«Stephen Boyanton Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and ...»
Evidence for the Existence of Other Editions of the Treatise on Cold Damage before 1065 In addition to the several editions of the Treatise which are known to have been circulating in the Song before 1065, there is evidence in other surviving texts of yet other preeditions of the Treatise. The imperial edition of the Treatise itself contains abundant evidence to this effect. Though they are often omitted in later editions of the text, the original imperial edition, as preserved in the Zhao Kaimei edition, contains numerous annotations in smaller print made by the Song editors. A small number of these notes—introduced by the phrase, “The humble officials, [Lin] Yi et al. … 臣乙等…”—are opinions of the editors on points of interpretation and treatment, but the majority are notes on variations in a given line which the editors found in other editions of the Treatise while compiling the imperial edition (I
have placed the text in small characters in parentheses):
As for yang-brightness being ill, this is the stomach domain being replete (one [edition] says, “cold”).88 陽明之為病，胃家實（一作寒）是也。 In visceral bind, when there is no yang pattern, there are no alternating fever and chills (one [edition] says, “there is cold but no heat”), contrary to expectations the person is quiescent, and there is a slippery coat on top of the tongue, one cannot forcefully purge [the patient].89 藏結，無陽證，不往來寒熱（一云寒而不熱），其人反靜，舌上胎滑者，不可攻也。 Some of the variations referred to in these notes can be found in the extant editions mentioned above. The variation mentioned in the first quote, for instance, can be found in both the Tang edition and the Gao Jichong edition. On the other hand some of the variations, such as that in the second quote, cannot be found in any known edition, indicating that the Bureau’s editors had access to editions of the Treatise which are no longer available.
The Illustrated Classic of Materia Medica (Bencao tujing 本草圖經), also contains citations from the Treatise which match none of its extant editions. The Illustrated Classic was the second text produced by the Bureau, in 1063, two years before the imperial edition of the Treatise. In the discussions following the entries for 47 medicinals, the Illustrated Classic mentions 47 formulae by Zhang Ji, but some of these formulae do not tally with known editions Juan 5, pian 8, p. 6, line 180, in Zhang Ji, Zhongjing quanshu, 424.
Juan 4, pian 7, p. 6, line 130, in ibid., 403.
of the Treatise. In some cases, the formulae differ in ingredients from the versions listed in extant editions. Others differ in the quantities of ingredients prescribed or the instructions for preparing and taking the formula. Fifteen formulae differ in name, though otherwise identical with formulae found in extant texts by Zhang Ji. Other formulae differ in the quantifier used for counting medicinals.90 Finally, three formulae which the Illustrated Classic attributes to Zhang Ji are found in none of his extant works.91 Though written after 1065, Cheng Wuji’s (成無己, ca. 1063-1156) Annotated Treatise on Cold Damage (Zhujie Shanghan lun 註解傷寒論, 1144) also contains indications that Cheng was drawing upon editions of the Treatise that have since been lost. In the “Explanation of Pronunciation (shiyin 釋音)” sections which he places at the end of every fascicle, Cheng explains the pronunciation of several characters which are not found in any extant edition of the Treatise: 人葠 for 人參 (renshen, ginseng root) and 茈胡 for 柴胡 (chaihu, bupleurum root).92 As the early 20th century physician Lu Yuanlei (陸淵雷, 1894-1955) observed, “[We] thus know that the Cheng edition preserves many ancient characters 則知成本多存古字.”93 Cheng came from a family of physicians. It would not be surprising if he had access to editions of the Treatise circulating among non-elite physicians. The existence of such otherwise unknown medical texts Prior to the Tang it was typical to use the character wu 物, “thing,” to count medicinals in a formula; after the Tang it was customary to use the character wei 味, “flavor.” Guo Xiumei et al., “Bencao tujing yin Zhongjing fanglun kaoyi,” in Zhang Zhongjing yanjiu jicheng, by Qian Chaochen and Wen Changlu (Beijing: Zhongyi Guji Chubanshe, 2004), 895–98; see also, Su Ying and Zhao Gongyan, Bencao tujing yanjiu (Beijing: Renmin Weisheng Chubanshe, 2011), 44–103; and scattered comments on individual medicinals in, Mori Tatsuyuki, Honzōkyō Kōchū (Shanghai: Shanghai Kexue Jishu Chubanshe, 2005).
Juan 3, shiyin, in Cheng Wuji, Cheng Wuji yixue quanshu, ed. Zhang Guojun (Beijing: Zhongguo Zhongyiyao Chubanshe, 2004), 89.
Lu Yuanlei, Shanghan lun jin shi (Beijing: Renmin Weisheng Chubanshe, 1955), 2.
is supported a comment by Pang Anshi (龐安時, 1042-1099), also from a family of physicians, praising one such text passed down in his family.94 The Treatise on Cold Damage in the Song prior to 1065: A Text in Diverse Editions This part of the chapter has shown that, though circulated in manuscript form and certainly in far fewer numbers than after 1065, the Treatise on Cold Damage was not only extant prior its imperial publication, it was extant in several, varying editions.95 As with the pre-Song cold damage tradition, the image presented by this data is not of a text which has been neglected, but rather of a text whose popularity and methods of transmission have led to the production of numerous editions differing to varying degrees.
Asaf Goldschmidt has argued that the decision to edit and print the Treatise on Cold Damage was an unusual choice by the Bureau’s editors to revive a largely forgotten Han medical text which was at odds with the medical standards of their times.96 The data presented here do not support such a view. An unimportant and forgotten text would not be circulating in so many editions. The imperial edition of the Treatise was not the revival of a neglected text, but the standardization and promulgation of a text already widely admired.
Juan 6, bianlun and shang Suzi zhanduan mingbian Shanghan lun shu, in Zhu Gong and Pang Anshi, Zhu Gong, Pang Anshi yixue quanshu, ed. Tian Sisheng (Beijing: Zhongguo Zhongyiyao Chubanshe, 2006), 201–202.
For discussions of many of the specific points on which these editions differed, see Okada Kenkichi et al., Sō izen shōkanron kō.
Goldschmidt, “Epidemics and Medicine,” 78, 86–87; Goldschmidt, Evolution, 92–95.
Part III: Cold Damage Studies After 1065 When the Bureau’s editors sat down to produce an imperial edition of the Treatise on Cold Damage, they had at their disposal a large number of divergent editions of the text. The notes in small characters, discussed above, reveal the thoroughness with which they compared these editions. The first edition of this text published in 1065 was a bulky and expensive largeprint edition and appears to have circulated in very small numbers. A second, small-print edition, was published in 1088, reached a far wider audience, and was followed by a massive transformation in the cold damage studies tradition.97 Following the publication of the imperial edition, the number of texts written on cold damage soared. Prior to 1065, only eleven texts devoted to cold damage are known. Between 1065 and the end of the Song dynasty in 1279, 75 such texts were produced. Unlike the pre-Song cold damage studies tradition, however, post-1065 cold damage texts were all focused on the Treatise to the near exclusion of all other pre-Song sources. Even the Inner Classic corpus, though it continued to be cited by way of explaining difficult passages in the Treatise, ceased to be an important source for cold damage studies in its own right. No cold damage text written after 1065 relied upon the Inner Classic as its primary content. Most of the other texts in the preSong tradition were preserved only in the large compendia of the Tang and early Song, where they served as sources of formulae not found in the Treatise, but were subordinated to the Treatise’s doctrinal framework.
At least as important as the number of texts written on the Treatise was a change in their types. If compendia and compilations overwhelmingly dominated the cold damage studies tradition prior to the Song, from 1065 onward books devoted exclusively to cold damage were Shanghan lun, Guozilan preface, in Zhang Ji, Zhongjing quanshu, 309.
the norm. Before 1065, no text except the Inner Classic corpus had been the subject of commentary or had entire books devoted to it. After 1065, explications, expansions, and commentaries on the Treatise—all three were often included in a single text—became the dominant form of cold damage literature, and the number of texts devoted exclusively to the Treatise far exceeded those devoted to any other medical text. In contrast to the 75 texts written on the Treatise between 1065 and 1279, a mere nineteen were composed on texts in the Inner Classic corpus.
Besides writing new kinds of texts, cold damage authors began to speak to one another via their texts in new ways. In the pre-Song cold damage tradition, references to other medical texts were confined to citation, either of formulae or doctrinal points. In my survey of pre-Song
cold damage texts, I have found only four references to medical texts which were not citations:
Chen Yanzhi’s discussion of which texts constituted the “great works (dapin 大品)” of medicine,98 Sun Simiao’s list of works which physicians ought to study,99 Huangfu Mi’s discussion of the history of Zhang Ji’s works,100 and Tao Hongjing’s complaint that Zhang Ji changed the names of the formulae found in Canonical Methods of Decoction.101 Of these four, only Tao’s complaint is a response to the content of another text, and even Tao does not debate with the Treatise, merely noting Zhang Ji’s actions without formulating an argument against them.
From 1065 onward, however, a genuinely intertextual dialogue and debate began among cold damage texts. These arguments covered a wide variety of topics. One of the earliest such Jingfang xiaopin, juan 1, shu kan fangjue, in Yan Shiyun and Li Qizhong, Sanguo liang Jin Nanbeichao yixue zongji, 785.
Qianjin yaofang, juan 1, dayi xiye diyi in Sun Simiao, Sun Simiao yixue quanshu, 17.
Zhenjiu jiayi jing, author’s preface, in Huangfu Mi, Zhenjiu jiayi jing jiaozhu, 16–17.
Fuxingjue zangfu yongyao fayao, in Ma Jixing, Dunhuang Yiyao Wenxian Jijiao, 193.
debates centered on the meaning of a rare character found in two lines of the Treatise. The original lines in the Treatise read, In greater yang illness, if the nape and back are stiff and rigid, but contrary to expectations there is sweating and aversion to wind, cinnamon twig decoction with kudzu root added governs it.102 太陽病，項背強几几，反汗出悪風者，桂枝加葛根湯主之。 In greater yang illness, if the nape and back are stiff and rigid, there is no sweating, and there is an aversion to wind, kudzu root decoction governs it.103 太陽病，項背強几几，無汗無風者，葛根湯主之。 The center of the dispute was the meaning and, to a lesser extent, pronunciation of the characters “几几.”104 In discussing one of his case histories, Xu Shuwei (許叔微, 1080-1154) argued
against two other authors:
What does “几几” mean? It is like the form of a short-feathered bird. Although [its neck] is stretched out, it is also rigid. Xie Fugu says that this means the ill person is emaciated and weak and must lean on a table in order to stand up. This is incorrect. [My explanation] is [also] not the same as that of Mr. Cheng.105 何謂几几，如短羽鳥之狀，雖屈而強也。謝復古謂病人羸弱，須憑几而起，非是。此與 成氏解不同。 Xie Fugu (謝復古, fl. N. Song) is otherwise known only for his Commentary on the Classic of Difficulties (Nanjing zhu 難經注), which is no longer extant, but Mr. Cheng (Cheng shi 成氏) refers to Cheng Wuji. His commentary on the Treatise presents a very different interpretation of
“几几” is the appearance of an outstretched neck. When [the ill person] moves, he stretches out his neck, shakes his body, and then moves.
几几者，伸頸之貌也。動則伸頸，搖身而行。 Line 14, juan 2, pian 5, p. 14b, in Zhang Ji, Zhongjing quanshu, 361.
Line 31, juan 3, pian 6, p. 8b, in ibid., 375.
Nowadays, following Cheng Wuji, these characters are normally pronounced “shūshū,” see Li Peisheng and Liu Duzhou, eds., Shanghan lun jiangyi (Shanghai: Shanghai Kexue Jishu Chubanshe, 1985), 21; and Cheng Wuji, Zhujie Shanghan lun, juan 2, pian 5, in Cheng Wuji, Cheng Wuji yixue quanshu, 69.
Shanghan jiushi lun, gegen tang di’ershi, in Xu Shuwei, Xu Shuwei yixue quanshu, 62.
Xu’s references to these two texts is neither mere citation—he does not even attempt to paraphrase Cheng Wuji—nor a simple listing of other relevant medical texts. He directly refers to the content of these two texts and engages in an intertextual argument with them. For the first time in Chinese history, medical authors were truly in dialogue with one another.