Aristotle and Avicenna · Lexicon

From the book

Heinrich Khunrath’s Magnesia Catholica Philosophorum

Heinrich Khunrath · Diotimos Editions · 2026

Orientation

At a Glance

The wordAristotle and Avicenna enter through attributed sayings rather than continuous exposition.
In KhunrathPage 36 invokes Aristotle for teaching through causes and certain principles; the margin points to the proem of the Metaphysics.
In this editionThe modern apparatus explicitly challenges the Aristotelian attribution and discusses a different Avicennian text transmitted with the Meteorologica.
A reading distinctionThe primary page 94 has no marginal gloss.

Meaning

Aristotle and Avicenna enter through attributed sayings rather than continuous exposition. They supply a standard of causal teaching, a condition of metallic perfection, and a warning against the letter. The most disputed attribution is presented as disputed by Khunrath himself, though his explanation of the problem remains an allegation.

Use in the book

Page 36 invokes Aristotle for teaching through causes and certain principles; the margin points to the proem of the Metaphysics. The reference reinforces a demand for a sufficient why from anyone claiming to identify Magnesia. It is a methodological appeal, not an attempt to derive the treatise's whole cosmology from Aristotle.

Page 94 attributes to the fourth book of the Meteorologica, followed by Avicenna and other Philosophers, the saying that alchemists labour in vain to perfect metals unless they reduce them into first matter. Khunrath acknowledges that the saying is not found in Aristotle in his own day. He nevertheless insists it belongs there, because Avicenna would otherwise not have cited it, and alleges that an enemy of alchemy tampered with the text. His comparison with alleged scriptural tampering carries hostile claims about Jews, Arians, and others; those are part of his polemic, not findings established by this companion.

Avicenna returns on page 110 as one who rejected the misleading letter and knew the Art to be true after returning to natural principles. This supports the rule that books must be read under Nature's possibility. Across the three places, the force of authority remains tied to what the saying can do within a natural argument. Yet the disputed Meteorologica passage also reveals a pressure in that method: Khunrath protects an expected authority by supposing corruption when the available text fails to contain his proof-text.

Places to read

1599 p. 36Aristotle supports the demand for teaching through causes and certain principles.
1599 p. 36 · margin2The marginal locator points to the proem of the Metaphysics.
1599 p. 94The reduction dictum is attributed to Aristotle through Avicenna despite its admitted absence from contemporary Aristotle texts.
1599 p. 110Avicenna is cited for returning from the dead letter to natural principles.

Translation in this edition

The modern apparatus explicitly challenges the Aristotelian attribution and discusses a different Avicennian text transmitted with the Meteorologica. Its bibliographical account is separate from the primary evidence. The safest formulation is therefore that Khunrath attributes the dictum to Aristotle and alleges tampering; this lexicon does not authenticate either claim.

Source note

The primary page 94 has no marginal gloss. Its suspicion of an altered passage belongs to Khunrath's body text, whereas the modern source-critical correction belongs to the edition's note.