Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Female Alchemists?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,821
    Quote Originally Posted by True Initiate View Post
    Did she transmuted metals? Yes
    No, and even if she did, that doesn't make her an "alchemist". She did not know how to make the Stone.

    Did Canseliet called her closet alchemist? Yes

    https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/a...-last-cooking/
    But then again Canseliet had some rocambolesque notions about alchemy.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But then again Canseliet had some rocambolesque notions about alchemy.
    And so do you. The goal of alchemy is the art of transmutaion of metals and the stone was only one way on how to accomplish it among many others.
    Formerly known as True Puffer

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    554
    Definitions are quite useful. Unfortunately there are no sufficient official ones imo.
    Maybe we can agree on one for this forum.

    My suggestion:

    Lover of the art: One who is still at the "reading stage" and has not started the great work.

    Alchemist: One who started the great work. It needs to be discussed if therefore having obtained the secret solvent is necessary.

    Adept: One who succeeded in making the stone (must be discussed if panacea is necessary and what projection abilities the stone needs to have)
    Last edited by Florius Frammel; 03-12-2018 at 07:23 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,821
    Quote Originally Posted by True Initiate View Post
    And so do you. The goal of alchemy is the art of transmutaion of metals and the stone was only one way on how to accomplish it among many others.
    No, I don't, I base my statements on what most alchemists themselves said and believed. Most alchemists vehemently denied transmutation except by means of the Stone, while some others accepted the "particular tinctures" as well, but all of them require the secret solvent for their preparation as well. Most alchemists scoffed and mocked anyone who tried to obtain transmutation by any other means and labelled them as "sophists", "puffers", "multipliers", "vulgar chymists", etc. And they were totally WRONG. There's quite a number of other processes which do not require the secret solvent or the Stone to achieve transmutation. So to summarize it: what distinguishes "alchemy" from "chymistry" is in fact the secret solvent. Alchemy revolves around it. Chymistry does not know how to prepare this solvent, but it discovered other methods to achieve transmutations, which were unknown or stubbornly denied by most alchemists.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    Alchemist: One who started the great work. It needs to be discussed if therefore having obtained the secret solvent is necessary.
    Do you mean necessary for the Great Work? Or necessary for being "worthy" of the title of "Alchemist"?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Do you mean necessary for the Great Work? Or necessary for being "worthy" of the title of "Alchemist"?
    Both. But as I said, I leave it open to discussion.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    341
    This is going a bit off topic so we may need a new thread ?

    _______________

    Logistical Note: Continued HERE ('Aspects of Alchemy' thread).


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Andro; 03-14-2018 at 08:27 AM. Reason: Split thread & added logistical note.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts