Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s23: The author

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s23

Language
English

The author

v3.c42.s23.1

The *Rogaviniścaya* and *Mādhavacikitsā* are completely silent as to their author. He is called Mādhava, Śrīmādhava, or Mādhavakara in the colophons of manuscripts of the *Nidāna* and its commentaries 209 and in those of the *Cikitsā*. 210 His name appears as Mādhava and Mādhavakara in Vijayarakṣita’s part of the *Madhukośa*. Śrīkaṇṭhadatta refers to him as Mādhavakara in his commentary on the *Siddhayoga*. Hemādri once quotes from the *Nidāna* as the work of Mādhavakara.

v3.c42.s23.2

The name of Mādhava’s father is Indukara or Candrakara in the colophons of manuscripts of the *Nidāna* and *Cikitsā*. 211

v3.c42.s23.3

The foregoing does not suffice to decide whether the author’s name was Mādhava or Mādhavakara. It has been supposed, since their names end in -kara, that Mādhavakara and his father belonged to the Kara family mentioned as one of the families of Bengal physicians in Bharatamallika’s *Candraprabhā*. 212 The only evidence on this point is the ending -kara of the names of Mādhava and his father, but, as we have seen, there is no certainty in this respect with regard to Mādhava’s name. 213 The name of Mādhava’s father need not imply a Bengal origin, for authors are known with a name ending in -kara who did not belong to Bengal. 214

v3.c42.s23.4

In the past there has been confusion as to the identity of Mādhava, 215 a confusion created by Hoernle in an article about the commentaries on the *Suśrutasaṃhitā*, 216 in which he assumed on faulty grounds that Mādhava and Vṛnda might be one and the same person. The fact that Vṛnda’s *Siddhayoga* is also known as *Vṛndamādhava* strengthened him in his belief that the *Mādhavanidāna* and *Siddhayoga* were the

v3.c42.s23.5

two parts of one work by Vṛnda. Hoernle was unaware of the existence of the *Mādhavacikitsā*, although R. Mitra’s description of the Bikāner MS was available at the time he wrote his article. The discovery of more MSS has made it quite clear that Hoernle’s views on the subject do not reflect the actual state of affairs.

Cites (6)