仲祖《伤寒论》，诚为金科玉律，奈注解甚难。
盖代远年湮，中间不无脱简，又为后人妄增，断不能起仲景于九原而问之，何条在先、何条在后，何
处尚有若干文本，何处系后人伪增，惟有阙疑阙殆，择其可信者而从之，不可信者而考之已尔。创
斯注者，则有林氏、成氏，大抵随文顺解，不能透发精义，然创始实难，不为无功。有明中行方先
生，实能苦心力索，畅所欲言，溯本探微，阐幽发秘，虽未能处处合拍，而大端已具。喻氏起而作
《尚论》，补其阙略，发其所未发，以诚仲景之功臣也；然除却心解数处，其大端亦从方论中来，不应
力诋方氏。北海林先生，刻方氏前条辨，附刻《尚论篇》，历数喻氏僭窃之罪，条分而畅评之。喻氏
之后，又有高氏，注尚论发明，亦有心得可取处，其大端暗窃方氏，明尊喻氏，而又力诋喻氏，如喻
氏之于方氏也。北平刘觉庵先生起而证之，亦如林北海之证尚论者然，公道自在人心也。其他如
郑氏、程氏之后条辨，无足取者，明眼人自识之。舒驰远之集注，一以喻氏为主，兼引程郊倩
之后条辨，杂以及门之论断，若不知有方氏之前条辨者，遂以喻氏窃方氏之论，直谓为喻氏书矣。此
外有沈目南注，张隐庵集注，程云来集注，皆可阅。至慈溪柯韵伯注伤寒论著《来苏集》聪明才
辨，不无发明，可供采择，然其自序中谓大青龙一
证，方喻之注大错，目之曰郑声、曰杨墨，及取三注对勘，虚中切理而细绎之，柯注谓风有阴阳，汗
出脉缓之桂枝证，是中鼓动之阳风；汗不出脉紧烦躁之大青龙证，是中凛冽之阴风。试问中鼓动之
阳风者，而主以桂枝辛甘温法，置《内经》风淫于内，治以辛凉，佐以苦甘之正法于何地？仲景自序
云∶“撰用《素问》《九卷》，”反背《素问》而立法耶？且以中鼓动之阳风者，主以甘温之桂枝，中凛冽之
阴风者，反主以寒凉之石膏，有是理乎？其注烦躁，又曰热淫于内，则心神烦扰；风淫于内，故手足
躁乱（方先生原注∶风为烦，寒则躁）。既曰凛冽阴风，又曰热淫于内，有是理乎？种种矛盾，不可枚
举。方氏立风伤卫，寒伤营，风寒两伤营卫，吾不
敢谓即仲景之本来面目；然欲使后学眉目清楚，不为无见。如柯氏之所序，亦未必即仲景之心法，而
高于方氏也。其删改原文处，多逞臆说，不若方氏之纯正矣；且方氏创通大义，其功不可没也，喻氏、
高氏、柯氏，三子之于方氏，补偏救弊，其卓识妙悟，不无可取，而独恶其自高己见，各立门户，务掩
前人之善耳。后之学人，其各以明道济世为急，毋以争名竞胜为心，民生幸甚。
张仲景的《伤寒论》，确实是不可更改的经典准则，但对其注解却非常困难。
因为年代久远，中间难免有脱漏的简牍，又有后人妄自增补的内容，绝对不可能让仲景从九泉之下复活来询问我们，究竟哪一条在先、哪一条在后，哪里还缺失若干文本，哪里是后人伪加的内容，只能对存疑之处保持阙如，选择那些可信的部分加以遵循，对不可信的部分加以考证罢了。
开始进行此类注解工作的，有林氏和成氏，他们大体上顺着文意解释，不能透彻发挥其中的精微义理，然而开创之功确实艰难，并非没有功劳。明代的方中行先生，真正能够苦心钻研，畅所欲言，追溯本源探求细微，阐发幽深隐秘的道理，虽然未能处处契合原意，但主要的框架已经具备。喻嘉言起来撰写《尚论篇》，补充了方氏的缺漏，阐发了未曾阐发的内容，可以说是仲景的功臣；然而除了心解的几处之外，其主要内容也源自方氏的论述，不应该极力诋毁方氏。北海的林先生，在刊刻方氏之前的《条辨》时，附刻了《尚论篇》，逐条列举并详细评论喻氏僭越窃取之罪。喻氏之后，又有高氏，对方氏的《尚论》进行注解发明，也有值得取法的心得，但他暗中窃取方氏的观点，表面上尊崇喻氏，却又极力诋毁喻氏，就像喻氏对待方氏那样。北平的刘觉庵先生起来对此进行驳正，也像林北海驳正《尚论》一样，公道自在人心。其他的如郑氏、程氏之后的《条辨》，没有什么可取之处，明眼人自然能识别。舒驰远的集注，完全以喻氏为主，兼引程郊倩之后的《条辨》，混杂及门弟子的论断，仿佛不知道有方氏之前的《条辨》，于是把喻氏窃取方氏的论述，直接当作是喻氏的书了。此外还有沈目南的注，张隐庵的集注，程云来的集注，都可以阅读。至于慈溪的柯韵伯注解《伤寒论》著有《来苏集》，聪明善辩，不无发明之处，可供采择，然而他在自序中认为大青龙汤证这一条，方氏和喻氏的注解都大错特错，将其斥为“郑声”、“杨墨”。等到将三人的注解对照勘验，虚心地切中事理而细细推究，柯氏注中说风有阴阳之分，汗出脉缓的桂枝汤证，是中鼓动之阳风；汗不出脉紧烦躁的大青龙汤证，是中凛冽之阴风。试问对于中鼓动之阳风，却用桂枝汤辛甘温的方法为主治，那将《内经》中“风淫于内，治以辛凉，佐以苦甘”的正法置于何地？仲景在自序中说：“撰用《素问》《九卷》”，难道反而违背《素问》而立法规吗？况且对于中鼓动之阳风，用甘温的桂枝汤主治；对于中凛冽之阴风，反而用寒凉的石膏主治，有这样的道理吗？他注解烦躁时说，热淫于内，则心神烦扰；风淫于内，故手足躁乱（方先生原注：风导致烦，寒导致躁）。既然说是凛冽的阴风，又说是热淫于内，有这样的道理吗？种种矛盾，无法一一列举。方氏确立风伤卫、寒伤营、风寒两伤营卫的理论，我不敢说这就是仲景的本来的面目；然而想要使后学者眉目清楚，并非没有见解。像柯氏所说的，也未必就是仲景的心法，而且高于方氏。他删改原文的地方，多逞个人臆测之说，不如方氏纯正；况且方氏开创通晓大义，其功劳不可抹杀。喻氏、高氏、柯氏三人对方氏的著作，补偏救弊，其卓识妙悟并非无可取法，只是厌恶他们自视过高，各立门户，务必掩盖前人的优点罢了。后来的学人，应当以阐明大道救济世人为急务，不要以争名竞胜为心思，百姓的幸运啊。
Zhang Zhongjing's *Shanghan Lun* (Treatise on Cold Damage) is indeed an immutable classic standard, yet annotating it is extremely difficult.
Because of the vast distance in time and years, there are inevitably missing bamboo slips in between, and content has been rashly added by later generations. It is absolutely impossible to resurrect Zhongjing from the nine springs to ask him which paragraph came first and which came later, where several texts are still missing, and where the additions are forgeries by later people. We can only leave doubtful matters unresolved, follow what is credible, and examine what is not credible.
Those who initiated such annotations were Lin Shi and Cheng Shi. Generally, they explained the text following its literal meaning, failing to thoroughly elucidate its profound essence. However, the difficulty of pioneering work means their efforts were not without merit. Fang Zhongxing of the Ming Dynasty truly engaged in painstaking mental exploration, expressing his views freely, tracing back to the source to probe the subtle details, and revealing hidden secrets. Although he did not align perfectly with the original intent everywhere, the main framework was established. Yu Jiayan subsequently wrote *Shanglun Pian* (Further Discussion), supplementing Fang's omissions and expounding upon what had not been previously revealed, making him a meritorious figure for Zhongjing; however, apart from a few insights derived from personal understanding, the main content also stemmed from Fang's discussions, so one should not vehemently denigrate Fang. Mr. Lin Beihai, while publishing Fang's earlier *Tiaobian*, appended *Shanglun Pian*, listing and commenting in detail on Yu's crimes of usurpation and plagiarism. After Yu, there was Gao Shi, who annotated and clarified *Shanglun*, offering some valuable insights. However, he secretly borrowed Fang's ideas while openly revering Yu, yet also vehemently attacked Yu, mirroring how Yu treated Fang. Liu Jue'an from Beiping rose to refute this, similar to how Lin Beihai refuted *Shanglun*; justice resides in people's hearts. Other post-*Tiaobian* works by Zheng Shi and Cheng Shi are unworthy of consideration, as discerning eyes will naturally recognize this. Shu Chiyuan's collected annotations primarily relied on Yu, incorporating Cheng Jiaoqian's later *Tiaobian* and mixing in disciples' judgments, as if unaware of Fang's earlier *Tiaobian*. Consequently, treating Yu's plagiarism of Fang as Yu's own work is incorrect. Additionally, Shen Munan's annotation, Zhang Yin'an's collected notes, and Cheng Yunlai's collected notes are all readable. Ke Yunbo from Cixi, who annotated *Shanghan Lun* and authored *Laisu Ji*, was intelligent and articulate, offering some innovations worthy of reference. However, in his preface, he claimed that Fang and Yu's annotations on the Da Qing Long Tang (Major Green Dragon Decoction) syndrome were grossly mistaken, dismissing them as "Zheng sounds" and "Yang and Mo [heresies]." Upon cross-referencing the three annotations and carefully analyzing them with an open mind, Ke's note states that wind has yin and yang aspects: the Gui Zhi Tang (Cinnamon Twig Decoction) syndrome with sweating and slow pulse is caused by "yang wind stirring within"; the Da Qing Long Tang syndrome with no sweating, tight pulse, and irritability is caused by "cold wind chilling within." One must ask: if treating "yang wind stirring within," why use the acrid-sweet-warm method of Gui Zhi Tang? Where does this place the orthodox method from *Neijing* (Inner Canon): "For wind excess within, treat with acrid-cool, assist with bitter-sweet"? Zhongjing stated in his preface, "Utilizing *Suwen* (Basic Questions) and *Jiujuan*," implying he followed rather than contradicted *Suwen*. Furthermore, using sweet-warm Gui Zhi Tang for "yang wind stirring within," while using cold-cool Shi Gao (Gypsum Fibrosum) for "cold wind chilling within"—is this logical? Regarding his annotation of irritability, he stated: "Heat excess within causes heart-mind disturbance; wind excess within causes hand-foot restlessness" (Fang's original note: Wind causes *fan* [mental agitation], Cold causes *zao* [physical restlessness]). If it is described as chilling yin wind, how can it simultaneously be heat excess within? Such contradictions are too numerous to list. Fang's theory that wind injures Wei (Defensive Qi), cold injures Ying (Nutritive Qi), and wind-cold jointly injures Ying and Wei—I dare not claim this is exactly Zhongjing's original intent; however, aiming to clarify things for later students, it is not without merit. What Ke described in his preface may not necessarily be Zhongjing's core methodology nor superior to Fang's. His alterations to the original text often rely on subjective speculation, lacking the purity of Fang's approach. Moreover, Fang's contribution in establishing the general principles cannot be denied. While Yu, Gao, and Ke made valuable contributions by correcting biases and errors in Fang's work, displaying unique insights, their flaw lies in their arrogance, establishing separate schools, and attempting to obscure the merits of predecessors. Future scholars should prioritize elucidating the Dao to benefit the world, rather than striving for fame and victory. This would be a great fortune for the people.