Lady Kitra Skene wrote:
That's where I don't think it's a far cry to have alchemy take a turn toward sorcery, if applying the astrology of the classical planets and such works in a ritualistic connection to the results alchemy hoped to achieve. It depends on the culture in which it started, I suppose.
This sort of thing is why there's no hard dividing line between Fantasy and Science Fiction. An alchemist would think he
knows (if I understand correctly) that everything is made up of (what we would call) particles of fire, water, earth, and air, in the same way that we think we know that everything is made up of "atoms" that gain most of their identity (iron is iron, silver is silver, etc.) from the number of "protons" from which they are composed, and some lesser parts of their behavior (isotopes) from the number of "neutrons." All these "mystical" things about the planets and such are simply reasoning from a few different lesser assumptions, but also one centrally important identical assumption: that the same laws apply at different scales of the cosmos. (If we showed and explained the Periodic Table to a medieval scholar, he would probably see it as more mystical than anything that related the classical elements or the seven planets to substances on Earth.)
On the other hand, pretty much anything dealing with rituals would tend to shade into sorcery or something like that, and the alchemist might or might not see a dividing line there. The "as above, so below" principle (which we still apply today on a lesser scale when we assume that the planets are governed by the same laws of motion as the balls in a game of billiards) was seen as extending into heavenly politics, about which there was in some circles much speculation ... and
that, I think, even the most rationally-minded alchemist would have called "mysticism."