and this clearly accounts for its other form, in which we have also three ones; as we may thus see, E. Hence ic is i really means, "each is I;" that is, "each one is an I." But when, instead of III, we write literally the analysis Io Io I, we have still only three ones. From looking at the

words ic is i, we also discover of what is composed -we see that it must contain a c, an s, and an i. Then the c or ancient ic is placed over the s, thus, S, and the i is made to follow both, thus, Si, by which means the name & is composed.

X, or x, is the twenty-second letter of the Greek alphabet. It has been just explained in the account given of . Its name is Chi, and this is equal to ic-iv, i, which is also the same as I, I, I; where ic means "I," as well as it does "each" or "both," and iv is also for "the first life," or "first person." Since X is the same as ch, and since this is the same as cv, which means double v, we see that the two V's in X are thus indicated.

The twenty-first letter, P, has been already accounted for in alpha. The analysis of its name in the Roman characters will, however, render more evident what has been said of it. It is written, and very correctly, thus, phi, of which the analysis is ip-iv-i; and this means, "in the first life one," or one thing in the first life;" meaning, "one thing in the O;" that is, "one thing named half," and which is clearly indicated by the exact division made in the character . But, critically speaking, there is no such number or portion as half, that is,

66

as we understand it, since every fractional part is one; hence it is that is even a name for the Divinity, since, like of in English, it means, "one being or thing." If the reader has understood how it happens that a language can have no negatives, he can, for the same reason, tell why it can have no division less than one. By entering into the minds of the men who believed all things to be the Divinity, and that he is only one, we can easily conceive how impossible it is that there can be any thing less than one. Hence the names one half, one third, one fourth, &c. mean, "one thing of two things," "one thing of three things," "one thing of four things," &c. All numbers are therefore whole ones; for if we say, "John has the one fourth of a pound," the meaning is, that of the four ones which compose a pound John has one; and this, though not so great a one as the whole pound, is, however, whole or entire.

But what is the meaning of the word fraction? Nobody can tell. But does it not mean "what is

broken?" It does.

We, therefore, know what it means? Yes, if we can tell what is meant by broken. Surely, every body can tell that: a broken thing, for instance, must be something in pieces or parts? That is very true. what is meant by broken? is meant by pieces or parts, nothing about it. But a piece or a part is something less than the whole? That also is very true. We, therefore, know what is meant by broken? Yes,

We, therefore, know Yes, if we can tell what but otherwise we know

provided we can tell what is meant by the whole, but otherwise we know nothing about it. Does not the whole mean the entire? It does. Then we have only to find out what is meant by the entire, in order to discover what is meant by the whole? Precisely so; but these two words are synonymous, so that it is just as difficult to account for the one as it is for the other; and hence, if we know not what is meant by the word whole, we shall look in vain for the meaning of the word entire. Then how are we to discover the meaning of the word whole? By analysing it, which has been done farther back; where it was shown to be another name for the Divinity, and that it can be reduced to a single o. But in the word entire there is no o? The first syllable of this word is equal to on or in; and as the former is for oin, and as this oin may be analysed thus, o-in, and then thus, in-o, which means an o, we find that it is equal to o. Here, as in stands in apposition to this o, it is consequently the same as an o, or a one; and this we can easily understand, by remarking that n is equal to these two parts (c)), which are also equal to an o, so that in is really the same as io. But the final part of entire, that is, tire? It is for it ir, which means, "head being," or "God;" so that these two words it and ir stand in apposition to en, and they are precisely the same as the French word être. This shows entire to be equal to the two French words un-être, or être-un, that is, "one being," or "the being one." Hence part or piece means also

"one," but one less great or bulky than the one signified by whole or entire. Of these two words the former is to be analysed thus, ip-o-ir-it. Here ir-it is the same as it-ir, or the French word être (the thing, or the being); and ip-o means "the up-o, ," "the high o," or "the high one," which is still equal to "God;" and when we arrange the whole word thus, être-ip-o, the meaning is, "the thing, the high o;" that is, "the little thing the high o;" because what is high up appears little, on account of its being far from us. Hence the French word petit might as well be written potit, which, analysed, makes ip-o-it-it, that is, "high o high high," or "the high o above above," meaning, "the high o very high;" in other words, it is "the Divinity very far off." Thus, too, the English word poor might as well be written poir, and this, again, might as well be written par, as we may perceive by allowing the o and the i to fall together, since this union will produce oi.* But the word

* This, I perceive, has happened in Latin, since parvus is, when analysed, ip-o-ir-in-os, and this analysis, when os is put first, and the i in ir changed to o, becomes os ip-oor-in; in which we have the English word poor, the latter being the contraction of ip-oor, formed by the i having been dropped. As the os means the, and that the in following ip-oor means one, parvus is, in English words, equal to the poor one.

From this we learn that the ideas poor and little are one and the same. But as ip-o is, notwithstanding, another name for the Divinity, it can, besides signifying what is poor or little, mean also what is very great or powerful. Thus potens means," the high one," "the head being;" that is, in Latin, it has this meaning, but in some other language it may signify quite the reverse. Hence the word power in English, and pauvre in French, are really the same word. The former is, when analysed, ip-o-iv-er, which means, "high o being;" that is, "the great one VOL. II.

P

poor itself does not differ in meaning from poir, since, when analysed, it becomes ip-o-o-ir, which still means, "the high one," the high one," "the one being," or "the high one above" (ip-o-oer). Hence the word part means, like the word whole, "the Divinity," but the Divinity less visible; and, brought down to ordinary language, it is to be rendered by "the little one."

The word piece is to be analysed thus, ip-i-is, which means," the high one being;" that is, "the being who is far away," and who, consequently, appears little; so that piece, like part, means also "the little one." The word piece may be also analysed thus, ip-i-os, for the e is equal to o; and, consequently, esse may, in some languages, be osse. Indeed, esse, to be rendered intelligible, should be analysed thus, os-e; and this ought still to be analysed thus, is-o-e (the o is), which means, "it is the 0; "that is, it is the Divinity, who is existence itself.

Thus, from knowing that a thing broken is a thing reduced to parts or pieces, and from knowing that parts and pieces mean ones, we are led to dis

being." Here we must remember that iv er is the same as it er or être. Pauvre is, when analysed, ip-o-iv-iv-er; and here the first iv is equal to the, so that iv iv er means "the being," and consequently the whole word is equal to " the being" or "the thing the high o;" that is, "the being or the thing named the high o," or, "the high one;" meaning by this, "the one far away." By entering into the spirit of the belief that all things are the Divinity, and that his name has not a negative meaning, that is, as we commonly understand negations, it can be easily conceived that power and pauvre, may be, when radically considered, the same word, just as yes and no may be found, when in like manner examined, to have the same meaning.