Limits of similitude

Use in the book

The margin of page 95 says that metallic generation and propagation stand differently from those of plants and animals. Similitudes drawn from the latter cannot hold in every respect and seldom establish something sound in this matter. The body beside it nevertheless speaks of seed and mother or field. The juxtaposition is deliberate: an analogy can organize the account while still requiring distinctions about the kind of generation it describes.

The extended apple dispute gives a concrete case. The opponent on pages 114–1152 says silver and gold contain their seeds as an apple contains kernels, then infers that seed and field are both inside each metal. Khunrath answers on pages 122–12423 that cutting up gold does not reveal a separately lying kernel in the manner of an apple. Even the plant example points against the conclusion, since apple seeds are sown into common earth rather than back into the apple. If one insists on speaking of a metallic kernel, it must mean the purest of the whole metal, including sulphur, mercury, and salt, not isolated sulphur alone.

This passage does not simply reject analogy after relying on it. It revises the comparison by asking which relation is explanatory and which is accidental. Origin in the appropriate field is retained; a separable seed hidden within a surrounding fruit is refused as an exact model of metal. The same caution helps with the broader interpretive problem of shared names. A natural likeness, philosophical designation, and ordinary material identity must not be collapsed merely because a verbal parallel can be made to fit. The separate Christological harmony has its own claims and qualifications; it should be read alongside, rather than used to erase, this explicit warning about natural similitudes.

Places to read

1. 1599 p. 95 · marginMetallic propagation is distinguished from plant and animal generation, ending with Simile non est idem.
2. 1599 p. 114The opponent introduces apple kernels as a model of metallic seed.
3. 1599 p. 122Khunrath calls the example an unlikeness and denies that division of gold exposes a separate kernel.
4. 1599 p. 123Apple seeds belong in earth rather than back in the apple, redirecting the comparison.
5. 1599 p. 124The permitted metallic kernel is the purest of the whole metal, which must be sown in its pri-material field.

Translation in this edition

The translation's marked 'unlikeness' for the adverse example is useful because it shows Khunrath judging a comparison, not merely adding another picturesque one. The p. 95 margin is primary authorial caution; treating all the agricultural and obstetric vocabulary as literal mechanism would disregard it.