APPENDIX C.

Mosaic Regulations.

(From Kitto's Encyclopædia.)

Section I. Ten laws about animals, clean and unclean, for food. Leviticus xi. 2, 9, 13, 20, 24, 27, 29, 39, 41, 43, 45.

Section II. Ten about uncleanness from child-bearing, and leprosy in person and dress. Lev. xii. 2; xiii. 2, 9, 18, 24, 29, 38, 40, 42, 47.

Section III. Ten about cleansing the leper. Lev. xiv. 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 32.

Section IV. Ten laws about leprosy in houses. Lev. xiv. 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48, 53.

Section V. Ten laws about uncleanness by issues in man. Lev. xv. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15.

Section VI. Ten more on the same subject in women. Lev. xv. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30.

Arrangement of camp and march. Numbers i. 1, 4, 8 ; ii. 1 ; iii. 5, 11, 14, 44; iv. 17, 21, 49.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir JOSEPH FAYRER, K.C.S.I., F.R.S.).-I am sure we must all feel that our thanks are due, not only to Dr. Gordon for his most interesting Paper, but also to his son, for so carefully rendering it. It seems to me to be a singularly interesting Paper in so short a space, giving an epitome, as it does, of the ancient history, philosophy and medicine of India. Before making any further remarks I will invite discussion.

Mr. CHUNDRA SEKHAR SUR.-There is one point in regard to distinction of caste upon which I would like to make a remark. Brahmins eat and drink together, but there is no such thing as an Indian born in one caste rising to or being admitted into another.

Mr. T. H. THORNTON, C.S.I.-All I can do is to bear general testimony to the fact that the Paper is a very interesting resumé of facts regarding India. Of late many circumstances, and especially railway travelling, have tended greatly to modify the strict exclusiveness of caste. Strictly speaking no Brahmin should sit in the vicinity of a person of the lowest caste; and I remember when railways were first projected in India it was feared that

an

enormous number of classes would be necessary in order to enable the different castes to have carriages for themselves; but in practice there is not the slightest difficulty; in a railway carriage a Brahmin of the highest rank will gladly sit next to a Sudra of the lowest caste if he can save sixpence by so doing. I have noted one or two other points in the Paper to which I take exception, for instance, "on the other hand, proselytes are not admitted into any of the families or castes enumerated." Theoretically that is perfectly true, but practically, as Sir Alfred Lynn has shown, in some parts of India the aboriginal races are being admitted in large numbers to castes of Hindoos. They are first admitted into an exceedingly low caste, and after a time by a little payment and intermarriage, they gradually work themselves up into a higher caste. Again the author says at page 231, "The village system of communities is detailed much as it exists at the present day." Well, that is not exactly the case, because there is a very remarkable difference between the communities, as they exist in the present day, and the communities as depicted in the Vedas, and it opens up a very interesting question. In the Vedas the villages are represented as consisting of an aggregate of holdings in severalty, and there is a remarkable omission of what constitutes now a very interesting feature in the villages at any

rate of upper India, i.e, the presence of a large body of proprietary co-sharers of higher proprietary title than many of the cultivators. Well, from the fact that no mention is made of these superior proprietary co-sharers in the Vedas, we infer that these sharers were an after-growth, the result of conquest or purchase or some other form of expropriation; and this is specially interesting because it corresponds in a remarkable degree with certain theories that have been advanced regarding the development of the English manor. It was formerly supposed that the lord of the manor created the village, but modern investigation now inclines to the opinion that the lord of the manor was evolved from the pre-existing village community of separate peasant holdings.

These are one or two points that I have noticed in this Paper; but I would commend it generally for its suggestiveness, as containing a summary of interesting facts, which may lead the reader to go deeper into the subject.

Captain PFOUNDES.-The interesting Paper we have had shows how a writer of ability can condense into a small space a number of interesting facts, and probably but for want of space we should have had more. I do not rise in a captious spirit, but simply to add one or two remarks that have been omitted from the Paper probably for the reason I have forecast. We must admit that the Veda, or knowledge, was transmitted orally for many centuries and only committed to writing long after writing was in common use, and no doubt this Veda led and excluded the castes which had the privilege of this oral transmission, and they very earnestly resisted any efforts to quote the Veda to the Prukriti or to give it to the common people.

Professor H. L. ORCHARD, M.A.—I have often thought that the Code of Manu is largely derived from that of Moses. I do not mean to say by that, that it is a mere copy of the Code of Moses, but it is essentially, in feature, one drawn from the Mosaic Code with, of course, additions, modifications, and also corruptious; and the same thing, I think, applies to the philosophy and mythology, which, evidently much earlier than that of the Greeks, may also be traced to some tradition or instruction still earlier in the world's history.

Rev. R. THORNTON, D.D., V.P.--I am not deeply read in Indian philosophy, but it appears to me that the Paper, if I might

criticise it, has attempted too much, for really to do justice to the subject would require a large volume; but at the same time we must all agree that a sketch of this kind is very useful and suggestive. My own view of the matter is that in such a Paper we have shown to us the fact, which I believe the Institute has always contended for, and I have always contended for it here, that man had a revelation from God before His written revelation to Moses. I am aware that it is held by some that the first Divine revelation was given to Moses, and that before that time man was left to shift for himself. The wonderful similarities which we find between the various religions of the world and also between them and the revealed religion of Moses and of the New Testament, appear to point to the fact that there was a primeval revelation, or perhaps more than one procedure by which the Almighty revealed Himself to His creatures, and that that revelation was handed down by tradition and not by writing. The first written revelation was that we call the Old Testament. That written revelation was completed as far as it went; but its completion was superseded, or rather supplemented and strengthened by the more perfect revelation through Christ.

I think from the facts in this Paper we may to some extent see in the general principles of primeval revelation existing in Hindoo philosophy, such principles as are written for us in the Old and New Testaments. The resemblances between the customs of the Aryans in India, and the Semites in Palestine, are rather curious, but when we consider that both, most probably, had intercourse with Egypt, I think we may fairly assume that those principles in which Mosaic and other systems appear to coincide, are owing to contact with a third party, namely, the civilisation of Mizraim.

The CHAIRMAN.-I have lived in India for many years, am much interested in all that is Indian, and have read more or less on Indian subjects. There is so much in the Paper, that it is like an index to a series of volumes on the ethnology, history, and science of India.

The subject that specially interests me is that which appertains to medicine, and it is one that must most deeply interest any physician who considers it. I look upon it in a retrospective way. I look back and see what is its condition now, as compared with what it was in former days, and as I do so, I do not think only of the condition of scientific medicine as it now exists in India, but of

the whole course of that branch of knowledge, and compare the time when the Veda was itself written, perhaps 1500 years B.C.

Many years ago, when travelling in Italy, I attended a lecture at one of the Universities, and the Professor of Archæology began in this way—

"L'uomo e sempre stato e sempre sarà lo stesso."

Now if ever that were thoroughly illustrated it is so in the condition of the Hindoo. It is true, as Mr. Thornton pointed out, that modifications have taken place, and wherever the AngloSaxon race goes, in these days of railways, modifications will take place. The great centres of population are affected, but I believe the Hindoos are now pretty much as they were 1500 years B.C.; how long it may take to mould and alter the whole it is quite impossible to say. Medicine seems to have been taught in India scientifically, with a considerable knowledge of anatomy, and some physiology, gained not by looking at pictures but by dissection, for although a high caste Hindoo would not now dissect, in the old days he appears to have done so. In fact, it has been pointed out by Brahminical authority in Calcutta, where a Medical College is established, that there is no reason why a Brahmin should not study dissection as lower castes do. There was knowledge of disease long before Hippocrates wrote. We, in the West have returned, I hope, somewhat of what we got from the East. We are wont to say we got medicine from the successors of Hippocrates and the Greeks; but it existed long anterior to that. The Greeks themselves probably got it from the Egyptians ; whether they got it from the Hindoos or the Hindoos from them it is impossible to say.

Dr. Wise's learned translations of and commentaries on Hindoo writings shows how much they knew about disease, how successfully they treated it, and how much they knew about drugs and poisons, about sanitation even, and about many things which in the middle ages were altogether lost sight of, but which have revived again now, and will, I hope, by degrees be further developed by science. I trust we are now restoring to Indians that which came originally from their own country, and it is satisfactory to know how well they take to it. In the study of medicine Hindoos are quite equal in all they do, in their power of learning, to their European brethren. Their curriculum of medicine is severe, and