《神农本草经》三卷，所传白字书，见《大观本草》。
按∶《嘉 补注》序云∶所谓《神农本经》者，以朱字；《名医》因神农旧条而有增补者，
以墨字间于朱字。《开宝重定》序云∶旧经三卷，世所流传，《名医别录》，互为编纂。至梁
贞白先生陶弘景，乃以《别录》参其《本经》，朱墨杂书，时谓明白。据此，则宋所传黑白
字书，实陶弘景手书之本。自梁以前，神农、黄帝、岐伯、雷公、扁鹊，各有成书，魏吴普
见之，故其说药性主治，各家殊异。后人纂为一书，然犹有旁注，或朱、墨字之别，《本经》
之文以是不乱。旧说，本草之名，仅见《汉书·平帝纪》及《楼护传》。予按∶《艺文志》有
《神农黄帝食药》七卷，今本伪为《食禁》，贾公彦《周礼》医师疏引其文，正作《食药》，
宋人不考。遂疑《本草》非《七略》中书。贾公彦引《中经簿》，又有《子仪本草经》一卷，
疑亦此也。梁《七录》有《神农本草》三卷，其卷数不同者，古今分合之异。神农之世，书
契未作，说者以此疑《经》，如皇甫谧言，则知四卷成于黄帝。陶弘景云，轩辕以前，文本
未传，药性所主，尝以识识相因。至于桐、雷，乃着在于编简，此书当与《素问》同类，其
言良是。且《艺文志》，农、兵、五行、杂占、经方、神仙诸家，俱有神农书。大抵述作有
本，其传非妄。是以《博物志》云∶太古书今见存，有《神农经》、《春秋传注》。贾逵以《三
坟》为三皇之书，神农预其列。《史记》言∶秦始皇不去医药卜筮之书，则此《经》幸与《周
易》并存。颜之推《家训》乃云∶《本草》神农所述，而有豫章、朱崖、赵国、常山、奉高、
真定、临淄、冯翊等郡县名，出诸药物，皆由后人所羼，非本文。陶弘景亦云∶所出郡县，
乃后汉时制，疑仲景、云化等所记。按∶薛综注《张衡赋》引《本草经》∶太一禹余粮，一
名石脑，生山谷。是古本无郡县名。《太平御览》引《经》上云∶生山谷或川泽，下云生某
山某郡。明生山谷，《本经》文也；其下郡县，《名医》所益。今《大观本》俱作黑字。或合
其文，云某山川谷，某郡川泽，恐传写之误，古本不若此。仲景、元化后，有吴普、李当之，
皆修此经。当之书，世少行用。《魏志·华佗传》，言普从佗学。隋《经籍志》称《吴普本草》
，梁有六卷。《嘉 本草》云∶普修《神农本草》成四百四十一种。唐《经籍志》尚存六卷。
今广内不复存，惟诸书多见引据。其说药性，寒温五味最为详悉，是普书宋时已佚，今其文
惟见掌禹锡所引《艺文类聚》《初学记》《后汉书注》《事类赋》诸书。《太平御览》引据尤多，
足补《大观》所缺，重是别录前书，因采其文附于《本经》，亦略备矣。其普所称，有神农
说者，即是《本经》，《大观》或误作黑字，亦据增其药物，或数浮于三百六十五种，由后人
以意分合，难以定之。其药名，有禹余粮、王不留行、徐长卿、鬼督邮之属不类太古时文。
按字书以禹为虫，不必夏禹。其余名号，或系后人所增，或声音传述，改古旧称之致。又《经》
有云∶宜酒渍者。或以酒非神农时物，然《本草衍义》已据《素问》首言“以妄为常，以酒
为浆”，谓酒自黄帝始。又按∶《文选注》引《博物志》，亦云“杜康作酒”。王着《与杜康绝
交书》曰∶康，字仲宁，或云黄帝时人，则俱不得疑《经》矣。孔子云∶述而不作，信而好
古。又云∶多误于鸟兽草木之名。今儒家拘泥耳目，未能及远，不睹医经、本草之书；方家
循守俗书，不察古本药性异同之说，又见明李时珍作《本草纲目》，其名已愚，仅取《大观》
本，割裂旧文，妄加增驳，迷误后学。予与家凤卿集成是书，庶以辅冀完经，启蒙方伎，略
以所知，加之考证。《本经》云∶上药，本上经；中药，本中经；下药，本下经，是古以玉
石草木等上、中、下品分卷。而序录别为一卷。陶序朱书云∶《本草经》卷上注云∶序药性
之源本，论病名之形论。卷中云∶玉石、草木三品。卷下云∶虫、兽、果、菜、米，合三品，
此名医所改，今依古为次。又《帝王世纪》及陶序称四卷者，掌禹锡云∶按旧本亦作四卷。
韩保升又云∶《神农本草》上、中、下并序录，合四卷。若此，则三、四之异，以有序录。
则《抱朴子》《养生要略》，《太平御览》所引《神农经》，或云问于太乙子，或引太乙子云云，
皆《经》所无，或亦在序录中，后人节去之耳。至其经文或以痒为“养”、“创”为“疮”、“淡”
为“痰”、“注”为“蛀”、“沙”为“砂”、“兔”为“菟”之类，皆由传写之误，据古订正，
勿嫌惊俗
也。其辨析物类，引据诸书，本之《毛诗》、《尔雅》、《说文》、《方言》、《广雅》诸子杂家，
则凤卿增补之力俱多云。
阳湖孙星衍撰
着本草者，代有明哲矣，而求道者必推本于神农，以为神圣之至诚尽性，其兴物以全民，
义至精而用至大也。历三代之世以迄秦汉，守其书而传习之，盖无敢违其教者。自陶贞白
杂入《名医别录》，朱墨分书，其书无传本矣。至宋以降，朱墨互淆，其书无真本矣。纷纭
散乱，千有余岁，好古者乃欲一一收拾以复其旧，亦难矣哉。故灵胎徐氏有《本草百种录》，
修园陈氏有《本草经读》，各于经旨有所发明。不愧述者，要止体厥功能，以便世用。而于
三品之全物，卒阙焉而无闻，久之乃得顾氏辑本，复于同郡石埭徐氏借得孙氏辑本二书，皆
以用，一无所发。盖孙氏本非知医者，此无足怪。乃于名物形状，亦徒罗列富有，莫正是非
。如水萍则 并列。柳华则柽杞同称。如此之类，未可殚举。然而备录前文。以待来哲之
论定胜九谷长，其可实谷而苗草耶。二种出入，嫌入于妄作矣。尤异者，孙顾二书，同出大
观，而三品互殊，几于十二。顾氏诋孙不考《本经》目录，故三品种数，显与名例相违。夫
《本经》目录，载在《李氏纲目》第二卷，昭昭者也。孙氏之辑此书，不可谓不勤者矣，独
于此忽焉而不一寓目耶？岂谓《本经》久无真本，安所得其目录？李氏所述不足据耶。然而
名
例相违又何也。夫数典者经生之空谈，而无与于医之实用者也。天下无无用之物，而患无用
物之人。物无不乐效用于人，而人每至于负物。是书也，苟不求所以用之，即名物品数，尽
如神农之旧，而何所济于世古圣垂教之深心，历代贤士表章之盛意，其在是耶。用药一用兵
也
抑独何哉？学海虑古籍之湮也，亟为刊布而叙其梗概如此，以见舍顾而从孙者，亦取征引之
富赡耳。至于名象之是非，功用之变化，在善读者之自得之矣。
时光绪辛卯秋仲建德周学海 之记
《神农本草经》共三卷，是流传下来的用白字（墨字）书写的版本，见于《大观本草》。
按语：《嘉祐补注本草》的序言中说：所谓《神农本经》，是用红字（朱字）书写；《名医别录》因为是在神农旧有条目基础上有所增补的，所以用黑字（墨字）穿插在红字之间。《开宝重定本草》的序言中说：旧有的经典共三卷，世间流传的《名医别录》，两者互为编纂。到了梁朝贞白先生陶弘景，便将《别录》参合进《本经》中，红黑两色混杂书写，当时被称为明白清晰。据此看来，宋代所流传的黑白字书，实际上是陶弘景手抄的本子。在梁朝以前，神农、黄帝、岐伯、雷公、扁鹊等人，各自都有成书的著作，魏国的吴普见过这些书，所以他们关于药性主治的说法，各家各不相同。后人将这些内容纂辑为一本书，但其中仍有旁注，或者保留朱字、墨字的区别，《本经》的文字因此没有混乱。旧时的说法认为，“本草”这个名称，仅见于《汉书·平帝纪》和《楼护传》。我考证发现：《汉书·艺文志》中有《神农黄帝食药》七卷，现在的本子伪托为《食禁》，贾公彦在《周礼》医师疏中引用的文字，正写作《食药》，宋人没有考证清楚，于是怀疑《本草》不在《七略》收录的书目中。贾公彦引用《中经簿》，又有《子仪本草经》一卷，怀疑也是指这本书。梁朝的《七录》中有《神农本草》三卷，卷数不同，是因为古今分合的差异。神农的时代，文字契刻尚未产生，论者因此怀疑这部经典，比如皇甫谧说，那么知道四卷成书于黄帝时期。陶弘景说，轩辕氏以前，文本尚未流传，药性的主治作用，是靠师徒口耳相传、相互因袭的。到了桐君、雷公，才著录在简册上，这本书应当与《素问》同类，这种说法是正确的。而且《艺文志》中，农家、兵家、五行家、杂占家、经方家、神仙家等各家，都有神农的书。大抵来说，述作都有本源，其传承并非虚妄。所以《博物志》说：太古时期的书现在还能看到的，有《神农经》、《春秋传注》。贾逵把《三坟》当作三皇的书，神农也在其中。《史记》说：秦始皇不销毁医药卜筮的书，那么这部《经》有幸与《周易》并存。颜之推在《家训》中却说：《本草》是神农所述，但其中有豫章、朱崖、赵国、常山、奉高、真定、临淄、冯翊等郡县名，列出的药物，都是后人掺入的，不是原文。陶弘景也说：所提到的郡县，是后汉时的建制，怀疑是张仲景、华佗（云化）等人记录的。我考证：薛综注释《张衡赋》时引用《本草经》：“太一禹余粮，一名石脑，生山谷。”这说明古本中没有郡县名。《太平御览》引用《经》文上面说：生山谷或川泽，下面说生某山某郡。明显看出“生山谷”是《本经》的原文；下面的郡县名，是《名医别录》所增加的。现在《大观本》都作黑字。或者是合并了文字，说某山川谷，某郡川泽，恐怕是传抄的错误，古本不是这样的。张仲景、华佗之后，有吴普、李当之，都修订过这部经。李当之的书，世间很少流传使用。《魏志·华佗传》说，吴普跟随华佗学习。隋朝《经籍志》称《吴普本草》有六卷。《嘉祐本草》说：吴普修撰《神农本草》完成，共四百四十一种。唐朝《经籍志》尚存六卷。现在皇家藏书阁中不再存有此书，只有各种书籍多见引用依据。其中关于药性的说法，寒温五味最为详细完备，这是吴普的书在宋代已经散佚，现在他的文字只见于掌禹锡所引用的《艺文类聚》《初学记》《后汉书注》《事类赋》等书。《太平御览》引用依据尤其多，足以弥补《大观本》的缺失，重视这是《别录》之前的书，因此采集其文字附于《本经》之后，也大致完备了。其中吴普所称引的，有神农说的，就是《本经》，《大观本》或许误作黑字，也是根据增加了其药物，数量可能超过三百六十五种，由于后人凭主观意愿分合，难以确定。其中的药名，有禹余粮、王不留行、徐长卿、鬼督邮之类，不像太古时代的文字。按字书解释，“禹”通“虫”，不一定是夏禹。其余的名号，有的是后人增加的，有的是声音传述，改变了古旧的称呼所致。又《经》中有说：宜用酒浸泡的。有人或许认为酒不是神农时代的物品，然而《本草衍义》已经依据《素问》开头说“以妄为常，以酒为浆”，认为酒从黄帝时代开始。我又考证：《文选注》引用《博物志》，也说“杜康作酒”。王著《与杜康绝交书》说：杜康，字仲宁，有人说他是黄帝时的人，那么都不必怀疑《经》了。孔子说：述而不作，信而好古。又说：很多错误在于鸟兽草木的名称。现在的儒家拘泥于耳目所见，不能看得长远，不看医经、本草的书；医生们遵循守俗书，不考察古本药性异同的说法，又看见明朝李时珍作《本草纲目》，其名已经愚昧，仅取《大观本》，割裂旧文，妄加增驳，迷惑误导后学。我与家兄凤卿集成这本书，希望能辅助完善经典，启蒙医学技艺，略微以我所知，加以考证。《本经》说：上药，源自上经；中药，源自中经；下药，源自下经，这是古代以玉石草木等分为上、中、下品分卷。而序录单独为一卷。陶弘景序言中红字书写说：《本草经》卷上注明：叙述药性的源本，论述病名的形证。卷中说明：玉石、草木三品。卷下说明：虫、兽、果、菜、米，合三品，这是名医所改动的，现在依古制为次序。又《帝王世纪》及陶序称为四卷的，掌禹锡说：按旧本也作四卷。韩保升又说：《神农本草》上、中、下并序录，合四卷。如果这样，那么三卷、四卷的差异，是因为有序录。那么《抱朴子》《养生要略》，《太平御览》所引用的《神农经》，有的说是问于太乙子，有的引用太乙子云云，都是《经》文中没有的，或许也在序录中，后人节略去除了罢了。至于经文有的将“痒”写作“养”、“创”写作“疮”、“淡”写作“痰”、“注”写作“蛀”、“沙”写作“砂”、“兔”写作“菟”之类，都是由传抄造成的错误，依据古本订正，不要嫌弃惊扰世俗。其中辨析物类，引用依据诸书，基于《毛诗》、《尔雅》、《说文》、《方言》、《广雅》诸子杂家，那么凤卿增补的力量大多于此。
阳湖孙星衍撰写
撰写本草的人，历代都有明智之人，但求道者一定追溯根本于神农，认为神圣至极的诚心尽性，他兴起万物以保全百姓，意义极其精微而作用极其宏大。经历夏商周三代直到秦汉，遵守这本书并传授学习它，大概没有人敢违背它的教诲。自从陶弘景杂入《名医别录》，红黑分写，这本书就没有传本了。到了宋代以后，红黑互相混淆，这本书就没有真本了。纷纭散乱，一千多年，喜好古籍的人想要一一收拾以恢复其旧貌，也很难了啊。所以灵胎徐氏有《本草百种录》，修园陈氏有《本草经读》，各自对经旨有所发明。不愧为述者，主要只是体现其功能，以便世人使用。而对于三品的全部药物，最终缺失而没有听闻，很久以后才得到顾氏的辑本，又在同乡石埭徐氏那里借得孙氏的辑本二书，都用来使用，一无所发。大概孙氏本来就不是懂医术的人，这不足为怪。然而在名物形状方面，也只是徒然罗列丰富，不能判定是非。如水萍则并列。柳花则柽杞同称。像这样的例子，不可尽举。然而备录前文，以待后来哲人的论断。胜九谷长，它可以充实谷物而苗是草吗？两种出入，担心陷入妄作了。尤其奇异的是，孙氏和顾氏两书，同出大观，而三品互不相同，几乎达到十二种。顾氏诋毁孙氏不考《本经》目录，所以三品种数，明显与名例相违。夫《本经》目录，记载在《李氏纲目》第二卷，是显而易见的。孙氏辑录这本书，不能说是不勤奋的，唯独对此忽然不一看吗？难道认为《本经》长久没有真本，哪里能得到其目录？李氏所述不足以依据吗？然而名例相违又为什么呢？夫数典是经生的空谈，而与医的实用无关啊。天下没有无用的物，而患无用物的人。物没有不愿意效用于人的，而人每每至于辜负物。这本书，如果不寻求所以使用的道理，即使名物品数，完全如神农的旧貌，而对世道有什么帮助呢？古圣垂教之深心，历代贤士表章之盛意，就在这里吗。用药如同用兵一样，这又是为什么呢？学海担心古籍湮灭，急忙刊布并叙述其梗概如此，以显示舍弃顾氏而从孙氏，也是取其征引的富赡罢了。至于名象的是非，功用的变化，在于善于读者的自得之矣。
时光绪辛卯秋仲建德周学海 之记
*Shennong Bencao Jing* (Divine Farmer's Materia Medica) consists of three volumes. It is a transmitted text written in black characters, as seen in *Daguan Bencao* (Great View Materia Medica).
Note: The preface of *Jiayu Buchu Zhu Bencao* (Kia-yu Supplemental Annotations to the Materia Medica) states: What is referred to as the *Shennong Benjing* (Divine Farmer's Classic) is written in red characters; the *Mingyi Bie Lu* (Record of Famous Physicians' Additional Records), having made additions and supplements based on the old entries of Shennong, is interspersed with black characters among the red ones. The preface of *Kaibao Chongding Bencao* (Revised Materia Medica of the Kaibao Era) states: The old classic consisted of three volumes, circulated in the world, while the *Mingyi Bie Lu* was compiled mutually with it. By the time of Tao Hongjing, known as Mr. Zhenbai of the Liang Dynasty, he incorporated the *Bie Lu* into the *Benjing*, writing them mixedly in red and black ink, which was then considered clear and intelligible. Based on this, the black-and-white character books transmitted in the Song Dynasty were actually manuscripts handwritten by Tao Hongjing. Before the Liang Dynasty, Shennong, the Yellow Emperor, Qibo, Leigong, and Bian Que each had their own completed works. Wu Pu of the Wei Dynasty saw these books; therefore, their theories on drug properties and main indications varied among different schools. Later generations compiled them into one book, yet marginal notes remained, or distinctions between red and black characters were preserved, so that the text of the *Benjing* did not become chaotic. Old theories state that the name "Bencao" (Materia Medica) appears only in the *Book of Han: Annals of Emperor Ping* and the *Biography of Lou Hu*. I have examined: The *Yiwen Zhi* (Treatise on Literature) contains *Shennong Huangdi Shi Yao* (Shennong and Yellow Emperor Food and Medicine) in seven volumes. The current version falsely presents it as *Shi Jin* (Food Taboos). Jia Gongyan, in his commentary on the Physician section of *Zhou Li* (Rites of Zhou), quotes its text, which correctly reads *Shi Yao*. The Song scholars failed to investigate this, leading them to doubt whether *Bencao* was included in the *Qilüe* (Seven Briefs). Jia Gongyan also cited from the *Zhongjing Bu* (Central Library Catalog), mentioning *Ziyi Bencao Jing* (Ziyi Materia Medica Classic) in one volume, suspecting it refers to this same work. The Liang Dynasty's *Qilu* (Seven Records) lists *Shennong Bencao* in three volumes. The difference in volume numbers stems from the variations in division and combination between ancient and modern times. In the era of Shennong, writing systems had not yet been established; commentators thus doubted the classic. For instance, Huangfu Mi stated that four volumes were completed during the Yellow Emperor's time. Tao Hongjing said that before Xuanyuan (Yellow Emperor), texts had not yet been transmitted; the knowledge of drug properties and indications was passed down orally from master to disciple, relying on mutual inheritance. It was not until Tongjun and Leigong that these were recorded on bamboo slips. This book should be of the same category as the *Suwen* (Basic Questions). Their statement is indeed correct. Moreover, in the *Yiwen Zhi*, there are Shennong-related books across various schools such as Agriculture, Military Strategy, Five Elements, Divination, Prescriptions, and Immortals. Generally, compositions have their origins, and their transmission is not baseless. Thus, *Bowuzhi* (Records of Marvels) states: Among the extant books from antiquity, we find *Shennong Jing* (Classic of Shennong) and *Chunqiu Zhuanzhu* (Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals). Jia Kui regarded the *Sanfen* (Three Tombs) as the books of the Three Sovereigns, including Shennong in the list. The *Shiji* (Records of the Grand Historian) mentions that Qin Shi Huang did not destroy books on medicine, divination, and fortune-telling; thus, this *Jing* fortunately survived alongside the *Zhouyi* (Book of Changes). Yan Zhitui, in his *Family Instructions*, claimed: Although *Bencao* is attributed to Shennong, it contains place names such as Yuzhang, Zhuya, Zhaoguo, Changshan, Fenggao, Zhending, Linzi, and Fengyi, and the listed drugs were added by later people, not part of the original text. Tao Hongjing also noted: The mentioned commanderies and counties correspond to the administrative divisions of the Later Han Dynasty, suspecting they were recorded by Zhang Zhongjing or Hua Tuo (Yunhua). I have verified: Xue Zong, in his annotation to Zhang Heng's rhapsody, quoted the *Bencao Jing*: "Taiyi Yuyuliang, also known as Shinao, grows in mountains and valleys." This indicates that ancient versions did not contain county names. The *Taiping Yulan* (Imperial Readings of the Taiping Era) quotes the *Jing* stating above: "Grows in mountains and valleys or rivers and marshes," and below: "Grows in [Specific] Mountain, [Specific] Commandery." It is evident that "grows in mountains and valleys" is the original text of the *Benjing*; the subsequent county names were added by the *Mingyi Bie Lu*. In the current *Daguan Bencao*, all are printed in black characters. Perhaps the texts were merged, saying "certain mountain valley" or "certain commandery marsh," which is likely a copying error; the ancient version was not like this. After Zhang Zhongjing and Yuanhua (Hua Tuo), Wu Pu and Li Dangzhi both revised this classic. Li Dangzhi's book is rarely circulated or used today. The *Wei Shu: Biography of Hua Tuo* states that Wu Pu studied under Hua Tuo. The Sui Dynasty's *Jingji Zhi* (Catalog of Classics and Histories) lists *Wu Pu Bencao* in six volumes. The *Jiayu Bencao* states: Wu Pu completed the revision of *Shennong Bencao*, totaling 441 substances. The Tang Dynasty's *Jingji Zhi* still records six volumes. Currently, it no longer exists in the imperial library, though it is frequently cited in other works. Its descriptions of drug properties, particularly regarding cold/heat nature and five flavors, are most detailed. This implies Wu Pu's book was lost by the Song Dynasty. His text survives only in citations by Zhang Yuxi in *Yiwen Leiju*, *Chuxue Ji*, annotations to *Hou Hanshu*, *Shilei Fu*, etc. The *Taiping Yulan* cites it even more extensively, sufficient to supplement the deficiencies of the *Daguan* edition. Valuing this as a pre-*Bie Lu* text, its content was collected and appended to the *Benjing*, making it relatively complete. Among those cited by Wu Pu, statements attributed to Shennong belong to the *Benjing*. The *Daguan* edition may have mistakenly printed them in black. Also, according to added drugs, the number might exceed 365 types. Due to later editors' subjective grouping, it is difficult to determine definitively. Some drug names, such as Yuyuliang, Wangbuliuxing, Xuchangqing, and Guidu You, do not resemble the language of ancient times. According to dictionaries, "Yu" can mean "insect," not necessarily referring to Yu the Great. Other names may have been added by later people or altered through phonetic transmission, changing ancient appellations. Furthermore, the *Jing* mentions: "Suitable for soaking in wine." Some argue that wine was not available in Shennong's time. However, *Bencao Yan Yi* (Elucidation of Materia Medica) already cited the opening of the *Suwen*: "Making abnormality a habit, treating wine as water," asserting that wine originated in the Yellow Emperor's era. I further verified: *Wenxuan Zhu* (Annotations to Selected Refined Literature) citing *Bowuzhi* also says: "Du Kang invented wine." Wang Zuo's "Letter Breaking Off Friendship with Du Kang" states: "Kang, courtesy name Zhongning, some say he was from the Yellow Emperor's time." Thus, there is no reason to doubt the *Jing*. Confucius said: "Transmitting without creating, believing in and loving antiquity." He also said: "Many errors arise from the names of birds, beasts, plants, and trees." Modern Confucians are constrained by sensory experience and fail to look far ahead, ignoring medical classics and materia medica; physicians adhere to common books, failing to examine the differences in drug properties between ancient and modern texts. Seeing Li Shizhen's *Bencao Gangmu* (Compendium of Materia Medica) of the Ming Dynasty, whose title is foolish, merely taking the *Daguan* edition, fragmenting old texts, and adding erroneous comments, misleading future students. My brother Fengqing and I compiled this book, hoping to assist in completing the classic and enlightening practitioners of medicine, adding textual criticism based on our knowledge. The *Benjing* states: Superior drugs originate from the Upper Classic; medium drugs from the Middle Classic; inferior drugs from the Lower Classic. This indicates that ancient editions divided volumes by superior, medium, and inferior grades of jade, stones, plants, etc., while the Preface/Introduction formed a separate volume. Tao Hongjing's preface, written in red, states: Volume One notes: Discusses the origin and basis of drug properties and the morphology of disease names. Volume Two covers: Jade, stone, and plant categories (three grades). Volume Three covers: Insects, animals, fruits, vegetables, and grains (combined three grades). This modification was made by famous physicians; now we follow the ancient order. Regarding the claim of four volumes in *Diwang Shiji* and Tao's preface, Zhang Yuxi notes: Old versions also had four volumes. Han Baosheng adds: *Shennong Bencao* Upper, Middle, Lower, combined with the Preface/Introduction, totals four volumes. If so, the difference between three and four volumes lies in the inclusion of the Preface/Introduction. Therefore, passages in *Baopuzi*, *Yangsheng Yaolüe*, and *Shennong Jing* cited in *Taiping Yulan*, such as inquiries to Taiyizi or quotes from him, which are absent from the main text, were likely part of the Preface/Introduction and later omitted by editors. As for textual variants where "yang" (itch) is written as "yang" (nourish), "chuang" (wound) as "chuang" (sore), "dan" (bland) as "tan" (phlegm), "zhu" (pour/inject) as "zhu" (borer), "sha" (sand) as "sha" (gravel), "tu" (rabbit) as "tu" (dandelion), etc., these are all errors from copying. We have corrected them based on ancient versions; do not fear offending custom. The analysis of biological categories and citations rely heavily on *Mao Shi* (Book of Songs), *Erya*, *Shuowen Jiezi*, *Fangyan*, *Guaya*, and other miscellaneous works; thus, much of the credit for supplementation goes to Fengqing.
Written by Sun Xingyan of Yanghu.
Those who have written on materia medica have included wise men of every generation, but seekers of the Dao invariably trace their roots back to Shennong, regarding him as possessing supreme sincerity and virtue, promoting all things to benefit humanity, with profound meaning and vast utility. From the Three Dynasties through Qin and Han, people guarded and transmitted this book, none daring to violate its teachings. Since Tao Zhenbai (Hongjing) intermixed the *Mingyi Bie Lu*, distinguishing red and black texts, the true lineage of the book was lost. From the Song Dynasty onward, red and black became confused, and no authentic version remained. For over a thousand years, amidst chaos and disorder, antiquarians have tried to collect and restore the original form, a difficult task. Thus, Xu Fushan (Lingtai) produced *Bencao Baizhong Lu* (Record of Hundred Kinds of Materia Medica), and Chen Xiu (Xiuyuan) wrote *Bencao Jing Du* (Reading of the Divine Farmer's Classic), each elucidating aspects of the classic's intent. While they deserve praise as transmitters, their primary focus was on functionality for practical use. Consequently, the complete categorization of the three grades of substances was largely neglected. It was long until Gu Shi's compiled edition appeared, and subsequently, borrowing Sun Shi's compiled edition from the Xu family of Shidai, my fellow townsman, both were utilized without significant new insights. This is unsurprising, as Sun Shi was not a medical practitioner. However, regarding the identification of species and forms, he merely listed items abundantly without discerning right from wrong. For example, duckweed is listed together indiscriminately; willow catkins are equated with tamarisk and goji berries. Such examples are too numerous to enumerate. Nevertheless, previous texts are recorded here for future scholars to judge. Can the shoot of the nine grains truly substitute for grain if the seedling is grass? The discrepancy between two types risks being deemed fabrication. Most strangely, although Sun's and Gu's editions both derive from the *Daguan* edition, their classification of the three grades differs significantly, almost reaching twelve distinct categories. Gu criticizes Sun for not examining the *Benjing* catalog, resulting in grade counts that blatantly contradict the nomenclature rules. The *Benjing* catalog is clearly recorded in Volume Two of *Li Shi Gang Mu* (Li's Compendium). Sun's compilation of this book cannot be called un diligent; why did he overlook this specific point? Did he believe that since no authentic *Benjing* existed, the catalog could not be found? Or did he consider Li's account unreliable? Yet, how can the contradiction in nomenclature rules be explained? Counting items is an empty talk of scholars, irrelevant to medical practice. There are no useless things in the world, only people who fail to utilize them properly. Things naturally wish to serve humans, but humans often fail them. This book, if one does not seek its proper application, even if the names and quantities perfectly matched Shennong's original, what benefit would it bring to the world? The deep intention of the ancient sages in establishing teachings, and the earnest efforts of past worthies in promoting them, lie herein. Using medicine is akin to deploying troops; why is this so? Fearful that ancient texts would perish, I hurriedly published this and summarized its outline, showing that choosing Sun over Gu is due to the richness of citations. As for the correctness of names and forms, and the changes in efficacy, these depend on the reader's own understanding.
Recorded by Zhou Xuehai of Jiande, in the mid-autumn of the Xinmao year of the Guangxu reign.