present of jewellery or pictures to a friend, is munificent, but would
not be called "beneficent." If he raised a distressed family from
starvation, the word "beneficent" would be more appropriate. But one who
gives largely to the public, or to some institution, is called
munificent. It seems to convey the idea of splendour. No one can be
called munificent who does not give on a large scale.

'Any one who is ready to give _freely_, as the etymology implies, on
whatever scale, is "liberal." "Bountiful," again, is stronger than
"liberal," and implies giving in abundance; it also differs from
"liberal" in being restricted to _giving_; while "liberal" is applied to
an easy style of expenditure in general; to the reverse, in short, of
"stingy," or "miserly." Many people live in a _liberal_ style, who are
very far from being "bountiful." Bountiful always seems to imply, giving
out of an ample store.

'"Philanthropic," as its etymology indicates, implies benevolence solely
in reference to the _human race_, and always to masses, not to
individuals. One who devises some plan to benefit numbers, is called
"philanthropic;" but we should not talk of "philanthropically giving a
loaf to a hungry child."'--(P. 83-85.)

As space is beginning to press, our last extract must be short: it
relates to words often enough employed indiscriminately--_imagination,
conception, fancy_. '"Imagination" and "fancy" are frequently confounded
together, but are, nevertheless, very distinct in their signification.
In the first place, "imagination" implies more of a _creative_ power
than "fancy;" it requires a greater combination of various powers, and
is therefore a higher exercise of genius. "Fancy," on the other hand, is
more an employment of ingenuity and taste, though it also requires