Treatise Study #2: "Twelve Keys" by Basil Valentine

[Florius Frammel]

I said he his right with the grey wolf's connection to saturn and mars.
Nothing more or less

But B.V. already wrote that too.

[JDP]

I said he his right with the grey wolf's connection to saturn and mars.
Nothing more or less

But B.V. already wrote that too.

Exactly, that's why he might give the appearance that he more or less "got it right" (but in reality he didn't; he doesn't understand what the author is actually referring to) since the author himself plainly gives the references to those planets/gods.

[Florius Frammel]

Here is what the Anonymous of the "12 clefs" (see post #10 of this thread by Weidenfeld) has to say about the first key:

He says B.V. here only specifies the general instructions he already gave in the introduction. It is limited on the presentation of the two principes that form our first matter. Those two principes (King/queen, sulfur/mercury -sometimes called argent vif) form our first matter he calls matière crue (crude matter). The whole work consists in doing a conjunction of those principles.
He talks about antimony too: Mr Salomon in his comment (Steiner here can only guess that Trißmosinus' comment on the Splendor Solis is meant) says the wolf means Antimony. He agrees that Antimony is a part of saturn (like Artephius says), but he doesn't see why it should be regarded as the "sujet" of the god mars neither for etymological nor other reasons (I guess he doesn't know the german word "Spiessglantz") except if he means "our antimony".
He disregards the opinion that here common gold is meant too. It's more about an "universal spirit" he as well calls "wet root matter" (d'Humide radical). He continues saying the wolf is nothing but the "water that wants to come down". The lion is the earth that that needs to be washed and purified.

It goes on a bit in similar ways like this (quite much text), but I'm too lazy to type it all out. I think we can get the idea that this interpretation is in the sense of R+C / Mutus Liber/ (Universal) Spiritus (Mundi)/ Water Work tradition. And this is another reason why I would say (together with the "oxygène oddity) it is written much later than 1700 as those interpretations are typical for the timeframe from the mid 18th century to the end of the 19th century where they interpreted alchemy texts like that. Feel free to share your objections.

[JDP]

Here is what the Anonymous of the "12 clefs" (see post #10 of this thread by Weidenfeld) has to say about the first key:

He says B.V. here only specifies the general instructions he already gave in the introduction. It is limited on the presentation of the two principes that form our first matter. Those two principes (King/queen, sulfur/mercury -sometimes called argent vif) form our first matter he calls matière crue (crude matter). The whole work consists in doing a conjunction of those principles.
He talks about antimony too: Mr Salomon in his comment (Steiner here can only guess that Trißmosinus' comment on the Splendor Solis is meant) says the wolf means Antimony. He agrees that Antimony is a part of saturn (like Artephius says), but he doesn't see why it should be regarded as the "sujet" of the god mars neither for etymological nor other reasons (I guess he doesn't know the german word "Spiessglantz") except if he means "our antimony".
He disregards the opinion that here common gold is meant too. It's more about an "universal spirit" he as well calls "wet root matter" (d'Humide radical). He continues saying the wolf is nothing but the "water that wants to come down". The lion is the earth that that needs to be washed and purified.

It goes on a bit in similar ways like this (quite much text), but I'm too lazy to type it all out. I think we can get the idea that this interpretation is in the sense of R+C / Mutus Liber/ (Universal) Spiritus (Mundi)/ Water Work tradition. And this is another reason why I would say (together with the "oxygène oddity) it is written much later than 1700 as those interpretations are typical for the timeframe from the mid 18th century to the end of the 19th century where they interpreted alchemy texts like that. Feel free to share your objections.

Indeed, your conclusions are spot on. This commentary was obviously written around 1800 or later, not 1700. All the 17th-18th century commentaries of this Valentine text I have seen so far interpret the first few keys very similarly: operations with purified gold in order to obtain a fine/subtle calx of this metal.

PS: Trismosin (late 15th & early 16th century) couldn't possibly have written a commentary on this work, since he predates the Valentine "corpus".

[Florius Frammel]

PS: Trismosin (late 15th & early 16th century) couldn't possibly have written a commentary on this work, since he predates the Valentine "corpus".

That's why Steiner guesses it's a comment on the Splendor Solis -not on the 12 keys.

Does anybody know from a "Mr Salomon" commenting the 12 keys?

[JDP]

That's why Steiner guesses it's a comment on the Splendor Solis -not on the 12 keys.

Does anybody know from a "Mr Salomon" commenting the 12 keys?

Can you quote the exact sentence in the French original? I also can't recall any pre-20th century commentary on the Splendor Solis (which, to be accurate, is obviously not written by Salomon Trismosin, contrary to the persistent attribution to him; anyone who has read Trismosin's genuine compositions will easily see how totally different they are in style and character from Splendor Solis.)

[Florius Frammel]

Can you quote the exact sentence in the French original? I also can't recall any pre-20th century commentary on the Splendor Solis (which, to be accurate, is obviously not written by Salomon Trismosin, contrary to the persistent attribution to him; anyone who has read Trismosin's genuine compositions will easily see how totally different they are in style and character from Splendor Solis.)

[JDP]

Thanks. Yes, unfortunately it is not clear what this commentary by "Mr. Salomon" is from such a reference. It cannot be the Splendor Solis since this text does not mention any "wolf" or antimony.

[Florius Frammel]

It could be possible it's an englishman. The anonymous writes "Mr" (very likely) for "mister". The short form of the French "monsieur" is "M."