由于未为学界重视,中国古代的译事与现代的翻译的不同亦未得关注;情况甚至是,完全站在今人的观点,将之局限于“语言意义上的交流”。《重写翻译史》不仅如此为之定位,而且在引用古籍时错乱不堪,无可为据。重返历史现场,《方言》所云“译,传也”之“传”,应读作zhuàn,意指“驿”;《史记·大宛列传》“导绎”之“绎”意亦为“译”,是“驿”的通假字;汉代和三国时的译官的一个名称为“使驿”。这些史料及其训释告诉我们,中国古人之“译”主要是官方活动,以“驿站”为基点展开,其导向在于“教化”,“重译”更是如此。后者的意向并不在于从一种语言到另一种语言的接力性的传译,而是由一个驿站转入另一个的“向中”信息传递,即四方“来归中国”的政治活动。探究古人译事,不能不走“字本位”的进路,要在“孳乳”之仁爱之思。

Due to insufficient attention from academia, the differences between ancient Chinese translation(Yi译) activities and modern translation have not been fully explored. In fact, ancient Chinese translation activities have often been confined to “linguistic and semantic exchanges”, an observation made from a modern perspective. Rewriting Chinese Translation History not only locates the activities in this way, but also misquotes ancient texts in such a way that they are untenable. Returning to the historical scene, in the Fangyan (Dilects), the term 传 in “译,传也” should be read as “zhuàn”, meaning 驿(courier stations). In the “The Historical Records of Dawan” from Shiji (The Grand Scribe’s Records), the 绎in “daoyi”(导绎) means 译 (interpreting or translating) and is the phonetic loan character of 驿(courier stations). In the Han Dynasty and the Three Kingdoms period, the name of the official interpreter was “Shi Yi”(使驿). These historical materials and their interpretations tell us that ancient Chinese译 was primarily an official activity centered on “Yizhan”(驿站, courier stations), aimed at “education”, and “chongyi”(重译)emphasizes this even more. The latter did not aim at linguistic relay interpreting, but information transmission from one “Yizhan” to another that ultimately reaches the center, indicating political activities of “paying allegiance to the central state” from all directions. Exploring ancient translation activities requires an approach focused on “character-based”, with the key being the benevolent thoughts reflected in “Ziru”(multiplication of characters).