A History of Indian Medical Literature v4.c57.1

v4.c57.1

1 See on Kucā: A. Stein (1921). 2 See on this site: A. Grünwedel (1912). 3 *Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1890, 222–223. 4 G. Bühler (1891a). 5 *Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1890, 222–223. 6 A.F.R. Hoernle noticed that G. Bühler and he independently arrived at essentially the same conclusions (IA 21, 1892: 29). G. Bühler (1891b: 302) expressed the same opinion. 7 *Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, April 1891, 54–64. See on this article: G. Bühler (1891b: 303–305). 8 The Bower Manuscript; Facsimile leaves, Nagari transcript, romanised transliteration and English translation with notes, edited by A.F. Rudolf Hoernle, published by order of the Government of India and under the patronage of the Bengali Government, Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, Vol. XXII, Calcutta 1893–1912. The revised translation of parts I–III was published as Vol. XXIII of the Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, Calcutta 1909. Reprints of the complete edition (in three volumes), New Delhi 1983 and 1987. The Introduction appeared separately in IA 42 (1913) and 43 (1914). An early version of the annotated translation of part I was published in 1891: An instalment of the Bower Manuscript (JASB 60, 1891, 79–195). Hoernle (1891b) also wrote another long article on the Bower Manuscript in the same year: A note on the date of the Bower Manuscript (JASB 60, 1891, 79–96; see on this article: G. Bühler, 1891b), reprinted with alterations and additions in IA 21, 1892, 29–45. Early versions of the annotated translations of parts IV and VI were published in 1892 (Another instalment of the Bower Manuscript, IA 21: 129–145; The third instalment of the Bower Manuscript, IA 21: 349–369). Moreover, Hoernle wrote an article on the relationship between the Bhela-saṃhitā and the Bower Manuscript: The Bheda Saṃhitā in the Bower Manuscript, JRAS (1910): 830–833. See also Hoernle (1908) and (1909).