loss, because there is ample latitude for comparing and judging; in the system of Gall, on the contrary, the comparisons rest upon minute points, which are subject to discussion, exceptions, a thousand uncertainties in the signs and various applications."[62] If the reader will review what I have said against Camper's facial line, he will find a refutation of all this reasoning of Delpit; a proof that he defends it merely because it is in vogue. It is this very generality and fixedness, which render it, in almost all cases, inapplicable; this is the inherent defect in the supposed importance of Camper's facial angle. It is implicitly supposed, that no difference but that of degree, exists between the capacities of the different species and individuals of the human race, and the different species and individuals of the animal kingdom. Thus the intelligence of men and other animals would always be proportioned to the magnitude of the facial angle. This being premised, I ask, which, out of two, three, four, &c., has the most intelligence, the dog, ape, beaver, the ant, or the bee? Ants and bees live in an admirable republic, and form astonishing constructions, which they know how to modify according to circumstances. The beaver and penduline build with equally marvellous skill, and with a foresight which seldom errs; the dog and the ape have very little foresight, and are incapable of the most insignificant construction. Which has the greater intelligence, Voltaire or Descartes? Could the former have been a mathematician and the latter a poet? Which has the higher degree of intellect, Mozart or Lessing, who, with all his genius, detested music? In short, which has the most intelligence, my dog who retraces his steps through the most complicated routes, or myself, who am always going astray? Measure now the facial angle of the ant, bee, beaver, penduline, ape, my dog, and of myself, and estimate the result. Acknowledge, then, that your division, so definite, so easy to be apprehended, is absolutely useless, and that you are obliged to advert to divers instincts, propensities, faculties, and their different degrees of energy, to which your facial angle is wholly inapplicable. Your intelligence, instinct, address, are in reality mere abstractions, imaginary existences. Do you consider the propensity to procreation, the love of offspring, the carnivorous instinct, the talent for music, poetry, &c., as imaginary existences? You see, then, that it is more convenient to tread the beaten path, than to verify observations.--_Gall on the Functions of the Brain_, page 195. Footnotes: [1] Utopia, Book II., chap. viii. [2] I do not wish to be forced into any discussion of this last point. But, if necessary, I shall not decline it. [3] We fear that Mr. Walker's analogical reasoning here is not very conclusive. To reason from a living to a dead subject may be very logical but it is not altogether satisfactory.