Henry More | |
|---|---|
 Portrait byDavid Loggan, c. 1679–1692 | |
| Born | (1614-10-12)12 October 1614 Grantham,Lincolnshire, England |
| Died | 1 September 1687(1687-09-01) (aged 72) Cambridge, England |
| Occupations |
|
| Education | |
| Alma mater | Christ's College, Cambridge |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | 17th-century philosophy |
| Region | Western philosophy |
| School | Cambridge Platonists |
| Institutions | Christ's College, Cambridge |
| Language | English, Latin |
| Main interests | |
| Notable ideas | Essential spissitude; extended immaterial substance; early use of the concept of afourth dimension; Spirit of Nature |
Henry MoreFRS (/mɔːr/; 12 October 1614 – 1 September 1687) was an English philosopher, theologian, and poet, associated with theCambridge Platonists. He sought to reconcilePlatonism withChristian theology and responded critically toCartesian philosophy. His metaphysical writings addressed the nature of spirit, matter, divine providence, and the soul, and he was a prominent voice in seventeenth-century religious and philosophical debates.
More rejectedCartesian dualism, arguing that spirit, like matter, must be extended in space. He coined the termfourth dimension and introduced the concept ofessential spissitude to describe the spatial extension of immaterial substance. He also proposed the existence of a Spirit of Nature—an unconscious, incorporeal agent through which God sustained the order of the physical world. His metaphysics grounded his opposition to materialist atheism and emphasised the necessity of immaterial principles in explaining life and motion.
He opposed the Cartesian view thatanimals were mere machines, asserting instead that they possess immaterial but mortal souls. More regarded animals as part of divine providence and cited their usefulness to humans as evidence of design, while acknowledging the theological difficulty posed by predation and suffering.
His writings, in both Latin and English, spannedmetaphysics,ethics,natural philosophy, andtheology, and included poetry and prose. He influenced figures such asLady Anne Conway,Joseph Glanvill, andJohn Norris, and was later cited byRalph Waldo Emerson andHelena Blavatsky.
Henry More was born inGrantham, Lincolnshire on 12 October 1614. He was the seventh son of Alexander More, mayor of Grantham, and his wife Anne More (née Lacy).[1] Although both parents wereCalvinists, More later wrote that he "could never swallow that hard doctrine."[2]
He was educated atThe King's School, Grantham and atEton College, before enteringChrist's College, Cambridge in 1631, around the time thatJohn Milton was departing. He received his BA in 1635 and his MA in 1639, and was shortly thereafter elected a fellow of his college, declining all other preferments.[3] He declined the mastership of Christ's College in 1654, despite indications that he was the preferred candidate, and the position was instead offered toRalph Cudworth. In 1675, More accepted aprebend atGloucester Cathedral, but soon resigned it in favour of his friendEdward Fowler, who later becamebishop of Gloucester.[2]
Among More's students was Anne Finch, sister ofHeneage Finch, who later becameLady Conway. At her estate atRagley in Warwickshire, More spent a significant amount of time and composed several of his works. Lady Conway's spiritual interests influenced some of More's philosophical ideas, although she eventually joined theQuakers. She maintained friendships not only with More andWilliam Penn, but also with figures such asFranciscus Mercurius van Helmont andValentine Greatrakes, both associated with 17th-century mystical andthaumaturgical traditions. Ragley thus became a centre of spiritual and religious activity.[2]
More died in Cambridge on 1 September 1687 and was buried in the chapel of Christ's College.[4]
_(attributed_to)_-_Henry_More_(1614%25E2%2580%25931687)_-_RS.9717_-_Royal_Society.jpg)
Henry More developed ametaphysical system influenced byNeoplatonism, while also engaging with aspects of the emerging mechanical philosophy of the seventeenth century. Although often associated with theCambridge Platonists, his views diverged in several respects.[1]
More rejectedCalvinistpredestinarianism and materialist atheism, maintaining that God was morally perfect and necessarily governed by absolute standards of goodness. He argued that moral truths were eternal and independent of divine will, in contrast to thevoluntarist theology associated with Calvinism. On this basis, More held that God was obliged to create the best possible world—not for the benefit of humanity, but to manifest divine perfection.[1]
More's philosophy included a dualistic distinction between body and spirit. He described matter as inert and passive, asserting that all motion and activity must originate in immaterial spirit. He extended this principle to all living beings, maintaining that life and movement required the presence of an immaterial, self-moving soul.[1]
Although initially receptive to Cartesian thought, More later criticised its core principles. He rejected Descartes's identification of body with extension, arguing that immaterial substances were also extended. In More's view, to exist was to exist in space; therefore, even God, souls, and angels must possess spatial extension. He defined spirit not by the absence of extension but by its penetrability and indivisibility.[1]
More rejectedCartesian dualism on the grounds that it was, in his view, more coherent to attribute matter and extension to the soul than to ascribe to an immaterial substance the capacity to move and be moved by the body. His reservations were not based on difficulties in explaining the interaction between material and immaterial substances, but rather on a philosophical position that regarded extension as a necessary condition for existence. As he wrote, "... it is plain that if a thing be at all it must be extended." On this basis, More argued that spirit must also be extended. This led him to propose the concept of afourth dimension (a term he is credited with coining) in which spirit possesses extension—a property he termedessential spissitude[5]—as part of his proposed resolution to themind–body problem.[6]
To account for natural phenomena he regarded as inadequately explained by mechanical laws—such as gravity, magnetism, and biological instincts—More proposed the existence of the Spirit of Nature. He described it as an incorporeal but extended substance that functioned as a secondary, unconscious cause in nature. Although distinct from God, it was considered a necessary emanation of divine power through which God maintained the order of the physical world.[1]
More articulated a view of absolute space and time as real, immaterial entities. He described space as infinite, extended, and incorporeal, attributing to it qualities such as omnipresence and immutability. He considered space strong evidence for the reality of immaterial substance. Rejecting the Cartesian position that immaterial souls exist "nowhere" (nullibism), he maintained that all beings exist spatially. Time, likewise, was regarded as absolute and independent of perception. Both space and time were seen as emanative effects of divine presence.[7][1]
More's metaphysical system presented matter as dependent on active, extended spirit. He engaged with contemporary debates in natural philosophy, theology, and metaphysics, and responded critically to aspects of Cartesianism.[1]
Henry More rejected the Cartesian doctrine ofanimal automatism, maintaining instead that animals possess immaterial souls. While he denied that animal souls were immortal, he held that they were distinct from matter and capable of sensation and self-motion. This view was integral to his broader metaphysical system, which depended on a strict dualism between passive matter and active spirit. For More, denying souls to animals risked collapsing this distinction and opening the door to atheistic materialism.[8]
More regarded animals as part of divine providence, often citing their usefulness to humans—as sources of food, labour, or companionship—as evidence of design. He also argued that even wild or dangerous animals served providential ends, such as testing human courage or contributing to the beauty and complexity of creation. However, the existence of predatory and harmful animals raised theological challenges, especially concerning theproblem of evil. In response, More suggested that such creatures reflected the limitations of creation rather than flaws in the divine will.[8]
He drew a sharp ethical and psychological line between humans and animals. While animals, in his view, pursued bodily satisfaction and exhibited instinctual behaviour, humans were uniquely capable of rational thought and moral virtue. Nonetheless, More acknowledged the presence of "animal" passions within human beings and emphasised the need to govern these impulses through reason. His reflections on the human–animal boundary, found in both his prose and poetry, served to reinforce his belief in a divinely ordered cosmos structured by gradations of soul and purpose.[8]
More is among the earliest known sources to refer to the idea that medievalScholasticism engaged in speculative questions such as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", which he described as occurring "on a needles [sic] point" in the second chapter ofThe Immortality of the Soul.[9]
A quotation from More is used as the epigraph toRalph Waldo Emerson's essay "The Over-Soul", published inEssays: First Series (1841).[10]
Helena Blavatsky, the founder of modernTheosophy, quoted More and discussed his ideas in chapter VII of her workIsis Unveiled (1877).[11]
More was a prolific author of both verse and prose. HisDivine Dialogues (1688) presents a concise statement of his philosophical and theological views. Like many writers of his era, he began as a poet and later turned primarily to prose. His first work, written in 1640 and published in 1642, wasPsychodoia Platonica: or, a Platonicall Song of the Soul, consisting of four several Poems. In 1647, he published a larger collection titledPhilosophical Poems, which included an expanded version ofThe Song of the Soul and was dedicated to his father. A second edition appeared later that year, and the collection was reprinted byA. B. Grosart in the Chertsey Worthies Library (1878).[4]
More's prose works include the following:[4]
More is also believed to have writtenPhilosophiae Teutonicae Censura (1670), a critique of thetheosophy ofJacob Boehme, and to have editedJoseph Glanvill'sSaducismus Triumphatus (1681), contributing extensive commentary. He also annotated Glanvill'sLux Orientalis (1682), and maintained a correspondence withJohn Worthington, whoseDiary preserves several of their letters. Further letters between More andJohn Norris appear in Norris'sTheory and Regulation of Love (1688).A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings of Dr. Henry More was first published in 1662 and includesAntidote against Atheism,Enthusiasmus Triumphatus,Letters to Des Cartes,Immortality of the Soul, andConjectura Cabbalistica; a greatly expanded fourth edition appeared in 1712.[4]
More also published collected editions of his works, includingOpera theologica (1675) andOpera philosophica (1678).[2] Between 1672 and 1675, he translated many of his English writings into Latin. This effort began withHenrici Mori Cantabrigiensis Opera Theologica (1675), and culminated in the two-volumeHenrici Mori Cantabrigiensis Opera Omnia (1679), produced with the support of John Cockshutt of theInner Temple, who had left More a legacy of £300 to fund the translations. Later posthumous publications includeDiscourses on Several Texts of Scripture (1692), prefaced by John Worthington, andLetters on Several Subjects (1694), published byEdmund Elys. An abridged selection,The Theological Works of the Most Pious and Learned Henry More (1708), was produced for charitable libraries.
Primary sources on More's life include Richard Ward'sLife (1710), thePrefatio Generalissima to the 1679Opera Omnia, and anApology published in 1664. Later assessments includeJohn Tulloch'sRational Theology (vol. II, 1874);Johann Georg Ritter von Zimmermann'sHenry More und die vierte Dimension des Raums (Vienna, 1881); andHenry More: Tercentenary Studies, edited by Sarah Hutton (Dordrecht, 1990).[12]
Attribution:
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "More, Henry".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 18 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 822.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: "More, Henry (1614-1687)".Dictionary of National Biography. London:Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
Media from Commons
Quotations from WikiquoteTexts from Wikisource
