Reflections on Tillyard’s The Elizabethan World Picture: Part Three

The Elements.

When dealing with the subject, Tillyard immediately differentiates the four “classical” elements – fire, air, water and earth – from the modern conception of the atomic theory of elements on the periodic table, which are ordered by atomic number and mass (EWP, p. 61). The ancient conception of the elements was something more akin to what we, nowadays, would call the “states of matter,” viz., plasma (corresponding to fire); gas (to air); liquid (to water); and solid (to earth).

The four classical elements were first proposed by the Presocratic philosopher, Empedocles (480 BCE), who called them the four “roots,” or rhizōmata. Aristotle then ordered the elements by introducing the doctrine of ‘natural place’ (Physics, 4th century BCE). The reasoning for this doctrine was intuitive, as a pebble (earth) sinks in a stream (water); bubbles (air) rise to the surface of a pond (water); and flames (fire) rise through, and are lighter than air. This was a pre-gravitational theory, hierarchically organizing the elements from density (earth) to rarity (fire).

The next evolution came with the introduction of the qualities of the elements (EWP, p. 61). These are: hot, cold, dry and moist. Being that the elements were “thought of through their effects” (EWP, p. 61), each element can be described as a combination of two qualities: heat and dryness make fire; heat and moisture make air; cold and moisture make water; and cold and dryness make earth (On Generation and Corruption, 4th century BCE). The more rarified the element, the more ‘nobility’ it was said to have (EWP, p. 62).

In the Ptolemaic model (based on the Aristotelian physics), the four elements existed exclusively in the sublunary sphere (EWP, p. 61), since the supralunary planetary spheres consisted entirely of incorruptible aether. Therefore, the elements were subject to mutability and the flux of transmutation (EWP, p. 63). The sublunary sphere was seen to be in a constant elemental war, alternately mixing and separating in continuous tumult (EWP, p. 62). The degree of earth, particularly, was seen as the grossest, material dregs of the cosmos.

Mankind, in the Elizabethan humanistic estimation, was seen as occupying the fulcrum between spirit and matter – an admixture of both – and, thereby “bridging the greatest cosmic chasm” (EWP, p. 66). Hence his sensitivity to deficiencies in elemental balance and the ideal of homeostasis. To this end, the concept of temperament was introduced. We can trace the origins of this theory to the Greek physician, Galen (2nd century CE). He recognized four temperaments, each corresponding to an Empedoclean element: choleric (fire); sanguine (air); phlegmatic (water); and melancholic (earth). These temperaments, in turn corresponded to bodily fluids known as the humours: yellow bile (fire); blood (air); phlegm (water); and black bile (earth). The humours were first applied in a medical context by the Greek physician, Hippocrates (4th century BCE), who also sought to balance them homeostatically, representative of perfect health (EWP, p. 70).

According to this cosmo-medical paradigm, temperament was believed to constitute the character and inform the ethics of an individual (EWP, p. 70). We see this doctrine manifest in the astrological context through elemental triplicity, particularly as it pertains to the nature of the Ascendant, the Moon or the Lot of Fortune.