Recurring to subtleties, we may perhaps suggest a cause for this apparent contradiction. But the more we admire the wise dispositions of the author of nature, in the laws he has prescribed to the industry of animals, the greater reserve is necessary in admitting any theory adverse to this beautiful system, and the more must we distrust that facility of imagination from which we think by embellishment to elucidate facts. In general, Naturalists who have long observed animals, and those in particular who have chose insects for their favourite study, have too readily ascribed to them our sentiments, our passions, and even our intentions and designs. Incited to admiration, and disgusted perhaps by the contempt with which insects are treated, they have conceived themselves obliged to justify the consumption of time bestowed on this pursuit, and they have painted different traits of the industry of these minute animals, with the colours inspired by an exalted imagination. Nor is even the celebrated Reaumur to be acquitted of such a charge. He frequently ascribes combined intentions to bees; love, anticipation, and other faculties of too elevated a kind. I think I can perceive that although he formed very just ideas of their operations, he would be well pleased that his reader should admit they were sensible of their own interests. He is a painter who by a happy interest flatters the original, whose features he depicts. On the other hand, Buffon unjustly considers bees as mere automatons. It was reserved for you, Sir, to establish the theory of animal industry on the most philosophical principles, and to demonstrate that those actions that have a moral appearance depend on an association of ideas _simply sensible_. It is not my object here to penetrate those depths, or to insist on the details.