仲景之旧。不得复视。即叔和之书。亦杳不可见矣。第阅叔和所作伤寒序例一篇。其妄用经文。创立谬说。亦殊
不足观。不若遗亡之为愈也。其成氏注本。原云十卷。今行于世者。究仅七卷。以辨脉平脉。为第一卷。其言原
系仲景原文。亦不为过。但第二卷。伤寒例一篇。乃王叔和所作。非仲景原文。因何亦列于七卷之中。而反居仲
景六经之前。非唯文理背谬。且冠履倒置。棼乱错杂矣。其第七卷。虽有霍乱阴阳易。及瘥后诸复症。允为仲景
原文。而后之诸可与不可。又非长沙之笔矣。何以知之。其卷首云。夫以疾病至急。仓卒难寻。故重集诸可与不
可方治。比之三阴三阳。为易见也。如此语气。确为叔和所集。况大法春宜汗。及春宜吐。秋宜下之说。于
理未通。均属可删。
魏荔彤曰。伤寒例。叔和氏修缉医圣之书。发其凡例也。列于论首。名之曰例。标题原未有序字。后人以
其文近于序。故更名之曰序例。成氏注之。方氏删之。喻氏驳之。程氏嘻笑且怒骂之。以为HT 滥。以为悖谬。愚
平心静气论之。其意亦未大舛。特欲推展伤寒于伤寒外耳。不知伤寒论。原非专论伤寒内也。例之大概。谓四时
皆有外感之气。惟冬月乃正伤寒之名。欲推展而反成拘执矣。更为引伸春温夏暑疟病热病疫病。原思于伤寒外。
多所论列。因医圣自序中。言伤寒疑似之间。误人阶厉。故欲辨其是非。以附益原书之义也。但于诸证。不为条
分缕晰。一如凡例之制。乃参杂反复。笼统铺叙以成文。既无太史公伯夷列传手笔。必见方凿圆枘。否则重楼叠
嶂矣。例不成例。序不成序。是其才力之不逮。体认之未真。以尊崇阐发之心。竟成儒者自分两歧。迄难合一。
何也。以医圣原兼万病。而论其一。叔和之例。欲分万病为万也。至于详明时令气化。以别疾病感受。仍是分晰
异同之见。何其冗乱无纪乎。因而及于药治之迟早。风土之凉燠。以为明切。实皆郛廓。不能得伤寒论之精深。
虽欲有言。不能不流为冒语也。复叙六经伤寒。及两感之脉证。与各有愈期不治之故。在伤寒论中已明。此非赘
疣耶。最是初感风寒二邪。大关巨节。默无分剖。又何疏乎。却将坏证。牵入温疟等症。既明温暑疟热疫证。不
同伤寒。分时异感。各成一病。又忽有四变之说。殊觉自相秦越。更及迟治误治诸条。曰若曰凡。纵再增益千百。
亦苦于挂少漏多。发凡起例，不言全书持纲携领之处。而以己意泛滥举之。曰此书之例。书自书而例自例。何以
使人读例。而得书之简洁精微乎。将徒
画蛇之足。续凫之 而已。末虽明生愈死亡之机。终亦不可胜言，总因不能合全书。以为体会。撮其易简之善。
着为知从之法。乃以为既缉是书。不可不以推展为发明。本欲附骥名彰。立言不朽。抑知后人不少假借。细加指
摘也耶。愚故原其初念。本在遵循。非蒙违戾。而智浅才薄。不能心得全书精义。乃欲以多求胜。备其阙略。岂
知医圣之文。言近而指远。辞简而意该乎。然医圣数千年正学。赖此不坠。其功亦不在卫敬仲序诗之下。诗序虽
经朱子删驳。而古远所传。于今不泯。则叔和之例。可以比照杜氏以例例春秋矣。至可例与否。例之当否。其例
具在。叔和不能自达其意者。后之读例君子。可以代明。何必削之。不许天下共见闻。而求其公是耶。方氏谓以
传先经非体。愚谓例也。非传也。传必附经。例则仍可首例也。倘叔和当日。能将所谓温暑疟热疫诸证。各就专
门。分撰附经。详其脉论。精言治法。以述寓作。如朱子之补大学。岂非医圣之高弟。医门之功臣乎。不能为此。
而于例中丛脞言之。吾知其于此数证原委亦未大明。约略敷衍。不意乃成罪案。因此没其缉书原志。则亦大可惜
矣。
又曰。辨脉一篇。的是医圣原文。其辞简括。其义深长。与伤寒杂病论。心思笔致。皆足令人 绎不尽。推
暨无方矣。盖辨脉为论证之先务。所以叔和叙次为第一。不可谓以传HT 经也。既非叔和所能拟议。原为医圣高文
巨典。不妨置之诸论之首。以重诊视之事矣。于平脉分篇是否。医圣本意。或叔和效虞书中分二典之智乎。但忽
首为韵语。似反觉肤廓浅近。不类一手。岂少陵不能作散文。而医圣不能作韵语耶。真赝已无可考。孰得而屏之。
屏之反为HT 矣。
又曰。辨脉平脉二篇。亦非后人妄分为二也。盖于辨平二字之义。未能深悉也。辨者。分别之也。平者。较
量之也。平如平章之平。非平人之脉。如谓篇中专言平人之脉。试观之。何其言平人之脉。十之一二。言疾病之
脉。十反八九乎。然则辨者。始条理也。分为二。推至于无穷也。平者。终条理也。衡如一。究归于不二也。气
有阴阳。邪亦有阴阳。病必分阴阳。脉必辨阴阳。故必分为二以辨之。气之阴阳。有有余不足。邪之阴阳。亦有
衰盛。病因而有轻重。脉必平阴阳。故权衡如一以平之。 玩二篇。洵是此义。不可悉举。略观大意可知矣。至
于其文古穆简洁。其义精微广大。惟医圣独擅其能。非王氏所可赞之辞，合伤寒例观之。亦自明编次于六经论之
首。先脉后证。先辨平乎脉以审证。后条列乎证以处治。序次亦未紊也。
吴仪洛曰。仲景书。一语可当千百言。每令人阐发不尽。读者须沉潜反复。必于言外透出神髓。斯为能读仲
景书耳。
姚际恒曰。伤寒论。汉张仲景撰。晋王叔和集。此书本为医家经方之祖。然驳杂不伦。往往难辨。读者苦不
得其旨要。
徐大椿曰。仲景伤寒论。编次者不下数十家。因致聚讼纷纭。此皆不知仲景作书之旨故也。观伤寒叙所述。
乃为庸医误治而设。所以正治之法。一经不过三四条。余皆救误之法。故其文亦变动不居。读伤寒论者。皆设想
悬拟之书。则无往不得其义矣。今人必改叔和之次序。或以此条在前。或以此条在后。或以此证因彼证而生。或
以此经因彼经而变。互相诟厉。孰知病变万端。传经无定。古人因病以施方。无编方以
待病。其原本次序。既已散亡。庶几叔和所定为可信。何则叔和序例云、今搜采仲景旧论。录其证候诊脉声色对
病真方。有神验者。拟防世急。则此书乃叔和所搜集。而世人辄加辨驳。以为原本不如此。抑思苟无叔和。安有
此书。且诸人所编。果能合仲景原文否耶。夫六经现证。有异有同，后人见阳经一证。杂于阴经之中。以为宜改
入阳经之内。不知阴经亦有此证也。人各是其私。反致古人圆机活法。泯没不可问矣。凡读书能得书中之精义要
诀。历历分明。则任其颠倒错乱。而我心自能融会贯通。否则徒以古书。纷更互异。愈改愈晦矣。（医学源流论）
周省吾曰。仲景伤寒书。为叔和编次。已失其真。即林亿校本。亦已难得。今世所传。惟成无己注释之本而
已。至三百九十七法。莫不津津乐道。而究鲜确指。汪苓友亦云。前人所未明言。其引张孝培伤寒类疏。桂枝汤
服后，至以助药力为。一法。温复至如水流漓。又一法。称与诸家不同。顾吾不知其何本而有此考。前明有吾虞
赵开美翻刻宋板伤寒论全文。其三百九十七法。于每篇之首。注其几先。则节录原文。开明第一第二。次于原文
之下。后列一二三之数。总计全书。治法了然也。但不知出自叔和。出自林亿。今之传本亡之者。殆为无己所删
乎。后人未见宋刻。茫然不晓。如王安道亦未之见也。国朝王晋三虽于每方之下。注以各法。亦不过继张孝培汪
苓友之志。而爱礼存羊。究有未能悉洽者。故愚以为注书。不应改移。止宜就文辨论。如朱子之贤。阙文错简。
皆仍其旧。无己何人。而乃擅削。以致迄今盈庭聚讼也。（吴医汇讲）
按 先子曰。伤寒论。后汉张仲景着。晋王叔和撰次。经六朝隋
唐。而未见表章者。至宋治平中。始命儒臣。校定是书。孙奇等序。载开宝中节度使高继冲曾编录进上。然其书
文理舛误。未尝校正。历代虽藏之书府。亦阙于雠校。国家诏儒臣。校正医书。臣奇先校定张仲景伤寒论十卷。
总二十二篇。合三百九十七法。除复重。有一百一十二方。其命书以伤寒者。仲景自序。称其宗族余二百。建安
纪年以来。犹未十稔。其死亡者。三分有二。伤寒十居其七。感往昔之沦丧。伤夭横之莫救。遂作此书。考论中
伤寒。乃外感中之一证。太阳病。或已发热。或未发热。必恶寒体痛。呕逆。脉阴阳俱紧者。名为伤寒。此即麻
黄汤之所主。其十分之七。岂尽以麻黄汤一证而死乎。盖伤寒者。外感之总称也。素问。黄帝问热病者伤寒之类
也。而岐伯答以伤寒一日太阳云云。难经曰。伤寒有几。曰。有中风。有伤寒。有湿温。有热病。有温病。千金
方引短剧曰。伤寒。雅士之辞。云天行温疫。是田舍间号耳。不说病之异同也。考之众经。其实殊异矣。肘后
方曰。贵胜雅言。总呼伤寒。世俗因号为时行。外台秘要。许仁则论天行病曰。此病。方家呼为伤寒。而所以为
外感之总称者。盖寒为天地杀厉之气。亘于四时。而善伤人。非温之行于春。暑之行于夏。各王于一时之比。是
以凡外邪之伤人。尽呼为伤寒。仲景所以命书者。只取乎此而已。如麻黄汤证。则对中风而立名者。即伤寒中之
一证。其义迥别矣。后汉书崔实政论曰。夫熊经鸟申。虽延历之术。非伤寒之理。呼吸吐纳。虽度纪之道。非续
骨之膏。此所谓伤寒者。指天行病。即是雅士之辞也。而仲景称之以论者。是论难之论。内经诸篇。有岐黄问答
之语者。必系以论字。无之者则否。金匮要略各篇题下。有论几首。证几首。方几首。考之原文。其云论者。乃
问答之语也。朱震亨格致余论序云。假设问答。仲景之书也。其为论难之义较然矣。后人尊崇之至。遂以经论之
论释之。恐非仲景之本旨也。仲景自序首。题曰伤寒卒病论。卒。乃杂之讹。序中云。作伤寒杂病论。合十六卷。
其为误写可知矣。隋志有张仲景方十五卷。而无伤寒论之目。盖得非当时以湮晦而不见之故耶。旧唐志亦不收之。
至新唐志。则云王叔和张
仲景方十五卷。伤寒卒病论十卷。杂之讹卒。其来旧矣。杂病乃对伤寒。而谓中风历节血痹虚劳等之类。杂病论。
即今金匮要略。喻昌曰。卒病论已不可睹。钱潢云。卒病论早云亡。程应旄曰。本论是有治杂病之方法。柯琴曰。
条中不贯伤寒者。皆是杂病。故曰伤寒杂病论。此说并不可从也。又隋志。载梁有张仲景辨伤寒十卷亡。今伤寒
论。每篇尽冠辨字。即指今伤寒论。而其云亡者。盖千金方。称江南诸师。秘伤寒方法不传。然则隋志云亡者。
其实非亡也。而其云十卷者。考诸仲景自序。乃缺六卷。盖伤寒论十卷。杂病论六卷。各别行于世者。而王焘
外台秘要。载金匮要略诸方。而曰出张仲景伤寒论某卷中。则唐时其全帙十六卷。不易旧目者。才存台阁中。王
氏知弘文馆图籍方书等时。王得探其秘要。而载其着书。今所传十卷，虽重复颇多。似强足十卷之数者。然逐一
对勘。大抵与外台所引符。则今伤寒论。不可断为非七录及唐志之旧也。盖外台所引。今考其卷目。桂枝汤。出
第二卷中。知太阳上编。出第二卷。葛根汤。麻黄汤。小柴胡汤。小建中汤。云出第三卷中。知太阳中篇。在第
三卷。柴胡桂枝干姜汤。大陷胸丸。大小陷胸汤。大柴胡汤。半夏泻心汤。文蛤散。白散。云出第四卷中。知太
阳下编。在第四卷。大承气。茵陈蒿汤。猪苓汤。云出第五卷中。知阳明篇。在第五卷。半夏散及汤。真武汤。
干姜黄连黄芩人参汤。云出第六卷中。知少阴厥阴二篇。在第六卷。其第一。第七。第八第九。虽无所考。而葛
根黄芩黄连汤。云出第七卷中。其余不引药方。则当第一卷。辨脉等篇。第七以下。乃汗吐下可不可等篇。且太
阳病三日云云。属调胃承气汤条。今本载第五卷阳明篇。云出第十卷。伤寒。汗出恶寒身热。大渴不止。欲饮水
一二斗者。白虎加人参汤主之。此条今本失载。盖系于脱文。而云出第十卷中。知辨发汗吐下后病。在第十卷。
由是观之，伤寒论。大抵与今本无大异同。如杂病。则痉湿 在第十一卷，黄胆在第十四卷。疟病胸痹心痛寒疝。
在第十五卷。呕吐哕。在第十六卷。而百合病论并方。霍乱。理中汤。附子粳米汤。四
逆汤。通脉四逆汤。并云出第十七卷中。肺胀小青龙加石膏汤。越婢加半夏汤。肺瘫。桔梗白散。并云出第十八
卷中。是王氏所见本。不止十六卷。乃知杂病分门次第。与今本金匮要略大不同。此可窥旧本之崖略也。晋皇甫
谧甲乙经序曰。伊芳尹以元圣之才。撰用神农本草。以为汤液。汉张仲景论广汤液。为十数卷。用之多验。近世太
医令王叔和撰次景仲遗论甚精。皆可施用。案伊芳尹作汤液。所未经见。唯汉书艺文志。载汤液经法四十卷。此岂
伊芳尹所作欤。然仲景自序特云。博采众方。未言及汤液。士安去仲景时不远。岂亲观所谓汤液者。而为此说欤。
张仲景的原著已经失传，无法再见到原貌。就连王叔和整理的书籍，也早已不可寻觅了。只是阅读王叔和所作的《伤寒序例》一篇，发现他妄用经文，创立谬误之说，实在也不足观，不如让它失传更好。
成无己注释的版本，原本说是十卷，现在流传在世的，究竟只有七卷。以《辨脉》《平脉》作为第一卷，其中的言论原本就是张仲景的原文，这样说也不算过分。但是第二卷中的《伤寒例》一篇，却是王叔和所作，并非张仲景的原文，为什么也列在七卷之中，反而排在张仲景论述六经的内容之前？这不仅文理背谬，而且如同冠履倒置，混乱错杂。第七卷中虽然有《霍乱》《阴阳易》以及差后诸复症等内容，确实是张仲景的原文，但后面那些“可与”“不可与”的条文，又不是长沙太守（张仲景）的手笔了。怎么知道的呢？卷首说：“因为疾病来得急迫，仓促之间难以查找，所以重新收集各种‘可与’‘不可与’的方治方法，比起三阴三阳来说，更容易看清。”这种语气，确凿是王叔和所编纂的。况且其中提到“大法春宜汗，及春宜吐，秋宜下”的说法，于理不通，都属于可以删除的内容。
魏荔彤说：《伤寒例》，是王叔和修辑医圣（张仲景）之书时，阐发其凡例的部分。列在《论》的首部，命名为“例”，标题原本没有“序”字。后人因为它的文章接近序言，所以改名为“序例”。成无己为之注释，方有执为之删减，喻嘉言为之驳斥，程郊倩则嘻笑怒骂，认为它滥竽充数，悖谬错误。我平心静气地讨论它，其本意也没有大的偏差，只是想要将伤寒的理论推广到伤寒之外罢了。却不知道《伤寒论》原本就不是专门论述伤寒这一种病的。《例》的大概意思是：四季都有外感之气，只有冬季才正名为“伤寒”。本想推广，反而变得拘泥执着了。又进一步引申出春温、夏暑、疟病、热病、疫病等，原本就在伤寒之外，进行了大量的论述。因为医圣在自序中提到，在伤寒疑似之间，容易误导人走上歧途，所以想要辨别是非，以补充原书的义理。但是对于各种病症，没有像凡例那样条理清晰地分列，而是参杂反复，笼统铺叙而成文。既没有司马迁《伯夷列传》那样的笔法，必然会出现方凿圆枘的不协调，或者是重楼叠嶂的繁杂。《例》不像《例》，《序》不像《序》，这是他的才力不足，体认不真切。怀着尊崇阐发的心情，竟然造成儒者自我分裂，始终难以统一。为什么呢？因为医圣原本兼论万病，而《论》只论述其中一部分；王叔和的《例》，却想把万病分为万种来论述。至于详细阐明时令气化，以区别疾病感受，这仍然是分辨异同的观点，为何如此冗长混乱没有条理呢？进而谈到药物治疗的迟早，风土气候的凉暖，自以为明白透彻，实际上都是皮毛之见，不能得到《伤寒论》的精深之处。虽然想有所言论，最终也只能流于冒昧之言。又叙述六经伤寒，以及两感证的脉证，以及各自有愈期和不治的原因，这些在《伤寒论》中已经讲得很明白了，这不是赘疣吗？最关键是初感风寒二邪，这是大关巨节，却默默无言没有剖析，又是多么疏漏啊。却把坏证，牵强地纳入温疟等症状中。既然明确了温、暑、疟、热、疫证不同于伤寒，分时异感，各成一病，却又忽然提出“四变”的说法，觉得自相矛盾。更涉及迟治、误治等条目，用“若”、“凡”等词，即使再增益千百条，也苦于挂一漏万。发凡起例，不说全书持纲携领的关键之处，而是凭自己的意思泛滥列举。说这是“本书的例”，书是书，例是例，怎么能让人读了例，就能得到书的简洁精微呢？这不过是画蛇添足、续凫断腿罢了。末尾虽然说明了生、愈、死、亡的机理，终究也是说不完的。总因不能结合全书来体会，撮取其中简易善美的地方，著为遵循的方法。却认为既然整理了这本书，就不能不以推广来发明，本想依附骏马使名声显赫，立言不朽，怎知后人不会少加借题发挥，仔细加以指摘呢？我故且推究他最初的念头，本在于遵循，并非违背抵触，但他才智浅薄，不能心得全书的精义，却想以多求胜，弥补其中的缺略。岂不知医圣的文章，言近而旨远，辞简而意赅呢？然而医圣数千年的正统学问，赖此而不坠，其功劳也不在卫敬仲为《诗经》作序之下。《诗序》虽然经过朱子的删驳，但古远所传，至今不泯，那么王叔和的《例》，可以比照杜预以《例》解《春秋》了。至于可不可作为《例》，《例》是否恰当，《例》的具体内容都在那里，王叔和自己没能表达清楚的意思，后来的读《例》君子，可以代为阐明，何必删削它，不许天下人共同见闻，而追求所谓的公是呢？方有执认为以传附经不是体制，我认为这是《例》，不是《传》。《传》必须依附于《经》，《例》则可以单独列为第一篇。如果王叔和当时，能将所谓温、暑、疟、热、疫等各种病症，各自就专设门类，分别撰写并附于经后，详细论述脉象，精言治疗方法，以述寓作，像朱子补《大学》那样，岂不是医圣的高徒，医门的功臣吗？不能这样做，而在《例》中杂乱地谈论，我知道他对这几类病症的源委本来就不太明白，只是粗略敷衍，没想到竟成了罪案。因此埋没了整理书籍的原志，这也太可惜了。
又说：《辨脉》一篇，确实是医圣的原文，言辞简括，义理深长，与《伤寒杂病论》的心思笔致，都足以令人玩味不尽，推演无穷。大概《辨脉》是论证的先务，所以王叔和将其叙次为第一卷，不能说它是以传附经。既然不是王叔和所能拟议的，原本是医圣的高文巨典，不妨放在诸论之首，以重视诊视之事。至于《平脉》分篇是否符合医圣的本意，或者是王叔和效仿虞书中分二典的智慧呢？但开头突然使用韵语，似乎反而觉得肤廓浅近，不像出自同一人之手。难道杜甫不能作散文，而医圣不能作韵语吗？真伪已经无可考证，谁能把它屏弃呢？屏弃它反而是一种缺失。
又说：《辨脉》《平脉》两篇，也不是后人妄自分为两篇的。大概是因为对“辨”和“平”二字的含义，未能深入理解。“辨”，是分别的意思；“平”，是较量的意思。“平”如平章之平，不是指平人的脉。如果说篇中专门讲平人的脉，试看文中，讲平人之脉的十之一二，讲疾病之脉的反占八九。既然如此，“辨”是始条理，“分”为二，推至于无穷；“平”是终条理，权衡如一，究归于不二。气有阴阳，邪也有阴阳，病必分阴阳，脉必辨阴阳，所以必须分为二篇来辨析它。气的阴阳，有有余和不足；邪的阴阳，也有衰盛；病因有轻重，脉必平阴阳，所以权衡如一来平定它。玩味这两篇，确实就是这个意思，不能全部列举，略观大意就知道了。至于它们的文字古朴简洁，义理精微广大，只有医圣独擅其能，不是王氏所能赞美的言辞。合起来看《伤寒例》，也自然明白编次于六经论之首，先脉后证，先辨平乎脉以审证，后条列乎证以处治，序次也没有紊乱。
吴仪洛说：张仲景的书，一句话可当千百言，每每令人阐发不尽。读者须沉潜反复，必须在言外透出神髓，这才是能读张仲景书的人。
姚际恒说：《伤寒论》，由汉代张仲景撰写，晋代王叔和汇集整理。这本书本是医家经方的始祖，然而驳杂不伦，往往难以分辨。读者苦于不得其旨要。
徐大椿说：张仲景的《伤寒论》，编次者不下数十家，导致聚讼纷纭。这都是不知道张仲景作书宗旨的缘故。看《伤寒叙》所述，是为了庸医误治而设立的。所以正治之法，一经不过三四条，其余都是救误之法。所以它的文章也变动不居。读《伤寒论》的人，都要设想这是一本悬拟之书，那么就无往而不得其义了。今人一定要修改王叔和的次序，有的把这条放在前面，有的把那条放在后面，有的认为此证因彼证而生，有的认为此经因彼经而变，互相诟厉责骂。谁知道病变万端，传经无定。古人因病以施方，没有编好方子等待疾病。其原本的次序，既然已经散亡，差不多王叔和所定的版本可信。为什么呢？王叔和在序例中说：“现在搜集采录张仲景的旧论，记录其证候、诊脉、声色、对病真方，有神效验的，以防备世上的急用。”那么这本书乃是王叔和所搜集，而世人却加以辨驳，认为原本不是这样的。再想想，如果没有王叔和，哪里有这本书呢？况且众人所编的，果真能符合张仲景的原文吗？六经现证，有异有同，后人看到阳经的一个证，混杂在阴经之中，认为应该改入阳经之内，却不知道阴经也有这个证。人们各持己见，反而致使古人圆机活法，泯没不可问矣。凡是读书能得书中的精义要诀，历历分明，那么任其颠倒错乱，而我心自能融会贯通。否则徒然拿着古书，纷更互异，越改越晦涩了。（《医学源流论》）
周省吾说：张仲景的伤寒书，被王叔和编次，已经失去了真相，即使是林亿校本，也已经难得一见。现在世间所传的，只有成无己注释的版本而已。至于三百九十七法，人们无不津津乐道，但究竟很少有确切的指向。汪苓友也说，前人所未明言的，他引用张孝培《伤寒类疏》，桂枝汤服后，甚至以助药力为一法，温覆至如水流漓，又一法，称与诸家不同。但我不知道他依据什么版本而有此考证。前明时期，吾虞赵开美翻刻宋板《伤寒论》全文，其三百九十七法，在每篇之首，注其几先，则节录原文，开明第一第二，次于原文之下，后列一二三之数，总计全书，治法了然也。但不知道出自王叔和，还是出自林亿。现在流传的版本中这部分亡失了，大概是成无己所删吧。后人没见过宋刻本，茫然不晓，如王安道也没见过。国朝王晋三虽然在每方之下，注以各法，也不过是继承张孝培、汪苓友的志向，而爱礼存羊，终究有未能完全洽合的地方。所以我以为注书，不应改移，只宜就文辩论，像朱子那样贤德，阙文错简，都仍其旧，成无己是什么人，却擅自删削，以致迄今满朝聚讼。（《吴医汇讲》）
按语：先父说：《伤寒论》，后汉张仲景着，晋王叔和撰次。经过六朝隋唐，而没有受到表彰的。到了宋代治平年间，才开始命令儒臣校定此书。孙奇等人的序，记载开宝年中节度使高继冲曾编录进上，然而其书文理舛误，未曾校正。历代虽藏之书府，也缺少校对。国家诏令儒臣校正医书，臣孙奇先校定张仲景《伤寒论》十卷，总二十二篇，合三百九十七法，除去重复，有一百一十二方。其命名书为《伤寒》，是张仲景自序中所称：他的宗族余二百人，建安纪年以来，不到十年，死亡者三分之二，其中十分之七死于伤寒。感慨往昔的沦丧，哀伤夭横的莫救，于是作此书。考论中的“伤寒”，乃外感中的一种证。太阳病，或已发热，或未发热，必恶寒体痛，呕逆，脉阴阳俱紧者，名为伤寒。这就是麻黄汤所主治的。那十分之七的人，难道全是以麻黄汤一证而死吗？大概“伤寒”是外感的总称。《素问》黄帝问热病，曰伤寒之类也，而岐伯答以伤寒一日太阳云云。《难经》曰：伤寒有几？曰：有中风，有伤寒，有湿温，有热病，有温病。《千金方》引《短剧》曰：伤寒，雅士之辞，云天行温疫，是田舍间号耳。不说病之异同。考之众经，其实殊异矣。《肘后方》曰：贵胜雅言，总呼伤寒，世俗因号为时行。《外台秘要》许仁则论天行病曰：此病，方家呼为伤寒。而之所以成为外感的总称，大概是因为寒是天地杀厉之气，贯穿四季，而善于伤人，不像温之行于春，暑之行于夏，各王于一时之比。所以凡是外邪伤人，都呼为伤寒。张仲景所以命书，只取于此而已。如麻黄汤证，则是针对中风而立名的，即伤寒中的一证，其义迥别。《后汉书·崔实政论》曰：夫熊经鸟申，虽延历之术，非伤寒之理。呼吸吐纳，虽度纪之道，非续骨之膏。此所谓伤寒者，指天行病，即是雅士之辞也。而仲景称之以“论”者，是论难之论。《内经》诸篇，有岐黄问答之语者，必系以“论”字，无之者则否。《金匮要略》各篇题下，有论几首，证几首，方几首。考之原文，其云“论”者，乃问答之语也。朱震亨《格致余论》序云：假设问答，仲景之书也。其为论难之义较然矣。后人尊崇之至，遂以经论之“论”释之，恐非仲景之本旨。张仲景自序首，题曰《伤寒卒病论》。“卒”乃“杂”之讹。序中云：作《伤寒杂病论》，合十六卷。其为误写可知矣。《隋志》有张仲景方十五卷，而无《伤寒论》之目，盖得非当时以湮晦而不见之故耶。《旧唐志》亦不收之。至《新唐志》，则云王叔和《张仲景方》十五卷，《伤寒卒病论》十卷。“杂”之讹为“卒”，由来已久。杂病乃对伤寒而言，而谓中风、历节、血痹、虚劳等之类为杂病。《杂病论》，即今《金匮要略》。喻昌曰：《卒病论》已不可睹。钱潢云：《卒病论》早云亡。程应旄曰：本论是有治杂病之方法。柯琴曰：条中不贯伤寒者，皆是杂病，故曰《伤寒杂病论》。此说并不可从也。又《隋志》，载梁有张仲景《辨伤寒》十卷亡。今《伤寒论》，每篇尽冠“辨”字，即指今《伤寒论》，而其云亡者，盖《千金方》称江南诸师，秘伤寒方法不传。然则《隋志》云亡者，其实非亡也。而其云十卷者，考诸张仲景自序，乃缺六卷。盖《伤寒论》十卷，《杂病论》六卷，各别行于世者。而王焘《外台秘要》，载《金匮要略》诸方，而曰出张仲景《伤寒论》某卷中，则唐时其全帙十六卷，不易旧目者，才存台阁中。王氏知弘文馆图籍方书等时，王得探其秘要，而载其着书。今所传十卷，虽重复颇多，似强足十卷之数者，然逐一对照，大抵与《外台》所引相符，则今《伤寒论》，不可断为非《七录》及《唐志》之旧也。盖《外台》所引，今考其卷目，桂枝汤，出第二卷中，知太阳上编，出第二卷。葛根汤、麻黄汤、小柴胡汤、小建中汤，云出第三卷中，知太阳中篇，在第三卷。柴胡桂枝干姜汤、大陷胸丸、大小陷胸汤、大柴胡汤、半夏泻心汤、文蛤散、白散，云出第四卷中，知太阳下编，在第四卷。大承气、茵陈蒿汤、猪苓汤，云出第五卷中，知阳明篇，在第五卷。半夏散及汤、真武汤、干姜黄连黄芩人参汤，云出第六卷中，知少阴厥阴二篇，在第六卷。其第一、第七、第八、第九，虽无所考，而葛根黄芩黄连汤，云出第七卷中，其余不引药方，则当第一卷。《辨脉》等篇，第七以下，乃汗吐下可不可等篇。且“太阳病三日云云”，属调胃承气汤条，今本载第五卷阳明篇，云出第十卷。“伤寒，汗出恶寒身热，大渴不止，欲饮水一二斗者，白虎加人参汤主之。”此条今本失载，盖系于脱文，而云出第十卷中，知辨发汗吐下后病，在第十卷。由是观之，《伤寒论》大抵与今本无大异同。如杂病，则痉湿暍在第十一卷，黄疸在第十四卷，疟病胸痹心痛寒疝，在第十五卷，呕吐哕，在第十六卷。而百合病论并方，霍乱，理中汤，附子粳米汤，四逆汤，通脉四逆汤，并云出第十七卷中。肺胀小青龙加石膏汤，越婢加半夏汤，肺瘫，桔梗白散，并云出第十八卷中。是王氏所见本，不止十六卷。乃知杂病分门次第，与今本《金匮要略》大不同。此可窥旧本之崖略也。晋皇甫谧《甲乙经》序曰：伊尹以元圣之才，撰用神农本草，以为汤液。汉张仲景论广汤液，为十数卷，用之多验。近世太医令王叔和撰次景仲遗论甚精，皆可施用。案伊尹作汤液，所未经见，唯《汉书·艺文志》，载《汤液经法》四十卷。此岂伊尹所作欤？然仲景自序特云：博采众方，未言及汤液。士安去仲景时不远，岂亲观所谓汤液者，而为此说欤？
The original works of Zhang Zhongjing have been lost and cannot be seen again. Even the books compiled by Wang Shuhe are now nowhere to be found. Merely reading the "Preface to Examples of Cold Damage" (Shanghan Lili) written by Wang Shuhe, one finds that he recklessly used canonical texts to establish erroneous theories, which is hardly worth observing; it would be better if they had perished.
The annotated version by Cheng Wuji was originally ten volumes, but only seven volumes currently circulate in the world. The first volume, comprising *Bian Mai* (Differentiating Pulse) and *Ping Mai* (Assessing Pulse), contains statements that are indeed from Zhang Zhongjing's original text, so this attribution is not excessive. However, the second volume contains the chapter "Examples of Cold Damage" (*Shanghan Li*), which was authored by Wang Shuhe, not Zhang Zhongjing. Why is it included among the seven volumes and placed before Zhang Zhongjing's discussions on the Six Channels? This not only contradicts literary logic but also resembles placing the hat on the feet and the shoes on the head, resulting in chaos and confusion. Although the seventh volume contains chapters on Cholera (*Huoluan*), Yin-Yang Transformation (*Yin Yang Yi*), and various post-illness recurrence syndromes—which are undoubtedly Zhang Zhongjing's original text—the subsequent sections discussing "what can be done" and "what cannot be done" are not the pen of the Chancellor of Changsha (Zhang Zhongjing). How do we know this? The beginning of the volume states: "Because diseases arise urgently and are difficult to locate in haste, I have re-collected various treatments regarding what can and cannot be administered, making them easier to see compared to the Three Yin and Three Yang channels." This tone is certainly that of Wang Shuhe's compilation. Furthermore, the general principle stating "Spring suits sweating, and spring suits vomiting; Autumn suits purging" is logically unsound and belongs to content that should be deleted.
Wei Litong stated: The "Examples of Cold Damage" was compiled by Wang Shuhe to elucidate the general principles of the Medical Sage's (Zhang Zhongjing's) work. It is listed at the beginning of the Treatise and named "Examples." Originally, the title did not contain the character "Preface" (Xu). Later generations renamed it "Preface to Examples" because its style resembled a preface. Cheng Wuji annotated it, Fang Youzhi deleted parts of it, Yu Jiayan refuted it, and Cheng Jiaojie mocked and cursed it, considering it spurious and heretical. Discussing it calmly and objectively, its intent was not greatly flawed; it merely attempted to extend the theory of Cold Damage beyond Cold Damage itself. However, one does not realize that the *Treatise on Cold Damage* was never exclusively about Cold Damage. The general idea of the "Examples" is that external pathogenic factors exist in all four seasons, but only in winter is it strictly named "Cold Damage." In attempting to extend it, he instead became rigid. He further extended the discussion to Spring Warmth, Summer Heat, Malaria, Febrile Diseases, and Epidemics, which originally lay outside Cold Damage, making numerous arguments. Because the Medical Sage mentioned in his own preface that ambiguity between Cold Damage and other conditions leads people astray, Wang sought to distinguish right from wrong to supplement the original book's meaning. However, unlike the strict format of general principles, he mixed and repeated himself, presenting a vague narrative. Lacking the literary skill of Sima Qian's "Biography of Boyi," his work inevitably showed mismatched elements or excessive complexity. The "Examples" failed to be proper examples, and the "Preface" failed to be a proper preface, reflecting his insufficient talent and inaccurate comprehension. With a heart full of reverence and desire to expound, he ended up creating a dichotomy within Confucian scholarship that remained hard to unify. Why? Because the Medical Sage originally covered myriad diseases, while the *Treatise* focused on one aspect; Wang Shuhe's "Examples" attempted to divide myriad diseases into myriad categories. Regarding the detailed explanation of seasonal qi transformation to distinguish disease acquisition, this remains a view of distinguishing similarities and differences, yet why is it so verbose and disorganized? Consequently, he discussed the timing of drug treatment and the coolness or warmth of local climates, believing this to be clear and precise, but these were merely superficial observations that failed to grasp the profundity of the *Treatise on Cold Damage*. Although he wished to speak, his words ultimately flowed into presumptuous remarks. He narrated the pulse and symptoms of Six Channel Cold Damage and Double-Invasion syndromes, along with reasons for recovery or untreatability, which were already clearly explained in the *Treatise on Cold Damage*; was this not superfluous? Most critically, the initial infection by Wind and Cold pathogens is a major juncture, yet he silently failed to dissect it, how negligent is this? He dragged complicated syndromes into Warm Malaria and other conditions. Having clarified that Warm, Summer-Heat, Malaria, Febrile, and Epidemic syndromes differ from Cold Damage by season and pathogen, each constituting a distinct disease, he suddenly proposed a theory of "Four Transformations," which seemed self-contradictory. He further included articles on delayed and mistaken treatments, using terms like "if" and "generally," yet even adding thousands of such points would suffer from omitting much while mentioning little. Establishing general principles without highlighting the key threads of the entire book, he freely expanded upon his own ideas. He called this the "Example of the Book," but the book is the book, and the example is the example; how can reading the example lead one to the book's conciseness and subtlety? This is merely adding legs to a snake or cutting off the legs of a duck. Although the end briefly explains the mechanisms of life, recovery, death, and demise, it ultimately fails to cover everything. The root cause is the inability to integrate the whole book to extract its simple and beneficial essence as a guide for practice. Believing that since he compiled the book, he must innovate through expansion, he hoped to attach his name to the sage's fame and achieve immortality through his writings. Did he not know that later generations would seize upon this to criticize him? I therefore trace his original intention: it was to follow, not to violate. Yet, with shallow wisdom and thin talent, unable to comprehend the profound meaning of the whole book through personal insight, he sought to prevail by quantity and fill gaps. Did he not know that the Medical Sage's writing is near in expression but far in meaning, concise in words but comprehensive in intent? Nevertheless, the orthodox learning of the Medical Sage over millennia has been preserved through this work, and his merit is no less than that of Wei Jingzhong in prefacing the *Classic of Poetry*. Although the *Poetry Preface* was deleted and refuted by Zhu Xi, the ancient transmission remains unextinguished today. Thus, Wang Shuhe's "Examples" can be compared to Du Yu's use of "Examples" to interpret the *Spring and Autumn Annals*. Whether it qualifies as an "Example" and whether it is appropriate, the "Example" itself exists. What Wang Shuhe could not express clearly, later scholars who read the "Example" can clarify for him. Why delete it and deny the world common knowledge in pursuit of a supposed public truth? Fang Youzhi argued that attaching commentary before the classic is improper. I argue that this is an "Example," not a "Commentary." A Commentary must attach to the Classic, but an Example can still stand first. If Wang Shuhe had, at that time, categorized the aforementioned Warm, Summer-Heat, Malaria, Febrile, and Epidemic syndromes into separate specialized sections, attached them to the classics, detailed their pulse discussions, and precisely described their treatments—creating new content in the spirit of exposition, much like Zhu Xi supplemented the *Great Learning*—would he not have been a high disciple of the Medical Sage and a meritorious figure in medicine? Failing to do this, he discussed these matters杂乱ly in the "Examples." I know he was not entirely clear on the origins of these syndromes, merely giving a rough account. Unexpectedly, this became a crime, obscuring his original intention of compiling the book, which is truly a pity.
He further stated: The chapter *Bian Mai* (Differentiating Pulse) is indeed the original text of the Medical Sage. Its language is concise, and its meaning is profound. Combined with the *Treatise on Cold Damage and Miscellaneous Diseases*, its thought process and writing style are sufficient to make one ponder endlessly and derive infinite applications. Since Differentiating Pulse is a prerequisite for syndrome differentiation, Wang Shuhe placed it as the first volume. This cannot be said to be attaching a commentary before the classic. Since it was not something Wang Shuhe could have conceived, and it is originally a great work of the Medical Sage, it is appropriate to place it at the head of the treatises to emphasize the importance of diagnosis. Regarding the separation of *Ping Mai* (Assessing Pulse) into a separate chapter, whether it aligns with the Medical Sage's original intent or if Wang Shuhe imitated the wisdom of dividing the Two Canons in the *Book of Documents* is debatable. However, the sudden use of rhyme at the beginning seems superficial and shallow, unlike the rest, suggesting it may not be from the same hand. Could it be that Du Fu could not write prose, or that the Medical Sage could not write rhymed verse? The authenticity is irrecoverable, and who can discard it? Discarding it would be a loss.
He further stated: The two chapters *Bian Mai* and *Ping Mai* were not arbitrarily divided by later generations. This is likely due to a failure to deeply understand the meanings of "Bian" (Differentiate) and "Ping" (Assess/Level). "Bian" means to distinguish; "Ping" means to weigh or compare. "Ping" is like the "Ping" in Pingzhang (harmonious assessment), not referring to the pulse of a healthy person. If one claims the chapter specifically discusses the pulses of healthy people, observe the text: only one-tenth to two-tenths discuss healthy pulses, while eight-tenths to nine-tenths discuss pathological pulses. Therefore, "Bian" represents the beginning of order, dividing into two to push towards infinity; "Ping" represents the conclusion of order, weighing equally to return to unity. Qi has Yin and Yang, pathogens have Yin and Yang, diseases must be divided by Yin and Yang, and pulses must be differentiated by Yin and Yang; thus, they must be divided into two chapters to differentiate them. The Yin and Yang of Qi have excess and deficiency; the Yin and Yang of pathogens have decline and prosperity; causes of illness have severity; pulses must assess Yin and Yang, thus weighing equally to level them. Playing with these two chapters confirms this meaning, though it cannot be fully enumerated; observing the general idea suffices. Their text is ancient, solemn, and concise, and their meaning is subtle and vast. Only the Medical Sage possessed this ability; it is not words that Wang Shi could praise. Viewing them together with the *Shanghan Li*, it becomes clear they are编次 (compiled) before the Six Channel Treatises: first pulse then syndrome, first differentiating and assessing the pulse to examine the syndrome, then listing the syndrome to determine treatment. The sequence is not disordered.
Wu Yiluo said: Zhang Zhongjing's book uses one word to convey what others say in a thousand. It constantly defies complete explication. Readers must immerse themselves and repeat the study until the spiritual marrow emerges from beyond the words. Only then can one truly read Zhang Zhongjing's book.
Yao Jiheng said: The *Treatise on Cold Damage* was written by Zhang Zhongjing of the Han Dynasty and compiled by Wang Shuhe of the Jin Dynasty. This book is the ancestor of medical formulas, yet it is mixed and inconsistent, often difficult to distinguish. Readers suffer from failing to grasp its essential meaning.
Xu Dachun said: There have been dozens of compilers of Zhang Zhongjing's *Treatise on Cold Damage*, leading to endless disputes. This is because they do not understand the purpose of Zhang Zhongjing's writing. Observing the "Narrative of Cold Damage," it was established for the sake of treating errors made by mediocre physicians. Therefore, the correct treatment methods occupy only three or four articles per channel, while the rest are methods for correcting mistakes. Hence, the text is dynamic and changing. Those who read the *Treatise on Cold Damage* must imagine it as a hypothetical book, and then they will find its meaning everywhere. Modern people insist on altering Wang Shuhe's order, placing some articles before others, claiming one syndrome arises from another, or one channel transforms into another, criticizing each other. Who knows that disease changes are myriad and transmission has no fixed pattern? The ancients prescribed formulas based on diseases; they did not compile formulas waiting for diseases. Since the original order has been lost, Wang Shuhe's arrangement is credible. Why? Wang Shuhe stated in his preface: "Now I collect Zhang Zhongjing's old theories, record his symptoms, pulse diagnoses, voice and color observations, and true formulas matched to diseases, especially those with miraculous effects, to prepare for emergencies." Thus, this book was collected by Wang Shuhe, yet people refute it, claiming it was not originally like this. Consider: without Wang Shuhe, where would this book come from? Moreover, can the compilations by various people truly match Zhang Zhongjing's original text? The present manifestations of the Six Channels have similarities and differences. Later generations see a symptom of the Yang channels mixed in the Yin channels and think it should be moved to the Yang channels, not knowing that the Yin channels also have this symptom. Everyone defends their private views, causing the flexible and living methods of the ancients to become obscured and untraceable. Anyone who reads a book and grasps its essential meaning clearly can understand it regardless of disorder. Otherwise, tampering with ancient texts will only make them more obscure. (*Yixue Yuanliu Lun*)
Zhou Shengwu said: Zhang Zhongjing's book on Cold Damage, as compiled by Wang Shuhe, has lost its authenticity. Even the Lin Yi edition is rare. What circulates today is only the version annotated by Cheng Wuji. People delight in the "Three Hundred and Ninety-seven Methods," but few point to them accurately. Wang Lingyou also noted that predecessors did not clarify certain points. Citing Zhang Xiaopei's *Shanghan Leishu*, after taking Guizhi Tang, one method involves assisting medicinal power, another involves warming coverage until sweat flows like water, and another claims difference from other schools. But I do not know what basis he had for this research. During the Ming Dynasty, Zhao Kaimai of Wuyu reprinted the Song edition of the full text of *Shanghan Lun*. His "Three Hundred and Ninety-seven Methods" noted the number at the beginning of each chapter, excerpted the original text, numbered them First, Second, etc., below the original text, and listed numbers 1, 2, 3 subsequently, totaling the whole book, making treatments clear. But it is unknown whether this came from Wang Shuhe or Lin Yi. The current transmitted versions lack this, likely deleted by Cheng Wuji. Later generations, having not seen the Song block prints, were ignorant, just as Wang Andao was. In our dynasty, Wang Jinzhu added notes of various methods under each formula, continuing the efforts of Zhang Xiaopei and Wang Lingyou, but preserving ritual at the expense of substance, he could not fully satisfy the requirements. Therefore, I believe annotating a book should not involve moving text around; one should only debate based on the text. Just as Zhu Xi, despite his virtue, kept missing characters and misplaced slips as they were, who is Cheng Wuji to arbitrarily delete? This has led to endless debates to this day. (*Wu Yi Hui Jiang*)
Note: My father said: The *Treatise on Cold Damage* was written by Zhang Zhongjing of the Later Han Dynasty and compiled by Wang Shuhe of the Jin Dynasty. Passing through the Six Dynasties, Sui, and Tang, it received no official recognition. It was not until the Zhiping era of the Song Dynasty that Confucian scholars were ordered to collate the book. Sun Qi's preface records that during the Kai Bao era, Gao Jichong, the Jiedushi, had compiled and presented it, but the text was erroneous and uncorrected. Although stored in libraries through the dynasties, it lacked proofreading. When the state ordered scholars to collate medical books, my ancestor Sun Qi first collated Zhang Zhongjing's *Treatise on Cold Damage* into ten volumes, totaling twenty-two chapters, combining three hundred and ninety-seven methods, removing duplicates, leaving one hundred and twelve formulas. The naming of the book as *Shanghan* comes from Zhang Zhongjing's preface: his clan had over two hundred members; since the Jian'an era, in less than ten years, two-thirds had died, and seven out of ten died of Cold Damage. Mourning the past losses and the helplessness against premature death, he wrote this book. Examining the "Cold Damage" discussed in the treatise, it is one type among external contractions. Taiyang disease, whether fever has appeared or not, must include aversion to cold, body pain, vomiting, and reverse flow, with pulses tight in both Yin and Yang positions, is named Cold Damage. This is what Mahuang Tang treats. Did the seven out of ten deaths all result from this single Mahuang Tang syndrome? Generally, "Cold Damage" is the general term for external contraction. In the *Suwen*, when the Yellow Emperor asked about febrile diseases, he said they are similar to Cold Damage, and Qibo replied that Cold Damage on the first day affects the Taiyang channel, etc. The *Nanjing* asks: How many types of Cold Damage are there? Answer: There is Wind Strike, Cold Damage, Damp-Warmth, Febrile Disease, and Warm Disease. The *Qianjin Fang* cites the *Duanju*: "Cold Damage" is the elegant term of scholars; "Sky Traveling Warm Epidemic" is the name used by farmers. It does not discuss the differences between diseases. Examining various classics, they are actually quite different. The *Zhoubi Suanjing* says: Elegant speech of the nobles generally calls it Cold Damage, while the common people call it Seasonal Pathogen. Xu Renze in the *Waitai Miyao* discusses Sky Traveling Disease, saying: Physicians call this Cold Damage. The reason it became the general term for external contraction is that Cold is a killing and fierce qi of heaven and earth, pervading the four seasons and harming people easily, unlike Warmth which acts in Spring or Heat which acts in Summer, each ruling one season. Thus, any external pathogen harming people is called Cold Damage. Zhang Zhongjing named his book based on this. For example, the Mahuang Tang syndrome is named in contrast to Wind Strike, being just one syndrome within Cold Damage, with completely different implications. The *Book of Later Han · Cui Shi's Political Discourse* says: Bear hanging and bird stretching, though methods for longevity, are not the principle of Cold Damage. Breathing exercises, though paths to discipline, are not ointments for bone healing. This so-called Cold Damage refers to Sky Traveling Disease, which is the elegant term. Zhang Zhongjing called it a "Lun" (Treatise/Discussion) because it is a dialectical discussion. In the *Neijing*, chapters with Qibo-Huangdi dialogues always carry the character "Lun"; those without do not. In the *Jingui Yaolue*, chapter titles list how many "Luns," "Zhengs," and "Fangshis." Examining the original text, "Lun" refers to dialogue. Zhu Zhenheng's preface to *Gezhi Yulun* says: Hypothetical questions and answers characterize Zhang Zhongjing's book. The meaning of dialectical discussion is obvious. Later generations revered it so much that they interpreted "Lun" as the "Lun" of Classics, which may not be Zhang Zhongjing's original intent. Zhang Zhongjing's preface title was *Shanghan Zubing Lun* (Treatise on Cold Damage and Acute/Miscellaneous Diseases). "Zu" is a corruption of "Za" (Miscellaneous). The preface says: Composed *Shanghan Zabing Lun*, combined into sixteen volumes. This error is evident. The *Sui Shu · Jingji Zhi* lists Zhang Zhongjing's Formulas in fifteen volumes but has no entry for *Shanghan Lun*, possibly because it was obscure and unseen at the time. The *Old Tang Shu* also does not收录 it. The *New Tang Shu* lists Wang Shuhe's *Zhang Zhongjing Fang* in fifteen volumes and *Shanghan Zubing Lun* in ten volumes. The corruption of "Za" to "Zu" has a long history. "Zabing" (Miscellaneous Diseases) contrasts with "Shanghan," referring to conditions like Wind Stroke, Joint Bi, Blood Bi, and Deficiency Consumption. The *Zabing Lun* is the current *Jingui Yaolue*. Yu Chang said: The *Zubing Lun* is already lost. Qian Huang said: The *Zubing Lun* was lost early. Cheng Yingmao said: The main treatise contains methods for treating miscellaneous diseases. Ke Qin said: Articles not related to Cold Damage are all miscellaneous diseases, hence *Shanghan Zabing Lun*. This view is unacceptable. The *Sui Shu · Jingji Zhi* also records that in Liang, there were ten volumes of Zhang Zhongjing's *Bian Shanghan* which were lost. Today, every chapter of *Shanghan Lun* begins with the character "Bian," referring to the current *Shanghan Lun*. The "lost" mentioned might refer to the *Qianjin Fang* stating that masters in Jiangnan kept Cold Damage methods secret. Thus, the "lost" in the *Sui Shu* was not actually lost. Regarding the ten volumes, checking Zhang Zhongjing's preface, six volumes are missing. Presumably, the *Shanghan Lun* was ten volumes and the *Zabing Lun* was six volumes, circulating separately. Wang Tao's *Waitai Miyao* cites formulas from the *Jingui Yaolue* as coming from specific volumes of Zhang Zhongjing's *Shanghan Lun*. Thus, in the Tang Dynasty, the complete sixteen volumes existed under their original titles, preserved in imperial archives. When Wang Shi knew the collections of the Hongwen Hall, he could access secrets and cite his writings. The current ten volumes, though repetitive and seemingly forced to reach ten, largely match citations in the *Waitai*. Thus, the current *Shanghan Lun* cannot be断 (concluded) as deviating from the *Qi Lu* and *Tang Shu* originals. Examining the volumes cited in the *Waitai*: Guizhi Tang is in Volume 2, indicating the Upper Section of Taiyang is in Volume 2. Gegen Tang, Mahuang Tang, Xiao Chaihu Tang, Xiao Jianzhong Tang are in Volume 3, indicating the Middle Section of Taiyang is in Volume 3. Chaihu Guizhi Ganjiang Tang, Daxianxiong Wan, Da/Xiao Xianxiong Tang, Da Chaihu Tang, Banxia Xiexin Tang, Wenhe San, Baisan are in Volume 4, indicating the Lower Section of Taiyang is in Volume 4. Dachengqi Tang, Yinchenhao Tang, Zhuling Tang are in Volume 5, indicating the Yangming Chapter is in Volume 5. Banxia San & Tang, Zhenwu Tang, Ganjiang Huanglian Huangqin Renshen Tang are in Volume 6, indicating the Shaoyin and Jueyin Chapters are in Volume 6. Volumes 1, 7, 8, 9 are unverified, but Gegen Huangqin Huanglian Tang is in Volume 7, and others not citing formulas belong to Volume 1. From Volume 7 onwards are chapters on sweating, vomiting, purging, what can/cannot be done. "Taiyang Bing San Ri..." belongs to the Tiaowei Chengqi Tang article, currently in Volume 5 Yangming, but cited as coming from Volume 10. "Shanghan, sweating, aversion to cold, body heat, extreme thirst, wanting to drink one or two dou of water, treated with Baihu Jia Renshen Tang" is missing in the current text, likely a lacuna, but cited as coming from Volume 10, indicating the chapter on post-sweat/vomit/purge diseases is in Volume 10. From this, we see the *Shanghan Lun* is largely consistent with the current text. As for miscellaneous diseases: Jing-Shi-Xi is in Volume 11, Jaundice in Volume 14, Malaria, Chest Bi, Heart Pain, Cold Cramps in Volume 15, Vomiting and Hiccups in Volume 16. Bailian Bing Lun and formulas, Huoluan, Lizhong Tang, Fuzi Jingmi Tang, Sini Tang, Tongmai Sini Tang are cited as coming from Volume 17. Feizhang, Xiao Qinglong Jia Shigao Tang, Yuespi Jia Banxia Tang, Feitan, Jiegeng Baisan are cited as coming from Volume 18. Thus, the version Wang Shuhe saw had more than sixteen volumes. We know the classification and order of miscellaneous diseases differed greatly from the current *Jingui Yaolue*. This reveals the outline of the old version. Huangfu Mi's preface to *Jiayi Jing* states: Yi Yin, with his primordial sage talent, used the *Shennong Bencao* to create decoctions. Zhang Zhongjing of the Han Dynasty expanded these decoctions into ten-plus volumes, proving effective. Recently, Imperial Physician Wang Shuke carefully compiled Zhang Zhongjing's remaining theories, all applicable. Regarding Yi Yin creating decoctions, I have not seen evidence except for the *Han Shu · Yiwenzhi* listing *Tangye Jingfa* in forty volumes. Was this created by Yi Yin? However, Zhang Zhongjing's preface specifically says: "Extensively collected various formulas," without mentioning decoctions. Shengan lived close to Zhang Zhongjing's time; did he personally see the so-called Decoctions and make this claim?