论文部分内容阅读
《本草纲目》是以《政和本草》为蓝本编撰的，所引《日华子本草》资料均来源于《政和本草》。用《大观》、《政和》同《纲目》核对，发现《纲目》所引《日华子本草》很多资料出处均与《大观》、《政和》不相同。表现为《纲目》误注“日华子”文为其他文；《纲目》误注其他文为“日华子”文；《纲目》引“日华子”文脱漏标记；《纲目》所引“日华子”文不见于《证类本草》。这是由于当时李时珍所参考《政和本草》版本不同所致，或因抄录或因刻版所误。这些讹误容易以讹传讹，造成文献上的混乱。
“Compendium of Materia Medica” is based on the “Political and Materia Medica” as a blueprint, cited “Japan-Japan Herbal” data are derived from “Political and Materia Medica.” Using the “Grand View” and “Governmental Peace” to check with the “Outline”, it was found that many sources of information in the “Japan-China Herbal Medicine” cited in the “Outline” are not the same as those in “Grand View” and “Government and Peace”. In the Compendium, the misunderstanding of the “Japan-China Scholar” text is misinterpreted; the “Outline” misinterprets other texts as the “Japan-China Scholar” text; the “Outline” refers to the “Japanese-Chinese Scholar” text. The “Japanese-Chinese” text is not seen in the “Writing Series of Herbal Medicine.” This was due to the fact that Li Shizhen’s reference to the “Political and Materia Medica” version was different, either because of transcription or because of the wrong edition. These fallacies are easily ambiguous and cause confusion in the literature.