'So that there may be fitly said to be a _longanimity_, which is commonly also ascribed to God as a _magnanimity_.' Undoubtedly, he considers this one of those differences in the natures and dispositions of men, that it is most important to note, otherwise it would not be inserted here. 'So farther deserved it to be considered by Aristotle that there is a disposition in conversation, supposing it in things which do in no sort touch or concern a man's self, _to soothe and please_; and a disposition contrary to contradict and cross; and deserveth it not much better to be considered that there is a disposition, not in conversation, or talk, but _in matter of more serious nature_, and supposing it still in things _merely indifferent_, to take pleasure in the good of another, and a disposition contrariwise to take distaste at the good of another, which is that _properly_ which we call _good-nature_, or _ill-nature_, benignity or malignity.' Is not this a field for science, then, with such differences as these lying on the surface of it,--does not it begin to open up with a somewhat inviting aspect? This so remarkable product of nature, with such extraordinary 'differences' in him as these, is he the only thing that is to go without a scientific history, all wild and unbooked, while our philosophers are weeping because 'there are no more worlds to conquer,' because every stone and shell and flower and bird and insect and animal has been dragged into the day and had its portrait taken, and all its history to its secretest points scientifically detected?