when one man GAVE another an apple, it was very rational to suppose that he was then doing an action resembling what God does when he GIVES fruits to the earth, since he was then GIVING, of which the literal meaning is Godding, that is, " doing as God." It is utterly impossible that man could, in the beginning, have named this idea otherwise.

Such are the observations which the analysis of the termination ing have called forth.

I have also promised, in another part of this work, to inquire into the primitive meaning of the word soul; but in the minute account given of anim, the radical part of animal, the first idea that man ever had of soul is to be found. Hence it must be, the reader will tell me, synonymous with truth and eternity; and, like the idea Being, be composed of three persons, the Creator and two human beings, and yet be only one. The Latin word for soul is anima, which does not differ from anim, already explained, but by its having an article more (ea) at the end; and as this article is no addition to the meaning of anim, nor does in any way lessen its value, it follows that whatever has been already said of this word will apply to anima.

The same word in English is soul, and were it only so, as it must have once been, its meaning would be still the same. When so is analysed it becomes is o, which means the o, that is, "the sun," "the one," ""the Divinity," &c. And when this word is used in English in such a sense as, "I told him

so," it is still the same word, and has precisely the same meaning; and were we to supply its place by thus, this would not cause the least difference, since the latter is in every way equal to Theos, the Greek word for God. Hence, when in the sentence "I told him so," we supply the place of so by the one, the latter means, "the certain one," and it is as if we were to say, "I told him that." The reader must therefore perceive that between so and an affirmative, just explained, there can be no difference; and this will account for the French word si, which means so, being frequently used instead of oui, as when we say, Je crois que si, instead of, Je crois qu'oui. And as it is not difficult to perceive that so makes, when analysed, is o, and that this is evidently the sun, it can be now easily conceived that the affirmative oui must, as I have already said, mean" the sun," since a word from which it does not differ has this meaning. Were soul to be written sou, this would still cause no change in its meaning; for as u is the same as n, this word would make sou become son, which is equal to sun, or is one (the one). Or were we still instead of sou to write sol, there would not be between these words the least difference; for as the letter L in Greek bears this form, A, which is the same as a v or a u, as I have already shown, it is evident that there can be no difference between sou and sol. Hence it is that, in the French language, the piece of money named a sou has been also named a sol, and of this the meaning is still "the one," or "the

sun." Now when the word soul was written sou, for this form it must have also had, it took il before it as an article, thus, il sou; and from this word il having fallen behind sou, thus, souil, the word soul was, by the dropping of the i, made. But had it, while it was yet only so, taken il before it, thus, il so, we should have now sol instead of soul; but from its having at this time taken iu before it, thus, iu so, and from this iu having fallen behind, the word sou was made. difference is there between il and iu? none whatever, since the latter is which is in Greek IA, that is, il. that the word soul means, literally speaking, "the sun," and this implies the Divinity.

But what There is equal to IV,

Hence we see

The French word for soul is âme, but the circumflex which we see over the â in this word indicates the omission of an s, so that âme is for asme, just as the French word même is for mesme. Asme is to be analysed thus, ois-iv; or thus, ois-in; or thus, ois-un. These different forms of the last syllable are found, by our allowing the m in asme to be composed of in, and then by our allowing in to be equal to iv; and this accounts for iv and in. As to un it is found from supposing asme to be a contraction of asime, which will render this word equal to ois-un; for im does not differ from un, as I have already clearly shown by instancing such words as impolite and unpolite, &c., and by showing that the four ones to be found in im are to be also

found in un. I need scarcely remark, that there

is no difference whatever between iv, in, and un,

99 66

since all equally mean, "God," "the sun,' one," &c., and that it does not consequently matter by which of them we explain the final part of the French word for soul.

As we have already seen the word ois a great many times, and as we know that it is the same as is in Greek, which means both one and Be, and that it is also a name for the sun, appearing then, for the most part, under the contracted form of os, we see that it is, in all these respects, in exact apposition to the other word iv, in, or un, by which it is followed in asme, so that here the one word serves as an article to the other, and both mean "the sun," "the Divinity," "one," "truth," "eternity," "the Trinity," &c. When this word asme was yet only as, that is, ois, it was precisely equal to the English word soul when the latter was yet only sou, because the oi in ois means double one, and the ou in sou has exactly the same meaning, since the u in the latter qualifies the o, which stands for one. Now as ois must have first been is oi, it is evident that it was from the is having fallen behind oi, thus, oi is, and from its i having been dropped, so that is alone remained, that the word as was formed, the three letters (o, i, s,) of which it is composed having fallen together. But had the is, when it preceded oi, gone over to this word thus, isoi, and so have lost the first i, it would, though remaining only soi, be exactly the same as sou, since, as I stated above, oi means "double one," and so does ou; so that by the great philosophers who

first put letters together, the word soi might sometimes be very properly written sou, or the latter be written soi. And this being admitted, it follows that, notwithstanding the great dissimilarity in appearance between the words as and sou, they are, after all, but one and the same word. I have, whilst analysing words, met with so many curious and wonderful things, that I can no longer feel the least surprise at any new discovery I happen to make in the application of my system: were it otherwise, I might here notice, as something very extraordinary, that the words as and sou are not only alike when meaning the soul, the sun, the Divinity, &c. but that they are both names of two pieces of money of equal value, the word as being the Latin for the French coin named a sou. I might also here remark, as something very extraordinary, that as the final syllable of asme is equal to iv, as we have just seen, and consequently to il, since iv is equal to il, as we have also seen, it must follow that in the two words ois-iv we have (since ois is equal to soi or sou) the two words soi-il, which, when connected thus, soil, are equal to soul; or we may say that we have in ois-iv the two words, sou-il, which, by the dropping of the i before, become, when they unite, soul; so that, no matter how we consider them, whether part by part or all together, the two words âme and soul are, in every way, notwithstanding the great difference between them in appearance, one and the same word.