“Bellatrix. Non illa colo, calathisve Minervae Foemineas assueta manus. Illam omnis tectis agrisqu’ effusa juventus Turbaque miratur matrum; et prospectat euntem. Attonitis inhians animis: ut regius ostro Velet honos leves humeros; ut fibula crinem Auro internectat; Lyciam ut gerat ipsa pharetram Et pastoralem praefixa cuspide myrtum.” With this picture, will you compare that so opportunely furnished me by the author of the ‘Angel in the House,’ [47] of the modern Camilla, in “white bodice, purple knee-breeches, which she had borrowed from an Ethiopian serenader, red stockings, and shoes.” From this sphere of Ethiopian aspiration, may not even the divinely emancipated spirit of Cobbe cast one glance—“Backward, Ho”? But suppose I grant your Evolution of the Japanese Rose, and the Virginian Virago, how of other creatures? of other things? I don’t find the advocates of Evolution much given to studying either men, women, or roses; I perceive them to be mostly occupied with frogs and lice. Is there a Worshipful Batrachianity—a Divine Pedicularity?—Stay, I see at page 874 that Pantheism is “muddled sentiment”; but it was you, my dear boy, who began the muddling with your Japanese horticulture. Your Humanity has no more to do with roses than with Rose-chafers or other vermin; but I must really beg you not to muddle your terms as well as your head. “We, who have thought and studied,” do not admit that “humanity is an aggregate of men.” An aggregate of men is a mob, and not ‘Humanity’; and an aggregate of sheep is a flock, and not Ovility; and an aggregate of geese is——perhaps you had better consult Mr. Herbert Spencer and the late Mr. John Stuart Mill for the best modern expression,—but if you want to know the proper names for aggregates, in good old English, go and read Lady Juliana’s list in the book of St. Albans. I do not care, however, to pursue questions with you of these ‘concrete developments.’ For, frankly, I conceive myself to know considerably more than you do, of organic Nature and her processes, and of organic English and its processes; but there is one development of which, since it is your special business to know it, and I suppose your pleasure, I hope you know much more than I do, (whose business I find by no means forwarded by it, still less my pleasure)—the Development of Law. For the concrete development of beautifully bewigged humanity, called a lawyer, I beg you to observe that I always express, and feel, extreme respect. But for Law itself, in the existent form of it, invented, as it appears to me, only for the torment and taxation of Humanity, I entertain none whatsoever. I may be wrong, and I don’t want to be wrong; and you, who know the law, can show me if I am wrong or not. Here, then, are four questions of quite vital importance to Humanity, which if you will answer to me positively, you will do more good than I have yet known done by Positivism.