inventive power. Secondly, "imagination" implies a longer flight;
"fancy," rather a succession of short efforts: the one is a steady
blaze; the other, a series of sparkles. An epic poem would require an
exercise of the first; a ballad, or other lighter production, of the
last: hence, we may see that the difference between the two is, in some
measure, one of subject-matter; for the same power which we call "fancy"
when employed in a melody of Moore, would be called "imagination" in the
works of Dante or Milton. In short, the efforts of "fancy" bear the same
relation to those of "imagination" that the carving and polishing of a
gem or seal does to sculpture.

'In the third place, _wit_ may come into works of "fancy," and could not
be admitted into the province of "imagination." The same with what are
called _conceits_.

'"Conception" has something in common with imagination, but it implies
more decidedly a creative power, and is referred to something tangible
and real; whereas, in efforts of fancy and imagination, there is always
a consciousness of unreality. The province of "conception" is that which
has a real existence: hence, the productions of painters, sculptors, and
musicians, are called "conceptions." "Conception" also denotes something
framed and originated in our _own_ mind; whereas the imagination or
fancy may be acted on merely from without. The poet or writer of fiction
exercises his own conceptions, but awakens the imagination of his
readers.'

These quotations will give as general a notion of the work as can be
conveyed by a few extracts. To those among our readers who may be in
quest of such a book, we can decidedly recommend it as one that is
certain to be useful. It is by far the best of the kind that we have