110 On the UTILITY of defining 
MAGNUS, INGENS, AMPLUS, PROCERUS, agree in denoting 
the magnitude of objects, but differ in refpeét either to its de- 
gree, or to the manner in which it is eftimated. The notion 
of abfolute magnitude, it mutt be obferved, is inconceivable. 
Men have compared the object they denominate great with 
others of the fame kind with itfelf, and have given it its ap- 
pellation from obferving its relative greatnefs. Thus, “‘ magna 
balena” fignifies either a whale that is larger than other animals 
of its own fpecies, or that, compared with other forts of fifhes, 
exceeds them in fize. As magnus relates to every kind of great- 
nefs, and embraces every object within that predicament, fo 
it may be regarded as the general term. “‘ Magna dii curant, 
** parva negligunt *.” 
In the original application of magnus to material objects, it 
fignifies their greatnefs in refpect both to quantity and number. 
Heu magnum alterius fruftra fpectabis acervum J ! 
“ Magnum numerum frumenti pollicentur ¢.” The mafs which 
in both the above examples is denominated magaus, receives 
this appellation, both from the fize of the whole, and from the 
number of its parts confidered feparately. 
Macnus is figuratively applied to immaterial objects, and 
denotes a fuperiority in fome refpeét among them, analogous to 
that of the largeft over the fmalleft material fubyeéts of a fpe- 
cies. “ Si ut fapientibus placet, non cum corpore extinguun- 
“ tur magne anime §.” 
Magnum pauperies opprobrium jubet **. 
Incens differs from magnus in denoting a greatnefs that is 
preternatural, and is unexampled in the clafs of objects to which 
that 
* Cic. N. D. 51. 5. § Tac. Ag. 46. 
+ Virg. Geor. 1. 150. ** Hor. Car. 3. 24: 42. 
f Cic. Ep. ad Att. 82. a. 
