汉志录医家言首黄帝内经隋志有全元起注内经已佚不可尽见今所传惟唐王冰注本章句已非全氏之旧矣然古字古义尚
有存者明以来传刻本尤多淆乱庸师俗工习非成是莫可究诘绩溪胡君 甫精华国小中年多病留心方书得宋本内经用元熊氏
本明道藏本及唐以前载籍勘正之多所发明如饮食有节起居有常不妄作劳全元起注本云饮食有常节起居有常度不妄不作君
谓作与诈同月令毋或作为淫巧郑注曰今月令作为为诈伪不妄与不作相对为文作古读若胙上与者数度为韵下与俱去为韵王
氏改不妄不作为不妄作劳是误读作为作为之作而以作劳连文殊不成义又不知持满不时御神君谓时善也不时御神谓不善御
神也小雅 弁篇尔淆既时毛传时善也又夫上古圣人之教下也皆谓之全元起注本云上古圣人之教也下皆为之君谓下皆为之
言下皆化之也书梓材厥乱为民论衡效力篇引作厥率化民是为即化也作谓者为之借字王氏吴以谓为告谓之谓乃升下字于上
句也字之上失其指矣又唯圣人从之故身无奇病君谓奇当为苛字形相似而误苛亦病也古人自有复语字本作 说文 病也下
文逆之则灾害生从之则苛疾不起是谓得道上承此文而言则奇病之当作苛病明矣苛疾与灾害对举则苛亦为病明矣又道者圣
人行之愚者佩之君谓佩读为倍说文倍反也圣人行之愚者佩之谓圣行人穿越道愚者倍道也荀子大略篇一佩易之注佩或为倍是古
通用之证又故圣人传精神君谓传当为抟字之误也抟与专同言圣人精神专一不旁骛也古书专一字多作抟系辞传其静也专释
文专陆作抟昭二十五年左传若琴瑟之专一释文专本作抟史记秦始皇纪抟心揖志索隐抟古专字皆其证又此阴阳更胜之变病
之形能也君谓能读为态荀子天论篇耳目鼻口形能各有接而不相能也形能亦形态楚辞九章固庸态也论衡累害篇态作能汉书
司马相如传君子之态史记徐广本态作能皆古人以能为态之登并因刊正文本达其训故别白精审涣然冰释虽于全书尚未卒业
然绪已立必有赓续之者寿曾尝论医家之有内经博大精深与儒家之五经同而无义疏之学海内学人而知医者曷即王冰之注
辅以全氏逸义用治疏法说其声训名物更采灵枢难经以下古医家言疏通证明俾轩岐大业昭揭于世不为庸师俗工所 则君此
书其先河矣因读君书附论及之
光绪辛巳春三月癸亥朔仪征刘寿曾识于冶城山馆
《汉书·艺文志》收录医家著作,以《黄帝内经》为首。《隋书·经籍志》记载有全元起对《内经》的注解,但该书已经散佚,无法完整见到。现在所流传的版本,只有唐代王冰的注解,其章节句读已经不再是全氏原本的旧貌了。然而,其中古字、古义尚且有留存。
自明代以来,传抄刻印的版本尤其多且混乱。平庸的医生和粗俗的工匠习以为非,认定错误为正确,使得真相无法探究。绩溪人胡君甫,年少时身体瘦弱,中年后多病,因此留心于方药医书。他得到了宋代的《内经》版本,并用元代熊氏本、明代道藏本以及唐代以前的典籍进行校勘订正,多有发明发现。
例如,“饮食有节,起居有常,不妄作劳”,全元起注本写作“饮食有常节,起居有常度,不妄不作”。胡君认为,“作”与“诈”同音通用。《礼记·月令》说“毋或作为淫巧”,郑玄注解说:“现在的《月令》中‘作为’即指‘诈伪’。”“不妄”与“不作”相对成文。“作”古音读若“胙”,上句的“者”、“数”、“度”押韵,下句的“与”、“俱”、“去”押韵。王氏(王冰)将“不妄不作”改为“不妄作劳”,是误读了“作为”中的“作”字,而将其与“作劳”连用,这完全不成文理。
又比如,“持满,不时御神”,胡君认为“时”意为“善”。“不时御神”即“不善御神”。《诗经·小雅·车攻》篇(注:原文此处可能有误,通常引证为《小雅·角弓》或类似篇章,但依原文翻译)“尔淆既时”,毛亨传解释说“时”意为“善”。
还有,“上古圣人之教下也”,全元起注本写作“上古圣人之教也,下皆为之”。胡君认为,“下皆为之”即“下皆化之”。《尚书·梓材》说“厥乱为民”,《论衡·效力》篇引用作“厥率化民”,“是为”即“是化”。这里的“作”是“者”的借字。王氏吴崑(注:原文“王氏吴”可能指王冰或吴崑,结合语境多为批评王冰或后人,此处依原文处理)将“谓”解释为“告”,将“谓之”的“谓”字提升到了上一句,导致“字之上失其指矣”(字上面的意思失去了指向)。
又比如,“唯圣人从之,故身无奇病”,胡君认为“奇”应当是“苛”字,因为字形相似而误写。“苛”也是病的意思。古人自有复语(重复用字表意),原本的字形在《说文解字》中解释为“病”。下文说“逆之则灾害生,从之则苛疾不起,是谓得道”,承袭上文而言,那么“奇病”当作“苛病”是明确的。“苛疾”与“灾害”对举,那么“苛”也是病,这是很明显的。
又说,“道者,圣人行之,愚者佩之”,胡君认为“佩”读为“倍”。《说文解字》说“倍”是“反”的意思。“圣人行之,愚者佩之”意思是圣人践行大道,愚人违背大道。《荀子·大略》篇说“一佩易之”,注解说“佩”有的版本作“倍”,这是古代通用的证据。
又比如,“故圣人传精神”,胡君认为“传”是“抟”字的误写。“抟”与“专”相同,意思是圣人的精神专一,不旁骛。古书中“专”字多写作“抟”。《周易·系辞传》说“其静也专”,陆德明《经典释文》说“专”陆德明本作“抟”。《左传·昭公二十五年》说“若琴瑟之专一”,《经典释文》说“专”本作“抟”。《史记·秦始皇本纪》说“抟心揖志”,司马贞《索隐》说“抟”古通“专”,这些都是证据。
又比如,“此阴阳更胜之变,病之形能也”,胡君认为“能”读为“态”。《荀子·天论》篇说“耳目鼻口形能各有接而不相能也”,“形能”也是形态的意思。《楚辞·九章》说“固庸态也”。《论衡·累害》篇“态”写作“能”。《汉书·司马相如传》说“君子之态”,《史记》徐广本“态”写作“能”。这都是古人以“能”为“态”的证据。
胡君刊正文本,通达训诂,所以辨析精审,让人涣然冰释。虽然全书尚未完成,但纲领已立,必定会有继续完善的人。我曾论述医家中的《内经》,博大精深,与儒家的五经同等重要,但没有义疏之学。海内的学者如果懂医术,何不参照王冰的注解,辅以全氏散佚的义理,用治疏的方法,阐明声训名物?再采集《灵枢》、《难经》以下的古代医家言论,疏通证明,使轩辕、岐伯的伟大事业昭示于世,不被平庸的医生和粗俗的工匠所埋没。那么胡君这本书,就是先河之作了。因此,我读了胡君的书,附上议论于此。
光绪辛巳年(1881年)春三月癸亥朔日,仪征刘寿曾识于冶城山馆。
The *Han Shu* (Book of Han) records medical texts, listing the *Huangdi Neijing* (Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon) as the first. The *Sui Shu* (Book of Sui) mentions that Quan Yuanqi provided a commentary on the *Neijing*, but this work has been lost and cannot be fully seen. What is currently transmitted is only the commentary by Wang Bing of the Tang Dynasty; its chapter divisions and sentence structures are no longer in the original form of Quan's version. However, ancient characters and meanings are still preserved.
Since the Ming Dynasty, there have been numerous editions with many corruptions and confusions. Mediocre physicians and vulgar craftsmen have become accustomed to errors, accepting them as truth, making it impossible to investigate the facts. Hu Fuping from Jixi was frail in his youth and suffered from illnesses in middle age, prompting him to study medical formulas closely. He obtained a Song Dynasty edition of the *Neijing* and collated it using the Yuan Dynasty Xiong's edition, the Ming Daozang edition, and pre-Tang historical records, making many discoveries.
For example, regarding "Diet should have moderation, daily life should have regularity, and reckless exertion should be avoided," Quan Yuanqi's annotation reads: "Diet should have constant moderation, daily life should have constant degree, and reckless non-exertion." Mr. Hu argues that "Zuo" (act/make) is phonetically interchangeable with "Zha" (deceit). In the *Liji* (Book of Rites), *Yueling* (Monthly Ordinances) states, "Do not engage in extravagant craftsmanship," where Zheng Xuan's commentary explains that "Zuo Wei" refers to "fraudulence." "Bu Wang" (not reckless) contrasts with "Bu Zuo" (non-act/exertion). In ancient pronunciation, "Zuo" sounded like "Zuo" (sacrificial meat). The upper rhyme scheme involves "Zhe," "Shu," and "Du," while the lower involves "Yu," "Ju," and "Qu." Wang Bing changed "Bu Wang Bu Zuo" to "Bu Wang Zuo Lao" (reckless labor), misreading the "Zuo" in "Zuo Wei" and linking it with "Zuo Lao," which makes no sense.
Furthermore, regarding "Maintaining fullness, not managing the Shen (Spirit) at proper times," Mr. Hu interprets "Shi" as "good/proper." "Not managing the Shen at proper times" means "managing the Shen poorly." In the *Xiaoya* section of the *Shijing* (Classic of Poetry), specifically the *Bian* chapter, it says "Your confusion is already proper/shi," and Mao Heng's commentary explains "Shi" as "good/proper."
Regarding "In ancient times, the teachings of the sages to the people below," Quan Yuanqi's annotation reads: "The teaching of the ancient sages was such that those below all acted upon it." Mr. Hu suggests that "Those below all acted upon it" implies "Those below were transformed by it." The *Shangshu* (Book of Documents), *Zicai* chapter, states "Its governance serves the people," cited in *Lunheng* (*Li Xiao* chapter) as "Its leadership transforms the people." "Wei Shi" equates to "is transformation." Here, "Zuo" is a loan character for "Zhe" (person/one). Wang Bing/Wu Kun interpreted "Wei" as "to tell/admonish," moving the word "Zhi" (particle) to the previous sentence, causing the meaning above the character to lose its reference.
Also, "Only the sage follows it, thus having no strange diseases in his body," Mr. Hu posits that "Qi" (strange) should be "Ke" (harsh/minor illness) due to similar graphical forms. "Ke" also means disease. Ancient Chinese often used reduplicative expressions. The original character in *Shuowen Jiezi* is defined as "disease." Later text states, "If one goes against it, disasters arise; if one follows it, Ke Ji (harsh/minor illnesses) do not arise; this is called attaining the Dao." Following this context, it is clear that "Qi Bing" should be "Ke Bing." Since "Ke Ji" is paired with "Zai Hai" (disasters), "Ke" clearly denotes disease.
It is further stated, "The Dao is practiced by the sage, but worn/perceived by the fool." Mr. Hu argues that "Pei" (wear/pendant) should be read as "Bei" (reverse/oppose). *Shuowen Jiezi* defines "Bei" as "fan" (reverse). "The sage practices it, the fool Bei it" means the sage walks the Dao, while the fool opposes it. In *Xunzi* (*Dalue* chapter), it says "One Bei changes it," with notes stating "Pei" is sometimes written as "Bei," proving their interchangeability in antiquity.
Additionally, "Thus the sage transmits/concentrates Jing and Shen," Mr. Hu believes "Chuan" (transmit) is a typo for "Tuan" (gather/knead). "Tuan" is synonymous with "Zhuan" (focused/single-minded), meaning the sage's Jing and Shen are focused and not distracted. In ancient texts, "Zhuan" was often written as "Tuan." In the *Xi Ci Zhuan* of the *Yijing* (I Ching), it says "In stillness, it is Zhuan," and Lu Deming's *Jingdian Shiwen* notes that Lu's version writes "Zhuan" as "Tuan." In *Zuo Zhuan* (25th year of Duke Zhao), it says "Like the single-mindedness of zither and lute," with *Shiwen* noting "Zhuan" was originally "Tuan." In *Shiji* (Records of the Grand Historian), *Qin Shi Huang Benji*, it says "Tuan Xin Yi Zhi" (concentrate heart and bow will), and Sima Zhen's *Suoyin* explains "Tuan" is an ancient form of "Zhuan." These are all evidence.
Finally, "This variation of Yin and Yang alternating in superiority is the form/nature of disease," Mr. Hu reads "Neng" (ability) as "Tai" (form/appearance). In *Xunzi* (*Tianlun* chapter), it says "The ears, eyes, nose, and mouth have their respective 'Xing Neng' (forms/abilities) to connect but not mutually replace each other." "Xing Neng" here also means form/appearance. In *Chu Ci* (*Jiu Zhang*), it says "Indeed, a vulgar Tai (form)." In *Lunheng* (*Leihai* chapter), "Tai" is written as "Neng." In *Han Shu* (Biography of Sima Xiangru), it mentions "Jun Zi Zhi Tai" (the form of the gentleman), and Xu Guang's edition of *Shiji* writes "Tai" as "Neng." These are all instances where ancients used "Neng" for "Tai."
Mr. Hu corrected the text and elucidated the meanings, resulting in precise analysis and clarity. Although the entire work is not yet complete, the framework is established, and others will surely continue it. I have previously discussed how the *Neijing* among medical texts is profound and extensive, comparable to the Confucian Five Classics, yet lacking exegetical studies. If scholars within reach of medicine could use Wang Bing's commentary supplemented by Quan's lost insights, employing exegetical methods to explain phonetic loans and named entities, and incorporating ancient medical texts like *Lingshu* and *Nanjing* to clarify and prove these points, the great achievements of Xuanyuan and Qibo would be revealed to the world, rather than obscured by mediocre physicians and vulgar craftsmen. Thus, Mr. Hu's book serves as a pioneer. Having read his book, I append these remarks.
On the first day of the third month of spring in the Xin Si year of the Guangxu reign (1881), Liu Shouzeng of Yizheng inscribed this at the Yecheng Shanguan pavilion.