o　make　them　of　one　common　species；　and　puts　an　end　to　all　mention　of　part；　the　reasonable　conclusion　would　be；　on　the　contrary；　that　there　is　one　identical　soul；　every　separate　manifestation　being　that　soul　complete。　　　　　Our　opponents　after　first　admitting　the　unity　go　on　to　make　our　soul　dependent　on　something　else；　something　in　which　we　have　no　longer　the　soul　of　this　or　that；　even　of　the　universe；　but　a　soul　of　nowhere；　a　soul　belonging　neither　to　the　kosmos；　nor　to　anything　else；　and　yet　vested　with　all　the　function　inherent　to　the　kosmic　soul　and　to　that　of　every　ensouled　thing。　　　　　The　soul　considered　as　an　entirety　cannot　be　a　soul　of　any　one　given　thing…　since　it　is　an　Essence　＇a　divine　Real…Being＇…　or；　at　least；　there　must　be　a　soul　which　is　not　exclusively　the　soul　of　any　particular　thing；　and　those　attached　to　particulars　must　so　belong　merely　in　some　mode　of　accident。　　　　　In　such　questions　as　this　it　is　important　to　clarify　the　significance　of　〃part。〃　　　　　Part；　as　understood　of　body…　uniform　or　varied…　need　not　detain　us；　it　is　enough　to　indicate　that；　when　part　is　mentioned　in　respect　of　things　whose　members　are　alike；　it　refers　to　mass　and　not　to　ideal…form　＇specific　idea＇：　take　for　example；　whiteness：　the　whiteness　in　a　portion　of　milk　is　not　a　part　of　the　whiteness　of　milk　in　general：　we　have　the　whiteness　of　a　portion　not　a　portion　of　whiteness；　for　whiteness　is　utterly　without　magnitude；　has　nothing　whatever　to　do　with　quantity。　　　　　That　is　all　we　need　say　with　regard　to　part　in　material　things；　but　part　in　the　unembodied　may　be　taken　in　various　ways。　We　may　think　of　it　in　the　sense　familiar　in　numbers；　〃two〃　a　part　of　the　standard　〃ten〃…　in　abstract　numbers　of　course…　or　as　we　think　of　a　segment　of　a　circle；　or　line　＇abstractly　considered＇；　or；　again；　of　a　section　or　branch　of　knowledge。　　　　　In　the　case　of　the　units　of　reckoning　and　of　geometrical　figure；　exactly　as　in　that　of　corporeal　masses；　partition　must　diminish　the　total；　the　part　must　be　less　than　the　whole；　for　these　are　things　of　quantity；　and　have　their　being　as　things　of　quantity；　and…　since　they　are　not　the　ideal…form　Quantity…　they　are　subject　to　increase　and　decrease。　　　　　Now　in　such　a　sense　as　this；　part　cannot　be　affirmed　of　the　soul。　　　　　The　soul　is　not　a　thing　of　quantity；　we　are　not　to　conceive　of　the　All…Soul　as　some　standard　ten　with　particular　souls　as　its　constituent　units。　　　　　Such　a　conception　would　entail　many　absurdities：　　　　　The　Ten　could　not　be　＇essentially＇　a　unity　＇the　Soul　would　be　an　aggregation；　not　a　self…standing　Real…Being＇　and；　further…　unless　every　one　of　the　single　constituents　were　itself　an　All…Soul…　the　All…Soul　would　be　formed　of　non…souls。　　　　　Again；　it　is　admitted　that　the　particular　soul…　this　〃part　of　the　All…Soul…　is　of　one　ideal…form　with　it；　but　this　does　not　entail　the　relation　of　part　to　whole；　since　in　objects　formed　of　continuous　parts　there　is　nothing　inevitably　making　any　portion　uniform　with　the　total：　take；　for　example；　the　parts　of　a　circle　or　square；　we　may　divide　it　in　different　ways　so　as　to　get　our　part；　a　triangle　need　not　be　divided　into　triangles；　all　sorts　of　different　figures　are　possible：　yet　an　absolute　uniformity　is　admitted　to　reign　throughout　soul。　　　　　In　a　line；　no　doubt；　the　part　is　inevitably　a　line；　but　even　here　there　is　a　necessary　difference　in　size；　and　if；　in　the　case　of　the　soul　we　similarly　called　upon　magnitude　as　the　distinction　between　constituents　and　collective　soul；　then　soul；　thus　classed　by　magnitude　becomes　quantitative；　and　is　simply　body。　　　　　But　it　is　admitted　that　all　souls　are　alike　and　are　entireties；　clearly；　soul　is　not　subject　to　part　in　the　sense　in　which　magnitudes　are：　our　opponents　themselves　would　not　consent　to　the　notion　of　the　All…Soul　being　whittled　down　into　fragments；　yet　this　is　what　they　would　be　doing；　annulling　the　All…Soul…　if　any　collective　soul　existed　at　all…　making　it　a　mere　piece　of　terminology；　thinking　of　it　like　wine　separated　into　many　portions；　each　portion；　in　its　jar；　being　described　as　a　portion　of　the　total　thing；　wine。　　　　　Next　there　is　the　conception　of　the　individual　soul　as　a　part　in　the　sense　in　which　we　speak　of　some　single　proposition　as　a　part　of　the　science　entire。　　　　　The　theorem　is　separate；　but　the　science　stands　as　one　undivided　thing；　the　expression　and　summed　efficiency　＇energy＇　of　each　constituent　notion：　this　is　partition　without　severance；　each　item　potentially　includes　the　whole　science；　which　itself　remains　an　unbroken　total。　　　　　Is　this　the　appropriate　parallel？　　　　　No；　in　such　a　relationship　the　All…Soul；　of　which　the　particular　souls　are　to　be　a　part；　would　not　be　the　soul　of　any　definite　thing；　but　an　entity　standing　aloof；　that　means　that　it　would　not　even　be　the　soul　of　the　Kosmos；　it　would；　in　fact；　be；　itself；　one　of　those　partial　souls；　thus　all　alike　would　be　partial　and　of　one　nature；　and；　at　that；　there　would　be　no　reason　for　making　any　such　distinction。　　　　　3。　Is　it　a　question　of　part　in　the　sense　that；　taking　one　living　being；　the　soul　in　a　finger　might　be　called　a　part　of　the　soul　entire？　　　　　This　would　carry　the　alternative　that　either　there　is　no　soul　outside　of　body；　or　that…　no　soul　being　within　body…　the　thing　described　as　the　soul　of　the　universe　is；　none　the　less；　outside　the　body　of　the　universe。　That　is　a　point　to　be　investigated；　but　for　the　present　we　must　consider　what　kind　of　soul　this　parallel　would　give　us。　　　　　If　the　particular　soul　is　a　part　of　the　All…Soul　only　in　the　sense　that　this　bestows　itself　upon　all　living　things　of　the　partial　sphere；　such　a　self…bestowal　does　not　imply　division；　on　the　contrary；　it　is　the　identical　soul　that　is　present　everywhere；　the　one　complete　thing；　multi…present　at　the　one　moment：　there　is　no　longer　question　of　a　soul　that　is　a　part　against　a　soul　that　is　an　all…　especially　where　an　identical　power　is　present。　Even　difference　of　function；　as　in　eyes　and　ears；　cannot　warrant　the　assertion　of　distinct　parts　concerned　in　each　separate　act…　with　other　parts　again　making　allotment　of　faculty…　all　is　met　by　the　notion　of　one　identical　thing；　but　a　thing　in　which　a　distinct　power　operates　in　each　separate　function。　All　the　powers　are　present　either　in　seeing　or　in　hearing；　the　difference　in　impression　received　is　due　to　the　difference　in　the　organs　concerned；　all　the　varying　impressions　are　our　various　responses　to　Ideal…forms　that　can　be　taken　in　a　variety　of　modes。　　　　　A　further　proof　＇of　the　unity　of　Soul＇　is　that　perception　demands　a　common　gathering　place；　every　organ　has　its　distinct　function；　and　is　competent　only　upon　its　own　material；　and　must　interpret　each　several　experience　in　its　own　fashion；　the　judgement　upon　these　impressions　must；　then；　be　vested　in　some　one　principle；　a　judge　informed　upon　all　that　is　said　and　done。　　　　　But　again：　〃Everywhere；　Unity〃：　in　the　variety　of　functions　if　each　〃part　of　the　soul〃　were　as　distinct　as　are　the　entrant　sensations；　none　of　those　parts　could　have　knowledge；　awareness　would　belong　only　to　that　judging　faculty…　or；　if　local；　every　such　act　of　awareness　would　stand　quite　unrelated　to　any　other。　But　since　the　soul　is　a　rational　soul；　by　the　very　same　title　by　which　it　is　an　All…Soul；　and　is　called　the　rational　soul；　in　the　sense　of　being　a　whole　＇and　so　not　merely　〃reasoning　locally〃＇；　then　what　is　thought　of　as　a　part　must　in　reality　be　no　part　but　the　identity　of　an　unparted　thing。　　　　　4。　But　if　this　is　the　true　account　of　the　unity　of　soul；　we　must　be　able　to　meet　the　problems　that　ensue：　firstly；　the　difficulty　of　one　thing　being　present　at　the　same　moment　in　all　things；　and；　secondly；　the　difficulty　of　soul　in　body　as　against　soul　not　embodied。　　　　　We　might　be　led　to　think　that　all　soul　must　always　inhabit　body；　this　would　seem　especially　plausible　in　the　case　of　the　soul　of　the　universe；　not　thought　of　as　ever　leaving　its　body　as　the　human　soul　does：　there　exists；　no　doubt；　an　opinion　that　even　the　human　soul；　while　it　must　leave　the　body；　cannot　become　an　utterly　disembodied　thing；　but　assuming　its　complete　disembodiment；　how　comes　it　that　the　human　soul　can　go　free　of　the　body　but　the　All…Soul　not；　though　they　are　one　and　the　same？　　　　　There　is　no　such　difficulty　in　the　case　of　the　Intellectual…Principle；　by　the　primal　differentiation；　this　separates；　no　doubt；　into　partial　things　of　widely　varying　nature；　but　eternal　unity　is　secured　by　virtue　of　the　eternal　identity　of　that　Essence：　it　is　not　so　easy　to　explain　how；　in　the　case　of　the　soul　described　as　separate　among　bodies；　such　differentiated　souls　can　remain　one　thing。　　　　　A　possible　solution　may　be　offered：　　　　　The　unit　soul　holds　aloof；　not　actually　falling　into　body；　the　differentiated　souls…　the　All…Soul；　with　the　others…　issue　from　the　unity　while　still　constituting；　within　certain　limits；　an　association。　They　are　one　soul　by　the　fact　that　they　do　not　belong　unreservedly　to　any　particular　being；　they　meet；　so　to　speak；　fringe　to　fringe；　they　strike　out　here　and　there；　but　are　held　together　at　the　source　much　as　light　is　a　divided　thing　upon　earth；　shining　in　this　house；　and　that；　and　yet　remains　uninterruptedly　one　identical　substance。　　　　　The　All…Soul　would　always　remain　above；　since　essentially　it　has　nothing　to　do　with　descent　or　with　the　l