Talk:Alchemy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Items removed from Talk:Alchemy Jorge Stolfi 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Alchemy in music"

The alchemy in music section reads a little bit too much like a simple advertisement for that album. I'm going to make the wording a little bit more neutral, or add the information to the relevant article on the band itself.

"Universal panacea" a tautology?

Isn't "universal panacea" a tautology? I would have edited it right away but 1) there is a separate (stub) article about it 2) there is no other article about 'panacea' in the meaning of a universal cure and 3) "universal panacea" is mentioned as a goal of alchemy of which I know very little. 02:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is, and I'm going to fix it. 'Pan' means 'all' and 'akeai' means 'to heal', so a 'universal panacea' is a 'universal universal cure'. Protozoid 22:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


From the perspective of modernity, which holds modern science as the pinnacle of knowledge and awareness, alchemy was the discipline that gave birth by way of schizogenesis (by way its very scissipation) to the modern science of chemistry. In the wake of the modern, alchemy and alchemical thought were supposed to have all but disappeared, with critical hermeneutics and chemical physics as its divided and divisive offspring. But as this article will show, not only has the alchemical precursor to these disciplines perdured and endured beyond the bounds of its supposed bane, but in fact its scissiparous progeny -- especially the science of modern physics and chemistry -- have of late (and into the forseeable future) been moving steadily back, while endlessly progressing forward, to the fundaments of alchemical theory itself ... for instance in contemporary physics with the acknowledged relevance of the manipulator in any and all experimental inquiry, the proven persistence of the uncertain on the horizon of 'specificity' and scientific 'certainty' (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle -- the indubitably alchemical ambiguity of scientific entelechy -- q.v.), the now-limitless subdivisibility of the so-called indivisible (the 'atomic' as in fact endlessly 'sub-atomic' -- sublimely so, indeed), et cetera ... A similar list could be drawn up on the side of the hermeneutic arts (artistic theory and criticism), with Derrida in the role of Heisenberg for instance. In any case -- Eclecticology 02:58 Sep 8, 2002 (UTC)

Reverted anonymous contribution

I've reverted from this contribution by anonymous. One does not explain alchemy to an encyclopedia reading public by trying to outdo the alchemists in the use of obscure pedantic language. When he later corrected the spelling of the word "lead" (i.e. the metal) to "led" the seriousness of the contribution was in even greater doubt.

  • > Alas, too many presumptions -- the presumption
  • > that the anonymous constribution was contributed
  • > by a native speaker of English ("the spelling of
  • > the word" put "the seriousness of the contribution"
  • > into "doubt"); the presumption that the writer was
  • > a man and not a woman ("he later", et cetera);
  • > the presumption, triumphantly inscribed at the end
  • > of the article, that "With the birth of modern chemistry,
  • > alchemy was made impotent" and that "As scientists
  • > began to discover and rationalize the clockwork of the
  • > universe, alchemical theories were thrown to the waste
  • > bucket, unneeded and forgotten"; and the presumption of
  • > reversion -- the utter elimination of the contribution
  • > altogether, on the basis of these other presumptions.
  • > And if all of these presumptions were wrong? ... If,
  • > for instance, the woman who had contributed to the project
  • > was in fact a francophone expressing herself to anglo-
  • > phones? If she was moreover a student of alchemical philo-
  • > sophy (the history of alchemy from antiquity to modernity)? ...
  • > No: better to consign these contributions to oblivion and
  • > reinstate the former "eclectic[o]logical"/"reading public"
  • > presumptions. The critical absence of an a in lead (the
  • > English word for the element Pb, Plumbum, from the Latin)
  • > reveals a hesitation that merits not only the Eclectic's
  • > doubt, but more -- much more: "even greater doubt." Indeed,
  • > the greatest doubt of all! This is the veritable sign of signs,
  • > true testimony to a pedagological poverty, n'est-ce pas?
  • > The absent a. Such a thing is definitely the revelation
  • > of an total lack of "seriousness" ("the seriousness of the
  • > contribution was" thereby cast "in even greater doubt").
  • > Best of luck on your logy, Eclecticology. À jamais encore.



exeunt les anonymes.


This article is truly excellent. We should recruit more students to donate their research papers here.

My only criticism: it should be noted that the philosopher's stone was real, and has been found, that being bombardment of lead with atomic particles to turn it into gold. Their methods were primitive, but their goal, if not practical, was at least attainable given some level of technological 'magic'.

A philosopher's stone is a superheavy element which, when placed by or around a base metal, gradually transforms it into a nobler transition element by fission fragment spallation. Maybe one can make a natural lightning fusor to make a light radioisotope (intense source would be lithium, funny and apropos that lithos means stone) as the philosopher's stone which can then accomplish the same. :) lysdexia 23:03, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


This text is really well written and informative , but I suspect that in it's current state, is more of an essay, rather than an NPOV article. It claims that:

"From today's perspective, these perceptions have some validity, but if we are to be objective we should judge them in the context of the times they lived in".

This is the basic assumpsion that the article is built on, of course it claims to be objective, and in some degree it is, however, this type of writing style, asserts an opinion, or some analysis, but it is debatable whether it is a fact. I think a slight rewording may be benefitical (for example: "we should" is POV), this analysis of alchemy may be dominant today, but may change in a 100 years like it changed a 100 years ago. I will try to reword these paragraphs a bit.. -- Rotem Dan 14:44 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Nice to see that the Philosopher'Stone is correlated with a superheavy element, to be more precise : the fluoride of the last chemical element.

Slant towards mystic/spiritual side of alchemy

More generally, the article is nice but my feeling is that it is too slanted towards the mystic/spiritual side of alchemy. While that aspect may have been important to the alchemists (or to some of them), we must not forget that the art was valuable to society only because of its "pedestrian" technological value, e.g. in metallurgy; and flourished only because of that. Also, saying that the matter transformations were only a cover or excuse for mystical concepts is taking things too far. Rather, my sense is that the mystical imagery of the alchemists was often only a technical jargon for describing the material processes (just as we today use antophomorphic language for computers, e.g. "the program knows this" or "the computer doesn't like that"). Other times it was an attempt to make sense of the material observations by means of "real but abstract" ideas (like the "caloric" of later chemists and the "bond energy" of today). The view espoused by the article would then apply only to the most extreme instances of this viewpoint Jorge Stolfi


The sentence (previously paragraph) about al-Razi seems unconnected to the rest of the paragraph, whose focus is on how the hermetic, NON-modern view of the European middle ages (in particular the quest for the philosophers stone) evolved through Islamic alchemists, specifically ibn-Jabir.Jorge Stolfi

Text junkyard

TEXT JUNKYARD (To be confirmed and/or cleaned up and/or moved to the appropriate sections/pages)

Invariably the "alchemist" was summoned to the local lord's court for a presentation. When none was forthcoming, nasty things happened to the impostor. {This is folklore, not history}-->
The influence of Paracelsus can still be noticed in modern medical traditions: it is through him, for instance, that the caduceus — originally an alchemical icon — became the symbol of Western medicine. {the caduceus and rod of esculapius pages claim that the two symbols have nothing to do with each other. Which is right?}
Paracelsus coined the words "alcohol" and "zinc". {aren't they arabic?}
The Paracelsian reform can be viewd as the last major "ism" to be grafted onto alchemy before its death. {too POV}
but few realize the importance of this man {Boyle} to modern chemistry. In the early 1600s, alchemy was synonymous with medicine and chemistry. By Boyle's time, alchemists had disposed of most of the occultist beliefs that once plagued the Art, but still they clung to the hermetical beliefs that had been carried down through the millennia. Boyle did away with this. ! {POV and rabidly contested by other comments on this page}
In England Doctor John Dee... In 1570 he wrote the preface to the first English translation of Euclid's works. Dee was not only an alchemist but also an astrologer, mathematician, astronomer, geographer and consultant to Queen Elizabeth I. He is credited with the first usage of the phrase "British Empire" and was a forerunner of the philosophy of "British Idealism". {Details not connected with Alchemy}

Jorge Stolfi 00:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dubious passages about Dee and Kelley

Deleted/changed two other dubious passages:

In the life and writings of John Dee it is possible to see a parallel development to that of Paracelsus, insofar as Dee was also redefining the alchemical and magical traditions by the application of more modern methodology. {I am far from being an expert on Dee, but I have read Fell's biography and many comments about him and his work. I haven't seen anything suggesting that he was any good on alchemy (much less a "parallel to paracelsus"), and his "angelic" contacts through Kelley seem to be as close to "magic" as he would dare to get. Apart from his general scholarly knowledge and perhaps some contributions to astronomy and mathematics, he seems to have been basically an earnest student of occultism who (like many of his time) wasted most of his life trying to make sense of other occultists' nonsense. Is this an unfair picture?}
Dee's associate Edward Kelley was also an accompished alchemist and author, although some academics consider him a charlatan (even though there is no extant evidence for this). {Kelley claimed to converse with angels (who ordered him and Dee to swap wives) and to be able to turn mercury into gold. If that is not "evidence" that he was a charlatan, then what could be? If we accept that he may indeed have done such things, then we must also accept that he may have been a giant cocroach from Mars wearing an antrophomorphic exoskeleton, whose mission on Earth was to steal our precious lead and swap it with worthless gold...}

Jorge Stolfi 04:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

universal panacea

I created the universal panacea page using information on the chemistry page. I'd never heard of the it before. It is a stub; can anyone expand it?

Brianjd 06:44, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)


I suggest removing all parenthetical citations within the article and creating a References section. I think that is a stylistic standard for Wikipedia, no? 20:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Reference conversion

I converted the references to use Wikipedia:Footnote formats. I also fixed two apparent errors. There was a citation for a book by Titus Burckhardt, but the text contained a single wiki link to a different Burkhardt which I linked to the Titus book. There also is a book by Edwardes which had a couple of references, and I changed the many references to "Edwards" to "Edwardes". (SEWilco 01:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

I object to your changes, because the new references section seems hard to follow. The point of giving references is to make things easier, not more difficult, for the reader. What do you see as the benefit of your system? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The present format of the References section only requires ignoring the "abc" just as one already ignores the preceding bullets. It has been preferred to put uplinks at the start of citations, leaving the body of the citation available for whatever formats are required. A number of benefits are described at WP:FOOTNOTE. Primarily, it is easier to find what source a reference refers to, as demonstrated by the many previous references to a nonexistent "Edwards" source. Unless, of course, there actually was a major source named "Edwards" whose citation had gotten lost. (SEWilco 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC))

Unsupported Claims in Introduction

The introduction contains discussion of a supposedly immortal person who lived for several hundred years. The information is presented as fact, but I can only hope that the general consensus of the community would be to qualify if not remove such statements.

I agree with another commentator who stated that parts of the article lean heavily towards depiction of a spirituality that really should be a smaller part of the overall subject. Lore and legend of small groups of individuals should not be presented as fact, and if deemed to be irrelevant to the subject at large, should not be included at all.

I recommend creating a separate page for alchemy as a new age spirituality with historical roots and maintain this page as a description of the history of the medieval pseudoscience.

What's with the overview

it sounds like two relatives tip toeing around the sensitive circumstances of a divorce. where's the informative meaty parts? 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Archived some sections

This talk page was getting too long. I Moved some sections to Talk:Alchemy/Archive1. Jorge Stolfi 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   * 1 "Alchemy in music"
   * 2 "Universal panacea" a tautology?
   * 3 Eclecticology
   * 4 Reverted anonymous contribution
   * 5 Transmutation
   * 6 Essay?
   * 7 Slant towards mystic/spiritual side of alchemy
   * 8 al-Razi
   * 9 Text junkyard
   * 10 Dubious passages about Dee and Kelley
   * 11 universal panacea
   * 12 Citations
   * 13 Request for your aid dealing with actions ...
   * 14 Reference conversion
   * 15 Unsupported Claims in Introduction

Unsympathetic debunking

This article is an unsympathetic, debunking of alchemy from a strictly material, Newtonian perspective of science. Come on, as C.G. Jung observed, any fool can see that the alchemists were on the wrong track as regards scientific enquiry. All of their terminology is to do with exploring the unconscious psyche and the individuation process. What the alchemists groped around for was a language to describe the psyche, and all of their chemical terminology was just a smoke-screen to the uninitiated. We would not even be disputing this point were it not for Jung's study of alchemy, take for example the quotation below

'I have often beheld as a miracle, that artificial resurrection and revivification of Mercury, how being mortified into a thousand shapes, it assumes again its own and returns into its numerical self'. A perfection quotation upon how the alchemist perceived the mystery of experimenting with chemicals. (Religio Medici Part 1:48)

An example of the alchemist experiencing the NUMINOUS in the laboratory rather than any attempting any scientific observation. Try reading the labrinthine texts of Norton, George Ripley or Browne and you will realise that these people were little interested in the laboratory for purely scientific purposes. Alchemy remains inter-related to the development not only of science, but also religion, art and philosophy, this article is deciodedly lop-sided in its discussion a a complex subject. Alchemy is much more a proto-psychology and an underground protestant symbolic language whose study was MAN as Jung stresses again and again and again. Read him . The laboratory of the alchemists was the unconscious and was concerned with self-knowledge and understanding of the self, chemistry was just an off-shoot. The true alchemists recognised THEY were the subject of experimentation much more than nature's properties. Read my essay at Sorry but for myself and doubtless for other scholars of alchemythis article really smacks of poorly digested comprehension and as for the statement

'By Boyle's time, alchemists had disposed of most of the occultist beliefs that once plagued?? the Art, but still they clung to the hermetical beliefs?? that had been carried down through the millennia. Boyle did away with this.

This article as the above statement amply demonstrates demands either a rewriting or a more authorative scholar to expound upon what is amulti-facted topic embracing NOT ONLY embryonic scientific development but also psychology and religion . The Norwikian

While I do agree that we in the modern age are tooquick to dismiss once-truths, I find it amusing that you imply Newton would have dismissed achemy, considering he was a closet alchemist himself.
Haha yes, you're right, despite Newton being heralded as the founder of modern science by many, he was in fact fascinated with alchemy. However as of 02 June 05 the article does reflect that. All in all this article does appear excellent - I'm currently studying alchemy as part of a History of Science course at Cambridge, and have found little to disagree with.

Take a look at Frances Yates' books on the subject and you will find just how influential Alchemy has actually been on the influence of science. Click on the Ernest Rutherford article on the Wikipedia and you will find our old friend Hermes Trismegistus, supposed author of the Emerald Tablet which began alchemy, on his coat of arms. In fact you can't divide the fact that Newton was an Alchemist from his science. THey are integral. Its we who have misunderstood is brand of mechanistic science. ThePeg 22:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Original source, references, copyright

This was a university research paper I wrote at USC and contributed to Wikipedia early on. The original is at . --BryceHarrington

Alchemists are more properly proto-scientists than pseudo-scientists; the latter term can't really be applied to a time before the development of the scientific method. I've removed a reference to something that Carl Jung supposedly missed. From my understanding of Jung this does not seem likely. I've removed the "golden goal" reference; that specific term does not appear to have been used by alchemists, and now its very common use in football becomes a significant distraction.
The references to various authors are in the format (Name, page) leaves something to be desired. Are these direct quotes? Are there copyright issues involved? (Nobody has raised this issue in the last six months so it's probably okay for now.) The Paracelsus quote should fall within fair use, but the page is from what edition? Burckhardt appears to be Titus Burckhardt (b. 1908) Eclecticology 13:23 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

No, exactly quoted material is in quotation marks or indented. All fall under fair use, and in fact most are from translations of documents hundreds of years old. The paranthetical references indicate from whence the concepts, ideas, or assertions are taken, thus allowing the reader to verify their correctness or to gain further information along those lines. I left the attribution list off the original submission since at the time Wikipedia wasn't tracking that, and the list added length to an already long document. In any case, if folks think the info's worth having, the references are below. --BryceHarrington

Augustine, The Confessions of St. Augustine, trans by Rex Warner (1963)

Burckhardt, Titus, Alchemy, (1974)

Debus, Allen G. and Multhauf, Robert P., Alchemy and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century (1966)

Edwardes, Michael, The Dark Side of History (1977)

Gettings, Fred, Encyclopedia of the Occult (1986)

Hitchcock, Ethan Allen, Remarks Upon Alchemy and the Alchemists, (1857)

Hollister, C. Warren, Medieval Europe: A Short History Sixth Edition (1990)

Lindsay, Jack, The Origins of Alchemy in Graeco-Roman Egypt (1970)

Marius, On the Elements trans. by Richard Dales (1976)

Norton, Thomas, Ordinal of Alchemy ed. by John Reidy (1975)

Pilkington, Roger, Robert Boyle: Father of Chemistry (1959)

Weaver, Jefferson Hane, The World of Physics (1987) includes:

  • Aristotle, "Natural Science and its Principles"
  • Bacon, Roger, "On Experimental Science"
  • Paracelsus, Book of Vexations

Wilson, Colin, The Occult: A History (1971)

Zumdahl, Steven S., Chemistry 2nd ed. (1989)

Thanks, You alleviated my concerns on the copyright issue. Actually a modern translation of an ancient work could have its own separate copyrights, but that would be covered by fair use anyway. Following this subject (i.e. alchemy) is like walking along a mountain ridge where you can easily go over the edge on either side. I've clarified the source of the Paracelsus quote in the text. Eclecticology 11:12 Aug 28, 2002 (PDT)
IANAL; Just remember that by having our text under the GNU FDL we have to follow a less liberal definition of fair use even though we otherwise technically fall under the umbrella of "educational, not-for-profit purpose". The GNU FDL lets anybody copy our material and then sell it. Thus we have to follow a more conservative policy in regards to fair use which prevents the copying of entire works or substantial parts of works. With that said the stuff here seems to be OK in this regard. --mav
Yup. I was particularly careful when I wrote the original article about these issues (it was my term paper and I'd put too much time into the research to risk getting it knocked down for that! *grin*) --BryceHarrington
Oh, and by the way, I notice the original acknowledgement of authorship (as required by the [[Wikipedia::Copyrights|GFDL]]) appears to have gotten removed, and the history log no longer shows that I was the originator of the article. Perhaps if I put the attribution notice back on, it'd also help clarify copyright concerns as well?

Islamic alchemists

Also, there were many more Islamic alchemists (hermetic or not) besides al-Razi and ibn-Jabir. Perhaps there should be a list of them somewhere? Jorge Stolfi

Alchemical tradition in India?

Did India have a separate alchemical tradition? I Know that it had an extensive and well-known medical tradition, e.g. Aryuvedic medicine; but did it have a discipline that considered the study of matter transformations in general (i.e. a "proto-chemistry") and/or the philosophical connections betwen matter transmutation and spiritual development (akin to Western hermeticism)?Jorge Stolfi

Yes. You should particularly look at the Tamil form of "medicine" known as "Siddha", instead of Aryuveda. It is a quack alchemical pseudo-science based on minerals which is aimed at healing. This article has a western systemic bias, and should include quackery from all over the world. Carl Kenner 07:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mesompotamian alchemy

Also, I recall seeing mention of mesopotamian tablets with alchemical contents. Is there enough such material to make a "Mesompotamian alchemy" worth speaking of? If so, was Mesopotamian alchemy derived from or ancestral to Egyptian alchemy? Jorge Stolfi 02:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed Newton paragraph

I removed the following paragraph from the Astrology section:

As Isaac Newton was (indisputably) a well known alchemist of his time period, and astrology and alchemy were (and in some cases still are) so closely linked, it is very plausible that Newton had a very good working knowledge of astrology, or at the very least a basic understanding of astrological methodology as it was related to alchemy. Logically then, one would certainly have to know a good bit about astrology in order to use alchemy effectively, and Newton along with other prominent alchemists definitely knew this. For more informations see Isaac Newton's occult studies. Did Newton Really practice the occult? This seems to go against what he openly believed. It's pretty much of a non-sequitor. I added the link to Newton's Occult Studies article to the part of the Overview section where Newton is discussed. PRIIS 22:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good call, although that Occult Studies article needs some work. Whilst Newton spent a lot of time working on alchemy he mostly kept his work private - I don't think it is correct to say he was a well known alchemist in his day. It is only recently that his papers have been studied. Although he is known to have read books on astrology, he almost certainly did no work on astrology. Newton was very organised in his research and maintained notebooks for everything he worked on. His library contains no papers suggesting that he worked on astrology. -- Solipsist 00:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggest 36 possible wiki links for Alchemy.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alchemy article:

  • Can link base metals: ... the most perfect of substances. By attempting to transmute base metals into gold, they were, in effect, trying to give the univers... (link to section)
  • Can link materialism: ...within a new grand design of the universe based on rational materialism. ... (link to section)
  • Can link Western religions: ...ical system, with only superficial connections to the major Western religions. It is still an open question whether these two strands sh... (link to section)
  • Can link solar system: ...dge]]. Traditionally, each of the seven [[planet]]s in the solar system as known to the ancients was associated with, held dominion... (link to section)
  • Can link Arab world: ...ina, the use of gunpowder spread to Japan, the Mongols, the Arab world and Europe. Gunpowder was used by the Mongols against the H... (link to section)
  • Can link ancient Egyptian: ...dge, and retained its preeminence even after the decline of ancient Egyptian culture, through most of the Greek and Roman periods. Unfor... (link to section)
  • Can link neo-Platonic: ...that sin is merely a consequence of ignorance. Platonic and neo-Platonic theories about universals and the omnipotence of God were a... (link to section)
  • Can link the fall of the Roman Empire: ...ristian philosopher who wrote of his beliefs shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire. In essence, he felt that [[reason]] and [[faith]] could be... (link to section)
  • Can link experimental techniques: ...eas were decidedly anti-experimental, yet when Aristotelian experimental techniques were made available to the West they were not shunned. Sti... (link to section)
  • Can link the Middle East: ... Roman Empire, the focus of alchemical development moved to the Middle East. Much more is known about [[Islamic]] alchemy because it wa... (link to section)
  • Can link Islamic world: ... preserved as Islamic translations. (Burckhardt p. 46) The Islamic world was a melting pot for alchemy. [[Plato|Platonic]] and [[Ari... (link to section)
  • Can link Christian philosophy: ... Greek and Roman cultures, alchemy was easily accepted into Christian philosophy, and Medieval European alchemists extensively absorbed Isla... (link to section)
  • Can link Islamic science: ...Pope Silvester II]], (d. 1003) was among the first to bring Islamic science to Europe from [[Spain]]. Later men such as [[Adelard of B... (link to section)
  • Can link rationalism: ...[1109]]) was an Augustinian who believed faith must precede rationalism, as Augustine and most theologians prior to Anselm had beli... (link to section)
  • Can link Medieval Europe: ...y]]. (Hollister p. 290-4, 355) The first true alchemist in Medieval Europe was [[Roger Bacon]]. His work did as much for alchemy as [... (link to section)
  • Can link Christian theology: the world of God. Immortality on Earth did not mesh with Christian theology. (Edwards p. 37-8)... (link to section)
  • Can link fourteenth century: could be reunited with God. (Burckhardt p. 149) In the fourteenth century, these views underwent a major change. [[William of Ockham]... (link to section)
  • Can link sixteenth century: ...tute. One of these men who emerged at the beginning of the sixteenth century was named [[Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]]. This alchemist be... (link to section)
  • Can link magic theory: ...luding experimental science, numerology, etc., but he added magic theory, which reinforced the idea of alchemy as an occultist belie... (link to section)
  • Can link sleight of hand: ...ishing of [[con artist]]s who would use chemical tricks and sleight of hand to "demonstrate" the transmutation of common metals into go... (link to section)
  • Can link medical doctor: ...1636]]), a [[Poland|Polish]] alchemist, [[philosopher]] and medical doctor, pioneer of chemistry. He assumed that air contains [[oxyge... (link to section)
  • Can link blood circulation: ...gradually uncovered the workings of the human body, such as blood circulation ([[William Harvey|Harvey]], [[1616]]), and eventually trace... (link to section)
  • Can link organic chemistry: ...Funk|Funk]], et al.). Supported by parallel developments in organic chemistry, the new science easily displaced alchemy from its medical ... (link to section)
  • Can link material world: ... to an arcane philosophical system, poorly connected to the material world, it suffered the common fate of other [[esoteric]] discipli... (link to section)
  • Can link intellectualism: ...ld be interpreted as part of a broader reaction in European intellectualism against the [[Romantic]] movement of the preceding century.... (link to section)
  • Can link Rex Warner: ...eferences== * Augustine (1963). ''The Confessions.'' Trans. Rex Warner. New York: Mentor Books.... (link to section)
  • Can link Ethan Allen: ...''Encyclopedia of the Occult.'' London: Rider. * Hitchcock, Ethan Allen (1857). ''Remarks Upon Alchemy and the Alchemists.'' Bosto... (link to section)
  • Can link McGraw-Hill: ...edieval Europe: A Short History.'' 6th ed. Blacklick, Ohio: McGraw-Hill College.... (link to section)
  • Can link University of California: ...1976). ''On the Elements.'' Trans. Richard Dales. Berkeley: University of California Press.... (link to section)
  • Can link English Renaissance: ... Heath and Co. ==See also== *[[The Alchemist (play)]], an English Renaissance play by [[Ben Johnson]]... (link to section)

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link toLinkBot 11:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A human editor has (conservatively) removed 6 of the bot's suggestions as inappropriate, listing them also at Please don't link to.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 16:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)