Talk:Cleopatra the Alchemist

A couple points that maybe someone else can correct or expand on:
 * Some writers date her at the first/second century?
 * It seems (though I can't verify) that ‘Cleopatra’ is just the name we assign to the anonymous author of a group of Alexandrian alchemical texts, and that we name them ‘Cleopatra’ just because their texts feature (Queen?) Cleopatra as a character. It’s hard to tell from later texts whether they’re praising ‘Cleopatra’ the anonymous author, or ‘Cleopatra’ the alchemical plot device/character?  Car Henkel (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
OUlivi, I think you have made some good edits, but I would like to suggest some things to make your article better. I saw some grammar and punctuation mistakes so I decided to correct them for you and I noticed that there has not been very much content added. First, I would like to see section headers for things such as career, early life, death, and so on. Second, I would like to see a person infobox which you can find out how to make at this url - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person. Third, I would like you to fix the last sentence of the first paragraph because there is a quotation mark and parentheses and I am not sure what you were going for, as well as in the third paragraph when there is a quote without telling who said the quote. I believe it was what someone said about Cleopatra, but it doesn’t say. Other than that, I think that the article just needs more content and maybe some pictures, although it may be hard to find. Good Luck! --Apollo721 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded an imagined picture of her from a 17th century alchemy book. Go ahead and throw her in if you want. Here's the link: Cleopatra the alchemist.jpg Henkel (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
Article doesn't look bad at all but I have a few suggestions that might make it a little easier to read and understand. First off I think separating the article into a few more sections would make it a little easier on the eye rather than just one large block of information. From my understanding the first section of information should just be a very short summary, "who is this person?" Any pictures you could find would probably be very beneficial also, I know its probably difficult to find it but if you could find the seal that is mentioned within the article I think that would add a lot. Like the other peer reviewer said it would probably be beneficial to explain that last quote a little better, as it reads now its very confusing what is being referenced and who is referencing what. Those last two sentences also seem like they could be elaborated on a little bit more. I'm sure information is pretty scarce on this topic so I wish you the best of luck in finding as much as you can. Keelanca (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Opus mulierum et ludus puerorum
Women's work and child's play. (please check spelling)

"Hypatia's Heritage" is wrong on this point. This has nothing to do with cosmetics and perfumes. This alchemical catch phrase comes from the Turba Philosophorum (sixteenth dictum). If you search this thread you'll find more discussion on this http://www.alchemywebsite.com/a-archive_jan05.html including references if you want to read more. It's most often taken to mean the simplicity or repetitive nature of the later part of the work (like washing). The whole of the opus is not referred to as women's work. Car Henkel (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible useful sources
ErysimumLe (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * European Women in Chemistry by Jan Apotheker
 * Hypatia's Heritage by Margaret Alic
 * Women in chemistry: Their changing roles from alchemical times to the Mid-Twentieth Century by By Marelene F. Rayner-Canham, Marelene Rayner-Canham, Geoffrey Rayner-Canham

"As we noted"? Who's "we"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.6 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Able to make a philosopher's stone, was she?
She "is rumored" to have been able to make a philosopher's stone. Are rumors appropriate sources for an encyclopedia? The present tense ("is rumored") makes it sound like a current rumor. Who is circulating it?

"Michael Maier names her as one of the four women who knew how to make the philosopher's stone." Who is Michael Maier? The reference is to a book by Raphael Patai. Is Michael Maier a contemporary person, as suggested by the present tense ("names")? If so, his extraordinary claim certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia (because it's not verifiable).

If, on the other hand, Michael Maier was a historical alchemist who claimed that Cleopatra could make a philosopher's stone, then that would be an appropriate thing for an encyclopedia to report. But there is a massive difference between saying "historical sources claimed she did it" and "she is rumored to have done it" (or "so-and-so says she did it").

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Briandgreen (talk • contribs) 08:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Added wikilink for Michael MaierCar Henkel (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we sure that the illustration refers to the right Cleo?
The lede illustration titled "imaginative depiction of Cleopatra the Alchemist from Mylius' 1618 Basilica philosophica" is clearly labeled "Cleopatra Aegypti regina", that is, Cleopatra queen of Egypt. While there were indeed several queens of Egypt named Cleopatra, I am sure that the 3rd century woman who is the subject of the article was not one of them. The point being that someone must have made a most regrettable confusion between the 3rd century alchemist and one of the queens Cleopatra; whether the confusion belongs to the author of the 17th century book or to Wikipedia I cannot say, but the conflict between the label of the picture and the subject of the article has to be addressed and clarified. Imerologul Valah (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the article perfectly explains this? It currently says:
 * "Cleopatra is a pseudonym for an unknown author or group of authors. She is not the same person as Cleopatra VII. Nonetheless, she is referred to as Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, in some later works. One example of this can be found in Basilica Philosophica by Johann Daniel Mylius (1618), where her seal is pictured alongside the motto: 'The divine is hidden from the people according to the wisdom of the Lord'. She is also conflated with Cleopatra the Physician."
 * The illustration in the lead is the one from Mylius' work which the article is talking about. Yes, Mylius and other 16th/17th century authors conflated her with the queen of Egypt, as well as with another Cleopatra who wrote on medicine. What about this is unclear? Please feel free to add some clarification to the text if you think it would help, but I do not immediately perceive a problem. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)