A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c30.668

v2.c30.668

1 The editio princeps dates from 1849–1855 (see: editions of the Carakasamhitā). 2 See about early publications on Indian medicine in general: A. Roṣu (1989): XLVI–LI. Caraka was known to Sir William Jones as the title of a medical treatise attributed to Śiva (W. Ainslie II, 1826: X). 3 See H.H. Wilson's translation of the Viṣṇupurāṇa (226: the carakāḥ are mentioned as the pupils of Vaiśampāyana). 4 See J.F. Royle (1989: 63), who probably refers to H.H. Wilson's article of 1823 (reprinted in H.H. Wilson, 1984: 269–276 and 380–392; extracts from this article are to be found in J.F. Royle, 1989: 56–61). Wilson undoubtedly meant the ninth or tenth century of the Christian era, but omitted to specify this, which gave rise to confusion, for example in publications by H. Haeser (1853: I, 3) and J.A. Vullers (1846). See on this confusion: G. Flügel (1857: 326); A. Stenzler (1846). The latter (A. Stenzler, 1846: 451–453) arrived, independently, at about the same conclusion as H.H. Wilson. G. Flügel remarked that Wilson's lower limit is too late a date for Caraka. Remarkable, in the context of these discussions of early scholars, is the absence of the mentioned dating in H.H. Wilson's 1823 article, which makes it useful to quote him: "It (i.e., the Suśrutasamhitā) is unquestionably of some antiquity, but it is not easy to form any conjecture of its real date, except that it cannot have the prodigious age, which Hindu fable assigns it – it is sufficient to know, that it is perhaps the oldest work on the subject, excepting that of Charaka, which the Hindus possess. One commentary on the text, made by Vāgbhaṭṭa a Cashmirian, is probably as old as the twelfth or thirteenth century, and his comment, it is believed, was preceded by others." H.H. Wilson seems to have supposed that systematic treatises on medicine were written in India in the three centuries before the Christian era (see T.A. Wise, 1986: XVIII, who refers to a note by Wilson in J. Mill II, 232; this reference must be wrong somehow). 5 See H.H. Wilson's remarks, added to W. Cureton's article (1841) (these remarks are referred to in T.A. Wise, 1986: XVII–XVIII). 6 F.R Dietz (1833). See F.R. Royle (1989): 63–64. 7 F. Kielhorn (1883): 227. 8 See Winternitz III, 394. 9 S. Lévi (1896), (1897); translated into English by W.R. Philipps (1903; 1904). See also the remarks on S. Lévi's article of 1896 by E. Specht (1897), to whom S. Lévi replied in his additions of 1897. 10 J. Takakusu (1966): General Introduction LIX. The secondary literature usually refers to S. Lévi's article, omitting to mention Takakusu's contribution to the discussion. 11 See on this work: S. Lévi (1896): 446–447, 463–475 (French translation of some stories). Translated by E. Chavannes (1962: III, 1–145). The Chinese title is the one given by S. Lévi (1896: 446). See the references to the Chinese Buddhist canon in J. Filliozat (1975) and J. Takakusu (1966). 12 The Chinese title would correspond to Sanskrit Samyuktaratnapiṭakasūtra (J. Filliozat, 1975: 14; S. Lévi, 1896: 446). Compare J. Filliozat in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953: 150), where the Sūtrālaṃkāra, attributed to Aśvaghoṣa, is mentioned; see on the Sūtrālaṃkāra and its author: B. Bhattacharya (1976): 167–193; B.C. Law (1946): 6; S. Lévi (1896): 445–446, 452–463, (1908); H. Nakamura (1996): 134–135; H. Ui (1928); Winternitz II, 208–209.