der　Intelligence；　one　intelligence　in　this　man；　another　in　that？　No；　such　a　fragment　would　not　be　Intelligence。　But　the　Being　of　the　individual？　Once　more；　if　the　total　thing　is　Being；　then　a　fragment　could　not　be。　Are　we　told　that　in　a　body；　a　total　of　parts；　every　member　is　also　a　body？　But　here　we　are　dividing　not　body　but　a　particular　quantity　of　body；　each　of　those　divisions　being　described　as　body　in　virtue　of　possessing　the　Form　or　Idea　that　constitutes　body；　and　this　Idea　has　no　magnitude；　is　incapable　of　magnitude。　　　　　4。　But　how　explain　beings　by　the　side　of　Being；　and　the　variety　of　intelligences　and　of　souls；　when　Being　has　the　unity　of　omnipresent　identity　and　not　merely　that　of　a　species；　and　when　intellect　and　soul　are　likewise　numerically　one？　We　certainly　distinguish　between　the　soul　of　the　All　and　the　particular　souls。　　　　　This　seems　to　conflict　with　our　view　which；　moreover；　for　all　its　logical　necessity；　scarcely　carries　conviction　against　our　mental　reluctance　to　the　notion　of　unity　identically　omnipresent。　It　would　appear　more　plausible　to　suppose　a　partition　of　the　All…the　original　remaining　undiminished…　or；　in　a　more　legitimate　phrase；　an　engendering　from　the　All。　　　　　Thus　the　Authentic　would　be　left　self…gathered；　while　what　we　think　of　as　the　parts…　the　separate　souls…　would　come　into　being　to　produce　the　multiple　total　of　the　universe。　　　　　But　if　the　Authentic　Being　is　to　be　kept　unattached　in　order　to　remove　the　difficulty　of　integral　omnipresence；　the　same　considerations　must　apply　equally　to　the　souls；　we　would　have　to　admit　that　they　cannot　be　integrally　omnipresent　in　the　bodies　they　are　described　as　occupying；　either；　soul　must　be　distributed；　part　to　body's　part；　or　it　is　lodged　entire　at　some　one　point　in　the　body　giving　forth　some　of　its　powers　to　the　other　points；　and　these　very　powers；　again；　present　the　same　difficulty。　　　　　A　further　objection　is　that　some　one　spot　in　the　body　will　hold　the　soul；　the　others　no　more　than　a　power　from　it。　　　　　Still；　how　account　for　the　many　souls；　many　intelligences；　the　beings　by　the　side　of　the　Being？　　　　　No　doubt　the　beings　proceed　from　the　Priors　in　the　mode　only　of　numerical　distinction　and　not　as　concrete　masses；　but　the　difficulty　remains　as　to　how　they　come　to　constitute　the　plenitude　of　the　material　universe。　　　　　This　explanation　by　progression　does　not　clear　the　problem。　　　　　We　are　agreed　that　diversity　within　the　Authentic　depends　not　upon　spatial　separation　but　sheerly　upon　differentiation；　all　Being；　despite　this　plurality；　is　a　unity　still；　〃Being　neighbours　Being〃；　all　holds　together；　and　thus　the　Intellectual…Principle　＇which　is　Being　and　the　Beings＇　remains　an　integral；　multiple　by　differentiation；　not　by　spatial　distinction。　　　　　Soul　too？　Souls　too。　That　principle　distributed　over　material　masses　we　hold　to　be　in　its　own　nature　incapable　of　distribution；　the　magnitude　belongs　to　the　masses；　when　this　soul…principle　enters　into　them…　or　rather　they　into　it…　it　is　thought　of　as　distributable　only　because；　within　the　discrimination　of　the　corporeal；　the　animating　force　is　to　be　recognised　at　any　and　every　point。　For　soul　is　not　articulated；　section　of　soul　to　section　of　body；　there　is　integral　omnipresence　manifesting　the　unity　of　that　principle；　its　veritable　partlessness。　　　　　Now　as　in　soul　unity　does　not　debar　variety；　so　with　Being　and　the　Beings；　in　that　order　multiplicity　does　not　conflict　with　unity。　Multiplicity。　This　is　not　due　to　the　need　of　flooding　the　universe　with　life；　nor　is　the　extension　of　the　corporeal　the　cause　of　the　multiplicity　of　souls；　before　body　existed；　soul　was　one　and　many；　the　many　souls　fore…existed　in　the　All　not　potentially　but　each　effectively；　that　one　collective　soul　is　no　bar　to　the　variety；　the　variety　does　not　abrogate　the　unity；　the　souls　are　apart　without　partition；　present　each　to　all　as　never　having　been　set　in　opposition；　they　are　no　more　hedged　off　by　boundaries　than　are　the　multiple　items　of　knowledge　in　one　mind；　the　one　soul　so　exists　as　to　include　all　souls；　the　nature　of　such　a　principle　must　be　utterly　free　of　boundary。　　　　　5。　Herein　lies　its　greatness；　not　in　mass；　mass　is　limited　and　may　be　whittled　down　to　nothingness；　in　that　order　no　such　paring　off　is　possible…　nor；　if　it　were；　could　there　be　any　falling　short。　Where　limitation　is　unthinkable；　what　fear　can　there　be　of　absence　at　any　point？　Nowhere　can　that　principle　fail　which　is　the　unfailing；　the　everlasting；　the　undwindling；　suppose　it　in　flux　and　it　must　at　some　time　flow　to　its　end；　since　it　is　not　in　flux…　and；　besides　＇as　the　All＇；　it　has　nowhere　to　flow　to…　it　lies　spread　over　the　universe；　in　fact　it　is　the　universe；　too　great　to　be　held　by　body；　giving；　therefore；　to　the　material　universe　but　little　of　itself；　the　little　which　that　participant　can　take。　　　　　We　may　not　make　this　principle　the　lesser；　or　if　in　the　sense　of　mass　we　do；　we　must　not　begin　to　mistrust　the　power　of　that　less　to　stretch　to　the　greater。　Of　course；　we　have　in　fact　no　right　to　affirm　it　less　or　to　measure　the　thing　of　magnitude　against　that　which　has　none；　as　well　talk　of　a　doctor's　skill　being　smaller　than　his　body。　This　greatness　is　not　to　be　thought　of　in　terms　of　quantity；　the　greater　and　less　of　body　have　nothing　to　do　with　soul。　　　　　The　nature　of　the　greatness　of　soul　is　indicated　by　the　fact　that　as　the　body　grows；　the　larger　mass　is　held　by　the　same　soul　that　sufficed　to　the　smaller；　it　would　be　in　many　ways　absurd　to　suppose　a　corresponding　enlargement　in　the　soul。　　　　　6。　But　why　does　not　one　same　soul　enter　more　than　one　body？　　　　　Because　any　second　body　must　approach；　if　it　might；　but　the　first　has　approached　and　received　and　keeps。　　　　　Are　we　to　think　that　this　second　body；　in　keeping　its　soul　with　a　like　care；　is　keeping　the　same　soul　as　the　first？　　　　　Why　not：　what　difference　is　there？　Merely　some　additions　＇from　the　experiences　of　life；　none　in　the　soul　itself＇。　　　　　We　ask　further　why　one　soul　in　foot　and　hand　and　not　one　soul　in　the　distinct　members　of　the　universe。　　　　　Sensations　no　doubt　differ　from　soul　to　soul　but　only　as　do　the　conditions　and　experiences；　this　is　difference　not　in　the　judging　principle　but　in　the　matters　coming　to　judgement；　the　judge　is　one　and　the　same　soul　pronouncing　upon　various　events；　and　these　not　its　own　but　belonging　to　a　particular　body；　it　is　only　as　a　man　pronounces　simultaneously　upon　a　pleasant　sensation　in　his　finger　and　a　pain　in　his　head。　　　　　But　why　is　not　the　soul　in　one　man　aware；　then；　of　the　judgement　passed　by　another？　　　　　Because　it　is　a　judgement　made；　not　a　state　set　up；　besides；　the　soul　that　has　passed　the　judgement　does　not　pronounce　but　simply　judges：　similarly　a　man's　sight　does　not　report　to　his　hearing；　though　both　have　passed　judgement；　it　is　the　reason　above　both　that　reports；　and　this　is　a　principle　distinct　from　either。　Often；　as　it　happens；　reason　does　become　aware　of　a　verdict　formed　in　another　reason　and　takes　to　itself　an　alien　experience：　but　this　has　been　dealt　with　elsewhere。　　　　　7。　Let　us　consider　once　more　how　it　is　possible　for　an　identity　to　extend　over　a　universe。　This　comes　to　the　question　how　each　variously　placed　entity　in　the　multiplicity　of　the　sense　order　can　have　its　share　in　one　identical　Principle。　　　　　The　solution　is　in　the　reasons　given　for　refusing　to　distribute　that　principle；　we　are　not　to　parcel　it　out　among　the　entities　of　the　multiple；　on　the　contrary；　we　bring　the　distributed　multiples　to　the　unity。　The　unity　has　not　gone　forth　to　them：　from　their　dispersion　we　are　led　to　think　of　it　as　broken　up　to　meet　them；　but　this　is　to　distribute　the　controller　and　container　equally　over　the　material　handled。　　　　　A　hand　may　very　well　control　an　entire　mass；　a　long　plank；　or　anything　of　that　sort；　the　control　is　effective　throughout　and　yet　is　not　distributed；　unit　for　unit；　over　the　object　of　control：　the　power　is　felt　to　reach　over　the　whole　area；　though　the　hand　is　only　hand…long；　not　taking　the　extension　of　the　mass　it　wields；　lengthen　the　object　and；　provided　that　the　total　is　within　the　strength；　the　power　handles　the　new　load　with　no　need　of　distributing　itself　over　the　increased　area。　Now　let　us　eliminate　the　corporeal　mass　of　the　hand；　retaining　the　power　it　exerted：　is　not　that　power；　the　impartible；　present　integrally　over　the　entire　area　of　control？　　　　　Or　imagine　a　small　luminous　mass　serving　as　centre　to　a　transparent　sphere；　so　that　the　light　from　within　shows　upon　the　entire　outer　surface；　otherwise　unlit：　we　surely　agree　that　the　inner　core　of　light；　intact　and　immobile；　reaches　over　the　entire　outer　extension；　the　single　light　of　that　small　centre　illuminates　the　whole　field。　The　diffused　light　is　not　due　to　any　bodily　magnitude　of　that　central　point　which　illuminates　not　as　body　but　as　body　lit；　that　is　by　another　kind　of　power　than　corporeal　quality：　let　us　then　abstract　the　corporeal　mass；　retaining　the　light　as　power：　we　can　no　longer　speak　of　the　light　in　any　particular　spot；　it　is　equally　diffused　within　and　throughout　the　entire　sphere。　We　can　no　longer　even　name　the　spot　it　occupied　so　as　to　say　whence　it　came　or　how　it　is　present；　we　can　but　seek　and　wonder　as　the　search　shows　us　the　light　simultaneously　present　at　each　and　every　point　in　the　s