I
                    
                
                        1. The Ontological Basis for the Gradation of Ex-
 isting Things.
                     Historically we may trace the concep-
                    tion of a Chain of Being to the Platonic Idea of Ideas,
                     or Idea of the Good, discussed in the seventh book of
 the Republic. This Idea is in fact the summit of the
                    hierarchy of knowable things, for not only do they owe
 to it the quality of
                    their being knowable, but derive
 from it their very, existence by
                    participating in various
 degrees in its nature (509b). Thus, the supreme
                    Idea
 provides the logical basis of a world of sensibilia con-
 ceived as graded with respect to
                    perfection. The Idea
 of the Good, however, is no more than a logical foun-
 dation, insofar as no active element or
                    agent intervenes
 yet; instead, this element of activity is made an
                    intrinsic
 feature of the Demiurge, introduced by Plato in the
                    Timaeus. The Demiurge creates the sensible world
                    modelled on the intelligible one (27d-29c). He cannot
 fail to generate
                    things in that way since, being with-
 out
                    jealousy, his very nature is to desire that all things
 approach as closely
                    as possible to himself (29d-30a).
 Fecundity is thus an essential element of
                    divine per-
 fection. Self-sufficient
                    perfection is at the same time
 self-transcendence in the sensible world.
                    Thus God
 becomes at once the logical and ontological foundation
 of the
                    world's multiplicity and variety.
                This quality of generative self-transcendence of the
 supreme Being finds its
                    most radical expression in
 Plotinus. It is of the very nature of the One in
                    its
 perfection to “overflow,” producing in its
                    exuberance
 the “other” (Enneads V, 21). All beings, then, partici-
                        pate in the nature of the Good in such measure as they
 may,
                    according to their individual capacity.
                
                        2. The Chain of Being as a “plenum
                            formarum” or
 Plenitude of Forms.
                     It is again in the Timaeus that we
 must seek
                    the source of what Lovejoy has called the
 “principle of
                    plenitude”: the idea that in passing from
 the eternal order to
                    the temporal, from the ideal to
 the sensible, there must be realized a
                    fullness of forms
 in which every possible form becomes actual. If crea-
 tivity is essential to the very
                    perfection of the supreme
 Being, existence cannot be begrudged any manner
                    of
 things, whatever their grade of perfection. Moreover,
 the supreme
                    Being creates after the likeness of an
 intelligible model: for every idea
                    there must be a
 corresponding perceptible object; every possibility
                    will
 have its corresponding reality.
                It follows—and Plotinus draws this consequence in
 all its
                    import—that the divine self-transcendence, or
 inexhaustible
                    power of the One, must in its creative
 necessity reach the extreme limits
                    of the possible.
 There is a kind of chain of delegated productive
                    powers: every hypostasis in this generative scale is
 involved in this
                    productive necessity, and its creativity
 must proceed out of itself to the
                    extreme limit of the
 possible. Nothing may be barred from existence,
                    which
 is to say, from more or less participation in the nature
 of the
                    Good (Enneads IV, 8, 6).
                
                
                What is full obviously cannot admit any discon-
                        tinuity. Thus in the Chain of Being the principle of
 continuity
                    is associated with the principle of fullness
 and is often confused with the
                    latter. Aristotle had
 already observed that in the world of living things
                    the
 different orders overlap. In the classification of animals
                    according to habitat—terrestrial animals, animals in-
 habiting air and water—there are
                    many intermediate
 forms irreducible to one or another of these
                    classes.
 The passage from the inanimate to the animate is so
 gradual
                    that continuity makes the boundary between
 the two orders imperceptible. It
                    is the same for the
 passage from the order of plants to that of
                    animals,
 so that for many living forms it is hard to establish
 to
                    which of the two classes they belong (Aristotle,
                    History of Animals VII. 1. 588b).
                It is easy to see that such considerations should have
 reinforced the
                    principle of plenitude—even though this
 was not authorized by
                    the Aristotelian teaching on
 potentiality and actuality, according to which
                    there
 do exist possibilities which have not yet come into
 existence
                        (Metaphysics III. 1003e 2; XII. 1071b 13).