Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6: Section II. Text-Critical. The Records

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6

Language
English

Contents

Section II. Text-Critical. The Records

A. The System of Ātreya-Charaka

c6.s1.1

§ 3. *Charaka's Statement, and its Recensions*

c6.s1.2

THE Medical Version of Ātreya's system of the bones of the human body, as handed down by Charaka, is contained in the beginning of the seventh chapter (*adhyāya*) of the fourth or Anatomical Section (*Śārīra Sthāna*) of his Compendium.

c6.s1.3

There exist two recensions of Charaka's statement. One is contained in the edition of the Compendium which was printed by Jīvānanda Vidyāsagara in Calcutta in 1877, where it is found on page 370, lines 5–19. The other occurs in Gangādhar's edition, page 186, lines 11–22, printed in Berhampore, 1879 (*Bahrampura, saṃvat* 1936). These two recensions differ so widely from each other that it is necessary to inquire into their respective authorities.

c6.s1.4

The recension of Jīvānanda has the following witnesses in its favour. In the first place, it has the support of all accessible manuscripts. I have been able to examine the following nine:

c6.s1.5

1. The two Tübingen University MSS., M. a. I. 458 and 459 (Cat., Nos. 141, 142). They come from Benares, whence they were procured by myself for the late Professor von Roth in 1873. The original MS. from which No. 142 was copied is dated in *saṃvat* 1778, i. e. 1721 A. D.

c6.s1.6

2. The two India Office MSS., Nos. 335 and 881 (Cat., Nos. 2637 and 2640), originally belonging to the Colebrooke Collection, and therefore probably from Calcutta. No. 2640 is dated 1806 A. D.

c6.s1.7

3. The two Deccan College MSS., No. 368 (Bhandarkar’s Report of 1882-3) and No. 925 (Kathavate’s Report of 1891-5); from Western India; dates unknown.¹

c6.s1.8

¹ The loan of these two MSS. I owe to the kindness of Professor K. P. Pathak, of the Deccan College.

c6.s1.9

4. Two Kashmir MSS., in Śāradā characters. One, No. 3266 (p. 182 of Dr. Stein’s Catalogue), belongs to the Jammu Library, and was excerpted for me through Dr. Stein’s kind inter-mediation. The excerpt from the other I owe to the kindness of Dr. P. Cordier (see his *Récentes Découvertes*, p. 9). The dates of these two MSS. are unknown; but as both are written on paper they must be comparatively modern.

c6.s1.10

5. The Alwar Palace Library MS., No. 1624, an excerpt from which was transmitted to me by the kindness of Major P. T. A. Spence, the British Political Agent.

c6.s1.11

It should be observed that these nine MSS. come from widely separated Indian localities. They are, therefore, independent witnesses—a fact which enhances their testimony.

c6.s1.12

In the second place, the recension of Jīvānanda has the support of the oldest existing commentary of Chakrapāṇidatta (*c.* 1060 A.D.). A considerable number of names of more or less ancient glossators or commentators is known, for a list of which Dr. P. Cordier’s *Récentes Découvertes*, pp. 10, 11, may be consulted. But the commentary of Chakrapāṇidatta is the only one that now survives, and even of it, manuscripts are extremely rare, and all are incomplete. I was able to consult the Tübingen University MS., M. a. 463 (Cat., No. 146). It fortunately contains Chakrapāṇidatta’s glosses on Charaka’s statement in question. These glosses are based entirely on the recension which is printed in Jīvānanda’s edition, and while they refer to various interpretations of it, they give no indication whatsoever of the existence of a recension even faintly resembling that of Gaṅgādhar’s edition.

c6.s1.13

In the third place, the recension of Jīvānanda has the support of the Medical Version of Ātreya’s system as handed down by Bheḍa (or Bheḷa), as well as the Non-medical Version of that system as preserved in Yājñavalkya’s Law-book and other non-medical works (see § 14). Seeing that all three versions—the Medical Versions of Charaka and Bheḍa, and the Non-medical Version—equally profess to present the teaching of Ātreya, their almost verbal agreement affords the strongest testimony in favour of Jīvānanda's recension of the Version of Charaka.

c6.s1.14

On the other hand, the recension of Gaṅgādhar—so far as I have been able to ascertain—is absolutely destitute of all support. It first appears in the Berhampore edition of 1879, published by Dharanidhar Ray. Neither Gaṅgādhar nor Dharanidhar refers to any MSS., nor does either mention any variae lectiones. The same recension next appears in the Calcutta edition of Avinās Chandra Kaviratna (1884). He does not state his sources; but, to all appearance, he simply reprints from the Berhampore edition. The same recension once more appears in the Calcutta edition of Debendranath Sen and Upendranath Sen (1897). In their preface the joint editors profess not only to have collected, with much trouble and expense, ‘many manuscripts from Kāsī [Benares], Kashmir, Bombay, Draviḍa [Madras ?], Poona, and other places,’ but also to have consulted some very old (prācīnatama) and correct (viśuddha) MSS. in their own possession. It will be well to receive this statement with considerable reserve; for it is well known that MSS. of Charaka's Compendium are neither so common, nor so old, nor so correct as the joint editors suggest. They very rarely quote any variae lectiones, and in the few cases in which they do so they never refer to any particular MS. authority. Thus in the whole Anatomical Section, comprising eight chapters (seventy-six pages in print), they mention only two unimportant, and unidentified variants (in the eighth chapter, p. 429). In the seventh chapter of that section which contains the statement on the skeleton, they mention no variants at all, nor give any indication whatsoever of their being aware of the existence of an entirely discrepant recension. Under these circumstances, despite the claim made in the preface, the conclusion is unavoidable that the joint edition is essentially nothing more than a reprint from Avinās Chandra's, and ultimately from Gaṅgādhar's editions. The three aforesaid editions are prints produced in Calcutta, or at least in Bengal. Recently the same recension has been published in Bombay, by Sankara Shastri, in a cheap edition.

c6.s1.15

This fact, at first sight, might be thought to suggest the existence of some MS. source in Bombay, but cheap editions do not go to the trouble and expense of collating MSS., but usually reprint already existing editions; and there can be no reasonable doubt that the Bombay edition is but a reprint from its Calcutta predecessors.

c6.s1.16

So far it has been impossible to trace Gaṅgādhar’s recension back any farther than his own Berhampore edition. When we add—what will be shown in detail in subsequent paragraphs (§§ 9, 10)—that that recension is not only full of incongruities and inconsistencies, but that it also presupposes a knowledge of the system of Suśruta, some of whose peculiar terms (e. g. kūrca, or cluster of bones) it adopts, the conclusion is irresistible that, in all probability, it reproduces no genuine text of any Charaka MS., but is an ill-considered attempt of Gaṅgādhar himself to reconstruct or (as he thought) improve the text of the, perhaps grossly incorrect, MS., or MSS. of Charaka’s Compendium, which he may have had at his disposal in the preparation of his edition. The spurious recension, thus originated, was afterwards unquestioningly and thoughtlessly adopted by Gaṅgādhar’s Bengal successors. All the more credit is due to Jīvānanda for preserving, in his earlier edition of 1877, the genuine recension of the text of Charaka’s Compendium; and it is much to be regretted that in his recent re-edition of 1896 (p. 351, clause 5) he should have been misled into substituting the spurious recension of Gaṅgādhar.

§ 4. The genuine Recension of Charaka

c6.s1.t1.1

The genuine traditional recension of the statement of Charaka on the bones of the human body runs as follows (Original Text in § 71):

c6.s1.t1.2

‘The body consists of the following parts (aṅga): the two arms (bāhu), the two legs (sakthi), the head and neck (śiro-grīvā), and the trunk (antarādhi). These make up the sexipartite (ṣaḍaṅga) body. Inclusive of the teeth and nails, it has three hundred and sixty bones. These are
1. 32 teeth (danta).
2. 32 sockets (ulūkhala) of the teeth.
3. 20 nails (nakha).

c6.s1.t1.3

4. 60 phalanges (*aṅguli*) in the hands and feet.
5. 20 long bones (*śalākā*) of the hands and feet.
6. 4 bases of the long bones (*śalāk-ādhiṣṭhāna*).
7. 2 heels (*pārṣṇi*).
8. 4 ankle-bones (*gulpha*) of the two feet.¹
9. 2 wrist-bones (*maṇika*) of the two hands.¹
10. 4 bones of the two forearms (*aratni*).
11. 4 bones of the two legs (*jaṅgha*).
12. 2 knee-caps (*jānu*).
13. 2 elbow-pans (*jānu-kapālikā*).¹
14. 2 hollow bones (*nalaka*) of the two thighs (*ūru*).
15. 2 hollow bones (*nalaka*) of the two arms (*bāhu*). 16 *a*. 2 shoulders (*aṃsa*). 16 *b*. 2 shoulder-blades (*aṃsa-phalaka*).
17. 2 collar-bones (*akṣaka*).
18. 1 windpipe (*jatru*).
19. 2 palatal cavities (*tāl-ūṣaka*).
20. 2 hip-blades (*śroṇi-phalaka*).
21. 1 pubic bone (*bhag-āsthi*).
22. 45 back-bones (*pṛṣṭha-gat-āsthi*).
23. 15 bones of the neck (*grīvā*).
24. 14 bones of the breast (*uras*). 25 *a*. 24 ribs (*pārśvaka*) in the two sides. 25 *b*. 24 sockets (*sthālaka*) of the ribs. 25 *c*. 24 tubercles (*arbuda*) fitting into the sockets.
26. 1 (lower) jaw-bone (*hanv-asthi*), or chin.
27. 2 basal tie-bones of the (lower) jaw (*hanu-mūla-bandhana*).
28. 1 bone constituting the nose, prominences of the cheeks, and brows (*nāsikā-gaṇḍakūṭa-lalāṭa*).
29. 2 temples (*śaṅkha*).
30. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones (*śiraḥ-kapāla*).

c6.s1.t1.4

¹ The terms ‘ankle-bone’ and ‘wrist-bone’, here and throughout this dissertation, signify the malleoli and styloid processes respectively; also, ‘elbow-pan’ signifies the olecranon process.

c6.s1.t1.5

These are the three hundred and sixty bones, inclusive of the teeth and nails.’

§ 5. Ancient Inconsistency

c6.s1.t2.1

There is a slight inconsistency in the statement of Charaka which it may be well to point out at once. In the introductory clause which enumerates the six *aṅga*, or constitutive parts of the body, Charaka places these parts into three divisions, viz. (1) the extremities (two arms and two legs), (2) the head and neck, and (3) the trunk. That Charaka looked upon the head and neck as constituting but one division, apart from the extremities and the trunk, is shown by his using a peculiar compound word śiro-grīvā, made up from śiras, head, and grīvā, neck, to indicate that division—a circumstance which the commentator Chakrapāṇidatta is careful to point out (§ 11). Now, though Charaka does not (as Suśruta and Vāgbhaṭa I do, §§ 28, 37) expressly state that his enumeration of the bones follows the three divisions, yet certain divisions are clearly discernible in it: only they are not quite consistent with his introductory clause. First, we have a small preliminary division, comprising Nos. 1–3, the teeth, their sockets, and the nails, altogether eighty-four bones. That these form a kind of supplemental division is, indeed, indicated by Charaka himself in the introductory clause. Next, there comes the first proper division, comprising Nos. 4–15. It refers to the four extremities, and includes 108 bones. Thirdly, we have the second division, referring to the trunk. It comprises Nos. 16–25, and includes 158 bones. Lastly, there is the third division, comprising Nos. 26–30. It refers to the head alone, and includes ten bones. The bones belonging to the neck are found classed in the second division, which deals with the trunk. They form Nos. 18 and 23, and include sixteen bones. There is also No. 19, two palatal cavities, which properly belongs to the head. Agreeably with Charaka’s own introductory clause one would expect these eighteen bones to be classed with those of the head in the third division, and to stand immediately before No. 26, jaw-bone. The probability is that they did stand so in the text as it left Charaka’s hands, and that the misplacement is due to unintelligent copying in later times. This surmise receives considerable support from the fact that in the parallel Non-medical Version of Ātreya’s system (§ 16) we find that the bones of the neck, Nos. 18 and 23 (Nos. 19, 20 in § 16), actually take their proper place immediately before the bones of the head (see § 17, cl. 1 a). It is true that in this Version, too, No. 19, the palatal cavities, is similarly misplaced, and that the Medical Version of Bheḍa (§ 12) shows exactly the same misplacements as the Medical Version of Charaka. But this circumstance only proves that the misplacements must be of very ancient date.

§ 6. Ancient Corruptions

c6.s1.t3.1

There is a further point in which the traditionally transmitted form of the Medical Version of Charaka is almost certainly corrupted. No. 16 *a*, two shoulders (*aṃsa*), is evidently superfluous. By the side of No. 16 *b*, two shoulder-blades (*aṃsa-phalaka*), and No. 17, two collar-bones (*akṣaka*), there is no room left for any ‘shoulders’ (see § 56). The repetition of a word is not at all an uncommon clerical error. Thus the Tübingen MS., No. 458, reads *bāhu*, arms, and *ūru*, thighs, in addition to No. 15, *bāhu-nalaka*, hollow bones of the arms, and No. 14, *ūru-nalaka*, hollow bones of the thighs. Similarly the Deccan College MS., No. 368, and the Bheḍa MS. repeat *ūru* by the side of *ūru-nalaka*; likewise the Alwar Palace MS. and one of the Śāradā MSS. repeat *bāhu* by the side of *bāhu-nalaka*; see the critical notes in § 72. In these cases, there cannot be the smallest doubt that we are simply confronted by clerical errors. But by parity of reasoning, it is as good as certain that in No. 16 *a*, *aṃsa*, shoulder, we have a very ancient false repetition, due to the immediately following No. 16 *b*, *aṃsa-phalaka*, shoulder-blade, which, probably owing to its adoption in the system of Vāgbhaṭa I (§ 38, cl. 2), succeeded in establishing itself permanently in all MSS. In confirmation it may be noted that in the parallel Non-medical Version of the Law-book of Yājñavalkya, the item *aṃsa* is actually omitted (§§ 16 and 17).¹ The omission of No. 16 *a*, *aṃsa*, shoulder, of course, renders the total of 360 short by 2 (viz. 358); but, on the other hand, the probability is that in No. 9 the correct reading should be four wrist-bones (*maṇika*) instead of two. For, as a matter of fact, as will be shown in the sequel (§ 52, cf. pp. 30, 49, 50, 63), there are four wrist-bones, homologous to the four ankle-bones.

c6.s1.t3.2

¹ The omission, here suggested, is also confirmed by the osteological summary which is given in the hymn of the Atharva Veda, see § 43, cl. 6.

c6.s1.t3.3

Another instance of a similar ancient false repetition we have in No. 13, *kapālikā*, elbow-pan, where now all MSS. read *jānu-kapālikā*, falsely duplicating the preceding No. 12, *jānu*, kneecap. Here, again, it may be noted that the parallel Non-medical Version does not exhibit the duplication of jānu. It has simply No. 12, jānu, knee-cap, and No. 13, kapola, elbow-pan, the latter being really a false reading for kapāla (§ 53).

§ 7. Restoration of the Statement of Charaka

c6.s1.t4.1

Admitting the emendations indicated in the two preceding paragraphs, the correct form of Charaka's statement of the Medical Version may be restored as follows (Original Text in § 73):

c6.s1.t4.2

¹ 32 teeth (danta).
2. 32 sockets (ulūkhala) of the teeth.
3. 20 nails (nakha).
4. 60 phalanges (aṅgulī).
5. 20 long bones (śalākā).
6. 4 bases of the long bones (śalāk-ādhiṣṭhāna).
7. 2 heels (pārṣṇi).
8. 4 ankle-bones (gulpha).
9. 4 wrist-bones (maṇika).
10. 4 bones of the forearms (aratni).
11. 4 bones of the legs (jaṅgha).
12. 2 knee-caps (jānu).
13. 2 elbow-pans (kapālikā).
14. 2 hollow bones (nalaka) of the thighs (ūru).
15. 2 hollow bones (nalaka) of the arms (bāhu).
16. 2 shoulder-blades (aṃsa-phalaka).
17. 2 collar-bones (akṣaka).
18. 2 hip-blades (śroṇi-phalaka).
19. 1 pubic bone (bhag-āsthi).
20. 45 back-bones (pṛṣṭha-gat-āsthi).
21. 14 bones of the breast (uras). 22 a. 24 ribs (pārśvaka). 22 b. 24 sockets (sthālaka) of the ribs. 22 c. 24 tubercles (arbuda) fitting into the sockets.
23. 15 bones of the neck (grīvā).
24. 1 windpipe (jatru).
25. 2 palatal cavities (tāl-ūṣaka).
26. 1 (lower) jaw-bone (hanv-āsthi) or chin.
27. 2 basal tie-bones of the jaw (hanu-mūla-bandhana).
28. 1 bone constituting nose, prominences of the cheeks and brows (nāsikā-gaṇḍakūṭa-lalāṭa).
29. 2 temples (śaṅkha).
30. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones (śiraḥ-kapāla).

§ 8. Gangādhar's Recension

c6.s1.t5.1

Gangādhar's recension of the statement of Charaka on the bones of the human body runs as follows (Original Text in § 74):

c6.s1.t5.2

‘The body consists of the following parts: two arms (*bāhu*), two legs (*sakthi*), the head and neck (*śiro-grīva*), and the trunk (*antarādhi*). These make up the sexipartite body (*ṣaḍaṅga*). Inclusive of the teeth, their sockets, and the nails, it has three hundred and sixty bones. These are 27 c. 24 sockets of them (*sthālaka*) resembling tubercles (*ar-buda*), the whole (27 *a-c*) amounting to 72.
28. 2 temporal bones (*śaṅkhaka*).
29. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones (*śiraḥ-kapāla*).
30. 17 bones of the breast (*vakṣas*). These are the three hundred and sixty bones.’

c6.s1.t5.3

¹ 32 sockets (*ulūkhala*) of the teeth.
2. 32 teeth (*danta*).
3. 20 nails (*nakha*).
4. 20 long bones (*śalākā*). 5 *a*. 4 bases (*adhiṣṭhāna*) of the long bones. 5 *b*. 4 backs (*pṛṣṭha*) of the hands and feet.
6. 60 phalanges (*aṅguli*). 7 *a*. 2 heels (*pārṣṇi*). 7 *b*. 2 clusters (*kūrca*) of bones below (the long bones).
8. 4 wrist-bones (*maṇika*).
9. 4 ankle-bones (*gulpha*).
10. 4 bones of the forearms (*aratni*).
11. 4 bones of the legs (*jaṅgha*).
12. 2 knee-caps (*jānu*).
13. 2 elbow-pans (*kūrpara*).
14. 2 thighs (*ūru*).
15. 2 arms (*bāhu*) together with (16) the shoulders (*aṃsa*).
17. 2 collar-bones (*akṣaka*).
18. 2 palates (*tālu*).
19. 2 hip-blades (*śroṇi-phalaka*). 20 *a*. 1 vulval bone (*bhag-āsthi*) in women, or penis-bone (*meḍhr-āsthi*) in men. 20 *b*. 1 sacral bone (*trika*). 20 *c*. 1 anal bone (*gud-āsthi*).
21. 35 back-bones (*pṛṣṭha-gata*).
22. 15 bones of the neck (*grīvā*).
23. 2 collar-bones (*jatru*).
24. 1 (lower) jaw-bone (*hanv-asthi*), or chin.
25. 2 basal tie-bones of the jaw (*hanu-mūla-bandhana*). 26 *a*. 2 brows (*lalāṭa*). 26 *b*. 2 eyes (*akṣi*). 26 *c*. 2 cheeks (*gaṇḍa*). 26 *d*. 3 nasal bones (*nāsikā*) called *ghoṇa*. 27 *a*. 24 bones of the two sides (*pārśva*). 27 *b*. 24 ribs (*pārśvaka*) forming a cage (*pañjara*).

§ 9. Inconsistencies and Incongruities of Gaṅgādhar’s Recension

c6.s1.t6.1

1. Gaṅgādhar’s recension of the statement of Charaka is full of inconsistencies and incongruities. To begin with, the sum of the several items of the list does not agree with the total stated at its conclusion. The latter is 360, while the former is either 370 or 368, according as No. 16 is counted separately, or together with No. 15, though the wording of the clause in the original seems to imply that Nos. 15 and 16 are to be taken as a single item. The attempt of Gaṅgādhar to remove this inconsistency will be explained in the next paragraph. In the meantime, other inconsistencies are now enumerated in the order of their occurrence in the list of Gaṅgādhar.

c6.s1.t6.2

(a) Nos. 4 and 5 *b* are obviously the very same bones, that is to say, the long bones of the metacarpus and metatarsus. It makes no difference whether they are considered from the inner side (palm, or sole, No. 4) or from the outer side (back, *pṛṣṭha*, No. 5 *b*) of the hand or foot.

c6.s1.t6.3

(b) Similarly Nos. 5 *a* and 7 *b* are the identical bones of the carpus and tarsus. This will be fully explained in the sequel (§ 49). Here it may be noted that *kūrca*, or cluster, is the term for these bones which was introduced by Suśruta in substitution of Charaka’s term *adhiṣṭhāna* (or *sthāna*), base (§ 28). Its appearance in the recension of Gaṅgādhar proves that that recension cannot possibly represent the genuine text of Charaka, but that it was prepared subsequently with a knowledge of the terminology of Suśruta. This remark also applies to Gaṅgādhar’s use of the term *kūrpara* for elbow-pan (olecranon, No. 13); see §§ 21, 28.

c6.s1.t6.4

(c) In No. 20 *a*, the distinction between the so-called ‘vulval bone’ (*bhagāsthi*) and the ‘penis-bone’ (*meḍhrāsthi*) involves an obvious anatomical absurdity. Neither the vulva nor the penis is a bony structure. It has arisen from a misunderstanding of Charaka's term *bhagāsthi*, which refers to the pubic bone, i.e. the pubic arch (§ 60). The word *bhaga*, by itself (but not in conjunction with *asthi*, bone) denotes also the vulva, &c., or the external female sexual organs; and the term *bhagāsthi*, having been erroneously identified with the term *bhaga*, led further to the erroneous fabrication, and introduction, of a term *meḍhrāsthi*, or ‘penis-bone’, for the male sexual organ (§ 60). The anatomical misconception involved in this procedure alone must be fatal to any claim of Gangādhar's recension to represent the genuine text of Charaka.

c6.s1.t6.5

(*d*) The principle of enumeration involved in Nos. 20 *b*, 20 *c*, and 21, differs entirely from that of Charaka's genuine No. 22 (§ 4) which counts forty-five back-bones. It will be shown in the sequel (§ 59; see also § 19) not only that the principle of counting which underlies the system of Gangādhar's recension presupposes a knowledge of Suśruta's principle of counting the back-bones, but that it applies that principle in an unintelligent way.

c6.s1.t6.6

(*e*) No. 23 is affected by a double incongruity. The recension of Gangādhar counts two *jatru*. From this circumstance it is clear that he understands the word *jatru* to refer to the two collar-bones. Now this is a comparatively late meaning of the word which is not traceable farther back than the Amarakosa, a Sanskrit vocabulary of uncertain date, but probably written in the early part of the sixth century A. D. At all events, as will be shown in the sequel (§ 62), in the early medical works, *jatru* uniformly refers to the neck, or the windpipe in the neck. Its use, therefore, in the sense of collar-bone proves that the recension of Gangādhar cannot represent the genuine text of Charaka. Moreover, its use in that sense involves the further incongruity of counting the collar-bones twice; for No. 17, *akṣaka*, also refers to the collar-bones.

c6.s1.t6.7

(*f*) No. 26 *a, b, c, d*, as will be shown in the sequel (§ 66, see also pp. 37 and 40), imply a view of the bones of the skull utterly at variance with that indicated in the genuine text of Charaka—a view, moreover, which presupposes a knowledge of Suśruta's views, imperfectly understood.

c6.s1.t6.8

(g) No. 27 *a, b, c*, likewise, is affected by a double incongruity. One is of the formal kind: the ribs are pitchforked into the midst of the bones of the head, standing as they do between No. 26, brows, eyes, cheeks and nose, and No. 28, temporal bones. Moreover, as will be shown in the sequel (§ 58), the terms of the three parts of No. 27, which, as given in the genuine text of Charaka, are perfectly intelligible and correct, convey no consistent or intelligible meaning in the recension of Gaṅgādhar.

c6.s1.t6.9

(h) No. 30 is open to several objections. It counts 17 breast-bones against 14 of Charaka’s genuine text (§ 4, No. 24); and its larger count presupposes a knowledge of the system of Suśruta. The position of the breast-bones, too, at the very end of the list, after the bones of the head, is very curious. It is to be noted, however, that on this point the recension of Gaṅgādhar follows the arrangement of the list as given in the Non-medical Version of Yājñavalkya’s Law-book and the Agni Purāṇa (§ 16, No. 27). This circumstance, combined with the fact that in his commentary Gaṅgādhar refers to those two non-medical works by name, supports the surmise that the recension of Gaṅgādhar is not based on any manuscript authority, but is an ill-judged construction of his own.

c6.s1.t6.10

2. On three points, however, Gaṅgādhar is undoubtedly right in his reconstruction. One of these refers to No. 16, *aṃsa*, shoulder. The traditional text of the statement of Charaka had erroneously duplicated that item (§ 6). The recension of Gaṅgādhar corrects that error; though, curiously enough, it does so by omitting the more accurate term *aṃsa-phalaka*, shoulder-blade. This curious circumstance clearly points to the use, by Gaṅgādhar, of the existing traditional text of Suśruta’s Compendium in the preparation of his recension of the statement of Charaka. For in that traditional text the term *aṃsa* is employed (though erroneously, as shown in §§ 30, 55, 56) in the sense of *aṃsa-phalaka* to denote the shoulder-blade. The second point refers to No. 8, where the recension of Gaṅgādhar reads ‘four wrist-bones’ instead of the ‘two wrist-bones’ of the traditional recension. Here, too, in all probability, his emendation is right (see § 52). The third point refers to the position of No. 23, *jatru*. As pointed out in § 5, this item is misplaced in the traditional list. The recension of Gangādhar, though it misinterprets the term, assigns to the item its correct place immediately after No. 22, *grīvā*, neck-bones. In doing so—it may be noted again—Gangādhar simply follows the guidance of Yājñavalkya's Law-book and the Agni Purāṇa (§ 16, No. 20).

§ 10. Harmonization of Gangādhar's Recension

c6.s1.t7.1

In his commentary, Gangādhar makes a strenuous attempt to harmonize the actual total, 368 or 370, of the several items of his list with the required total 360. It involves a very forced manipulation of the list, which will now be explained. His procedure is as follows. It divides itself into five steps. The first step refers to the extremities. Excluding Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Nos. 5 *a* and 5 *b*, the remaining numbers down to No. 16, give us 128 bones, that is to say, thirty-two bones for each of the upper and lower extremities. Next, adding Nos. 1 and 2, that is, sixty-four bones, the total is raised to 192. The third step refers to the posterior part of the trunk. Transferring No. 18 (*tālu*, palate) to a subsequent step, and counting No. 20 *a* (the vulval and penis-bones) as a single item (for woman and man respectively), we obtain, from No. 17 to No. 21, a total of forty-two, which added to the previous total 192, raises it to 234. The fourth step refers to the head and neck. Transferring Nos. 23 (*jatru*) and 27 *a*, *b*, *c* (ribs, &c.) to the next step, but adding the previously omitted No. 18 (palate), and counting from No. 22 to No. 29, we obtain a total of thirty-five, which added to the previous total 234, makes up 269. The fifth step refers to the anterior portion of the trunk. Here come in the previously omitted Nos. 23 (*jatru*) and 27 *a*, *b*, *c* (ribs, &c.), to which is added No. 30 (breast-bones). These give a total of ninety-one, which, added to the previous total 269, finally results in the required total 360.

c6.s1.t7.2

This scheme of harmonization is open to several serious objections:

c6.s1.t7.3

1. It throws out of the count the two items No. 5 *a*, bases of the long bones, and No. 5 *b*, backs of the hands and feet.

c6.s1.t7.4

Gangādhar would appear to have realized (what has been already pointed out in § 9) that these two numbers merely duplicate the items enumerated as Nos. 7 *b* and 4 respectively. For the bones of the back of the hands and feet (No. 5 *b*) are precisely the long bones (No. 4), and the bases (No. 5 *a*) are the clusters (*kūrca*, No. 7 *b*). So far Gangādhar, undoubtedly, is right; but his error is that he counts only two clusters. The subjoined tabular statement makes this perfectly plain:

c6.s1.t7.5

| | *Extremities.* | *Upper.* | *Lower.* |
| No. | 3. Nails (*nakha*) | 10 | 10 |
| ,, | 4. Long bones (*śalākā*) | 10 | 10 |
| ,, | 5. Phalanges (*aṅguli*) | 30 | 30 |
| ,, | 7 *a*. Heels (*pārṣṇi*) | — | 2 |
| ,, | 7 *b*. Clusters (*kūrca*) | 2 | — |
| ,, | 8. Wrist-bones (*maṇika*) | 4 | — |
| ,, | 9. Ankle-bones (*gulpha*) | — | 4 |
| ,, | 10. Forearms (*aratni*) | 4 | — |
| ,, | 11. Legs (*jaṅgha*) | — | 4 |
| ,, | 12. Knee-caps (*jānu*) | — | 2 |
| ,, | 13. Elbow-pans (*kūrpara*) | 2 | — |
| ,, | 14. Thighs (*ūru*) | — | 2 |
| ,, | 15. Arms (*bāhu*) | 2 | — |
| | Totals | 64 | 64 |

c6.s1.t7.6

This gives, as Gangādhar explains, a total of thirty-two bones for each of the four extremities, and a grand total of 128. But it will be noticed that he counts only the clusters (*kūrca*) of the hands, that is, as we should call them, the carpal bones. He omits the other two *kūrca*, that is, the clusters or tarsal bones of the feet. In their place, he counts two *pārṣṇi*, that is, the heel-bones of the feet; for, as will be seen from the table, Gangādhar's arrangement of the bones of the extremities proceeds on the principle of homology. Now the heel-bones do belong to the tarsal cluster of bones, but, though they are its prominent constituents, they do not exhaust the cluster. The truth is that Gangādhar's recension of the statement of Charaka is a faulty adaptation to the scheme of Suśruta, which, as will be shown in the sequel (§ 49), consistently counts four *kūrca*, or clusters of small bones. The genuine schemes of both, Suśruta and Charaka, are consistent, each in its own way; but the recension of Gangādhar is inconsistent, and proves itself thereby not to be the genuine recension of the scheme of Charaka.

c6.s1.t7.7

2. With regard to the term *kūrca*, as used in the recension of Gangādhar, there is a special grammatical difficulty. The clause in question, *dve kūrcādhas*, is very difficult to construe. The only construction grammatically legitimate is to supply *asthīni*, that is, *dve asthīni kūrca-adhas*, or ‘two bones below the *kūrca*’. This, however, yields no intelligible sense. In order to give the sense which Gangādhar wishes to extract from it, the clause should read *dve kūrce adhas*, i. e. ‘two *kūrca* below (*scl.* the long bones)’; and this form of the clause could become *dve kūrcādhas* only through a very anomalous double *sandhi*, or contraction; viz. *kūrce adhas* = *kūrca[y]adhas* = *kūrcādhas*. Even so, the difficulty remains that *kūrca*—a word apparently first used by Suśruta in its anatomical application—is not neuter (*dve kūrce*), but masculine (*dvau kūrcau*); see Suśruta’s Compendium, *Śārīra Sthāna*, chap. vi, clause 29 (Jīv. ed., p. 340). Avināsa Chandra, in his glosses to Gangādhar’s recension which he adopts in his edition of Charaka’s Compendium, apparently takes *kūrcādha* to be a single noun, synonymous with *kūrca*, but there exists no such noun in Sanskrit, and even if it did, the clause should read *dve kūrcādhe*.

c6.s1.t7.8

3. A further difficulty in Gangādhar’s scheme of harmonization is that it takes no account of the term *aṃsa*, shoulder, which his recension couples with the fifteenth item. The clause of that item reads *dve (scl. asthīni) bāhvoḥ s-āṃsayoḥ*, i. e. ‘two bones in the arms together with the shoulders’. It seems obvious that arm and shoulder could not well be considered as constituting a single bone. Gangādhar avoids the difficulty by calmly ignoring the presence of *aṃsa*, shoulder, and explaining the clause to mean that ‘there is one bone in each arm’. On the other hand, Avināsa Chandra, in his glosses, counts *aṃsa*, shoulder, separately. Consequently, with his counting two bones in the arms, and two in the shoulders, the list works out a total of even 370 bones. Seeing that the recension of Gangādhar nowhere mentions the shoulder-blades (*aṃsa phalaka*), it does seem not impossible that by the term *aṃsa* it intended to indicate those bones. If so, the dilemma presents itself: did Gangādhar intend shoulder-blade (*aṃsa*) to be counted separately from arm (*bāhu*), or to be taken as constituting with it but a single bone. In the former case, retaining in other respects Gangādhar’s scheme of harmonization, the total works out at 362 bones (that is, Gangādhar’s 360 plus the two *aṃsa*). In the latter case, we have the incongruity of treating arm plus shoulder-blade as a single bone. In either case, the recension of Gangādhar stands self-condemned as an incongruous and inconsistent compilation.

c6.s1.t7.9

4. While, as we have just seen, the shoulder-blade, though such a prominent bone of the human body, is not given any distinct recognition in the recension of Gangādhar, the collar-bone, on the other hand, is counted twice over, under the denominations *akṣaka* and *jatru* in Nos. 17 and 23. The pair of *akṣaka* Gangādhar explicitly defines in his commentary as being *kaṇṭhādho ’ṃsakau*, that is, ‘the two shoulder-bones below the throat.’ This definition only fits the collar-bones. Anyhow, it fits them better than the shoulder-blades. It is also the usual interpretation of the term *akṣaka*, given by other commentators who refer it to the collar-bones. As to the term *jatru*, Gangādhar gives no definition of it; but it is to be noted that, while the genuine recension of the statement of Charaka treats it as denoting a single bone, the recension of Gangādhar uses it as the name of a pair of bones. It will be shown in the sequel (§ 62) that when used in the latter way the term always refers to the collar-bones. The duplication of the collar-bones in the recension of Gangādhar is obviously fatal to its claim of being a genuine presentation of the text of Charaka.

§ 11. The Glosses of Chakrapāṇidatta

c6.s1.t8.1

1. It has been stated in § 3 that the genuineness of Jīvānanda’s Recension of Charaka’s statement on the bones of the human body is confirmed by the commentary of Chakrapāṇidatta written some time in the middle of the eleventh century A. D. Manuscripts of this work are very rare, and in a more or less incomplete state. The subjoined translation has been made from the Tübingen University Library MS., M. a. I. 463 (Cat. No. 146),¹ where the original passage occurs in vol. iii, fols. 284 *b* and 285 *a*. It runs as follows (Original Text in § 75):

c6.s1.t8.2

¹ The original of this MS. was in Benares in 1873, where a copy of it was procured by me for the late Professor von Roth. It is rather inaccurate, but fairly complete, there being only a very large lacuna in the sixth section (*Cikitsita Sthāna*). Through the kind inter-mediation of Professor R. Garbe I have the loan of it. Tübingen, No. 145, is another incomplete copy of the same Benares MS. A second MS. of the same commentary is recorded as No. 2160 in the *Notices of Sanskrit MSS.* It is described as ‘incomplete, containing only the first five books’. A third MS. is being used by Kaviraj Harinath Viśarada in his edition of Charaka’s Compendium with Chakrapāṇidatta’s Commentary (Calcutta, śaka 1817 = A.D. 1895). A fourth MS., ‘complet et bien conservé’ is announced by Dr. P. Cordier in his *Récentes Découvertes*, p. 10, and (according to a private letter from him, October 30, 1904) is being copied for him. From a few passages, kindly collated by him for me it appears to agree closely with the Benares MS. referred to above. A copy, from it, of the osteological statement was kindly supplied by him to me (§ 75). Further, two MSS., Nos. 2503 and 2855, are stated in *Notices*, vol. xi, p. 39, to exist in the Government of India Collection in Calcutta, but on inquiry I am informed that No. 2855 is lost; and No. 2503, which I obtained on loan, I find on examination to be not a MS. of Chakrapāṇidatta’s Commentary, but a fragment of the text of Charaka’s Compendium, viz. the 30th chapter of the *Sūtra Sthāna* and the *Vimāna Sthāna*.

c6.s1.t8.3

2. ‘With reference to the list of bones, the words “head and neck” (*śiro-grīvam*) must be taken together, and signify but one part, viz. the head. The word “trunk” (*antarādhi*) refers to the middle part of the body. The words “and sixty” (*ṣaṣṭa*) mean sixty additional to three hundred. The term “dental socket” (*dant-olūkhala*) signifies the place where the tooth is fixed. Though in the chapter on the various kinds of food and drink, the nails (*nakha*) are relegated to the waste products of the body on account of their being developed from the waste portion of what is taken as food, nevertheless, in the present case, on account of their resemblance to the bones, they are counted among the latter.² In each finger and toe there are three joints (*parvan*). Hence, as there are twenty fingers and toes, there are sixty bones in the joints. As to the third joint of the thumb and great toe, it must be understood to be contained within the respective hand or foot. The long bones (*śalākā*), too, of the thumb and great toe, must be understood to be of small size. The place where the long bones of the fingers and the toes meet, there is their base (*adhiṣṭhāna*). The word "knee" (*jānu*) signifies the knee-cap (*jānuka*), marking the articulation of leg and thigh. The "two collar-bones" (*akṣaka*) are the two pegs that run athwart the anterior part of the trunk between the articulations of the shoulder and the throat.¹ The two "palatal cavities" (*tālūṣaka*) signify the two palatal bones. The "pubic bone" (*bhagāsthi*) is the cross (*tiryag*) bone that serves to compact the two hip-bones in front. By the term "sockets" (*sthālaka*) are meant the shallow (*nimna*) bases for the ends of the ribs; and by the words "tubercles fitting into the sockets" (*sthālak-ārbudāni*) are meant the tubercle-like bones which occur in the middle between the ribs and the shallows. The "nose" (*nāsikā*), the "prominences of the cheeks" (*gaṇḍakūṭa*), and the "brows" (*lalāṭa*) must be taken together, and counted as a single bone. According to those who read the three items separately, the nose, the prominences of the cheeks, and the brows constitute three distinct bones; but in this way the total [360] does not work out.'

c6.s1.t8.4

² The reference is to the 28th chapter of the Introductory Section (*Sūtra Sthāna*) of Charaka’s Compendium. It is there explained that the food taken by man contains a good part (*prasāda*) and a waste part (*kiṭṭa*). The former is assimilated by the system and turned into chyle (*rasa*), which, in its turn, serves to build up the various parts of the body (blood, muscles, bones, &c.). The latter is secreted by the body as its waste products (*mala*), the nails, in particular, being secreted by the bones.

c6.s1.t8.5

¹ The original of this clause is very corrupt: it has been conjecturally restored; its general purport seems clear enough.—Koṣṭha signifies the whole of the anterior part of the trunk, as opposed to pṛṣṭha, or the whole of the ‘back’, or posterior part. The articulations referred to are the scapulo-clavicular (*aṃsa*) and the sterno-clavicular (*jatru*, see § 62).

c6.s1.t8.6

3. The main interest of this commentary lies not so much in the explanations which it gives of the several items of the list of bones, as in the evidence it affords of the state of the text of Charaka in the eleventh century. The value of the explanation is much impaired by its apparently fragmentary character. Out of the thirty items in the list of Charaka (§ 4), it comments only on twelve (viz. Nos. 1-6, 12, 17, 19, 21, 25 *a, b, c*, 28). For no less than eighteen items (Nos. 7-11, 13-16, 18, 20, 22-4, 26, 27, 29, 30) we have no comment; and as there are among them some not quite transparent terms (e. g. Nos. 9, 13, 18, 27), it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the text of the commentary has not been preserved intact.

c6.s1.t8.7

4. Regarding the evidence on the condition of the text of Charaka’s statement, the fortunate preservation of Chakrapāṇidatta’s gloss on No. 19, *tālūṣake*, shows the misplacement of that item as already extant in his time. The extreme antiquity, indeed, of this particular misplacement, as has already been pointed out in § 5, is guaranteed by its occurrence in the Non-medical Version, as well as in the Medical Version of Bheḍa (§ 12). In default of any gloss on No. 18, *jatru*, and No. 23, *grīvā*, it must remain uncertain, whether they were misplaced in Charaka’s text as Chakrapāṇidatta saw it, or whether he read them in their right position as shown in the Non-medical Version (§ 16). Again the commentary’s silence on No. 9, *maṇika*, No. 13, *jānu-kapālika*, and No. 16, *aṃsa*, leaves it also uncertain how far Chakrapāṇidatta’s text may have supported the emendations suggested in § 6.

c6.s1.t8.8

5. Of great importance is the remark of Chakrapāṇidatta on No. 28, the complex bone of nose, cheeks, and brows. For, first, it shows that he must have read Charaka’s text as given in Jīvānanda’s recension, and that, accordingly, Gaṅgādhar’s recension is not genuine. For the latter breaks up the complex into three parts, and makes each part to consist of two bones. Its procedure, therefore, results in producing a total of six bones, where the genuine recension has only a single bone, and where even the rival text, which Chakrapāṇidatta mentions, has no more than three bones. Secondly it renders it very probable, that when speaking of this rival text, Chakrapāṇidatta was referring to the Medical Version as traditionally presented in the Compendium of Bheḍa. For that Version (§§ 12, 13) makes No. 28 to consist of three bones, and consequently works out a wrong total (362).

c6.s1.t8.9

§ 12. The Medical Version according to Bheḍa

c6.s1.t8.10

1. As stated in § 1, Ātreya’s theory of the skeleton is found also in Bheḍa’s Compendium (*Bheḍa Saṃhitā*). Of this compendium, at present, no more than a single manuscript is known to exist, dated about 1650 A. D., and preserved in the Palace Library in Tanjore (Burnell’s Catalogue, No. 10773).¹ The arrangement of the Compendium of Bheḍa agrees with that of the Compendium of Charaka. Accordingly his statement on the bones of the human body is also found in the seventh chapter of the Anatomical Section (*Śārīra Sthāna*). It runs as follows (Original Text in § 76):

c6.s1.t8.11

¹ Of this MS. I possess an excellent copy in Telugu, which I owe to the munificence of the Government of Madras, by whose orders it has been prepared for me (November, 1905). Dr. P. Cordier also possesses two copies, one in Telugu, the other in Devanagari, the latter being a transcript from his Telugu copy (information by letter of September 10, 1904; see also *Récentes Découvertes*, pp. 4, 5). Professor Aufrecht’s *Catalogus Catalogorum*, vol. i, p. 416, notices another MS., ‘Radh. 32,’ in a native library in Lahore; but the existence of it at present lacks verification.

c6.s1.t8.12

2. ‘There are three hundred and sixty bones. These are the following:

c6.s1.t8.13

1. 32 teeth (*danta*).
2. 32 sockets (*ulūkhala*) of the teeth.
3. 20 nails (*nakha*).
4. 60 phalanges (*aṅguli*).
5. 20 long bones (*śalākā*) of the hands and feet.
6. 4 bases (*adhiṣṭhāna*) of the long bones.
7. 2 heels (*pārṣṇi*).
8. 4 ankle-bones (*gulpha*) of the two feet.
9. 2 wrist-bones (*maṇika*) of the two hands.
10. 4 bones of the two forearms (*aratni*).
11. 4 bones of the two legs (*jaṅgha*).
12. 2 knee-caps (*jānu*).
13. 2 elbow-pans (*jānu-kapālikā*).
14. 2 hollow bones (*nalaka*) of the two thighs (*ūru*).
15. [2 hollow bones (*nalaka*) of the two arms (*bāhu*).] 16 *a*. 2 shoulders (*aṃsa*). 16 *b*. 2 shoulder-blades (*aṃsa-phalaka*).
17. 2 collar-bones (*akṣaka*).
18. 1 windpipe (*jatru*).
19. 2 palatal cavities (*tāl-ūṣaka*).
20. 2 hip-blades (*śroṇi-phalaka*).
21. 1 pubic bone (*bhag-āsthi*).
22. 45 back-bones (*pṛṣṭha-gat-āsthi*).
23. 15 neck-bones (*grīvā*).
24. 14 breast-bones (*uras*).

c6.s1.t8.14

25 *a*. 24 ribs (*pārśvaka*). 25 *b*. 24 sockets (*sthālaka*) in the two sides. 25 *c*. 24 tubercles (*arbuda*) fitting into the sockets.
26. 1 (lower) jaw-bone (*hanv-asthi*), or chin.
27. 2 basal tie-bones of the jaw (*hanu-mūla-bandhana*). 28 *a*. 1 nasal bone (*nās-asthi*). 28 *b*. 1 bone in the prominences of the jaw (*hanu-kūṭa*) 28 *c*. 1 bone in the brows (*lalāṭa*).
29. [2 temples (*śaṅkha*).]
30. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones (*śīrṣa-kapāla*).

§ 13. Peculiarities and Defects of Bheḍa's Statement

c6.s1.t9.1

With reference to the condition of the text of the statement of Bheḍa the following points deserve notice:

c6.s1.t9.2

1. Nos. 15 and 29, which are enclosed in angular brackets, are missing in the original Sanskrit text (§ 76). That these omissions are due to clerical lapses in the existing MS. is obvious from the fact that otherwise the required total (360) does not work out. Accordingly in the list (§ 12) they have been supplied.

c6.s1.t9.3

2. In No. 28 *b*, Bheḍa's text has the peculiar reading *hanu-kūṭa*, prominence of the jaw, where Charaka's text (§ 4) has *gaṇḍa-kūṭa*, prominence of the cheek. It will be shown in § 65 that though both terms may well be synonymous, the term *hanu-kūṭa* is really inconsistent with the system of Ātreya. It is not improbably, therefore, a false reading for *gaṇḍa-kūṭa*.

c6.s1.t9.4

3. In the original text (§ 76) the statement appears to contain two additional items, which have been omitted in the translation (§ 12). In reality these additions are merely explanatory (marginal) glosses which have been wrongly incorporated into the text. First, No. 9, in the original text, runs as follows: ‘two *maṇika*, two *pāṇika*, of the two hands.’ Here the two words *maṇika* and *pāṇika*, are simply synonyms, explanatory of each other; and either *maṇika* or *pāṇika* is the intrusive gloss, more probably, to judge from its secondary position, the latter. In the India Office MS., No. 881 (Cat. No. 2640), the word *pāṇike* is actually substituted for *maṇike*. Secondly, in No. 19, the original text has ‘two *tālūṣaka*, two *cubuka*’. Here, probably, there has occurred a misplaced insertion of the gloss cubuka. That word means ‘chin’, and probably served as a marginal gloss to explain the term hanv-asthi (No. 26). By some mischance or misunderstanding it got misplaced, and was then wrongly inserted into the text after tālūṣaka (No. 19). Both hanvasthi and tālūṣaka are very unusual terms, and the transfer of the gloss cubuka from one to the other is readily intelligible in the hands of an ignorant scribe.

c6.s1.t9.5

4. There is a difficulty with respect to the total of the listed bones. According to the introductory clause of the list, its total should be 360, but the addition of its items actually works out a total of 362. It is obvious that there must be a defect somewhere in the list. The probability, as will be shown in the sequel (§ 66), is that the defect lies in No. 28 a, b, c. The real text of the clause expressing that item must have run similarly to that in the list of Charaka (§ 4); and instead of a nasal bone, and a bone for the prominences of the jaw and of the brows respectively (i. e. three bones altogether), it must have spoken of but one bone, that is, a single complex bone, including all three organs: nose, prominences, and brows. With this correction we obtain the correct total 360.

c6.s1.t9.6

5. It is probable, however, that a further correction should be made. It will be noted that all the inconsistencies and corruptions, noticed in the case of the list of Charaka (§§ 5, 6), occur also in the list of Bheḍa. Accordingly, just as in the list of Charaka, No. 16 a, aṃsa, shoulders, should be omitted, and on the other hand, in No. 9, ‘four wrist-bones’ should be read instead of ‘two wrist-bones’. The total 360 thus remains untouched.

§ 14. Non-medical Version of Ātreya's System

c6.s1.t10.1

1. The existence of a Version of the theory of Ātreya on the skeleton in some works of a non-medical character has been referred to in § 1. This Non-medical Version is found in two legal and two religious text-books. The former are the Law-book of Yājnavalkya (Yājñavalkya Dharma-śāstra) and the Institutes of Vishnu (Viṣṇu Smṛti). The latter are the Vishnu Dharmottara (*Viṣṇu-dharmottara*) and the Agni Purāṇa (*Agni Purāṇa*).

c6.s1.t10.2

2. The Law-book of Yājñavalkya is a versified treatise of Hindu law, the approximate date of which is about the middle of the fourth century A. D.¹

c6.s1.t10.3

3. The Institutes of Vishnu, on account of its being partly written in prose, is supposed to belong, at least in its original form, to a considerably earlier date; but in its final redaction, it is placed (by Professor Macdonell) ‘not earlier than 200 A. D.’, or (by Professor Jolly) ‘in the third or fourth century A. D.’² But it is probable that isolated portions have been interpolated into the work at much later dates. In any case, in respect of the passage containing the Non-medical Version of the skeleton, there is sufficient evidence (§ 22) proving that it cannot have existed in the Institutes of Vishnu before the twelfth century A. D. Indeed, the very fact that the passage is in no way required by its context, suggests its being a much later otiose amplification, interpolated into the text from some other work. The surmise is confirmed by the fact that the passage in question is not found in all MSS. of the Institutes. On this point I have been able to test the following seventeen MSS. :³

c6.s1.t10.4

1. India Office, No. 915 (Cat. 1342 = Jolly V¹).⁴
2. ,, ,, No. 1545 (Cat. 1345 = Jolly V²).⁴
3. ,, ,, No. 1247 (Cat. 1347 = Jolly V³).
4. ,, ,, No. 540 (Cat. 1341 = Jolly V).
5. ,, ,, No. 200 (Coll. Bühler = Jolly V⁴).⁴ 6. India Office, No. 913 (Cat. 1340).
7. Government Oriental Library, Madras, No. 87.
8. Elphinstone College, Bombay, No. 162 (Coll. Bühler).
9. ,, ,, ,, No. 174 (Coll. Bühler).¹
10. Deccan College, No. 19 (Bhandarkar's Report, 1880).
11. ,, ,, No. 20 (Bhandarkar's Report, 1882).
12. ,, ,, No. 155 (Peterson's Report, III).
13. Calcutta, Sanskrit College, No. 5.
14. ,, ,, ,, No. 62.¹
15. Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. II A. 10.
16. ,, ,, ,, No. II A. 11.
17. ,, ,, ,, No. II B. 25.¹

c6.s1.t10.5

¹ See Professor Jolly’s *Recht und Sitte*, p. 21, in the Cyclopaedia of Indo-Aryan Research; and Professor Macdonell’s *Sanskrit Literature*, p. 429.

c6.s1.t10.6

² Professor Macdonell, *ibid.*, p. 428; Professor Jolly, *ibid.*, p. 7; also in *Sacred Books of the East*, vol. vii, Introduction, p. xxxii.

c6.s1.t10.7

³ The first five MSS. were used by Professor Jolly in his edition in the Bibliotheca Indica. The first six MSS. have been examined by myself; so also extracts from Nos. 13–17, kindly supplied to me by Mahāmahopadhyāya Hara Prasāda Shastri. For the examination of No. 7 I am indebted to the kindness of Rao Bahadur M. Rangacharya; of Nos. 8 and 9 to that of Professor S. K. Bhandarkar; of Nos. 10–12 to that of Professor K. B. Pathak.

c6.s1.t10.8

⁴ Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are provided with Nanda Paṇḍita’s Commentary.

c6.s1.t10.9

¹ Nos. 9, 14 and 17 are provided with Nanda Paṇḍita's Commentary.

c6.s1.t10.10

From among these MSS., twelve (Nos. 1, 2, 4–9, 13–15, 17) contain the passage in question, while five (Nos. 3, 10–12, 16) do not contain it. It appears to be generally assumed, on the authority of Max Müller,² that the Law-book of Yājnavalkya borrowed the passage from the Institutes of Vishnu. The evidence which will be adduced in § 22, goes to show that the truth is rather the reverse. The passage, most probably, was inserted into the Institutes by some one who was familiar with the Mitaksharā commentary on the Law-book. This must have happened at a comparatively late date, though at least some time before 1622 A. D. For Nanda Paṇḍita, who wrote his Vaijayantī commentary on the Institutes in that year,³ comments on the passage.

First 79 of 465 passages. Read on

Linked texts (15)