Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c5.s1: § 2. Chronology

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c5.s1

Language
English

§ 2. Chronology

c5.s1.1

1. It will naturally be expected that some information should be given regarding the chronology of the works and their authors mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Unfortunately there still exists very great incertitude with respect to their absolute, and to some extent even to their relative, dates. On a future occasion I hope to enter more fully into the discussion of the chronological question: for our present purpose the following statement will suffice.

c5.s1.2

2. *Origin of Medicine.* According to the Indian medical tradition the knowledge of medicine had a twofold origin. On the one hand, it was delivered by the god Indra to the sage Bhāradvāja, and by him to Ātreya: on the other, it descended from Indra to Dhanvantari (also called Divodāsa, and Kāśīrāja), and from him to Suśruta. This tradition traces medicine from a mythical, through a semi-mythical, to an historical beginning. It may be taken to mean that Ātreya, the physician, and Suśruta, the surgeon, were understood to be the first founders, in their respective departments, of medicine as a science. Before them there existed only what may be called medicine men, who practised medicine as a witchcraft, and the source of whose knowledge was claimed to be supernatural.

c5.s1.3

3. *Ātreya and Suśruta.* According to another, non-medical, line of Indian tradition, preserved in the Buddhist *Jātakas*, or Folklore, there existed in India in the age of Buddha two great universities, or seats of learning, in which ‘all sciences’ (*sabba-sippāni*, or *sarva-śilpāni*), including medicine, were taught by ‘professors of world-wide renown’ (*disā-pāmokkha ācariya*, or *diśā-prāmukhya ācārya*). These two universities were *Kāśī*, or Benares, in the East, and the still more famous *Takṣaśilā*, or Taxila (on the Jhelam river) in the West. In the latter university, in the time of Buddha or shortly before it, the leading Professor of Medicine was Ātreya.¹ He, accordingly, should have flourished at some time in the sixth century B.C. As one of the names of Suśruta’s teacher is Kāsīrāja, which literally means King of Kāsī, he may not unreasonably be referred to the university of Kāsī, or Benares. This would place the origin of surgery, as a science, in the East of India. As a matter of fact, the origin, at least of ophthalmic surgery, is uniformly placed by Indian tradition in the eastern province of Bihar, being credited to Nemi, the ‘lord of Videha’ (or Tirhut). Regarding the date of Suśruta we have the following indications. He must have been acquainted with the doctrines of Ātreya. With reference, for example, to the bones of the human body, he introduces his own exposition with a remark pointing out the difference between Ātreya’s system and his own in respect of the total number of the bones (see § 27). This proves that Suśruta cannot have been anterior to Ātreya. On the other hand, there are indications in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, a secondary Vedic work, that the author of it was acquainted with the doctrines of Suśruta (see §§ 42, 56, 60, 61). The exact date of that work is not known, but it is with good reason referred to the sixth century B.C. (see § 42). The probability, therefore, appears to be that Suśruta was a rather younger contemporary of Ātreya, or, let us say, a contemporary of Ātreya’s pupil Agniveśa.

c5.s1.4

¹ The famous physician Jīvaka, a contemporary of Buddha, is stated to have studied medicine in the Taxila University, under Ātreya (see Rockhill’s Life of Buddha, pp. 65, 96).

c5.s1.5

4. The Atharva Veda. As bearing on the very early date of both Ātreya and Suśruta, we have a rather significant piece of evidence in the Atharva Veda. That work, in its tenth book, contains a hymn on the creation of man (see § 43), in which the several parts of the skeleton are carefully and orderly enumerated in striking agreement more especially with the system of Ātreya as contained in Charaka’s Compendium.² The date of the Atharva Veda is not exactly known, but it belongs to the most ancient, or primary Vedic, literature of India. It cannot be placed later than the sixth century B. C., because references to it are found in secondary Vedic works, such as the *Satapatha Brāhmaṇa* above referred to. The larger portion of it (Books I-XVIII), indeed, admittedly belongs to a much earlier period, possibly as early as about 1000 B. C.; and the hymn in question is included in this older portion. Moreover, within that portion it belongs to a division (Books VIII-XII) which bears a distinctly hieratic character. It thus takes us back to that prehistoric, or semi-mythical age of the ‘medicine men’ who combined the functions of priest and physician. This period, as already stated (clause 2), Indian tradition represents by the name of Bhāradvāja, and to him it actually ascribes the authorship of one of the hymns (the twelfth of the tenth book) of that hieratic division.¹

c5.s1.6

² There are numerous other passages of a similar character in the Atharva Veda. The whole evidence is reviewed by me in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1906, p. 915 ff., and for 1907, p. 1 ff.

c5.s1.7

¹ On the date of the *Atharva Veda*, see pp. cxl-clxi in Professor Lanman’s edition of Whitney’s Translation of the *Atharva Veda Saṃhitā*; also Professor Macdonell’s *Sanskrit Literature*, pp. 185-201.

c5.s1.8

5. *Charaka and Nāgārjuna.* According to a Buddhist tradition² Charaka was the trusted physician of the celebrated ‘Indo-scythian’ King Kanishka. Unfortunately the date of Kanishka himself is still in dispute, opinions varying from the first century B. C. to the third century A. D.³ The preponderance of evidence appears to me in favour of Kanishka’s reigning in the middle of the second century, *circa* 125-150 A. D. There exists an Indian medical tradition which assigns the revised and supplemented edition of Suśruta’s original work to Nāgārjuna.⁴ If he should be the well-known Buddhist patriarch of that name who is said to have been a contemporary of King Kanishka, his date would practically coincide with that of Charaka. Accordingly the original Compendia of Agniveśa and Suśruta would have been revised and re-edited at much the same time.

c5.s1.9

² Discovered by Professor Sylvain Levi, *Indian Antiquary*, vol. xxxii, p. 382; *Vienna Oriental Journal*, vol. xi, p. 164.

c5.s1.10

³ See V. A. Smith, *Early History of India*, pp. 225-6; Dr. Fleet, in *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society*, 1906, p. 979 ff.; Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar, in *Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society*, vol. xx, p. 269 ff.

c5.s1.11

⁴ See Daḷḷana’s Commentary to Suśruta’s Compendium (ed. Jīvānanda), p. 2; also Dr. Cordier’s *Récentes Découvertes*, pp. 12, 13.

c5.s1.12

6. *Vāgbhaṭa the Elder.* Regarding the relation of Vāgbhaṭa I to Charaka and Suśruta the elder, his posterity is proved by his referring to both these writers by name, and sometimes even quoting their actual words.¹ His relation to Suśruta II, the Supplementor, is less certain. So far as known to me, he never actually quotes from him; still his Summary (*Saṃgraha*) presents numerous indications of a decided posterity. His treatment, e. g. of the diseases of the eye, though in its general lines agreeing with that of the Supplementor, yet in its more artificial and scholastic method of classification—Vāgbhaṭa I counting ninety-four diseases against the seventy-six in the Supplementor's more natural system—suggests his posterity to Suśruta II. The place assigned to Vāgbhaṭa I by later Indian Medicine, in its traditional series of the three men, Charaka, Suśruta, Vāgbhaṭa, makes in the same direction; for there can be no doubt that, in that series, the term Suśruta refers to the Supplemented Compendium which is now known under Suśruta's name. If Suśruta II is rightly placed in the second century A. D., as a contemporary of Charaka, Vāgbhaṭa I is, of course, also posterior to him. Indeed, there is good reason for placing Vāgbhaṭa I as late as the early seventh century A. D. The Buddhist pilgrim, Itsing, who resided ten years in the Nalanda monastery (in Bihar), from about 675-685 A. D., states in his *Record of Buddhist Practices* that the ‘eight arts (i. e. branches of medicine, ante, footnote 2, p. 6) formerly existed in eight books, but lately a man epitomized them, and made them into one bundle (or book)’, and he adds that ‘all physicians in the five parts of India (i. e. the whole of India) practise according to his book’. ² Seeing that Vāgbhaṭa I's Compendium bears that precise name of ‘Epitome (or Summary, *Saṃgraha*) of the Octopartite Science’, the conclusion seems warranted that Itsing was referring to that Summary. If so, Vāgbhaṭa I cannot have preceded Itsing by any very long interval of time; nor may the interval be made too short, because time was necessary for the diffusion of the Summary as a standard work ‘throughout India’. Accordingly Vāgbhaṭa I may be placed early in the seventh century, or about 625 A. D. This estimate of his date is supported by certain structural features of his Summary, which are explained in §§ 38-40. It is, further, in agreement with the progressive decadence in the knowledge and practice of anatomy and surgery, which is apparent in the medical writings subsequent to the time of Suśruta II. One of the results of the present dissertation is to bring out the contrast between the treatment of the bones of the human body in the hands of Suśruta and Vāgbhaṭa I. While that of the former exhibits a remarkable familiarity with the structure of the skeleton, the latter’s treatment of the subject is so replete with inconsistencies and incongruities as to show that in the time of Vāgbhaṭa I practical anatomy had fallen into disuse. At a still later time, in the Compendium of Vāgbhaṭa II, the information about the skeleton is limited to the bare statement that the total number of bones is 360.¹ Again, the surgical treatment of certain diseases of the eye, such as cataract, which occupies a considerable space in the Supplement (Uttara Tantra) of Suśruta II, is much less prominent in the Summary (Saṃgraha) of Vāgbhaṭa I, while in the subsequent writings of Mādhava, Dṛḍhabala, and Vāgbhaṭa II it is altogether ignored. The dates of the latter three authors fall somewhere, at no great intervals, in the period from the 7th-9th centuries A. D.; and facts, such as those just mentioned, indicate the place of Vāgbhaṭa I to be intermediate, yet much nearer to them than to Suśruta II, and thus tend to confirm the assignment of the former to the early seventh century A. D.

c5.s1.13

¹ By name, e.g. in *Saṃgraha*, Bombay ed., vol. i, p. 246; vol. ii, p. 421. Again quoted from Charaka, *ibid.*, vol. i, pp. 20, 93; vol. ii, pp. 212, 213, *et passim*; from Suśruta I, *ibid.*, vol. i, pp. 109, 121, 177, 247; vol. ii, p. 303, *et passim*.

c5.s1.14

² See Professor Takakusu's Translation, p. 128; also *Journal Royal Asiatic Soc.*, 1907, p. 413 ff.

c5.s1.15

¹ Contained in half a verse, Aṣṭāṅga Hṛdaya, Śārīra Sthāna, ch. iii, ver. 16 a (1st ed., vol. i, p. 548).

c5.s1.16

7. *Mādhava, Dṛḍhabala, and Vāgbhaṭa II.* With regard to the chronological position of the three authors, Mādhava, Dṛḍhabala, and Vāgbhaṭa II, two points are quite certain. In the first place, all three are posterior to Vāgbhaṭa I. This, to start with, is a necessary inference from their attitude, as above explained (clause 6), towards anatomy. But there is positive proof. Mādhava cites Vāgbhaṭa I by name, and also quotes from him anonymously.¹ Dṛḍhabala, though he does not name Vāgbhaṭa I as his authority, quotes from him very frequently.² Also his total of ninety-six diseases of the eye is based on Vāgbhaṭa I’s total of ninety-four (see p. 13). As to Vāgbhaṭa II, according to his own statement,³ his Compendium (Aṣṭāṅga Hṛdaya Saṃhitā) is based on the Summary (Aṣṭāṅga Saṃgraha) of Vāgbhaṭa I, and reproduces it copiously. In the second place, all three are anterior to Chakrapāṇidatta, whose date is about 1060 A. D. The latter names Dṛḍhabala, and expressly specifies the extent of his contribution to Charaka’s Compendium.⁴ He also frequently quotes Dṛḍhabala as the author of the last section (Siddhi Sthāna) of that Compendium.⁵ As to Vāgbhaṭa II, quotations from him, by name, are very numerous in Chakrapāṇidatta’s Commentary on Charaka’s Compendium.⁶ Mādhava’s anteriority to Chakrapāṇidatta necessarily follows from the fact of his preceding (see p. 13) both Dṛḍhabala and Vāgbhaṭa II. These three medical authors, accordingly, must have their place somewhere between the seventh and eleventh centuries A. D.

c5.s1.17

¹ By name, in Siddhayoga, i, 27, cf. Saṃgraha, vol. ii, p. 1, l. 8. Quoted, in Nidāna (ed. Jīv.), ii, 22, 23, cf. Saṃgraha, vol. i, p. 266, ll. 2–5.

c5.s1.18

² Caraka Saṃhitā (ed. Jīv., 1896), Cikitsita Sthāna, xvi, ver. 31, p. 624, cf. Saṃgraha, vol. ii, p. 26, ll. 7, 8; ibid., xvi, verses 53 ff., p. 626, cf. Saṃgraha, vol. ii, p. 27, ll. 8 ff.; ibid., xvi, ver. 64 b, p. 627, cf. Saṃgraha, vol. ii, p. 27, l. 19; ibid., xvi, verses 76 ff., p. 628, cf. Saṃgraha, vol. ii, p. 28, ll. 20 ff.; ibid., xvi, ver. 97, p. 638, cf. Saṃgraha, vol. ii, p. 108, ll. 15 ff.; et passim.

c5.s1.19

³ See Aṣṭāṅga Hṛdaya, Uttara Sthāna, ch. 40, ver. 82 (1st ed., vol. ii, p. 826).

c5.s1.20

⁴ See Chakrapāṇidatta’s Commentary, in Tübingen MS., no. 463, fol. 534 b.

c5.s1.21

⁵ e.g. Chakrapāṇidatta’s Commentary (ed. Visarad), p. 123, ll. 18, 19, cf. Caraka Saṃhitā (ed. Jīv., 1896), Siddhi Sthāna, vi, ver. 3, p. 887; ibid., p. 238, ll. 15, 16, cf. Siddhi Sthāna, vi, ver. 19, p. 888.

c5.s1.22

⁶ e. g. in Visarad’s edition, p. 15, ll. 17, 18, cf. Aṣṭāṅga Hṛdaya, Sūtra Sthāna, ch. i, ver. 3 (1st ed., vol. i, p. 6); ibid., p. 124, ll. 12, 13, cf. Aṣṭ. Hṛd., ibid., ch. xiii, ver. 33 (vol. i, p. 282); ibid., p. 250, ll. 22, 23, cf. Aṣṭ. Hṛd., Nidāna Sthāna, ch. x, ver. 21 (vol. i, p. 772). — As Vāgbhaṭa II so extensively reproduces the text of Vāgbhaṭa I, it is important to note that in this, as well as in the preceding footnotes concerning Mādhava and Dṛḍhabala, only such passages have been selected as evidence as are found only in the Saṃgraha of Vāgbhaṭa I, or in the Saṃhitā of Vāgbhaṭa II, according as the case in hand required.

c5.s1.23

8. *Mādhava*. Coming now to the chronological place of Mādhava, Dṛḍhabala, and Vāgbhaṭa II, relatively to one another—a point still involved in much obscurity—the trend of the available evidence appears to make for the following positions. In the first place: Mādhava is anterior to Dṛḍhabala. There are two facts which seem to be conclusive on this point. One concerns the enumeration of the diseases of the eye. Suśruta II, giving a detailed list, counts seventy-six such diseases, while Vāgbhaṭa I, recasting the list of Suśruta II, makes out a total of ninety-four. Mādhava, who elects to abide by Suśruta II's method of counting, nevertheless increases the total to seventy-eight,¹ by adding two diseases of the eyelashes. Vāgbhaṭa II simply adopts the list of Vāgbhaṭa I. Dṛḍhabala, attempting a compromise, states the total to be ninety-six.² He does not explain how he arrived at that total, nor, indeed, does he give any details at all, but simply refers the curious on the subject to other medical authorities. In these circumstances it may be concluded that Dṛḍhabala obtained his total of ninety-six by adopting Vāgbhaṭa I’s total of ninety-four (which corresponds to Suśruta II’s total of seventy-six) and adding to it the two new diseases set up by Mādhava. It thus follows that Mādhava is anterior to Dṛḍhabala. The second fact concerns the so-called Kashmir Recension (*Kāśmīra-pāṭha*) of Charaka’s Compendium. Vijaya Rakshita, in his commentary (called *Madhukoṣa*) on Mādhava’s Pathology (*Nidāna*), notices several passages, cited by Mādhava from Charaka’s Compendium, where the Kashmir Recension differs from the Recension quoted by Mādhava. The inference is that Mādhava cites the passages as written by Charaka himself; that the Kashmir Recension was not known to him, and that, in fact, that Recension was not yet in existence. Seeing that the Kashmir Recension was the work of the Kashmir physician Dṛḍhabala (§ 1), it follows that Dṛḍhabala is posterior to Mādhava. No doubt every link in this chain of inference possesses no more than probable force; still, the cumulative effect of the two arguments is to raise the presumption that, as a fact, Mādhava is anterior to Dṛḍhabala.¹

c5.s1.24

¹ The memorial verses, as commonly printed in Mādhava's *Nidāna*, giving a total of seventy-six, are spurious and false. Jīvānanda's edition gives them at the end (p. 347), but Udoy Chand Dutt's edition at the beginning (p. 220) of the chapters on the diseases of the eye. Moreover, they do not agree with Mādhava's own text; for they omit the two diseases of the eyelashes (*pakṣma-kopa* and *pakṣma-śāta*), mentioned by Mādhava at the end of the last of those chapters (Jīv., p. 347, verses 22, 23; U.C. Dutt, p. 236). Adding these two diseases, the total becomes seventy-eight. The various systems of enumerating the diseases of the eye adopted by Suśruta II, Vāgbhaṭa I, Mādhava, and Dṛḍhabala respectively, are very complicated. It is impossible, in the present case, to state more than the simple facts. In a subsequent dissertation on the diseases of the eye I hope to have an opportunity of explaining the details.

c5.s1.25

² In *Caraka Saṃhitā*, *Cikitsita Sthāna*, ch. xxvi, ver. 222 (Jīv., p. 761). The edition published by the two Sens reads seventy-six (p. 884, l. 4); but this is a mere reprint from Gaṅgādhar's Berhampore edition (p. 575), for which there is no known manuscript authority. It appears to be an 'emendation' of Gaṅgādhar himself. All existing MSS. read ninety-six; e. g. Tübingen MSS., No. 458, fol. 632 *a*, l. 2; and No. 459, fol. 216 *b*, l. 5; India Office MSS., No. 335, fol. 419 *b*, l. 1, and No. 359, fol. 153 *a*, l. 7; Deccan College MS., No. 925, fol. 334 *a*, l. 6.

c5.s1.26

¹ It is true that the commentator Vijaya Rakshita (c. 1240 A. D.), in an explanatory statement on *Nidāna* (ed. Jīv., p. 147), xxii, 5, ll. 1, 2 = *Caraka Saṃhitā*, *Cikitsita Sthāna*, xxviii, ver. 24 (Jīv., p. 773), apparently implies the posteriority of Mādhava to Dṛḍhabala. But it should be observed that the object of Vijaya Rakshita is not to make a chronological, but an exegetical statement. The chronological implication may not have been intended by him, even assuming that in the thirteenth century the exact chronological relation of Mādhava to Dṛḍhabala was still within the knowledge of medical writers.

c5.s1.27

9. *Dṛḍhabala*. In the second place, Dṛḍhabala is anterior to Vāgbhaṭa II. The latter, in one of the concluding verses of his Compendium,² refers to the very insufficient character of the information on the diseases of the eye to be found in Charaka’s Compendium as compared with that given in Suśruta’s Compendium. Seeing that that information is contained in one of Dṛḍhabala’s complementary chapters,³ Vāgbhaṭa’s remark proves that he was acquainted with Dṛḍhabala’s completion of Charaka’s Compendium. Moreover, Vāgbhaṭa II not infrequently revises the versified form in which prose passages had been quoted by Dṛḍhabala from the Summary (*Saṃgraha*) of Vāgbhaṭa I.¹ Lastly, it may be noted that Aruṇadatta, in his commentary on Vāgbhaṭa II’s Compendium, expressly refers to Dṛḍhabala’s edition of the Compendium of Charaka as the source of one of the verses of Vāgbhaṭa II.² This last point is particularly effective. The verse in question occurs in the introductory portion of the nineteenth chapter of Charaka’s Compendium on the Treatment of Chronic Diarrhoea³ (§ 99, cl. 2). In that portion Dṛḍhabala summarizes in versified form the prose account of the subject in the Anatomical Section of the Summary of Vāgbhaṭa I.⁴ That it is really a summary of Vāgbhaṭa I’s account is obvious from the fact that his terms and phrases are as far as possible retained by Dṛḍhabala. Vāgbhaṭa II still further summarizes the summary of Dṛḍhabala; and that his doubly summarized account is really based on the latter, but not on Vāgbhaṭa I, is shown by the fact that it contains none of the terms and phrases of the latter, but retains intact three of the verses (among them the

c5.s1.28

² See *Aṣṭāṅga Hṛdaya*, *Uttara Sthāna*, ch. xl, ver. 83; in the 1st ed., vol. ii, p. 826.

c5.s1.29

³ Viz. the twenty-sixth chapter on *Trimarmīya*, in the *Caraka Saṃhitā*, *Cikitsita Sthāna*, verses 221–56 (Jīv. ed., 1896, pp. 761–4). The fact that Vāgbhaṭa II simply speaks of Charaka’s Compendium

c5.s1.30

¹ e. g. the prose direction in *Saṃgraha*, *Cikitsita Sthāna*, ch. xvii (vol. ii, p. 99, l. 23), is expressed by Dṛḍhabala in a single verse (*Caraka Saṃhitā*, *Cik.*, xviii, ver. 85 *a*; Jīv., p. 646), while Vāgbhaṭa II gives it in two verses (*Aṣṭāṅga Hṛdaya*, *Cik.*, xv, verses 96 *b*, 97 *a*, in 1st ed., vol. ii, p. 285). Other examples are: Vāgbhaṭa II in *Cikitsita*, xv, verses 61 *b*-63 (vol. ii, p. 279) and verses 91 *b*, 92 (vol. ii, p. 284), compared with Dṛḍhabala, in *Cik.*, xviii, verses 67 *b*-69 (Jīv., pp. 644-5) and verses 80, 81 (Jīv., p. 645), and with Vāgbhaṭa I’s prose in *Cik.*, xvii (vol. ii, p. 98, ll. 9-12, and p. 99, ll. 21-23).

c5.s1.31

² See *Aṣṭāṅga Hṛdaya* (1st ed.), vol. i, p. 571, l. 19. The verse in question is 62 *b*, 63 *a*, in the third chapter of the *Śārīra Sthāna*.

c5.s1.32

³ See *Cikitsita Sthāna*, *Grahaṇī-roga*, xix, ver. 14, in Jīv. ed., 1896, p. 656.

c5.s1.33

⁴ See *Aṣṭāṅga Saṃgraha*, *Śārīra Sthāna*, ch. vi, in the Bombay ed., vol. i, pp. 230 ff.

c5.s1.34

without any reference to Dṛḍhabala’s authorship of the chapter in question creates no difficulty. As observed in § 1, the whole work, inclusive of Dṛḍhabala’s complement, came to be known simply as Charaka’s Compendium; and it is not at all uncommon to find Dṛḍhabala quoted as ‘Charaka’; e. g. by Vijaya Rakshita in his *Madhukośa* (Jīv., 1901), pp. 159, 161, 163.

c5.s1.35

verse in question) of Dṛḍhabala.¹ This state of things was evidently realized by Aruṇadatta, for, as already stated, he expressly mentions Dṛḍhabala as the source of Vāgbhaṭa II.

c5.s1.36

¹ Namely, verses 59, 60, 62 in Aṣṭāṅga Hṛdaya, Sārīra Sthāna ch. iii (1st ed., vol. i, pp. 566, 567, 569).

c5.s1.37

10. *Their Dates.* The evidence of Arabic sources points to the seventh or eighth century for Mādhava, and that of Tibetan and other sources to the eighth or ninth century for Vāgbhaṭa II.² According to the evidence, already explained, Dṛḍhabala takes his place intermediately between Mādhava and Vāgbhaṭa II. Accordingly it is probable that all these three medical writers come in the period from the seventh to the ninth century, at no very great interval from one another. In any case none of them can be later than *c.* 1060 A. D., the date of Cakrapāṇidatta.

c5.s1.38

² For details and authorities see Professor Jolly’s *Indian Medicine*, §§ 5, 6, pp. 7–9.

c5.s1.39

11. *Commentators and their Dates.* Of early commentators on the Compendia of Charaka and Suśruta, and on the Summary of Vāgbhaṭa I, whose works have come down to us, the following may be mentioned.

c5.s1.40

On Charaka’s Compendium we have Cakrapāṇidatta’s Commentary, called *Caraka Tātparya Ṭīkā* (i. e. Explanation of Charaka’s Meaning) or *Ayurveda Dīpikā* (i. e. Light on General Medicine). Its author is known to have lived about 1060 A. D.

c5.s1.41

On Suśruta’s Compendium we have Ḍallaṇa’s commentary, called *Nibandha Saṃgraha*, or Summary of Commentaries. The earliest known quotations of this work are by Hemādri and Vāchaspati,³ who lived about 1260 A. D.; and as Ḍallaṇa himself quotes Cakrapāṇidatta, he should be placed in the twelfth century. He frequently quotes also a commentary (*pañjikā* or *candrikā*) by Gayadāsa (or simply Gayin), called *Nyāya Candrikā*, or Reasoned Elucidation. Gayadāsa, therefore, cannot be placed later than the eleventh century, and he may have been a contemporary of Cakrapāṇidatta, seeing that neither appears to quote from the other.⁴

c5.s1.42

³ According to information by letter (October 30, 1904) from Dr. P. Cordier.

c5.s1.43

⁴ See Professor Jolly in the *Journal of the German Oriental Society*, vol. lviii, p. 114 ff.; and Dr. P. Cordier’s *Récentes Découvertes*, p. 15.

c5.s1.44

On the Compendium of Vāgbhaṭa II we have a commentary by Aruṇadatta, called *Sarvāṅga Sundarī* (i. e. Excellent in all Branches of Medicine).¹ On the Pathology (*Nidāna*) of Mādhava there exists a commentary, called *Madhukoṣa* (i. e. Receptacle of Honey), the joint work of Vijaya Rakshita and his pupil Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, and another by Vāchaspati, called *Ātaṅka Darpaṇa* (i. e. Mirror of Diseases). The latter, as he himself states (in verse 4 of his Introduction), consulted the *Madhukoṣa* for the purpose of writing his own commentary, and Vijaya Rakshita controverts a certain doctrine of Aruṇadatta regarding the structure of the eye.² Vāchaspati further states (in verse 5 of his Introduction) that his father Pramoda was chief physician at the court of ‘Mahamada Hammīra’, that is, of the Amīr Muizzuddīn Muhammad (the celebrated Muhamed Ghori) who reigned in Delhi from 1193 to 1205 A. D. Moreover, Vijaya Rakshita quotes Guṇākara who wrote the *Yogaratnamālā* in 1239 A. D.³ Accordingly we obtain the following approximate dates:

c5.s1.45

¹ The title makes a pun: it also means ‘a woman beautiful in all her limbs’.

c5.s1.46

² It concerns the true position of the so-called *bāhya paṭala* or outer cover of the eyeball, i. e. the cornea *plus* aqueous humour. See *Aṣṭāṅga Hṛdaya*, *Uttara Sthāna*, ch. xii, ver. 1 (in 1st ed., vol. ii, p. 516).

c5.s1.47

³ Information by letter (October 30, 1904) from Dr. P. Cordier. The quotation occurs in the *Madhukoṣa* on *Nidāna*, v, 7 (Jīv., p. 68). On the date of Guṇākara, see Peterson’s *Report*, 1886–92, p. xxvi.

c5.s1.48

Aruṇadatta, about 1220 A. D. Vijaya Rakshita, about 1240 A. D. Vāchaspati, about 1260 A. D.

c5.s1.49

12. *Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa* and *Bhava Miśra*. To a slightly earlier date than that of Chakrapāṇidatta belongs a medical author, Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa. He appears to have lived about 1000 A. D.⁴ He wrote a tract on Anatomy, called *Śarīra Padminī* (i. e. Lotus among Works on Anatomy). The state-

c5.s1.50

⁴ See *Epigraphia Indica*, vol. i, p. 340. The *Śarīra Padminī* was brought to notice by Dr. P. Cordier in his *Récentes Découvertes*, p. 30.

c5.s1.51

For further information on the commentaries on Suśruta’s Compendium, see my Article in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of London for 1906, p. 283.

c5.s1.52

ments on the skeleton, contained in this treatise, reproduce the doctrine of Suśruta, as modified by Vāgbhaṭa I (see § 36).

c5.s1.53

A very much later author, who also reproduces Suśruta's doctrine on the skeleton, and who will be mentioned occasionally in the following pages, is Bhāva Miśra. He lived in the sixteenth century, and wrote a voluminous compilation, of no originality, from previous medical writings, under the name of *Bhāva Prakāśa* (i. e. Manifestation of the Truth).

Linked texts (10)