Patrons of the Sacred Art

Can't log in? Contact Us

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Female Alchemists?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    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
    1,080
    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
    815
    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
    2,002
    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
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    5,586
    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
    815
    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
    380
    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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    815
    There were at least 33 female alchemists (including my dear Dorothea Juliana Wallich).
    Recently bought book:


  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    54
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    There were at least 33 female alchemists (including my dear Dorothea Juliana Wallich).
    Someone asked me about Wallich awhile ago, and I had nothing to say. And some research turned up very little information.

    There's a bunch of pseudonyms attached to her, aren't there?

    Edit:

    Actually, i was asked about Jacob Waitz, and it came back to Wallich:

    Waitz, Jacob Friedrich 1641-1723
    Waitz, Jakob 1641-1723
    Waitzen, Jacob 1641-1723
    Waitzius, Jacobus 1641-1723
    Waizius, Jacobus 1641-1723
    Weitz, Jacob 1641-1723
    Weitz, Jacobus 1641-1723
    Weitz, Jakob 1641-1723
    Weitzius, Jacobus 1641-1723
    Weiz, Jacob 1641-1723
    Weiz, Jakob 1641-1723
    Weizius, Jacobus 1641-1723

    (WALCHIN, or WALLICH, DOROTHEA JULIANA)

    Der Philosophische Perl-Baum, das Gewachse der drey Principien, zu deutlicher Erklarung des Steins der Weisen, wie er mit seinen Wurtzeln in der aussern und finstern Welt, mit seiner Bllithe aber in der Paradiesischen-und Licht-Welt, und mit seiner reissen Frucht in der Englischen und Himmlischen Welt stehet und wachset. Beschrieben durch D.r.w. von Weimar aus Thuringen.

    Schlüssel zu dem Cabinet der geheimen Schatz-Cammer der Natur
    Das mineralische Gluten, doppelter Schlangen-Stab, Mercurius Philosophorum
    Der Philosophische Perl-Baum: das Gewächse der drey Prinzipien

    Also had this saved from a translated German wikipedia entry: "Karl Christoph Schmieder assumed the possibility that she had only edited her father's manuscripts; but he also considered an authorship of her possible."

    (one of the sources listed in the wikipedia entry is the book you mentioned)
    Last edited by Greg Marcus; 1 Week Ago at 04:15 PM.
    "All this I tested by wisdom and I said, “I am determined to be wise” — but this was beyond me. Whatever exists is far off and most profound— who can discover it? So I turned my mind to understand, to investigate and to search out wisdom and the scheme of things and to understand the stupidity of wickedness and the madness of folly." - Ecclesiastes 7:23-25

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    815
    Latest research has shown that it was not her father, but actually the Walchin, or Wallachin/Wallichin (the ending -in indicates a female form, like she was the wife of a man called Wallach) herself who wrote those books.

    It's quite a strange story.
    She was admired by non other than Georg Stahl. That guy was the biggest chemist of his time, known for his role in developing the infamous phlogiston theory. He had visited Wallich regularly, praised her knowledge and skill and even was the godfather of one of her sons.

    He said she could extract the phil. mercury out of every metal, but not out of Cobalt. For some reason that metal seems to be not suitable for the work.

    The first book phil. Schlangenstab is very interesting imo:

    http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...rothea+wallich

    Following that link, there is also a short english summary made by Bacstrom I think.

    Her second book "phil. Perlbaum" was written in only two days, according to Stahl. It's pretty weird with a lot of repeating bible quotations. It's a big work and it seems like she must have written that book under the influence of cocaine or amphetamine (of course both wasn't known at that time in germany).

    The third book contains some very interesting recipies. And has an interesting french translation (I don't think there exists one, but it would be called: Le Clef du cabinet de la trésor secret de la nature) sounds suspiciously similar to the title of another book that is currently in the works:

    http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...t-H%E9rmetique

    There is another interesting figure from Stahl's surrounding called Johann Pott. Fulcanelli mentiones both Stahl and Pott quite some times in Dwellings.

    Another example for my suspicion, that those chymists knew more than they confessed in public. One could almost believe in a double conspiracy with some chymists being some kind of double agents.
    Last edited by Florius Frammel; 1 Week Ago at 07:02 PM.

+ 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