149 
1891.] Dr. Hoernle— An instalment of the Bower Manuscript. 
honeybee and the cow respectively; but in the Susruta there is no 
such limitation, though bee’s honey is said to be the best and cow’s urine 
is enjoined to be used in preference to that of other domestic animals ; 
see chapt. 45 in the Sutrasthana, pp. 184, 191, transl., pp. 235, 246, 247. 
There are some other substances, such as horn, hoof, etc., mentioned in 
verse 58; and with reference to all of these the use is limited to products 
of the cow. Similar, though not the same, substances are mentioned 
in the Susruta, verse 12 of chapt. 37, Sutrasthana (p. 138, transl., p. 157), 
but here again their use is not limited to products of the cow. For 
another difference see footnote 71. 
In the Charaka I have noticed the following instances of a differ- 
ence. Both in our manuscript and in the Charaka three sorts of diseases 
of the hair are mentioned : khdlitya ‘ baldness’, palita ‘ grey hair’, and 
tdmrabdla or (in the Charaka) hari-loman ‘ red hair.’ As remedies our 
manuscript prescribes (verses 117-119) : venesections, emetics, unguents, 
hair-dyes and washings. The Charaka, on the other hand, directs the 
use of nasyas or ‘ the application of medicated substances to the nose ’ 
(see Dutt’s Materia Medica, p. 17), unguents, and the applications of 
plasters to the scalp and the face; see the Chikitsa Sthana, section on 
baldness, pp. 798, 799. 
On the whole, therefore, I cannot say that—so far—I have discover¬ 
ed any very striking connection of the Bower MS. with either the Susru¬ 
ta or the Charaka. It is different with the Chakradatta, or the Chikitsa 
Sangraha, a compilation from various medical works made by Chakra- 
panidatta. This appears to be a work, dating not later than from the 9tlr 
or lOtli century (see Dr. Dutt, in his Met. Med., p. xi). My references are 
to Kaviraj Pyari Mohan Sen-Gfupta’s edition. In this compilation 
I have found several of the prescriptions of the Bower MS., in almost 
identical words. Thus the prescription against cough, given in verse 123, 
occurs as the last of a set of three prescriptions, quoted in the Chakra¬ 
datta, p. 210 (No. 2). The only difference is that the drugs are 
enumerated in a different order in the first half-line of the sloka. 
Again the prescription in verse 128 occurs in the Chakradatta on 
p. 216 (No. 70), and this time, in perfectly identical form. Again 
the prescription in verses 121 and 122, which I have already 
mentioned as also occurring in the Charaka, is also found in the 
Chakradatta, p. 210, as the second in the first set of two prescriptions. 
The agreement, however, only extends to the first portion, given in verse * 
121 ; and even here it is not very close. But this first portion, as given 
in the Chakradatta, is identical with the first portion, as given in the 
Charaka, on p. 735 (bottom). The second portion, as given in the Chak¬ 
radatta, differs from the versions, given in both the Charaka and in our 
manuscript. I may add that the first prescription for cough, given in the 
