Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t16: § 21. Continuation

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t16

Language
English

§ 21. Continuation

c6.s1.t16.1

1. Regarding the principal defect of the Non-medical Version—its total neglect of the bones of the arms and wrists—it is instructive to note the shifts to which the commentators are put to explain it.

c6.s1.t16.2

2. As to the omission of all mention of the wrist-bones, the commentators do not seem to have realized it at all, for none of them makes any reference to it. Gangādhar, as we have seen (§ 19), did realize it; and he, therefore, introduced the wrist-bones (maṇika) in his reconstruction of the Non-medical Version. But the early commentators noticed only the omission of the arms—a circumstance, indeed, which cannot surprise us, seeing that the arms form such a conspicuous part of the body. But the way in which they deal with the omission is characteristic. The only solution of the difficulty which they are able to suggest, consistently with their respect for the integrity of their sacred text, is to declare that the arms (bāhu) are virtually included in the term forearm (aratni, No. 8). Thus Vijñāneśvara says (see § 80), ‘the bones of the arms, being implied in the term forearm, number four’; and his explanation is unquestioningly adopted by the later commentators, Śūlapāṇi and Mitramiśra (§§ 81, 82).¹ The total inappropriateness of such an interpretation is obvious; for the entire arm (or upper extremity) consists of three bones, two in the forearm and one in the arm. The total, accordingly, of the bones of the two upper extremities amounts to six. But Vijñāneśvara and his followers do not seem to have been aware of the fact that the forearm contained two bones. This is pretty clear from their comments (see §§ 80-82). Their idea was that each extremity consisted of two bones, arm and forearm, and similarly leg and thigh, each containing a single bone. Anyhow, Aparārka, while giving the same explanation (§ 79), candidly says, ‘though the term forearm (aratni) does not really include the arm (bāhu), yet here, for the sake of securing the number four of the bones, it is so employed’ (i. e. as inclusive of the arm). This shift of interpretation necessarily led to another incongruity. If the term forearm (aratni) included the arm (bāhu), by parity of reason the term leg (jaṅgha) must include the thigh (ūru). As a matter of fact the commentators do draw that conclusion. Thus Aparārka expressly says (§ 79), ‘similarly the word leg (jaṅgha) here signifies the whole lower extremity, and hence the bones of the two legs number four.’ But he fails to notice that the bones of the thighs are expressly and separately enumerated in verse 87, where accordingly he counts them a second time.

c6.s1.t16.3

¹ Also Nanda Paṇḍita adopts it in his commentary on the Viṣṇu Smṛti (§ 85).

c6.s1.t16.4

3. The true explanation of the difficulty, of course, must be of a very different kind; and it is one which the text of the Non-medical Version itself suggests with some degree of probability. The place where the mention of the bones of the arms and wrist-bones would come in is verse 87. Now the wording of that verse is marked by some peculiarities. It runs as follows:

c6.s1.t16.5

dve dve jānu-kapol-oruphalak-āṃsa-samudbhave |
akṣa-tālūṣake śroṇiphalake ca vinirdiśet ||

c6.s1.t16.6

Literally this means: ‘two (bones) each in the knees, cheeks, thigh-blades, and in what springs from the shoulder; also, (as) one should declare, in the collar-bones, palatal cavities, and hip-blades.’ Here the item ‘cheeks’ is utterly out of place, occurring as it does between the knees and thighs. To any one conversant with the skeletal structure it must be obvious that words meaning elbow and arm should have their place there; and there can be no doubt whatever that *kapola* is simply an ancient misreading for *kapāla*, elbow-pan.¹ Gangādhara recognized the truth, and hence in his reconstruction of the Non-medical Version (§ 19, cl. 4) he substituted the correct synonym *kūrpara*. There is another ancient misreading in the term *ūru-phalaka*, thigh-blade; for *phalaka* denotes a broad, flat bone, and is quite inappropriate as a descriptive of the thigh-bone. The true reading, of course, must be *nalaka*, which signifies a cylindrical, hollow bone, and which occurs, in this connexion, in the Medical Versions of Charaka and Bheḍa (§§ 4, 12). Very striking is the use of the otiose phrase ‘one should declare’ in the midst of a statement packed as concisely as possible with the details of a long enumeration. It clearly suggests that it is inserted as mere padding to fill up an awkward lacuna. Yājñavalkya, or whoever was the author of the Non-medical Version, must have had a defective MS. copy of the Medical Version to work with. There were false readings in it (*kapola*, *ūru-phalaka*) as well as lacunae (arms and wrist-bones). As he was unable to supply the lacunae, he had recourse to padding. The use of the curious term *aṃsa-samudbhava*, springing from the shoulder, to denote the shoulder-blade, is perhaps due to the same need of padding. For though it is not a false descriptive, it is a needlessly long substitute for the shorter terms *aṃsa-ja* or *aṃsa-phalaka*. In addition to padding, however, the author had also to make good the shortage of six bones caused by the omission of the arms and wrist-bones. This he did, as shown in § 17 (p. 48), by augmenting the number of the breast-bones and facial bones by three bones each, or a total of six bones. We have here a case of ill-instructed ‘editing’ of a medical text similar to that from which the texts of Charaka and Suśruta suffered recently at the hands of Gaṅgādhar (§§ 9, 35), and anciently at the hands of Vāgbhaṭa I (§ 40).

c6.s1.t16.7

¹ Accordingly, the translation ‘Backen’ by Professor Stenzler (p. 98) and ‘cheek’ by Professor Jolly (*Sacred Books of the East*, vol. vii, p. 284) should be replaced by ‘Elbogenknochen’, and ‘funny-bone’ or ‘crazy-bone’ respectively.

Cites (4)