维古无稽之谈，虽出自典籍，亦宜断之以理，不可传信。“贤不荐医”，典籍所不载者，乃前后相承，远近
流播，每遇底事，相与引为折证，众人是焉。愚窃以为不经，何则？夫人患不贤耳，如果贤焉，其心必仁，其识
必高，虑必周。凡大节有为之人，疾厄横加，无由觅良工以少缓其须臾。一时恫 号吁，几欲愿以身代而不可得，
至亲亲之杀，眼见为劣医所杀，其激切又不知奚似焉。有知彼知己，反隐忍而不一言相告乎？或曰∶人命重矣，
轻荐之恐
伤生招尤徒增物议。若然则当曰“贤不知医不荐”，再则曰“贤不荐庸医”可也，而奈何概曰不荐。不荐亦已矣，
人贤之，自亦贤之，谁则多事，明示人以不贤。病固须勿药之喜，而医悉听其自来。然勿药者徼天幸，自来者涉
鬻，明哲保身，讵肯遽以尝试。是必待识者一顾，而后始或乐从，奈何曰贤不荐。况人不尽贤也，贤既不荐，
则所荐必出于不贤，不贤而所得士，不失人与。设荐而不遂，天也，荐而不售，吾力争之，将必有以许可。世谓
其有严以防贤，而恕以信不贤之人耶。或又曰∶子论已悉，第不知何由得是四字。曰∶此盖滑稽险人，趋附豪右，
非嫉渠能技，不欲直使成功，即怀伊芳私隙，岂愿坐观疾去，特创一庄重惊语，躬任介绍之责两地可以自解，比类
逐，岁久成谚。苏子曰∶凡事不近人情，鲜不为大奸慝。兹可见其一斑。窃谓贤者狃而从事，不经无疑，顾以
疑传信，致使医病交困，树德者不知所向。虽然令名上智所忌，樗栎难逃藻鉴。今天下文治翔洽，纨裤之子皆知
学术，远医近闻，其才必有大过人者，起居何用弹冠，所谓桃李不言，下自成蹊，正在医之贤不贤，不在贤之荐
不荐。士君子挟艺浪游，动诵斯文，希人汲引，是犹却行而求前也，无亦谬哉。
那些毫无根据的言论，即使出自典籍，也应当用理性去判断，不可盲目相信。“贤人不推荐医生”这一说法，虽然典籍中没有记载，却是前后相承、远近流传的。每当遇到事情时，人们互相引用它作为验证的依据，大众都认为是正确的。我私下认为这是荒诞不经的，为什么呢？因为人最大的不幸就是缺乏贤德。如果一个人真正贤德，他的内心必定仁爱，见识必定高远，思虑必定周全。凡是那些在大节上有所作为的人，一旦遭受疾病的突然侵袭，无法找到良医来稍微缓解片刻的痛苦。那时他们痛苦呼号，甚至恨不得愿意用自己的身体去替代病人却做不到，直到眼睁睁看着亲人被劣医害死，那种激愤之情又不知到了什么程度。如果有既了解对方又了解自己处境的人，难道反而会隐忍不发，不告诉一声吗？
有人说：“人命关天，轻率地推荐恐怕会伤害生命、招致罪过，徒增非议。”如果是这样，那就应该说“不懂医术的贤人不推荐”，再说一遍“贤人不推荐庸医”就可以了，为什么一概地说“不推荐”呢？如果不推荐也就罢了，别人认为他是贤人，他自己也自认为是贤人，谁又会多事，向世人明示他是不贤之人呢？生病固然有不用药而痊愈的喜悦，但如果医生都听任病情自然发展。然而，不用药是侥幸得到上天保佑，听任其自然发展则涉及买卖交易（指庸医谋利）。明智的人保全自身，怎肯轻易拿生命去尝试？这一定要等待识货的人回头看一眼，然后才可能乐意听从，怎么能说“贤人不推荐”呢？
况且人并不都是贤德的。既然贤人不推荐，那么所推荐的人必然出自不贤之人。不贤之人所举荐的人才，并不会失去人才。假设推荐了却没有成功，那是天命；如果推荐了没有被采纳，我会极力争取，那一定会有所许可。世人认为这是用来严格防范贤人，而宽恕信任不贤之人的借口吗？
又有人说：“你的论述已经很全面了，只是不知道这四个字是怎么来的？”我说：“这大概是某些滑稽险恶之人，趋炎附势，依附权贵豪门。他们并不是嫉妒那些医生的技艺，不想让他们直接取得成功，就是怀有私下的恩怨，哪里愿意坐视疾病去除？于是特意创造出一句庄重惊人的话语，亲自承担介绍的责任，两地都可以自我解脱。久而久之，这就成了谚语。苏东坡说：‘凡事不合人情，很少不是大奸大恶之徒所为。’从这里就可以看出其中一斑。我私下认为，贤者拘泥于此并据此行事，无疑是荒诞不经的。但如果把这种怀疑当作事实传播，致使医患双方都陷入困境，行善积德的人就不知道方向在哪里了。
虽然美好的名声连最聪明的人都会忌惮，像樗栎那样无用的树木也难逃精美的鉴赏。如今天下文治昌明，恩泽广布，纨绔子弟都知道学术，远离粗俗接近高雅，他们的才华一定有超过常人的地方。何必急着整理帽子出仕呢？所谓‘桃李不言，下自成蹊’，关键在于医生是否贤德，而不在于贤人是否推荐。士大夫君子带着技艺浪迹江湖，动不动就诵读这些文章，希望被人引荐提拔，这就像倒着走路却想前进一样，岂不是谬误吗？”
Baseless talk, even if it originates from classics, should be judged by reason and not blindly believed. The saying "The virtuous do not recommend physicians" is not recorded in classics; rather, it has been passed down from generation to generation and spread far and wide. Whenever matters arise, people cite it as evidence for verification, and the masses consider it correct. I privately regard this as absurd. Why? Because the greatest misfortune for a person is lacking virtue. If one is truly virtuous, their heart must be benevolent, their insight high, and their deliberation thorough. For those who uphold major principles and achieve great things, when suddenly afflicted by illness, they cannot find a skilled physician to alleviate suffering even momentarily. In such moments of agonizing cries, they would wish to substitute themselves for the patient but fail to do so, until they witness with their own eyes their loved ones being killed by inferior physicians; the intensity of their indignation is indescribable. Would someone who knows both the other party and themselves remain silent and not say a word?
Some argue: "Human life is heavy; recommending lightly may harm lives and attract blame, merely increasing public criticism." If that were the case, one should say, "The virtuous who do not know medicine should not be recommended," or again, "The virtuous do not recommend mediocre physicians." Why then generalize it to simply "do not recommend"? If one does not recommend, fine. Others consider him virtuous, and he considers himself virtuous too. Who would take the trouble to explicitly show others that he is not virtuous? Although there is joy in recovering without medication, if physicians leave everything to natural progression, recovery without medication relies on heavenly luck, while leaving it to nature involves commercial speculation (profit-seeking). Wise individuals preserve themselves; would they dare to try such risks? One must wait for an expert's glance before agreeing to follow advice. How can one say "the virtuous do not recommend"?
Moreover, not everyone is virtuous. Since the virtuous do not recommend, those recommended must come from the non-virtuous. Recommendations made by the non-virtuous do not necessarily lose talent. If a recommendation fails, it is fate; if it is not accepted, I will strive for it, and there will surely be some approval. People say this serves as a strict prevention against the virtuous while excusing trust in the non-virtuous?
Another asks: "Your argument is complete, but where did these four characters originate?" I reply: "This likely stems from frivolous and treacherous individuals who flatter and attach themselves to powerful nobles. They are not jealous of the physicians' skills nor do they want them to succeed directly; perhaps harboring private grudges, they cannot bear to watch illnesses pass. Thus, they invent a solemn and startling phrase, personally taking responsibility for introductions, allowing both parties to excuse themselves. Over years, this became a proverb. Su Shi said: 'Things contrary to human nature are rarely not the work of great villains.' This reveals a glimpse of the truth. I believe that if the virtuous adhere to this and act accordingly, it is undoubtedly absurd. However, spreading doubt as fact causes distress to both doctors and patients, leaving those who cultivate virtue unsure of their direction.
Although good reputations are envied even by the wisest, useless trees like *chuliu* (paulownia) cannot escape refined appraisal. Today, under the flourishing civil governance of the world, even idle sons of nobility understand scholarship, distancing themselves from vulgarity and approaching elegance. Their talents surely surpass ordinary people. Why rush to prepare for official duties? As the saying goes, 'Peaches and plums do not speak, yet a path is formed beneath them.' This depends on whether the physician is virtuous, not on whether the virtuous recommend them. Scholars and gentlemen wandering with their arts often recite such texts, hoping for patronage. This is like walking backward while seeking to move forward—how erroneous is this!"