tation from BERNARD,
without these two Substances, to wit a Male and Female: From whence it
appeareth, that although these two substances are not of one and the
same species, yet one Stone doth thence arise, and although they appear
and are said to be two Substances, yet in truth it is but one, to wit,
_Argent-vive_. But of this _Argent-vive_ a certain part is fixed and
digested, Masculine, hot, dry and secretly informing. But the other,
which is the Female, is volatile, crude, cold, and moyst."(2b) EDWARD
KELLY (1555-1595), who is valuable because he summarises authoritative
opinion, says somewhat the same thing, though in clearer words: "The
active elements... these are water and fire... may be called male,
while the passive elements... earth and air... represent the female
principle.... Only two elements, water and earth, are visible, and earth
is called the hiding-place of fire, water the abode of air. In these two
elements we have the broad law of limitation which divides the male from
the female. ... The first matter of minerals is a kind of viscous water,
mingled with pure and impure earth... Of this viscous water and fusible
earth, or sulphur, is composed that which is called quicksilver, the
first matter of the metals. Metals are nothing but Mercury digested
by different degrees of heat."(1c) There is one difference, however,
between these two writers, inasmuch as BERNARD says that "the Male and
Female abide together in closed Natures; the Female truly as it were
Earth and Water, the Male as Air and Fire." Mercury for him arises
from the two former elements, sulphur from the two latter.(2c) And the
difference is important as showing beyond question the _a priori_ nature
of alchemical reasoning. The idea at the back of the alchemists' minds
was undoubtedly that of the ardour of the male in the act of coition and
the alleged, or perhaps I should say apparent, passivity of the female.
Consequently, sulphur, the fiery principle of combustion, and such
elements as were reckoned to be active, were denominated "male," whilst
mercury, the principle acted on by sulphur, and such elements as were
reckoned to be passive, were denominated "female". As to the question
of origin, I do not think that the palm can be denied to the mystical
as distinguished from the phallic theory. And in its final form
the doctrine of principles is incapable of a sexual interpretation.
Mystically understood, man is capable of analysis into two