《宋史·庞安常传》、《明史·凌云传》皆载治产妇胎不下,隔腹针儿手而得生。《扬
州府
志》之记殷矩,《嘉兴府志》之记孙浦,则产妇皆已死,见其血而令启棺,隔腹针之而复生
,此于情理未合,不足深信。
《曲礼》云∶医不三世,不服其药。郑氏注云∶慎物齐也。孔氏疏云∶凡人病疾,盖以
筋血
不调,故服药以治之,其药不慎于物,必无其征,故宜戒之。择其父子相承至三世也,是慎
物调齐也。又说云∶三世者,一曰《黄帝针灸》,二曰《神农本草》,三曰《素女脉诀》。
又云∶《夫子脉诀》。若不习此三世之书,不得服食其药。然郑云慎物齐也,则非为《本草
》、《针灸》、《脉诀》,于理不当,其义非也。按∶此则所谓三世者,注疏因主父子相承
之说也,近世有专主通于三世之书,而以三世相承为俗解之误,殆未读注疏耳,且经书文义
虽古,而辞无不达,既谓通于三世之书,何以不明言之,而日医不三世?故作此不了语,以
炫惑后世乎?
王朴庄谓古方一两者,今之七分六厘,一升者,今之六杓七杪。《东医宝鉴》谓古方一
,今之三钱二分五厘,一升者,今之二合五杓。如仲景炙甘草汤,药料最多,共曰十六两,
用酒七升,水八升。准于王说,为今之三两四钱九分六厘,今之七合有零,则酒水太少,如
《东医宝鉴》之说,为今之十四两九钱五分,今之三升七合五杓,则药料太多,似当从王之
两数,《东医宝鉴》之升数,乃为得之。
湖州费星甫野语云∶儒医张梦庐之舅氏沈翁,以外科着,有女大腹隆起,中有结块,俨若私
胎,迁延日久,腹益膨 ,梦庐诊其脉曰∶此乃肠痈,无术以治之,危矣。沈遂悟,扶女足
板凳之两头,出其不意,将女腹重踢,倒地昏晕,其痈内破,脓从大小便出数斗,遂按法
疗治获痊。余谓肠痈脓已成者,《金匮》、《千金》皆有成法可遵,何必出奇行险以治之?
且《经》云∶肠痈为病不可惊,惊则肠断而死。此女患痈日久,又加之以重踢,其肠有不断
乎?此传讹之辞,未可信也。
《夷坚志》谓台州狱囚遭讯拷,肺伤呕血,用白芨为末,米饮日服,后其囚凌迟,刽者剖其
胸,见肺间窍穴数十处,皆白芨填补,色犹不变。此说李东璧采入《本草纲目》,医家皆信
之,独进贤舒驰远昭《伤寒集注》谓∶隔诸脊骨,不得伤肺,何肺拷坏而骨不坏耶?且白芨
由食管入胃,不得由气管入肺,其诳显然云云。因思古方催生用鼠肾丸、兔脑丸云,其药从
儿手中出,由舒氏之说推之,则胎在肠外,药入胃中,何以得入儿手乎?然观《徐灵胎医案
》横泾钱氏女腿痈成管,管中有饭粒流出,长兴周氏子臂疽经年,所食米粒有从疽中出者,
又《槐西杂志》治折伤接骨,用开元通宝钱烧而醋淬,研细为末,以酒调下,铜末自结而为
圈,周束折处,曾以折足鸡试之果然。此皆理之不可解者,是则昔人之说,未可竟斥为非矣
张 《朝野佥载》云∶洛州有士人患应声,语即喉中应之,良医张文仲令取《本草》读之皆
应,至其所畏者即无声,乃录取药合和为丸服之,应时而止。其后《遁斋间览》载杨 腹中
应声,读《本草》至雷丸不应,服数粒而愈。《泊宅编》载毛景喉中有物应声,诵《本草》
至蓝不应,饮汁吐虫而愈。其说皆为方书所征引,窃意虫之应声,乖气所感,非有知觉之灵
,岂能闻所畏之物而遂不作声乎?殆皆小说家附会之辞。
《灵枢经》谓人呼吸定息,气行六寸,一日夜行八百一十丈,计一万三千万百息。河西
池以
为伪说,人一日夜岂止一万三千五百息。余尝静坐数息,以时辰表验之,每刻约二百四十息
,一日夜百刻,当有二万四千息,虽人之息长短不同,而相去不甚远,必不止一万三千五百
息,然则何氏之说为不虚,而《经》所云未足据矣。尽信书不如无书,此之谓也。
哕嗳之说,诸家各异,王氏《准绳》援据《内经》,正李东垣、王海藏(以哕为干呕)、
陈无
择(以哕为咳逆)之误,而从成无己、许叔微之说,以哕为呃逆,以嗳为噫气,此可为定论。
徐灵胎批《临证指南》噫嗳篇云∶噫,即呃逆,病者最忌;嗳,为饱食气,非病也。何可并
为一证?王孟英《潜斋医话》訾之,谓噫不读为如字,乃于介切,饱食息也。以噫、嗳各篇
,于义实赘,徐氏误作二种,殊失考,况噫有不因饱食而作者,亦病也。仲景立旋复代赭汤
,治病后噫气,徐氏误噫为哕,谓即呃逆,盖此汤原可推展而用,凡呕吐呃逆之属,中虚寒
饮为病者皆可治。余尝以治噫气频年者数人,投之辄愈,益见徐氏之仅泥为饱食气未当也,
是盖宗王氏之说,而其义更融澈矣。
《宋史·庞安常传》和《明史·凌云传》都记载了治疗产妇胎衣不下,隔着腹部针刺胎儿的手部而使其得救的案例。《扬州府志》记载的殷矩、《嘉兴府志》记载的孙浦,则是产妇已经死亡,看到其血液后让人打开棺材,隔着腹部针刺(胎儿)而复生的故事。这些说法在情理上不合,不足以令人深信。
《礼记·曲礼》说:医生如果不传承三代,就不服用他的药。郑玄注解说:这是指谨慎对待药物和方剂。孔颖达疏解说:凡人的疾病,大概是由于筋血不调,所以服药来治疗它。如果用药不谨慎于药材属性,必然没有疗效,因此应该戒除这种轻率。选择父子相传至三代的人,就是谨慎对待药物和方剂的意思。又说:所谓“三世”,一是《黄帝针灸》,二是《神农本草》,三是《素女脉诀》。又说是《夫子脉诀》。如果不研习这三部书,就不能服用他的药。然而郑玄说“谨慎药物和方剂”,那么这就不仅仅是针对《本草》、《针灸》、《脉诀》而言,从道理上讲是不恰当的,其含义是错误的。按:这里所谓的“三世”,注疏是因为主张父子相传的说法。近代有人专门主张通晓这三部书,而把“三世相承”解释为世俗理解的错误,这大概是没读过注疏吧?况且经书的文义虽然古奥,但辞意无不通达,既然说通晓这三部书,为什么不明言,而说“医不三世”呢?难道是要故作这种含糊不清的话,来炫耀迷惑后世吗?
王朴庄认为古方的一两,相当于现在的七分六厘;一升,相当于现在的六杓七杪。《东医宝鉴》认为古方的一两,相当于现在的三钱二分五厘;一升,相当于现在的二合五杓。比如张仲景的炙甘草汤,药料最多,总共十六两,用酒七升,水八升。按照王朴庄的说法,折算到现在是三两四钱九分六厘,酒水七合多,则酒水太少;按照《东医宝鉴》的说法,折算到现在是十四两九钱五分,酒水三升七合五杓,则药料太多。似乎应当采用王朴庄关于重量(两数)的说法,《东医宝鉴》关于容量(升数)的说法,这样才比较恰当。
湖州费星甫野语记载:儒医张梦庐的舅舅沈翁,以外科著称。沈翁有一个女儿,大腹隆起,中间有结块,很像私生子怀孕,拖延日久,肚子更加膨胀。张梦庐诊察她的脉象说:这是肠痈(肠道化脓性炎症),没有办法治疗,危险了。沈翁于是醒悟,扶着女儿站在板凳的两头,出其不意,用力踢女儿的腹部,女子倒地昏晕,里面的痈脓破裂,脓液从大小便排出几斗,随后按照常规方法治疗而痊愈。我认为肠痈脓液已经形成的情况,《金匮要略》、《千金方》都有现成的法则可以遵循,何必出奇招行险招来治疗呢?而且《内经》说:肠痈患病不可受惊,受惊则肠断而死。这个女子患痈日久,又加上重重地踢打,她的肠子难道不会断裂吗?这是流传错误的言辞,不可相信。
《夷坚志》记载台州监狱囚犯遭受审讯拷打,肺部受伤吐血,用白芨研成粉末,米汤送服,每天服用。后来该囚犯被凌迟处死,刽子手剖开他的胸膛,看见肺间有数十个窍穴,都被白芨填补,颜色还没有改变。这种说法被李时珍采入《本草纲目》,医家都相信它。只有进贤舒驰远昭在《伤寒集注》中说:隔着脊柱,不可能伤到肺,为什么肺被拷坏而骨头却不坏呢?况且白芨由食管进入胃中,不可能由气管进入肺中,这种欺骗显然易见。由此想到古方催生用的鼠肾丸、兔脑丸等,说药是从胎儿手中出来的,按照舒氏的说法推导,那么胎在肠外,药进入胃中,怎么能进入胎儿手中呢?然而看《徐灵胎医案》中横泾钱氏女腿痈形成瘘管,管中有饭粒流出;长兴周氏子臂疽经过一年,所吃的米粒有从疽中排出的;还有《槐西杂志》记载治疗折伤接骨,用开元通宝钱烧红后用醋淬炼,研细为末,用酒调下,铜末自然结成圈,环绕束缚骨折处,曾用断腿鸡试验果然有效。这些都是道理无法解释的事情,那么前人的说法,不可以完全斥责为非议。
张鷟《朝野佥载》说:洛州有个士人患“应声”病,说话时喉咙里就跟着回应,名医张文仲让他取《本草》读,读到某味药时不再回应,那是他畏惧的药,于是采集该药配合其他药制成丸剂服用,应声病随即停止。后来《遁斋间览》记载杨姓男子腹中应声,读《本草》读到雷丸时不应,服用几粒而痊愈。《泊宅编》记载毛景喉中有物应声,诵读《本草》读到蓝草时不应,饮汁吐出虫子而痊愈。这些说法都被方书引用。我私下认为虫类应声,是乖气感应所致,并没有知觉灵性,怎么能听到所畏惧的东西就不再出声呢?这大概是小说家附会的言辞。
《灵枢经》说人呼吸定息,气行六寸,一天一夜运行八百一十丈,计算为一万三千五百百息(即一万三百五十万息,此处原文可能有误或特指某种算法,通常理解为呼吸次数)。河西池认为是伪说,人一天一夜岂止一万三千五百息。我曾经静坐数息,用时辰表验证,每刻大约二百四十息,一天一夜一百刻,应当有两万四千息。虽然人的呼吸长短不同,但相差不远,必定不止一万三千五百息。既然如此,何氏(指河西池)的说法不是虚假的,而《内经》所说的不足以作为依据。完全相信书本不如没有书本,说的就是这个道理。
哕(呃逆/干呕)和嗳(嗳气)的说法,各家各不相同。王肯堂《准绳》援引《内经》,纠正李东垣(以哕为干呕)、陈无择(以哕为咳逆)的错误,而遵从成无己、许叔微的说法,以哕为呃逆,以嗳为噫气,这可以作为定论。徐灵胎批注《临证指南》噫嗳篇时说:噫,就是呃逆,病人最忌讳;嗳,是饱食后的气息,不是病。怎么能并列为一种证候?王孟英《潜斋医话》批评他,说噫不读作本字,而是于介切音,是饱食后的喘息。将噫、嗳各列一篇,在义理上确实多余,徐氏误将它们分为两种,特别缺乏考证。况且噫也有不因饱食而发作的,也是病。张仲景设立旋复代赭汤,治疗病后噫气,徐氏误噫为哕,认为就是呃逆,大概这汤原本可以推展使用,凡是呕吐呃逆属于中虚寒饮为病的都可以治疗。我曾经用它治疗数年频发的噫气患者,投药辄愈,更可见徐氏仅仅拘泥于它是饱食之气是不恰当的,这是秉承王肯堂的说法,而其义理更加融汇透彻。
The "History of Song: Biography of Pang Anchang" and the "History of Ming: Biography of Ling Yun" both record cases of treating postpartum retention of the placenta by needling the fetus's hand through the mother's abdomen, resulting in survival. The records of Yin Ju in the "Yangzhou Prefecture Gazetteer" and Sun Pu in the "Jiaxing Prefecture Gazetteer" describe situations where the mothers had already died; upon seeing blood, coffins were opened, and needling through the abdomen led to revival. These accounts are inconsistent with reason and logic and are not worthy of deep belief.
The "Book of Rites: Qu Li" states: "If a physician has not practiced for three generations, do not take his medicine." Zheng Xuan's commentary explains: "This refers to being cautious about substances and prescriptions." Kong Yingda's subcommentary elaborates: "Human diseases generally arise from disharmony of sinews and blood, so medication is used to treat them. If one is not cautious regarding medicinal properties, there will inevitably be no therapeutic effect; thus, such carelessness should be avoided. Selecting physicians whose knowledge is passed down from father to son for three generations ensures caution in substances and harmony in prescriptions." It is further stated that the "Three Generations" refer to: first, the *Huangdi Zhenjiu* (Yellow Emperor's Acupuncture); second, the *Shennong Bencao* (Divine Farmer's Materia Medica); and third, the *Sunü Maijue* (Lady Sun's Pulse Diagnosis). Another version cites the *Fuzi Maijue*. If one does not study these three texts, one should not consume his medicines. However, since Zheng Xuan mentioned "caution in substances and prescriptions," this interpretation cannot be limited solely to the *Bencao*, *Zhenjiu*, and *Maijue*; logically, this meaning is incorrect. According to my analysis, the "Three Generations" here, as explained in the commentaries, stems from the theory of hereditary transmission within families. In recent times, some scholars insist on mastering the three specific books and dismiss the idea of hereditary transmission as a vulgar misunderstanding, likely having not read the commentaries. Moreover, although the language of classics is ancient, its meaning is always clear. If it meant mastering three books, why not state it explicitly rather than saying "physician not three generations"? Was this ambiguous phrasing intended to dazzle and confuse later generations?
Wang Puzhuang asserted that one tael in ancient prescriptions equals approximately 7 fen 6 li in modern measures, and one sheng equals 6 shao 7 miao. The *Dongui Bogam* (Eastern Medical Precious Mirror) states that one ancient tael equals 3 qian 2 fen 5 li, and one sheng equals 2 he 5 shao. For example, Zhang Zhongjing's Zhi Gancao Tang (Honey-Fried Licorice Decoction), which contains the most ingredients, totals sixteen taels, using seven sheng of wine and eight sheng of water. Based on Wang's conversion, this would be 3 tael 4 qian 9 fen 6 li of herbs, and slightly over 7 he of liquids, implying too little liquid. Based on the *Dongui Bogam*'s conversion, it would be 14 tael 9 qian 5 fen of herbs and 3 sheng 7 he 5 shao of liquids, implying too many herbs. It seems appropriate to adopt Wang's weight measurements and the *Dongui Bogam*'s volume measurements, which appears to be the correct approach.
Fei Xingfu's anecdotes from Huzhou recount: The uncle of Confucian physician Zhang Menglu, Mr. Shen, was renowned for surgery. His daughter had a distended abdomen with a lump, resembling an illicit pregnancy. After prolonged duration, her abdomen swelled further. Zhang Menglu diagnosed her pulse and said, "This is Changyong (Intestinal Abscess). There is no treatment available; it is critical." Shen then understood, placed his daughter standing on the ends of a bench, and unexpectedly kicked her abdomen heavily. She fell and fainted. The abscess ruptured internally, and pus discharged through urination and defecation in large quantities. Subsequently, she recovered following standard treatment protocols. I argue that for intestinal abscesses with formed pus, the *Jinkui Yaolue* (Essential Prescriptions from the Golden Cabinet) and *Qianjin Fang* (Prescriptions Worth a Thousand Gold) provide established methods. Why resort to risky and unconventional measures? Furthermore, the *Neijing* (Inner Canon) states: "In intestinal abscess disease, one must avoid fright; if frightened, the intestines may rupture, leading to death." This woman suffered from the abscess for a long time and endured heavy kicking; could her intestines remain intact? This is a transmitted error and should not be believed.
The *Yijian Zhi* (Records of Yijian) reports that a prisoner in Taizhou, after severe interrogation and beating, injured his lungs and vomited blood. He was given powdered Biejiu (Bletilla Rhizome) taken with rice water daily. Later, when he was executed by lingchi (death by a thousand cuts), the executioner cut open his chest and found dozens of holes in the lungs filled with Biejiu, which retained its color. This account was included by Li Shizhen in the *Bencao Gangmu* (Compendium of Materia Medica), and physicians generally accepted it. However, Shu Chi Yuanzhao of Jinxian, in his *Shanghan Jizhu* (Commentary on Cold Damage Treatise), argued: "Separated by spinal vertebrae, how could the lungs be injured while the bones remained unharmed?" Additionally, Biejiu enters the stomach via the esophagus and cannot enter the lungs via the trachea; this deception is obvious. Reflecting on this, ancient parturition-inducing formulas like Shushen Wan (Mouse Kidney Pill) or Tunaowan (Rabbit Brain Pill) claim the medicine exits through the fetus's hand. Applying Shu's logic, if the fetus is outside the intestines and the medicine enters the stomach, how can it reach the fetus's hand? However, observing Xu Lingtai's medical cases: Qian's daughter from Hengjing had a leg abscess forming a sinus tract from which rice grains were discharged; Zhou's son from Changxing had an arm carbuncle lasting a year, from which eaten rice grains emerged; and the *Huai Xi Zazhi* records treating fractures by burning Kaiyuan Tongbao coins, quenching them in vinegar, grinding them into powder, and administering with wine. The copper powder naturally formed rings around the fracture site. Testing this on chickens with broken legs proved effective. These phenomena are difficult to explain rationally, suggesting that ancient claims should not be entirely dismissed as false.
Zhang Zhuo's *Chaoye Qianzai* (Miscellaneous Records from the Court and the Wild) states: A scholar in Luozhou suffered from "echoing voice," where his throat repeated whatever he said. Physician Zhang Wenzhong instructed him to read from the *Bencao* until he reached a herb that did not trigger an echo, identifying it as the substance he feared. He compounded this herb into pills, which cured the condition promptly. Later, *Dunzhai Jianlan* recorded Yang suffering from abdominal echoing; reading the *Bencao* revealed no echo at Leiwan (Polyporus), and taking several grains cured him. *Bozhai Bian* recorded Mao Jing having an object in his throat causing echoing; chanting the *Bencao* showed no echo at Lan (Isatis Leaf), and drinking the juice expelled worms, curing him. These accounts are cited in medical texts. I suspect that insects echoing is due to qi disturbance, lacking conscious perception. How could they cease responding upon hearing something they fear? These are likely fictional embellishments.
The *Lingshu Jing* (Spiritual Pivot) states that with each breath cycle, qi moves six cun, traveling 810 zhang in a day and night, totaling 103,500,000 breath cycles (Note: Text implies a specific calculation, often interpreted as ~13,500 breaths in other contexts, but here the text argues against a low number). He Xi Chi considered this a false statement, arguing humans breathe more than 13,500 times a day. I once counted my breaths while sitting quietly, verifying with a clock. Each ke (approx. 15 mins) had about 240 breaths. Over 100 ke in a day and night, there should be 24,000 breaths. Although breath depth varies, the difference is not significant, certainly not as low as 13,500. Thus, He's assertion is not false, and the *Jing*'s figure is insufficient as evidence. "To believe all books is better than having no books" applies here.
Definitions of Yue (hiccups/dry heaves) and Ai (belching) vary among schools. Wang Ken-tang's *Zhunshe* cites the *Neijing* to correct errors by Li Dongyuan (who defined Yue as dry heaves) and Chen Wuze (who defined Yue as coughing/wheezing), aligning instead with Cheng Wuji and Xu Shuwei, defining Yue as hiccup (Eni) and Ai as belching (Yiqi). This can be considered the definitive conclusion. Xu Lingtai, commenting on the "Yi Ai" chapter of *Linzheng Zhinan*, stated: "Yi" is hiccup, which patients dread; "Ai" is belching after fullness, not a disease. How can they be grouped as one syndrome? Wang Mengying criticized this in *Qianzhai Yihua*, stating "Yi" is pronounced differently (yu jie), referring to sighing after eating. Listing Yi and Ai separately is redundant; Xu mistakenly separated them, lacking rigorous examination. Moreover, Yi can occur without fullness and is also pathological. Zhang Zhongjing created Xuanfu Daizhe Tang to treat post-illness Yi Qi (belching). Xu mistakenly equated Yi with Yue (hiccup), claiming this decoction could be extended to treat vomiting and hiccups caused by middle-jiao deficiency and cold-fluid retention. I have treated several patients with chronic belching using this formula with success. This further proves Xu's view that Yi is merely belching after eating is inadequate. This interpretation follows Wang's theory but offers a more profound understanding.