Speaking of this reminds us of those very capital 'Illustrations of Phrenology,' by Cruikshank, with which we all are familiar, and where, for example, '_veneration_ is exemplified by a stout old gentleman, with an ample paunch, gazing with admiring eyes and uplifted hands on the fat side of an ox fed by Mr. Heavyside, and exhibited at the stall of a butcher. In this way a Jew old-clothes man, holding his hand on his breast with the utmost earnestness, while in the other he offers a coin for a pair of slippers, two pairs of boots, three hats, and a large bundle of clothes, to an old woman, who, evidently astonished all over, exclaims, 'A shilling!' is an illustration of _conscientiousness_. A dialogue of two fishwomen at Billingsgate illustrates _language_, and a riot at Donnybrook Fair explains the phrenological doctrine of _combativeness_.' But peace to the 'bumps,' and pass we on. Could anything be more completely metaphorical than such expressions as 'egregious' and 'fanatic?' 'Egregious' is chosen, _e-grex_--_out of the flock_, i. e., the best sheep, etc., selected from the rest, and set aside for sacred purposes; hence, _distingue_. This word, though occupying at present comparatively neutral ground, seems fast merging toward its worst application. Can it be that an 'egregious' _rogue_ is an article of so much more frequent occurrence than an 'egregiously' _honest_ man, that incongruity seems to subsist between the latter? 'Fanatic,' again, is just the Roman '_fanaticus_,' one addicted to the _fana_,[7] the temples in which the 'fanatici' or fanatics were wont to spend an extraordinary portion of their time. But besides this, their religious fervor used to impel them to many extravagances, such as cutting themselves with knives, etc., and hence an 'ultraist' (one who goes _beyond_ (ultra) the notions of other people) in any sense. Whereupon it might be remarked that though 'Coelum, non animum, mutant qui trans mare currunt,' may, in certain applications, be true, it is surely not so in the case of a good many words. Thus this very instance, 'fanatic,' which, among the Romans, implied one who had an _extra share of devotion_, is, among us--the better informed on this head--by a very curious and very unfathomable figure (disfigure?) of speech or logic, applied to one who has a peculiar _penchant_ for human liberty! 'In the most high and _palmy_ state of Rome, A little ere the mighty Julius fell, The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets.' We do not quote this for the sake of the making-the-hair-to-stand-on-end tendencies of the last two lines, but through the voluptuous quiescence of the first, 'In the most high and palmy state of Rome,'