\r蔓荆实\pd319.bmp\r
味苦、辛，微寒、平、温，无毒。主筋骨间寒热，湿痹拘挛，明目坚齿，利九窍，去白
虫、长虫，主风头痛，脑鸣，目泪出，益气。久服轻身耐老，令人光泽，脂致（音雉）。小
荆实亦等。（恶乌头、石膏。）
陶隐居云∶小荆即应是牡荆。牡荆子大于蔓荆子，而反呼为小荆，恐或以树形为言，复
不知蔓荆树若高硕尔。唐本注云∶小荆实今人呼为牡荆子者是也。其蔓荆子大，故呼牡荆子
为小荆实。亦等者。言其功用与蔓荆同也。蔓荆苗蔓生，故名蔓荆。生水滨。叶似杏叶而细，
茎
云∶今据陶，匪唯不别蔓荆，亦不知牡荆尔。以理推之，即蔓生者为蔓荆，作树生者为牡荆。
蔓生者大如梧子，树生者细如麻子。则牡荆为小荆明矣。《图经》云∶蔓荆，蔓生水滨。苗
茎蔓延。春因旧枝而生小叶，五月叶成如杏叶。六月有花，浅红色，蕊黄。九月有实，黑斑
，大如梧子而虚轻。冬则叶凋。药性论云∶蔓荆子，臣。治贼风，能长髭发。日华子云∶利
关节，治赤眼，痫疾。注云∶海盐亦有大如豌豆，蒂有小轻软盖子。六、七、八月采。
图经曰∶蔓荆实，旧不载所出州土，今近京及秦、陇、明、越州多有之。苗茎高四尺，
对节生枝。初春因旧枝而生叶类小楝，至夏盛茂。有花作穗浅红色，蕊黄白色，花下有青萼。
至秋结实，斑黑。如梧子许大而轻虚。八月、九月采。一说作蔓生，故名蔓荆。而今所有，
并非蔓也。
唐本注长须发。雷公云∶凡使，去蒂子下白膜一重，用酒浸一伏时后蒸，从巳至未，出
晒干用。
衍义曰∶蔓荆实，诸家所解，蔓荆、牡荆纷纠不一。《经》既言蔓荆，明知是蔓生，即
非高木也。既言牡荆，则自是木上生者。况《汉书·郊祀志》所言，以牡荆茎为幡竿。故知
蔓荆即子大者是，又何疑焉。后条有栾荆，此即便是牡荆也。子青色，如茱萸，不合更立栾
荆条。故文中云∶本草不载，亦无别名，但有栾花，功用又别，断无疑焉。注中妄称石荆当
之，其说转见穿凿。
味苦、辛，性微寒、平、温，无毒。主治筋骨间的寒热症状，湿痹引起的拘挛，能明目坚固牙齿，通利九窍，去除白虫和长虫（蛔虫），主治风邪头痛、脑鸣、流泪，具有益气功效。长期服用可使人身体轻便、延缓衰老，使面色光泽，皮肤滋润致密。（畏忌乌头、石膏。）
陶隐居说：小荆应该就是牡荆。牡荆子比蔓荆子大，却反而被称为“小荆”，恐怕是依据树形而言，又不知道蔓荆树是否高大硕壮。《唐本草》注解说：现在人们称为牡荆子的就是小荆实。因为蔓荆子较大，所以把牡荆子称为小荆实。“亦等”的意思是说它们的功用与蔓荆相同。蔓荆的苗蔓生，所以名叫蔓荆。生长在水边。叶子像杏叶但较细，茎……（此处原文有缺漏或排版错误，接下文）陶隐居说：现在根据陶隐居的观点，不仅分不清蔓荆，也不知道牡荆。从道理上推断，蔓生的是蔓荆，长成树木状生长的是牡荆。蔓生的果实大如梧桐子，树生的果实细如麻子。那么牡荆就是小荆是很明显的了。《图经》说：蔓荆，蔓生水边。苗茎蔓延。春天顺着旧枝生出小叶，五月叶子长成像杏叶。六月开花，浅红色，花蕊黄色。九月结果，黑色斑点，大如梧桐子且空心轻浮。冬天叶子凋落。《药性论》说：蔓荆子，为臣药。治疗贼风，能使胡须头发生长。日华子说：通利关节，治疗红眼病、癫痫。注释说：海盐也有大如豌豆的，蒂部有小而轻软的盖子。六、七、八月采集。
《图经》说：蔓荆实，旧籍不记载其出产州土，现在京城附近及秦、陇、明、越州多有出产。苗茎高四尺，对节生枝。初春顺着旧枝生出叶子像小楝树，到夏天茂盛。有花成穗状，浅红色，花蕊黄白色，花下有青色萼片。到秋天结实，黑色斑点。大如梧桐子般大小且轻浮空心。八月、九月采集。另一种说法认为它是蔓生植物，所以名叫蔓荆。而现在所见的，并不是蔓生植物。
《唐本草》注补充：能长须发。雷公说：凡使用此药，需去掉蒂部下的一层白膜，用酒浸泡一个昼夜（一伏时）后蒸制，从巳时到未时，取出晒干使用。
《衍义》说：蔓荆实，各家解释中，关于蔓荆和牡荆的说法纷乱不一。《神农本草经》既然说蔓荆，就知道是蔓生植物，就不是高大的树木。既然说牡荆，那自然是生长在木本植物上的。况且《汉书·郊祀志》所说，用牡荆茎作为幡竿。所以知道蔓荆就是果实大的那种，又有什么可怀疑的呢？后面条目中有栾荆，这其实就是牡荆。果实青色，像茱萸，不应该再单独设立栾荆条目。所以文中说：本草不记载，也没有别名，只有栾花，功用又不同，断定无疑。注释中妄称石荆来对应，这种说法越发显得穿凿附会。
Fructus Viticis (Man Jing Shi)
Bitter, pungent; slightly cold, neutral, warm; non-toxic. It primarily treats cold and heat sensations between the muscles and bones, spasms and contractures caused by damp-bi syndrome, brightens the eyes, strengthens the teeth, benefits the nine orifices, expels white parasites and long worms (Ascaris lumbricoides), treats wind-induced headache, tinnitus in the head, lacrimation, and tonifies Qi. Long-term consumption lightens the body and delays aging, imparting luster to the complexion and making the skin smooth and dense. (Contraindicated with Aconitum carmichaelii root prepared [Wutou] and Gypsum Fibrosum [Shigao].)
Tao Hongjing stated: "Xiao Jing" should be Vitex negundo var. heterophylla (Mu Jing). The seeds of Mu Jing are larger than those of Man Jing, yet they are called "Xiao Jing." This might refer to the tree shape, but it is unclear whether the Man Jing tree is tall and robust. The commentary of *Tang Bencao* states: What people now call the seeds of Mu Jing is indeed Xiao Jing Shi. Because the seeds of Man Jing are large, the seeds of Mu Jing are called Xiao Jing Shi. "Yi deng" means their therapeutic functions are the same as Man Jing. The seedlings of Man Jing grow as vines, hence the name. They grow near water. The leaves resemble apricot leaves but are finer, and the stems... Tao Hongjing said: Based on Tao's view, one cannot distinguish Man Jing from Mu Jing. By reasoning, the vining type is Man Jing, and the arborescent type is Mu Jing. The vining type has fruits as large as paulownia seeds, while the arborescent type has seeds as fine as hemp seeds. Thus, it is clear that Mu Jing is Xiao Jing. *Tu Jing* states: Man Jing grows vining near water. The seedlings and stems spread. In spring, small leaves emerge from old branches; by May, the leaves resemble apricot leaves. Flowers appear in June, pale red with yellow stamens. Fruits mature in September, black-spotted, as large as paulownia seeds, hollow and light. Leaves fall in winter. *Yao Xing Lun* states: Man Jing Zi is a minister herb. It treats stealthy wind pathogens and promotes the growth of beard and hair. Ri Hua Zi states: It benefits the joints, treats erythema oculorum (red eye disease), and epilepsy. The annotation mentions that in Haiyan, there are fruits as large as pea seeds, with a small, soft lid at the hilum. Harvested in the sixth, seventh, and eighth lunar months.
*TU Jing* states: Fructus Viticis was not recorded in older texts regarding its place of origin. Currently, it is abundant near the capital and in Qin, Long, Ming, and Yue prefectures. The seedlings and stems reach four chi in height, with branches growing opposite at the nodes. In early spring, leaves resembling those of Melia azedarach (Lilac-leaved chinaberry) sprout from old branches; by summer, the plant becomes lush. Flowers form in spikes, pale red with yellowish-white stamens, beneath which are green calyxes. Fruits set in autumn, black-spotted, about the size of paulownia seeds, light and hollow. Harvested in August and September. Another theory suggests it is a vining plant, hence the name Man Jing. However, what is currently available does not appear to be vining.
The commentary of *Tang Bencao* adds: It promotes the growth of beard and hair. Lei Gong stated: When using this herb, remove the hilum and the white membrane underneath. Soak in wine for one diurnal cycle (yi fu shi), then steam from Si hour to Wei hour. Remove and sun-dry for use.
*Yan Yi* states: Regarding Fructus Viticis, various explanations confuse Man Jing and Mu Jing. Since the *Classic* mentions Man Jing, it must be a vining plant, not a tall tree. Since it mentions Mu Jing, it naturally grows on woody plants. Moreover, the *Book of Han · Treatise on Sacrificial Ceremonies* mentions using Mu Jing stems as poles for banners. Therefore, it is known that Man Jing refers to the variety with larger seeds; what is there to doubt? The later entry "Luan Jing" is actually Mu Jing. The fruits are green, resembling Cornus officinalis (Zhu Yu), so there is no need to establish a separate entry for Luan Jing. Thus, the text states: Not recorded in the Materia Medica, no other names, only Luan flowers exist, with different functions; this is certain. The annotation wrongly claims Shijing corresponds to this, showing an increasingly forced interpretation.