Bower Manuscript
The Bower Manuscript is a collection of seven fragmentary
The seven treatises included in the collection three on
The manuscript is named after
Discovery and edition
The Bower Manuscript is named after its accidental purchaser
Bower took the manuscripts with him when he returned to Simla and forwarded it to Colonel
The Waterhouse report was reprinted in Bombay Gazette, where
Immediately after his return to India in February 1891, Hoernle began to study the manuscript. He found that the manuscript leaves were jumbled out of sequence, but had the page numbers marked on the left. After re-arranging them, he concluded that it was an abridged collection of several different treatises. He presented the first decipherment two months later, at the meeting of the Society in April 1891, with evidence that it was "the oldest Indian written book that is known to exist".[14] Between 1893 and 1897 Hoernle published a complete edition of the text, featuring an annotated English translation and illustrated facsimile plates. A Sanskrit Index was published in 1908, and a revised translation of the medical portions (I, II, and III) in 1909; the Introduction appeared in 1912.[7]
Description and dating
The 'Bower Manuscript' is a collation of seven treatise manuscripts, compiled into a larger group and another a smaller one. The larger manuscript is a fragmentary convolute of six treatises (Part I, II, III, IV, V and VII), which are separately paginated, with each leaf approximately 29 square inches (11.5 inch x 2.5 inch). Part VI is written on smaller folio leaves, both in length and breadth, with each leaf approximately 18 square inches (9 inch x 2 inch).[7] The larger group and the smaller set likely came from different trees or region. The scribes wrote on both sides of the leaves but did not use both sides when the leaf was very thin. These seven constituent manuscripts are numbered as Parts I to VII in Hoernle's edition.[7]
The Bower manuscript, as discovered, had 56 birch bark leaves, cut into oblong
The seven parts of the manuscript are written in an essentially identical script, the Gupta script (late Brahmi) found in north, northwest and western regions of ancient India. Early attempts to date the text placed it around 5th-century, largely on palaeographic grounds.[15] Hoernle determined that the manuscript belonged to the 4th or 5th–century because the script used matched with dated inscriptions and other texts of that period in the north and northwest India.[16] He also compared the style and script for numerals – particularly zero and position value – and the page numbering style in the manuscript with those found in Indian inscriptions and manuscripts. By combining such evidence with palaeographic evidence therein, he concluded that the Bower manuscript could not be dated in or after the second half of the 6th century.[16] Hoernle remarked that at least some treatises of the manuscript "must fall somewhere within that period [470 and 530 CE], that is, about 500 CE."[17]
Winand M. Callewaert dates it to c. 450 CE.[5] According to a 1986 analysis by Lore Sander, the Bower manuscript is best dated between 500 and 550 CE.[6]
Scribes
The fragmentary treatises are copies of much older Indian texts authored by unknown scholars. These treatises were prepared by scribes, buried in a stupa built at some point to honor the memory of a Buddhist monk or some other regional influential person. Hoernle distinguished four scribes, based on their handwriting, subtle font and style differences. One scribe wrote Parts I, II and III; second wrote Part IV; third wrote Parts V and VII; while a fourth wrote Part VI.[7] He added that there may have been more than four scribes, because Part VI has some scribal differences, while V and VII too seems cursive and careless work of possibly more than one person.[18]
Based on the handwriting and fonts prevalent in the inscriptions discovered in India from that era, Hoernle suggested the first scribe who wrote Parts I through III likely grew up and came from Kashmir or Udyana (North India) to Kucha (China) because his writing shows early Sarada script influences.[18] Part VI, and possibly V and VII were written by scribe(s) who may have come to China from a region that is now the central India to Andhra Pradesh, for similar reasons.[18] The writer of part IV appears to have the style of someone used to "writing with a brush", and therefore may have been a local native or a Buddhist monk who came from interior China.[18]
Contents
The text consists of seven separate and different treatises, of which first three are on medicine, next two on divination, and last two on magical incantations.
The manuscript is mostly in the Shloka verse style – a Vedic anuṣṭubh poetic meter (exceptions are found in Part I of the collection).[16][7] The Bower Manuscript is written in the Gupta script – a type of late Brahmi script.[10]
Medical treatises
Part I has 5 leaves, and the incomplete treatise ends abruptly.
Part II abruptly ends on the 33rd folio of the Bower manuscript.
Part III consists of 4 leaves and also ends abruptly on the obverse side of the folio (Part IV starts on reverse).[7] It starts with the symbol Om as usual with the other treatises, and is a short treatise on 14 prescription formulary in a manner similar to Part II. It consists of 72 shlokas.[2][7] It is a fragment whose contents correspond to chapters one to three of the Part II.[23]
Divination treatises
Parts IV and V contain two short manuals of Pāśaka kevalī, or cubomancy, i.e., the art of foretelling a person's future by means of the cast of dice, a ritualistic practice found in Tibetan manuscripts.[24] Part IV is almost complete, while the manual constituting Part V is markedly more fragmentary and defective. The dice is stated to be a group of three die, each with four faces (tetrahedron) numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. When cast, it would yield one of 64 possible casts, of which 60 combinations are listed in Part IV (the missing 4 may be scribal error or lost; but those 4 are mentioned in later verses).[19] Hoernle mentioned that Part V is similar to other Sanskrit manuscripts discovered in Gujarat, and like it, these parts of the Bower manuscript may be one of the several recensions of a more ancient common source on divinatory work.[19] These are traditionally attributed to the ancient sage Garga,[25] but maybe an influence of the Greek oracle tradition during the post-Alexander the Great period.[19]
Dharani treatises
Parts VI and VII contain two different portions of the same text, the
Legacy
The discovery of the Bower Manuscript, its antiquity, and its decipherment by Hoernle triggered "enormous excitement" in the 1890s, states Wujastyk.[12] Famous explorers were commissioned by some of the world's major powers of the era – such as Britain, Germany, Japan, France, Russia – to go on a Central Asia and Xinjiang expedition. They were to seek manuscripts and other ancient treasures. These expeditions yielded major discoveries such as the Dunhuang manuscripts,[28] as well as famous forgeries such as those of Islam Akhun, in the decades that followed.[29][30]
The European Union-funded
References
- ^ a b "The Bower Manuscript, One of the Earliest Treatises on Indian Medicine, Written on Birch Bark".
- ^ ISBN 978-81-208-0795-2.
- OCLC 1191456473.
- , AF Rudolf Hoernle (1914), Volume XXII of the New Imperial series of the Archeological Survey of India, British India Press, Chapter 3, Quote: "It is now generally known as Gupta script because its prevalence coincided with the rule of the early Gupta Emperors in whose epigraphic records it is employed." (p. 25)
- ^ OCLC 11533580.
- ^ a b L Sander (1987), Origin and date of the Bower Manuscript, a new approach, in: M Yaldiz and W Lobo (eds.): Investigating the Indian Arts, Museum für Indische Kunst, Berlin, pp. 313–323
- ^ , AF Rudolf Hoernle (1914), Volume XXII of the New Imperial series of the Archeological Survey of India, British India Press
- ^ a b D. Wujastyk 1998, p. 197.
- ^ a b A.F. Rudolf Hoernle (1891), Remarks on Birch Bark MS, Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1891, Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, pages 57–61;
Bower Manuscript Translations: Parts III-VII, A.F. Rudolf Hoernle, pages 197, 209–210 - ^ ISBN 978-0-226-53177-9.
- S2CID 163536742.
- ^ a b c D. Wujastyk 1998, p. 196.
- ^ a b c J Waterhouse (1890), Birch Bark MS from Kashgaria, Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, pages 221–223
- ^ a b A.F. Rudolf Hoernle (1891), Remarks on Birch Bark MS, Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1891, Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, page 54
- ISBN 978-81-208-1166-9., Quote: "Kumaralata's Kalpanamanditika and the Udanavarga both of which are assignable on palaeographical grounds to the 4th or 5th century AD, and the Bower manuscripts the date of which is about a century later".
- ^ a b c d A.F. Rudolf Hoernle (1891), Remarks on Birch Bark MS, Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1891, Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, pages 54–65
- ^ A.F. Rudolf Hoernle (1891), Remarks on Birch Bark MS, Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1891, Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, pages 62–64
- ^ , AF Rudolf Hoernle (1914), Volume XXII of the New Imperial series of the Archeological Survey of India, British India Press, Chapter 3
- ^ , AF Rudolf Hoernle (1914), Volume XXII of the New Imperial series of the Archeological Survey of India, British India Press, Chapter 8
- ^ ISBN 978-0-14-043680-8.
- ^ G. Jan Meulenbeld 2000, p. 5.
- ^ G. Jan Meulenbeld 2000, p. 9.
- ^ G. Jan Meulenbeld 2000, p. 6.
- ISBN 978-90-04-41068-8.
- ^ a b G. Jan Meulenbeld 2000, p. 8.
- ISBN 978-3-11-047881-5.
- ^ S2CID 162152199.
- ^ On the Trail of Texts Along the Silk Road. Russian Expeditions Discoveries of Manuscripts in Central Asia, I. Popova and Takata Tokio (2009), Kyoto National Museum, Japan and The Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
- ISBN 0-87023-435-8
- ISBN 9575438604.
- ^ Archaeology in Xinjiang, IDP News, No. 32 (2008)
- ^ Sims-Williams, Ursula (2012). H Wang (Series: Sir Aurel Stein, Colleagues and Collections) (ed.). Rudolf Hoernle and Sir Aurel Stein. London: British Library.
Bibliography
- D. Wujastyk (1998). The Roots of Ayurveda: Selections from Sankskrit Medical Writings. Penguin. ISBN 9780140436808.
- ISBN 9069801248.
Editions
- A. F. Rudolf Hoernle, The Bower manuscript; facsimile leaves, Nagari transcript, romanised transliteration and English translation with notes (Calcutta: Supt., Govt. Print., India, 1908-1912. reprinted New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1987.
- Rudolf Hoernle, Bower Manuscript Text and Translations, Part III to VII, 1897. (archive.org)
- Rudolf Hoernle, 1892 edition, Calcutta (indianculture.gov.in)
Further reading
- Description of the Bower Manuscript, The Indian Antiquary, Vol XLIII, 1914
- Dani, Ahmad Hasan. Indian Palaeography. (2nd edition New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1986).
- Review: The Bower Manuscript, ASI 1893–1912, F.E. Pargiter
- ISBN 0-87023-435-8
- Sander, Lore, "Origin and date of the Bower Manuscript, a new approach" in M. Yaldiz and W. Lobo (eds.), Investigating the Indian Arts (Berlin: Museum Fuer Indische Kunst, 1987).
- Sims-Williams, Ursula, Rudolph Hoernle and Sir Aurel Stein.