Page images
PDF
EPUB

alphabet- and, by holding to this resolution, it will not, I should think, be difficult to do so-I may indulge myself, and I hope the philosophical reader too, with a few digressions leading into discoveries far more important than I have yet

made.

any

The seventeenth letter of the Greek alphabet is made thus, P, p, g, and its name is på, written in the Roman characters "rho." This little sign', which the reader may perceive over the p in pc, is called by grammarians a note of aspiration; and from their remarking that, in other languages, it is replaced by a h, they conclude that it must surely represent the h, but this is all they know about it, as they cannot tell why it bears this form more than any other. When we divide an o in two, thus, cɔ, and place these two parts thus, x, and connect them thus, x, we shall have another form of the H. But before I say any more of this, I wish here to remind the reader of what I have already proved in another part of this work*, namely, that out means all, which we may see by putting the t in its primitive place, that is, before ou, since this will give tou, which is the same as tout or tous in French. Hence also it is, as I stated when accounting for out, that we say indifferently throughout the house, and through ALL the house. † But the word out

*See Vol. II. p. 105.

† If out means all, how are we to explain without when it has a negative signification, as without friends, without money, &c. I have already shown that an affirmation and negation make, when analysed, the same word. Thus in and un, for instance, mean one or not one;

[blocks in formation]

means also what is double, because this idea, as well as that of totality, was signified by the same words

in the English word unkind it is a negative, and in the French word quelq'un, an affirmative. When I first made this discovery, I could not tell why men had not in the beginning negative words, but having since then discovered the religion they had when language was first made, I have been able to account for their having no negatives. It arose from the sublime idea they had of the Creator of all things; for having believed him to be all in creation, they were necessarily obliged, in order to be consistent with themselves, to believe all in creation to be him; for if I say, "John is my brother," it must follow that my brother is John, and so if we really believe the Divinity to be all things in the creation, we are obliged to believe all things in the creation to be the Divinity. But by all things was meant not only all material substances, but even all things immaterial; in short, there was nothing omitted, not even sin, nor word, nor thought, the most hidden. By following up this idea to the extreme, we see that men in the beginning were obliged to believe, that if the Creator of all things could possibly cease to exist for the space of one second, at the same instant all living beings, as well as all substances the most solid and bulky, would so completely suffer annihilation, that not the least vestige, not even the smallest particle imagination can conceive, could possibly remain of them; they must have been even obliged to believe, that without the Creator empty space itself could not exist. When we enter into the spirit of this mighty idea of the Divinity, we can easily conceive how men in the beginning of the world could have had no negative; for since they believed the sounds of their voices to be him, all their words being for this reason named after him, and that they knew he was ever equal, ever one, they could not possibly have a word contrary to an affirmative. Hence out in throughout means all, and in the word without it is still the same word; and is, like it, in the extreme, since it means none, which analysed is in oin, that is, one one, or all, or the Divinity. Who in the world could suspect that this English word none and the Greek word wav (all) are, when analysed, letter for letter, the same word, since the analysis of the latter is also in oin, of which the reader will be convinced presently from a knowledge of the P? Or who could suppose that the French word pas (not) is also, when analysed, letter for letter the same word, since it also makes in-oin? But every body who has paid the least attention to the art of analysing words, as shown in this work, must know that the French negative ni becomes, when analysed, in-i, and that this means one one,

that indicated life or the Divinity. Now the note of aspiration over the p in p, is the H, made thus, x, its first half being suppressed, so that when this letter is brought down to its place, pa becomes PX w. And what does the x here signify? that the has a double power. P The whole word is to be thus analysed, p-xo, meaning, " r, the double

one."

In En

And why has x this power? Because it is double; it being composed, as I have just shown, of ว and C joined together. But what proof can be given that this double character was an ancient form of the H? The analysis of its name. glish it is called aitch, and this word analysed makes, out-c-H, which means, " double C (is) H," that is, the double C (alluding to and C) composes the letter H. I have just shown that out means "all" or "double." The analysis of the French name of this letter shows also that x is indicated as its ancient form; thus Hache makes Hoi-c-h. Here hoi means high, which idea is the same as out, as I have also shown in the account given of the latter word.

which is equal to all. A knowledge of lambda also shows us, that the Latin negative nil is in in, since this form of lambda (^) is equal to n, just as the other form (A) is equal to in or m or w,' &c. But the English scholar may remind me that the analysis of the English word no, which is in-o, and consequently means one one or all, is sufficient proof of the truth of what I state. But, in the same language, do we not see the same word used in both ways? thus the Greek word ¿v means not. Yet one is rendered by v also, for both words are the same, and make, when analysed, on, which becomes oin (one). But the English scholar will again remind me that the instance already given of out, which means all and none, is fully as evident as this one in Greek.

There is, besides, no difference whatever between out and Hoi, as the reader must perceive, if he looks closely at both words; and this, too, will account for their naming the same idea. But there is no t in Hoi? Not when we look at it slightly, but there is one, however; and when we see two words naming thus the same idea, we should consider them very minutely, as there is great probability of their being notwithstanding the apparent difference between

them letter for letter, the same word. In this word Hoi, the letter H is an entire word, and is precisely the same as iv, it being composed of i and ii, just as iv is. The latter word we have already often seen, and we know that it means the first life, that is, the Divinity. Now as oi in hoi names also the first life-it being equal to a, and also to H or x, since when we divide the o of the a thus, x, and connect these two by the I, thus, x, we have a H-it follows that it stands in apposition to H, and that it might as well precede as follow this letter. Hence when we allow H in Hoi to fall behind oi, thus, oiH, and the the bar in the middle of it to be placed on the top of its second I, thus, T, we shall have instead of oiH, the word out. Here we have, by the analysing of this word, made a very happy discovery, the original of the letter T. But why did men put the bar above, any more than below? Because they wished by this to signify the head, or any thing high up. Hence the L, which has a bar below, is frequently employed to signify what is low. I shall, when account

ing for II (P), have occasion to allude to this letter. Thus we see that T has, in this instance, grown out of the H, which is another form of A; and that this arose from the H and the i coming together thus, Hi. Hence the English word He (which might as well be Hi) and the word it, make but one word, and the three letters A, H, and T make but one letter, so that thus far we have not seen two letters in the alphabet. But the I? It makes but one letter with the A, since it is a part of A. But the O? It makes but one letter with the A (oi), since it is a part of it. There is, however, a great difference between one (1) and a circle? There is none whatever; for though the o is composed of an infinite number of ones, still they all make but one, that is, an 0. This observation will lead to a great deal, and the reader will, I hope, lend it a serious thought. Thus from ait, in aitch and ha in hache being equal, it must follow that the entire words, aitch and hache are equal; for as to the e with which the latter word ends, the former should end with it also, but as it means is, and ought to be apart from h, it can be very well understood. Then Hache, when its last letter is accounted for, is to be analysed thus, out-c-h-e, and this means double ch is, that is, double c is H.

The Roman form of the Greek P, when made thus, R, has no c placed over it; the reason is, that the tail attached to it is equal to this c, so that if we were to round it, R would become B. And, in like manner, if we were to attach the note of

« PreviousContinue »