iro On the U T I L I 7 T of defining 



Magnus, ingens, amplus, procerus, agree in denoting 

 the magnitude of objects, but differ in refpect either to its de- 

 gree, or to the manner in which it is eftimated. The notion 

 of abfolute magnitude, it muft 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 

 balasna" fignifies either a whale that is larger than other animals 

 of its own fpecies, or that, compared with other forts of fiflies, 

 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 f ! 



" Magnum numerum frumenti pollicentur £." The mafs which 

 in both the above examples is denominated magnus, receives 

 this appellation, both from the iize of the whole, and from the 

 number of its parts confidered feparately. 



M agnus is figuratively applied to immaterial objects, and 

 denotes a fuperiority in fome refpect among them, analogous to 

 that of the largeft over the fmalleft material fubjects of a fpe- 

 cies. " Si ut fapientibus placet, non cum corpore extinguun- 

 " tur magnce animae §." 



Magnum pauperies opprobrium jubet **. 



Ingens 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. b. § Tac. Ag. 46. 



f Virg. Geor. 1. 150. ** Hor. Car. 3. 24. 42. 



% Cic. Ep. adAtt. 82. a. 



