ation.)
If we now start from a spiritual product which is expressed in symbols
(mythologically apperceived), and whose author we must take to be not an
individual man but many generations or simply mankind, then this product
will, in the peculiarities of the selection of the symbol, conceivably
signify not individual propensities but rather those things that affect
identically the generality of mankind. In alchemy, which as a
mythologically apperceiving science is completely penetrated by symbols,
we regard as remarkable in the selection of symbols, the juxtaposition of
such images as reflect what we have, through psychoanalysis, become
acquainted with, as the "titanic" impulses (OEdipus complex). No wonder!
These very impulses are the ones that we know from psychoanalytic
investigations as those which stand above all individual idiosyncracies.
And if we had not known it, the very circumstances of alchemy would have
taught us.

The familiar scheme of impulses with its "titanic" substratum, which is
necessarily existent in all men (although it may have been in any
particular case extraordinarily sublimated) comes clearly to view in
individual creations of fancy. It must be found quite typically developed,
however, where a multitude of men (fable making mankind) were interested
in the founding, forming, polishing and elaborating of the symbolic
structure. Such creations have transcended the merely personal. An example
of this kind is the "mythological" science of alchemy. That we are
repelled by the retrograde perspective of the types residing in its
symbols (and which often appear quite nakedly) comes from the fact that in
the critic these primal impulse forms have experienced a strong
repression, and that their re-emergence meets a strong resistance
(morality, taste, etc.).

The much discussed elementary types have therefore insinuated themselves
into the body of the alchemistic hieroglyphics, as mankind, confronted
with the riddles of physico-chemical facts, struggled to express a mastery
of them by means of thought. The typical inventory of powers, as an
apperception mass, so to speak, helped to determine the selection of
symbols. A procedure of determination has taken place here similar to that
we might have noticed in the coincidence of material and functional
symbolism in dreams. Here again appears the heuristic value which the
introduction of the concept of the functional categories had for our
problem.

The p