耶穌會、荷蘭東印度公司、日耳曼自然珍奇品研究院： 以《中國醫學樣本．單味藥》(1682)為討論中心

Abstract

十七世紀中葉歐洲已知中醫擅長根據脈象診斷疾病，進而開立草藥處方。《中國醫學樣本》(Specimen Medicinae Sinicae)是首次深入闡述中國經脈理論與用藥實踐的拉丁文著作。該書內容可能出自耶穌會士卜彌格(Michał Piotr Boym, 1612–1659)與柏應理(Philippe Couplet, 1623–1693)，以及荷蘭東印度公司成員騰．雷恩(Willem ten Rhijne, 1649–1700)與魯姆菲烏斯(Georgius Everhardus Rumphius, 1628–1702)之手。荷蘭東印度公司的克萊爾(Andreas Cleyer, 1634–1698)是編輯者，並在日耳曼自然珍奇品研究院(Academia Naturae Curiosorum)成員謝費爾(Sebastian Scheffer, 1631–1686)、門澤爾(Christian Mentzel, 1622–1701)的支持下，1682年於法蘭克福(Frankfurt am Main)出版。 《中國醫學樣本》其中的一篇〈中國人醫療用的單味藥〉(“Medicamenta Simplicia Quae a Chinensibus ad usum Medicum adhibentur”)具體說明中國經脈與用藥知識之間的關係，卻較少被學者深入分析。我不僅重新爬梳其文本性質、內容、資料來源與翻譯策略，更由其在英國與日耳曼地區的閱讀史出發，指出中醫藥學理論雖然艱難，卻不代表東西之間無法進行深入交流。我認為〈中國人醫療用的單味藥〉問世與流傳的關鍵原因是中西簡明本草書結構的相近性、歐洲對於中國經驗知識傳統的重視、歐洲對蓋倫(Claudius Galen, c. 129–c. 200)診斷與用藥傳統的重新思考、歐洲「普世語言」思潮、以及東方學研究潮流。本文以〈中國人醫療用的單味藥〉為例子，闡發耶穌會、荷蘭東印度公司、日耳曼自然珍奇品研究院對中國藥物知識的理解，在世界史的意義。 南美洲耶穌會士，或部分荷蘭東印度公司、日耳曼自然珍奇品研究院成員，在蒐集、驗證海外藥材知識時往往拒斥當地「迷信」、巫術的用藥文化脈絡，重新根據蓋倫或其他歐洲理論詮釋海外藥材發揮作用的機制。相較之下，以〈中國人醫療用的單味藥〉的問世和流通為例，本文指出有些歐洲人確實相對深入詮釋中國的藥性、藥味、歸經等知識，提供有別於歐洲醫學傳統的另一種理論基礎。不過，由於該篇文本毫無藥物圖像、醫療案例，對於藥物基原、製備的描述也相當簡短，難以讓歐洲人觀察和驗證〈中國人醫療用的單味藥〉提及的藥物。本文以艾草、犀角、人參為例子，不僅闡明該篇文本之性質，更進一步比較其他文獻、實物與圖像，指出其在十七世紀日耳曼自然珍奇品收藏與研究的脈絡中，無法造成廣泛的影響。

By the mid-seventeenth century, Europeans had come to recognize that Chinese physicians were particularly adept at diagnosing illnesses through pulse examination and prescribing herbal remedies accordingly. Specimen Medicinae Sinicae was the first Latin text to offer a systematic exposition of the Chinese meridian system and medicinal practice. Its content may have been derived from the works of Jesuit missionaries Michał Piotr Boym (1612–1659) and Philippe Couplet (1623–1693), as well as from Dutch East India Company members Willem ten Rhijne (1649–1700) and Georgius Everhardus Rumphius (1628–1702). The editor, Andreas Cleyer (1634–1698), published the volume in Frankfurt am Main in 1682 with the support of Sebastian Scheffer (1631–1686) and Christian Mentzel (1622–1701), members of the German Academia Naturae Curiosorum. The chapter Medicamenta Simplicia Quae a Chinensibus ad usum Medicum adhibentur (“Medicinal Simples That Are Used by the Chinese for Medical Purposes”) explicitly outlines the relationship between Chinese pulse theory and materia medica, yet has received limited scholarly attention. This article reexamines the chapter’s textual structure, sources, and translation strategies, and traces its reception in Britain and German-speaking regions. I argue that the theoretical complexity of Chinese medicine did not preclude meaningful engagement and exchange with European traditions. Rather, the publication and transmission of this chapter were enabled by several intersecting factors: structural affinities between Chinese and European simple medicinal books; European interest in empirical knowledge traditions; a contemporary rethinking of Galenic diagnostic and therapeutic methods; universal language projects; and the broader rise of orientalist scholarship. In contrast to many Jesuit missionaries in South America and certain members of the Dutch East India Company and the Academia Naturae Curiosorum—who often dismissed local therapeutic practices as “superstitious” and reinterpreted foreign materia medica through Galenic frameworks—some European readers of Medicamenta Simplicia demonstrated a more concerted effort to interpret Chinese medical thoughts, including medicinal qualities (yaoxing), flavors (wei), and channel tropism (guijing). These conceptual frameworks offered alternative foundations for thinking beyond the European medical canons. However, because of the complete absence of medicinal illustrations and clinical case studies, and the highly abbreviated descriptions of the origin and preparation of the drugs, the text provided little opportunity for European readers to observe and verify the substances mentioned in Medicamenta Simplicia. Using artemisia, rhinoceros horn, and ginseng as case studies, this article analyzes how Medicamenta Simplicia articulated Chinese pharmaceutical knowledge while also highlighting its limitations within the natural history and collecting culture of the seventeenth-century German-speaking regions. Ultimately, I argue that despite its scholarly ambition, Medicamenta Simplicia had a relatively modest impact within European materia medica discourse.