This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alchemical symbol article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added some elements/compunds from Image:Alchemy-Digby-RareSecrets.png, though I'm not sure if I put them in the right lists, any alchemy experts care to look over these? Thanks — Boffy b 10:27, 30 November 2004 (UTC)
Should we add the symbols for the planets here? They're clearly related. — Ashley Y 02:56, 28 March 2005 (UTC)
I've pretty much changed everything about this article from when I started. I'm still working to add more symbols. Comments welcome. — Fourthgeek 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering what sources were used to categorize the symbols for the Alechmical processes/ Zodiac section, and if there were any alternate symbols for the processes out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.17.115.226 ( talk) 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
I may be only 13 but I love alcheny. It is so cool and intertaining. Some people think it is either satanic or retarted. But it isn't. I love the element of it, and it just bets my adrenilin pumpin. It is a great science to study and get excited about! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.215.199 ( talk) 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
The only thing that I see to be wrong in your paragraph is the simple fact that this isn't cool. Alchemy was meant to be serious because of the fact that it could become extremely harmful if the process wasn't in the correct order. This isn't FMA where you can come back with metal limbs and have special powers of some sort. So, please, don't attempt to do any experiments without someone who is licensed in this kind of area.
Well, it's actually a pseudo-science, or proto-science if you prefer. Not Satanic (whatever that means) of course. Most alchemists where Christians, Jews and Muslims in Europe and the Middle East and Buddhists, Taoists etc. in Asia. It was pretty stupid though--based upon a false understanding of the nature of matter. All that messing about with chemicals did lead to the eventual creation of the science known as chemistry (and black powder and Greek fire centuries before that), so alchemy wasn't a total waste of time. -- McFarty 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC) McFarty
I'm curious was the use of symbols during their studies (such as in their notes on how to perform experiments) so that no one else could understand them outside of those who already would have understand them and they could claim credit for whatever it was they were attempting to do, or was it due to persecution, or something entirely different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.158.143 ( talk) 00:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Um ... Actually, Alchemy wasn't really all that "stupid". The term "proto-science" is a good description (first time I've seen the term used; I like it). We all know you can't turn Lead into Gold without a nuclear reaction, but only because we've been told. Both are very similar: soft, metallic, exists in an unoxidized form. Even the other proto-science of Astrology (from wich came Astronomy) started with basic observations, such as the seasons getting colder when the big glowing thing in the sky didn't move as far across the sky (or various stars were in certain positions at certain times of day meant the monsoon season was coming). Those two proto-sciences only became psuedo-sciences when people continued at them despite the science being shown as flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.155.39 ( talk) 09:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Was there a symbol for carbon (or charcoal, etc)
Interesting there is one for Bismuth, which was not actually discovered until alchemy was mostly dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.238.59 ( talk) 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
From the article: "Some modern alchemists consider the symbols for these planets to represent the radioactive metals Uranium, Neptunium and Plutonium, respectively"
This (to me) raises the question: There are modern alchemists? like me Communisthamster ( talk) 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Many alchemical substances are missing that were represented by symbols, and nearly all variations of alchemic "products" represented by symbols are missing as well. Not to mention types of processes that are modified zodiac symbols, not the simple zodiac glyphs themselves. here are some process symbols. here too, more process symbols basic metals, some alternate metals, substances, (e.g. glass, substrate of copper), bismuth, magnesium, antimony, even platinum and here.. basic symbols. and those continued. also see here, some random more complex ones, even more. list of highly specific aspect symbology to more general alchemical concepts, and similar, small, difficult to make out, small example of symbols for processes, symbols meaning "at that time" or process resulting in 'red fire' etc, thumbnail of such, microcosm / macrocosm alchemic symbol. set of symbols, another set
Certainly, a work producing an exhaustive list exists on this subject that is likely better than what I have above from an internet search can be sourced. A book on the topic. This article has so much potential because so much more history is actually there than here currently displayed.
What we need are individuals to redraw and upload said images free of copyright violation from a comprehensive work on the subject. Nagelfar ( talk) 09:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The Character Map on Ubuntu says Unicode U+26A8 is ferrous iron sulfate (⚨), and unicode U+26A9 is Magnesium (⚩). This seems to differ slightly from what we've got up. 72.207.248.117 ( talk) 22:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The Unicode characters appear as rectangular boxes containing hexadecimal codes on my Firefox version 31 in Windows 8. On Opera they appear as blank boxes. The article page links to Help:Special characters but that does not help fix the problem, see Help talk:Special characters#Confusing and unhelpful. What is needed are clear working instructions that allow readers to display Unicode fonts on these pages. - 84user ( talk) 18:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What purpose does the table of miscellaneous symbols (underneath the table of Unicode alchemical symbols) serve? A few of them may be related to alchemy, but the majority of them aren't, so I don't understand why it's there. I just want to confirm if there's a reason before removing it. -- Joyful spherical creature ( talk) 22:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I remember reading that the symbols for the seven planetary metals also had number and color meanings:
Saturn; Lead; Black; 1
Jupiter; Tin; Blue; Moon; Silver; White; 3
Mercury; Mercury; Violet; 4
Mars; Iron; Red; 5
Venus; Copper; Green; 6
Sun; Gold; Golden; 7
Is there any reliable source backing these connections up? I remember a connection to John Dee's The Hieroglyphic Monad (1564)-- 2606:A000:7D44:100:4577:8946:6B83:6C28 ( talk) 18:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed ⚩ as a supposed symbol for magnesium because it was unsourced. The identity appeared in Unicode 5 but was retracted by Unicode 6. I contacted Unicode to ask why, and they said that they didn't have a good source, as in the proposal to add the symbol to Unicode it was only sourced to a popular general account of symbols, and they now believe that author got it wrong. They removed the claim, along with several others, after they received objections by experts in the field, likely from the Newton Chymistry Project. — kwami ( talk) 20:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Do we have adequate reason to include ⚩ as an alchemical symbol for 'magnesium'? There are two references. The first one is a reference to Unicode 5; by Unicode 6, the identity of ⚩ as 'magnesium' had been retracted. (I contacted Unicode about this: see previous thread.) And, of course, Unicode definitions are not a RS for alchemy, only for Unicode. The second ref appears to be a smoke-screen, with no mention of the symbol. At best, it appears to be a tenuous OR chain trying to equate magnesium with magnesia. — kwami ( talk) 02:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
By the time of Pliny (first century A.D.) ' magnesian earth' came in several varieties. He mentions five, one of them, called 'magnet', clearly being the celebrated lodestone; the others varied in color from black to white.... As for the material to which the name 'magnesia alba' ultimately became attached, it was a neglected residue of the process conventional in Europe from the 14th century for the production of saltpetre.
In 1270, Syrian chemist Hasan al-Rammah described a purification process for obtaining purified potassium nitrate from saltpeter. First, the saltpeter is boiled in a small amount of water and then reacted with potassium carbonate from wood ashes. This removes calcium and magnesium salts as precipitates, leaving a potassium nitrate solution. Evaporating the liquid yielded the chemical, which was used to make gunpowder.
The de Rosemont symbol for magnesia can be seen here, plate 4 after page 261. I didn't know at first if the difference between the de Rosemont symbol and Liungman's ⚩ might just be just an extraneous blot of ink or a Xerox artefact, but from this cleaner image it's clear that it's not ⚩. (It's possible that Liungman's ⚩ is a misreading of the de Rosemont symbol -- they don't provide a source -- but that's idle speculation at this point.)
So, (a) we don't know if the de Rosemont symbol is for magnesium alba, magnesium nigra or both, and (b) it looks like it's not our symbol anyway. So, yeah, fails verification. — kwami ( talk) 20:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I have changed "*
Manganese
(in Bergman)"
to "*
Manganesa/
-um (
magnesia nigra), source of later
manganese
(in Bergman)"
... because (as stated in
Manganese#History) the pure metal "manganese" was not isolated until 1774; before that, alchemists knew the less pure, compound, forms under the older names. –
.Raven
.talk 19:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
... but now you sayalchemical symbol for manganese or possibly magnesia in Bergman 1775 [ emphasis added
Which time should we believe you, since you didn't link your source either time? Undoing the above edit, which made a citationless claim, i.e. WP:OR; going by the original file, which at least named a source. – .Raven .talk 22:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)... this is specifically manganese metal.
That's right: a metal's ' calx' is its oxide – as in the case of manganese's calx (♆ ) what's been called 'magnesia nigra' or later 'manganesum' or 'manganesa', actually a group of several oxides – just as 'magnesia alba' or later simply 'magnesia' refers to oxidated ('burnt') magnesium, MgO, found as the mineral periclase or even in the magnesite MgCO3 from which MgO can be extracted by heating with charcoal... and as, more familiarly to most people, 'rust' refers to iron oxide, Fe2O3. We just don't usually call 'rust' a 'metal', precisely because of that oxidation, but the metallic element is in there, and it can be isolated. – .Raven .talk 10:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Bergman... labels it "manganese", under the heading of "metallic calces"...
In the early 18th century Georg Stahl renamed the substance phlogiston (from the Greek for 'burned') and extended the theory to include the calcination (and corrosion) of metals. Thus, metals were thought to be composed of calx (a powdery residue) and phlogiston; when a metal was heated, phlogiston was set free and the calx remained. The process could be reversed by heating the metal over charcoal (a substance believed to be rich in phlogiston, because combustion almost totally consumed it). The calx would absorb the phlogiston released by the burning charcoal and become metallic again.– .Raven .talk 05:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
For anyone reading through this, I found the following definition of "magnesia" in The Alchemy Reader: From Hermes Trismegistus to Isaac Newton (2003, CUP). There were several, actually, but this one was from the fn on p. 180:
— kwami ( talk) 09:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Restored full citation including publisher, location, link, and correct original publication year, inexplicably among the details removed as "false claims". Perhaps previous editor saw the date "1932" on 2nd-printing's title page, and ignored or missed turning to the original publication date "1931" on the original title page just 6 pages (3 sheets) later in that book. Also, FYI, the cite-book 'at' parm is used when there's more than numeric 'page/pages' info, as is the case here; that way the abbreviation "p." is not put in front of the text "4 plates...", making it incorrectly look like "p. 4" is the reference followed by "plates...". – .Raven .talk 19:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
🜛 [silver] appears in that same proposal from the Newton Chymistry Project, p.13, 2nd from bottom. – .Raven .talk 05:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alchemical symbol article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added some elements/compunds from Image:Alchemy-Digby-RareSecrets.png, though I'm not sure if I put them in the right lists, any alchemy experts care to look over these? Thanks — Boffy b 10:27, 30 November 2004 (UTC)
Should we add the symbols for the planets here? They're clearly related. — Ashley Y 02:56, 28 March 2005 (UTC)
I've pretty much changed everything about this article from when I started. I'm still working to add more symbols. Comments welcome. — Fourthgeek 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering what sources were used to categorize the symbols for the Alechmical processes/ Zodiac section, and if there were any alternate symbols for the processes out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.17.115.226 ( talk) 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
I may be only 13 but I love alcheny. It is so cool and intertaining. Some people think it is either satanic or retarted. But it isn't. I love the element of it, and it just bets my adrenilin pumpin. It is a great science to study and get excited about! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.215.199 ( talk) 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
The only thing that I see to be wrong in your paragraph is the simple fact that this isn't cool. Alchemy was meant to be serious because of the fact that it could become extremely harmful if the process wasn't in the correct order. This isn't FMA where you can come back with metal limbs and have special powers of some sort. So, please, don't attempt to do any experiments without someone who is licensed in this kind of area.
Well, it's actually a pseudo-science, or proto-science if you prefer. Not Satanic (whatever that means) of course. Most alchemists where Christians, Jews and Muslims in Europe and the Middle East and Buddhists, Taoists etc. in Asia. It was pretty stupid though--based upon a false understanding of the nature of matter. All that messing about with chemicals did lead to the eventual creation of the science known as chemistry (and black powder and Greek fire centuries before that), so alchemy wasn't a total waste of time. -- McFarty 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC) McFarty
I'm curious was the use of symbols during their studies (such as in their notes on how to perform experiments) so that no one else could understand them outside of those who already would have understand them and they could claim credit for whatever it was they were attempting to do, or was it due to persecution, or something entirely different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.158.143 ( talk) 00:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Um ... Actually, Alchemy wasn't really all that "stupid". The term "proto-science" is a good description (first time I've seen the term used; I like it). We all know you can't turn Lead into Gold without a nuclear reaction, but only because we've been told. Both are very similar: soft, metallic, exists in an unoxidized form. Even the other proto-science of Astrology (from wich came Astronomy) started with basic observations, such as the seasons getting colder when the big glowing thing in the sky didn't move as far across the sky (or various stars were in certain positions at certain times of day meant the monsoon season was coming). Those two proto-sciences only became psuedo-sciences when people continued at them despite the science being shown as flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.155.39 ( talk) 09:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Was there a symbol for carbon (or charcoal, etc)
Interesting there is one for Bismuth, which was not actually discovered until alchemy was mostly dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.238.59 ( talk) 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
From the article: "Some modern alchemists consider the symbols for these planets to represent the radioactive metals Uranium, Neptunium and Plutonium, respectively"
This (to me) raises the question: There are modern alchemists? like me Communisthamster ( talk) 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Many alchemical substances are missing that were represented by symbols, and nearly all variations of alchemic "products" represented by symbols are missing as well. Not to mention types of processes that are modified zodiac symbols, not the simple zodiac glyphs themselves. here are some process symbols. here too, more process symbols basic metals, some alternate metals, substances, (e.g. glass, substrate of copper), bismuth, magnesium, antimony, even platinum and here.. basic symbols. and those continued. also see here, some random more complex ones, even more. list of highly specific aspect symbology to more general alchemical concepts, and similar, small, difficult to make out, small example of symbols for processes, symbols meaning "at that time" or process resulting in 'red fire' etc, thumbnail of such, microcosm / macrocosm alchemic symbol. set of symbols, another set
Certainly, a work producing an exhaustive list exists on this subject that is likely better than what I have above from an internet search can be sourced. A book on the topic. This article has so much potential because so much more history is actually there than here currently displayed.
What we need are individuals to redraw and upload said images free of copyright violation from a comprehensive work on the subject. Nagelfar ( talk) 09:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The Character Map on Ubuntu says Unicode U+26A8 is ferrous iron sulfate (⚨), and unicode U+26A9 is Magnesium (⚩). This seems to differ slightly from what we've got up. 72.207.248.117 ( talk) 22:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The Unicode characters appear as rectangular boxes containing hexadecimal codes on my Firefox version 31 in Windows 8. On Opera they appear as blank boxes. The article page links to Help:Special characters but that does not help fix the problem, see Help talk:Special characters#Confusing and unhelpful. What is needed are clear working instructions that allow readers to display Unicode fonts on these pages. - 84user ( talk) 18:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What purpose does the table of miscellaneous symbols (underneath the table of Unicode alchemical symbols) serve? A few of them may be related to alchemy, but the majority of them aren't, so I don't understand why it's there. I just want to confirm if there's a reason before removing it. -- Joyful spherical creature ( talk) 22:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I remember reading that the symbols for the seven planetary metals also had number and color meanings:
Saturn; Lead; Black; 1
Jupiter; Tin; Blue; Moon; Silver; White; 3
Mercury; Mercury; Violet; 4
Mars; Iron; Red; 5
Venus; Copper; Green; 6
Sun; Gold; Golden; 7
Is there any reliable source backing these connections up? I remember a connection to John Dee's The Hieroglyphic Monad (1564)-- 2606:A000:7D44:100:4577:8946:6B83:6C28 ( talk) 18:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed ⚩ as a supposed symbol for magnesium because it was unsourced. The identity appeared in Unicode 5 but was retracted by Unicode 6. I contacted Unicode to ask why, and they said that they didn't have a good source, as in the proposal to add the symbol to Unicode it was only sourced to a popular general account of symbols, and they now believe that author got it wrong. They removed the claim, along with several others, after they received objections by experts in the field, likely from the Newton Chymistry Project. — kwami ( talk) 20:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Do we have adequate reason to include ⚩ as an alchemical symbol for 'magnesium'? There are two references. The first one is a reference to Unicode 5; by Unicode 6, the identity of ⚩ as 'magnesium' had been retracted. (I contacted Unicode about this: see previous thread.) And, of course, Unicode definitions are not a RS for alchemy, only for Unicode. The second ref appears to be a smoke-screen, with no mention of the symbol. At best, it appears to be a tenuous OR chain trying to equate magnesium with magnesia. — kwami ( talk) 02:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
By the time of Pliny (first century A.D.) ' magnesian earth' came in several varieties. He mentions five, one of them, called 'magnet', clearly being the celebrated lodestone; the others varied in color from black to white.... As for the material to which the name 'magnesia alba' ultimately became attached, it was a neglected residue of the process conventional in Europe from the 14th century for the production of saltpetre.
In 1270, Syrian chemist Hasan al-Rammah described a purification process for obtaining purified potassium nitrate from saltpeter. First, the saltpeter is boiled in a small amount of water and then reacted with potassium carbonate from wood ashes. This removes calcium and magnesium salts as precipitates, leaving a potassium nitrate solution. Evaporating the liquid yielded the chemical, which was used to make gunpowder.
The de Rosemont symbol for magnesia can be seen here, plate 4 after page 261. I didn't know at first if the difference between the de Rosemont symbol and Liungman's ⚩ might just be just an extraneous blot of ink or a Xerox artefact, but from this cleaner image it's clear that it's not ⚩. (It's possible that Liungman's ⚩ is a misreading of the de Rosemont symbol -- they don't provide a source -- but that's idle speculation at this point.)
So, (a) we don't know if the de Rosemont symbol is for magnesium alba, magnesium nigra or both, and (b) it looks like it's not our symbol anyway. So, yeah, fails verification. — kwami ( talk) 20:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I have changed "*
Manganese
(in Bergman)"
to "*
Manganesa/
-um (
magnesia nigra), source of later
manganese
(in Bergman)"
... because (as stated in
Manganese#History) the pure metal "manganese" was not isolated until 1774; before that, alchemists knew the less pure, compound, forms under the older names. –
.Raven
.talk 19:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
... but now you sayalchemical symbol for manganese or possibly magnesia in Bergman 1775 [ emphasis added
Which time should we believe you, since you didn't link your source either time? Undoing the above edit, which made a citationless claim, i.e. WP:OR; going by the original file, which at least named a source. – .Raven .talk 22:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)... this is specifically manganese metal.
That's right: a metal's ' calx' is its oxide – as in the case of manganese's calx (♆ ) what's been called 'magnesia nigra' or later 'manganesum' or 'manganesa', actually a group of several oxides – just as 'magnesia alba' or later simply 'magnesia' refers to oxidated ('burnt') magnesium, MgO, found as the mineral periclase or even in the magnesite MgCO3 from which MgO can be extracted by heating with charcoal... and as, more familiarly to most people, 'rust' refers to iron oxide, Fe2O3. We just don't usually call 'rust' a 'metal', precisely because of that oxidation, but the metallic element is in there, and it can be isolated. – .Raven .talk 10:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Bergman... labels it "manganese", under the heading of "metallic calces"...
In the early 18th century Georg Stahl renamed the substance phlogiston (from the Greek for 'burned') and extended the theory to include the calcination (and corrosion) of metals. Thus, metals were thought to be composed of calx (a powdery residue) and phlogiston; when a metal was heated, phlogiston was set free and the calx remained. The process could be reversed by heating the metal over charcoal (a substance believed to be rich in phlogiston, because combustion almost totally consumed it). The calx would absorb the phlogiston released by the burning charcoal and become metallic again.– .Raven .talk 05:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
For anyone reading through this, I found the following definition of "magnesia" in The Alchemy Reader: From Hermes Trismegistus to Isaac Newton (2003, CUP). There were several, actually, but this one was from the fn on p. 180:
— kwami ( talk) 09:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Restored full citation including publisher, location, link, and correct original publication year, inexplicably among the details removed as "false claims". Perhaps previous editor saw the date "1932" on 2nd-printing's title page, and ignored or missed turning to the original publication date "1931" on the original title page just 6 pages (3 sheets) later in that book. Also, FYI, the cite-book 'at' parm is used when there's more than numeric 'page/pages' info, as is the case here; that way the abbreviation "p." is not put in front of the text "4 plates...", making it incorrectly look like "p. 4" is the reference followed by "plates...". – .Raven .talk 19:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
🜛 [silver] appears in that same proposal from the Newton Chymistry Project, p.13, 2nd from bottom. – .Raven .talk 05:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)