I D E
The fpecies emitted by objects, and the formation of Ideas by the foul itfelf, mentioned in the Cyclopcedia, are not more clear. As to innate ldeas i it is true indeed, that the argu- ments of thofe who maintain them, have been refuted by j Locke ; but when he goes farther, and denies innate Ideas, his arguments are not conclufive. An opinion may be true, tho' ill defended.
Upon the whole, the quefrion about innate Ideas, is as much undecided as ever. Nor has any one difficulty or obfcurity attending this fubjeet, been cleared up.
The opinion of Leibnitz concerning the origin of Ideas, fecms to have fome affinity with innate Ideas. He aflerts the foul to be iimple, and without parts or compofition ; hence he concludes, that no created thing can act internally upon it, but that all the changes it undergoes, depend upon fome in- ternal principle.
God has formed every foul, fo as to have different percep- tions ; fome diftinct, many confufed ; and a great number fo obfcure, as hardly to be perceived. All thefe Ideas together, reprefeut the uuiverfe ; underftanding by this term, every thing that has been, is, or fliall be. According to the dif- ferent relations that each particular foul has with the univerfe, fome of its Ideas are diftinct, and diftinctly reprefent a certain part of the univerfe. The foundation of this opinion is, that as each part of the univerfe diftinctly reprefented, has a ne- ceflary relation with every thing that exifts, with every thing that has been, or ihall be, all things being connected, fo that the one is the confequence of another ; in like manner, the representation of a certain part of the univerfe, has a ne- cell'ary and infeparable relation to the reprefentation of the whole.
From whence it follows, that all diftincl: perceptions of the foul being connected with the Ideas of all other things, thefe muft likewife be in the foul, tho' obfcurely. In this fenfe Mr. Leibnitz aiTerted, that the foul is the mirror of the univerfe. Now all things that happen in the univerfe, mcceed each other according to certain laws : In like manner in the foul, Ideas become fucceffively diftincl: according to other laws ; which, though they have a relation to the former, are yet confiftent with the nature of intelligence. All human fouls have the fame Ideas, taking the Ideas of each individual collectively. But diftincl: Ideas are not the fame in each j thefe depending upon the relation which each foul has to the univerfe ; and this relation is different, accor- ding to the ftation which God has pleafed to affign to each. This feems a fair reprefentation of Mr. Leibnitz's fyftem, relating to the origin of Ideas ; upon which we may remark, that the foundation of this fyftem, is, that all the parts of the univerfe, have a neceffary connexion : But to make juft conclufions from this proportion, the connexion mult be fuch, that things being conlidered in themfelves, no one thing can be fuppofed, without all others being fo neceffary a confequence thereof, that the Idea of another univerfe, in which there Ihould be any thing belonging to our actual uni- verfe, muft be contradictory.
If fuch a connexion took place, what is fuppofed concern- ing obfcure Ideas, would be true in a certain fenfe j to wit, that it might be faid, that a man who has a diftinct Idea of a triangle, has thereby obfcure Ideas of all the properties of this figure, becaufe of the neceftary connexion between thefe laft Ideas and the former.
But no fuch connexion between Ideas fucceeding each other in the foul is perceivable. 'For if paffing from a dark place to one that is enlightened, I thereby fuddenly acquire the Ideas of feveral objects, never before feen, it does not appear that the previous perception of darknels muft necefl'arily lead me to thefe new Ideas.
Thefe and other difficulties may be urged againft Mr. Leib- nitz's fyftem ; nor is Mallebranche's more fortunate. This philofopher fuppofes there can be no caufe of an Idea, but this Idea itfelf in another intelligent being ; and from hence he concludes, that we acquire our Ideas while our foul per- ceives them in God.
To prove his opinion, he enumerates all the ways in which the origin of Ideas is explicable ; and concludes after having refuted all others, that his own is the only true one. But his reafoning labours under two defects. Firft, who can pre- tend, in a fubjeet. fo obfcure, to enumerate all the poffible ways of the foul's acquiring its Ideas. He did not know Leibnitz's opinion, very different from that of the Cartefians ; and other folutions might perhaps be found out. Secondly, the falfity of other opinions is not fufficiently demonftrated. iio that upon the whole, nothing is yet clear about the origin of Ideas.
The confidcration of the memory does not a little encreafe the difficulties concerning our Ideas. Many Ideas not prefent may be recalled to mind. Thefe Ideas are certainly fome how differently related to the foul, than thofe it never did perceive, or thofe which it cannot recoiled!:. But what is an Idea in the foul, which the foul does not perceive ? Yet fuch there are. If to explain this we recur to the conftitution of the brain, new difficulties arifc. What memory can fpirits feparated from bodies have ? if no memory, what intelli- gence ? Sec s'Gravefande Introduct. a la Philofophie, p. 134.
I D Y
As to Mallebrahche's notion,- fee alfo Locke's potthumou^ works; where this opinion is particularly examined;- and 1 Berkeley's .Dialogues, 2d. Edit. p. 257, 258, Sic.
IDEO F. See the article Lunatic.
IDOL (Cycl.) in antiquity, the Idol or image, whatever mate- rials it conhfted of, was by certain ceremonies, called confe- cration, converted into a god. While under the artificer's hands, it was only a mere ftatue.
Three things were neceffary in order to turn it into a god ; proper ornaments, confecration, and oration; The orna- ments were various, and wholly defigned to blind the eyes of the ignorant and ftupid multitude, who are chiefly taken with lhow and pageantry. Then followed the confecration and oration, which were performed with great folemnity among the Romans. Pitifc. Lex. Ant, in voc.
IDOLOPCEIA, 'E.o^owo.ia, in rhetoric, a fpecies of Profopo- pceia, where dead perfons arc fuppofed to fpeak. Vcj. Rhct. ] - 5- P- 35 8 - See the article Prosopopoeia, Cyel.
IDOLOTHYTA, e.^a^t*, things offered in facrince to idols ; concerning the ufe of which, the apoftle Paul lays down rules in 1 Corinth, c. viii. v. 4, 7 and 10. Hofni. Lex. in voc.
IDULIA, in antiquity, certain eggs offered to Jupiter on the ides of every month. They were fo called, from their being offered on the ides.
IDYLLION (Cyel)— According to Mr. Fraguier, the uncer- tain and indeterminate meaning of Idyllion, as well as of eclogue, is owing to this, that neither of thefe words, origi- nally and of themfelves, fignify what they are ufed for. The word Idyllion, tho' generally ufed for a paftoral poem, is notwitliftanding lefs appropriated to fuch a compofition, than the word Eclogue; for, as the fame author obferves, Pindar's odes had the title of E ( &c, of which E^w^, Idyllion, is only a diminutive ; and properly fignifies a work of moderate ex- tent, without confidering the fubjeet. However, Theocritus's paftoral poems, to which he gave originally the title of Bu- colics, being afterwards collected into one body with his other poems, which were called EnJuMua, Idyllia, the an- tient grammarians,, who are noted for having made great changes in the titles of books, gave the common titles of Idyllia to the whole collection. And as the bucolics or pa- ftoral poems were by far the nneft pieces of the collection, and as the whole works of that poet are now only known by the name of Idyllia ; common ufe feems to have appro- priated this word to bucolics or paftoral poems, tho' in a lefs degree than eclogue, which is entirely reftrained to this ac- ceptation : Thus, only the ten bucolics of Theocritus can be called eclogues ; tho' the term Idyllia may with equal-pro-* priety be given to his other pieces. Mem. Acad. Infcrip. T. 2. p. 159. feq. See the article Eclogue, Cycl. The modern Idyllions differ from thofe of the antients, by in- troducing none but allegorical fhepherds or courtiers difguifed in their drefs ; whereas thofe of the antients reprefent true fhepherds. Mr. Hardion obferves, that the tafte of the pre- fent age is fo very different from that of the antients in this refpect, that he would not take upon him to give a literal translation of Theocritus's Idyllions ; not that he reckons them bad in themfelves, nor that he condemns the rules fol- lowed in their compofition ; but becaufe the rules that were good at the time thofe poems were written, would, in the prefent age, be relifhcd but by very few. There is a great variety of characters obfervable among the fhepherds, in the antient Idyllions ; the reafon of which is, that there were four kinds of fhepherds, differing from one another, in manners, opinions, and in language. The firft and chief of thefe was the Bncoli, BtK&ot, herd fine n ; whofe bufinefs it was to feed and bring up cattle. We muft not fuppofe that thefe were ftupid and grofs clowns, void of all politenefs and underftanding. On the contrary, they were all rich and well educated, and were the principal perfons in the villages and countries where they lived. The fecond kind of fhepherds, who came very near the former, were called Poimenes, Ui^ty-^, fhepherds properly fo called, or feeders of fheep. Thefe are, by Theocritus, no-wife diftinguifhed from the Bucoli, as to politenefs ; but both are introduced diverting themfelves with paftoral fongs, much of the fame tafte. The third kind was the Anro*<n, who were employed in feeding goats ; thefe were in all refpects much inferior to the former two. The fourth and laft kind was the merce- nary fhepherds, who had no herds or flocks of their own, but were hired by others. The actors in the fourth Idyllion of Theocritus are of this laft kind. And it muft be ob- ferved to the honour of that poet, that he never fails, in every Idyllion, to inform his readers of the quality and con- dition of the iliepherds he introduces on the fcene. A rule, the importance of which in dramatic poetry no body can be ignorant of. Mem. Acad. Infcrip. T. 6. p. 251. feq. See the articles Bucoli, Poimenes, &c. The fubjeet of Idyllions, as being low of itfelf, requires the greateft elegance of diction to fet it off. Mr. Hardion is of opinion, that Theocritus has the advantage of Virgil in this refpect ; obferving always the ftructure peculiar to paftoral poems, which constitutes one of its chief beauties. This ftructure requires that the fourth foot of every verfe Should
be
