Notes

 

1. At-first-in-principle, he - created, Ælohim (he caused to he, he brought forth in princijde,
HE-the- Gods, the-Being-of-beings), the- selfsameness-of-heavens, and - the - selfsameness - of - earth.

v. 1.
At-first-in-principle In these notes, it is not my intention either to examine or discuss the opinions which the savants of past centuries, Jews or Christians, have put forth upon the hidden meaning of this word or of those which follow. It would be a task quite as long as tedious. I shall explain, but I shall not comment; for this is not a system that I am establishing upon conjectures or probabilities more or less happy, but the tongue itself of Moses, that I am inter­preting according to its constitutive principles.Therefore, setting aside the sundry interpretations good or bad, which have been given to the word ,  I shall   say that this word, in the position which it occupies, offers three distinct mean­ings: the literal, the figurative, and the hieroglyphic. Moses has used all three, as is proved in the course of his work. He has followed in this, the method of the Egyptian priests: for these priests had three ways of expressing their thought. The first was clear and simple, the second, symbolic and figurative, the third sacred or hieroglyphic. They made use of three kinds of characters, but not of three dialects, as might be imagined. The same word took at their pleasure, the literal, figurative or hieroglyphic sense. Such was the genius of their tongue. Heraclitus has expressed perfectly the difference of these three styles, in designating them by the epithets, spoken, significant and hidden. The first two ways, that is to say, those which consisted of taking words in the literal or the figurative sense, were spoken; but the third, which could only receive its hieroglyphic form by means of the characters of which the words were composed, existed only for the eyes, and was used only in writing, Our modern tongues are entirely incapable of making this distinction. Moses, initiated in all the mysteries of the Egyptian priesthood, made use of these three ways with unbounded skill; his phrase is almost invariably constituted in such a manner as to present three meanings: this is why no kind of word-for-word can render his thought. I have adhered as much as possible to expressing the literal and figurative sense together. As to the hieroglyphic, it would often be too dangerous to give it; but I have made every effort to furnish the means of attaining it, by stating its principles and by  giving examples.
The word, which is here in question, is a  modiflcatlve noun formed from the substantive, the head, the chief, the acting principle, inflected by the mediative article, and modified by (ho deslgnatlve ending. It signifies literally, in the beginning, before all; but figuratively in principle, in power of being.
Thus one can deduce the hieroglyphic sense. What I am about to say will serve as example for what follows. The word, from which is formed the modificative,                    signifies indeed head; but only in a restricted and particular sense. In a broader and more generic sense, it signifies principle. Now, what is a principle? I shall state in what manner the earliest authors of the word, conceived it. They conceived a sort of absolute power, by means of which every relative being is constituted such; they expressed their idea by the potential sign, and the relative sign, united. In hieroglyphic writing it was a point at the centre of a circle. The central point unfolding the circumference, was the image of every principle. The literal writing rendered the point by, and tbo circle by or . The letter D represented the sentient circle, the letterthe intelligible circle which was depleted winged or sur­rounded with flames.

A principle thus conceived was, in an universal sense, applicable to all things, both physical and metaphysical; but in a more restricted sense it was applied to elementary fire; and according as the radical word rx was taken literally or figuratively, it signified /Ire, sentient or intelligible, that of matter, or that of spirit. Next, taking this same word, whose origin I am about to ex­plain, it was made to govern by the sign of proper and determining movement, and the compound wordwas obtained; that is to say, in hieroglyphic language, every principle enjoying a proper and determining movement, and of a force innately good or bad. This letter is rendered in sacred writing by the image of a serpent, upright or crossing the circle through the centre. In the common language one saw in the word. a chief, a guide, the head of such a being, of such a thing, whatever it might be; in the figurative language, is understood the primum mobile, an acting principle, a good or evil genius, a right or perverse will, a demon, etc; in the hieroglyphic language, it signalized the universal, principiant principle, the knowl­edge of which it was not permitted to divulge. These are the three significations of the word, which serves as basis for the modiflcative. It is obvious that it would be impossible for me to enter into similar details concerning all the words which are to follow. I could not do it without going beyond the limits of prudence. But I shall endeavour, in amalgamating the three significations, to give the intelligent reader all the facilities that he could desire. Here are the four original versions of this Important word. The Samaritan version readsthat is to say, t» substantiality, in corporeity, in the beginning. The Chaldaic targum reads,
which can be translated, in the culminating point of the universal assimilations; in the anteriority of times. The Hellenists translate , and the Latins, "in principio.” The former is more akin to the Samaritan, and the latter to the Chaldaic. Which is natural, for,as I have said, the Hellenists consulted frequently the Samaritan version, while Saint Jerome and the rabbis of Tiberias adhered to the targum.

 

,
he created  It would be not only long but useless to dwell upon the numerous disputes concerning this word; they are all re­duced to this, namely, whether the verb Xn3 signifies to make some­thing from nothing, or simply, to make something from something. The rabbis of the synagogue and the doctors of the church, have Indeed proved by these wordy struggles, that not any of them understood the tongue over which they disputed; for otherwise they would have seen that they were very far from the point of the question. I have already had occasion to bring out the true etymology of this famous verb, and I have proved that it signified, to draw from an unknown element; to make pass from the principle to the essence; to render same that which was other, etc., as can be seen in chapter VII of my Grammar. I have derived it from the sign of movement proper, united to that of Interior actionThe Arabs have translated It by, whose root signifies a thing rare and tenuous, a thing without form and with­out consistency, a void, a nothingness. The Greeks have rendered it by,    he made, and the Latins by "creavit,” he created. This last expression, clearly understood, Is not far from the Hebrew, for it comes from the same elementary root, raised from the sign of movement proper. It is the word “re,” indicating the thing, by means of which one acts, which is governed by the assimilative sign used very extensively by the Etruscans. This word, having become the verb c-re-are, takes in this new state, a sense which can only be rended exactly by coining theverb to thing. The Samaritans have expressed the Hebrew bywhich  signifies literally  to render dense and compact; as is proved by the Chaldaic. The tar gum has preserved the primitive word.

 

, Ælohim This is the plural of the word, the name given to the Supreme Being by the Hebrews and the Chaldeans, and being itself derived from the root, which depicts elevation, strength and expansive power; signifiying in an universal sense, God. It is a very singular observation that this last word applied to the Most High, is however, in its abstract sense only the relative pronoun he employed in an absolute manner. Nearly all of the Asiatic peoples have used this bold metaphor.(hoa), that is to say, he, is in
Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic, one of the sacred names of the Divinity; it is evident that the Persian word(Goda), God, which is found in all the tongues of the North, is derived also from the absolute pronoun, HiM-self. It is known that the Greek philosophers and Plato particularly, designated the Intelligent Cause of the Universe in no other way than by  the absolute pronounAM. However that may be, the Hebraic  name Ælohim has been ob­viously composed of  the pronounand the absolute verb, to be-being, of which I have spoken at  length in my Grammar.  It is from the inmost root of this verb that the Divine Name(Yah) is formed, the literal meaning of which is Absolute-Life. The verb itself, united to the pronoun, produces(Æloah), that-uK who-is, the plural of which Ælohim, signifies exactly He-they-icho- are: the Being of beings. The Samaritan says(Alah), whose root is found still n the Arabic(Allah), and in the Syriac(AEloha). The Chaldaic alone departs from this root and translates(Iaîî), the Eternity-of-eternities, which it also applies to the Ineffable Name of God,(Ihoah), of which I shall speak further on; also of the words, the heavens, and, the earth.