t12 On the UTILITY of defining 
Tue fuperlative zrgentifimus is not found but in fuch writers 
as SyMMAcHUs and VEGETIUs, who lived late, and whofe 
practice fhould not be regarded as a ftandard. ‘The ab- 
furdity, at the fame time, is equal, in giving zugens either a 
comparative or a fuperlative degree:; as the eflence of hugenefs 
depends on there being nothing in nature in which the quality 
that it is made to denominate, is to be found in a fuperior de- 
gree. 
Ampuus differs from magnus and ingens, in being limited to 
that kind of greatnefs among material objects which confifts in 
fuperficial capacity. It properly denotes fuch an extenfion of a 
furface as fits it for receiving what it is defigned to contain. 
“ In qua ampliffima curia, amplifimum gymnafium et complures 
“‘ des facre: coliturque ea pars et habitatur frequentifli- 
Simei? ; 
Illos porticibus rex accipiebat in amplis +. 
“ Ad eam multitudinem urbs quoque amplificanda vifa eft f.” 
In this laft example, the compounded verb marks the power of 
the adjective very diftin@lly. It denotes the neceflary extenfion 
of the precinéts of the city, fo as to afford commodious habi- 
tations for the growing multitude. “ Loci preter modum 
“ ampli vagas imagines reddunt, et nimis angufti fpe non vi- 
“ dentur poffe capere imaginum collocationem §.”’ 
Amptus, like the two words defined, is often transferred 
from material to immaterial objects. “ Suofque omnes per fe 
“ effe ampliores volebat **.”” 
Procerus differs from all the words ftated, in never being 
transferred from material to immaterial objects, and in imply- 
ing, 
* Cic. in Ver. 228. a. § Aud. ad Her. 22.4. 
+ Virg. En. 3. 353- ** Cic. Am. 109. a. 
t Liv. 1. 44. 
