the author of the Kanthábharana, or the King Bhojadeva who lived at Dhárd in the middle of the eleventh century, except the partial coincidence of names, the Rájatarangini ought to decide the question of Kshirasvámi's date. It will be observed that Kshîrasvâmî quotes from the Kumârasambhava in a manner that shows that he either knew only one Kâlidâsa, or that he considered the work he was quoting from to belong to the celebrated Kâlidâsa, who had only to be named to be recognized. Surely if the Kumârasambhava was the production of a Kâlidâsa more modern than or different from that of the dramas, he would either have named the poem itself, instead of its author, or the latter with a distinctive designation, such as अभिनव कालिदास, or some similar appellation. The conclusion is therefore unavoidable that in the middle of the eighth century of Christ the Kumârasambhava was considered as a work of the great Kâlidâsa. Of course, it is not probable that an eminent grammarian and scholar like Kshirasvâmi, extensively read in Sanskrit literature, as is shown by his quotations, might have mistaken a spurious work that was fathered by its real author upon the great poet for one composed by the latter. Some further evidence throwing light on Kâlidâsa's authorship of the Raghuvañśa, and also on his date, is afforded by a certain passage in Pratihára Indurája's commentary on the Alankáraśástra of Bhaṭṭodbhata. Dr. Bühler has recently discovered a MS. of this commentary in the celebrated Bhandara or Library of MSS. at Jesselmir, which is dated Samvat 1160, corresponding to A.D. 1104. The commentary must be much older than the date of that MS., and the Alankáraśástra of Bhoṭṭodbhata, which is the subject of the commentary, must be older still. Now the passage referred to may be rendered as follows: "In this manner is the figure of speech called Dipaka defined and illustrated by the author. Now a question arises here the author has before, in enumerating the figures of speech, mentioned the figure Upamá first, and then the Dipaka, in the words 3441 ¿ìyà âfa. He ought, therefore, in obedience to the principle that definitions should be given in the same order as that of enumeration, to have defined Upamá first, and then the Dipaka. How is it then that the Dipaka is here defined first? The answer is, that this author has here followed the order of part of.the Kumâ rasambhava that he himself wrote, and there the figure Dipaka is illustrated before the Upama, and it is for the purpose of keeping the same order that the order of enumeration has here been disregarded." The words in the original regarding the Kumarasambhava are: अनेन ग्रन्थकृता स्वोपरचितकुमारसंभवैकदेशोत्र उदाहरणत्वेनोч: which would seem to imply that there was in the time of Bhaṭṭodbhața a Kumarasambhava that had not been written by himand in all likelihood the Kumârasambhava of Kâlidâsa. It may be here mentioned that the verses quoted in the Bhaṭṭodbhațâlankâra as from his own Kumarasambhava, are not found in that of Kâlidâsa. If then the words स्वोपरचितकुमारसंभव in our passage' are intended to distinguish Bhaṭṭodbhata's Kumârasambhava from that of Kâlidâsa, the latter must be placed prior to the time of the Bhojadeva of Dhârâ, or the middle of the eleventh century. In connexion with the authorship of Kâlidâsa, it may be mentioned here that by the commentary of Kshirasvâmî, the Meghadûta and the Vikramorvasi are also proved to be prior to his date, as he quotes them both. That commentary further shows that the Mághakávya, the Kirátârjuniya, the Uttararámacharita, and probably the Venisamhara, were as well known and considered as standard works as the Raghuvamśa when Kshirasvâmî lived. The conclusions, then, that the facts given above lead us to are: 1. That the Kâlidâsa of the dramas was also the Kâlidâsa of the poems Raghuvamśa, Kumârasambhava, and Meghadûta ; 2. That this Kâlidâsa lived considerably prior to the middle of the eighth century; and, 3. That therefore all stories connecting him with a King Bhoja that reigned at Dhârâ in the eleventh century are to be rejected as without foundation. 1 The whole passage is: एवमेतद्दीपक लक्षितमुदाहृतं च । ननु उपमाया उपमादीपकं चेति पूर्वमुद्दिष्टत्वाद्यथोद्देशलचणमिति न्यायात्तस्या एव पूर्वं लक्षणं कर्तव्यं पश्चात्तु दीपकस्य तत् कथमादौ दीपकं लचितमिति वक्तव्यम् । उच्यते । अनेन ग्रन्थकृता खोपरचितकुमारसंभवैकदेशोत्र उदाहरणत्वेनोपन्यस्तः । तत्र पूर्वं दीपकस्य उदाहरणानि तदनुसंधानाविच्छेदायात्र उद्देशकमः परित्यक्तः ॥ REMARKS ON THE PRIORITY OF THE ANCIENT SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE. BY THOMAS A. WISE, M.D.; LATE OF THE MEDICAL STAFF OF THE BENGAL ARMY; BоTH sacred and profane history render it probable that when mankind emerged from their primitive home, they possessed great energy and organic activity, accompanied with a corresponding degree of intellectual force. This enabled them to select a fruitful country as their home, where they soon became rich and powerful, and at an early period assigned a particular class for the acquisition of knowledge. These individuals, distinguished for their power of observation and sound reasoning, opened a vast and interesting field for the exercise of their mental faculties, in the region of abstract speculation. Their knowledge and progress in civilization was aided by their possessing the advantage of high rank in a regular and peaceable government, and a religion abounding in moral precepts. The most ancient traditions and records of the Western nations refer to the "learning and wisdom of the East," without any distinct mention of the race or nation. Modern investigations tend to prove that the original seat of the Indo-Germanic, or Aryan family of man, was the high table-land contiguous to the lofty range of mountains extending eastward from the Caspian Sea. Thence they descended to the fruitful plains in a southern and eastern direction, and at an early age another portion of the Aryan race commenced their wanderings towards the mysterious West. In both countries they distinguished themselves by their knowledge of the medical profession, and each prepared systems of medicine, the priority of which remains still an undecided question. The age in which the ancient Hindu system was arranged cannot be directly stated; in consequence of their despising dates, as they considered life a transitory state of trial and suffering, and history as of too little importance to occupy the attention of rational beings. It is hoped that the following deductions will aid us in arriving at an approximate date when the two great works on Hindu medicine were composed, and enable us to compare them with the Greek system. The perishable material on which the ancient Hindu MSS. were written, rendered it necessary to have them frequently copied, in the course of ages, by scribes, often ignorant of the subject, and sometimes, perhaps, careless in their transcriptions. In ancient times these sources of error were to a certain extent avoided. The MSS. were regarded as of a sacred character, and only a limited few were permitted to copy them. The sacred Hindu Vedas were more studied than the ancient Hindu medical shastres; as the latter were not considered sacred, greater liberties were taken with them, interpolations and clerical errors were introduced by illiterate transcribers. These causes render it very difficult to discover the age of the writings, except by comparing them with other Sanscrit works, the age of which is known. The ablest Sanscrit scholars allow that Charaka and Susruta, the two great commentators of the Ayur Veda, the supposed sacred revelation regarding medicine, are more recent than the grammarian Panini,1 as neither work is mentioned by him, while both are noticed several times in the Mahábhárata. Professor Wilson supposed this great epic was written the second century before Christ; and, like Panini, was added to, in the course of centuries. Hessler, in his work on Susruta, considered that it was written a thousand years before Christ.2 We have, at this early period, two systems of Hindu medicine, com 1 He died B.C. 593. See Goldsfücker's learned history on Pânini's Place in Sanscrit Literature, p. 83 et seq. He lived before Sakea Muni, the founder of the Buddhist religion, who died about 543 B.C. 2 A. F. Hessler, Comment. et Annot. Susr. Ayur Veda, 1852, p. 4. plete in all their parts, founded on anatomy, exhibiting an extensive knowledge of materia medica, and the practice of medicine, an expertness in the manipulations of pharmacy, and a bold and skilful knowledge and practice of surgery. We find the Hindu systems of medicine were originally written on the ancient form and construction of the Sanscrit language; so old, as to be considered the production of the deity, when there was no 'prejudice of caste, before Polytheism was introduced into the Hindu religion, and in the heroic age, previous to the Mahábhárata. In considering the Greek system of medicine, we find their physicians and philosophers were indebted to the East for a portion of their knowledge. Pythagoras and Plato obtained many of their philosophical ideas from the Hindus, and the internal evidence of the Greek works proves that the Schools of Hippocrates derived a considerable share of their knowledge from the East. Galen mentions that Hippocrates was often at Smyrna in Asia Minor,1 and Mercurialis believed that he travelled in Lybia in Africa, and Scythia in Asia.2 Hippocrates may have visited this northern country to examine the enlightened and skilful Indo-Scythian people, whom Alexander the Great found so expert in the cure of diseases; and in these northern parts of Asia he may have consulted the Hindu sages, and studied their drugs and medical records. The learning he was in search of was there; and the following statements prove his acquaintance with their writings: 1. The systematic works of the Hindus were most probably prepared from the third to the sixth century B.C.; and long before the age of Hippocrates, the original Ayur Veda existed, from which the other classical works were derived. 2. As medicinal plants have their properties developed in particular soils and climates, they indicate the nations among which they were first used for medicinal purposes, and explain the antiquity of the cultivation of medicine by certain races. The names and medicines recommended in the medical works of Hippocrates often indicate the schools of medicine from which they were borrowed. We find that Hippocrates used in his practice a number of Indian plants, imported from that country into Greece, for their well-known properties; such 1 In Lib. de Articul. Comment. 1. 2 Variar Lection, Lib. 2, ch. 18. |