LUCAS

voL 48 (1973), pp. 161-71.'The Alternative Sex', Philosophy, voL 59

(1984), pp. 111-15.'The Temporality of God', in Robert John

Randall, Nancey Murphy and C J. Isham

(eds), Quantum Cosmology and the Lawsof Nature: Scientific Perspectives on DivineAction, 2nd edn. (Vatican City State andBerkeley,California, 1996), pp. 235-46.

J.R. Lucas homepage, http://users.ox.ac.ukJ-jrIucas, accessed November 2004.

Further RtadingJacquette, Dale, 'Metamathematical Criteria

for Minds and Machines', Erkenntnis, voL27 (1987), pp. 1-16.

Norris, Christopher, New Idols of the Cave(Manchester and New York, 2001).

Penrose, Roger, The Emperor's New Mind(Oxford, 1989).

-, Shadow of the Mind (Oxford, 1994).Rawls, John, A Theory ofJustice .

(Cambridge, Mass., 1971).Webb, Judson c., Mechanism, Mentalism

and Metamathematics: An Essay onFinitism (Dordrecht, 1980).

Robin Attfield

LUCE, Arthur Aston (1882-1977)

Arthur Aston Luce was born in Gloucester on

21 August 1882 and died in Dublin on 28 June1977. The fourth son of the Revd John JamesLuce and Alice Luce (nee StUbbs),he first waseducated at Lindley Lodge School andEastbourne College. Luce entered TrinityCollege Dublin in 1901, receiving his BA(1905), BD (1908), MA (1991), DD (1920)and Litt D (1943). He was also awarded aDLitt (honoris causa) by Queen's University,Belfast in 1953. Luce served as a fellow of

Trinity College Dublin for a record sixty-five

years from 1912 until 1977 and held the postsof Professor of Moral Philosophy (1934-49),Vice-Provost(1946-52) and BerkeleyProfessorof Metaphysics (1953-77). Lucewas ordainedan Anglican priest on 21 December 1908, andhe served at St Patrick's Cathedral as canon

(1930-36), chancellor (1936-52) and precen-tor (1952-73). Luceserved with the 12th RoyalIrish Rifles in France (1915-18) and was dec-orated with the Military Cross on 18 October1917. An avid fisher, Luce also wrote the well-regarded Fishing and Thinking (1959). Hema-tried Lilian Mary Thompson on 21December 1918 and his children were JohnVictor, Arthur Frank and AliceMary Kathleen.He lost his wife and his daughter to a tragicdrowning accident in 1940. Luce himself diedtragically in a Dublin hospital two days fol-lowing an assault.

Luce's most important work gained himacclaim as the leading Berkeley scholar of hisday and his work has secured him a position asthe pre-eminent Berkeleyscholar of at least thefirst half of the twentieth century. Luce(Berkeley's Immaterialism, p. vi) describedhimself as an expositor oErather than a com-mentator on Berkeley's Principles of HumanKnowledge. Indeed, he frankly acknowledgedhis endorsement of inlmaterialism as well as

'naive realism'; and his own published philos-ophy, Sense without Matter: or DirectPerception (1954), consisted largely of adefence of what he took to be Berkeley's coreviews. Luce's editions of the PhilosophicalCommentaries (1944) and The Works ofGeorge Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne (co-editedwith T.E. JESSOP,1948-57) remain withoutequal, and have been central in solidifyingLuce's importance to the stUdy of Berkeley'sphilosophy.

The nine-volume collection of Berkeley'sworks (of which Luce edited volumes 1,4, 7and 8, and co-edited volume 9 with Jessop)was unequivocally praised as an improvementover A.C. Fraser's earlier editions. Aside from

the inclusion of additional writings - severalsermons, rediscovered editions of publications

590

and 150 new letters - especially noteworthywas the use of a critical apparatus whichenabled readers to note systematically changesmade in Berkeley's work from his earliereditions, as well as the useful editorial com-mentary and editorial introductions. It remainsunsurpassed as the standard scholarly source ofBerkeley'swritings.

As a whole, Luce's work embodied anattempt to undo what he viewed as the mis-representations of Berkeleyas a philosopher atodds with common senseand as a man with his

head in the clouds with little practical sensibil-ities. Hi(Life of George Berkeley (1949) wasan attempt to defend a picture of Berkeleyas anengaged man of the world. Especially note-worthy was Luce's identification of the BritishPlutarch's The Life of George Berkeley (1762)as a chief source of misinformation and cari-cature. Luce's work was by no means uncon-troversial, particularly in its defence of the ill-fated Bermuda project and the Bishop's cele-bration of tar-water as panacea. Recently D.Berman (1994) has argued on the basis of pre-viously unavailable evidence that some of theearly representationsof Berkeleymay have beenmore accurate than Luce had supposed.

Luce's account of Berkeley's philosophyaimed to discredit representations of Berkeleyas an 'acosmitist' (one who denies the exis-tenceof body), a 'panpsychist' (one who affirmsonly the reality of mind), as well as a 'subjec-tive idealist'. He defended the view that under

the influenceof Locke, Bayleand Malebranche,Berkeleyhad originally developed an argumentfor immaterialism which relied mainly on scep-tical concerns. This earlier Berkeley,accordingto Luce,was indeed both a panpsychist and anacosmitist who, in particular, maintained theview that ideas were modifications of the

person and bodies were mere powers in God toproduce those ideas. However, as Luce wouldhave it, Berkeley's early philosophical note-books were actually an attempt to re-examinehis 'first arguings' for immaterialism as heprepared to composeAn EssayTowards a NewTheory of Vision and A Treatise Concerning

LUCE

the Principles of Human Knowledge. Thisearlier position, argued Luce, was decisivelyabandoned by Berkeleyaround entries 265-79of Berkeley's early notebooks, upon the dis-covery of the New Principle (esseest percipi).The Principles,for Luce,constituted Berkeley'scomplete and internally coherent developmentand defence of an immaterialism which main-

tained the real existence of a publicly availableworld of sense. From then on, argued Lucepace Fraser, no significantchangesin Berkeley'sphilosophical outlook occurred.

Luce's first published book .on Berkeley'swritings, Berkeley and Malebranche (1934),was an attempt to argue against the leadingview (held by Fraser among others) thatBerkeleywas largelythe successorof Locke. Onthe contrary, argued Luce, the philosophy ofBerkeley was equally dependent on that ofMalebranche. 'Locke taught him', wrote Luce,'but Malebranche inspired him' (Berkeley andMalebranche, p. 7). Especiallynoteworthy wasLuce's early attempt to represent Berkeley asone who maintained the public, mind-inde-pendent nature of ideas and the relevance ofMalebranche's doctrine of ideas to this thesis.'Neglect of the Malebranche factor inBerkeleyanism takes the heart out of it,reducing its solid realitY to flimsy dream ...',Luce wrote (ibid., p. 5). While Luce's work indocumenting the influence of Malebrancheupon Berkeleyhas been superseded,not least byC.]. McCracken's Malebranche and British

Philosophy (1983), it is notable for its pio-neering efforts as well as for his preliminarydevelopment of the controversial interpreta-tion which had come to be known as Berkeley'salleged 'common sense realism'.

Luce's earliest and perhaps most importantwork of substance in Berkeleyscholarship con-cerned Add. M.S. 39305 of the British

Museum's 'Berkeley Papers', originally knownas 'Berkeley's Commonplace Book ofOccasional Metaphysical Thoughts. Two note-books had been discovered and so named byA.C. Fraser, who published the CommonplaceBook in both his 1871 and 1901 editions of

591

LUCE

The Works of George Berkeley. Subsequently,T. Lorenz had argued in 1905 that the tWonotebooks had been bound together in thewrong order; and this was also argued by G.A.JOHNSTON,who corrected the order in hisBerkeley's Commonplace Book of 1930.

In 1932 Luce published 'Berkeley'sCommonplace Book - its Date, Purpose,Structure, and Marginal Signs', his first majorarticle on Berkeley. In this paper Luce furthersupponed the Lorenz-Johnston thesis with apersuasiveargument which reliedon Berkeley'sinconsistent capitalization of the 'i' in 'idea',and he also argued that only the entries accom-panied by Berkeley'smarginal signsbe admittedas pan of the Commonplace Book proper. Thisenabled Luce to argue that, far from mere'jottings', the Commonplace Book was morepurposeful in its design - indeed that it was apreliminary stage in Berkeley'sdevelopment ofhis arguments in the New Theory of Visionand the Principles.

In this article Luce also influentially sug-gested that the puzzling sign (+) of Berkeley'smarginal apparatus served as an obelus toindicate entries that Berkeley either came toreject or regard as otherwise unfit for inclu-sion in his published work, and that conse-quently such entries constituted a 'black list' ofentries. Luce additionally defended the viewthat the Commonplace Book was probablystaned around June to July 1707 (against theview that the beginning date was earlier) andconcluded in August 1708 (prior to Berkeley'sfirst draft of the Introduction to the Principles).Both the obelus thesis as well as the daring ofthe notebooks have subsequently been con-tested in the literature. Although Luce's posi-tions on these issues have not been refuted,they also remain controversial.

Luce ('Development within Berkeley'sCommonplace Book', 1940j subsequentlyargued that the Commonplace Book reflectedan imponant volte-face in Berkeley's views, inthat Berkeleyhad originallyadopted a 'panpsy-chist' view, which he came to reject. Luce(1943) then postulated an original argument for

immaterialism which reflected Berkeley's 'firstarguings' upon which the Commonplace Bookwas to be viewedas a kind of commentary, andin 1944 Luce published the PhilosophicalCommentaries, Generally Called theCommonplace Book, abandoning Fraser's titlein light of the fact that the notebooks no longerseemed to reflect 'occasional metaphysicalreflections'.

This edition, described by Luce as an editiodiplomatiaz and of which only 400 copieswereprinted, was praised for its detailed reproduc-tion of Berkeley'snotebooks. Each page of themanuscript was transcribed verso as well asrecto, lineation was preserved, erasures, scoredwords, as well as marginal signs were included,and the ordering of certain entries adopted byFraser and Johnston was corrected.Additioqally, Luce included over 150 pages ofnotes on the entries. In his review of this

edition, LAIRD(p. 277) regarded them 'atriumph for Trinity College, Dublin, as well asfor Dr. Luce personally'. 'In range, precisionand economy of expression and of conveniencein cross-reference,' he wrote, 'it would be verydifficulty indeed to better them.' Far more con-troversial were Luce's postulation of a priorBerkeleyan argument for immaterialism, andhis choice of title designed to reflect the con-troversial thesis. Luce developed this thesismore thoroughly in his The' Dialectic ofImmaterialism (1963), in which he argued thatthe philosophical notebooks reflected a kind ofdialectical method where Berkeley voicedpossible objections to his 'first arguings'.

The thesis. that Berkeley was a 'commonsenserealist' (onewho maintains that we imme-diately sense perceive the real, non-mentalworld without representational mediation) isrecognized as a hallmark of Luce's interpreta-tion of Berkeley'sphilosophy. Yet the attribu-tion of this view to Luce is by no meansuncomplicated. A.C. Fraser, for example, asLuce himself recognized, had already empha-sized the 'spiritual realism' of Berkeley's phi-losophy much earlier. And not long after G.E.MOORE's famous 'Refutation of Idealism'

592

(1903), interpretations of Berkeley as a'common sense realist' had surfaced in a fairlytimely way. Ironically, Luce himself, in bothBerkeley and Malebrancheas well as Berkeley'sImmaterialism, distanced himself from the rep-resentation of Berkeley as a clear-cut realist,only explicitlyaffirming it later in The Dialecticof Immaterialism.

What appears to have set Luce's interpreta-tion apart from at least some of the other'realist' interpretations was his insistence thatBerkeleyan ideas of sense were publicly avail-able, existing in:dependently of finite spirits.Bodies, for Luce's Berkeley, were not divinepowers to produce ideas, but combinations ofpublicly available sense-data. Luce readBerkeley's thesis that ideas exist 'in the mind'as the innocuous claim that they were directlyperceived by a mind; and he read Berkeley'sthesis that spirit and idea were 'entirelydistinct' as the claim that sensible ideas were

'not mental' (i.e.neither 'part of the mind' nor'in the mind by way of mode').

The specificsof Luce's interpretation restedmainly on the claim that, for Berkeley,the esseest percipi principle is expandable to the prin-ciple esse est percipi aut posse percipi.Additionally, Luce claimed that sensory per-ception for Berkeley involves mental activirysuch that a distinction between act and objectof perceptionmay be drawn. Byallowing for anexpansion. of the New Principle, Luce wasenabled to argue that Berkeleyan ideas of senseare objects of either possible or actual senseperception, and that they can therefore existindependently of any actual particular percep-tion of them.

There are several difficulties with the Luceinterpretation. In addition to the fact that theexpansion thesis appears to be contradicted byseveralpassagesin Berkeley'swritings, the viewthat for Berkeley ideas of sense exist indepen-dently of any perception by a finite mindappears to deflate certain central Berkeleyantenets, such as the claim that spirits are sub-stances which support ideas perceiving them.Moreover, in the First Dialogue Philonous

LUCE

argues that an intense heat simply is a pain (heclaims that there is only one simple idea). Yet,if this is so, it is hard to avoid viewing intenseheat as wholly dependent upon particular finiteminds. Indeed, ideas of sense begin to lookvery much like the sort of mental items Lucedenied them to be.

While the Luce interpretation has generallynot been:accepted by Berkeleycommentators,it also continues to be discussed in much of the

secondary literature on Berkeley,seventyyearsafter its initial formulation. This is a strongsign of the continuing importance of the thesis,at least in insofar as it forces a deeper exami-nation of the major metaphysical and episte-mological issues in Berkeley's philosophy.Luce's long-lastinginfluence in centralizingpar-ticular exegetical and philosophical problems,therefore, is certainly of a piece with his inar-guably substantial biographical, bibliographicaland editorial contributions to the study ofBerkeley's philosophy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkeley and Malebranche: A Study in theOrigins of Berkeley's Thought (1934; 2ndedn, with additional Preface, 1967).

Philosophical Commentaries, GenerallyCalled the Commonplace Book [of]George Berkeley, Bishop of C/oyne. Aneditio diplomatica Transcribed and Editedwith an Introduction and Notes (1944);rev. notes by Luce included in G.H.Thomas's edition of the PhilosophicalCommentaries (Ohio, 1976).

Berkeley's Immaterialism: A Commentary onhis 'A Treatise Concerning the Principlesof Human Knowledge' (1945).

(Ed. with T.E. Jessop), The Works of GeorgeBerkeley, Bishop of Cloyne (1948-57;repr., 3 vols with supp!. to volume 1 byDesiree Park, Milwood, 1979).

The Dialectic of Immaterialism: An Account

of the Making of Berkeley's Principles(1963).

593

LUCE

Other Relevant Works

'Berkeley's Commonplace Book - its Date,Purpose, Structure and Marginal Signs',Hermathena, vol. 47 (1932), pp. 99-131.

'Development within Berkeley'sCommonplace Book', Mind, vol. 193(1940), pp. 42-51.

The Life of George Berkeley, Bishop ofCloyne (1949; reprowith a new Preface,New York, 1968).

Sense without Matter, or Direct Perception(1954; repr., New York, 1973).

Jessop, ThQrnas,A Bibliography of GeorgeBerkeley, with Inventory of Berkeley'sManuscript Remains by A.A. Luce (1934;reproThe Hague, 1973).

Further ReadingBerman, David, 'A Bibliography of the

Published Writings of Dr. A.A. Luce',Hermathena, vol. 128 (1977), pp. 11-18.

Belfrage, Berril, 'A New Approach toBerkeley's Philosophical Notebooks', inErnest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophyof George Berkeley (Dordrecht, 1987), pp.217-30.

Berman, David, George Berkeley: Idealismand the Man (1994).

Laird, John, Review of PhilosophicalCommentaries; Generally Called theCommonplace Book: George Berkeley,Bishop of Cloyne, Philosophy, vol. 20(1945), pp. 276-7.

Luce, John, 'Arthur Aston Luce, Curriculumvitae', Hermathena, vol. 128 (1977), p. 10.

-, The Luce Perspective on Berkeley:An Outline of the IntellectualDevelopment of Dr. A.A. Luce, inBerkeley Studies, vol. 1 (1988).

Pappas, George, Berkeley's Thought (Ithaca,2000).

T alia Mae Bettcher

594