66

means the," and is as much what we call an article or pronoun as it is a verb, we see that two el ƒ makes, literally, "twice f." Eleven may also, notwithstanding that I have already otherwise accounted for it, be analysed thus, el-even, that is, "L being;" meaning by this that it is the letter L, which is the eleventh of the alphabet, the I and J not being accounted for more than one.

The figure 8 is, we have already seen, composed of o and o added together, thus, 8; and as o is equal to one, 8 may be said to be the same as double one, or as I and O, in which we have also double one. When 8 is considered as composed of I and O, instead of o and o, its form is to be found in these three parts, Is, put together thus, I, and allowed to meet thus, ; and here, as 5 is equal to co, or to o, we have still IO, or IS or B, and visibly one.

The figure nine is made thus, 9, which, as this is no other than 0 and 1 added together thus, 9, and which we also see joined thus, q, is still equal to one one, or double one, or to all, or the Divinity; so that it does not differ, as to meaning, in the least from any of the preceding numbers.

Though I do now account but for the form of figures, I cannot here avoid noticing the name given to the number nine, as the close resemblance it bears, in ancient and modern languages, to the word for new, has often attracted the notice of the learned. As the figure 9 is equal to oi, and as these two characters are equal to one one, and as

these two words mean "one in the extreme," or "the first one," and as the first of a thing is its new state, we discover how it happens that the French word for new and for nine do not differ, since both make neuf; and that the radical parts of novus (new), and of novem (nine), are still the same, since both make nov.

Now

When we analyse the English word nine, we have en-ine, and here ine, when its sound is considered, is precisely equal to eyne, because I is equal to ey or eye, or even to eg or ig, as we have already seen several times. Then as eyne is the ancient plural of eye, and is, consequently, for eyes, it follows that nine really means, "the eyes," that is, "one one," and these two words, as stated above, mean also, "the first one," because the repetition of a thing implies that it is in the extreme. as ey is the same as eye, and as y is the Greek y, from which it does not differ even in form, it follows that eyne might as well be written egne, and that the word nine might be also written negne, of which the analysis is, en-eg-in; and as eg does not differ from egg, it follows that en-eg-in means "the egg one," that is, "the egg egg," or "the eggs," for here the in at the end is for the plural, just as it is in eyne (that is, ey-in). Thus we see that nine means "the first one," or "the eyes," and that it is also the plural of egg, and, consequently, means "eggs." Hence there is no difference (since eg is equal to ig, and that both these words are equal to I) between the pronoun singular of the

66

first person and an egg. Then as I means "the first life," or "the first person," so must an egg mean "a first thing," and this it really does, since it is the first of fowls and insects. We have just seen that the radical part of novem is nov: this word nov, when analysed, makes en-ov; and as v is equal to n, these two words become en-on, which, when we make e take its form of o, are the same as on on, that is, one one; so that nov does not differ in meaning from nine, since the latter means the eyes," and that this plural is equal to I I, or one one, as has been already shown. But nov means, not only "one one," which is equal to the first, but also an egg, since, analysed, it is en ov; and since ov is the radical part of ovum (an egg), and also of nov, (that is, of en-ov,) the radical part of novem, so that the real word in Latin for egg is ov. The reader must now know that the um in ovum is only an article which has fallen behind. Hence too, the French word neuf is, when analysed, en-euf, and of this the literal meaning also is, "one one," or "an egg." The French word for egg is now œuf, and this is very correct, but not a particle more so than euf, for the reason that the two letters in a stand in apposition to one another, so that one of them may be very well suppressed; and were the e, instead of o, to be dropped, the remaining part (ouf) would be also very correct, since o is the same as or e. Hence the other French word, nouveau, might as well have been written neuveau, since this word is for au neuf, of

which the meaning is, "to the new," that is, "belonging to the new," "to what is new:" we may also observe, that auf and euf are precisely equal in sound. But since u is the same as v, and that in Latin in the radical part of novem (nov), and in the radical part of ovum (ov), there is no f still added to the v, why are not the two French words neuf and auf written neu and œu? In the beginning these words must have been written as in the latter instance, but then the u signified more clearly than it did afterwards what was double; so that when it began, from its being frequently employed to indicate single objects, to show its primitive meaning less distinctly, it was found necessary to increase its power by attaching to it another character of equal import. Hence uf is equal to uu, or to ui, or still to iu, and here each form means "double." Thus in English the word neuf is written new, because the w is exactly equal in power to uf, the latter being, as I have said, for uu, and, consequently, for vv or w. By this we see that the radical part of new was, in the beginning, nev, which, from the e being the same as o, is equal to the nov of novem; so that these two words, and the French word neuf, do not, when radically considered, differ from one another. By this account of nine, we may be sure that this word will be found, when radically considered, to be in all languages synonymous with new, eye, and an egg. It is because it signifies "one one" (from its being composed of o, i) that

it is the same as eye, which, from our having two eyes, has a similar meaning; and it is because one one indicates "the first," that nine and this word are also synonymous; and it does not, for the same reason, differ from new, since that which is new is in its first state. But as one one signifies, "one in the extreme," may not nine mean, when used negatively, "none?" none?" It may; and such is the origin of the English word none, and hence there is not a shade of difference between it and nine, and it were very correct to have these two words exactly alike. Hence the Latin word for ninth (that is, "nine the," "the nine,") is nonus, and as this must in the beginning have been us non ("the nine"), we see clearly (as non is the same as none) that the Latin of nine, and the English word none, were written alike. But since we know that i and o are equal, why should we expect nine to differ from none, as it is only in these two letters the apparent difference between nine and none consists? The analysis of the radical part of novem (nov) has shown this word to be the same as non (en-on), and this analysis is here proved to be very correct, since in nonus (“nine the ") the word nov takes this form of non; hence novem and nonus do not at all differ. As another proof of a statement just made, namely, that eye and egg must, in all languages, have, when radically considered, the same meaning, I now find that in the Teutonic language, of which I was not thinking when the above statement was made, the word for egg is ey. Many