Alchemy or Chemistry (Both?)

[Ulysses WkAmil]

My friend cannot stand the fact that people (mainly in role-playing games) have always called chemistry alchemy. I was wondering, what is the proper term for mixing potions/compounds, and if so, why does the other one differ?
Thanks

[tyckspoon]

"mixing potions/compounds"

"Compounding", I think. In modern parlance, Chemistry is the science behind making those compounds, but if you're going to get picky about exact terms it doesn't refer to the actual act of creating them. Alchemy is the belief system associated with a certain style of (primarily) chemistry research, characterized by a belief in mystical properties of certain materials and often having goals that aren't actually achievable (so things like the infamous search for a method of 'purifying' lead into the spiritually superior gold or most of the 'medicines' animals get hunted for.) Alchemy and chemistry do come from the same roots, however, and if you're dealing with a setting where they don't have a refined science of chemistry like we do it's reasonably appropriate to use them interchangeably. If you're dealing with a setting where alchemy works, and the potions/compounds/'purified' metals you make actually have magical or psuedo-magical effects, then alchemy is actually the more appropriate word.

[Eldan]

Both come from the same word, really. Latin Alchimista, from Arabian Al-Kimiya. So, there's not that much of a difference in the word itself.

That said: chemistry is a science. It's about weights, formulas, atoms, charges.

Alchemy is a philosophy. There are many parts to it not directly concerned with matter: the transmutation of lead into gold is merely one step in learning to transmute everything into everything else, and the end goal would be to transmute the human soul to free it of original sin (at least in medieval and renaissance alchemy influenced by Christian beliefs).

So, the actual mixing? Chemistry would probably be appropriate for that in the modern world. However, the word chemistry was really only invented and used at the time people wanted to differentiate the science from the philosophy, so it is a relatively modern term.

[Yora]

Also the real breakthroughs in early chemistry are attributed to metalworkers and herbalists, who actually produced actual results, while actual discoveries by alchemists were only accidental (if there even were any, not sure about that).

[Eldan]

They did, at the very least, invent a lot of tools chemists use, and they made the first things similar to periodic tables by arranging elements and compounds into groups.

A lot of other stuff is debatable (who was and was not an alchemist is not always easy to tell), but they did use a lot of chemicals and processes. Distillations and precipitations, rare ores, acids and gases...

[Dr.Epic]

Well, in alchemy you need a transmutation circle, unless you've seen the other side of the Gate.:smallwink:

How am I the first person to make this reference in this thread?

[Iruka]

Also the real breakthroughs in early chemistry are attributed to metalworkers and herbalists, who actually produced actual results, while actual discoveries by alchemists were only accidental (if there even were any, not sure about that).

The european porcelain was apparently discovered by a german alchemist who tried to make gold.

[DeadManSleeping]

Potions would really be more the purview of a doctor than an alchemist, but in the good ol' days, lots of people did both, I suppose. Still, I guess the difference that will satisfy your friend goes along the following lines.

In the practice of alchemy, mixing eye of newt and toe of frog imbues a liquid with magical properties
In the practice of chemistry, mixing eye of newt and toe of frog imbues a liquid with a horrid flavor

[Reluctance]

You know the people who insist that psionics are too sci-fi for their D&D? Whoever wrote the 3.0 skills either felt that way or wanted to preemptively shut people up by calling the skill Alchemy instead of Chemistry.

Most other games I've seen with a distinct alchemy system have it tied to the magic system, thus delineating the difference between real chemistry and magic chemistry. A chemist can make you think you're invisible, but one whose concoction can actually make you invisible probably deserves a different title.

[thubby]

alchemy is chemistry+magic.

ex: greek fire needed to be ignited, unlike alchemists fire

[Kittenwolf]

ex: greek fire needed to be ignited, unlike alchemists fire

Depends on which version of it you're talking about :)
Some of it ignited on contact with air (or allegedly water), some (like the 'flamethrower' type) was ignited manually.

[Dr.Epic]

alchemy is chemistry+magic.

http://images.wikia.com/thejusticeworld/images/e/ea/Pimpin.jpg

"Alchemy is a science, and you can't create something from nothing. There has to be a balance."

[thubby]

http://images.wikia.com/thejusticeworld/images/e/ea/Pimpin.jpg

"Alchemy is a science, and you can't create something from nothing. There has to be a balance."

lol, and it only requires human souls to make it work :smalltongue:


Depends on which version of it you're talking about :)
Some of it ignited on contact with air (or allegedly water), some (like the 'flamethrower' type) was ignited manually.

as the air and water ignited ones have never been reproduced (and would be woefully impractical to keep ona combat vessel) I'm inclined to believe thats hype/history going to myth/what have you.

[Hawkfrost000]

Well, in alchemy you need a transmutation circle, unless you've seen the other side of the Gate.:smallwink:

How am I the first person to make this reference in this thread?

This was my first thought.

But yes, in historical terms Alchemy was a pseudo science practiced by noblemen and charlatans alike. It had some "magical" elements but was really just the pursuit of the ability to change one substance into another. The usual example being lead to gold.

In D&D terms Alchemy is doing cool things with gunpowder, napalm and glue, while throwing in a bit of magic. Also examining little pieces of fairy cake.

[Dr.Epic]

lol, and it only requires human souls to make it work :smalltongue:

Just like soylent green!:smallwink::smalltongue:

[Feytalist]

A person who makes potions, unguents and such can also be called an apothecary.

I'm sure apothecaries in ye olden tymes used as much alchemical processes as actual medicine to make their wares. But in my mind potion maker = apothecary.

[Yanagi]

So I'm currently reading Alchemy by EJ Holmyard. Not all the way through, but far enough to say: the answer is complicated by the manner in which the word stretches across times and places.

Basically, there's three issues to reconstructing what alchemy was:

1. The most prolific texts available to current historians are secondary sources that cite primary sources that aren't available, and there's a lot of debate about the attribution of those secondary texts...for example, the immense corpus of al-Jabir (Geber) is probably a few articles by the man himself, some by his contemporaries, and myriad written by crackpots and theoreticians of later days.

2. Alchemical writings/teachings tended to be secretive in nature, for a mix of reasons: because they were valuable proprietary secrets, because they were revealed mystical knowledge, and/or were natural scientific concepts that only the intellectual/spiritually cultivated could grasp. There's actually a struggle to this day about whether any given alchemical text should be read as describing actual chemical processes versus using coded language to describe mental and spiritual exercises...this actually cuts both ways...extracting a secret chemical process from an abstract homily versus decrypting a spiritual lessons coded into a dry description of material processes.

3. Ideas move in and out of alchemy such that different aspects are emphasized in different time periods and by different scholars. Most blatantly, this is reflected in the distinct (but in communication) "alchemies" of Europe, the Middle East, China, and India. There is also a question of interpretation change over time: the interpretation of ideas can and did change.

Basically the corpus of alchemy includes, at different times and in different degrees of emphasis:

1. Practical material science, such as metallurgy and glass-making. At least one postulate is that the earliest alchemical learning was "proprietary" trade information on creating fake gems and simulating precious metals with base ones.
2. Theoretical material science that precursors chemistry, but also extrapolates upon concepts of Elements and Qualities.
3. Theoretical and practical biological science, including both theories of pathogenesis and treatments.
4. Philosophical propositions regarding the ordered and integrated nature of existence.
5. Spiritual instruction on the place of the individual soul within the larger body of Nature and the universe. Alchemy had a lot of interconnectivity of ideas with astrology, in keeping with the concept of As Above, So Below.
6. Propositions on how to achieve longevity or immortality: interesting, these come both in the form of pharmacopeia--pills, potions, elixirs--and holistic exercise programs for the body/mind/soul.

Edit: I'd be remiss to not point out that "alchemist" (and the equivalent role in China and India) carries a secondary meaning as conman or charlatan. Immortality and transmuting you base metals were the Email from a Nigerian prince scam of latter days, and recognized as such that the alchemist-as-conman is a stock character in the fiction of Medieval Europe, China, and India. So in addition to trying to sift through the lofty and gnostic concepts of ancient scholars, there also the question of whether the author was sincere or not....


My friend cannot stand the fact that people (mainly in role-playing games) have always called chemistry alchemy. I was wondering, what is the proper term for mixing potions/compounds, and if so, why does the other one differ? Thanks

The unsatisfying answer is that anybody could brew stuff and present it as magical, curative, or beneficial. The closest words you could get to a distinct term for "potion brewers" in Europe would be the Greek words pharmakeus--a general (and perjorative) term for a druggist, pill-seller, or poisoner--or the specific rhizotomoi title applied to the important pre-Hippocratic herbalists. Then there's the apothecary tradition of the Middle Ages, which starts in the Middle East and spreads into Europe. Other than that, there'd have been herbalists and wise women/men operating in rural settings.

But alchemists were really the first group to record their results in any form, thereby established a vocabulary of processes and materials as well as a many of the tools used. And alchemists were often also botanists/herbalists (actually, a lot of these folks were like pseudoscience polymaths), or closely corresponded with individuals skilled in those areas. Many of the alchemists funded their abstract research with more prosaic applications of the same knowledge: distilling alcohol, making pigments, creating extracts and oils for perfumery. Others were physicians, practiced traditional medicine--theories of humors heavily interplay with the Classical Elements (of Greece, India, and China)--and ethnobotany.

[Eldan]

Yes, that's a good point, actually.

The naming terminology was never properly defined. After all, there was no university you could study alchemy at, as far as I'm aware, and certainly no title such as Doctor of Alchemy.

Your alchemist could be a Doctor (of medicine), a priest, a herbalist, a metallurgist, an astronomer, an astrologist, a jeweller, a poisoner, an apothecary, a glass maker, a perfumer or a smith. Probably, given the nature of scholars in the middle ages and the renaissance, a bit of everything on that list, really. And he might go by any of those names, depending on how fashionable they (and alchemy) were at the moment and in the place he was at.

To get millions of dollars of funding, you just have to endure being compared to Frankenstein or being called the man who disproved Einstein.

[Yanagi]

Your alchemist could be a Doctor (of medicine), a priest, a herbalist, a metallurgist, an astronomer, an astrologist, a jeweller, a poisoner, an apothecary, a glass maker, a perfumer or a smith. Probably, given the nature of scholars in the middle ages and the renaissance, a bit of everything on that list, really.

Absolutely. Furthermore, alchemy's philosophical interlinked premises--As Above, So Below & All is One, One is All [not made up by the FMA mangaka!]--encouraged cross-disciplinary study to find the correspondence between the microcosm and macrocosm.


And he might go by any of those names, depending on how fashionable they (and alchemy) were at the moment and in the place he was at.

To get millions of dollars of funding, you just have to endure being compared to Frankenstein or being called the man who disproved Einstein.

Setting aside actual learning...the social position of alchemy is consistently liminal: maybe you're privy to knowledge (effectively world-breaking supernatural knowledge) only the elect can process...that makes you dangerous, powerful, and a wild card. But maybe you're a charlatan. Or you're deluded. Or you're masking more unsavory and prosaic activities like counterfeiting, poison making, or quack medicine. On the other hand, maybe your knowledge is "real," but you're engaging in less-savory occult practices like goetry or necromancy.

So performing the role of alchemist in society probably involved a lot of conscious cultivation of image...and in different times and places you'll have different strategies of presentation.

[Ravens_cry]

Alchemy was basically experimentation in the form of "lets see what happens when we add this to this." with some overarching mystical mumbo jumbo.
The whole idea of turning lead into gold was basically a way to get funding.
Still, it invented many of the basic tools of chemistry and did provide some useful knowledge.
I believe phosphorescence was discovered by an alchemist, though a true understanding of the phenomena came much later.
However, it wasn't until the mid twentieth century before gold was finally synthesized from other elements using nuclear synthesis.

[Weezer]

Chemistry and Alchemy are essentially the same thing. As alchemy got more and more advanced it's practitioners slowly gained an actual understanding of what they were doing and started experimenting based on that, over time the name shifted to chemistry, the Enlightenment happened and boom, now we have modern science. In fact there are a number of chemists today trying to replicate the experiments that the early alchemists claimed to have done. It's a fascinating field of study that really brings to light how much the alchemists really could do, as well as highlighting somethings that are fundamental to modern chem that they were entirely unaware of.

[GolemsVoice]

This was my first thought.

But yes, in historical terms Alchemy was a pseudo science practiced by noblemen and charlatans alike. It had some "magical" elements but was really just the pursuit of the ability to change one substance into another. The usual example being lead to gold.

I think the word alchemy is often used because in roleplaying games, ingredients often actually DO have magical effects, many of which were more or less directly taken from traditional superstitions or real-world alchemical beliefs.

[Lord Raziere]

The difference between Alchemy and Chemistry is one of ignorance and knowledge. both are things that advanced and innovated civilization, its just that the Alchemists were completely ignorant of what they were doing, they weren't stupid- they were the ones first disproving many superstitions and myths and such that before such a time were largely unchallenged.
They eventually gained knowledge and became chemists, who do know things, and thus make real stuff happen. thats all there is to it.

but Alchemists are also fun people to play in fantasy settings for magical potion stuff, I once even made an character who was both an Alchemist and a chemist in an urban fantasy setting and fully believed in combining SCIENCE! and MAGIC! together. He wounded up accidentally creating life, then working ceaselessly to recreate the circumstances that created it, then created a bunch of elemental-people once he figured it out and used them to save the world, and the first person he accidentally created was his eternal assistant afterward called Aquatia.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Chemistry and Alchemy are essentially the same thing. As alchemy got more and more advanced it's practitioners slowly gained an actual understanding of what they were doing and started experimenting based on that, over time the name shifted to chemistry, the Enlightenment happened and boom, now we have modern science.

Indeed. It's worth remembering that what we now call astrology and astronomy started out as essentially the same thing as well. As the two seperated the astronomers were casting horoscopes to pay for astonomy equipment. Eventually, the two seperated to become the distinct fields we know today.

To simply say that throughout history astrology/alchemy is all ignorance and bunk, and astronomy/chemistry is all wisdom and knowledge is to grossly slight the development of the sciences over several thousand years.

The historical distinctions are never as clear-cut as we might like. People think of Newton as (one of) the earliest scientists. He wasn't. He was a natural philosopher, and as a result studied things like alchemy and theology. (As a result He probably had a more whollistic (sic) world view than today's more specialised scientists, but that's another argument entirely).

To the original question, I would agree with herbalist or apothecary for making potions.


But Alchemists are also fun people to play in fantasy settings for magical potion stuff(...)

This seems like the right approach to take in RPGs...

[Weezer]

The historical distinctions are never as clear-cut as we might like. People think of Newton as (one of) the earliest scientists. He wasn't. He was a natural philosopher, and as a result studied things like alchemy and theology. (As a result He probably had a more whollistic (sic) world view than today's more specialised scientists, but that's another argument entirely).

In fact, when naming the colors of the spectrum, some people think that Newton just shoved indigo in there so that the spectrum would have 7 colors. It isn't really a distinct color, unlike the other 6, and seven was seen as a magical number.

[Ravens_cry]

A lot of early astronomers paid the bills by doing horoscopes because looking up at the sky all night didn't exactly make any money.
But astronomy and astrology are not the "same thing". Like alchemy, certain things were learned from its, if you are going to divination based on the heavens, accurate sky maps would be needed.
But to call them the "same thing" is pretty darn insulting to astronomers, both professional and amateur.

[Weezer]

A lot of early astronomers paid the bills by doing horoscopes because looking up at the sky all night didn't exactly make any money.
But astronomy and astrology are not the "same thing". Like alchemy, certain things were learned from its, if you are going to divination based on the heavens, accurate sky maps would be needed.
But to call them the "same thing" is pretty darn insulting to astronomers, both professional and amateur.

Sure, modern astrology and modern astronomy are different beasts, but they derived from the same things. As the scientific method slowly developed over centuries the study of the sky shifted from what we would term astrology to what we would term astronomy, but for a very long time there was no difference at all. The differentiation is merely modern society applying it's fore-conceptions back on historical thought.

[Ravens_cry]

Sure, modern astrology and modern astronomy are different beasts, but they derived from the same things. As the scientific method slowly developed over centuries the study of the sky shifted from what we would term astrology to what we would term astronomy, but for a very long time there was no difference at all. The differentiation is merely modern society applying it's fore-conceptions back on historical thought.
Astronomy may have served astrologies ends at one time, but that doesn't mean they are, or were, the same thing.

[Weezer]

Astronomy may have served astrologies ends at one time, but that doesn't mean they are, or were, the same thing.

Our modern definitions certainly have them distinct when these definitions are applied to the past, but if you examine how the actual ancient practitioners viewed themselves then they become indistinguishable. When talking about history it can be very useful to look at things from as much of an "internal" perspective as possible. Looking at Ptolemy for instance, one of the great ancient astronomers/astrologers, he wouldn't distinguish between his works on astronomy and his astrological works, they were two sides of the same coin, used the same mathematics and rationales. In the ancient world these two concepts were so intertwined as to be indistinguishable, just like for centuries philosophy and theology weren't distinct fields but one and the same.

[Ravens_cry]

Astronomy is the study of the stars. Astrology is divination using the stars.
The former as a tool served the lattes ends, but the tool is not the practise.
If someone had invented a microscope 3000 or more years ago, a water droplet microscope would have been feasible, and a divination was invented based on the movement on the microscopic life found, would that mean that this divination, let's call it micrology, is the same thing as microscopic biology?
For millennia, the only people doing any astronomy professionally were astrologers, but even then,astronomy had other uses, like acting as a cosmic calender.
To the ancient Egyptians, shortly after Sirius rose above the horizon, they knew that was when the Nile usually flooded, an important date for farmers and, well, pretty much everyone, and decan stars were used to tell the time at night.

[enderlord99]

Just like soylent green!:smallwink::smalltongue:

I'm pretty sure Soylent Green needs everything EXCEPT the soul.:smallamused: