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

{{InfoboxParatext
| Author=
| Anon=1
| AuthorPresumed=
| AuthorPossible=
| AuthorPresent=S.S.L.
| Recipient=Reader
| Type=Poem
| Classification=
| Date=0
| DatePresumed=1583
| Place=
| Pages=1
| Language=lat
| Editor=Julian Paulus
| SourceAuthor=Jonas Kitzkatz
| SourceTitle=Speculum alchimistarum
| SourceEditor=
| SourcePlace=Hof: Matthäus Pfeilschmidt
| SourceDate=1583
| SourceBP=BP.Kitzkatz.1583-01
| SourceSig=A2r-A2v
| SourcePag=
| SourceFol=
| ReprintedFrom=
| Description=
| Abstract=
| Names=
| Places=
| Authorities=
| Texts=
| Note=
| ID=
| CP=0
| Translation=1
| KeywordsGPT=
| AbstractGPT=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. 
}}

{{Pagemark|sig|A1v}} {{MarkupUppercase|Aliud}}

<poem>
{{MarkupInitial|Vel|Allcaps=1}}<i> uniuerso nunc ferè contenditur
In orbe, disceptatione maxima.
Num, qu&aelig; Theophrastus docet, uolumine
Quàm plurimo, de Gemmula sacra sibi
Facta (metalla qua cuiuis lumina
Nouè creasset ille s&aelig;pe{{EditAbbr|´que}} aurea
Formis reiectis protinus prioribus
Essentialibus{{EditAbbr|´que}} naturis suis)
Ita fidem nobis probent factam, ut satis
Tutò sequi illius queamus regulas.
Nouis{{EditAbbr|´que}} sic miracuis Alchemi&aelig;
(Vt hanc uocant artem suam) ditescere
Seclo breui. Sunt qui negant doctißimi
Pl&aelig;ri{{EditAbbr|que}}, Sunt contra{{EditAbbr|´que}} inanis quos diu
Vexat fames auri futuri, & plurimos
Quos ditiores, & pecuni&aelig; anxiè
Sciunt legend&aelig; deditos, spe qui sua
{{Pagemark|sig|A2v}} Lactant. Futurum porrò, gemma ut prodeat
Illa Ens, nec Ens, illapideus lapis{{EditAbbr|´que}}, quem
Sua nouo modo Philosophia generet hodiè.
(Qualis Theophrasti fuisset illius)
Cr&oelig;si omnibus pr&aelig;stantior prouincijs.
Mid&aelig;{{EditAbbr|´que}} uoto pertinacis improbo.
Inexplicatam prorsus hanc litem hactenus
Nunc dirimit pr&aelig;sentis arte consilì
{{MarkupUppercase|Kiscatius|u=v}}, Sic ut tamen sententi&aelig;
Fori supremi Iudicum nil detrahat.

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

:::::::::: S.S.L.
</poem>

{{InfoboxTranslation|Model=4|Date=2023-08-13}}
<poem>
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.
</poem>