Shānghán lùn zhù shì 傷寒論注釋
The Shānghán Lùn with Notes and Glosses by 張機 (Zhāng Jī, zì Zhòngjǐng, fl. 196–220, 漢) — original; 王叔和 (Wáng Shūhé, late 3rd c., 晉) — first editor; 成無己 (Chéng Wúyǐ, b. ca. 1063, fl. into 1156, 金) — commentator
About the work
The Sòng校正醫書局 base text of Zhāng Jī’s Shānghán lùn in ten juan, with the systematic commentary of Chéng Wúyǐ — completed in the early Jīn (Chéng’s preface dates to ca. 1144) and the first complete commentary on the Shānghán lùn. The work is appended in the SKQS edition by Chéng’s two original treatises, the Shānghán mínglǐ lùn 傷寒明理論 (in three juan, fifty 篇) and the Lùn fāng 論方 (in one juan, twenty 篇), in which Chéng systematizes the Shānghán’s diagnostic categories (chills-and-shivering 戰慄 with inner-and-outer signs; agitation-and-restlessness 煩躁 with yīn-and-yáng types; zhānyǔ 譫語 vs. zhèngshēng 鄭聲 distinguishing emptiness and fullness; the four “reverse” 四逆 and “extremity-cold” 厥 with their depths) and the prescriptions’ ruler-minister-assistant-courier (君臣佐使) logic. Chéng’s commentary is the canonical SòngJīnYuán reading of the Shānghán lùn and the textual basis for all later commentary, even where (as in Fāng Yǒuzhí’s Tiáobiàn and Yú Chāng’s Shànglùn piān) it is attacked.
Tiyao
[Sub-classification: 子部十三 醫家類一. Edition: 內府藏本.] — drawn from Kyoto Zinbun (entry 0208702), since the local source KR3e0008_000.txt is the SBCK base print and its frontmatter consists of yùnqì 運氣 cosmological diagrams and Yán Qìzhī’s preface to the Mínglǐ lùn, but no SKQS tíyào.
Shānghán lùn in ten juan, by Zhāng Jī of the Hàn, edited by Wáng Shūhé of the Jìn, annotated by Chéng Wúyǐ of the Jīn. Mínglǐ lùn in three juan and Lùn fāng in one juan are Wúyǐ’s own compositions, written to elaborate Zhāng Jī’s teaching. Shūhé was a man of Gāopíng who held the office of Imperial Physician (Tàiyī lìng). Wúyǐ was a man of Liáoshè 聊攝, born in the Sòng Jiāyòu–Zhìpíng period (1056–1067); when Liáoshè later fell under Jīn rule, he became a Jīn subject. By the year Zhènglóng 丙子 (1156) of the [Jīn] Hǎilíngwáng, he was over ninety and still living — so the postface (跋) of Zhāng Xiàozhōng 張孝忠 of Kāixǐ 1 (1205) testifies. The Míng publisher Wú Miǎnxué 吳勉學 prints this work as “by a Sòng man,” which is incorrect.
The Shānghán lùn opens with the Sòng校正醫書局 presentation memorial by Gāo Bǎohéng, Sūn Qí, Lín Yì, etc., which states: “In the Kāibǎo period (968–976), the Military Commissioner Gāo Jìchōng 高繼沖 once compiled and presented this work, but its language was disordered and could not be corrected. Now, by imperial decree, the Confucian officials are ordered to collate the medical books, and we have first standardized Zhòngjǐng’s Shānghán lùn in ten juan, twenty-two 篇, three hundred and ninety-seven fǎ, and after eliminating duplications, one hundred and thirteen prescriptions. (N.B. — the original version had ‘一十二’ [twelve]; this is a typographical error and is here corrected to ‘一十三’ [thirteen].) We now request that it be promulgated for circulation.” It further states: “From Zhòngjǐng’s day to the present, eight hundred years have passed, and only Wáng Shūhé has been able to learn from him.” But the Míng physician Fāng Yǒuzhí 方有執, in his Shānghán lùn tiáobiàn 傷寒論條辨 (1592), denounced both Shūhé’s editing and Wúyǐ’s annotation as full of unwarranted alterations and emendations, and dismissed the “Preface and Examples” 序例 chapter as a Shūhé pseudepigraphic insertion, deleting it. Yú Chāng 喻昌 of our dynasty, in the Shànglùn piān 尚論篇, attacked Shūhé’s editorial sequence, the errors of the Preface-Examples, Wúyǐ’s annotation, and the校正醫書局 collation in even greater detail, re-collating the entire work and claiming to have restored Zhāng’s “old Chángshā original” — a recension that has circulated widely. As a result, Wáng Shūhé and Chéng Wúyǐ’s recensions have rather faded from view.
Yet Shūhé was a great physician of his age, not far removed from antiquity, and his learning had a transmission. Wúyǐ on this single text laboured to the end of his life, and must himself have penetrated it deeply. They cannot be summarily dismissed as wholly wrong. Zhū Xī rearranged the Dàxué 大學 into one jīng and ten zhuàn, and divided the Zhōngyōng 中庸 into thirty-three chapters; for the student this was no small benefit, but to insist that the Confucian schools must originally have read it that way is unsupported by certain evidence. Today the Dàxué and Zhōngyōng are taught in the Imperial Academy in both Zhū Xī’s recension and Zhèng Xuán’s recension; neither has been pushed aside. How then can later scholars’ re-edition of this medical work be made the occasion to discard the WángChéng base recension?
Of Wúyǐ’s own Mínglǐ lùn, fifty 篇 in three juan, and his twenty 篇 Lùn fāng — on the meaning of the ruler-minister-assistant-courier prescriptive logic — the exposition is particularly clear. Yán Qìzhī’s 嚴器之 preface says: “Wúyǐ’s exposition of Shānghán meanings consists of much that earlier authorities had never quite said: defining the underlying body, distinguishing forms, parsing patterns. Where things look the same but differ, he clarifies; where they look right but are wrong, he discerns. He explains zhànlì 戰慄 with both inner and outer signs; he discusses fánzào 煩躁 by yīnyáng distinction; zhānyǔ 譫語 and zhèngshēng 鄭聲 he disposes by the lucid sign of empty and full; the four reverses 四逆 and jué 厥 he sorts by depth and surface.” His enthusiasm is great. Zhāng Xiàozhōng’s bá also reports: “Wúyǐ’s two collections [Zhùjiě Shānghán lùn and Mínglǐ lùn] travelled from north to south. First, in Shàoxīng gēngxū (1130), I obtained the ten-juan Shānghán lùn zhù from the household of the physician Wáng Guāngtíng 王光廷; later, when I served as governor of Jīngmén, I sought out and obtained the four-juan Mínglǐ lùn in Xiāngyáng, and accordingly had blocks cut for printing in Chēnshān.” So in his own day already the work was greatly esteemed.
Abstract
The composition window for Chéng Wúyǐ’s commentary is bracketed by the boundary of his Sòng-to-Jīn period (Liáoshè fell to the Jīn in 1127) and his most active scholarly years; the explicit dating in the Yán Qìzhī preface and Zhāng Xiàozhōng bá — which testifies to the Shānghán lùn zhù circulating in Sòng territory by 1130 — gives an upper bound of ca. 1144 for the completed annotated text. Chéng’s pre-1127 Sòng-period activities are documented but his commentary specifically belongs to the Jīn-period segment of his career; the catalog notBefore/notAfter are accordingly set at 1127 / 1144, the period during which Chéng worked under Jīn rule and the Zhùjiě Shānghán lùn reached its completed form.
The textual ancestry: the Sòng校正醫書局 collation (presented 1066, by Gāo Bǎohéng, Sūn Qí, Lín Yì, Sūn Zhào, with Gāo Jìchōng’s earlier Kāibǎo-period redaction as a starting point) gives the standard ten-juan, twenty-two-篇, 397-fǎ, 113-prescription form. Chéng’s commentary takes that base, adds running annotation, and supplements with his own Mínglǐ lùn (50 篇 in 3 juan) and Lùn fāng (20 篇 in 1 juan). The whole package was promulgated in the Jīn and circulated south through Zhāng Xiàozhōng’s 1205 Chēnshān reprint. The SKQS chose this WángChéng base recension despite Yú Chāng’s vigorous Qīng-period campaign for “restoration” of Zhāng’s pristine Hàn original, on the philological grounds (clearly stated in the tíyào — the Dàxué / Zhōngyōng analogy) that no certainty of reconstruction can be claimed and the WángChéng line preserves a real and continuous transmission.
The Shānghán lùn’s twenty-two 篇 cover: prefatorial 序例; biàn (analysis) of the Tàiyáng (3 juan), Yángmíng, Shàoyáng, Tàiyīn, Shàoyīn, Juéyīn channel-disease patterns; huò luàn (cholera-like disorders); yīnyáng yì hòu láo fù (post-recovery yīnyáng exhaustion). The 113 prescriptions (corrected from the 112 of the tíyào’s erroneous earlier print) include such canonical formulae as Guìzhī tāng 桂枝湯, Máhuáng tāng 麻黃湯, Xiǎocháihú tāng 小柴胡湯, Báihǔ tāng 白虎湯, Sìnì tāng 四逆湯, Lǐzhōng tāng 理中湯, and Chéngqì tāng 承氣湯.
Translations and research
- Hong-yen Hsu, William Peacher, and Roy Upton, Shang Han Lun: Wellspring of Chinese Medicine, Long Beach, CA: Oriental Healing Arts Institute, 1981 (Hsu Hong-yen translation; not based on Chéng Wúyǐ specifically).
- Craig Mitchell, Féng Yè 馮燁, and Nigel Wiseman, Shāng Hán Lùn: On Cold Damage — Translation and Commentaries, Brookline, MA: Paradigm Publications, 1999. The standard Western scholarly translation, with extensive citation of Chéng Wúyǐ and the later commentarial tradition.
- Otsuka Yasuo 大塚 敬節, Shōkanron kōgi 傷寒論講義, Tōkyō: Sōgensha, 1966; rev. 1979. The principal Japanese clinical commentary, partly drawing on the Wáng-Chéng line.
- Goldschmidt, Asaf, The Evolution of Chinese Medicine: Song Dynasty, 960–1200, London: Routledge, 2009 (esp. ch. 6 on the校正醫書局’s Shānghán lùn recension).
- Liào Yùqún 廖育群, Yīxué yǔ chuántǒng wénhuà 醫學與傳統文化, Tianjin: Bǎihuā Wényì, 2002 (essay on the Sòng-Jīn-Yuán Shānghán reception).
- Despeux, Catherine. Shanghan lun: Les traités majeurs de la médecine chinoise, Paris: Trédaniel, 1985 (French translation, partial).
Other points of interest
The Sìkù tíyào — both Kyoto Zinbun and the WYG manuscript — preserves a self-correction at the cited 113-prescription count: the original Sòng校正醫書局 print apparently had 一十二 (twelve) by typographical error, and the tíyào editors flag the correction. This is a useful diagnostic for the textual transmission of the校正醫書局 presentation memorial itself.
The Míng publisher Wú Miǎnxué 吳勉學 — whose imprint of the Gǔjīn yī tǒng zhèngmài quánshū 古今醫統正脈全書 (1601) is widely cited in MíngQīng medical scholarship — mistakenly attributes Chéng Wúyǐ to the Sòng (since Liáoshè was Sòng territory at his birth). The SKQS tíyào corrects this to Jīn on the philological evidence of the Zhāng Xiàozhōng bá. This is the kind of error CLAUDE.md asks us to preserve and flag in the catalog rather than silently emending.