胡麻是亚麻,非脂麻辨——兼论中草药名称混乱的根源和《神农本草经》的成书年代及作者

Huma should be Linum usitatissimum, not Sesamum indicum——With special reference to the source of confusion of names for traditional Chinese medicine and the written time and author of Shên Nung Pên Ts’ao Ching

本文从清朝《植物名实图考》和作者吴其濬对中国植物学的贡献谈起,引出胡麻在中国历史上混淆的状况。通过对中国古籍文献中记载的两种植物的形态性状、地理分布等证据的对比,并把医药各类问题放在历史发展和阶级分化的背景下考察,指出中国历史上最早记载的胡麻当为Linum usitatissimum,这名称在种植区的民间一直沿用至今,巨胜应为Sesamum indicum。论文还探讨了两种植物混淆的原因并进一步推及中草药名称混淆的根源在于其性味功能相似而古人不重视其形态地理差别所致;《神农本草经》是陶弘景在《本草经集注》中的托古之作,该书确定以性味功能归类是导致之后中药名称混淆的根本原因。最后对中药学的发展提出了建议。

Abstract The confusion of Huma （胡麻） in Chinese history was discussed after an introduction of Chih Wu Ming Shi T＇u K＇ao of the Qing Dynasty and its author--Wu Qijun＇s contribution to Chinese botany. The morphological characters and distribution of Huma and Jusheng （巨胜） documented in ancient Chinese literature were comparatively studied. Simultaneously, other questions about the Chinese medicament and medicine were inspected in the backgrounds of historical development and social stratum differentiation. We concluded that the earliest recorded Huma in Chinese literature should be Linum usitatissimum. The Chinese name for this plant has been used by the （巨胜） should be Sesamum indicum. The reason folks until well into modem times. Jusheng for the confusion of these two names was also explored. It was further inferred that the confusion of names for traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） originated in the similarity of their property and function while the difference of their morphology and distribution was not taken seriously. We also concluded that Shen Nung Pen Ts＇ao Ching was forged by TAO Hongjing （陶弘景,） in his Collected Commentaries on Pen Ts ＇ao Ching but attributed to an ancient author, Shennong （神农）. In this book TCM was classified by their property and function, which became the root cause of the confusion of Chinese names for TCM from then on. Some suggestions were also given for the development of Chinese materia medica in the future.