Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c5.s1.23

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