有此论。惟引《素问》证明横骨一段颇精，因录于下，并以同志所论数条附之，俾读其书者得以参考焉。
《人身图说》外阴横骨处，为发便毒之所。凡与女人污秽者交合，其骨受热，毒动即发其病，及霉疮等患。
俞氏云∶检《素问·骨空论》曰∶督脉起少腹下骨中央。又曰∶督脉生病治督脉，治在骨上。解者以为脊骨，
实则本经少腹下骨，即外阴上横骨也。《素问·气府论》云∶冲脉气挟鸠尾外至脐寸一，挟脐下旁至横骨寸一，
是腹脉法也。盖督、任、冲为表里，督脉起横骨，其下行者所冲，其绕络阴器及上侠脊交颠至目内 者为督。
恶中督脉，故病至胸。督脉附巨阳膀胱，合少
阴肾。后世医书俱不晓，乃别之为奇经。又言宜与十二经并论，实则十二经在手足指，督、任在横骨，冲在气
也。杨梅疮者，宋窦汉卿《疮疡全书》及《名医类案》谓之霉疮，既外洋有之，应曰洋霉疮。《证治准绳》言
肝肾二经，《景岳全书》言冲脉受病，皆似是而非也。得此书横骨一言，允为中肯。雄按∶《内经》骨中央下
接云∶女子入系廷孔。其孔，溺孔之端也。则所谓少腹下骨，确指外阴横骨无疑。治在骨上者，治其脉所起处也。
黟俞理初先生《癸巳类稿》有书泰西人身图说一首，谓彼国之脏腑与中国异，罗举数事，若辨黑白。余初
阅之，以为泰西医术内景尽此矣。嗣阅《人身图说》，乃知俞氏涉猎浮文，揽其标而未究其蕴也。后又从潜斋
借得泰西《人身说概》及玉田王清任《医林改错》读之，益知俞氏之谬。俞氏曰∶其地人心居左，脉又发自心
左。以为西人禀赋异于中国。今按《图说》并无人心居左之说，惟有一条或曰心之所当在左边，盖于此所见动
与喘息。曰左边心动，是于左之穴为生活德所积，及脉络所发之根，故愈显其动胜于右边。玩其文义，似设为
问答。问者疑心在左边，答者谓左边之动，乃心左穴所致，非心在左也。俞氏错会文义。至于脉发心左，则中
西一例。王氏目验华人三十余尸，皆大络从心左穴出，与《灵枢》不合，与《图说》合。不知是古今之异，抑
古书之讹？不得援古书而强谓彼国自有肺肠也。俞氏又曰∶《图说》谓血络见，脉络不见者，血络是《灵枢》
络脉，其络脉则经脉。此二说望文生
义，全未理会。泰西人谓人身有二络∶一血络在内，一脉络在外，相粘不离，皆有干有枝，有经有纬。《说概》
及《改错》二书所验皆同。谓脉络为卫，血络为营则可，今强派脉络为干，血络为枝，岂非扪 说烛乎？俞氏
又曰∶公细线是时辰表中发条。今按其书中之例，一物独用者称本，诸物合用者称公，故有公膜、公管路、公
细体诸名，公细线亦其一耳，不得以表中发条为解。俞又曰∶中土人肺六叶，彼土四叶。按王氏目验华人肺四
叶，则中国非尽六叶矣。《图说》谓肺四叶，或有五叶者，二叶之中发一小叶，则彼土亦非尽四叶矣。俞又曰∶
中土人肝七叶，彼土三叶。王氏目验华人肝四叶，则中土非尽七叶。《图说》谓人之肝叶或止一或止二，极多
不过三，则彼土亦非尽三叶矣，俞氏又曰∶中土人心七窍，彼土四窍。王氏目验华人心无窍，止有左边一窍，
为大络之本，安见其为七窍也？俞氏又曰∶中土人肠二，彼土人肠六。所谓六者，《图说》所述十二肠、洁肠、
秽肠、瞎肠、颈肠、下直肠共为六肠。其上直肠即幽门也，下直肠即肛门也。瞎肠一头通一头塞，与颈肠在腹
左右，不知是彼土所独，抑华人所同，非目睹不敢决。总之，盘旋之肠只洁、秽二肠，洁即小肠，秽即大肠，
未见其为大异也。俞又曰∶中土睾丸二，彼土睾丸四。又曰∶儒自扪睾二，隐约其四睾之文耳。夫《图说》既
隐约其文，先生安得悬揣而知其为四乎？今按《图说》论睾丸篇明言其数二，不言四也。且书中论睾丸经络最
多，无一语可附会及四睾者。惟言睾丸有小体，岂因此而误耶？然前注中已明
言是转折之络，似睾丸底分之小体，则小体乃激发络，非丸也。又图中绘睾丸作两囊状，分于左右，两囊宜有
四丸，岂因此而误耶？然所绘是丸非囊，欲其经络分明，故离绘之分于左右，非二囊而四丸也。先生指鹿为马，
反谓书之隐约其文，岂非 耶？其他不及一一致辨。先生谓此书在中国二百年矣，未有能读之者，今始得其指
归，及余以原书质之，其疏略如此，是仍未之能读也。古人谓治经者必研群经，乃始可通一经。先生止见《图
说》一编，故有此臆说。若见《人身说概》诸书，彼此参校，亦当贯通矣。今欲为西医内景书，迟迟不敢落
笔，正恐所见西人书少，又蹈俞氏之辙耳。仁和胡琨次瑶。
有这一论述。唯独引用《素问》来证明“横骨”这一段非常精辟，因此将其抄录如下，并将志同道合者讨论的几条附在后面，使阅读这本书的人能够参考。
《人身图说》中提到外阴横骨处，是发生便毒（指生于胯腹部的痈疽）的部位。凡是与女性不洁者交合，导致该骨骼受热，毒气发动随即引发此病，以及霉疮等疾患。
俞氏说：查阅《素问·骨空论》记载：“督脉起于少腹下骨中央。”又说：“督脉生病治疗督脉，治疗部位在骨上。”解释的人认为是指脊骨，实际上本经所说的少腹下骨，就是外阴上方的横骨。《素问·气府论》说：“冲脉之气挟持鸠尾外行至脐下一寸一，挟持脐下旁行至横骨一寸一”，这是腹脉的规律。大概督、任、冲三脉互为表里，督脉起于横骨，其下行者所冲击，其环绕阴器及上行夹脊交会于头顶至目内眦的是督脉。厌恶中伤督脉，所以病症会传至胸部。督脉依附巨阳膀胱经，合于少阴肾经。后世的医书都不明白这一点，于是另外将其归为奇经八脉。又说要与十二经脉并论，实际上十二经脉在手足指端，督脉、任脉在横骨，冲脉在气海。杨梅疮，宋代窦汉卿的《疮疡全书》及《名医类案》称为霉疮，既然外洋也有，应当称为洋霉疮。《证治准绳》说是肝肾二经受病，《景岳全书》说是冲脉受病，都似是而非。得到这本书关于“横骨”的说法，确实切中肯綮。雄按（作者赵晴初自注）：《内经》在“骨中央”之下接着说：“女子入系廷孔。”那个孔，就是溺孔的末端。那么所谓的少腹下骨，确指外阴横骨无疑。所谓“治在骨上”，是指治疗其经脉起始的地方。
黟县俞理初先生的《癸巳类稿》中有一篇写泰西《人身图说》的文章，说他们国家的脏腑与中国不同，罗列了几件事，好像黑白分明。我起初阅读时，以为泰西医术对内脏的认识就是这样。后来阅读《人身图说》，才知道俞氏涉猎浮泛的文辞，只抓住了表面而未探究其深层含义。之后又从潜斋那里借得泰西《人身说概》及玉田王清任的《医林改错》来读，更加知道俞氏的错误。俞氏说：那里的人心居左边，脉搏又发自心左。认为西方人的禀赋不同于中国人。现在查看《图说》并没有心居左边的说法，只有一条说“心之所当在左边”，大概是这里所见到的跳动与呼吸有关。说“左边心动”，是因为左边的穴位是生活德（生命力/元气）积聚之处，也是脉络发出的根源，所以比右边跳动更明显。玩味其文义，似乎是设问答的形式。提问者怀疑心在左边，回答者说左边的跳动，是心左穴所致，并非心在左边。俞氏误解了文义。至于脉搏发自心左，则中西是一样的。王氏亲眼验证了三十多具华人尸体，发现大络都是从心左穴出来的，这与《灵枢》不合，却与《图说》相合。不知道这是古今的差异，还是古书的错误？不能援引古书而强行说他们国家自有不同的肺肠。俞氏又说：《图说》说血络可见，脉络不可见，意思是血络就是《灵枢》中的络脉，而其所说的脉络则是经脉。这两种说法都是望文生义，完全没理解。泰西人认为人身有两络：一血络在内，一脉络在外，相互粘连不离，都有主干有分支，有经有纬。《说概》及《改错》两书验证的结果都一样。如果说脉络为卫气，血络为营气是可以的，现在强行把脉络派为主干，血络派为分支，岂不是盲人摸象吗？俞氏又说：公细线是怀表里的发条。现在看书中的体例，单一物体独用称“本”，多种物体合用称“公”，所以有公膜、公管路、公细体等名称，公细线也是其中之一罢了，不能把它解释为表里的发条。俞氏又说：中国人体内有六叶肺，他们国家有四叶。按照王氏亲眼验证华人肺部为四叶，那么中国并不全是六叶肺。《图说》说肺有四叶，有的有五叶，其中两叶中间发出一个小叶，那么他们国家也不全是四叶肺。俞氏又说：中国人体内有七叶肝，他们国家有三叶。王氏亲眼验证华人肝脏为四叶，那么中国并不全是七叶肝。《图说》说人的肝叶或者只有一叶或者只有两叶，极多不过三叶，那么他们国家也不全是三叶肝。俞氏又说：中国人心有七窍，他们国家有四窍。王氏亲眼验证华人心没有窍，只在左边有一个窍，是大络的根本，哪里见得它是七窍呢？俞氏又说：中国人体内有两条肠，他们国家有六条肠。所谓六条，《图说》所述的十二肠、洁肠、秽肠、瞎肠、颈肠、下直肠共为六肠。其上直肠即幽门，下直肠即肛门。瞎肠一头通一头塞，与颈肠在腹部左右，不知道是他们国家独有，还是华人也相同，不是亲眼目睹不敢决断。总之，盘旋的肠子只有洁、秽两条肠，洁即小肠，秽即大肠，没见到有什么大的差异。俞氏又说：中国人体内有两个睾丸，他们国家有四个睾丸。又说：儒家自己触摸睾丸是两个，只是隐约提到了四个睾丸的文字罢了。既然《图说》文字隐晦，先生怎么能凭空揣测知道它是四个呢？现在查看《图说》论睾丸篇明确说数量是两个，没说四个。而且书中论睾丸经络最多，没有一句话可以附会到四个睾丸的。只说睾丸有小体，难道因此误认了吗？然而前面的注释中已明确说是转折之络，像是睾丸底部分支的小体，那么小体是激发络，不是丸（睾丸）。另外图中绘制睾丸作两囊状，分列左右，两囊似乎应有四丸，难道因此误认吗？然而所绘的是丸不是囊，为了使其经络分明，所以分开绘制位于左右，并不是两囊四丸。先生指鹿为马，反而说书中文意隐晦，岂不是荒谬吗？其他来不及一一辩驳。先生说这本书在中国已经两百年了，没有人能读懂它，现在开始找到了它的宗旨，等我拿原书向他质询，他的疏漏竟然如此，这说明他仍然没能读懂。古人说研究经典必须研读群经，然后才能通晓一经。先生只见过《图说》这一编，所以有此臆说。如果看到《人身说概》诸书，彼此参照校勘，也应该能贯通了。现在想为西医的内脏解剖书写序言，迟迟不敢落笔，正是担心所见西方书籍太少，又重蹈俞氏的覆辙罢了。仁和胡琨次瑶。
There is this discussion. Only the citation from *Suwen* (Plain Questions) to prove the section on "Henggu" (Transverse Bone) is quite exquisite, so it is recorded below, and several lines discussed by like-minded scholars are attached, so that readers of this book may refer to them.
*Ren Shen Tu Shuo* (Illustrated Description of the Human Body) states that the area of the transverse bone at the external genitalia is where "Bi Du" (abscesses occurring in the groin or abdomen) originates. Whenever one engages in sexual intercourse with an unclean woman, heat arises in the bone, causing the toxin to move and subsequently trigger this disease, as well as ailments such as "Mei Chuang" (Syphilis).
Mr. Yu said: Consulting *Suwen · Gu Kong Lun* (Bone and Joint Theory), it says: "The Du Mai (Governing Vessel) originates from the center of the lower bone of the lower abdomen." It also says: "When the Du Mai is diseased, treat the Du Mai; the treatment site is above the bone." Interpreters believe this refers to the vertebral column, but in fact, the "lower bone of the lower abdomen" mentioned in this meridian is precisely the transverse bone above the external genitalia. *Suwen · Qi Fu Lun* states: "The Qi of the Chong Mai (Penetrating Vessel) accompanies Jiutui outside to one cun below the umbilicus, and accompanies the side below the umbilicus to Henggu one cun apart." This is the method of abdominal meridians. Generally, the Du, Ren (Conception Vessel), and Chong meridians are exterior-interior pairs. The Du Mai originates at Henggu; its descending part is what the Chong attacks, and its part that circles the genitalia and ascends along the spine to intersect at the vertex and reach the inner canthus is the Du Mai. Disliking injury to the Du Mai, the disease thus reaches the chest. The Du Mai attaches to the Juyang Bladder Meridian and merges with the Shaoyin Kidney Meridian. Later medical books did not understand this, and thus separately classified it as one of the Eight Extraordinary Vessels. They also stated it should be discussed alongside the Twelve Regular Meridians, but in reality, the Twelve Regular Meridians end at the fingers and toes, while the Du and Ren meridians are at Henggu, and the Chong is at Qihai (Sea of Qi). Yangmei Chuang (Chancre/Syphilis) was called Mei Chuang in Song Dynasty Dou Hanqing's *Chuang Yang Quan Shu* (Complete Book of Sores and Ulcers) and *Ming Yi Lei An* (Classified Cases of Famous Physicians). Since it exists in foreign lands, it should be called Yang Mei Chuang (Foreign Syphilis). *Zheng Zhi Zhun Sheng* (Standard for Diagnosis and Treatment) claims it involves the Liver and Kidney meridians, and *Jing Yue Quan Shu* (Complete Works of Jingyue) claims it involves the Chong Mai; both are plausible yet incorrect. Obtaining this book's mention of "Henggu" hits the mark accurately. Xiong notes: *Neijing* (Inner Canon) continues after "center of the bone": "In women, it enters and connects to Ting Kong." That opening is the end of the urethral orifice. Thus, the so-called "lower bone of the lower abdomen" undoubtedly refers to the transverse bone of the external genitalia. "Treatment above the bone" means treating the origin point of its meridian.
Mr. Yu Lichu of Yi County, in his *Guisi Leigao*, wrote an essay on the Western *Ren Shen Tu Shuo*, stating that their country's internal organs differ from China's, listing several matters as if black and white were distinct. When I first read it, I thought Western medicine's knowledge of internal anatomy ended there. Later, upon reading *Ren Shen Tu Shuo*, I realized Mr. Yu's reading was superficial, grasping only the surface without investigating the essence. Later, borrowing Tai Xi's *Ren Shen Shuo Gai* (General Description of Human Anatomy) and Wang Qingren's *Yi Lin Gai Cuo* (Correction of Errors in Medical Forest) from Qianzhai, I further recognized Mr. Yu's errors. Mr. Yu said: Their people's heart is located on the left, and the pulse originates from the left of the heart. He believed Westerners' constitution differs from Chinese people. Now, checking *Tu Shuo*, there is no statement that the heart is on the left; there is only one line saying "the heart ought to be on the left," likely referring to the movement and respiration observed here. Saying "left-side heart beating" implies that the movement on the left is due to the accumulation of life force (Sheng Huo De) at the left acupoint and the root of the meridian emission, hence appearing more prominent than the right. Examining the text, it seems to be a Q&A format. The questioner doubts the heart is on the left; the responder says the left-side movement is caused by the left heart acupoint, not that the heart itself is on the left. Mr. Yu misunderstood the text. As for the pulse originating from the left of the heart, this is consistent between China and the West. Mr. Wang visually examined over thirty Chinese corpses and found that the major collaterals emerge from the left heart acupoint, which contradicts *Lingshu* (Spiritual Pivot) but agrees with *Tu Shuo*. Whether this is a difference between ancient and modern times or an error in ancient texts? One cannot cite ancient texts to forcefully claim they have different lungs and intestines. Mr. Yu also said: *Tu Shuo* states blood vessels are visible, while meridians are invisible, meaning blood vessels are the Luo Collaterals of *Lingshu*, and the meridians mentioned are the Jing Main Channels. These two interpretations are literal and completely miss the point. Westerners believe there are two types of networks in the human body: one blood network inside, one meridian network outside, adhering closely together, each having trunks and branches, and warp and weft. Both *Shuo Gai* and *Gai Cuo* confirm this. It is acceptable to say the meridian network corresponds to Wei Qi (Defensive Qi) and the blood network to Ying Qi (Nutritive Qi); however, forcibly assigning the meridian network as the trunk and the blood network as the branch is like groping in the dark. Mr. Yu also said: The "Gong Xi Xian" (Public Fine Thread) is the mainspring of a pocket watch. According to the book's convention, a single object used alone is called "Ben" (Root), while combined objects are called "Gong" (Public/Common), hence names like Gong Mo (Public Membrane), Gong Guan Lu (Public Pipeline), Gong Xi Ti (Public Fine Body), etc., exist; Gong Xi Xian is just one of them, and cannot be interpreted as a watch spring. Mr. Yu also said: Chinese people have six-lobed lungs, theirs have four. According to Mr. Wang's visual examination of Chinese lungs being four-lobed, China does not exclusively have six-lobed lungs. *Tu Shuo* states lungs have four lobes, sometimes five, with a small lobe emerging between two lobes, so their land does not exclusively have four-lobed lungs either. Mr. Yu also said: Chinese people have seven-lobed livers, theirs have three. Mr. Wang's visual examination of Chinese livers being four-lobed shows China does not exclusively have seven-lobed livers. *Tu Shuo* states human liver lobes may be one or two, at most three, so their land does not exclusively have three-lobed livers. Mr. Yu also said: Chinese hearts have seven apertures, theirs have four. Mr. Wang's visual examination showed Chinese hearts have no apertures, only one aperture on the left which is the root of the major collateral; how can it be seen as seven apertures? Mr. Yu also said: Chinese people have two intestines, theirs have six. The "six" refers to the twelve-intestine, Jie Chang (Clean Intestine), Hui Chang (Filthy Intestine), Xia Chang (Blind Intestine), Jing Chang (Neck Intestine), and Xia Zhi Chang (Lower Straight Intestine) described in *Tu Shuo*, totaling six intestines. The upper straight intestine is the pylorus; the lower straight intestine is the anus. The blind intestine is open at one end and closed at the other, located left and right in the abdomen with the neck intestine; whether this is unique to their land or common to Chinese people, one dares not decide without personal observation. In short, the coiled intestines are only the Jie and Hui intestines; Jie is the Small Intestine, Hui is the Large Intestine; no significant difference is seen. Mr. Yu also said: Chinese people have two testicles, theirs have four. He also said: Confucians feel two testicles themselves, merely vaguely mentioning four testicles in the text. Since *Tu Shuo* is vague, how could Mr. Yu guess it is four? Now, checking *Tu Shuo*'s section on testicles clearly states the number is two, not four. Moreover, the book discusses testicular meridians extensively, with no words to support four testicles. It only mentions small bodies within the testicles; could this be the error? However, the previous note explicitly states these are turning collaterals, resembling small bodies branching from the base of the testicle; thus, the small body is an activating collateral, not the testicle itself. Furthermore, the diagram draws the testicles as two sacs divided left and right; two sacs might seem to imply four testicles, leading to this error? But the drawing depicts testicles, not sacs, to clarify the meridians, hence drawn separately left and right; it is not two sacs containing four testicles. Mr. Yu confuses deer for horses and blames the book's vagueness, is this not absurd? There is no time to refute everything else. Mr. Yu claims this book has been in China for two hundred years and unreadable until now, when he finally grasped its gist. Yet when I questioned him with the original book, his omissions were so glaring, proving he still hasn't read it. Ancients said that to study classics, one must research all classics to understand one. Mr. Yu has only seen *Tu Shuo*, hence these speculations. If he had seen *Ren Shen Shuo Gai* and other books and cross-referenced them, he would have achieved comprehension. Now, wishing to write a preface for Western internal anatomy books, I hesitate to put pen to paper, fearing my limited exposure to Western books will lead me to repeat Mr. Yu's mistakes. Hu Kun, courtesy name Ci Yao, of Renhe.