See E. B. Tylor,Primitive Culture, ed. 1903 (list of authorities and sources vol., p. 171); L. R. Farnell,The Evolution of Religion(London, 1905); Jacob Grimm,Teutonic Mythology, translation by J. S. Stallybrass.
See E. B. Tylor,Primitive Culture, ed. 1903 (list of authorities and sources vol., p. 171); L. R. Farnell,The Evolution of Religion(London, 1905); Jacob Grimm,Teutonic Mythology, translation by J. S. Stallybrass.
(F. C. C.)
1Tylor,Prim. Culture, ii. 178.
1Tylor,Prim. Culture, ii. 178.
IMAGINATION,in general, the power or process of producing mental pictures or ideas. The term is technically used in psychology for the process of reviving in the mind percepts of objects formerly given in sense perception. Since this use of the term conflicts with that of ordinary language, some psychologists have preferred to describe this process as “imaging” or “imagery” or to speak of it as “reproductive” as opposed to “productive” or “constructive” imagination (seeImageandPsychology). The common use of the term is for the process of forming in the mind new images which have not been previously experienced, or at least only partially or in different combinations. Thus the image of a centaur is the result of combining the common percepts of man and horse: fairy tales and fiction generally are the result of this process of combination. Imagination in this sense, not being limited to the acquisition of exact knowledge by the requirements of practical necessity, is up to a certain point free from objective restraints. In various spheres, however, even imagination is in practice limited: thus a man whose imaginations do violence to the elementary laws of thought, or to the necessary principles of practical possibility, or to the reasonable probabilities of a given case is regarded as insane. The same limitations beset imagination in the field of scientific hypothesis.Progress in scientific research is due largely to provisional explanations which are constructed by imagination, but such hypotheses must be framed in relation to previously ascertained facts and in accordance with the principles of the particular science. In spite, however, of these broad practical considerations, imagination differs fundamentally from belief in that the latter involves “objective control of subjective activity” (Stout). The play of imagination, apart from the obvious limitations (e.g.of avoiding explicit self-contradiction), is conditioned only by the general trend of the mind at a given moment. Belief, on the other hand, is immediately related to practical activity: it is perfectly possible toimaginemyself a millionaire, but unless Ibelieveit I do not, therefore, act as such. Belief always endeavours to conform to objective conditions; though it is from one point of view subjective it is also objectively conditioned, whereas imagination as such is specifically free. The dividing line between imagination and belief varies widely in different stages of mental development. Thus a savage who is ill frames an ideal reconstruction of the causes of his illness, and attributes it to the hostile magic of an enemy. In ignorance of pathology he is satisfied with this explanation, and actuallybelievesin it, whereas such a hypothesis in the mind of civilized man would be treated as a pure effort of imagination, or even as a hallucination. It follows that the distinction between imagination and belief depends in practice on knowledge, social environment, training and the like.
Although, however, the absence of objective restraint,i.e.a certain unreality, is characteristic of imagination, none the less it has great practical importance as a purely ideational activity. Its very freedom from objective limitation makes it a source of pleasure and pain. A person of vivid imagination suffers acutely from the imagination of perils besetting a friend. In fact in some cases the ideal construction is so “real” that specific physical manifestations occur, as though imagination had passed into belief or the events imagined were actually in progress.
IMĀM,an Arabic word, meaning “leader” or “guide” in the sense of a “pattern whose example is followed, whether for good or bad.” Thus it is applied to the Koran, to a builder’s level and plumb-line, to a road, to a school-boy’s daily task, to a written record. It is used in several of these, senses in the Koran, but specifically several times of leaders and (ii. 118) of Abraham, “Lo, I make thee a pattern for mankind.”Imāmthus became the name of the head of the Moslem community, whose leadership and patternhood, as in the case of Mahomet himself, is to be regarded as of the widest description. His duty is to be the lieutenant, the Caliph (q.v.) of the Prophet, to guard the faith and maintain the government of the state. Round the origin and basis of his office all controversies as to the Moslem state centre. The Sunnites hold that it is for men to appoint and that the basis is obedience to the general usage of the Moslem peoples from the earliest times. The necessity for leaders has always been recognized, and a leader has always been appointed. The basis is thus agreement in the technical sense (seeMahommedan Law), not Koran nor tradition from Mahomet nor analogy. The Shī’ites in general hold that the appointment lies with God, through the Prophet or otherwise, and that He always has appointed. The Khārijites theoretically recognize no absolute need of an Imām; he is convenient and allowable. The Motazilites held that reason, not agreement, dictated the appointment. Another distinction between the Sunnites and the Shī’ites is that the Sunnites regard the Imām as liable to err, and to be obeyed even though he personally sins, provided he maintains the ordinances of Islām. Effective leadership is the essential point. But the Shī’ites believe that the divinely appointed Imām is also divinely illumined and preserved (ma‘ṣūm) from sin. The above is called the greater Imāmate. The lesser Imāmate is the leadership in the Friday prayers. This was originally performed by the Imām in the first sense, who not only led in prayers but delivered a sermon (khuṭba); but with the growth of the Moslem empire and the retirement of the caliph from public life, it was necessarily given over to a deputy—part of a gradual process of putting the Imāmate or caliphate into commission. These deputy Imāms are, in Turkey, ministers of the state, each in charge of his own parish; they issue passports, &c., and perform the rites of circumcision, marriage and burial. In Persia among Shī’ites their position is more purely spiritual, and they are independent of the state. A few of their leaders are calledMujtahids,i.e.capable of giving an independent opinion on questions of religion and canon law. A third use of the term Imām is as an honorary title. It is thus applied to leading theologians,e.g.to Abū Ḥanīfa, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Malik ibn Anas, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (these are called “the four Imāms”), Ghazāli.
See McG. de Slane’s transl. of Ibn Khaldūn’sProlégomènes, i. 384 seq., 402 seq., 426 seq., 445; iii. 35, 58 seq.; Ostrorog’s transl. of Māwardī’sAhkāmi. 89 seq.; Haarbrücker’s transl. of Shahrastānī by index; Juynboll’sDeMohammedanischeWet, 316 seq.; Sell’sFaith of Islam, 95 seq.; Macdonald’sDevelopment of Muslim Theology, 56 seq.
See McG. de Slane’s transl. of Ibn Khaldūn’sProlégomènes, i. 384 seq., 402 seq., 426 seq., 445; iii. 35, 58 seq.; Ostrorog’s transl. of Māwardī’sAhkāmi. 89 seq.; Haarbrücker’s transl. of Shahrastānī by index; Juynboll’sDeMohammedanischeWet, 316 seq.; Sell’sFaith of Islam, 95 seq.; Macdonald’sDevelopment of Muslim Theology, 56 seq.
(D. B. Ma.)
IMBECILE(through the French from Lat.imbecillusorimbecillis, weak, feeble; of unknown origin), weak or feeble, particularly in mind. The term “imbecility” is used conventionally of a condition of mental degeneration less profound than “idiotcy” (seeInsanity).
IMBREX(Latin for “tile”), in architecture the term given to the covering tile of the ancient roof: the plain tile is turned up on each side and the imbrex covers the joint. In the simpler type of roof the imbrex is semicircular, but in some of the Greek temples it has vertical sides and an angular top. In the temple of Apollo at Bassae, where the tiles were in Parian marble, the imbrex on one side of the tile and the tile were worked in one piece out of the solid marble.
IMBROS,a Turkish island in the Aegean, at the southern end of the Thracian Chersonese peninsula. It forms with Samothrace, about 17 m. distant, a caza (or canton) in the sanjak of Lemnos and province of the Archipelago Isles. Herodotus (v. 26) mentions it as an abode of the historic Pelasgians (q.v.). It was, like Samothrace, a seat of the worship of the Cabeiri (q.v.). The island is now the seat of a Greek bishopric. There is communication with the mainland by occasional vessels. The island is of great fertility—wheat, oats, barley, olives, sesame and valonia being the principal products, in addition to a variety of fruits. Pop. about 92,000, nearly all Turks.
IMERETIA,orImeritiaa district in Russian Transcaucasia, extends from the left bank of the river Tskheniz-Tskhali to the Suram range, which separates it from Georgia on the east, and is bounded on the south by Akhaltsikh, and thus corresponds roughly to the eastern part of the modern government of Kutais. Anciently a part of Colchis, and included in Lazia during the Roman empire, Imeretia was nominally under the dominion of the Greek emperors. In the early part of the 6th century it became the theatre of wars between the Byzantine emperor Justinian and Chosroes, or Khosrau, king of Persia. Between 750 and 985 it was ruled by a dynasty (Apkhaz) of native princes, but was devastated by hostile incursions, reviving only after it became united to Georgia. It flourished until the reign of Queen Thamar, but after her death (1212) the country became impoverished through strife and internal dissensions. It was reunited with Georgia from 1318 to 1346, and again in 1424. But the union only lasted forty-five years; from 1469 until 1810 it was governed by a Bagratid dynasty, closely akin to that which ruled over Georgia. In 1621 it made the earliest appeal to Russia for aid; in 1650 it acknowledged Russian suzerainty and in 1769 a Russian force expelled the Turks. In 1803 the monarch declared himself a vassal of Russia, and in 1810 the little kingdom was definitively annexed to that empire. (SeeGeorgia.)
IMIDAZOLES,orGlyoxalines, organic chemical compounds containing the ring systemImidazole itself was first prepared by H. Debus (Ann.1858, 107, p. 254) by the action of ammonia on glyoxal, 2C2H2O2+ 2NH3= C3H4N2+ H2CO2+ 2H2O. The compounds of this series may be prepared by the condensation of ortho-diketones with ammonia and aldehydes
from thioimidazolones by oxidation with dilute nitric acid (W. Marckwald,Ber., 1892, 25, p. 2361); by distillation of hydrobenzamide and similarly constituted bodies; and by the action of phosphorus pentachloride on symmetrical dimethyloxamide, a methylchlorglyoxaline being formed (O. Wallach,Ann., 1877, 184, p. 500).
The glyoxalines are basic in character, and the imide hydrogen is replaceable by metals and alkyl groups. They are stable towards reducing agents, and acidyl groups are only introduced with difficulty.
Imidazole(glyoxaline), C3H4N2, crystallizes in thick prisms which melt at 88-89° C. and boil at 253° C., and are readily soluble in alcohol and in water. It is unaffected by chromic acid, but potassium permanganate oxidizes it to formic acid. It forms salts with acids.Lophine(triphenylglyoxaline),is formed by the dry distillation of hydrobenzamide, or by saturating an alcoholic solution of benzil and benzaldehyde (at a temperature of 40° C.) with ammonia. It crystallizes in needles which melt at 275° C. It is a weak base. When heated to 300° C. with hydriodic acid and hydrochloric acid, in the presence of some red phosphorus, it yields benzoic acid.The keto-glyoxalines are known as imidazolones and are prepared by the action of acids on acetalyl thioureas (W. Marckwald, Ber., 1892, 25, p. 2357).Benzimidazole,is the simplest representative of the benzoglyoxalines and is prepared by the condensation of formic acid with ortho-phenylene diamine. It forms rhombic crystals which melt at 170° C. It is basic in character, and on oxidation with potassium permanganate yields a small amount of glyoxaline dicarboxylic acid,(E. Bamberger,Ann., 1893, 273, p. 338).
Imidazole(glyoxaline), C3H4N2, crystallizes in thick prisms which melt at 88-89° C. and boil at 253° C., and are readily soluble in alcohol and in water. It is unaffected by chromic acid, but potassium permanganate oxidizes it to formic acid. It forms salts with acids.
Lophine(triphenylglyoxaline),is formed by the dry distillation of hydrobenzamide, or by saturating an alcoholic solution of benzil and benzaldehyde (at a temperature of 40° C.) with ammonia. It crystallizes in needles which melt at 275° C. It is a weak base. When heated to 300° C. with hydriodic acid and hydrochloric acid, in the presence of some red phosphorus, it yields benzoic acid.
The keto-glyoxalines are known as imidazolones and are prepared by the action of acids on acetalyl thioureas (W. Marckwald, Ber., 1892, 25, p. 2357).Benzimidazole,is the simplest representative of the benzoglyoxalines and is prepared by the condensation of formic acid with ortho-phenylene diamine. It forms rhombic crystals which melt at 170° C. It is basic in character, and on oxidation with potassium permanganate yields a small amount of glyoxaline dicarboxylic acid,(E. Bamberger,Ann., 1893, 273, p. 338).
IMITATION(Lat.imitatio, fromimitari, to imitate), the reproduction or repetition of an action or thought as observed in another person or in oneself, or the construction of one object in the likeness of another. By some writers (e.g.Preyer and Lloyd Morgan) the term “imitation” is limited to cases in which one person copies the action or thought of another; others have preferred a wider use of the term (i.e.including “self-imitation”), and have attempted to classify imitative action into various groupings,e.g.as cases of “conscious imitation,” “imitative suggestion,” “plastic imitation” (as when the members of a crowd subconsciously reproduce one another’s modes of thought and action), and the like. The main distinction is that which takes into account the question of attention (q.v.). Inconsciousimitation, the attention is fixed on the act and its reproduction: inunconsciousimitation the reproduction is entirely mechanical and the agent does not “attend” to the action or thought which he is copying: insubconsciousimitation the action is not deliberate, though the necessary train of thought would immediately follow if the attention were turned upon it under normal conditions. Imitation plays an extremely important part in human and animal development, and a clear understanding of its character is important both for the study of primitive peoples, and also in the theories of education, art and sociology. The child’s early development is in large measure imitative: thus the first articulate sounds and the first movements are mainly reproductions of the words and actions of parents, and even in the later stages that teacher is likely to achieve the best results who himself gives examples of how a word should be pronounced or an action done. The impulse to imitate is, however, not confined to children: there is among the majority of adults a tendency to assimilate themselves either to their society or to those whom they especially admire or respect: this tendency to shun the eccentric is rooted deeply in human psychology. Moreover, even among highly developed persons the imitative impulse frequently overrides the reason, as when an audience, a crowd, or even practically a whole community is carried away by a panic for which no adequate ground has been given, or when a cough or a yawn is imitated by a company of people. Such cases may be compared with those of persons in mesmeric trances who mechanically copy a series of movements made by the mesmerist. The universality of the imitative impulse has led many psychologists to regard it as an instinct (so William James,Principles of Psychology, ii. 408; cf.Instinct), and in that large class of imitative actions which have no obvious ulterior purpose the impulse certainly appears to be instinctive in character. On the other hand where the imitator recognizes the particular effect of a process and imitates with the deliberate intention of producing the same effect, his action can scarcely be classed as instinctive. A considerable number of psychologists have distinguished imitative from instinctive actions (e.g.Baldwin, and Sully). According to Darwin the imitative impulse begins in infants at the age of four months. It is to be noted, however, that the child imitates, not every action indiscriminately, but especially those towards which it has a congenital tendency. The same is true of animals: though different kinds of animals may live in close proximity, the young of each kind imitate primarily the actions of their own parents.
Among primitive man imitation plays a very important part. The savage believes that he can bring about events by imitating them. He makes, for instance, an image of his enemy and pierces it with darts or burns it, believing that by so doing he will cause his enemy’s death: similarly sailors would whistle, or farmers would pour water on the ground, in the hope of producing wind or rain. This form of imitation is known as sympathetic magic (seeMagic). The sociological importance of imitation is elaborately investigated by Gabriel Tarde (Les Lois de l’imitation, 2nd ed., 1895), who bases all social evolution on the imitative impulse. He distinguishes “custom imitations,”i.e.imitations of ancient or even forgotten actions, and “mode imitations,”i.e.imitations of current fashions. New discoveries are, in his scheme, the product of the conflict of imitations. This theory, though of great value, seems to neglect original natural similarities which, by the law of causation, produce similar consequences, where imitation is geographically or chronologically impossible.
The term “imitation” has also the following special uses:—
1.In Art-theory.—According to Plato all artistic production is a form of imitation (μίμησις). That which really exists is the idea or type created by God; of this type all concrete objects are representations, while the painter, the tragedian, the musician are merely imitators, thrice removed from the truth (Rep.x. 596 seq.). Such persons are represented by Plato as a menace to the moral fibre of the community (Rep.iii.), as performing no useful function, drawing men away from reality and pandering to the irrational side of the soul. All art should aim at moral improvement. Plato clearly intends by “imitation” more than is connotated by the modern word: though in general he associates with it all that is bad and second-rate, he in some passages admits the value of the imitation of that which is good, and thus assigns to it a certain symbolic significance. Aristotle, likewise regarding art as imitation, emphasizes its purely artistic value as purging the emotions (κάθαρσις), and producing beautiful things as such (seeAestheticsandFine Arts).
2.In Biology, the term is sometimes applied to the assimilation by one species of certain external characteristics (especially colour) which enable them to escape the notice of other species which would otherwise prey upon them. It is a form of protective resemblance and is generally known as mimicry (q.v.; see alsoColours of Animals).
3.In Music, the term “imitation” is applied in contrapuntal composition to the repetition of a passage in one or more of the other voices or parts of a composition. When the repetition is note for note with all the intervals the same, the imitation is called “strict” and becomes a canon (q.v.); if not it is called “free,” the latter being much the more common. There are many varieties of imitation, known as imitation “by inversion,” “by inversion and reversion,” “by augmentation,” “by diminution” (seeGrove’s Dictionary of Music, s. v., and textbooks of musical theory).
IMITATION OF CHRIST, THE(Imitatio Christi), the title of a famous medieval Christian devotional work, much used still by both Catholics and Protestants and usually ascribed to Thomas à Kempis. The “Contestation” over the author of theImitation of Christis probably the most considerable and famous controversy that has ever been carried on concerning a purely literary question. It has been going on almost without flagging for three centuries, and nearly 200 combatants have entered the lists. In the present article nothing is said on the history of the controversy, but an attempt is made to summarize the results that may be looked on as definitely acquired.
Until quite recently there were three candidates in the field—Thomas à Kempis (1380-1471), a canon regular of Mount St Agnes in Zwolle, in the diocese of Utrecht, of the Windesheim Congregation of Augustinian Canons; John Gerson (1363-1429), chancellor of the University of Paris; and an abbot, John Gersen, said to have been abbot of a Benedictine monastery at Vercelli in the 12th century. Towards the end of the 15th century theImitationcirculated under the names of the first two; but Gerson is an impossible author, and his claims have never found defenders except in France, where they are no longer urged. The Benedictine abbot Gersen is an absolutely mythical personage, a mere “double” of the chancellor. Consequently at the present day the question is narrowed to the issue: Thomas à Kempis, or an unknown author.
The following is a statement of the facts that may be received as certain:—
1. The earliest-known dated MS. of theImitationis of 1424—it contains only Bk. I.; the earliest MSS. of the whole work of certain date are of 1427. Probably some of the undated MSS. are older; but it is the verdict of the most competent modern expert opinion that there is no palaeographical reason for suspecting that any known MS. is earlier than the first quarter of the 15th century.
2. A Latin letter of a Dutch canon regular, named Johann van Schoonhoven, exhibits such a close connexion with Bk. I. that plagiarism on the one side or the other is the only possible explanation. It is capable of demonstration that the author of theImitationwas the borrower, and that the opposite hypothesis is inadmissible. Now, this letter can be shown to have been written after 1382. Therefore Bk. I. was beyond controversy written between the years 1382 and 1424.
3. It is not here assumed that the four treatises formed a single work, or even that they are all by the same author; and the date of the other three books cannot be fixed with the same certainty. But, on the one hand, before the beginning of the 15th century there is no trace whatever of their existence—a strong argument that they did not yet exist; and on the other hand, after 1424 nearly each year produces its quota of MSS. and other signs of the existence of these books become frequent. Moreover, as a matter of fact, the four treatises did commonly circulate together. The presumption is strong that Bks. II., III., IV., like Bk. I., were composed shortly before they were put into circulation.
It may then be taken as proved that theImitationwas composed between 1380 and 1425, and probably towards the end rather than the beginning of that period. Having ascertained the date, we must consider the birthplace.
4. A number of idioms and turns of expression throughout the book show that its author belonged to some branch of the Teutonic race. Further than this the argument does not lead; for when the dialects of the early 15th century are considered it cannot be said that the expressions in question are Netherlandic rather than German—as a matter of fact, they have all been paralleled out of High German dialects.
5. Of the 400 MSS. of theImitation340 come from the Teutonic countries—another argument in favour of its Teutonic origin. Again, 100 of them, including the earliest, come from the Netherlands. This number is quite disproportionate to the relative size of the Netherlands, and so points to Holland as the country in which theImitationwas first most widely circulated and presumably composed.
6. There is a considerable body of early evidence, traceable before 1450, that the author was a canon regular.
7. Several of the MSS. were written in houses belonging to the Windesheim Congregation of canons regular, or, in close touch with it. Moreover there is a specially intimate literary and spiritual relationship between theImitationand writings that emanated from what has been called the “Windesheim Circle.”
To sum up: the indirect evidence points clearly to the conclusion that theImitationwas written by a Teutonic canon regular, probably a Dutch canon regular of the Windesheim Congregation, in the first quarter of the 15th century. These data are satisfied by Thomas à Kempis.
We pass to the direct evidence, neglecting that of witnesses who had no special sources of information.
8. There can be no question that in the Windesheim Congregation itself there was already, during Thomas à Kempis’s lifetime, a fixed tradition that he was the author of theImitation. The most important witness to this tradition is Johann Busch. It is true that the crucial words are missing in one copy of his “Chronicle”; but it is clear there were two redactions of the work, and there are no grounds whatever for doubting that the second with its various enlargements came from the hands of Busch himself—a copy of it containing the passage exists written in 1464, while both Busch and Thomas à Kempis were still alive. Busch passed a great part of his life in Windesheim, only a few miles from Mount St Agnes where Thomas lived. It would be hard to find a more authentic witness. Another witness is Hermann Rhyd, a German member of the Windesheim Congregation, who also had personally known Thomas. Besides, two or three MSS. originating in the Windesheim Congregation state or imply the same tradition.
9. More than this: the tradition existed in Thomas à Kempis’s own monastery shortly after his death. For John Mauburne became a canon in Mount St Agnes within a few years of Thomas’s death, and he states more than once that Thomas wrote theImitation.
10. The earliest biographer of Thomas à Kempis was an anonymous contemporary: theLifewas printed in 1494, but it exists in a MS. of 1488. The biographer says he got his information from the brethren at Mount St Agnes, and he states in passing that Bk. III. was written by Thomas. Moreover, he appends a list of Thomas’s writings, 38 in number, and 5-8 are the four books of theImitation.
It is needless to point out that such a list must be of vastly greater authority than those given by St Jerome or Gennadius in theirDe Viris Illustribus, and its rejection must, in consistency, involve methods of criticism that would work havoc in the history of early literature of what king soever. The domestic tradition in the Windesheim Congregation, and in Mount St Agnes itself, has a weight that cannot be legitimately avoided or evaded. Indeed the external authority for Thomas’s authorship is stronger than that for the authorship of most really anonymous books—such, that is, as neither themselves claim to be by a given author, nor have been claimed by any one as his own. A large proportion of ancient writings, both ecclesiastical and secular, are unquestioningly assigned to writers on far less evidence than that for Thomas’s authorship of theImitation.
Internal arguments have been urged against Thomas’s authorship. It has been said that his certainly authentic writings are so inferior that theImitationcould not have been written by the same author. But only if they were of the most certain and peremptory nature could such internal arguments be allowed to weigh against the clear array of facts that make up the external argument in favour of à Kempis. And it cannot be said that the internal difficulties are such as this. Let it be granted that Thomas was a prolific writer and that his writings vary very much in quality; let it be granted also that theImitationsurpasses all the rest, and that some are on a level very far below it; still, when at their best, some of the other works are not unworthy of the author of theImitation.
In conclusion, it is the belief of the present writer thatthe “Contestation” is over, and that Thomas à Kempis’s claims to the authorship of theImitationhave been solidly established.
The best account in English of the Controversy is that given by F. R. Cruise in hisThomas à Kempis(1887). Works produced before 1880 are in general, with the exception of those of Eusebius Amort, superannuated, and deal in large measure with points no longer of any living interest. A pamphlet by Cruise,Who was the Author of the Imitation?(1898) contains sufficient information on the subject for all ordinary needs; it has been translated into French and German, and may be regarded as the standard handbook.It has been said that theImitation of Christhas had a wider religious influence than any book except the Bible, and if the statement be limited to Christendom, it is probably true. TheImitationhas been translated into over fifty languages, and is said to have run through more than 6000 editions. The other statement, often made, that it sums up all that is best of earlier Western mysticism—that in it “was gathered and concentered all that was elevating, passionate, profoundly pious in all the older mystics” (Milman) is an exaggeration that is but partially true, for it depreciates unduly the elder mystics and fails to do justice to the originality of theImitation. For its spiritual teaching is something quite different from the mysticism of Augustine in theConfessions, or of Bernard in theSermons on the Song of Songs; it is different from the scholastic mysticism of the St Victors or Bonaventure; above all, it is different from the obscure mysticism, saturated with the pseudo-Dionysian Neoplatonism of the German school of Eckhart, Suso, Tauler and Ruysbroek. Again, it is quite different from the later school of St Teresa and St John of the Cross, and from the introspective methods of what may be called the modern school of spirituality. TheImitationstands apart, unique, as the principal and most representative utterance of a special phase of religious thought—non-scholastic, non-platonic, positive and merely religious in its scope—herein reflecting faithfully the spirit of the movement initiated by Gerhard Groot (q.v.), and carried forward by the circles in which Thomas à Kempis lived. In contrast with more mystical writings it is of limpid clearness, every sentence being easily understandable by all whose spiritual sense is in any degree awakened. No doubt it owes its universal power to this simplicity, to its freedom from intellectualism and its direct appeal to the religious sense and to the extraordinary religious genius of its author. Professor Harnack in his bookWhat is Christianity?counts theImitationas one of the chief spiritual forces in Catholicism: it “kindles independent religious life, and a fire which burns with a flame of its own” (p. 266).The best Latin edition of theImitationis that of Hirsche (1874), which follows closely the autograph of 1441 and reproduces the rhythmical character of the book. Of English translations the most interesting is that by John Wesley, under the titleThe Christian’s Pattern(1735).
The best account in English of the Controversy is that given by F. R. Cruise in hisThomas à Kempis(1887). Works produced before 1880 are in general, with the exception of those of Eusebius Amort, superannuated, and deal in large measure with points no longer of any living interest. A pamphlet by Cruise,Who was the Author of the Imitation?(1898) contains sufficient information on the subject for all ordinary needs; it has been translated into French and German, and may be regarded as the standard handbook.
It has been said that theImitation of Christhas had a wider religious influence than any book except the Bible, and if the statement be limited to Christendom, it is probably true. TheImitationhas been translated into over fifty languages, and is said to have run through more than 6000 editions. The other statement, often made, that it sums up all that is best of earlier Western mysticism—that in it “was gathered and concentered all that was elevating, passionate, profoundly pious in all the older mystics” (Milman) is an exaggeration that is but partially true, for it depreciates unduly the elder mystics and fails to do justice to the originality of theImitation. For its spiritual teaching is something quite different from the mysticism of Augustine in theConfessions, or of Bernard in theSermons on the Song of Songs; it is different from the scholastic mysticism of the St Victors or Bonaventure; above all, it is different from the obscure mysticism, saturated with the pseudo-Dionysian Neoplatonism of the German school of Eckhart, Suso, Tauler and Ruysbroek. Again, it is quite different from the later school of St Teresa and St John of the Cross, and from the introspective methods of what may be called the modern school of spirituality. TheImitationstands apart, unique, as the principal and most representative utterance of a special phase of religious thought—non-scholastic, non-platonic, positive and merely religious in its scope—herein reflecting faithfully the spirit of the movement initiated by Gerhard Groot (q.v.), and carried forward by the circles in which Thomas à Kempis lived. In contrast with more mystical writings it is of limpid clearness, every sentence being easily understandable by all whose spiritual sense is in any degree awakened. No doubt it owes its universal power to this simplicity, to its freedom from intellectualism and its direct appeal to the religious sense and to the extraordinary religious genius of its author. Professor Harnack in his bookWhat is Christianity?counts theImitationas one of the chief spiritual forces in Catholicism: it “kindles independent religious life, and a fire which burns with a flame of its own” (p. 266).
The best Latin edition of theImitationis that of Hirsche (1874), which follows closely the autograph of 1441 and reproduces the rhythmical character of the book. Of English translations the most interesting is that by John Wesley, under the titleThe Christian’s Pattern(1735).
(E. C. B.)
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, THE.This dogma of the Roman Catholic Church was defined, as “of faith” by Pope Pius IX. on the 8th of December 1854 in the following terms: “The doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first instant of her conception, was, by a most singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, preserved from all stain of Original Sin, is a doctrine revealed, by God, and therefore to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful.”1These words presuppose the distinction between original, or racial, and actual, or personally incurred sin. There is no dispute that the Church has always held the Blessed Virgin to be sinless, in the sense of actual or personal sin. The question of the Immaculate Conception regards original or racial sin only. It is admitted that the doctrine as defined by Pius IX. was not explicitly mooted before the 12th century. But it is claimed that it is implicitly contained in the teaching of the Fathers. Their expressions on the subject of the sinlessness of Mary are, it is pointed out, so ample and so absolute that they must be taken to include original sin as well as actual. Thus we have in the first five centuries such epithets applied to her as “in every respect holy,” “in all things unstained,” “super-innocent” and “singularly holy”; she is compared to Eve before the fall, as ancestress of a redeemed people; she is “the earth before it was accursed.”2The well-known words of St Augustine (d. 430) may be cited: “As regards the mother of God,” he says, “I will not allow any question whatever of sin.”3It is true that he is here speaking directly of actual or personal sin. But his argument is that all men are sinners; that they are so through original depravity; that this original depravity may be overcome by the grace of God, and he adds that he does not know but that Mary may have had sufficient grace to overcome sin “of every sort” (omni ex parte).
It seems to have been St Bernard who, in the 12th century, explicitly raised the question of the Immaculate Conception. A feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin had already begun to be celebrated in some churches of the West. St Bernard blames the canons of the metropolitan church of Lyons for instituting such a festival without the permission of the Holy See. In doing so, he takes occasion to repudiate altogether the view that the Conception of Mary was sinless. It is doubtful, however, whether he was using the term “Conception” in the same sense in which it is used in the definition of Pius IX. In speaking of conception one of three things may be meant: (1) the mother’s co-operation; (2) the formation of the body, or (3) the completion of the human being by the infusion of the rational or spiritual soul. In early times conception was very commonly used in the first sense—“active” conception as it was called. But it is in the second, or rather the third, sense that the word is employed in modern usage, and in the definition of Pope Pius IX. But St Bernard would seem to have been speaking of conception in the first sense, for in his argument he says, “How can there be absence of sin where there is concupiscence (libido)?” and stronger expressions follow, showing that he is speaking of the mother and not of the child.4
St Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the medieval scholastics, refused to admit the Immaculate Conception, on the ground that, unless the Blessed Virgin had at one time or other been one of the sinful, she could not justly be said to have been redeemed by Christ.5St Bonaventura (d. 1274), second only to St Thomas in his influence on the Christian schools of his age, hesitated to accept it for a similar reason.6The celebrated John Duns Scotus (d. 1308), a Franciscan like St Bonaventura, argued, on the contrary, that from a rational point of view it was certainly as little derogatory to the merits of Christ to assert that Mary was by him preserved from all taint of sin, as to say that she first contracted it and then was delivered.7His arguments, combined with a better acquaintance with the language of the early Fathers, gradually prevailed in the schools of the Western Church. In 1387 the university of Paris strongly condemned the opposite view. In 1483 Pope Sixtus IV., who had already (1476) emphatically approved of the feast of the Conception, condemned those who ventured to assert that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was heretical, and forbade either side to claim a decisive victory until further action on the part of the Holy See. The council of Trent, after declaring that in its decrees on the subject of original sin it did not include “the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God,” renewed this prohibition.8Pope Paul V. (d. 1651) ordered that no one, under severe penalties, should dare to assent in public “acts” or disputations that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin. Pope Gregory XV., shortly afterwards, extended this prohibition to private discussions, allowing, however, the Dominicans to argue on the subjects among themselves. Clement XI., in 1708, extended the feast of the Conception to the whole Church as a holy day of obligation. Long before the middle of the 19th century the doctrine was universally taught in the Roman Catholic Church. During the reign of Gregory XVI. the bishops in various countries began to press for a definition. Pius IX., at the beginning of his pontificate, and again after 1851, appointed commissions to investigate the whole subject, and he was advised that the doctrine was onewhich could be defined and that the time for a definition was opportune. On the 8th of December 1854 in a great assembly of bishops, in the basilica of St Peter’s at Rome, he promulgated the BullIneffabilis Deus, in which the history of the doctrine is summarily traced, and which contains the definition as given above.
The festival of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, as distinct from her Nativity, was certainly celebrated in the Greek Church in the 7th century, as we learn from one of the canons of St Andrew of Crete (or of Jerusalem) who died aboutA.D.700.9There is some evidence that it was kept in Spain in the time of St Ildefonsus of Toledo (d. 667) and in southern Italy beforeA.D.1000. In England it was known in the 12th century; a council of the province of Canterbury, in 1328, ascribes its introduction to St Anselm. It spread to France and Germany in the same century. It was extended to the whole church, as stated above, in 1708. It is kept, in the Western Church, on the 8th of December; the Greeks have always kept it one day later.
The chief répertoire of Patristic passages, both on the doctrine and on the festival, is Father Charles Passaglia’s great collection, entitledDe immaculato Deiparae semper Virginis conceptu Caroli Passaglia sac. S.J. commentarius(3 vols., Romae, 1854-1855).A useful statement of the doctrine with numerous references to the Fathers and scholastics is found in Hürter’sTheologia Dogmatica(5th ed.), tom. i. tract. vii. cap. 6, p. 438.The state of Catholic belief in the middle of the 19th century is well brought out inLa Croyance générale el constante de l’Église touchant l’immaculée conception de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie, published in 1855 by Thomas M. J. Gousset (1792-1866), professor of moral theology at the grand seminary of Besançon, and successively archbishop of Besançon and cardinal archbishop of Reims.For English readers the doctrine, and the history of its definition, is clearly stated by Archbishop Ullathorne inThe Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God(2nd ed., London, 1904). Dr F. G. Lee, inThe Sinless Conception of the Mother of God; a Theological Essay(London, 1891) argued that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a legitimate development of early church teaching.
The chief répertoire of Patristic passages, both on the doctrine and on the festival, is Father Charles Passaglia’s great collection, entitledDe immaculato Deiparae semper Virginis conceptu Caroli Passaglia sac. S.J. commentarius(3 vols., Romae, 1854-1855).
A useful statement of the doctrine with numerous references to the Fathers and scholastics is found in Hürter’sTheologia Dogmatica(5th ed.), tom. i. tract. vii. cap. 6, p. 438.
The state of Catholic belief in the middle of the 19th century is well brought out inLa Croyance générale el constante de l’Église touchant l’immaculée conception de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie, published in 1855 by Thomas M. J. Gousset (1792-1866), professor of moral theology at the grand seminary of Besançon, and successively archbishop of Besançon and cardinal archbishop of Reims.
For English readers the doctrine, and the history of its definition, is clearly stated by Archbishop Ullathorne inThe Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God(2nd ed., London, 1904). Dr F. G. Lee, inThe Sinless Conception of the Mother of God; a Theological Essay(London, 1891) argued that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a legitimate development of early church teaching.
(†J. C. H.)
1From the BullIneffabilis Deus.2See Passaglia’s work, referred to below.3De natura et gratia, cap. xxxvi.4S. Bernardi Epist. clxxiv. 7.5Summa theologia, part iii., quaest. 27, art. 3.6In librum III. sententiarum distinct.3 quaest. i. art. 2.7In librum III. sententiarum dist.3 quaest. i. n. 4;Cfr. Distinct. 18 n. 15. Also theSumma theologiaof Scotus (compiled by a disciple), part iii., quaest. 27, art. 2.8Sess. v.De peccato originale.9P. G., tom. cxvii. p. 1305.
1From the BullIneffabilis Deus.
2See Passaglia’s work, referred to below.
3De natura et gratia, cap. xxxvi.
4S. Bernardi Epist. clxxiv. 7.
5Summa theologia, part iii., quaest. 27, art. 3.
6In librum III. sententiarum distinct.3 quaest. i. art. 2.
7In librum III. sententiarum dist.3 quaest. i. n. 4;Cfr. Distinct. 18 n. 15. Also theSumma theologiaof Scotus (compiled by a disciple), part iii., quaest. 27, art. 2.
8Sess. v.De peccato originale.
9P. G., tom. cxvii. p. 1305.
IMMANENCE(from Lat.in-manereto dwell in, remain), in philosophy and theology a term applied in contradistinction to “transcendence,” to the fact or condition of being entirely within something. Its most important use is for the theological conception of God as existing in and throughout the created world, as opposed, for example, to Deism (q.v.), which conceives Him as separate from and above the universe. This conception has been expressed in a great variety of forms (seeTheism,Pantheism). It should be observed that the immanence doctrine need not preclude the belief in the transcendence of God: thus God may be regarded as above the world (transcendent) and at the same time as present in and pervading it (immanent). The immanence doctrine has arisen from two main causes, the one metaphysical, the other religious. Metaphysical speculation on the relation of matter and mind has naturally led to a conviction of an underlying unity of all existence, and so to a metaphysical identification of God and the universe: when this identification proceeds to the length of expressing the universe as merely a mode or form of deity the result is pantheism (cf. the Eleatics): when it regards the deity as simply the sum of the forces of nature (cf. John Toland) the result is naturalism. In either case, but especially in the former, it frequently becomes pure mysticism (q.v.). Religious thinkers are faced by the problem of the Creator and the created, and the necessity for formulating a close relationship between God and man, the Infinite and Perfect with the finite and imperfect. The conception of God as wholly external to man, a purely mechanical theory of the creation, is throughout Christendom regarded as false to the teaching of the New Testament as also to Christian experience. The contrary view has gained ground in some quarters (cf. the so-called “New Theology” of Rev. R. J. Campbell) so far as to postulate a divine element in human beings, so definitely bridging over the gap between finite and infinite which was to some extent admitted by the bulk of early Christian teachers. In support of such a view are adduced not only the metaphysical difficulty of postulating any relationship between the infinite and the purely finite, but also the ethical problems of the nature of human goodness—i.e.how a merely human being could appreciate the nature of or display divine goodness—and the epistemological problem of explaining how finite mind can cognize the infinite. The development of the immanence theory of God has coincided with the deeper recognition of the essentially spiritual nature of deity as contrasted with the older semi-pagan conception found very largely in the Old Testament of God as primarily a mighty ruler, obedience to whom is comparable with that of a subject to an absolute monarch: the idea of the dignity of man in virtue of his immediate relation with God may be traced in great measure to the humanist movement of the 14th and 15th centuries (cf. the Inner Light doctrine of Johann Tauler). In later times the conception of conscience as an inward monitor is symptomatic of the same movement of thought. In pure metaphysics the term “immanence-philosophy” is given to a doctrine held largely by German philosophers (Rehmke, Leclair, Schuppe and others) according to which all reality is reduced to elements immanent in consciousness. This doctrine is derived from Berkeley and Hume on the one hand and from Kantianism on the other, and embodies the principle that nothing can exist for the mind save itself. The natural consequence of this theory is that the individual consciousness alone exists (solipsism): this position is, however, open to the obvious criticism that in some cases individual consciousnesses agree in their content. Schuppe, therefore, postulates a general consciousness (Bewusstsein überhaupt).
IMMANUEL BEN SOLOMON(c.1265-c.1330), Hebrew poet, was born in Rome. He was a contemporary and friend of Dante, and his verse shows the influence of the “divine poet.” Immanuel’s early studies included science, mathematics and philosophy; and his commentaries on Proverbs, Psalms, Job and other Biblical books are good examples of the current symbolical methods which Dante so supremely used. Immanuel’s fame chiefly rests on his poems, especially the collection (in the manner of Harizi,q.v.) entitledMehabberoth, a series of 27 good-natured satires on Jewish life. Religious and secular topics are indiscriminately interwoven, and severe pietists were offended by Immanuel’s erotic style. Most popular is an additional section numbered 28 (often printed by itself) calledHell and Paradise(ha-Tophet veha-Eden). The poet is conducted by a certain Daniel (doubtfully identified with Dante) through the realms of torture and bliss, and Immanuel’s pictures and comments are at once vivid and witty.