Abstract
The third part of The Bower Manuscript (BMs) contains 14 formulations, on which there are two preceding philological studies. Hoernle regarded the third part as a fragment of a larger medical work while Meulenbeld argued that it was an extract from an original ancient medical work. This thesis begins by examining these preceding hypotheses and then outlines the 14 formulations described in the third part of BMs. The formulations are compared with those contained in the three great medical works in ancient India-the Caraka-sahit, the Suruta-sahit and the Agahdaya-sahitin order to find similarities between them from a present-day pharmaceutical point of view. These similarities are judged by comparing plant names, dosage forms, indications, and names of formulations that are used as classification keys in The
Ayurvedic Pharmacopeia of India and The Ayurvedic Formulary of India. The results of this analysis are then used to discuss how the third part was created and how it relates to the three great medical works. It is clear that the third part bears resemblance to the three great works and that it cannot be considered an original work. Formulations were handed down orally in ancient Indian medicine, and the third part should also be considered as such a compilation of formulations already in oral transmission at the time. Therefore it is methodologically problematic to draw a conclusion on the similarities between the formulations in the third part and those in the three great works solely based on citation relationships between them.
