严复的《天演论》翻译错了吗？ 第1页

在Evolution and Ethics的介绍部分，说到 "And in the living world, one of the most characteristic features of this cosmic process is the struggle for existence, the competition of each with all, the result of which is the selection, that is to say, the survival of those forms which, on the whole, are best adapted, to the conditions which at any period obtain; and which are, therefore, in that respect, and only in that respect, the fittest." 这是对物竞天择 适者生存的阐述。"

但是之后他又说到“It is often strangely forgotten that the essential conditions if the modification, or evolution, of living things are variation and hereditary transmission. Selection is the means by which certain variations are favoured and their progeny preserved. But the struggle for existence is only one of the means by which selection may be effected. ”(Huxley T H. Evolution and ethics: and other essays[M]. D. Appleton, 1894.)

然而上一段文字，我在严复的《天演论》中，却没找到相应文字。

其实原书并没有完全否认物竞天择适者生存，而强调的是 人类的进化不止是自然对身体机能的选择，还有人类生存环境中各种社会、道德因素的影响。(Nature, 1938, Vol.141(3559), p.110)。此从原书Evolution and Ethics（进化与伦理道德）和严复译作《天演论》(Nature (Universe)'s Evolution)中可见一斑。

所以，严复的翻译如果完全用equivalence的角度去讲，是有很多问题的，然而equivalence并不只是翻译的唯一标准。比如Lawrence Venuti在《译者隐形》中提到的译者隐形后的影响。更贴切的则是巴西的食人主义（Brazilian Cannibalism) ，其中强调弱势方向（或者被殖民国）的翻译应该吞食掉原作好的东西而避免本国被文化殖民。同样可以用来解释严复翻译的还有Skopos Theory（即目的论）。该理论认为翻译都是有目的的，能够满足其目的的翻译就是好翻译。

所以光从忠诚度来说，严复可能是不合格的，但是根据翻译的标准不同，对待严复翻译的态度也不尽相同。

（正在写关于这个的论文，现在还在堆积材料的阶段，等论文写完再来补充）