Ayurveda, philology and print. On the first printed edition of the Carakasaṃhitā and its context

ABSTRACT

The transition from manuscripts to the print production of books involved not only publishers, printers and readers, but importantly also editors of texts. This essay combines insights from the history of Ayurveda, history of philology and history of the book to examine the role of different actors in the transmission of the Ayurvedic textual tradition in nineteenth century South Asia. In particular, it focuses on the first printed edition of the Carakasaṃhitā (the oldest treatise of Ayurveda), its editor Gangadhar Ray Kaviraj (1798–1885), and the publisher Bhuvana Chandra Vasaka. It outlines the very beginnings of the ‘print moment’ in the history of Sanskritic Ayurveda: the Ayurvedic milieu of nineteenth century Bengal, that region’s fast-growing commercial print industry and the context of the first print publication of another foundational work of Ayurveda, the Suśrutasaṃhitā, more than thirty years earlier than the Carakasaṃhitā. This essay argues that the use of the printed book, as a technology-based object, was part of a process of modernization and caste-identity formation. It argues further that indigenous philological practices had a crucial role in transmitting Ayurvedic knowledge, and that their interplay with publishing activities contributed to establishing a coherent body of textual sources within the Ayurvedic community and among the students of Sanskritic culture at large.

Keywords:

• History of Ayurveda
• history of philology
• colonial Bengal
• Indian print
• book history

Acknowledgments

My sincere thanks go to Minakshi Menon for various stimulating discussions and to the participants of her workshop Colonial Sciences and Indigenous Knowledge Systems in South Asia for two days of insightful and pleasant dialogue. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and, last but not least, Philip Pierce, who revised the English of the present paper with his typical care and attentiveness.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Abbreviations

BL = British Library

CaS = Carakasaṃhitā

IO = India Office

JKT = Jalpakalpataru

SuS = Suśrutasaṃhitā

Journals, Reports etc.

The Asiatic Journal

Bengal Library. Catalogue of Books received during the Quarter ending… Appendix to The Calcutta Gazette

(Quarterly Lists of Publications, Bengal).

Survey of Editions of the Carakasaṃhitā and Their Sources, edited by Karin Preisendanz, Cristina Pecchia, and Vitus

Angermeier. https://www.istb.univie.ac.at/caraka/Materials/120.html (last accessed

on 18 February 2021).

Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht über die Morgenländischen Studien im Jahre 1880. Unter Mitwirkung mehrerer

Fachgelehrten herausgegeben von Ernst Kuhn und August Müller. Leipzig: Commission bei F. A. Brockhaus, 1883.

Notes

1. As regards the date of the Carakasaṃhitā, based on the available information and previous studies, Jan Meulenbeld concludes that ‘the author called Caraka cannot have lived later than about A.D. 150–200 and not much earlier than about 100 B.C.’ (Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, IA, 114). Since the present text of the Suśrutasaṃhitā seems to have resulted from different compositional phases and the first five sections are related to the Carakasaṃhitā, the date of the version of the latter that preceded the revision made by Dṛḍhabala (300–500 CE) is relevant for dating the Suśrutasaṃhitā. There is a general consensus that the composition of the Suśrutasaṃhitā is posterior to that of the Carakasaṃhitā (see Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, IA, in particular pp. 336–342 and 350–52).

2. ‘Um so mehr fällt es auf, dass Niemand sich entschloss auch das andere Hauptwerk den Caraka zu veröffentlichen. … Vor Kurzem ist endlich in Calcutta eine Ausgabe des Caraka begonnen worden.’ Roth, “Indische Medicin. Caraka,” 441.

3. The tensions between armchair philologists and fieldworkers are explored by Pascale Rabault-Feuerhahn in her “German Indology Challenged.”

4. In his article on Caraka, Roth indirectly states his difficulty in gaining access to the text of the CaS, which was preserved in manuscripts of the Colebrooke’s collection in London and from the Trinity College in Cambridge (‘In Europa sind Hilfsmittel für Caraka allerdings nur spärlich vorhanden, obschon in Indien Handschriften oder vielmehr Bruchstücke des ziemlich voluminösen Werkes gar nicht selten sein sollen. Nur die Sammlung des früheren East India House besitzt durch Colebrookes Schenkung eine Anzahl von Handschriften… . Ein namhaftes Stück des Caraka, etwa ein Drittel des ganzen, besitzt auch die Sammlung von Trinity College in Cambridge.’ Roth, “Indische Medicin. Caraka,” 442). In fact, the entire text became available to him only after R. Hoernle sent him a manuscript copy from Benares (“Dagegen bin ich selbst seit kurzem durch die Bemühung des Herrn Dr. R. Hörnle in Benares, in den Besitz eines vollständigen Exemplars gekommen.” Ibid., 443).

5. Pollock, “Introduction.”

6. In the past ten years or so, Sheldon Pollock, in particular, has addressed issues relating to philology as discipline and method; see, for example, Pollock, “Future Philology?” and “Introduction.”

7. The Bengali name Gangadhar Ray and title Kaviraj are here Romanized using a transliteration system for Indic scripts that omits diacritical marks and mute vowels. The Romanization according to the transliteration scheme of the National Library at Kolkata is Gaṅgādhara Rāya Kavirāja. Another title attached to his name is Kaviratna, as shown by the title pages of the CaS (see Appendix I.1a-b and I.2).

8. Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 26.

9. Roth converts samvat 1925 to 1869 CE (Roth, “Indische Medicin. Caraka,” 442). Some publications record other editions as the first printed versions of the CaS, but this is very likely due to a misinterpretation of some elements of the title pages (see Preisendanz, “Logic, Debate and Epistemology,” n. 4 [= 2013, Appendix]).

10. The data discussed in this section are presented in Appendix I.1 and 3.

11. “Die gute, ausführlich commentirte ed. princeps von K. Gangadhara (Calcutta 1868 ff., 1200 S.) reicht nur bis C. 1,18, wurde aber vervollständigt von Dharanidhar Ray (Behrampore 1878 ff., 1528 S. 4).” Jolly, Medicin, 12, n. 1.

12. See the previous note for Jolly’s remark to this effect.

13. Chatterjee is undoubtedly referring to this edition when he states that, except for Kaviraj Chandra Kishore Sen, nobody reprinted the JKT after Gangadhar’s death (“Kaviraj Gangadhar Roy Kavirtna – VII,” 813).

14. See Basu, “Gangadhar Kobiraj”; Chakravarti, “Bengal’s Contribution to Sanskrit Literature”; Chatterjee, “Kaviraj Gangadhar Roy Kaviratna”; Gupta, “Indigenous Medicine,” 371; Chattopadhyay, “Gaṅgādhara Kavirāja,” 269–273; and Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 35–36.

15. The attribute Vaidya attached to the name of the locality probably signifies the presence of the Vaidya jati there. The Vaidya community traditionally consisted of practitioners of medicine, but, as Kumkum Chatterjee observes, ‘definitely during the time period suggested here, as well as earlier, Vaidyas, while still associated with the practice of medicine and the study of medical shastras, seem to have branched out into the service of kings and princes and held important official posts in their governments. This made them very similar to the Kayasthas, also a literate community with traditions of scribal or clerical work.’ Chatterjee, “Scribal Elites in Sultanate and Mughal Bengal,” 449–50.

16. K. Chatterjee suggests this motivation with regard to the Tagore family (“Scribal Elites in Sultanate and Mughal Bengal,” 465, n. 68).

17. See, for example, Chatterjee, “Kaviraj Gangadhar Roy Kaviratna,” 41. In “The First Dissection Controversy,” Jayanta Bhattacharya has critically reviewed documents relating to Madhusudan Gupta’s dissection, pointing out evidence that contradicts conventional accounts of the famous act.

18. Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 60.

19. Gupta, “Indigenous Medicine,” 371; and Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, IA, 187, where reference is made to different earlier sources.

20. Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 53.

21. Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 47 and 67.

22. A description of the manuscript is provided in Pecchia, “With the Eye of a Scholar,” Appendix II.

23. Evidence is provided in Pecchia, “With the Eye of a Scholar,” Appendix I.

24. I cannot be more precise because I could consult only a digital copy of the manuscript.

25. Here, the reference is to a historical region in which the predominant ethnolinguistic group is the Bengali people.

26. Ghosh, Power in Print, 123, n. 68, with reference to Graham Shaw. As observed by Anindita Ghosh, the Basaks were originally a subgroup of the weaver caste, who ‘turned to the new technology of printing as the influx of cheap machine-made goods destroyed the indigenous cotton industry of East Bengal’ (ibid.).

27. Chatterjee, “Kaviraj Gangadhar Roy Kaviratna,” 40–1.

28. Unfortunately P. Chatterjee does not provide any reference that might prove Gangadhar’s ownership of a printing press; statements to this effect by Charles Leslie (“Professionalization,” 49) and Projit Mukharji (Doctoring Traditions, 35) appear equally undocumented. The consultation of Bengali sources, which is beyond my competence, might shed further light on this aspect of Gangadhar’s biography.

29. See Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 66.

30. See, for example, Records in the Bengal Library, Catalogues of Books received during the Quarter ending 31st March 1878 p. 8, No. 593, and Catalogues of Books received during the Quarter ending 31st December 1878 p. 34, No. 556: ‘Printed and published at the Ayurved Press, No. 146, Lower Chitpore Road, Calcutta – Printed by Mihirchandra Raya’.

31. Mukharji, Nationalizing the Body, 77–85. The author observes that this market was characterized by a trend towards standardization, even though in the Bengali region it also displayed ‘a continuous thrust towards pluralization and multiplication of medical knowledge’ (ibid., 78).

32. Stark, An Empire of Books, 485, 523, and 463 respectively.

33. The edition was published together with a Hindi commentary (Vyākhyā) made by Kalicaran Sharma and Kshamapati Sharma.

34. See Survey of Editions of the Carakasaṃhitā and Their Sources.

35. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, IB, 311–2 and 513–4, respectively.

36. See, most recently, Cerulli, “Politicking Ayurvedic Education.”

37. Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 13. The author refers, in particular, to the work of Douglas Haynes and Sanjay Joshi. See also ibid., 62–69, “Consumption as Modernity.”

38. Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 11.

39. Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 15.

40. Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 88.

41. The lithograph is reproduced in Mukharji, Doctoring Traditions, 87.

42. Copy preserved at the British Library, accession number 14043.cc.8.

43. The Asiatic Journal 23, May-August 1837: “The late John Tytler, Esq., of the Bengal Medical Service,” p. 10 (of pp. 1–16).

44. Arnold, Science, Technology and Medicine, 63.

45. See n. 17 above.

46. The translation was made in 1834 and was never published (Sen, Scientific and Technical Education, 160), but this does not entail that it did not circulate at all.

47. Nevermann, Paracentesis abdominis in ascite, 8: “der Professor Vullers in Giessen und der Professor Stenzler in Breslau, während sie doch Beide die Calcuttaer Ausgabe von Madhusudana Gupta vor sich liegen haben.” For biographical details on Vullers and Stenzler, see the online resource Persons of Indian Studies by Prof. Dr. Klaus Karttunen.

48. On this see, for example, Arnold, Colonizing the Body, 55; and Bayly, Empire and Information, especially Chapter 6, where the author examines the period between the 1830s and 1840s, ‘when statistics, information and education became ideological motifs for an avowedly reforming imperial government’ (p. 142).

49. Adam, Report, 41.

50. Among the reasons for the late adoption of the printing press technology in South Asia, C. A. Bayly has highlighted the prestige and influence of professional copyists and the sophisticated production and culture of manuscripts under Mughal rule; the monopoly maintained by cheap and easily accessible bazaar writers; ritual objections and politically motivated hostility to presses (Bayly, “Colonial Rule and the “Informational Order”,” 288–293). Sheldon Pollock has spoken of ‘script-mercantilism’ to refer to the commercial side of manuscript culture in South Asia, which ‘became increasingly dominant in the course of the late medieval period’ but also characterized ‘pre-print publishing sponsored by the court or religious institutions’ (Pollock, “Literary Culture and Manuscript Culture,” 87). As I have observed elsewhere (Pecchia, Dharmakīrti on the Cessation of Suffering, 83, n. 7), when considering why print technology did not pass to South Asia from China or Tibet, we might need to elaborate on other factors, too, such as modes of reading or receiving texts and of using and transmitting them. For other considerations, see Formigatti, “A Forgotten Chapter in South Asian Book History? A Bird’s Eye View of Sanskrit Print Culture,” 111–115.

51. See Stark, An Empire of Books, 6.

52. Antonelli, “Interpretazione e critica del testo,” 144–5.

53. With regard to Dṛḍhabala’s revision of the CaS, see Maas, “On What Became of the Carakasaṃhitā,” 1–7.

54. An appraisal of the subsequent turn to modern and global Ayurveda is offered in Wujastyk and Smith, “Introduction.”

55. These and other medical works by Gangadhar are listed in Chatterjee, “Kaviraj Gangadhar Roy Kaviratna – III,” 31; Meulenbeld History of Indian Medical Literature, IA: 186; and Chattopadhyay, “Gaṅgādhara Kavirāja,” 269–273.

56. Lattimore, “Origins of the Great Wall,” 545–8.

57. Detailed evidence for this will be provided in a future publication.

58. Please note that in Appendices I-IV spelling is not standardized.

59. The sign “/” indicates the beginning of a new line and “//” code switching.

60. This work most probably corresponds to the Vājaseneyopaniṣad vyākhyā mentioned by P. Chatterjee under the heading “Upanishadic Works of Gangadhar Roy” (“Kaviraj Gangadhar Roy Kaviratna – III,” 31)

61. This work most probably corresponds to the Kaivalyopaniṣad vyākhyā mentioned by P. Chatterjee under the heading “Upanishadic Works of Gangadhar Roy” (“Kaviraj Gangadhar Roy Kaviratna – III,” 31).

62. This work most probably corresponds to the Manusaṃhitā kī Pramādabhañjanī ṭīkā mentioned by P. Chatterjee under the heading “Religious Works of Gangadhar Roy” (“Kaviraj Gangadhar Roy Kaviratna – III,” 31) and to the Pramādabhañjanī mentioned by R. Chattopadhyay as an unpublished manuscript (“Gaṅgādhara Kavirāja,” 276, item 31).

63. In Ulrike Stark’s Chapakhana, the Samvad Jnanaratnakar Press started to publish in 1861 (https://chapakhana.rcc.uchicago.edu/maps-location/; last accessed, 3 February 2021).

64. The data are taken from the “Inventory and Concordance of Manuscripts of the Carakasaṃhitā and its Commentaries,” prepared by Karin Preisendanz and myself within the framework of the three FWF projects “Philosophy and medicine in early classical India” I-III that are mentioned under “Funding”.

65. This manuscript is part of a collection that Brahmagopal Bhaduri’s father donated to the Sarasvati Bhavan Library, Varanasi. Because the conditions stipulated were not fulfilled, after litigation the Library had to return the manuscripts to Brahmagopal and his two sons, Jayant Kumar and Hemant Kumar. Up to now, requests to see any of these manuscripts (including my own attempt) have failed.

66. See previous note.

67. See previous note.

Additional information

Funding

This article presents the results from my ongoing research on ‘Places of editorial activity as contact zones,’ for which I gratefully acknowledge my use of the facilities of the Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia (IKGA), at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, and a travel grant of the 2012 ‘Asian Modernities and Traditions’ research funding scheme of the University of Leiden [Project No. 1540003007], through which I visited the British Library and collected some of the data presented in Appendix I.1 and 3. Other data derive from my work within the framework of the projects ‘Philosophy and medicine in early classical India’ I-III, supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 17300–GO3, P 19866–G15, and P 23330–G15] from 2006 to 2012. Final work on the paper was done in preparation of the research project ‘Ayurveda and Philology: Gangadhar Ray Kaviraj and His Legacy’, recently approved by the FWF under the project no. P 35906-G.