The Place of the Turba Philosophorum in the Development of Alchemy

Author(s): M. Plessner
Source: Isis, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1954), pp. 331-338
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/226780 .
Accessed: 16/06/2014 05:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:51:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Place of the
Turba Philosophorum
in the
Developmentof Alchemy
By M. Plessner *

ONLY a small fraction of the extensive literature on alchemy in Latin has

been made available in scholarly editions or translations.' The Catalogue
of Latin and Vernacular Alchemical Manuscripts 2 and Lynn Thorndike's
valuable History of Magic and Experimental Science 3 give us for the first
time a bibliographical survey, at least, of the texts preserved in manuscripts
and early imprints.
Among the treatises that have been published, the Turba Philosophorum
occupies a peculiar position, not only because of the diversity of the texts
extant (we have three different versions), but also because of its special liter-
ary character. In the most complete version the work appears as a report of a
meeting of learned men (hence the name) and their discussion of cosmological
and alchemicalsubjects.
Ruska's edition of the Turba 4 has not yet been fully evaluated. Not one
of the reviews was based on an independent examination of the philological
side of the work.' Apart from these reviews, little attention has been paid to
this text, now accessible in a convenient edition, nor were the views of the
editor seriously discussed. Quotations from the book refer largely to matters
which Ruska casually touched upon, but which have nothing directly to do
$A paper read at the Sixth International Stapleton and M. Hidlyat Husain, in Three
Congress for the History of Science, Amsterdam, Arabic Treatises on Alchemy by Muhammad
1950. bin Umail, Memoirs of the Asiat. Soc. of Bengal,
*The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. vol. I2, I933; J. Ruska, Das Buch der Alaune
1 The following list of relevant publications und Salze, I935.
is arranged in chronological order: Jabir Ibn 2 Such catalogues have appeared: (i) for
Vayyan, Liber de Septuaginta, ed. M. Berthelot, Great Britain and Ireland, by D. W. Singer, 3
Archgologie et histoire des sciences, pp. 3I0-363, vols., I928 ff.; (2) for the United States and
I909; E. Darmstaedter, Die Alchemie des Geber Canada, by W. J. Wilson, Osiris, vol. 6, pp.
(German translation of the Latin Geber texts, I-836, I939; (3) for Paris, by J. Corbett, I939,
not attributable to 'Jabir'), I922; idem, Liber being the first volume of a Catalogue des Manu-
claritatis totius alkimiae artis, dem arabischen scrits Alchimiques Latins.
Alchemisten "Geber" zugeschrieben, Archeion, 3 In 6 volumes, I923 ff.
vols. 6-9, I925-I928; idem, Liber Misericordiae 'J. Ruska, Turba Philosophorum, ein Beit-
Geber, Archiv fur Geschichte der Medizin, vol. rag zur Geschichte der Alchemie (Quellen und
I7, pp. I8I-I97, I925; J. Ruska, Tabula Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften
Smaragdina, I926; R. Steele and D. W. Singer, und der Medizin, vol. i), I93I.
The Emerald Table, Proceedings of the Royal 'There are reviews by E. 0. von Lippmann,
Society of Medicine, Section of the History of Chemiker-Zeitung, vol. 55, p. 867, I93I; G.
Medicine, I927; M. Plessner, Neue Materialien Goldschmidt, Deutsche Lit.-Zeitung, pp. I478-
zur Geschichte der Tabula Smaragdina, Der I482, I933; M. Meyerhof, Orientalist. Lit.
Islam, vol. i6, pp. 77-II3, I927; J. Ruska, Zeitung, pp. I2-I5, I933; P. Kraus, Revue des
Turba Philosophorum (see note 4); Tabula Etudes Islamiques, Abstracta Islamica, p. A 2I2,
Chimica Senioris Zadith filii Hamuelis, ed. H. E. I934. For E. J. Holmyard's review in Isis,
see note 9.

33'

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:51:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
332 M. PLESSNER
with the Turba itself. It is necessary, therefore, to scrutinize both the text and
the editor's opinions on it and on the history of the older Arabic alchemy in
general.
After having proven the Arabic origin of the Turba, Ruska tried to ascertain
the date of its composition by means of Arabic parallel texts. Ruska did not
come to any definite conclusion, but suggested that his text must be more
recent than the books of Krates the Sage and of al-Habib,6 for, in his opinion,
the Turba borrowedsome passages from these treatises. The eighth and ninth
centuries, however, remain a hypothetical date. Moreover, Ruska's views
changed in the course of writing his book. In the opening chapters he assumed
that the ninth or tenth century was the earliest date possible to ascribe to the
origin of the Turba. Yet in the section on the literary problem he suggests
the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh, though without producing any
fresh evidence. The interval between these two dates happens to coincide with
the appearance in its final form of the Corpus Jdbirianumand of the writings
of the physician ar-RIzl. Now Ruska himself states 7 that there is no relation-
ship between 'Jabir' 's and ar-R&zl'sbooks on the one hand and the Turba
on the other, a fact which argues against so late a dating. Furthermore,Ruska
regards the Turba as a polemical book attacking the Greek alchemists and
aiming at a liberation of alchemy from the plague of substituted names,
basing it on a universally recognized natural philosophy.8 So far as this
writer is aware, only Holmyard's review of the book in Isis 9 has cast doubt
on this thesis of Ruska. That thesis is indeed unlikely, not merely in view of
the real character of the text. It would make sense only had the Turba been
written before the times of ar-R&ziand 'Jabir', in whose writings the alleged
aims of the Turba had already been attained.
The only way of positively ascertaining the date of the Turba is to examine
the texts which were influenced by it. The oldest such work which can be
dated with any positiveness, as Ruska himself later stated,10 is the Kitdb
al-Md' al-wdraqi, by Ibn Umail." As the author died in the middle of the
tenth century, the Turba might have been written at the latest about the turn
of the ninth. This date, also suggested by Kraus,12 would be acceptable even
if the books of Krates and al-Habib were indeed sources of the Turba, and if
their dates, as assumed by Ruska, were correct. It seems to this writer, how-
ever, that these two books also borrowed from the Turba. An analysis of the
contents of the Turba proves beyond doubt the unity of the work. Therefore,
any Arabic work which contains parallels to the Turba must be considered
more recent, as long as we do not find any proof to the contrary. Hence,
Krates and al-Habib need no further consideration, so far as our problem is
concerned.
' Both edited and translated in M. Berthelot, 8Ruska, p. 291.
La Chimie au Moyen Age, vol. 3, pp. I ff., 34 9Vol. 20, p. 302-305. But even he does not
ff., I893 (Arabic text), pp. 44 ff., 76 ff. See embark on textual criticism (see note S).
Ruska, pp. 34 ff., especially p. 45, and p. 3I8. 0Isis, vol. 24, p. 338.
7Ruska, p. 34. This lack of relation has "1Edited in Arabic by Muhammad Turab
also been stated with regard to 'Jabir' by P. 'All, in the publication of Stapleton and
Kraus,Jabir Ibn .Hayyan,vol. 2, p. 59 n., 1942. Hidayat Husain mentioned in note i.
12Loc. cit.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:51:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TURBA PHILOSOPHORUM IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALCHEMY 333
In search of a terminus a quo, we have to look for the latest possible source
of the work. Now the speaker of Sermo 59, Nofil, whose name, according to
Ruska, is an erroneous transcription of the Greek name of Theophilus, says:
Item notificovobis,quodDraconunquammoritur.Philosophitamenmulierem
suos coniugesinterficientemneci dederunt; illius enim mulieris venter armis
plenus est et veneno. Effodiaturigitur sepulchrumilli Draconi, et sepeliatur
illa muliercumeo, qui cum illa fortiteriunctusmuliere,quantomagiseam nectit
et volviturcirca eam, tanto corpuseius muliebribusarmis in mulieriscorpore
creatisin partessecatur. Vidensse autemin mulierisartubusmixtum,certusfit
morte, et totus vertitur in sanguinem. Videntes autem philosophiipsum in
sanguinemversum,in sole dimittuntper dies, quousqueeius lenitudoconsumatur
et sanguisarescatet venenuminveniuntillud.
At this moment we are concerned only with the literary pattern of this
speech - which, by the way, is characteristic of the style of the Turba.
Regarding that substance, which is here given the name of "Poison," and
which is concealed in the body of a "woman," it is stated that the "dragon"
is killed by the "woman" during the "embrace" and that it is transformed
into "blood" in which, after the coagulation of the "blood," the "poison"
remains as a residue. All these expressions are, of course, substituted names
for chemical substances and processes. Although the "woman" is pictured as
already "dead" and the dragon killed by means of her "weapons," the very
fact that her body contains "poison" suggests that she was able to kill men by
poison when "alive." Thus the whole description seems from a literary point
of view allied with the Hindu myth of the "poison-maiden,"who kills men by
her embrace."3 The introduction of this myth into Islamic literature came
through the Arabic translation of the Poison Book ascribed to the Indian
Qanakya.14 This translation, edited by Bettina Strauss,15 goes back to the
first half of the ninth century. Ibn Wahshlya, the author of the Nabatean
Agriculture,quotes it and also the story of the poison-maiden in his own book
on poison.16
The date of the writing of the Turba, therefore, must lie between that of
the translation of the Indian Poison Book and that of Ibn Umail's work.
Now we find among the authors on alchemy enumerated in the Fihrist of Ibn
an-Nadim an opponent of the afore-mentionedIbn Wahshiya, named 'Othman
" The history of that myth in Eastern and 16 Cf. D. Chwolsohn, Ueber die Ueberreste
Western literatures has been told by Wilhelm der altbabylonischen Literatur in arabischen
Hertz in his wonderful article, Die Sage vom Uebersetzungen,Petersburg, I859 (Mim. des
Giftmadchen,in Abhandlungender bayrischen Savants strangers prds. d i'Ac. Imp. des Sc.,
Akademie,philos.-philol.Klasse, vol. 20, no. I, vol. 8), pp. II9, 129 of the off-print; A. v. Gut-
I893 (reprinted with some additions in the schmid, Die Nabat'aischeLandwirtschaft und
author's Gesammelte Abhandlungen,herausg. ihre Geschwister,Zeitschr.d. DeutschenMorgeni.
v. F. von der Leyen, o905, pp. 156-277). Gesellschaft, vol. 15, p. 94 f., i86i (Kleine
14 George Sarton, Introduction, vol. I, p. Schriften, vol. 2, p. 695 f., I89o). In her edition,
147. In fact, the Poison Book is a free compila- p. II7, Bettina Strauss announced a thorough
tion in which some materials borrowed from investigationof the relation between the poison
Susruta (Sarton, p. 76 f.) were incorporated. books of Qanakya and Ibn Walshlya. Miss
Strauss became afterwards the wife of Paul
Cf. W. Hertz, Ges. Abh., p. 242 f., Brockelmann,
Geschichte der arab. Lit., Supplement,vol. I, Kraus; she died in 1942, after having given
P. 413. birth to a daughter. I doubt whether the in-
"5BettinaStrauss, Das Giftbuch des SJnJq, vestigation has ever appeared.
1934 (Quellen und Studien, etc., vol. 4).

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:51:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
334 M. PLESSNER
Ibn Suwaid of Akhmim (Ikhmim, Panopolis) in Egypt.17 Among his writings
is the Book of the Controversies and Conferences of Philosophers. It seems
permissible to detect in this work evidence of the Turba itself, or a book of
similar nature. In any case, we find ourselves again confronted with the date
of c. goo. If this is correct, then the author of the Turba would have been a
contemporaryof ar-R&zland of 'Jabir'.
The author was born in Akhmim, a town inhabited by Christians with a
noteworthy scientific tradition where a great many people undoubtedly knew
Greek, Coptic, and Arabic. This explains the astonishing familiarity of the
author of the Turba with the sources of the history of Greek philosophy, to wit,
as in the first nine speeches of the Turba which treat of cosmology, and also
it explains the manner in which the foundations of alchemy are made to appear
in a cosmological guise. Analysis of these speeches - which were not under-
stood by Ruska - demonstrates the systematic plan of the work. For the
time being, at least, we have to assume the unity of the Turba, even where
the obscurity of the presentation prevents us from finding positive proof. The
particulars of this analysis will be offered in the present writer's forthcoming
book, Pre-Socratic Philosophy and Greek Alchemy in Arabic Tradition."8
Nine philosophers take part in the discussion. Their names read as follows
in the Latin text: Iximidrus, Exumdrus, Anaxagoras, Pandulfus, Arisleus,
Lucas, Locustor, Pitagoras, Eximenus. By transcribingthese names back into
Arabic, we arrive at the correct Greek names for nine Pre-Socratics:
Anaximander, Anaximenes,19Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Archelaus, Leucippus,
Ecphantus,20Pythagoras, and Xenophanes.21 All recite their theories, well
known from the Doxographers or even from genuine fragments. In almost
every instance the text conforms to classical sources, or, at least, it can be
explained from them.
Anaximander discusses the Non-Limited (Apeiron); Anaximenes treats
of the Air; Anaxagoras presents the conceptions of Pietas and Ratio as
primary entities; Empedocles discusses the double function of the Air in
separating Water and Earth and in mediating between Water and Fire;
Archelaus treats of the Earth, the most compact, and of Fire, the finest
element, as ruling the universe; Leucippus talks of the Elements, without
giving details, but referring apparently to the Full and the Empty as outlined
by Diogenes Laertius; Ecphantus discusses the difference between the Upper
and the Lower World, describing the former as containing beings composed
17 See the translation of this passage by aoRuska interpreted the Latin mistran-
J. W. Fuck, The Arabic Literature on Alchemy scription as being another form of Bacoscus,
according to an-Nadim, Ambix, vol. 4, p. Io6 Bacsem, which means the Alexandrianphiloso-
f., '95'. As to the town of Akhm!m, cf. Enc. pher and alchemist,Paxamus. But the identity
of Islam, s. v. of Locustorwith Bacsem cannot be maintained,
'A preliminary account of the results of and was also silently rejected by Kraus, Jabir,
the analysis was published in Hebrew in Com- vol. 2, p. 43, note 5 of p. 42.
mentationes Iudaico-Hellenisticae in Memoriam 'According to Ruska, the ninth speaker is
lohannis Lewy, Hieros., 1949, pp. I25-138. Anaximenes. But as this philosopherhas been
19The perverted Latin transcription of the stated to be the speaker of Serma 2, there is
name points again to Anaximander, and this no interpretationleft but Xenophanes. As for
name was erroneously accepted by Ruska. The the reasons for correcting Ruska's identifica-
names of these two philosophers are often tions of names, see below.
confused.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:51:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
335 TURBA PHILOSOPHORUM IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALCHEMY
of the two rare elements only; Pythagoras speaks of the simultaneity of all
four Elements, which, according to him, are all primeval, and out of which
all beings are composed; he does not, however, conceive of the presence of
the four simultaneously in each being, but holds that the angels are composed
of one Element only, the sun, moon and stars of two, and plants and animals
of three, whereas only the human being is composed of all four Elements.
Xenophanes, finally, postulates the coexistence of all four Elements, in varying
mixtures,in all the beings of the world.
Even where these opinions seem to contradict the doctrines of the Pre-
Socratics as they are generally known, it is always possible to show items in
the Greek tradition from which the tenets reported above were developed.
It is by no means a misunderstandingof his sources that has led the author
to his way of presenting the views of the philosophers, but rather his need
for connecting alchemical matters with cosmological teachings, and par-
ticularly his wish to direct the debate toward the subsequent sixty-three
speeches, all of which deal exclusively with alchemy; this has caused the author
to allow himself seeming deviations from the doxographic tradition.
The alchemical matters thus interwoven with the cosmological teachings
are as follows: Anaximanderpraises the Air as a protector against Combus-
tion; Anaximenespoints out the Dilution and Condensationof the Air, accord-
ing to the various degrees of heat; Anaxagoras treats of the Density of matter,
that increases from above to below; Empedocles speaks of the alchemical
symbol of the Egg; Archelaus states the connection between Fire and Earth;
Leucippus presents the metaphor of Birth and Death commonly used in
alchemy; Ecphantus outlines the alchemical doctrine of two Pairs of Elements;
Pythagoras treats of the relations between Numbers and of the alchemical
symbol of the Man; Xenophanes speaks of the ev ro ir&vof the Putrefaction
and of the necessity of all four Elements being together.
As already noted, a clear exposition of the teachings presented in the
cosmological speeches of the Turba became possible only after a thorough
investigation of the text. Ruska's text had to be compared with the variant
readings in the apparatus criticus (which unfortunately is not exhaustive) and
with the portions existing in Arabic. Then the text had to be compared with
the fragments of the Pre-Socratics and the testimonies on them; that made
it possible to correct Ruska's identifications of the names of the orators in
three cases. The most striking discovery is that all nine speakers appear
among the fifteen philosophers mentioned by the Church Father Hippolytus
in the first book of his Refutatio omnium haeresium (c. 222 A. D.), and
further, that there is a close textual connection between this book and the
Turba. After the textual analysis was completed, from which the under-
standing of the real meaning of the speeches resulted, it became almost
automatically clear that the cosmological speeches form a real debate progress-
ing toward a definite aim. It was only necessary to eliminate non-essential
passages, which have their place in the Turba merely for the sake of the
dialogue form.
This definite aim was formulated in the speech of Xenophanes which closes

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:51:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
336 M. PLESSNER
the cosmological discussion. It culminates in three theses: (i) The creator
of the world is Allah, the God of Islam; (2) The world is of a uniform nature;
(3) All creatures of the upper as well as of the lower world are composed of
all four elements. It will now be shown how the discussion leads to this three-
fold conclusion.
To Anaximander,none of the four Elements stands at the beginning of the
still undefined world, but rather the vague idea of an "indefinite Nature."
Anaximenes is the first to introduce the Elements into Cosmology; he himself
begins with a single one, the Air. Then the discussion proceeds to those
who accept two Principles. Anaxagoras first mentions two Principles which
are not Elements Pietas and Ratio. Empedocles places in the foreground two
of the four Elements, Water and Air; and Archelaus, in contrast to him, Earth
and Fire. This speaker is also the first to ascribe to the Creator attributes that
originate in Islam. The doxographicevidence proves that he chooses his terms
so as to contrast his views with those of his predecessor Anaxagoras, who, as
is well known, was accused of impiety. The contrast between Empedocles and
Archelaus is cancelled by Leucippus, who opens the way for a new conception
of the universe, which also includes the world of non-corporeal things; he is
therefore not forced to choose his two Elements from the Four. Ecphantus
can now raise the problem of the unity of the world, thus rising above the
naive position of the five first speakers, who took this unity for granted.
Though he knows of all four Elements, he denies two a place in the upper
world. His speech enables Pythagoras to take a step toward a monistic
conception of the world. He rejects Dualism, proceeds to the doctrine of the
primeval simultaneity of all four Elements, and tries to bridge the gap between
the two worlds by his theory of the gradual distribution of the Elements
among all creatures above and below. To be sure, his conception of Creation
does not surpass that of his predecessors; it remains just as undefined as in
the Bible or in Judeo-ChristianHellenism; by attributing the combined four
Elements to man alone, he even seems to regress. Thus it is not Pythagoras,
but Xenophanes 22 who reaches the goal. The latter introduces the Koranic
Creator-God,comparablewith the alchemist 22a in his awareness and activity;
and, by means of his clearly monistic cosmology, he establishes the possibility
of the alchemical transformationof substance. Finally, with his theory of the
ubiquity of all four Elements (until then only naively presumed), he also
establishes that general interpretation of Nature which found its classical
expression in the passage from the Tabula Smaragdina:23
That which is above is from that which is below,and that which is below is
from that which is above. The workingof miracles[originates]fromone, just
as all thingsare fromone. Its fatheris the Sun and its motherthe Moon. The
Earth carriedit in her belly, and the Wind nourishedit, as Fire which became
Earth. . . . It ascends from Earth to Heaven and becomes ruler over that which
is aboveandthatwhichis below.
9Ruska, p. 293, was on this point misled I Translation by E. J. Holmyard, The
by Pythagoras' r6le as the chairman of the Emerald Table, Nature, vol. 2, p. 525, 1923,
Assembly. quoted by Ruska, Tabula Sm., p. 120, slghtly
9 This parallel was expressly drawn by corrected.
'JIbir,' cf. Kraus, vol. 2, p. 99.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:51:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TURBA PHILOSOPHORUM IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALCHEMY 337
It is the threefold result of the cosmological discussion -the Koranic
Creator-God, the Unified World, the Doctrine of the Four Elements -that
gives the discussion its clear direction toward the chief subject of the Turba,
alchemy. At the same time, alchemy is placed within the Islamic world of
thought. In pursuing this purpose, the author displays a sovereign mastery
of the doxographic literature and an uncommon literary skill. He succeeds
in producinga text which adds some genuinely new material to the doxography
of the Pre-Socratics and represents the oldest evidence hitherto known
of the penetration of the doxographic tradition into Islamic literature.
As proven by Ruska's notes, the alchemical speeches of the Turba have
derived from Greek alchemy a great many terms and numerous complete
passages. It seems plausible, therefore, to look for the model of the cosmo-
logical part likewise in the writings of the Greek alchemists. That model has
been found in a book by Olympiodorus,24in which parallels are drawn between
the doctrines of the great alchemists and those of the philosophers. There
are, to be sure, certain differencesbetween the Turba and Olympiodorus. For
instance, the latter does not restrict himself to the Pre-Socratics. On the
other hand, the number of philosophers quoted by him is nine, the same as in
the Turba. Furthermore, Olympiodorus produces the views of the philoso-
phers only with the aim of comparing them to those of the alchemists, while
in the Turba the philosophers take part in the alchemical discussions. Finally,
the text of Olympiodorus is not written in the form of a dialogue, but as a
doxography.
These literary similarities and dissimilarities, however, are not decisive in
determining the relationship between Olympiodorus and the Turba, but the
introduction to the Greek text is. In terms that conform to a passage in the
first book of Aristotle's Physics,25 Olympiodorus inquires as to the relation
of the Elements to the Principles, and also as to their number, their mobility
and their limitation. Now the cosmological discussion of the Turba, in its
contents as well as in its wording is nothing but an exposition of Olympio-
dorus' theme. Consequently,Olympiodorusnot only confirmsour opinion as to
the real meaning of the cosmological discussion, but he is also a witness to the
identity of the problems of the Turba and those of the Greek alchemists, an
identity that refers even to the fundamental doctrine of the Principles.
Ruska is right in so far as he stresses the intention of the Turba of placing
alchemy in the light of a universally recognized natural philosophy. But even
this intention does not separate the Turba from Greek alchemy, rather, it
establishes a close relationship between the two. The thesis that the Turba
is an anti-Greekpolemical treatise, apart from its inherent improbability, must
be abandonedbecause of the contradictionof 'thephilological evidence.
To sum up: the Turba Philosophorum, written c. goo A. D., is a well
planned and, from a literary point of view, a most remarkable attempt to put
Greek alchemy into the Arabic language and to adapt it to Islamic science.
I M. Berthelot, Collection des Alchimistes X i84b, as already stated by Ruelle in his
Grecs.vol. 2, pp. 8I ff.; cf. Ruska, pp. 277 f. apparatusto the Collection,vol. 2, p. 80.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:51:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
338 M. PLESSNER
The importance of this attempt and of the method of its execution, much to
the credit of the erudite and talented author, is not diminished by the fact that
the great masters of Arabic alchemy, ar-Razi and 'Jabir' Ibn Hayyan', took
up the matter in other ways and achieved better results. Besides, from a
philological point of view, it should not be overlooked that the Turba is older
than the Greek Codex Marcianus26 and therefore has a considerable value for
the textual criticismof the Greekalchemists.
This fact, together with the search for new evidence regarding the tradition
of the Pre-Socratics, explains the need for a new edition of the Turba. Such
an edition would cover all the manuscripts extant, especially those in England,
which were not used by Ruska, and which would provide us with a reliable
basis for further investigation. Moreover, it would enable us to define with
greater certainty the character of Arabic alchemy as practised and taught c.
goo A. D.
10O. Lagercrantz,Catalogue des manuscrits A.-J. Festugibre,L'Antiquitdclassique, vol. 8,
aichimiquesgrecs, vol. 2, pp. 1-22, 1927. Cf. P. 39.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:51:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions