Is it not then a bold and original stroke to show that when a thing passes into absolute incogitability we cease that instant to be ignorant of it? I believe that doctrine to be right and true, but I am certain that, obvious as it is, it has been nowhere anticipated or even hinted at in the bygone career of speculation. I claim this as _my discovery_. In the doctrine of Ignorance I believe that I have absolutely no precursor. What think you?' Mr. Makgill had accused Ferrier of anthropomorphism in his system, and he replies as follows:--'You cannot charge me with anthropomorphism without being guilty of it yourself. Don't you see that "the Beyond" all human thought and knowledge is itself _a category_ of human thought? There is much _naïveté_ in the procedure of you cautious gentry who would keep scrupulously _within_ the length of your tether: as if the conception of a _without_ that tether was not a mode of thinking. Will you tell me why you and Kant and others don't make _existence_ a category of human thought? This has always puzzled me. 'Surely the man who made extension and time mere forms of human knowledge need have made no bones of existence. Meanwhile, as the post is just starting, I beg you to consider this, that the anthropomorphist and the anti-anthropomorphists are both of necessity anthropomorphists, and for my part I maintain that the anti-man is the bigger anthropomorphist of the two.' This criticism of the 'Beyond' and its unknowableness, while yet it was acknowledged, is as much to the point in the present day as it was in those, and its statement brings forcibly before our minds the truth of Goethe's well-known saying: '_Der Mensch begreift niemals wie anthropomorphisch er ist_.'