________________
CHAPTER VI]
BOWER MANUSCRIPT
lxiii
Samhita, and quoted thence anonymously, though in the incomplete Tanjur MS. copy, the only one now existing, it cannot be traced. The second is quoted from the Charaka Sanhita. (ante, No. 29, p. lv). It, therefore, stood originally in the Agnivêía Tantra, and is the work of Atrêya. The third, the latter part of which, unfortunately, is missing, appears to be ascribed to Dhanvantari (vv. 968-9). To these may be added the Lasuna Kalpa, on garlic, which forms the early portion (vv. 1-43a) of the treatise contained in Part I of the Bower Manuscript, and the authorship of which is vaguely ascribed (v. 42a) to the "ancient sages," while at the same time it professes itself to be delivered by the "sage-king of Kasi" to Sośruta (vv. 9, 40, 42a.)
Though, in the main, the Nâvanitaka is professedly a compilation from various sources, it does contain a few formulæ which give the impression of being contributions made by the author himself. Thus the formula, in verse 641, merely advises how the preceding formula (vv. 638-40) may be usefully varied. The formale in verses 158-9, 614, 783 have a similar object. It should be observed that none of these formulæ can be traced elsewhere, and it is quite possible that some others of the short formule of that kind, such as those in vv, 576 608a, are really the author's own compositions. Again in some other formulæ we seem to be able to trace the author's hand in the alterations which he has introduced. To this order belong the two short formulæ in vv. 575 and 579, which have already been referred to previously (p. 1x.) The second part of these formulæ, as quoted elsewhere (by Madhava and Vangasena), has been altered to admit their attribution to the Asvins (ante, Nos, 11, 12 on p. lxi). More or less lengthy remarks, inserted by the author with the same object have also been noticed already in the case of some of the wellknown longer formulæ (ante, Nos. 15 and 15, p. lx). To the author, of course, belong also all the introductory remarks which are met with in various places of the Navanitaka. To this order belong the remarks in verses 108 and 261, which introduce the second and third chapters, as well as the prose remarks, preceding verses 916, 950, and 968, which introduce chapters XI, XII, and XIII; likewise the prose remark which introduces the formula in verse 784. Above all, there belongs to this order the long paragraph (vv. 1-10) which forms the introduction to the whole treatise
The fact of the Navanitaka containing quotations from the Charaka Sa ihità is one of peculiar importance on account of its bearing on the question of the authorship of that Sa Whita. That the Charaka Salihita, in the condition in which we now possess it, is the work of two different authors is well known. Charaka is said by the Indian tradition to have left his saihità unfinished. At all events, its Kalpa Sthana and Siddhi Sthana, as well as seventeen chapters of its Chikitsita Sthana were added, some centuries later, by a Kashmirian physician, named Dridhabala. He states that fact himself in two places of the salihità (sect. VI, vv. 273-5, and sect. VIII, vv. 77-9); but he omits to record the names of the seventeen chapters which he contributed. And the difficulty of their identification, which is thus created, is enhanced by the circumstance that we have two contradictory Indian traditions on the subject. One of them is represented by the Berhampore edition of Gangadhar (also the Calcutta edition of Debendra Nath Sen and Upendra Nath Sen); the other by the Calcutta edition of Jîvânanda Vidyasagara. The former has the support of the oldest existing manuscript, the
