13-05-2026, 02:34 AM
In fairness, I think you can blame my English here---I ought to have been more explicit. The top line is the part of the Zhenglei Bencao that the Qing editor attributes to Shennong. I already cut all the text that was set off as commentary; the original entry was quite larger still. In turn, yes, the bottom line is the reconstruction of the Shennon Bencaojing you're familiar with. As you can see, the discrepancy is substantial!
I also forgot to mention that the version of Tao You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I cited above does not make any distinction, and frustratingly does not have an underlying text there for me to check. A quick search did turn up some of the very old hand-penned texts that had the red ink, but all the older printed editions seem to lack any of the distinctions for marking out Shennon's text. You begin to see the problems a Ming scholar tackling this problem would have had as well!
I also forgot to mention that the version of Tao You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I cited above does not make any distinction, and frustratingly does not have an underlying text there for me to check. A quick search did turn up some of the very old hand-penned texts that had the red ink, but all the older printed editions seem to lack any of the distinctions for marking out Shennon's text. You begin to see the problems a Ming scholar tackling this problem would have had as well!