The Atom in Seventeenth-Century Poetry

Greek sources. Lacaze shows the close connection of the Turba with theMusḥ̣af as-̣sụwar as well as its indebtedness to the writings of the Byzantine scholar Stephanos of Alexandria (6th–7th centuries CE). Chapter four details the structure of the Turba philosophorum, focusing on an analysis of the first nine sermones. Lacaze uses this opportunity to cast doubt on Ruska’s interpretation of the beginning of the text as a cosmological debate. He disagrees with the separation of the Turba into a cosmological and an alchemical section, pointing out the connections between the two. Lacaze’s arguments about a double meaning of the initial sermones are convincing; as he puts it, the author intends to enlighten the reader in a progressive fashion, creating “a true itinerary towards the truth of nature, by means of a journey across the texts” (p. 283, my translation). Lacaze’s conclusions are the following: he argues, first, that the Arabic origin of the work can no longer be denied (pace Abt), particularly due to its closeness to the Musḥ̣af as-̣sụwar. He also discusses the evidence that may suggest a Christian rather than an Islamic origin of the text. In regards to the likely date of composition, he proposes a range between 850 and 886 CE, closer to 850. Furthermore, he proposes that the true Latin title of the text may be Liber turbae, or Book of the Assembly, and raises the question whether the Arabic original of this work was a manuscript called Musḥ̣af al-Ǧama ̄ʿ a (only surviving in a fragment). While the mathematical-philosophical bent of this fragment does not fit the nature of the Turba, Lacaze raises the intriguing possibility that the Turba, Musḥ̣af as-̣sụwar, and Musḥ̣af al-Ǧama ̄ʿ a were written in the same intellectual circle. Lacaze thinks that the Turba stands out amongst these treatises “by its singularity and even by its strangeness” (p. 337): it is a treatise that surprises at every step, whether by making Pythagoras the pupil of Hermes or by having Presocratics rehearse passages from Stephanos of Alexandria. Lacaze does not think the author meant to deceive the readers, but rather to compel them to meditate about the different levels of understanding that the Art requires in order to grasp its truth. The second part of the book is the critical edition of the Latin text with a French translation. Lacaze reconstructs the text based on the surviving manuscripts. The foundational source remains, as in Ruska, the Krakow (ex-Berlin) manuscript, and Lacaze preserves the cryptic names of the speakers in it. In compensation, he attaches a very useful appendix (I) that provides the decoded names of the philosophers. Appendix II complements these with an explanation of some of the enigmatic substances referred to in the text. The critical apparatus comprises a third appendix containing certain Arabic fragments related to the Turba, the bibliography, and a thorough index for Latin and French. It is clear, given the painstaking work that Lacaze undertook, that his critical edition of the Turba will become the standard in future studies of the work.