A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c33.163

v2.c33.163

Singh et al. (1970): 46–47; W. Sprengel (1819): 183–223 (Bildung künstlicher Nasen); E. Zeis (1863): 55–61, 208–215. G. Majno (1975: 516) says: “Hindu surgery was made known in the Middle Ages by the great Arab physicians (Rhazes, Avicenna, and others); it surely was related to the making of new noses in Sicily in the early fifteenth century and ultimately in the publication of Tagliacozzi’s famous book *De curtorum chirurgia per insitionem* (On the surgery of mutilations by grafting) in Venice in 1597 (see on this work: M.T. Gnudi and J.P. Webster, 1976: 183–216); see for an English translation of the pertinent chapters of this book, reproduced textually from *Read, Chirurgorum comes*: or the whole practice of chirurgery, London 1687: M.T. Gnudi and J.P. Webster, 1976: 456–489. See on Tagliacozzi and his predecessors in Italy: A. Bardeleben (1870): 742–743; M.T. Gnudi and J.P. Webster (1976); E. Zeis (1863): 188–197; L.M. Zimmerman and I. Veith (1961): 261–267. The authenticity of Sū.16.27–32 was challenged by some of the ancient authorities but recognized by Jejjata and Gayadāsa (see Ḍalhaṇa’s comments; compare J. Jolly, 1901: 116, and R. Roth, 1894: 139–140). The remarkable fact that neither Jejjata and Gayadāsa, nor Cakrapāṇi and Ḍalhaṇa went to the trouble of elucidating the technique cannot but mean that they were unacquainted with it. The operation was actually carried out by non-physicians (see B. Rama Rao, 1986: 6; D. Wujastyk, 1995: 27). E. Haas (1876a: 658–659) was convinced that Suśruta’s description of nose reconstruction derived from Graeco-Roman medicine, but, as already noticed by J. Jolly, the account found in the work of Celsus (*De medicina* 7.9) cannot be regarded as closely related. The practice of plastic surgery was, apart from Celsus, also known to Galen (see his *De methodo medendi*) and Paulus Aegineta (see M.T. Gnudi and J.P. Webster, 1976: 108–109).