The Ayur-Veda, as the oldest medical writings of the Hindoos are collectively called, was divided into eight divisions.  These are described by Professor Wilson as follows:—­

“1st. Salya.—­The art of extracting extraneous substances, violently or accidentally introduced into the body, with the treatment of the inflammation and suppuration thereby induced.

“The word Salya means a dart or arrow, and points clearly to the origin of this branch of Hindoo science.

“2nd. Salakya.—­The treatment of external affections or diseases of the eyes, nose, ears, &c.

“3rd, Kayao Chikitsa.—­The general application of medicine to the body, or the science of medicine, as opposed to surgery under the two first heads.

“4th. Bhutavidya, or demonology:  the act of casting out demons, which we may take to mean the treatment of insanity, such as it was.

“5th. Kaumara bhritya, or the treatment of the diseases of women and children.

“6th. Agada.—­The administration of antidotes.

“We do not appreciate this as an eastern nation would when poison was only too common an instrument of ambition or revenge.

“7th. Rasayana.—­Is chemistry, or perhaps it were better to say alchemy, as its chief aim was the study of combinations of substances mostly metallurgic, with a view of obtaining the universal medicine or elixir which was to give immortal life.

“8th. Bajikarana.—­Was connected with the means of promoting the increase of the human race.”

One of the articles of Hindoo medicine was Kshara or alkaline salts,—­these are directed to be obtained by burning different substances of vegetable origin, boiling the ashes with five or six times their measure of water and filtering the solution, which was used both internally and externally.  Care is enjoined in their use, and emollient applications are to be used if the caustic should occasion great pain.

I have already spoken of the fact of Indian physicians having been at the Court of Persia, and also at that of Haroun al Raschid, and also that the ancient writers on medicine were known to the Arabs of the time of the schools of Baghdad and Cordova.  There is no manner of doubt concerning this fact, as in Serapion’s works we find Charak actually mentioned by name; under the head De Mirobalanis we find “Et Xarch indus dixit;” and again, in another section “Xarcha indus;” there being no corresponding sound to che in Arabic, there is a slight change in the name, but it is quite clear what it is intended for.  In Avicenna, again, we find reference to “Scirak indum.”  Rhazes, again, who was previous to Avicenna, has “Inquit Scarac indianus,” and again “Dixit Sarac;” in another place an Indian author is quoted, who has not as yet been traced, “Sindifar,” or, as it is in another place, “Sindichar indianus.”