the center f ourplanetary ystem."7 The dis-covery s not so newas it is commonlyupposed o be, and it isquestionablewhether xploration f the "terra incognita f theirrational"was notattempted ith s muchdiligencend subtletyin theseventeenthenturys in thetwentieth.Butat all events tis little ikely o be undulyneglected ycontemporarytudents fthehistoryfthought.Few ofthem re accustomedo lookuponman as a highly ational nimal,n the audatory ense,or todenythatalogicalfactorsplay a greatpartin mostof thephenomenawhich heynvestigate;ndit wouldbe a misconceptiono suppose

    Max Lerner in The Nation, Oct. 21, 1939. The term "rational," of course,needsdefinition,nd theassumption f the equivalenceof "non-rational" nd "irra-tional"requiresexamination;butinto thesetopics t is impossible o enterhere.

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    16/22

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 17that the intellectualhistorianis concernedsolelywith the historyof intellection.Perhaps the greaterdanger at present ies upon the otherside.One of the safest (and mostuseful) generalizationsresultingfroma studyof thehistoryof ideas is thatevery age tendsto exaggeratethe scope or finality f its own discoveries,or re-discoveries, o beso dazzled by themthat it fails to discernclearlytheir imitationsand forgets aspects of truth against prior exaggerationsof whichit has revolted. Now, that thedoctrine f the non-rational etermi-nationof men's judgments nd ideologies is nottrue without xcep-tions is the obvious assumptionof all who enunciate opinions andpublishostensibly easoned arguments orthem-and therefore,heassumptionof the authors of the doctrine, nd of all who seek tojustifyby evidenceany historical propositionwhatever. It is truethat some representativesof the theoryknownas "the sociologyof knowledge" (Wissenssoziologie), holding that the "modes ofthought" of all individuals are determinedby, and therefore ela-tive to, the nature of the social groups to which the individualsbelong-not merelyeconomicclasses but also "generations, statusgroups,sects,occupational groups,schools,etc."-deduce from hispsychologicalhypothesisa sort of generalized relativistic (or, asthey preferto call it, "relational") logic or epistemology. Uponthe set ofpresuppositions haracteristic f a givengroup,somecon-clusions are valid, some invalid-but (apparently) each group hasits own "thought-model," ts distinctive tandards of what is trueor false,which do not hold good forothers. And certain adherentsof thisformof thegeneral doctrineseemwillingto have thisrela-tivismapplied to their own contentions;thusMr. Karl Mannheimwrites that "even one's ownpointof view may always be expectedto be peculiar to one's [social] position."8 Yet the ingeniousandoften suggestive interpretations f history put forthby membersof this school do not, in fact,have the air of being presented asvalid for the reader in one of his capacities, say that of a pro-fessorofsociology, nd invalid forhim n anothercapacity,say thatof a man over fortyyears of age, or an income-taxpayer in one ofthe lower brackets; nor are these reasonings presented (as might

    8Karl Mannheim: deology and Utopia, 1936,p. 269; cf. the whole section TheSociologyofKnowledge,"pp. 236-280. See also Robert K. Merton's xcellent riefreviewof thismovement,The Sociology ofKnowledge," n Isis, XXVII, 3, Novem-ber, 1937, pp. 493-503.

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    17/22

    18 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOYbe expected) s valid onlyfor readersbelongingo precisely hesame economic lass andgenerationnd status-groupnd occupa-tionalgroup nd sectas their uthors. If theywereso presented,their claims to considerationwould obviouslybe extremely e-stricted. The spokesmen f thissort ofsociological elativism,nshort, atently ivesomeplaceto common riteria f factual ruthand of legitimacyn inference, hich heir heory,n its extremeinterpretation,ould xclude. Theydo not,t s clear, eallybelievethatthe propositionhatGeorgeWashingtonwas a great andedproprietors truefora VirginiaEpiscopalianbutfalsefora Chi-cago Baptist-northat heir wn hesis hat pinionsnd"thought-models,"outside fpurescience, re shown yhistorical videncetobe correlated ith ocialstatusorposition, ught o be acceptedonly ypersons fa particulartatus rposition. Eventhey, hen,necessarily resupposepossible imitationsr exceptions o theirgeneralization,nthe ctofdefendingt.But if there re limitationsr exceptions o thetruth f thedoctrine f the non-rational eterminationfmen's judgments,tfollows hattwo typesof factor are at work n the history fthought; ndit is thebusiness f thehistorian-ifhe can-at onceto discriminatendtocorrelatehem,ndperhaps,nthe ong un, oarrive tsome ough uantitativestimatef he elative artplayedbyeach. But to make hisdiscriminationnparticularnstances-whichmust e donebeforeny general onclusionsan be regardedas established-isunquestionably hazardous nd uncertain usi-ness; and themoreweight ou nitially ive to the role of thenon-rational n these matters, he more hazardous and uncertain heappraisalof thatrolemust tself ppear. It is perilouslyasy tofindmoreor less plausibleexplanations,n terms f non-rationalmotives, orothermens' reasonings, pinions r tastes-to "un-mask deologies"whichyouhappento dislike and, n the natureofthecase, tis exceedinglyifficulto demonstratehecorrectnessoradequacyof such pecificxplanations, nlessby deductionroma priorigeneralpremisesdogmatically ssumed at the outset-atypeof question-beggingxemplifiedn our owntimeon a hugescale. Nevertheless,iven sufficientegreeofcaution s well asof acumen n thepartofthehistorianincludinghebiographer),some success n this delicatetask of distinguishinghe two com-ponentsntheformationfmen's udgmentss, doubtless, otpasthoping or.

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    18/22

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 19Meanwhile, the usual ambition of the contemporaryhistori-ographer to find onjectural"affective" or "sociological" explana-tions for the explicitfacts of the historyof ideas obviouslycannotjustify-though it sometimes tends to result in-a neglect to ob-serve withas muchadequacy, accuracy and judicial-mindedness smay be, the facts to be explained-to investigatewidely and toanalyze searchingly, hroughtheir expressionin words, the kindsof ideas that have actually appealed to men, to note upon whatgrounds beliefshave seemed to those who held them to have beenbased, how theyhave changed fromgenerationto generation, ndunder what conditionsthese changes have taken place. Even ifmost or all expressed udgmentsand reasonings were but "rationa-lizations" of blindemotionsor cravings,the nature of the cravingsmustbe chieflynferred rom hecontent f therationalizations;theneed to rationalize s, upon the samehypothesis, ot less imperativethanthecravings; and once a rationalizationhas been formed,t isantecedently mprobable-and could be shownbyhistoricalevidenceto be untrue-that it will remain otiose and inert,havingno reper-cussions upon the affective ide of consciousness out of which itmay have arisen. When a man has given a reason for his belief,his moral approbation or disapprobation,his aesthetic preference,he is-happily or otherwise-caught in a trap; for the reason islikelyto entail,or to seem to entail,consequencesfar beyond and,it may be, contraryto, the desire which generated it, or, not lessawkwardly,contraryto undeniable matters of fact; even if heseeksto evade thoseconsequences,he will suffer heembarrassmentof appearing to his fellows rrationalbecause arbitraryand incon-sistent; and an aversion from manifestand admitted rrationalityis, after all, by no means the least pervasive or least powerfulofemotions n the creature that has long,and withevidentgratifica-tion,been accustomed odefine imself s therationalanimal. Man,moreover, s not only an incurably inquisitive but an incurablyratiocinativebeing,and the exercise of this function, s of others,carries its ownpleasure with t. To recognizea nice distinction, o

    discovera newtruth, r whatappears to be such,to feel thatone isreasoningwell and coercively, o triumphover an at firstbafflingproblem-these are all accompaniedby a sense of powerand there-fore by lively satisfactions. And the satisfactions cannot be en-joyed withoutthe presupposition of rules of procedure and of

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    19/22

    20 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOYcriteriaof successnotpeculiar to oneself, ut inherentn the natureofthesubject-matter.For these reasons, if there were no others, the intellectualhistoriographerwill still do well to entertainthe hypothesis thatlogic is one of the importantoperative f-actors n the history ofthought, ven thoughhe cannot accept this assumptionin the ex-tremeform n whichit was once widelyheld. Accordingto thatolder butnow evanescentview,what we chieflywitness, n the tem-poral sequenceofbeliefs,doctrines nd reasonings, s theworking fan immanent ialecticwhereby deas are progressively larified ndproblems consecutively et themselves olved, or at least advancedtowards less erroneous or inadequate "solutions." Perhaps thestrongestreason whywe no longerfindthis pictureof a majesticlogical forwardmovement n historyconvincing s that we havebecome ncreasinglyware oftheoscillatory haracterofmuchof thehistory fthought,t least ofWesternthought, utsidethedomain ofstrictly xperimental cience. On any intelligibly ormulablegen-eral question, there are usually two not entirelyunplausible ex-tremepositions,with a numberof intermediate nes; and much ofthehistoricspectacle,so far as the dominanttendencies of succes-sive periodsare concerned, eemsto consist n alternateshiftsfromone extreme o the other, itherabruptlyor gradually through heintermediate tages. This phenomenons, ofcourse,especiallycon-spicuous in political and social history, nd in thehistoryof tasteand of the arts. A tendency o radical innovationflourishes or atime and perhaps eventuates n a revolution,which s followedbya reaction,more or less extreme, nd a period of dominant onser-vatism. Democracy,or somemeasure of t, through long struggle,replaces absolute monarchy, o be succeeded suddenly by dictator-ship. This seems to be the all-but universal pattern of the se-quences of politico-socialhistory-excepting those contemporaryrevolutionsof which the end is not yet. There is little in suchhistorythusfar to encouragethebelief that it moves continuouslyin any particulardirection; t has, in the ong view, as Polybius longsince observed,much more the look of a series of periodic re-currences,thoughthe periods are of very unequal length. So inmatters of taste and aesthetic fashions: the majority of connois-seurs in one period care, forexample,onlyforGothicarchitecture,thentheydespise it,thenthey dmire t again, thenthey oncemorerevolt against it; now fixed"form" is the criterionof excellence,

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    20/22

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 21now"irregularity" nd freedom f expression; nce the"pictur-esque" was all thego,now t is belittled. "Romanticism,"n somesenseof thevagueterm, isplaces"classicism" in literature,ndgivesplace to it again. If youwishto prophesybout thefuture,in any ofthesematters,heactuarially afestworking ulewouldseemtobe to take whatare now venerateddolsand predict hattheywillsooneror laterbecomehobgoblins-and till ater, dolsoncemore.And no honestobserver ven of thehistory f philosophicalopinion an deny hata similar henomenonfoscillations to befoundnit. Moods of radical ntellectualismre followed yanti-intellectualisms,f one or anothervariety. In recentAmericanand British hilosophy,fter hedominancef dealism or gene-ration, ealism, s we all know, ameflooding ack-and there renow some ndicationshat ts tide s receding. (These oscillations,it shouldhardlyneedsaying, ave no relevance o thequestion fthevalidity fanyoftheviewswhich ucceed neanother; here snothingmorenaive,ormore ndicative f a failure o learnone ofthereal essons fthehistoryfthought,han he endencyfsome,even mongphilosophers,o takethebarefact hat wayof think-ing s now dermodes indicativeither hat t is false or that t willnot comeback.) The history f philosophyssuredly s not, nthesuccessions fthe deas and systemswhicht presents,n ex-clusivelyogicalprocess,nwhich bjective ruth rogressivelyn-folds tself n a rationalorder; ts course s shapedand divertedby theintrusion f manyfactorswhichbelongto the domainofthepsychologistr the sociologist,nd have nothing o do withphilosophys a would-becience. But since his spectof themat-ter s now nso little anger fbeingdisregarded,t is more othepurpose odwelluponthe residuum ftruthnthe olderview. Itmust tillbe admitted hatphilosophersand evenplainmen) doreason,that the temporal equenceof theirreasonings, s onethinkerollows notlher,s usually n someconsiderable egree alogicallymotivatedndlogicallynstructiveequence. For a veryfamiliar xample hat willhardlybe disputed, othBerkeley ndHumedid,plainly, ring onotice mplicationsf Locke'spremiseswhichLocke had notseen-implications hatwereactually here,waiting,s itwere, o bebroughto ight. In both ases,perhaps-certainlyn Berkeley's-extra-logical otiveshelpto explainwhythe later philosophersnoticedthese implications; he idealism

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    21/22

    22 ARTHUR 0. LOVEJOYwhichBerkeley thought t possible to deduce, n part, by combiningthesimpleLockian thesisthat"the mindhath no immediateobjectsbut its own ideas" with the principleof parsimony was a conse-quencemanifestlywelcome for religiousreasons: it dished the ma-terialistscompletely,t provideda new argumentforthe existenceofGod, t seemedto implya more direct nd intimaterelation, venin the common usiness of sense-perception, etween he humanandthedivinemind. In Hume s case, at least inhisnon-politicalworks,it is hard to see any extra-logicalmotivation, except a certainpleasure in horripilating he orthodox nd an intense ambitionfora reputationas an original writer; it seems questionable whetherhis sceptical conclusions themselveswere really emotionallywel-cometohim. And evenwhenalogical motivesmay seemto explainpsychologically he readiness of one philosopherto observe a non-sequitur, or an unexaminedpresupposition,or an undeveloped m-plication, n a doctrine f his predecessor, t frequently, nd perhapsusually,remainsthe case that it is such actual logical facts thatheobserves-as a review of the entirehistoryof philosophywouldeasily show. In their criticismsof otherpeople's ways of think-ing men inevitably appeal largely to common rational principles,or what at the time are accepted as such,howeverpartially theymay follow such principles in arriving at their own beliefs orvaluations. On the offensive,manya thinker ittlecapable of self-criticismhas shownhimself n acute and cogent reasoner; so that,somewhatparadoxically, it is throughtheir quarrels that philos-ophers have most illuminated he logic of theirproblems, nd it isin the polemical part of the historyof reflective houghtthat thecool white ightof reason maymostoftenbe seen emerging.The studyof thehistoryof thought, hen,muststillbe pursuedwith an open and alert eye for the action of "intellectual" pro-cesses in the narrower sense, processes in which-along with allthe emotivefactors,the blank, quasi-aestheticlikingsfor one oranothertypeof conceptor imageryor "metaphysical pathos," andthebiases due to personal or group interests-ideas manifesttheirownnatural ogic. By natural logic I do notmeannecessarily goodlogic. It sometimesmay and sometimesmay not be that; and thequestion how far it can be would involve a digressioninto logicaltheory tself,which wouldbe out of place here. But it will hardlybe deniedthatnumerous deas have, if notnecessary connections,tleast electiveaffinities, ithvarious otherideas, and incongruities

    This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:45:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/27/2019 Lovejoy Reflections

    22/22

    REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 23with yet others,and that most propositions,taken in conjunctionwith otherswhichare usually assumed thoughthey may be unex-pressed,have implicationsnot always evidentor welcome to thosewho affirmhem. An idea, in short, s after all notonlya potentbuta stubborn hing; t commonly as its own"particular go; " and thehistoryof thought s a bilateral affair-the storyof the trafficndinteraction etweenhumannature,amid the exigencies and vicissi-tudes ofphysical experience, n the one hand, and on the other, hespecificnatures and pressures of the ideas which men have, fromveryvarious promptings,dmitted o theirminds.

    JohnsHopkins University