Chinese Text Project : Neijing Suwen 72 and 73

Discussion -> Chinese Text Project -> Neijing Suwen 72 and 73

This thread relates to:

《黃帝內經·刺法論》
《黃帝內經·本病論》

2011-05-21 22:51:02Neijing Suwen 72 and 73
Posted by: mmaster	I've been using this site to start translating the Neijing. However, I was under the impression that Suwen 72 and 73 were lost, at least in the Wang Bing version which seems to be the most widely used version. On this site, there is text for both of these chapters. Does anyone know where this particular text came from?
Posted by: mmaster

2011-05-23 18:11:59Neijing Suwen 72 and 73
Posted by: dsturgeon (Donald Sturgeon)	Although I don't know the details of the textual history involved, those two chapters do appear in some editions, for example this one in which I've bookmarked the start of the two chapters, but not for example in the 《四部叢刊》 edition which states that they are lost. I think the text may come from the 《黄帝內徑素問遺篇》 in the 《四部備要》, but I don't have access to a copy at the moment. Hopefully it will soon be possible to have scans of the relevant editions in the new Library section of the site for confirmation.

2011-05-23 18:11:59Neijing Suwen 72 and 73

Posted by: dsturgeon (Donald Sturgeon)

Although I don't know the details of the textual history involved, those two chapters do appear in some editions, for example this one in which I've bookmarked the start of the two chapters, but not for example in the 《四部叢刊》 edition which states that they are lost. I think the text may come from the 《黄帝內徑素問遺篇》 in the 《四部備要》, but I don't have access to a copy at the moment. Hopefully it will soon be possible to have scans of the relevant editions in the new Library section of the site for confirmation.

2011-05-29 13:52:24Neijing Suwen 72 and 73
Posted by: remnant	Yu Jiaxi』s (餘嘉錫) 四庫提要辨證 (Corrections and Investigations of the Siku tiyao) quotes the relevant portion of the Siku tiyao on the 「Apocryphal Chapters」[ 遺篇] while offering further clarification. The relevant portion of the Tiyao itself states: 「Writen by Liu Wenshu [劉溫舒] of the Song dynasty, [the book] contains a preface by Liu dated in the yiluan year of the Yuanfu reign (ca. 1098). At the end of the juan [i.e. the Suwen rushi yunqi lunao] is appended the cifa lun in one juan, entitled 「The apocryphal chapter[s] of the Huangdi neijing suwen」. Note that the loss of the Sifa lun occurred prior to Wang Bing』s writing of his commentary. Wenshu lived during the end of the Northern Song, from where could have procured it [i.e. the apocryphal chapter[s]]? It also cannot be known from whose hand the commentary [contained in the apocryphal chapters] derives. It would seem there was some false attribution [to Wang Bing], and it cannot be relied on its entirety.」 Yu Jiaxi corrects and supplements this as follows: 「The appendices comprising the Apocryphal Chapters actually include the cifa lun and the benbing lun, in total two juan. The Tiyao only mentions the cifa lun, probably because the editor did not read to the end. The table of contents of juan 21 of the Suwen states: 『chapter 71, the liuyuan zhengji dalun and chapter 72, the cifa lun are lost; chapter 73, the benbing lun is lost.』 Lin Yi and the other editors of the New Collation [of the Huangdi neijing state 『Careful investigation of these two [sic.] chapters shows that they were lost before the time of Wang Bing. Note that at the end of the benneng lun chapter, Wang Bing』s commentary states that all extant editions were missing two chapters from the seventh juan; it was referring to these two chapters. Yet, today there are the lost chapters of the Suwen and the Zhaoming yizhi lun, and the commentary attached to these three chapters continues to be falsely attributed to Wang Bing. The diction [unclear whether this is referring to the chapters or the commentary or both] is base and vulgar, and there is nothing worth incorporating into the true work.」 On this basis, these two chapters can be considered to have been lost by the time of the Tang editions, so whence could they have been procured? And since Wang Bing himself never saw the text of the chapters, how could we have his commentary to them? That these were falsely attributed is obvious. But Lin Yi et al collated the Suwen in the Jiayou era of the Renzong reign (1056-1064), some thirty odd years before the yiluan year of Yuanfu [when Liu Wenshu published his work], so by Lin Yi』s time there was already such as thing as the 「Lost Chapters of the Suwen」, so these two chapters must derive from before the Northern Song, and initially it was not Liu Wenshu who falsely attributed them to Wang Bing. That the commentary was also falsely attributed to Wang Bing was not noticed by the editors of the Tiyao. Based on Lin Yi et al』s work, aside from these two chapters, there was also a Zhaoming yizhi lun [照明遺旨論] chapter which was not contained in Liu Shuwen』s work. Perhaps Liu Wenshu deleted the Zhaoming chapter and did not include it in his 「Lost Chapters」 because the Wang Bing edition was only missing the two chapters cifa and benbing, and Zhaoming was not originally a part of the Suwen?」 [餘嘉錫, 四庫提要辨證, 卷20，子部3，pp. 674-675.] Based on this summary from Yu Jiaxin, we can conclude as follows: 1. None of the editions Wang Bing (ca. 672) himself saw contained chapters 72 or 73. 2. The apocryphal chapters were in circulation no later than ca. 1056. So one of the following is possible: (i) the true chapters were still extant in WB』s time but he never saw them, someone eventually appended spurious commentaries ostensibly by WB to give them authority, and Liu Wenshu adopted these at face value; (ii) other medical texts floating around post-Tang were ascribed to be the lost chapters with the same steps then taken as in (i) above, (iii) they were purely forged chapters put forward as real and accepted by LWS. 3. Lin et al refer to the chapters as 「lost」 [亡], whereas Liu refers to them as 「apocryphal」 [遺]. A decision in itself editorial and conclusory. Because the HDNJ is itself an eclectic text put together over time, any of these are possible. Although, WB』s and Lin Yi』s statements make (ii) or (iii) the more likely, particularly if there really are linguistic differences between chapters 72 and 73 and the rest of the work as Lin Yi claims. For additional discussion of the textual history of the HDNJ, although with little discussion of, or light shed on, these two chapters, see Nathan Sivin』s chapter in Loewe, ed., Early Chinese Texts (pp. 196-215).

2011-05-29 13:52:24Neijing Suwen 72 and 73

Posted by: remnant

Yu Jiaxi』s (餘嘉錫) 四庫提要辨證 (Corrections and Investigations of the Siku tiyao) quotes the relevant portion of the Siku tiyao on the 「Apocryphal Chapters」[ 遺篇] while offering further clarification.

The relevant portion of the Tiyao itself states: 「Writen by Liu Wenshu [劉溫舒] of the Song dynasty, [the book] contains a preface by Liu dated in the yiluan year of the Yuanfu reign (ca. 1098). At the end of the juan [i.e. the Suwen rushi yunqi lunao] is appended the cifa lun in one juan, entitled 「The apocryphal chapter[s] of the Huangdi neijing suwen」. Note that the loss of the Sifa lun occurred prior to Wang Bing』s writing of his commentary. Wenshu lived during the end of the Northern Song, from where could have procured it [i.e. the apocryphal chapter[s]]? It also cannot be known from whose hand the commentary [contained in the apocryphal chapters] derives. It would seem there was some false attribution [to Wang Bing], and it cannot be relied on its entirety.」

Yu Jiaxi corrects and supplements this as follows: 「The appendices comprising the Apocryphal Chapters actually include the cifa lun and the benbing lun, in total two juan. The Tiyao only mentions the cifa lun, probably because the editor did not read to the end. The table of contents of juan 21 of the Suwen states: 『chapter 71, the liuyuan zhengji dalun and chapter 72, the cifa lun are lost; chapter 73, the benbing lun is lost.』 Lin Yi and the other editors of the New Collation [of the Huangdi neijing state 『Careful investigation of these two [sic.] chapters shows that they were lost before the time of Wang Bing. Note that at the end of the benneng lun chapter, Wang Bing』s commentary states that all extant editions were missing two chapters from the seventh juan; it was referring to these two chapters. Yet, today there are the lost chapters of the Suwen and the Zhaoming yizhi lun, and the commentary attached to these three chapters continues to be falsely attributed to Wang Bing. The diction [unclear whether this is referring to the chapters or the commentary or both] is base and vulgar, and there is nothing worth incorporating into the true work.」 On this basis, these two chapters can be considered to have been lost by the time of the Tang editions, so whence could they have been procured? And since Wang Bing himself never saw the text of the chapters, how could we have his commentary to them? That these were falsely attributed is obvious. But Lin Yi et al collated the Suwen in the Jiayou era of the Renzong reign (1056-1064), some thirty odd years before the yiluan year of Yuanfu [when Liu Wenshu published his work], so by Lin Yi』s time there was already such as thing as the 「Lost Chapters of the Suwen」, so these two chapters must derive from before the Northern Song, and initially it was not Liu Wenshu who falsely attributed them to Wang Bing. That the commentary was also falsely attributed to Wang Bing was not noticed by the editors of the Tiyao. Based on Lin Yi et al』s work, aside from these two chapters, there was also a Zhaoming yizhi lun [照明遺旨論] chapter which was not contained in Liu Shuwen』s work. Perhaps Liu Wenshu deleted the Zhaoming chapter and did not include it in his 「Lost Chapters」 because the Wang Bing edition was only missing the two chapters cifa and benbing, and Zhaoming was not originally a part of the Suwen?」 [餘嘉錫, 四庫提要辨證, 卷20，子部3，pp. 674-675.]

Based on this summary from Yu Jiaxin, we can conclude as follows:

1. None of the editions Wang Bing (ca. 672) himself saw contained chapters 72 or 73.

2. The apocryphal chapters were in circulation no later than ca. 1056. So one of the following is possible: (i) the true chapters were still extant in WB』s time but he never saw them, someone eventually appended spurious commentaries ostensibly by WB to give them authority, and Liu Wenshu adopted these at face value; (ii) other medical texts floating around post-Tang were ascribed to be the lost chapters with the same steps then taken as in (i) above, (iii) they were purely forged chapters put forward as real and accepted by LWS.

3. Lin et al refer to the chapters as 「lost」 [亡], whereas Liu refers to them as 「apocryphal」 [遺]. A decision in itself editorial and conclusory.

Because the HDNJ is itself an eclectic text put together over time, any of these are possible. Although, WB』s and Lin Yi』s statements make (ii) or (iii) the more likely, particularly if there really are linguistic differences between chapters 72 and 73 and the rest of the work as Lin Yi claims.

For additional discussion of the textual history of the HDNJ, although with little discussion of, or light shed on, these two chapters, see Nathan Sivin』s chapter in Loewe, ed., Early Chinese Texts (pp. 196-215).

2011-06-06 21:05:51Neijing Suwen 72 and 73
Posted by: mmaster	Thanks. That was very useful.
Posted by: mmaster

To participate in the discussion, please log in to your CTP account using the form below. If you don't yet have an account, click here to set one up.

Enjoy this site? Please help.

Site design and content copyright 2006-2024. When quoting or citing information from this site, please link to the corresponding page or to https://ctext.org. Please note that the use of automatic download software on this site is strictly prohibited, and that users of such software are automatically banned without warning to save bandwidth. 沪ICP备09015720号-3

Comments? Suggestions? Please raise them here.