這是一篇研究提綱，涉及禁方書、依托與正典幾個核心概念群。時間雖然限定在公元三世紀左右為分期，但卻企圖追溯中國古典醫學知識原型的形成及其演變。 古代醫學透過秘密受書儀式傳授知識，在此書籍具有建立師徒關係、區別我羣與他羣的功能。受書儀式大概式微於漢魏之間，早先典籍、師資、經驗不可分割的知識特質，從此有所分化。道教醫學可說是「明師」類型的知識形態，門閥醫學則以血緣相傳、祖方經驗為標示。而魏晉醫家整理舊有醫經重新劃定「醫學」的邊界、並塑造醫學知識的正統。也就是這段期間醫學文本經歷公開化、世俗化的過程。謝觀(1880-1950)曾說中國醫學有「儒學比例」的特質，從對典籍的態度來看，醫家的確漸向儒家靠攏、而與道家(或道教)日遠。 古代醫書的神聖性源自於依托。依托可說醫家自身的歷史知識，它既用以追溯其技術的世系，同時，也用來形塑學術的傳統。聖人對話的依托體例，從《內經》到《難經》有著格式化、公式化的傾向。與此關係密切的是學習醫書中誦讀、抄書的歷史研究，這些課題唯有進一步與思想史、文化史結合方能突破現有醫學史成就。 我也指出中國「正典」醫學發展的二條線索：一是以《內經》系為主流、根據同一批文本不斷重編的歷史，另一是注解這些醫經的傳統的形成。而醫學「正典」歷來如何維繫與變遷無疑需要更為堅實深入的研究，相關的課題也需要我的同行共同努力。

This paper outlines a research project which studies the primordial form of classical Chinese medical knowledge and its later development around the third century A.D. by examining its three key institutions: confidential teaching of medical texts, attribution of medical knowledge to legendary figures, and canons of medical classics. The transmission of ancient Chinese medical knowledge was characterized in part by the confidential teaching of texts, epitomized by the master’s ritual conferral of secret medical texts upon his disciples. This conferral of texts served to confirm the master-disciple relationship and to distinguish physicians that shared the same teachings from other physicians. The ritual of the conferral of texts thus united a distinctive body of texts, the identity of the physicians’ lineage, and medical experience characteristic of particular medical training, a unity that probably disintegrated around the Han and Wei dynasties. Thereafter practitioners of Daoist medicine identified their school with a master, ancient or recent, whom they followed, whereas physicians of established medical families distinguished themselves by their consanguinity as well as recipes derived from their ancestors. Meanwhile, medical knowledge became public, in the sense that medical learning was made possible though the public availability of medical texts, now dissociated from the secrecy bonds between the master and his disciples. The more public nature of modern knowledge accommodated the reliance of medical teaching on the text. Xie Guan (1880-1950) suggested that Chinese medicine gradually modeled itself on Confucianism. The increasing reliance of medical teaching on the text indeed confirmed that Chinese medicine leaned toward Confucian learning concerning the ways in which knowledge was conveyed, while moving away from the school of Daoist thought (Daojia) or Daoist religion (Daojiao). Ancient medical knowledge owed its supposed sanctity to its attribution to legendary figures, especially the Sacred Men (shengren, or sages). Medical knowledge in texts was often introduced in the form of dialogues between two sages. Reflecting the practitioners’ historical understanding of their own learning, the attribution of the sources of their knowledge to sages was used to show the genealogy of their techniques and to create a tradition of learning. The dialogue form gradually consolidated itself as a formula of presenting knowledge in medical texts from the Neijing to the Nanjing. Closely related to this form of medical discourse was the practice of reading and the transcription of medical texts, themes to be explored in the light of studies on the cultural history of literary genre, reading, and the circulation of texts. Chinese medical canons emerged in the Wei and Jin dynasties when medical authors, by editing and compiling of available medical texts, produced orthodox medical knowledge and redrew the boundaries of medicine. The canonization of Chinese medical texts can be elucidated by examining two of its constituent developments. One was the constant reediting of the Neijing and the texts associated with it. The other was the formation of the commentary tradition on medical classics such as the Neijing. Thus around the third century A.D. the discourse and transmission of medical knowledge underwent fundamental changes in China. Following the decline of the ritual conferral of secret texts, textual knowledge of medicine became public and medical instruction increasingly relied on the text; medical knowledge was presented in formulaic dialogues between ancient sages or legendary figures, characters used to impart authority to the content; and medical canons emerged after selective editorial and commentary work. It is these fundamental changes in the intellectual, social, and institutional character of medical knowledge that the new perspective of this research project proposes to address.

禁方書；依托；正典