Poem, no date (1583), S.S.L. to the Reader (BP.Kitzkatz.1583-01)

Author:	Anonymous
Recipient:	Reader
Type:	Poem
Date:	no date [1583]
Pages:	1
Language:	Latin

Quote as:

https://www.theatrum-paracelsicum.com/index.php?curid=2962

Editor:	Edited by Julian Paulus
Source:	Jonas Kitzkatz, Speculum alchimistarum, Hof: Matthäus Pfeilschmidt 1583, sig. A2r-A2v [BP.Kitzkatz.1583-01]

CP:	Not in Kühlmann/Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum

Translation:

Raw translation see below

Abstract:

The poem discusses a widespread debate concerning alchemy and the teachings of Paracelsu about a mystical gem. It contrasts the viewpoints of scholars who deny the possibility of alchemical transformations with those driven by greed or curiosity, who believe in the potential to create gold and other miracles through alchemy. The debate considers the nature of a mysterious gem, described as both a stone and not a stone, and compares it to the wealth of mythical figures like Croesus and Midas. The dispute is said to be settled by the wisdom of Kitzkatz, though it awaits further validation from higher authorities, possibly the Rhine court. (generated by Chat-GPT)

Back to Paratexts Back to Texts by Anonymous

[sig. A1v] Aliud

Vel uniuerso nunc ferè contenditur
In orbe, disceptatione maxima.
Num, quæ Theophrastus docet, uolumine
Quàm plurimo, de Gemmula sacra sibi
Facta (metalla qua cuiuis lumina
Nouè creasset ille sæpeq́ue aurea
Formis reiectis protinus prioribus
Essentialibusq́ue naturis suis)
Ita fidem nobis probent factam, ut satis
Tutò sequi illius queamus regulas.
Nouisq́ue sic miracuis Alchemiæ
(Vt hanc uocant artem suam) ditescere
Seclo breui. Sunt qui negant doctißimi
Plærique, Sunt contraq́ue inanis quos diu
Vexat fames auri futuri, & plurimos
Quos ditiores, & pecuniæ anxiè
Sciunt legendæ deditos, spe qui sua
[sig. A2v] Lactant. Futurum porrò, gemma ut prodeat
Illa Ens, nec Ens, illapideus lapisq́ue, quem
Sua nouo modo Philosophia generet hodiè.
(Qualis Theophrasti fuisset illius)
Crœsi omnibus præstantior prouincijs.
Midæq́ue uoto pertinacis improbo.
Inexplicatam prorsus hanc litem hactenus
Nunc dirimit præsentis arte consilì
Kiscativs, Sic ut tamen sententiæ
Fori supremi Iudicum nil detrahat.

Hoc interim fruare, Lector candide,
Rhenana donec aula (partium altera
Fors illue appellante) uel Kiscatii
Librum probet, uel rectius definiat.

S.S.L.

English Raw Translation

Generated by ChatGPT-4 on 13 August 2023. Attention: This translation is a machine translation by artificial intelligence. The translation has not been checked and should not be cited without additional human verification.

Now almost everywhere in the universe,
A great disputation is being waged.
Whether the teachings of Theophrastus, in his many volumes,
About the sacred gem made for himself
(With which he would have newly created gold eyes,
Often rejecting the previous forms,
And their essential natural qualities)
Prove to us faith in such a way that we can
Safely follow his rules,
And thus become rich with the new miracles of alchemy
(As they call this art of theirs) in a short time.
Many of the most learned deny this, while on the other hand,
There are those tormented by a long-lasting hunger for future gold,
And many more who know how to eagerly amass money,
Who in their hope nurse the belief that the gem will eventually proceed
As an Ens, yet not an Ens, a stone and yet not a stone,
Which their new philosophy would generate today.
(Such as would have been Theophrastus's own),
A gem superior to all the provinces of Croesus,
And the stubborn wicked wish of Midas.
Up until now, this tangled dispute is altogether
Settled by the art and wisdom of the present Kitzkatz,
So that, however, it does not detract from the sentence
Of the supreme court of judges.

Meanwhile, candid reader, enjoy this,
Until the Rhine court (perhaps calling the other party)
Either approves Kitzkatz's book,
Or defines it more accurately.