1803. ] 
. and almoft univerfal, notion, that the 
forehead of a hufband acquires horns in 
confequence of a, wife’s infidelity, has 
ever been traced to its origin. With the 
hope of affifting thofe who may efteem this 
fubje&t “worthy of their inveftigation, I 
fhall extraét a paffage from the learned 
Schikard’s Tarich; or, ** Series Regum 
Perfie,” (p. 73) which accidentally pre- 
fented itfelf the other day, and which con- 
firms mein the opinion, that mo popu- 
Jar notions of this kind are derived from 
an Oriental fource. I fhall previoufly ob- 
ferve, that the epithet ef bored has not 
been’always applied in a difgraceful fente; 
for we learn that Alexander the Great was 
ityled by the Arabians Dhul Kernein, or 
two-borned, from the extent of his em- 
pire, which included all between the 
eaftern and weftern horzs, or extremities, 
of the world: though fome derive this 
title from the prophecy of Daniel (ch. 8.) 
who mentions a raz with tavo horus, 2 
he-goat coming from the weft, &e. &e. 
But we find, that fo early as the thir- 
teenth century it was a popular notion 
among the Arabians, that cuckolds: were 
itigmatized by forzs, For in the Rabbi- 
nical work Iuchafin (quoted by Schikard 
as above-mentioned) we are informed that 
the Khalif Al-Mofafem (who began to 
reion A.D. 1242) infulted the famous 
Nafiraddin, of Tius a mok celebrated ma- 
thematician, by the following bitter joke: 
YP Oa) tomp on>d we pw swixw smpmw. 
—* I have heard that the men of Tous 
(thy country) have horns: where are 
thine 2” The Khalif, in this taunt 
(which never was forgiven), alluded to a 
fhameful cuftom prevalent in fome parts 
of the eaft, where the hufbands proftituted 
« their wives to ftrangers. 
Dec. 29, 1802. P.Q. 
SET ae 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
Are the OBJECTIONS to the SYSTEM of 
IDEALISM SATISFACTORY? 
. HE jut celebrity of the author of 
A the Enquirer, and the ability 
with which the inveltigation is condué- 
ed, which has occafioned the prefent 
EssaY, and almoft every concurring caufe, 
will enfure, on my part of the difcuffion, 
an uniform refpect to this highly qualified 
oppoler of the BERKLEIAN hypothefis. 
The grounds of 1DEALIsM are, as it 
feerms to me, rather indiftinétly intimated 
in the commencement of the Essay. I 
take them to be thefe:—— 
That in forming any hypothefis to ac- 
tount for phenomena, all wnneceffary com- 
Mr, Lofft on the Sy/tem of Idealifin 
9) 
{et 
plexity is to be avoided. That a fatis- 
factory hypothefis cannot be formed by 
affuming, as a primary fact, that of 
which there is zo evidence: That an dy- 
pothefis is falfe whicly is contradicted by 
any of thofe phenomena which it is brought 
to folve: And laftly, that, of tzva hypo- 
thefes, that which folves aif phenomena 
without calling in any principle or fa&, 
of the exiftence of which it is poflible, 
after due attention, to doubt, -is to be re- 
garded as the true hypotheiis and jult 
fyftem. 
For thefe reafons, if the wzxt hypothefis 
of matter and fpirit is unneceffarily com- 
plex, it is to be rejected. If there is xe 
evidence of the exifttence of MATTER. 
both the jmply material and mixt hypo- 
thefis muit be rejected. . 
If the fuppofed exiftence of matter is 
contradictory to its being poffeffed of the 
properties of mind, the jimple material 
fyftem cannot be true. 
If we have reafon to be convinced, that 
mind and matter, if both fhould be affumed 
to exift, have zo common principle of ac- 
tion, then that hypothefis which affumes 
the aMion of mind or matter, and makes 
reciprocally matter the excitimg and im- 
pelling power to mind, cannot be admitted. 
And laftly, if minp, of the exifterice 
of which we cannot doubt, will account 
for all ideas and fenfations, all activity 
and power, and all the combination of 
caufes and effects which the phenomena 
indicate, NO oTHER folution can philofo- 
phically be required or adopted. 
But an unneceflary obfcurity and my/z- 
rioufaefs feems tobe mtreduced into the 
queftion by the ufe of the terms /ubfra- 
tum or fubfiance. Locke has well ridi- 
culed thefe terms. 
Infiead of looking for a fubjtratum, or 
foniething which is to jfand under ideas, 
qualities, or powers, as a material {up- 
port, it may be well to confider, whether 
any fuch fubftratum does or cam exift. 
If matier be this fubftratum, and we aik 
what. /upports matter, the anfwer is, 
Space. Aft- we afk what maiter is; the 
anfwer is, it 1s folid impenetrable exten- 
fron. Vi we afk, what /pace is; it is ex- 
tenfion, in all directions at ouce, without 
folidity.. Suppofe, then, matier to have no 
exiftence, and try what you can find in 
{pace to dikinguifh it from xon-entity. 
Thus the theory of /ubfratums runs in a 
circle. Matter is taken for granted; and 
by this aflumption fpace is inferred: ox 
{pace is taken for granted; and on this 
imaginary bafe the material univerfe is 
fuppofed to reft, 
And 
_ 
