31

Archiv pro bádání o životě a díle

Jana Amose Komenského

LV
Founded 1910 by Ján Kvačala

In­ter­na­tio­nal Re­view of Co­me­nius Stu­dies

and Early Mo­dern Intellectual Histo­r y

In­ter­na­tio­na­le Re­vue für Stu­dien über

J. A. Co­me­nius und Ideengeschichte
der Frü­hen Neuzeit

Filosofia
Praha 2017
This volume appears with financial support
from the Czech Academy of Sciences.

© Filosofia, 2017
nakladatelství Filosofického ústavu AV ČR, v. v. i.
All rights reserved
Printed in the Czech Republic
ISBN 978-80-7007-573-9
ISSN 0231-5955
 31 / LV / 2017

He​​inrich Khunrath and His Theosophical Reform

Martin Žemla
(Faculty of Arts, Palacký University, Olomouc)

Introduction

Heinrich Khunrath (1560–1605),1 “doctor of both medicines and faithful lover

of theosophy”,2 is one of the outstanding German Paracelsians of the second half
of the 16th century. He has been generally treated as an alchemist and exponent
of early Christian theosophy. In this paper, however, I will accentuate the theo-
logical context of his thought and, especially, his specific concept of reform. It
is enough to look for the terms “reform”, “renewal” and “regeneration” in the
Amphitheatre to find out that this topic was of great importance for Khunrath.
If we take Khunrath as an alchemist, the identification is somewhat vague.3
Some of his works, as the Von hylealischen Chaos, published in 1597, or his book

 This study is a result of research funded by the Czech Science Foundation as the project GA ČR
1

GB14-37038G “Between Renaissance and Baroque: Philosophy and Knowledge in the Czech Lands
within the Wider European Context”.
2
 Such a signature is to be found on the portrait of Khunrath in the second edition of the Amphitheatrum
sapientiae aeternae (1609) as well as on other pictures in the volume.
3
 As Tara Nummedal (Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire, Chicago – London 2007,
pp. 43ff.) has shown, this ambiguity is a general feature of an Early Modern “alchemist” who can
be, ideally, identified as Scholar, Prophet, or Artisan. While all of them agreed that the “work of fire”
was necessary, they differed in their goals: it could be the transmutation of metals, preparation of
a universal remedy, specifically prepared drugs, and/or mystical, soteriological and eschatological
goals. Cf. Ivo Purš, Heinrich Khunrath v zrcadle svého Divadla [Heinrich Khunrath in the Mirror of
His Theatre], in: Divadlo věčné Moudrosti a teosofická alchymie [Amphitheatre of Eternal Wisdom and
Theosophical Alchemy], I. Purš – V. Karpenko – M. Žemla (eds.), Prague 2017, pp. 161f.

43
 Martin Žemla

on alchemical furnaces (Wahrer Bericht vom philosohischen Athanor), published

six years later, prove that he was a skilled laboratory practitioner, well versed
in the methods of alchemists of his time. Alchemical motifs are present in the
four round figures illustrating the first edition of his major work Amphitheatrum
sapientiae aeternae, published in 1595; the expanded, posthumous, edition of
1609 added further five illustrations.4 Most importantly, Khunrath included a
short description of (twenty) false methods of impostor alchemists in the image
of the alchemical citadel in his Amphitheatre,5 as well as, on a larger scale, in his
Trewhertzige Warnungs-Vermanung, printed pseudonymously at the end of his Von
hylealischen Chaos (where he adduced forty six fraudulent methods).6 This critical
approach was important, as alchemy was being derided by many in that time as
a fruit of human stupidity, credulity and greediness,7 so that honest researchers
preferred to avoid the name “alchemist” at all. But Khunrath fulminates against
impostors and “sophists” certainly not because he meant that they should refrain
from practical work in laboratory but because they were not conducting their
investigations of nature in the right way, and they misunderstood what nature
“tried in fire” was conveying to them.
At the same time, Khunrath’s texts reveal a strong spiritual accent. This holds
true most notably for his Amphitheatre of Eternal Wisdom. The religious aspect is
so significant that, in modern times, his works have been classified as a “mystical
branch of alchemical thought”8 or “spiritual alchemy”9, and his “theo-alchemical
system” was seen as a prelude to the Rosicrucian movement. Others took it for an

4
 See Peter Forshaw, Alchemy in the Amphitheatre: Some Consideration of the Alchemical Content of the
Engravings in Heinrich Khunrath’s Amphitheatre of Eternal Wisdom (1609), in: Jacob Wamberg (ed.), Art
and Alchemy, Copenhagen 2006, pp. 195–220.
5
 See especially Vladimír Karpenko, Alchymické a chemické aspekty díla Heinricha Khunratha: Von
hylealischen, das ist / pri-materialischen catholischen, oder algemeinem natürlichen Chaos [Alchemical and
Chemical Aspects of the Work of Heinrich Khunrath: Von hylealischen, das ist / pri-materialischen
catholischen, oder algemeinem natürlichen Chaos], in: Heinrich Khunrath. Divadlo věčné Moudrosti
a teosofická alchymie, I. Purš – V. Karpenko – M. Žemla (eds.), Praha 2017, pp. 371–408 (English
summary on pp. 442–444).
 Full title of the text is: Trewhertzige Warnungs-Vermanung eines Getrewen Liebhabers der Warheit/ an alle
6

ware Liebhaber der Naturgemessen Alchymiae Transmutatoriae (1597 edition, pp. 440ff.).
7
 See Nummedal, Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire, pp. 48ff.
8
 Lawrence M. Principe – William R. Newman, Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy,
in: William R. Newman – Anthony Grafton (eds.), Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early
Modern Europe, Cambridge 2001, p. 387.
9
 See Mike A. Zuber, The Spiritual Alchemy from the Age of Jacob Boehme to Mary Anne Atwood, 1600–
1900, [PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam], Amsterdam 2017, pp. 11, 50, 61 and passim.

44
 He​​i nrich Khunrath and his Theosophical Reform

“alchemically oriented physico-theology”,10 or for a “proto-theosophy”.11 Or he

has been perceived, together with Robert Fludd (1574–1637) and Jacob Böhme
(1575–1624), simply as “the main representative of the alchemical and Christian
theosophy”.12 In other words, he was a “Prophet” alchemist.13

Khunrath’s Theosophy and Theology

The interest in spiritual explanations of physical processes, and vice versa, con-
nected Khunrath, quite naturally so to speak, with theology. There is no doubt
that, for him, practicing alchemy involves theological reflections. In fact, they
are so important to him that it is in his theology where, in my opinion, we can
see the real framework of his thought.
This was, of course, a delicate topic in his time. Mixing theology with natural
philosophy was clearly not seen as an innocent affair. Paracelsus (1493–1541), just
to mention a few famous examples, surely was a very much castigated author. But
he was criticized mostly as a physician bringing about a scission by his violent
refutation of classical medical dogma. He was saved (for some time, at least) from
inevitably hard theological polemics and persecution not because he was so or-
thodox – he was, in fact, far from being orthodox in both Catholic and Protestant
perspective –, but rather because his voluminous theological writings were, for
a long time, kept hidden from the public.14 The Lutheran pastor and Paracelsian
Valentin Weigel (1533–1588) ended up under sharp attacks from his fierce critics
after his works – and those attributed to him to exploit the author’s reputation
among the more heterodox audience while adding some new attractive motifs
– had begun to be printed posthumously at the beginning of the 17th century.
He was castigated as a Paracelsian, enthusiast, a precursor of the Rosicrucians,

 Julian Paulus, s.v. “Welling”, in: Karin Figala – Claus Priesner (eds.), Alchemie. Lexikon einer
10

hermetischen Wissenschaft, München 1998, p. 317.

11
 Wouter Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Western Esotericism, Leiden 2006, p. 260.
 Ibid., s.v. “Dorn”, p. 321; Didier Kahn, s.v. “Dorn”, in: K. Figala – C. Priesner (eds.), Alchemie.
12

Lexikon einer hermetischen Wissenschaft, München 1998, p. 89; Antoine Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination,
Tradition: Studies in Western Esotericism, Albany 2000, p. 7.
13
 See above, note 2; cf. Purš, Heinrich Khunrath v zrcadle svého Divadla, p. 162.
 See Hanns-Peter Neumann, Between Heresy and Orthodoxy: Alchemy and Piety in Late Sixteenth-Century
14

Germany, in: Olav Hammer – Kocku von Stuckrad (eds.), Polemical Encounters, Esoteric Discourse
and its Others, Leiden – Boston 2007, pp. 137–156, here p. 146.

45
 Martin Žemla

and a most dangerous heretic.15 The famous Lutheran theologian Johann Arndt
(1555–1621) was repeatedly mentioned in conjuction with heterodox currents,
but he managed to avoid intense criticism, although he spiced his theology with
more than a pinch of Paracelsianism.16
Drawing on Paracelsus and Weigel, Heinrich Khunrath could hardly evade
sharp attacks during his life. Some twenty years after his death, his Amphitheatre
was finally condemned by the Sorbonne in 1625 as a work “blasphemous and
dangerous to faith (…) a sacrilegious profanation of passages from Holy Scripture
(…) abusing the sacred mysteries of the Catholic Religion”.17 There are, indeed,
obvious reasons to read the Amphitheatre as a theological treatise. The main tex-
tual part of the 1609 edition consists of 365 annotated Biblical quotations. Thus,
formally, it is a theological commentary, be it very peculiar, full of neologisms
and often overlapping with the fields of natural philosophy, alchemy, medicine,
magic, and cabala. Even though Khunrath certainly did not mean to conform
with the Lutheran orthodoxy of his time, he remained in concord with basic
principles of Luther’s theology while amplifying them in new ways.18 After all, he
mentions Martin Luther – together with Reuchlin, Erasmus, Agrippa, Paracelsus,
and Weigel – as one of the “most learned men” and lovers of Divine Wisdom.19
It has been shown recently that two interesting texts prove Khunrath’s theo-
logical ambitions in a special way. In 1598, he wrote his Symbolum physico-chymi­
cum. It is a rephrasing of the old Athanasian Creed, which became part of the

 Nicolaus Hunnius, Christliche Betrachtung, Wittenberg 1622, pp. IIIbff.; Siegfried Wollgast,
15

Zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Paracelsus im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, in: Peter Dilg – Hardtmut Rudolph
(eds.), Resultate und Desiderate der Paracelsus-Forschung, Stuttgart 1993, p. 139. See also Martin Žemla,
Valentin Weigel. Mystik, paracelsián, theosof 16. století [Valentin Weigel: Mystic, Paracelsian, Theosopher],
Prague 2013, pp. 133–147.
 Cf., synoptically, Herrmann Geyer, Verborgene Weisheit. Johann Arndts “Vier Bücher vom Wahren
16

Christentum” als Programm einer spiritualistisch-hermetischen Theologie I–III, 2 vols, Berlin – New York
2001.
17
 C. Duplesis d’Argentré, Collectio iudiciorum de novis erroribus, 2 vols., Paris 1728–1736, Vol. II,
p. 162; quoted in: W. Hanegraaff, Dictionary of Western Esotericism, p. 47; see Forshaw, Alchemy in
the Amphitheatre, p. 110; id., Vitriolic Reactions. Orthodox Responses to the Alchemical Exegesis of Genesis,
in: K. Killen – P. Forshaw (eds.), The Word and the World, Basingstoke 2007, pp. 111–136, here p. 111.
 For the following passage see Ulrike Kummer, Alchemie und Kontrafaktur. Bemerkungen zu Heinrich
18

Khunraths Symbolum (1598), Daphnis 41, 2012, pp. 565–580.

 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae, solius verae: christiano-kabalisticum, divino-magicum, nec
19

non physico-chymicum, tertriunum, catholicon, Hanau 1609, com. 66 (quotations from the Amphitheatre
are numbered by “commentaries”, only in case they are taken from final parts of the book, i.e. from
the “Epitomes” and “Introductions”, page numbers are given).

46
 He​​i nrich Khunrath and his Theosophical Reform

Book of Concord, the collection of fundamental theological texts of the Lutheran

church promulgated in 1580. The German edition of Khunrath’s Symbolum in-
cluded an “extra feature”, the Philosophical Song on the Incarnation of Salt, which
is a paraphrase of a song by Martin Luther. In both texts, Khunrath substituted
theological terms with alchemical ones. Thus, for example, he speaks of the “body
of salt” instead of “man”, the “womb of chaos” instead of the “womb of Mary”,
the “light of nature” instead of the “eternal light” etc.20
Why? Seemingly, to prove that alchemy was in harmony with the sound core
of Lutheran theology, that they were two parallel, intrinsically compatible dis-
courses. And because Paracelsian terminology was used here, to attest also that
Paracelsian theories were not necessarily heterodox,21 as their critics assumed.22
The basic structure of Khunrath’s thought may be deduced from his portrait
included in the second edition of the Amphitheatre. Here, the author is pictured
as a “faithful lover of theosophy” (theosophiae amator fidelis) with six books on
his left, representing six fields of knowledge. At the bottom of them, there is
the Bible supporting all other books: three volumes of chymia, magia, cabala;
medicina leaning against these three; and historia which is situated on top of all
of them. Next to this “book knowledge” there are practical instruments on the
other side of the picture, which have alchemical and astrological connections.23
It is this complex of knowledge with its inherent relations that constitute Khun-
rath’s theosophy.

Theology and Reform according to Weigel

Even if Khunrath’s theological approach may be generally seen in the Lutheran

context, it was best exemplified, in a way demonstrably important to him, not
by Luther but by Valentin Weigel (1533–1588) – Lutheran pastor and spiritual-
ist theologian, mentioned by Khunrath among the “friends of wisdom”. In fact,
Khunrath’s Amphitheatre is the first printed text to mention Weigel’s name be-

20
 Cf. parallel texts in Kummer, Alchemie und Kontrafaktur, pp. 576–580.
21
 Ibid., p. 573.
 A similar task was undertaken by Valentin Weigel in his Vom wahren seligmachenden Glauben (1572)
22

where he tried to vindicate the orthodoxy of his conceptions, taken in their majority from the tradition
of German Mysticism, by pinpointing equivalent ideas in texts of Martin Luther.
23
 See Forshaw, Curious Knowledge, pp. 109f.

47
 Martin Žemla

yond the confines of a narrow circle of friends.24 And, indeed, we often feel the
Saxon pastor, mystic, theologian and theosopher to be implicitly present in the
book.25
Weigel criticized religious practices and teachings of the Lutheran church.
Against them, he was an advocate of freedom of the will and refused the idea of
the irreparably sinful human nature.26 But throughout his works, he remained
faithul to the basic Lutheran principles faith alone and grace alone. Yet, faith, for
him, means something “essential”, demanding “regeneration”, “rebirth” of man,
not a “historic faith”, so much denounced by him. As congruent as this may be
with Luther himself, this is, in his own opinion, Weigel’s main attack against
the Lutheran orthodoxy of his time,27 which, according to him, promulgated
nothing but an inefficient “historical faith” and a “vain consolation” with the
external merits of Christ. In other words, the most radical divorce from Luther
was Weigel’s (and many spiritualist’s) understanding of the role of Christ as
the mediator between humanity and divinity. Both parties drew, among others,
on the late medieval German Mysticism of John Tauler (c. 1300–1361) and the
Theologia Deutsch. But while Luther put aside their Neoplatonic ramifications,
spiritualists were rather attracted by them, especially by the idea of the divine
“spark” or “divine ground” in the soul, although they did not refuse the principle
of “resignation” and of the “faith”. Thus, Luther, and later the Lutheran ortho-
doxy, spoke rather of the consoling and redeeming faith in Christ for us and the

 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 66; cf. Carlos Gilly, The Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae
24

of Heinrich Khunrath, in: Magia, alchimia, scienza dal ’400 al ’700. L’influsso di Ermete Trismegisto / Magic,
Alchemy and Science 15th-18th Centuries: The Influence of Hermes Trismegistus, Carlos Gilly – Cis van
Heertum (eds.), Venezia – Amsterdam 2002, Vol. I, pp. 325–350, here p. 342.
25
 Cf. Gilly, The Amphitheatrum, p. 342; Urszula Szulakowska, The Alchemy of Light: Geometry and Optics
in Late Renaissance Alchemical Illustration, Leiden – Boston – Köln 2004, pp. 80f., 85, 93. This affinity
does not consist only in the similarity of natural philosophical ideas or Weigel’s epistemology, but
also in theologically relevant moments. This was partly evidenced already by Johann Arndt who was
influenced by Weigel and spoke enthusiastically about Khunrath’s Amphitheatre. Cf. also Carlos Gilly,
Das Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae von Heinrich Khunrath, in: Heinrich Khunrath, Amphitheatrum
Sapientiae Aeternae – Schauplatz der ewig wahren Weisheit, Carlos Gilly – Anja Hallacker – Hanns-
Peter Neumann (eds.), Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2013, pp. 133–182, here p. 149.
 Weigel, Zwei nützliche Tractate I, chap. 7, ZW (= Sämtliche Schriften, E. Zeller – W.-E. Peuckert
26

/eds./, Stuttgart 1962-) III,39; cf. Gabriele Bosch, Reformatorisches Denken und frühneuzeitliches
Philosophieren. Eine vergleichende Studie zu Martin Luther und Valentin Weigel, Marburg 2000, pp. 237ff.
 See Weigel, Vom wahren seligmachenden Glauben, chap. 6, ZW V,49 f., with quotation from Luther’s
27

sermon on Luke 18:9–14 (WA /= Weimarer Ausgabe, 1883-/ 10, III, 297,16 ff.); see ibid., chap. 8 and
5, ZW V,60 and 40.

48
 He​​i nrich Khunrath and his Theosophical Reform

externally imputed justification (iustitia imputativa), while the spiritualists accen-

tuated the essential dwelling of Christ in us (inhabitatio essentialis), the essential
justification and essential unity with Christ. This involves a cooperation on the
part of man who has to imitate the poor life, death and resurrection of Christ.28
Admittedly, a good deal of Weigel’s criticism may have stemmed from his mis-
understandings and misreadings. But he was witness to the great controversies in
the Lutheran church after Luther’s death, and he saw both their cause and their
consequences in an (in his view false and wicked) attempt at creating formalized
and “dead” doctrines. Seeing the theologians’ inability to agree upon the true
interpretation of the Bible and fundamental theological questions, he decided
to find a deeper unity on solid metaphysical and epistemological grounds.29 To
achieve this, he combined, among others, Paracelsian philosophy of nature,
Augustinian and Piconian interpretations of the Book of Genesis, the Neopla-
tonism of Boethius, and the epistemology of “three eyes” of Hugh of St. Victor.
He took all knowledge as necessarily subjective, except the highest knowledge
through the “eye of mind” in which human reason remains passive while “God
is knowing Himself through Himself” in man, “God himself is the eye and the
light in man”.30
The goal of Weigel was to show the proper way to truth beyond all sectarianism
and partiality, to the reformed theology which may lead to universal harmony,
tolerance, and peace. The method he proposes was rational, it intended to satisfy
and calm reason, to give it an orientation: to show that the proper understanding
of the Bible needed action of the Divine Spirit, for which one had to patiently
wait in a “quiet Sabbath”, in the “Sabbath of Sabbaths”.31

28
 Cf. Bernard Gorceix, La mystique de Valentin Weigel 1533–1588 et les origines de la théosophie allemande,
Paris 1971, pp. 70ff. Perhaps the best, and also literarily impressive, later comparison of both positions
is given in Weigel’s Dialogus de Christianismo (1584). The criticism of the Melanchthonian imputation
conception is typical, among others, for Andreas Osiander (1498–1552), and Weigel was believed
to be one of his followers.
29
 His instruments and results are, nevertheless, far from those which where used and presented,
be it for similar reasons, as unified and unifying conceptions in the Formula Concordiae, a Lutheran
statement of faith, promulgated in 1577 and deeply hated by Weigel. Cf. Andrew Weeks, Valentin
Weigel (1533 – 1588). German Religious Dissenter, Speculative Theorist, and Advocate of Tolerance, New York
2000, pp. 34ff.
 Weigel, Der güldene Griff, in: PW (= Sämtliche Schriften. Neue Edition, H. Pfefferl /ed./, Stuttgart-
30

Bad Cannstatt 1996-) VIII, chap. 5 and 13.

 See e.g. Weigel, Von der Vergebung der Sünden, ZW II,16f.; Kirchen und Hauspostille I,1, in: PW
31

XII/1,11, 45.

49
 Martin Žemla

Now, Weigel does not believe (in contrast to the Lutheran orthodoxy32) in
a posthumous “eternal academy” (academia aeterna) in which one could learn
answers to all (also physical) questions not achievable by human reason in this
world, so all knowledge necessary for one’s salvation must and can be learned
and known in this life. Thus, through the active imitatio Christi and the passive
receiving of divine workings in the “Sabbath”, one can be really “born again”
and, as a new, regenerated man, even receive the new, “heavenly” body, similar
to (or identical with) the body of resurrected Christ.
Importantly, this idea of resurrection and rebirth became also substantial in
some pseudo-Weigelian texts which connected it with alchemy. This “art” was
adduced as a proof that the transmutation of matter (the perfection of an ordinary
metal) involved death of the matter and its renovation, analogical to the rebirth of
man.33 This way, the typical threefold analogy between Christ, the believer and the
philosopher’s stone has been established.34 This method was presented by some
as fundamental for the whole Paracelsian-Weigelian tradition. This is exemplified
by the influential Paracelsian-Weigelian volume Philosophia Mystica, published by
Lucas Jennis in 1618, to which the alchemist Johann Siebmacher (himself inspired
by the pseudo-Weigelian “spiritual alchemy” and by Khunrath’s theosophy)
contributed an extra tinge of alchemy with his own Introductio hominis.35

Khunrath’s Theology of the “Three Divine Books”

Khunrath’s theological attitude was in many ways Weigelian. There are passag-
es in his Amphitheatre indicating that he stays faithful to Luther’s principles of
faith alone and grace alone.36 At the same time, he shared both Luther’s and his

32
 See Philipp Melanchthon, Initia doctrinae physicae, Wittenberg 1565, p. 6; id., Loci communes
theologici, Vol. I, pars prior, Johann Andrea Detzer (ed.), Erlangen 1828, “Definitiones theologicae”,
p. 262; id., Corpus reformatorum, Carolus Gottlieb Bretschneider (ed.), Halle 1846, Vol. XIII:
Philippi Melanthonis Opera omnia, Vol. II: Liber de anima, pp. 16 and 71.
 For the importance of this Weigelian topic, also in context of Khunrath’s thought, see M. Zuber,
33

The Spiritual Alchemy, pp. 46 ff. Zuber sees the Azoth et Ignis and the Ad dialogum de morte (an addition to
the authentic Dialogus de Christianismo, printed 1614) as the two crucial alchemical pseudo-Weigeliana.
See also Martin Žemla, Valentin Weigel and Alchemy, in: Tomáš Nejeschleba – Jiří Michalík (eds.),
Latin Alchemical Literature of Czech Provenance: Proceedings from The Centre for Renaissance Texts Conference.
16–17 October 2014, Olomouc 2015, pp. 21–49.
 Zuber, Spiritual Alchemy, pp. 53f.
34

 For Siebmacher, see ibid., pp. 75–95.

35

 See e.g. Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 156, 158, 227.

36

50
 He​​i nrich Khunrath and his Theosophical Reform

later spiritualist critics’ predilection for the late medieval German Mystics, es-
pecially Johannes Tauler, and their contempt for schoolmen and Aristotelians.
He is familiar with their idea of the “friends of God”,37 the “divinization” of
man and annihilation of one’s “own will”38 in the unity with God. Similarly to
Weigel, Khunrath took the Bible as a mere “memorial” and “testimony”, a mem-
ory aid,39 while regarding it as one of the “divine books”. He called for necessary
self-knowledge,40 accompanied by the knowledge of God and nature,41 spoke
of the “Sabbath of Sabbaths”,42 and put emphasis on the Book of Genesis and
its proper interpretation in a way that bore striking resemblance to Weigel’s.43
Against Luther, but in accordance with Weigel, Khunrath refuses the concept
of the natural sinfulness of man, insisting instead, that the original sin can be
erased and removed (auferri et separari); not through human works, but through
the Divine love, in the regeneration of body, soul and spirit.44
Khunrath is often fulminating against “sophists” and other unworthy oppo-
nents who lack the true knowledge and the right method. Together with spiritualists,
and against Lutheran orthodoxy, he laid stress on personal spiritual experience,45
on illumination by the Holy Spirit. The real knowledge is “enthusiastic”, it is
given only to those who are enlighted by the Spirit of Divine Wisdom.46 This

 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 25, 234, 293, 299; id., Von hylealischen Chaos, das ist
37

primaterialischen catholischen oder allgemeinen natürlichen Chaos, Straßburg 1597, pp. 394, 415.
 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 132; cf. e.g. Theologia Deutsch, Hermann Mandel (ed.),
38

Leipzig 1908, chap. 32 et al.

39
 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum, “Epilogue”, p. 220
 Ibid., com. 205, 235 et al. “Know thyself” is, of course, an old imperative from the Temple of
40

Apollo in Delphi, and this appeal remained generally present in the Latin thought. Nevertheless, for
Valentin Weigel, it became a central motif and a constitutive part of his thought, being systematically
conjoined with knowledge of God and of nature.
41
 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 225; for Weigel cf. e.g. his Gnothi seauton, passim.
 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 20, 162, 235, 294 and Isagoge IX,150. This “Sabbath” is
42

also discussed by Johann Reuchlin in his De arte cabbalistica (see J. Reuchlin, La Kabbale. De arte
cabalistica, François Secret /ed./, Milano – Paris 1995, p. 208); the inscription mentioning the
“Sabbath” on the “Androgynous Adam” image of the Amphitheatre obviously refers to Reuchlin. See
Purš, Heinrich Khunrath v zrcadle svého Divadla, pp. 248f.
43
 Cf. Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 261
44
 Cf. ibid., “Isagoge”, p. 202.
45
 Cf. e.g. ibid., com. 158.
 Ibid., I, p. 21; id., Von hylealischen Chaos (1597), “Vorrede”, unpag. [s. A viii v nn]; for “enthusiasm” in
46

Khunrath cf. Ralf Töllner, De unendliche Kommentar. Untersuchungen zu vier ausgewählten Kupferstichen
aus Heinrich Khunraths “Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae Solius Verae (Hanau 1609)”, Ammersbeck
bei Hamburg 1991, pp. 18ff.

51
 Martin Žemla

necessity of illumination and personal revelation (induced also by means of the

figures in the Amphitheatre) are obviously stressed in contradistinction to ortho-
dox Lutheran theology, as established in the Formula of Concord (1577), but also
against Luther.47 Khunrath believes that without illumination the truth cannot
be found at all.48 But although prayer and patient waiting for God in the silent
“Sabbath of Sabbaths” is indispensable, the illumination comes only to those
who are also seriously searching in sciences. This idea is depicted in the fourth
figure of the Amphitheatre, the famous oratory-laboratory image which also makes
clear that it is not enough to read “paper books”, but that one has to “read”
diligently in the “three divine books”: Holy Scripture, the book of nature, and
the book of conscience.49
Here, we are at the most specific and crucial part of Khunrath’s complex the-
osophy, his “threefold method” which he boasts to have successfully followed
in his Amphitheatrum, and which, according to him, others are also obliged to
observe.50 Khunrath certainly did not invent the concept of the “three divine
books”. But the consistency and depth with which he applied this method and
used the ternary principle in his interpretation is extraordinary. As Paracelsians
in general, he believes that the revelation of God is present not only in the
Holy Scripture but everywhere. Words of God can be heard, investigated and
understood in nature in a similar way as in the Bible.51 By “reading the book of
nature” we come to theologically relevant conclusions – for example, to the insight
that even Christ as the Saviour and Son of man or microcosmos can be known
through the Lapis philosophorum as the Son of macrocosmos.52
But “reading the book of nature” is not a matter of theory only (as it, obviously,
was for the alchemical pseudo-Weigeliana). It means also to work with nature,
to change its natural processes and to observe the outcome. And even this is not

 Cf. Luther, Wider die himmlischen Propheten, von den Bildern und Sakrament (1883 ff.), WA 18,62–
47

214. Cf. Formula concordiae II, contra 6; for Formula concordiae cf. Siegfried Wollgast, Philosophie in
Deutschland zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung, 1550–1650, Berlin 1988, pp. 32f. and 42f.
 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 294; id., Von hylealischen Chaos (1597), p. 43; cf. Forshaw,
48

Curious Knowledge, pp. 114, 122.

49
 See e.g. Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 28, 32, 48, etc.
50
 See ibid., com. 136.
51
 Ibid., “Isagoge”, p. 211; com. 136 et al.
 E.g. ibid., II, p. 197. Cf., generally, Zuber, The Spiritual Alchemy, pp. 37f., 50f. (Khunrath), 53ff.,
52

69 (pseudo-Weigel) et al.

52
 He​​i nrich Khunrath and his Theosophical Reform

enough. Khunrath believes that the appropriate investigation of the Bible, na-
ture as macrocosmos, and man as microcosmos can, for each “divine book”, be
conducted on multiple levels, similarly to the multiple sense of the Biblical text
as proposed by the traditional exegesis.53 Khunrath accepts the literal, anagog-
ical, tropological, and moral sense of the Bible, while the traditional exegesis
identified the last two as being one and the same.54 Interestingly, he does not
reject the literal sense, so criticized by Weigel for whom it was the “Antichrist’s
understanding”.55 It is, in fact, at first sight surprising that the only sensus not
mentioned by Khunrath is the allegorical sense. Given the importance it had for
Renaissance authors, we may suspect here influence of the Lutheran Reformation
with its claim that the Bible has just one, literal, meaning. Instead of the alle-
gorical, Khunrath supplements physical, cabalistical, and theosophical reading,
thus multiplying the (traditionally four) senses of Scripture. Similarly, also the
other two books must be read in multiple layers and from various perspectives.
As Khunrath remarks, the voice of God can be heard:

“in the Holy Bible: historically, or literally, morally, tropologically, anagog-

ically, physically, figuratively, cabalistically and theosophically; in Nature:
macro- and microcosmically, theosophically, physically, physical-medically,
physical-chemically, physical-magically, hyperphysical-magically and cab-
alistically; in Ourselves: according to the soul in the mirror of the mind
connected with God or enlightened by the divine light, in sleeping and
waking, according to a thousand evidences of one’s own conscience, which
attest the truth according to the law divinely inscribed in our hearts.”56

Reading of these “books” is not allegorical, but it certainly does not mean that
it is straightforward and easy.57 Firstly, Khunrath proposes a method of mutu-

53
 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), II, p. 211; cf. Forshaw, Alchemy in the Amphitheatre, p. 117.
54
 Cf. ibid., pp. 117f.
 Weigel does not proclaim this openly but he speaks about the “Antichrist’s” understanding of
55

the Bible “according to the letter”, hinting, perhaps (see Winfried Zeller, Die Schriften Valentin
Weigels. Eine literarkritsiche Untersuchung, Berlin 1940, pp. 36f.), at the German Catechism (1529) of
Martin Luther, in: WA 30/I,185,30 ff. (see also Wochenpredigten über Joh. 16 –20, in: WA 28,91). Cf.
also Weigel’s Vom gesetze oder willen Gottes, chap. 4, PW III,10, note 3, and ibid., chap. 7, PW III,25.
56
 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), “Isagoge”, p. 211.
 Ibid., com. 43 (against literal interpretation of the Bible). Although allegory is sometimes mentioned
57

(com. 5, 294, 306), it does not refer to Khunrath’s own method.

53
 Martin Žemla

ally interdependent (“synoptic”) reading of the three books, because one book
explains another – liber librum explicat.58 Secondly, it is necessary to read them
appropriately, to know how to read them. The problem is that many read them
falsely. Thus, a reform of the relevant sciences and methods is essential.

Theory and Practice of Reform

In this sense, Khunrath speaks of a necessary reform of “magic”59 as well as of

alchemy, against false “sophists” (rebuked under this name already by Luther)
and goldmakers. We have mentioned the significant account of deceitful alchem-
ical practices in his, pseudonymously printed, Trewhertzige Warnungs-Vermanung.
He calls for a necessary renewal of magic, cabala, and alchemy, the “most ven-
erable and most sacred sciences and arts”, through Divine Wisdom. They must
assist in the acquisition of Divine Wisdom, but at the same time, Wisdom is also
the agent behind such a transformation of them: all “renewers of sciences” have
a divine calling.60
To reform sciences necessary to understand the “three divine books”, we need
some instruments. In the first instance, we have three inborn gifts and “common
notions” (notitiae communes): the “book of conscience”, the “natural judgement”
and the “good sense”. They are the criteria of the sciences and norms of certain-
ties in them.61 But the “secret key” of the interpretation of the “three books” lies
outside them. It is nothing other than the influence of the Divine Spirit achieved
through prayer.62 Prayer is an exegetical method which enables hearing and un-
derstanding of the voice of God in many forms, according to the multiple senses
of the “divine books”. The same applies to the “tears of repentance” which are
the “prime matter of regeneration”.63 Consequently:

58
 Ibid., com. 121, “Isagoge”, pp. 207 and 213; cf. id., Von hylealischen Chaos (1597), p. 294: “Liber
librum explicat, ein Buch verdolmetscht und leget auß das andere: das Buch der Biblischen Schrifft das Buch
der Natur; und das Buch der Natur hinwiederum das Buch der Biblischen Schrifft.”
 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 216.
59

 Ibid., com. 10.

60

 Cf. Gilly, Das Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae, p. 148.

61

 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 297, 167,

62

 Ibid., com. 106.

63

54
 He​​i nrich Khunrath and his Theosophical Reform

“All sciences, which are not acquired in a divine, divine-magic and chris-
tian-cabalistic way, through prayers and tears, are stolen waters which do
not stem from God (…) but deceptive, false and vain gifts.”64

The “reform”, or rather “renewal” of sciences is obviously of great importance

for Khunrath. But their goal is, ultimately, to bring about another transforma-
tion – “a useful reform” of those who slipped into worldly affaires and whose
hearts are encumbered with worldly success.65 The most important “reform” is
that of the “perverted human nature” (rectificatio et emendatio naturae perversae),
i.e. the rebirth. Then, Divine Wisdom will be obtained.66 The Wisdom (identi-
fied, traditionally, with Christ)67 which, in its turn, will “liberate” human heart
from its corruption and ignorance.68 The goal of Khunrath’s theosopher, en-
dowed with Divine Wisdom, is not only to “behold God” and divine truths, but
also, being active, to “do wonders”.69 This is possible because the “theosopher”
is a “human God” or a “divine Man”, i.e. a reborn man:70 he can do anything,
what he wishes, because what he wants, is what is wanted by God.71 In other
words: “Heaven, earth, water and all what is in them must serve to him who has
God for his friend.”72
So, the reformed sciences can lead to Divine Wisdom, and this can induce the
reform, or rather regeneration of man.
But that does not exclude the restoration of matter through the same process.
On the one hand, Khunrath leaves no doubt that material change, the transmu-

 Ibid., com. 101, similarly com. 251 et al.

64

 Ibid., “Prologus” and com. 6, 61, 186.

65

 Ibid., com. 274.

66

 For this identification, see Thomas Schipflinger, Sophia-Maria: A Holistic Vision of Creation, York
67

Beach 1998, pp. 50ff.; Annine van der Meer, Van Venus tot Madonna. Een verborgen geschiedenis, Den
Haag 2006, chap. „De christelijke Sophia“, pp. 453–474.
 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 278, 299.
68

 Cf. Forshaw, Curious Knowledge, pp. 116, 122.

69

 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 194, 218, 222. According to Weigel, especially in his later
70

works, the spiritual rebirth includes obtaining the new, “heavenly” body; see, e.g., Weigel, Dialogus
de Christianismo, chap. 1, ZW IV, 14ff.; chap. 5, ZW IV, 97; Kirchen- und Hauspostille, I,4, PW XII/1,31,
34, 36f. and passim; Vom Leben Christi, chap. 1, PW VII, 30; chap. 16 f., PW VII, 67ff., and passim.
 Khunrath Amphitheatrum (1609), “Isagoge”, p. 203.
71

 Khunrath, Von hylealischen Chaos (1597), pp. 393, 402.

72

55
 Martin Žemla

tation of matter, is but secondary. On the other hand, he is firmly convinced that
transmutation is possible. In fact, the strict principle of analogy, so methodically
applied by him, implies that the principle or “power” (fortitudo) which is able
to bring about the regeneration of human beings will also lead to some kind of
regeneration in (and of) the world. The transformed man can transform mat-
ter to its paradisiacal state; the regenerated is able to regenerate, to transmute
matter.73 And the secret power responsible for it should be capable not only of
changing a lump of matter, but it was expected to bring about a much more
general change. Such a “powerful power of all power” (totius fortitudinis fortitudo
fortis), Khunrath says, is the “Venus of Philosophers”: an eternal power which
animates and preserves everything, one that will renew “everything on heaven
and earth”. This is to say, according to Khunrath:74 “not only angels, Sun, Moon,
stars and air, but also animals on earth, trees, plants, the Earth itself, and even
seas, rivers, water sources and those [beings] that live in the waters.”
Khunrath is somewhat secretive about how such a universal change can be in-
duced by an individual act of transformation or transmutation. We would expect
transmutation to involve only a specific piece of matter, but for him, obviously,
establishing conditions for the divinizitation of man opens the door also to a
general divinization of the material world, to the renewal of its paradisiacal state.
It may be that Khunrath, with his predilection for cabala, could adopt here the
cabalistic teaching according to which the wise man had to reestablish harmon-
ical relations of the world to its creator through his divine contemplations and
observing of the mitzvot (commandments) of God.75 But the primary perspective
Khunrath has in mind here is, obviously, as documented by his series of Bibli-
cal quotations, Christian eschatology. In such a context, the acts of individual
perfection, i.e. personal transformation-regeneration as well as transmutation of
a specific matter, point to the expected general perfection at the end of times;
they are its forerunners, promulgators, and testifiers.
So, Khunrath remarks, the present corrupted state of affairs is, according to
the Book of Genesis, man’s fault: “Because you (…) have eaten of the tree (…)
cursed is the ground because of you” (Gen. 3:17). It is only through Christ and

 See Purš, Heinrich Khunrath v zrcadle svého Divadla, p. 194.

73

 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), com. 136–137, as well as the introductory text on p. (I) 5.
74

 See Purš, Heinrich Khunrath v zrcadle svého Divadla, p. 241. One must bear in mind, nevertheless,
75

that the Christian cabala was very different from the Hebrew Kabbalah: this was so already for its
“father” Pico della Mrandola, and the more so for the following Christian authors.

56
 He​​i nrich Khunrath and his Theosophical Reform

the “children of God” that this is expected to change. Khunrath can substantiate
this with Biblical words which will be useful to be quoted in extenso:

“in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in

one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth”
(Ephes. 1:10);76 “in him [i.e. Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to
dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth
or in heaven” (Col. 1:20).

And, as a sort of locus classicus:

“the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of
God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because
of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free
from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the
children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning
together in the pains of childbirth until now” (Rom. 8:19-22).

These Biblical quotations show the eschatological horizon in which the ultimate
“reformation” is envisaged by Khunrath. Envisaged, and stimulated, as such, by
his theosophy.

Spreading the Reform

The author of the Amphitheatre is surely somewhat esoteric in his expression and
he must have expected his (comprehending) audience to be limited. As so many
alchemical philosophers before him, Khunrath believes that the truth must re-
main hidden from the public, because it can never be adequately grasped by
the majority, and because it would be dangerous in their hands. And yet there
is no doubt that his purpose was to educate, to change, to reform (on a small
scale, initially). His reform is singular – regeneration of a single person, trans-
mutation of a single piece of matter –, but its ultimate prospect is a reform far
more extensive. Moreover, the way to achieve this reformation involves, as we

 As Vulgata puts it: “[…] instaurare omnia in Christo quae in caelis et quae in terra sunt in ipso.”
76

57
 Martin Žemla

have seen, a reform of sciences and of their methods, which has, as such, more
universal aspirations.
So, Khunrath’s regeneration of man might have been a very private thing, to
be achieved in the oratory and laboratory, as the fourth image of the Amphithea­
tre suggests. But, at the same time, with its overall context and ultimate goals it
could become very attractive to those who were aiming at a universal reform of
society, religion, and knowledge – among others, and especially, to the advocates
of the Rosicrucianism.
It will suffice to mention the most famous names of those who either cele-
brated Khunrath’s theosophy or, at least, were building (and rebuilding) upon
it generally. The author of the first answer to the Rosicrucian manifestos Adam
Haslmayr (c. 1560–c. 1630);77 the promoter of Böhme, reader of alchemical pseu-
do-Weigeliana and apocalyptist Paul Nagel (d. after 1628);78 another follower of
Böhme, Abraham von Franckenberg (1593–1652); but, in a broader sense, also
the author and co-author of the first Rosicrucian manifestos Johann Valentin
Andreae (1586–1654).79 Numerous sympathizers and adherents of Rosicrucianism
called themselves theosophers or students of theosophy. So, for example, Julius
Sperber (or Julianus de Campis, 1540–1616), who was a friend of Tobias Hess
(1558–1614) and Andreae, and joined the Rosicrucian debate very early, was a
great admirer of Khunrath taking Rosicrucians simply for “theosophers”.80 An-
other sympathizer of Rosicrucianism, Daniel Mögling (1596–1635), considered

 Adam Haslmayr, Antwort an die lobwürdige Brüderschaft der Theosophen von RosenCreutz (1612).
77

Although the manifestos did not mention “theosophy”, Haslmayr uses this word.
 Cf. Leigh Penman, Jacob Boehme’s Intellectual Networks and the Heterodox Milieu of his Theosophy, 1600–
78

1624, in: Ariel Hessayon – Sarah Apetrei (eds.), An Introduction to Jacob Boehme: Four Centuries of
Thought and Reception, New York 2009, pp. 599–622; Zuber, The Spiritual Alchemy, pp. 54, 60, 67, 96ff.
 Andreae mentions theosophy positively in his Christianopolis (introd. and transl. by E. H. Thompson,
79

Dordrecht 1999, chap. 60, pp. 227f.), although this does not necessarily prove that he had the same
thing in mind as Khunrath; for example, the original Latin edition of the Confessio fraternitatis (Kassel
1615), at least co-authored by Andreae, despises the “amphitheatral histrionism”. See Carlos Gilly,
Das Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae, p. 155; id., Die Rosenkreuzer als europäisches Phänomen, in:
Carlos Gilly – Friedrich Niewöhner (eds.), Rosenkreuz als europäisches Phänomen im 17. Jahrhundert,
Amsterdam 2002, pp. 19–56, here p. 38; see also the edition of the three early Rosicrucian manifestos
in Johann Valentin Andreae, Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 3, Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann (ed.),
Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1996. Cf. Martin Brecht, Das Aufkommen der neuen Frömmigkeitsbewegung in
Deutschland, in: id., Geschichte des Pietismus, Vol. 1, Göttingen 1993, pp. 113–203, here p. 151.
 Gilly, Khunrath und das Entstehen der frühneuzeitlichen Theosophie, in: Heinrich Khunrath, Amphitheatrum
80

Sapientiae Aeternae – Schauplatz der ewig wahren Weisheit, Carlos Gilly – Anja Hallacker – Hanns-
Peter Neumann (eds.), p. 17.

58
 He​​i nrich Khunrath and his Theosophical Reform

theosophy, next to pansophy, as one of the two parts of Rosicrucianism, and

he began his Speculum Sophicum Rhodo-Stauroticum Universale (1618) with words
from Khunrath’s Amphitheatre.81
Another name is worth mentioning in this context. Although Jan Amos Come-
nius (1592–1670) is not among those quoting or praising Khunrath, their thought
is linked both directly and indirectly. The reform of education, his famous pro-
gram, was just one piece in the great puzzle of universal reformation envisaged
by him. In the Panaugia (a title used by Francesco Patrizi in his Nova de uni­
versis philosophia), a part of his monumental project of the Consultatio catholica
de emendatione rerum humanarum, Comenius follows the idea that humanity is
approaching the end of times when all knowledge is finally getting unveiled – an
idea, pronounced, among others, by Luther and Paracelsus, and variously cul-
tivated by Paracelsians (including Khunrath) and contemporary apocalyptists.
It is the task of man to expedite this process.82 In Comenius’ view, the ultimate
horizon of the emendation or reform of “all human things” is not the world
itself but creating such a state of affairs which would abolish the obstacles on
the way towards the upcoming new life with God. According to Jan Amos, the
future life will also include further learning in a (vaguely conceived) “heavenly
academy” (academia coelestis). The task of his universal education (pampaedia) is,
therefore, not knowing perfectly everything here on earth, a goal certainly all too
bold, but equipping man with such a knowledge that could fully turn his mind
to eternity and to the desire for eternity. This knowledge involves, among others,
proper use of the “three divine books”. Interestingly, the scheme presented in
the Pampaedia (another part of the Consultatio) is, as a matter of fact, connected
with the triadic diagram of Khunrath’s Amphitheatre, the mediating work being
the Theologia naturalis (1615) of Johann Heinrich Alsted.83 Alsted himself was
privately interested in hermetic texts, magic, cabala, ars memoriae, ars lullica, and
occult artes in general. In one of his letters, he names Khunrath among author-
ities of the chymical art and he underlines the harmony between nature and the

81
 Ibid.
 See e.g. Martin Luther, Vermahnung zu Gebet wider den Türken (1541), in: WA 51,593; for Paracelsus
82

see Kurt Goldammer, Paracelsus. Sozialethische und sozialpolitische Schriften, Tübingen 1952, pp. 41ff.;
Charles Webster, Paracelsus: Medicine, Magic and Mission at the End of Time, New Haven – London
2008, pp. 210 –243.
 Khunrath, Amphitheatrum (1609), “Summa Amphitheatri” (included before the “Interpretationes
83

et Annotationes”); J. H. Alsted, Theologia naturalis (1615), pars II, p. 243; J. A. Komenský, De rerum
humanarum emendatione consultatio catholica, Prague 1966, Vol. II, p. 54

59
 Martin Žemla

Bible.84 In his monumental Encyclopedia (1630) in seven volumes, he included

also “Pyrotechnica” where he drew on Khunrath’s De igne magorum discussing
various types of fire,85 and he gave a short overview of the seven stages of the
Amphitheatre in the part entitled “Theosophia et Philosophia Salomonis”.86 Also
the very notion of the “book of conscience” or “of mind”, used by Khunrath, can
be found again in Alsted as well as in Comenius. Thus, although it is not clear if
Comenius knew Khunrath from his own reading, or he was introduced to him by
Alsted, an author obviously familiar with Khunrath’s work, they demonstrably
shared some concepts of crucial importance.

Conclusion

I believe one possible way to interpret Heinrich Khunrath is to regard him as an

author aiming at the right (be it peculiar, in his rendition) interpretation of the
Reformation theology. Faithful to the fundamental teachings of Luther, he takes
seriously some of the spiritualists’ critical approaches. His theology is deeply in-
terconnected with other arts and sciences, because they can, and indeed must,
investigate the “three divine books” together. They also need be reformed so
that they may find their own purpose and context. Theory must meet practice:
prayer must be accompanied by work in laboratory; only hand in hand will they
bring genuine understanding of the “three divine books”, and also induce nec-
essary visions and personal divine revelations. Putting all these aspects togeth-
er is the only way to reform sciences as well as theology, and, finally, to reno-
vate man in his incorrupt, prelapsarian state. The goal as well as the method is
called theosophy.87 The goal as well as the agent is Divine Wisdom (or Christ).
For Khunrath, it was, more or less, a private matter, yet framed as it was with

 For the overall context, see Petr Pavlas, Trinus liber Dei. Komenského místo v dějinách metaforiky knihy
84

[Trinus liber Dei: The Place of Comenius in the History of the Book Metaphor], Červený Kostelec;
Jan Čížek, Johann Heinrich Alsted: A Mediator between Francesco Patrizi and Jan Amos Comenius?, AC
26, pp. 69–87, here pp. 77ff.
 Howard Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted 1588–1638: Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal
85

Reform, Oxford 2000, pp. 90ff., 147ff., 156ff.

 See Johann Heinrich Alsted, Encyclopaedia septem tomis distincta (1630), t. IV, p. 2355b; Howard
86

Hotson, Commonplace Learning: Ramism and its German Ramifcations, 1543–1630, Oxford 2007,
pp. 264f. and note 149.
87
 Ibid., p. 14.

60
 He​​i nrich Khunrath and his Theosophical Reform

an eschatological perspective. Nevertheless, his followers noticed well the “big”

picture in which the “small-scale” reform was envisaged by him. Thus, his the-
osophy might become one of the important inspirations for those who strived
for a project of universal reform.

Resumé

Heinrich Khunrath a jeho theosofická reforma

Heinrich Khunrath (1560–1605) bývá často řazen mezi raně novověké alchymisty
a paracelsiány. Jeho grandiózní Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae je však, přinej-
menším formálně, teologickým komentářem k 365 citacím z Bible. Předkládaná
studie vyzvedá teologické principy Khunrathova myšlení, porovnává je s Luthe-
rovými teologickými názory a poukazuje na spojnice s teoriemi Valentina Wei-
gela (či děl jemu připsaných). Khunrath chápe teologii v hluboké jednotě s dal-
šími uměními a vědami, jež musí všechny dohromady zkoumat „tři Boží knihy“,
aby v nich společně nalezly pravdu. K tomu účelu je třeba spojit teorii a praxi,
práci v laboratoři s modlitbou v oratoři, vize a osobní zjevení. Touto cestou se
pak uskutečňuje reforma věd, teologie a konečně – a především – též obnova
či znovuzrození člověka v jeho neporušeném stavu před pádem. Khunrathova
vize nezbytné reformy je sice značně neurčitá, nicméně v čase raných rosekru­
cián­ských manifestů se dočkala významné recepce.

Summary

Heinrich Khunrath and his Theosophical Reform

Heinrich Khunrath (1560–1605) is often seen in the tradition of Early Modern

alchemists and Paracelsians. However, his monumental Amphitheatrum sapien­
tiae aeternae is, formally, a theological commentary on 365 Biblical quotations.
This article accentuates the theological substance of Khunrath’s thought which
is seen against the backdrop of Luther’s doctrine and the teachings of (or as-
cribed to) Valentin Weigel. For Khunrath, theology is deeply interconnected
with other arts and sciences because all of them must investigate the “three Di-
vine Books” to understand the Truth. For this, theory must meet practice, prayer

61
 Martin Žemla

must be accompanied by work in laboratory, visions and personal divine revela-

tions must be induced. Putting all these aspects together is the only way to re-
form sciences as well as theology, and, finally, to renovate, or regenerate, man
in his incorrupt, prelapsarian state. Khunrath’s vision of the necessary reform,
although very vague, found an important reception in the time of the early Ro-
sicrucian manifestos.

Keywords

Alchemy; Theosophy; Lutheran theology; Paracesianism; Valentin Weigel; Ro-

sicrucianism; Three Divine Books; Bible; Reform

62