lxxxvii
the celebrated author of the Ashtáṅga and describes himself as such in the colophons at the end of every chapter (p. 78); but he forgets that in doing so he is guilty of a glaring piece of anachronism. The chemical knowledge, as revealed in the Vágbhata, is almost on a par with that in the Susruta. But this sort of utter disregard for chronological accuracy is by no means uncommon in the alchemical literature of the middle ages in Europe. The world is indebted to the genius and perseverance of M. Berthelot for unravelling the mysteries which so long hung about the writings of Geber[1]; and the interval of time between our pseudo-Vágbhata and the author of Ashtáṅga is even much wider than that between the Latin Geber and the real Geber. We are apt to be very harsh
- ↑ "L'hypothèse la plus vraisemblable à mes yeux, c'est quun auteur latin, resté inconnu, a écrit ce livre dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle, et l'a mis sous le patronage du nom vénéré de Géber; de même que les alchimistes gréco-égyptiens avaient emprunté le grand nom de Démocrite pour en couvrir leurs élucubrations."—"La Chimie au Moyen âge, T. 1. p. 349.
