十七叶，后三行∶苦侯切（原本作“若使切”，误，各本亦误，今根据原本校字作“苦侯切”改。
按查《玉篇》“芤”字本音“苦侯切”，知前人所改非妄，故从之。）
十八叶，二行∶牡豕、牡鼠（原本“牡”皆误作“壮”，今改正。）十行∶金 □捕物（按原本
□系破损，下半字略有痕迹，似“善”字。薛本、张本俱作“之”，疑非。）
二十叶，后十行注∶取自然汗（“汗”当作“汁”。）
二十三叶，一行∶□参（原本破损，以药味次第考之，当是“玄参”。）后九行∶□□□□（原
本破损，不可考，薛本、顾本亦无。张本作“研细用”。）后十行∶□□（□□□□□□原本破损，
薛本、张本“□□”作“汤末”，“□□□”作“同上二”，“□□□”作“中立练”。按“立练”
二字有误。）
二十四叶，五行∶黑膏温（“膏”当作“骨”。）
另修治药法第二十叶至二十三叶止，此四叶宋刻上排药味上俱空一字，今刻误作顶格并证。
道光癸未岁吴门黄氏士礼HT 开雕同邑施南金书
郡中藏书家，所谓朱奂文游者，余犹及见其人，家多书。以老故，大半散去，最后一单中有庞
安常《伤寒总病论》，亦第与群籍并出。主人不以为宋刻，估人之买者，亦未知为宋刻也。HT 置坊
间，有识者过而识之，以青蚨五星易归。自是我辈之好言收藏者，皆争相购矣。是书先至小读书堆
顾抱冲家，既而五砚楼袁寿 知之，余亦知之。因寿 先与议易，故归之。抱冲先见是书，遂先录其
副。抱冲所录，余未之见，见其友人施君少谷手录本。少谷时在抱冲家教其子弟习书法，故见而借抄，
抄毕，原书归寿 ，余从之倩工影钞一本。统而计之，宋刻一，影宋刻者，抱冲、少谷与余有三矣。
厥后余与寿 以影钞易宋刻，是书遂为百宋一廛中物。年来力绌，举而赠诸艺芸书舍，不意寿 之影
钞者，亦于其身后展转归艺芸，于是刻与钞尽为他人所有，余则一无所有矣。刻洪氏《集验方》之冬，
余忽得一梦，有人谓余∶何不再刻庞《伤寒》？醒而异之，遂商诸艺芸，思借钞入刻，奈艺芸不允让
影钞付梓，而允借宋刻备校。适少谷哲嗣稻香，欣然掇赠其先人手泽付诸剞劂，于是复以宋刻
较影钞，而知少谷之影钞为功不小也。三卷三十三叶，唯少谷影钞本有之，余本都缺。想少谷钞后，
抱冲始钞，钞时偶失之。自是宋刻缺此叶，已后影钞本皆失之。非余之重刻，不知宋刻缺此叶；非
少谷之影钞，不知宋刻之原未缺此叶也。书之经人拆散传录，其弊有如此者，不可不警也。其中五
卷十五叶，宋本缺，惟薛性天家钞本有之，字迹行款与原本殊，未知何据。后见抱冲所钞者中亦有此
叶，谓是从王宇泰活字本补入。今余复刻，据薛本补，据顾本校，存其异同可耳。宋刻不无误处，
余复借张莳塘家藏钞本，薛性天家藏钞本、顾容安家藏钞本，虽未知其同出一源与否，而字有异同，
悉为标出。可从者，或改正文以就之；未敢信者，或存校语以参之。余友张君 庵，素谙医理，共
相参订，以定校勘数十条。其任检阅而草创者，余长孙美 之力也。是书自王宇泰活字印行之后，
未见重梓，即王本相传，止有二百部，故行世绝少。余侄曾有之，为友人借去被焚，故未及一校为
憾。朋好中皆想望是书，渴欲一见，故命工梓行。至于是书之深奥，昔安常友人苏、黄两公已详言
之，不复丐当代名流之儒医兼通者赘一言已。
道光癸未仲春黄丕烈识
第十七叶，后三行：苦侯切（原本作“若使切”，是错误，各版本也错了，现在根据原本校正文字改为“苦侯切”。按查《玉篇》中“芤”字本音为“苦侯切”，知道前人的修改并非胡乱更改，所以遵从它。）
第十八叶，第二行：牡豕、牡鼠（原本中的“牡”字都误写为“壮”字，现在改正。）第十行：金□捕物（按原本□系破损，下半字略有痕迹，像是“善”字。薛本、张本都作“之”，怀疑不是。）
第二十叶，后十行注：取自然汗（“汗”字应当是“汁”字。）
第二十三叶，第一行：□参（原本破损，以药味次序考证，应当是“玄参”。）后九行：□□□□（原本破损，无法考证，薛本、顾本也没有。张本作“研细用”。）后十行：□□（□□□□□□原本破损，薛本、张本将“□□”作“汤末”，“□□□”作“同上二”，“□□□”作“中立练”。按“立练”二字有误。）
第二十四叶，第五行：黑膏温（“膏”字应当是“骨”字。）
另外修治药法部分从第二十叶至第二十三叶止，这四页宋刻本上排药味上方都空一字，现在的刻本错误地顶格排版并连证文一起刻印。
郡中的藏书家，所说的朱奂文游者，我还见过其人，家中书籍很多。因为年老，大半散失，最后一单中有庞安常的《伤寒总病论》，也是与其他书籍一起出售的。主人不认为这是宋刻本，买书的估人也不知道这是宋刻本。我将其置于书坊间，有识之士经过时认出它，用五两银子换回。从此我们这些喜好收藏的人，都争相购买。这本书先到小读书堆顾抱冲家，随后五砚楼袁寿得知此事，我也知道了。因为袁寿先与我商议交换，所以归他所有。抱冲先见到这本书，于是先抄录了副本。抱冲所抄的，我没见过，只见过他的友人施君少谷的手抄本。少谷当时在抱冲家教其子弟练习书法，所以见到并借来抄写，抄完后，原书归袁寿，我从他那里请工匠影抄了一本。总计起来，宋刻本一本，影宋刻本的，抱冲、少谷和我共有三本。后来我与袁寿用影钞本交换宋刻本，这本书就成了百宋一廛中的藏品。近年来财力不足，将它赠送给艺芸书舍，没想到袁寿的影钞本，也在他身后辗转归入艺芸，于是刻本与钞本尽为他人所有，我则一无所有了。在刊刻洪氏《集验方》的那个冬天，我突然做了一个梦，有人对我说：为什么不重新刊刻庞安的《伤寒论》？醒来觉得奇异，于是与艺芸商量，想借钞本入刻，无奈艺芸不允许让影钞本付梓，但允许借宋刻本备校。恰好少谷的儿子稻香，欣然将其先祖的手泽捐赠给刻工，于是又用宋刻本校对影钞本，才知道少谷的影钞本功劳不小。全书三卷三十三叶，只有少谷的影钞本有这一部分，我的版本全都缺失。想是少谷抄完后，抱冲才开始抄，抄时偶然遗漏了。从此宋刻本缺了这一叶，以后的影钞本也都遗失了。如果不是我重新刊刻，就不知道宋刻本缺这一叶；如果不是少谷的影钞本，就不知道宋刻本原本并不缺这一叶。书籍被人拆散传录，弊端竟有如此严重的，不可不警惕啊。其中第五卷第十五叶，宋本缺失，只有薛性天家的钞本有，字迹行款与原本不同，不知道依据是什么。后来见到抱冲所抄的本子中也有这一叶，说是从王宇泰活字本补入的。现在我重新刊刻，依据薛本补入，依据顾本校对，保留其异同罢了。宋刻本也有错误之处，我又借来张莳塘家藏钞本、薛性天家藏钞本、顾容安家藏钞本，虽然不知道它们是否同出一源，但字有异同，都一一标出。可以采纳的，或者修改正文以顺从它；不敢确信者，或者保留校语以供参考。我的朋友张君庵，向来精通医理，共同参订，确定了数十条校勘。负责检阅而草创工作的，是我的长孙美力的功劳。这本书自从王宇泰活字印行之后，未见重印，即使王本相传，也只有二百部，所以在世间流传极少。我的侄子曾有此书，被朋友借去后被焚毁，所以未能来得及校对，成为遗憾。朋友中都渴望看到这本书，渴欲一见，所以命工匠刊刻发行。至于这本书的深奥之处，昔日安常的朋友苏东坡、黄庭坚两位先生已经详细说明，不再乞求当代名流儒医兼通者再多言赘述了。
道光癸未年仲春，黄丕烈识。
Leaf 17, last three lines: Ku Hou Qie (The original text reads "Ruo Shi Qie", which is an error; all other editions also contain this error. It is now corrected to "Ku Hou Qie" based on the original text. According to a search in *Yu Pian*, the character "Kou" (Cǎo Kūn, a type of reed) originally has the pronunciation "Ku Hou Qie". This indicates that previous corrections were not arbitrary, so we follow the original.)
Leaf 18, line 2: Mu Shi (Male Pig), Mu Shu (Male Rat) (In the original, both instances of "Mu" were mistakenly written as "Zhuang"; this is now corrected.) Line 10: Jin [damaged] Bu Wu (According to the original, the character represented by [damaged] is worn out, with traces visible at the bottom resembling the character "Shan" (Good). Both the Xue edition and Zhang edition read "Zhi" (Of), which is suspected to be incorrect.)
Leaf 20, note for the last ten lines: Qu Zi Ran Han (The character "Han" (Sweat) should be "Zhi" (Juice).)
Leaf 23, line 1: [damaged] Shen (The original is damaged. Based on the sequence of medicinal ingredients, it should be "Xuan Shen" (Scrophulariae Radix).) Last nine lines: [damaged] [damaged] [damaged] [damaged] (The original is damaged and cannot be verified; neither the Xue edition nor the Gu edition contains this. The Zhang edition reads "Yan Xi Yong" (Grind into fine powder for use).) Last ten lines: [damaged] [damaged] ([damaged] [damaged] [damaged] [damaged] [damaged] [damaged] The original is damaged. In the Xue and Zhang editions, "[damaged] [damaged]" is read as "Tang Mo" (Decoction residue), "[damaged] [damaged] [damaged]" as "Tong Shang Er" (Same as above, two parts), and "[damaged] [damaged] [damaged]" as "Zhong Li Lian". Note that the characters "Li Lian" are erroneous.)
Leaf 24, line 5: Hei Gao Wen (The character "Gao" (Ointment) should be "Gu" (Bone).)
Regarding the section on "Methods of Processing Medicines" from Leaf 20 to Leaf 23, these four leaves in the Song edition have one blank space above the list of medicinal ingredients in the upper row. The current engraving erroneously aligns them to the left margin and combines them with the diagnostic text.
Engraved in the Guiwei year of Daoguang by the Shi Li Ju of the Huang family in Wumen, calligraphy by Shi Nanjin of the same county.
Among the collectors in the prefecture, Zhu Huanwen You was someone I still had the opportunity to meet; his household possessed many books. Due to old age, most were dispersed. Among the final lot sold was Pang Anchang's *Shanghan Zongbing Lun* (General Treatise on Cold Damage Diseases), offered alongside other works. The owner did not recognize it as a Song edition, nor did the book dealers who purchased it know it was a Song edition. I placed it in a bookstore, where a knowledgeable person recognized it and exchanged it for five taels of silver (Qingfu). Since then, those of us who enjoy collecting have competed to purchase copies. This book first came to the home of Gu Baochong at Xiaodushudui. Later, Yuan Shou of Wuyanlou learned of it, and I also became aware of it. Because Yuan Shou negotiated the exchange first, it came into his possession. Baochong saw the book first and thus copied a duplicate. I have not seen Baochong's copy, but I have seen a handwritten copy by his friend, Mr. Shi Shaogu. Shaogu was teaching children calligraphy at Baochong's house at the time, so he borrowed and copied it. After copying, the original returned to Yuan Shou, and I commissioned craftsmen to make a facsimile copy from him. In total, there is one Song edition, and regarding the Song-facsimile copies, there are three: those by Baochong, Shaogu, and myself. Later, I exchanged my facsimile copy for the Song edition with Yuan Shou, and the book became part of the collection in Baishong Yichan (Hundred Song Editions Studio). In recent years, due to financial constraints, I donated it to Yi Yun Shushe. Unexpectedly, Yuan Shou's facsimile copy also eventually found its way to Yi Yun after his death. Thus, both the engraved and manuscript copies are now owned by others, while I possess nothing. During the winter when I was engraving Hong's *Jiyan Fang* (Collected Verified Prescriptions), I suddenly had a dream. Someone said to me, "Why not reprint Pang's *Shanghan*?" Waking up, I found this strange, so I discussed it with Yi Yun, hoping to borrow the manuscript copy for printing. However, Yi Yun refused to lend the facsimile copy for publication but agreed to lend the Song edition for collation. Fortunately, Daoxiang, the son of Shaogu, willingly donated his ancestor's handwritten work to the printers. Consequently, I compared the Song edition with the facsimile copy and realized the significant value of Shaogu's copy. The book consists of three volumes and thirty-three leaves. Only Shaogu's facsimile copy contains this specific portion; my version lacks it entirely. It is likely that after Shaogu copied it, Baochong began his copy but accidentally omitted it during transcription. From then on, the Song edition lacked this leaf, and subsequent facsimile copies also lost it. If I had not reprinted it, one would not know that the Song edition lacked this leaf; if Shaogu had not made his facsimile copy, one would not know that the Song edition originally contained it. The弊 (drawbacks) of books being disassembled and transmitted through copying are such, and this must serve as a warning. Regarding Volume 5, Leaf 15, the Song edition is missing this leaf. Only the manuscript copy from the Xue Xingtian family possesses it, but the handwriting and layout differ significantly from the original, and the source is unknown. Later, I saw that Baochong's copy also included this leaf, which he stated was supplemented from Wang Yutai's movable type edition. For my current reprint, I supplement it based on the Xue edition and collate it with the Gu edition, preserving differences. The Song edition also contains errors. I further borrowed manuscript copies from the collections of Zhang Shitang, Xue Xingtian, and Gu Rongan. Although it is unknown if they share a common source, any differences in characters are marked. Where appropriate, the main text is modified to conform; where uncertain, collation notes are retained for reference. My friend, Mr. Zhang An, who is well-versed in medical principles, assisted in collating and determining dozens of corrections. The responsibility for proofreading and initial drafting fell to my eldest grandson, Mei Li. Since Wang Yutai's movable type edition was printed, no new editions have appeared. Even the Wang edition, passed down through generations, consisted of only two hundred copies, making it extremely rare in circulation. My nephew once owned a copy, which was lent to a friend and subsequently burned, leaving me regretful that I could not collate it. Friends all longed to see this book and were eager to view it, so I ordered craftsmen to print it. As for the profundity of this book, former friends of Anchang, Lords Su (Dongpo) and Huang (Tingjian), had already explained it in detail. There is no need to solicit additional remarks from contemporary renowned scholars who are also proficient in medicine.
Recorded by Huang Pilie in mid-spring of the Guiwei year of Daoguang.