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 principles--since "body" may be neglected as unimportant (a false view, I think, by the way) or "soul" and "spirit" may be united under one head--OR into three; whereas the postulation of THREE principles on a sexual basis is impossible. JOANNES ISAACUS HOLLANDUS (fifteenth century)is the earliest author in whose works I have observed explicit mention of THREE principles, though he refers to them in a manner seeming to indicate that the doctrine was no new one in his day.
I have only read one little tract of his; there is nothing sexual in it, and the author's mental character may be judged from his remarks concerning "the three flying spirits"--taste, smell, and colour.
These, he writes, "are the life, soule, and quintessence of every thing, neither can these three spirits be one without the other, as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one, yet three Persons, and one is not without the other."[1d]
[2a] Mr WAITE's translation, p. 79.
[1b] BERNARD, Earl of TREVISAN: _A Treatise of the Philosopher's Stone_, 1683. (See _Collectanea Chymica: A Collection of Ten Several Treatises in Chymistry_, 1684, p. 92.)[2b] _Ibid_., p. 91.
[1c] EDWARD KELLY: _The Stone of the Philosophers_.
(See _The Alchemical Writings of_ EDWARD KELLY, edited by A. E. WAITE, 1893, pp. 9 and 11 to 13.)[2c] _The Answer of_ BERNARDUS TREVISANUS, _to the Epistle of Thomas of Bononira, Physician to K. Charles the 8th_.
(See JOHN FREDERICK HOUPREGHT: _Aurifontina Chymica_, 1680, p. 208.)[1d] _One Hundred and Fourteen Experiments and Cures of the Famous Physitian_ THEOPHRASTUS PARACELSUS. _Whereunto is added . . . certain Secrets of_ ISAAC HOLLANDUS, _concerning the Vegetall and Animall Work_ (1652), pp.
29 and 30.
When the alchemists described an element or principle as male or female, they meant what they said, as I have already intimated, to the extent, at least, of firmly believing that seed was produced by the two metallic sexes. By their union metals were thought to be produced in the womb of the earth; and mines were shut in order that by the birth and growth of new metal the impoverished veins might be replenished.
In this way, too, was the _magnum opus_, the generation of the Philosopher's Stone--in species gold, but purer than the purest--to be accomplished. To conjoin that which Nature supplied, to foster the growth and development of that which was thereby produced;such was the task of the alchemist. "For there are Vegetables,"says BERNARD of TREVISAN in his _Answer to Thomas of Bononia_, "but Sensitives more especially, which for the most part beget their like, by the Seeds of the Male and Female for the most part concurring and conmixt by copulation; which work of Nature the Philosophick Art imitates in the generation of gold."[1]
[1] _Op. cit_., p. 216.
Mercury, as I have said, was commonly regarded as the seed of the metals, or as especially the female seed, there being two seeds, one the male, according to BERNARD, more ripe, perfect and active, the other the female.
"more immature and in a sort passive[2] ". . . our Philosophick Art,"he says in another place, following a description of the generation of man, " . . . is like this procreation of Man; for as in _Mercury_ (of which Gold is by Nature generated in Mineral Vessels) a natural conjunction [2] _Ibid_., p. 217; _cf_. p. 236 is made of both the Seeds, Male and Female, so by our artifice, an artificial and like conjunction is made of Agents and Patients."[1] "All teaching," says KELLY, "that changes Mercury is false and vain, for this is the original sperm of metals, and its moisture must not be dried up, for otherwise it will not dissolve,"[2] and quotes ARNOLD (_ob. c_. 1310) to a similar effect.[3] One wonders how far the fact that human and animal seed is fluid influenced the alchemists in their choice of mercury, the only metal liquid at ordinary temperatures, as the seed of the metals.
There are, indeed, other good reasons for this choice, but that this idea played some part in it, and, at least, was present at the back of the alchemists' minds, I have little doubt.
The most philosophic account of metallic seed is that, perhaps, of the mysterious adept "EIRENAEUS PHILALETHES," who distinguishes between it and mercury in a rather interesting manner.
He writes: "Seed is the means of generic propagation given to all perfect things here below; it is the perfection of each body;and anybody that has no seed must be regarded as imperfect.
Hence there can be no doubt that there is such a thing as metallic seed.... All metallic seed is the seed of gold;for gold is the intention of Nature in regard to all metals.
If the base metals are not gold, it is only through some accidental hindrance; they are-all potentially gold.
