严复是时代造出来的笑话

芦笛


老河提到的模糊语言问题，我起码在网上说过N次了，当真是轱辘笛，芦笛绕梁信口吹。

“尽管用母语讨论有关母语的种种现象乃是很普通的做法，但唯独有关母语的清晰问题是不能通过母语来讨论得到清晰的结论的。因为语言是否清晰是一个学术问题，对这类问题的讨论首先要有清晰的语言。假设一个语言模糊或清晰后，再用该语言来论证它，立刻有逻辑上的冲突。”

自从我提出中文的缺陷来后，国故的捍卫者们一直在用这所谓悖论来驳斥我。就连天地间第一怪脑贝苏尼，居然都知道“以子之矛攻子之盾”，问我指出中文缺陷的文章是不是用中文写的。后来我又用这去嘲笑启明。他们指责我没道理，我嘲笑启明则完全合适：）

我和启明的区别，在于他完全否定了中文作为思想载体的功能，甚至将其谴责为万恶之源，把自己彻底变成了笑话，而且他还不听劝告，最后我失去耐心，管他叫“ 绝对零度”。那意思是说他是世上最蠢的人，再没能蠢过他了：）确实如此：既然你说中文丝毫不能作为思维载体，那请问你写中文文章指出这问题岂不是扯淡？

但我说的根本不是这个意思，我认为，中文作为学术语言不够称职，但作为艺术语言很优秀。但我也同时指出，现代中文经过改进，一般的学术任务还是能承担的，并不是完全不能用，否则连逻辑学教科书都无法翻译了。它现在的限制主要妨碍了以精准复杂的叙述来表达的深奥学科诸如哲学。这个问题不解决，则我看未来中国不会出什么大思想家。但这并不是说，中文连用来探讨本身缺陷的能力都不具备。

中文的缺陷主要在这些方面：模糊，保守，缺乏接纳口语与外来语的容量，望文生义的暗示误导作用。这我已经写过许多文字，不想再重复论证。老河若还要扯这事，我就把芦笛全集给你寄去，以免重复：）

启明的错误，其实和反驳他的爱国者们一样，都是绝对化。恕我直言，上引老河那悖论也有点非白即黑，把语言清晰当成了个零一态：要么整体是清晰的，要么全部模糊。其实语言错综复杂，哪能如此简单归类？中文并非时时处处模糊，否则人们还怎么交流？如果只想停留在“温饱态”，那中文当然够用。但若想精益求精，就必须指出它的限制。指出它的限制并不是什么复杂高深的哲学思想，中文本身完全可以胜任。

再重复一遍，中文模糊的缺陷是两方面的问题造成的：语言的限制和传统的影响，我认为后者更严重。中国人历来没有清晰思维的习惯，写出文章来当然就是模糊的。这个问题当然可以用中文指出。盖其模糊不是语言限制造成的，最常见的表现是不兴界定讨论的概念和前提。这一直是我“疗愚”的重点。

察觉传统造成的模糊思维并不需要懂双语，我早在青年时代秘密读书时就发现这问题了。那时我根本没有外语阅读能力。这参照物来自于西洋书的中文版。光这一事实本身就证明如果中国学者养成西式清晰思维习惯，照样可以写出人家那种清晰的学术著作来。

察觉语言的限制则需要外文作为参照系统，但同样可以指出这问题，只是此时必须引入外语单词，而读者也必须懂外语。例如我察觉中文的“可能”包括了 “probable”与“possible”，因此无法判别“亩产万斤粮是可能的”一说的正误，如果那可能是possible，它就一点没错；如果是 probable就完全是扯淡。类似地，指出中文词汇贫乏也需要指出它缺乏哪些词汇，例如implosion这个词中文就没有等价物，不使用外语就无法说清缺的是哪个词。

我那两句诗举的很不妥当，盖那是艺术作品而非学术作品。改举个简单例子吧：“众议员有权弹劾总统”，“总统有权否决国会议案”，“十三级以上干部出差时有权坐软卧”请问，这里的“权”，到底是right，是power，还是privilege？在我提出这个问题来之前，请问有哪个中国人想到此事？

至于古文那原始粗陋简单破败含混糊涂的交流工具，我觉得不必再争论了。上次我请东海一枭那当代大儒用古文写篇最简单的政论，他都没本事，告诉我“孔子圣之时也”，那意思是孔子本人提倡与时俱进，所以即使没法用古文写政论也不说明国学的简陋。如果古文有足够表达力，他还会用这种方法回避我的挑战么？

我在旧作中谈过这问题，（ http:///bbs/viewtopic.php?p=2607622&highlight=%E6%B4%BB%E6%B0%B4#2607622 ）请你去看看。西学东渐前，中国处在原始野蛮的中古社会中，思维涉及到的概念非常简单，因此词汇极度贫乏，连词汇都没有，怎么可能翻译反映复杂的文明生活的思想和学说？

我上次已经指出了，《论法的精神》第三章是： Of the Principles of the Three Kinds of Government，中文翻译是《三种政体的原则》，这翻译倒灶，应该是“三种政府的原理”，创造出“政体”这个不必要而含混的词，属于故意制造混乱，译者只配被押送五七干校接受再教育，但这也不去说它了，咱们只来看看中文对那“三种政体”的翻译：

Monarchical Government：君主政体

Despotic Government：专制政体

Republican government：共和政体

如光看中文，有谁能告诉我头两种“政体”的区别是什么？连现代中文都无法区分这两种政体，何况是古文？请问严复有什么本事翻译？“共和”这个词虽然古已有之，但乃是日本人首先借来翻译republic的，并不是他的发明。《法意》我没有看过，我只看了《天演论》就够了，那完全是他的改写，算不得翻译。改写也可以，你别误解人家的意思啊，可他就是有本事胡乱发挥一气，还哄得全国读书人（小于等于初一知青）如中风魔。

老河觉得很奇怪：既然严复是乱译，为什么还会译出这么多书来？还会轰动一时？这有什么奇怪的？那无非是一个野蛮国家骤见文明之光引起的震撼与狂喜罢了。严复的《天演论》坑了一代初一知青，鲁迅毕生受其影响，但到死也没懂进化论到底是怎么回事，这我已经在旧作中指出过了。

至于说老严到底是误解还是曲解，我没有证据不敢乱说，但我觉得误解的可能更大。请想象一个原始野蛮国家的生番跑到西方去囫囵吞枣读了一堆书，能有什么深入理解？当然难免错谬百出，等到要翻译过去就更受到古文的限制，那结果也就可想而知了。

有趣的是老严底气还特别足，曾经在给友人的信中说，刻下有数部书，仆下正准备翻译，如我不做此事，则中国无人可以做（大意如此，不敢保证准确）。令人遗憾的是，他说的竟然是实话！直到许多年后，才有人重译那些被他译烂了的名著。由此可见当时的中国是何等文明沙漠。世无英雄，遂使竖子成名。

作者：芦笛 在 芦笛自治区 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.info
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 芦笛离线 发送站内短信

* 【附录】《天演论》头两段中英文对照 -- 芦笛 - (16884 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 上午1:48 (96 reads)
* 词汇还好办些。中文的语法太差。 -- 路过 - (125 Byte) 2008-7-30 周三, 下午3:20 (101 reads)
o You, a 低手，can only see the most obvious thing:) -- 芦笛 - (232 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 上午2:02 (68 reads)
+ 低手没关系，俺让高手给俺干活儿就是啦:)。给老芦一个obvious反例 -- 路过 - (172 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 上午11:32 (33 reads)
# You, a low hand, failed to see the most obvious :( -- 芦笛 - (75 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 下午12:56 (31 reads)
* You, a free hand, have the privilege to impose your freehand -- 路过 - (25 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 下午1:41 (20 reads)
o 呵呵，也有可能是你老哥的中文太差。不排除这个可能性。 -- 小小衲 - (0 Byte) 2008-7-30 周三, 下午3:39 (22 reads)
+ 呵呵。您要是有过在苛刻限制下翻译严谨技术文献的经历，就会有另一种感觉了。 -- 路过 - (0 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 上午11:34 (9 reads)
* 爱你（因为艺术）， 恨你（因为科学），一生一世。（嗨，说的是中文，不是芦子）。 -- 小小衲 - (0 Byte) 2008-7-30 周三, 下午2:46 (15 reads)
芦注：

我记得这是最忠实的部分，后半截就完全是老严自己的创作了。当然这是30多年前对照阅读《进化论与伦理学》和《天演论》留下的印象，不一定可靠。

我刚才匆匆对照着看了一遍，还是很佩服老严的，他竟然能用原始的中文转达个大概其，确实难为他了。真了不起。

下文中的“复案”是老严自己作的解释，并非正文。


EVOLUTION AND ETHICS.

PROLEGOMENA.

[1894.]

I.

IT may be safely assumed that, two thousand years ago, before Caesar set foot in southern Britain, the whole country-side visible from the windows of the room in which I write, was in what is called the state of nature. Except, it may be, by raising a few sepulchral mounds, such as those which still, here and there, break the flowing contours of the downs, man\'s hands had made no mark upon it; and the thin veil of vegetation which overspread the broad-backed heights and the shelving sides of the coombs was unaffected by his industry. The native grasses and weeds, the scattered patches of gorse, contended with one another for the possession of the scanty surface soil; they fought against the droughts of summer, the frosts of winter, and the furious gales which swept, with unbroken force, now from the [2] Atlantic, and now from the North Sea, at all times of the year; they filled up, as they best might, the gaps made in their ranks by all sorts of underground and overground animal ravagers. One year with another, an average population, the floating balance of the unceasing struggle for existence among the indigenous plants, maintained itself. It is as little to be doubted, that an essentially similar state of nature prevailed, in this region, for many thousand years before the coming of Caesar; and there is no assignable reason for denying that it might continue to exist through an equally prolonged futurity, except for the intervention of man.

Reckoned by our customary standards of duration, the native vegetation, like the everlasting hills which it clothes, seems a type of permanence. The little Amarella Gentians, which abound in some places to-day, are the descendants of those that were trodden underfoot, by the prehistoric savages who have left their flint tools, about, here and there; and they followed ancestors which, in the climate of the glacial epoch, probably flourished better than they do now. Compared with the long past of this humble plant, all the history of civilized men is but an episode.

Yet nothing is more certain than that, measured by the liberal scale of time-keeping of the universe, this present state of nature, however it may seem to have gone and to go on for ever, is [3] but a fleeting phase of her infinite variety; merely the last of the series of changes which the earth\'s surface has undergone in the course of the millions of years of its existence. Turn back a square foot of the thin turf, and the solid foundation of the land, exposed in cliffs of chalk five hundred feet high on the adjacent shore, yields full assurance of a time when the sea covered the site of the everlasting hills; and when the vegetation of what land lay nearest, was as different from the present Flora of the Sussex downs, as that of Central Africa now is.* No less certain is it that, between the time during which the chalk was formed and that at which the original turf came into existence, thousands of centuries elapsed, in the course of which, the state of nature of the ages during which the chalk was deposited, passed into that which now is, by changes so slow that, in the coming and going of the generations of men, had such witnessed them, the contemporary, conditions would have seemed to be unchanging and unchangeable.

* See On a piece of Chalk in the preceding volume of these Essays (vol. viii. p. 1).

But it is also certain that, before the deposition of the chalk, a vastly longer period had elapsed; throughout which it is easy to follow the traces of the same process of ceaseless modification and of the internecine struggle for existence of living things; and that even when we can get no further [4] back, it is not because there is any reason to think we have reached the beginning, but because the trail of the most ancient life remains hidden, or has become obliterated.

Thus that state of nature of the world of plants which we began by considering, is far from possessing the attribute of permanence. Rather its very essence is impermanence. It may have lasted twenty or thirty thousand years, it may last for twenty or thirty thousand years more, without obvious change; but, as surely as it has followed upon a very different state, so it will be followed by an equally different condition. That which endures is not one or another association of living forms, but the process of which the cosmos is the product, and of which these are among the transitory expressions. 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.* The acme reached by the cosmic [5] process in the vegetation of the downs is seen in the turf, with its weeds and gorse. Under the conditions, they have come out of the struggle victorious; and, by surviving, have proved that they are the fittest to survive.

* That every theory of evolution must be consistent not merely with progressive development, but with indefinite persistence in the same condition and with retrogressive modification, is a point which I have insisted upon repeatedly from the year 1862 till now. See Collected Essays, vol. ii. pp. 461-89; vol. iii. p. 33; vol. viii. p. 304. In the address on Geological Contemporaneity and Persistent Types (1862), the paleontological proofs of this proposition were, I believe, first set forth.

That the state of nature, at any time, is a temporary phase of a process of incessant change, which has been going on for innumerable ages, appears to me to be a proposition as well established as any in modern history.

Paleontology assures us, in addition, that the ancient philosophers who, with less reason, held the same doctrine, erred in supposing that the phases formed a cycle, exactly repeating the past, exactly foreshadowing the future, in their rotations. On the contrary, it furnishes us with conclusive reasons for thinking that, if every link in the ancestry of these humble indigenous plants had been preserved and were accessible to us, the whole would present a converging series of forms of gradually diminishing complexity, until, at some period in the history of the earth, far more remote than any of which organic remains have yet been discovered, they would merge in those low groups among which the Boundaries between animal and vegetable life become effaced.*

* On the Border Territory between the Animal and the Vegetable Kingdoms, Essays, vol. viii. p. 162

[6] The word evolution, now generally applied to the cosmic process, has had a singular history, and is used in various senses.* Taken in its popular signification it means progressive development, that is, gradual change from a condition of relative uniformity to one of relative complexity; but its connotation has been widened to include the phenomena of retrogressive metamorphosis, that is, of progress from a condition of relative complexity to one of relative uniformity.

As a natural process, of the same character as the development of a tree from its seed, or of a fowl from its egg, evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention. As the expression of a fixed order, every stage of which is the effect of causes operating according to definite rules, the conception of evolution no less excludes that of chance. It is very desirable to remember that evolution is not an explanation of the cosmic process, but merely a generalized statement of the method and results of that process. And, further, that, if there is proof that the cosmic process was set going by any agent, then that agent will be, the creator of it and of all its products, although supernatural intervention may remain strictly excluded from its further course.

So far as that limited revelation of the nature of things, which we call scientific knowledge, has [7] yet gone, it tends, with constantly increasing emphasis, to the belief that, not merely the world of plants, but that of animals; not merely living things, but the whole fabric of the earth; not merely our planet, but the whole solar system; not merely our star and its satellites, but the millions of similar bodies which bear witness to the order which pervades boundless space, and has endured through boundless time; are all working out their predestined courses of evolution.

* See Evolution in Biology, Essays, vol. ii. p. 187

With none of these have I anything to do, at present, except with that exhibited by the forms of life which tenant the earth. All plants and animals exhibit the tendency to vary, the causes of which have yet to be ascertained; it is the tendency of the conditions of life, at any given time, while favouring the existence of the variations best adapted to them, to oppose that of the rest and thus to exercise selection; and all living things tend to multiply without limit, while the means of support are limited; the obvious cause of which is the production of offspring more numerous than their progenitors, but with equal expectation of life in the actuarial sense. Without the first tendency there could be no evolution. Without the second, there would be no good reason why one variation should disappear and another take its place; that is to say there would be no selection. Without the [8] third, the struggle for existence, the agent of the selective process in the state of nature, would vanish.*

* Collected Essays, vol. ii. passim.

Granting the existence of these tendencies, all the known facts of the history of plants and of animals may be brought into rational correlation. And this is more than can be said for any other hypothesis that I know of. Such hypotheses, for example, as that of the existence of a primitive, orderless chaos; of a passive and sluggish eternal matter moulded, with but partial success, by archetypal ideas; of a brand-new world-stuff suddenly created and swiftly shaped by a supernatural power; receive no encouragement, but the contrary, from our present knowledge. That our earth may once have formed part of a nebulous cosmic magma is certainly possible, indeed seems highly probable; but there is no reason to doubt that order reigned there, as completely as amidst what we regard as the most finished works of nature or of man.** The faith which is born of knowledge, finds its object in an eternal order, bringing forth ceaseless change, through endless time, in endless space; the manifestations of the cosmic energy alternating between phases of potentiality and phases of explication. It may be that, as Kant suggests,*** every cosmic [9] magma predestined to evolve into a new world, has been the no less predestined end of a vanished predecessor.

**Ibid., vol. iv. p. 138; vol. v. pp. 71-73. ***Ibid., vol. viii. p. 321.

导言一　察变

　赫胥黎独处一室之中，在英伦之南，背山而面野，槛外诸境，历历如在几下。乃悬想二千年前，当罗马大将恺彻未到时，此间有何景物。计惟有天造草昧，人功未施，其借征人境者，不过几处荒坟，散见坡陀起伏间，而灌木丛林，蒙茸山麓，未经删治如今日者，则无疑也。怒生之草，交加之藤，势如争长相雄。各据一抔壤土，夏与畏日争，冬与严霜争，四时之内，飘风怒吹，或西发西洋，或东起北海，旁午交扇，无时而息。上有鸟兽之践啄，下有蚁蝝之啮伤，憔悴孤虚，旋生旋灭，菀枯顷刻，莫可究详。是离离者亦各尽天能，以自存种族而已。数亩之内，战事炽然。强者后亡，弱者先绝。年年岁岁，偏有留遗。未知始自何年，更不知止于何代。苟人事不施于其间，则莽莽榛榛，长此互相吞并，混逐蔓延而已，而诘之者谁耶？

　　英之南野，黄芩之种为多，此自未有纪载以前，革衣石斧之民，所采撷践踏者。兹之所见，其苗裔耳。邃古之前，坤枢未转，英伦诸岛，乃属冰天雪海之区，此物能寒，法当较今尤茂。此区区一小草耳，若迹其祖始，远及洪荒，则三占以还年代方之，犹瀼渴之水，比诸大江，不啻小支而已。故事有决无可疑者，则天道变化，不主故常是已。特自皇古迄今，为变盖渐，浅人不察，遂有天地不变之言。实则今兹所见，乃自不可穷诘之变动而来。京垓年岁之中，每每员舆，正不知几移几换而成此最后之奇。且继今以往，陵谷变迁，又属可知之事，此地学不刊之说也。假其惊怖斯言，则索证正不在远。试向立足处所，掘地深逾寻丈，将逢蜃灰。以是蜃灰，知其地之古必为海。盖蜃灰为物，乃赢蚌脱壳积叠而成。若用显镜察之，其掩旋尚多完具者。使是地不前为海，此恒河沙数赢蚌者胡从来乎？沧海飏尘，非诞说矣！且地学之家，历验各种僵石，知动植庶品，率皆递有变迁，特为变至微，其迁极渐。即假吾人彭聃之寿，而亦由暂观久，潜移弗知。是犹蟪蛄不识春秋，朝菌不知晦朔，遽以不变名之，真瞽说也。

　　故知不变一言，决非天运。而悠久成物之理，转在变动不居之中。是当前之所见，经廿年卅年而革焉可也，更二万年三万年而革亦可也。特据前事推将来，为变方长，未知所极而已。虽然，天运变矣，而有不变者行乎其中。不变惟何？是名天演。以天演为体，而其用有二：曰物竞，曰天择。此万物莫不然，而于有生之类为尤著。物竞者，物争自存也。以一物以与物物争，或存或亡，而其效则归于大择。天择者，物争焉而独存。则其存也，必有其所以存，必其所得于天之分，自致一己之能，与其所遭值之时与地，及凡周身以外之物力，有其相谋相剂者焉。夫而后独免于亡，而足以自立也。而自其效观之，若是物特为天之所厚而择焉以存也者，夫是之谓天择。天择者，择于自然，虽择而莫之择，犹物竞之无所争，而实天下之至争也。斯宾塞尔曰：“天择者，存其最宜者也。”夫物既争存矣，而天又从其争之后而择之，一争一择，而变化之事出矣。”

　　复案：物竞、天择二义，发于英人达尔文。达着《物种由来》一书，以考论世间动植种类所以繁殊之故。先是言生理者，皆主异物分造之说。近今百年格物诸家，稍疑古说之不可通。如法人兰麻克、爵弗来，德人方拔、万俾尔，英人威里士、格兰特、斯宾塞尔、倭恩、赫胥黎，皆生学名家，先后间出，目治手营，穷探审论，知有生之物，始于同，终于异。造物立其一本，以大力运之，而万类之所以底于如是者，咸其自己而已，无所谓创造者也。然其说未大行也，至咸丰九年，达氏书出，众论翕然。自兹厥后，欧美二洲治生学者，大抵宗达氏。而矿事日辟，掘地开山，多得古禽兽遗蜕，其种已灭，为今所无。于是虫鱼禽互兽人之间，衔接迤演之物，日以渐密，而达氏之言乃愈有征。故赫胥黎谓古者以大地为静居天中，而日月星辰，拱绕周流，以地为主。自歌白尼出，乃知地本行星，系日而运。古者以人类为首出庶物，肖天而生，与万物绝异。自达尔文出，知人为天演中一境，且演且进，来者方将，而教宗抟土之说，必不可信。盖自有歌白尼而后天学明，亦自有达尔文而后生理确也。斯宾塞尔者，与达同时，亦本天演着《天人会通论》，举天、地、人、形气、心性、动植之事而一贯之，其说尤为精辟宏富。其第一书开宗明义，集格致之大成，以发明天演之旨。第二书以天演言生学。第三书以天演言性灵。第四书以天演言群理。最后第五书，乃考道德之本源，明政教之条贯，而以保种进化之公例要术终焉。呜乎！欧洲自有生民以来，无此作也。不佞近翻《群谊》书，即其第五书中之编也。斯宾氏迄今尚存，年七十有六矣。其全书于客岁始蒇事，所谓体大思精，殚毕生之力者也。达尔文生嘉庆十四年，卒于光绪八年壬午。赫胥黎于乙未夏化去，年七十也。

导言二　广义

自递嬗之变迁，而得当境之适遇，其来无始，其去无终，曼衍连延，层见迭代，此之谓世变，此之谓运会。运者以明其迁流，会者以指所遭值，此其理古人已发之矣。但古以谓大运循环，周而复始，今兹所见，于古为重规；后此复来，于今为叠矩，此则甚不然者也。自吾党观之，物变所趋，皆由简入繁，由微生著。运常然也，会乃大异。假山当前一动物，远迹始初，将见逐代变体，虽至微眇，皆有可寻，迨至最初形，乃莫定其为动为植。凡兹运行之理，乃化机所以不息之精。苟能静观，随在可察。小之极于跂行倒生，大之放乎日星天地；隐之则神思智识之所以圣狂，显之则政俗文章之所以沿革。言其要道，皆可一言蔽之，曰：天演是已。此其说滥觞隆古，而大畅于近五十年。盖格致学精，时时可加实测故也。

　　且伊古以来，人持一说以言天，家宗一理以论化。如或谓开辟以前，世为混沌，沕湣胶葛，待剖判而后轻清上举，重汕下凝；又或言抟上为人，咒日作昼，降及一花一草，蠕动蠉飞，皆自元始之时，有真宰焉，发挥张皇，号召位置，从无生有，忽然而成；又或谓出王游衍，时时皆有鉴观，惠吉逆凶，冥冥实操赏罚。此其说甚美，而无如其言之虚实，断不可证而知也。故用天演之说，则竺干、大方、犹太诸教宗，所谓神明创造之说皆不行。夫拔地之木，长于一子之微；垂天之鹏，出于一卵之细。其推陈出新，逐层换体，皆衔接微分而来。又有一不易不离之理，行乎其内。有因无创，有常无奇。设宇宙必有真宰，则天演一事，即真宰之功能。惟其立之之时，后果前因，同时并具，不得于机缄已开，洪钧既转之后，而别有设施张主于其间也。是故天演之事，不独见于动植二品中也。实则一切民物之事，与大宇之内日局诸体，远至于不可计数之恒星，本之未始有始以前，极之莫终有终以往，乃无一焉非天之所演也。故其事至赜至繁，断非一书所能罄。姑就生理治功一事，模略言之。先为导言十余篇，用以通其大义。虽然，隅一举而三反，善悟者诚于此而有得焉，则筦秘机之扃钥者，其应用亦正无穷耳。

　　复案：斯宾塞尔之天演界说曰：“天演者，翕以聚质，辟以散力。方其用事也，物由纯而之杂，由流而之凝，由浑而之画，质力杂糅，相剂为变者也。 ”又为论数十万言，以释此界之例。其文繁衍奥博，不可猝译，今就所忆者杂取而粗明之，不能细也。其所消翕以聚质者，即如日局太始，乃为星气，名涅菩刺斯，布濩六合，其质点本热至大，其抵力亦多，过于吸力。继乃山通吸力收摄成珠，太阳居中，八纬外绕，各各聚质，如今是也。所谓辟以散力者，质聚而为热、为光、为声、为动，未有不耗本力者，此所以今日不如古日之热。地球则日缩，彗星则渐迟，八纬之周天皆日缓，久将迸入而与太阳合体。又地入流星轨中，则见陨石。然则居今之时，日局不徒散力，即合质之事，亦方未艾也。余如动植之长，国种之成，虽为物悬殊，皆循此例矣。所谓由纯之杂者，万化皆始于简易，终于错综。日局始乃一气，地球本为流质，动植类胚胎萌芽，分官最简；国种之始，无尊卑上下君子小人之分，亦无通力合作之事。其演弥浅，其质点弥纯。至于深演之秋，官物大备，则事莫有同，而互相为用焉。所谓山流之凝者，盖流者非他，此流字兼飞质而言。由质点内力甚多，未散故耳。动植始皆柔滑，终乃坚强。草昧之民，类多游牧；城邑土著，文治乃兴，胥此理也。所谓由浑之画者，浑者芜而不精之消，画则有定体而界域分明。盖纯而流者未尝不浑，而杂而凝者，又未必皆画也。且专言由纯之杂，由流之凝，而不言由浑之画，则凡物之病且乱者，如刘、柳元气败为痈痔之说，将亦可名天演。此所以二者之外，必益以由浑之画而后义完也。物至于画，则山壮入老，进极而将退矣。人老则难以学新，治老则笃于守旧，皆此理也。所谓质力杂糅，相剂为变者，亦天演最要之义，不可忽而漏之也。前者言辟以散力矣。虽然，力不可以尽散，散尽则物死，而天演不可见矣。是故方其演也，必有内涵之力，以与其质相剂。力既定质，而质亦笵力，质日异而力亦从而不同焉。故物之少也，多质点之力。何谓质点之力？如化学所谓爱力是已。及其壮也，则多物体之力。凡可见之动，皆此力为之也。更取日局为喻，方为涅菩星气之时，全局所有，几皆点力。至于今则诸体之周天四游，绕轴自转，皆所谓体力之著者矣。人身之血，经肺而合养气；食物入胃成浆，经肝成血，皆点力之事也。官与物尘相接，由涅伏俗曰脑气筋。以达脑成觉，即觉成思，因思起欲，由欲命动，自欲以前，亦皆点力之事。独至肺张心激，胃回胞转，以及拜舞歌呼手足之事，则体力耳。点体二力，互为其根，而有隐见之异，此所谓相剂为变也。天演之义，所苞如此，斯宾塞氏至推之农商工兵、语言文学之间，皆可以天演明其消息所以然之故。苟善悟者深思而自得之，亦一乐也。

　号物之数曰万，此无虑之言也，物固奚翅万哉！而人与居一焉。人，动物之灵者也，与不灵之禽兽鱼鳖昆虫对；动物者，生类之有知觉运动者也，与无知觉之植物对；生类者，有质之物而具支体一官理者也，与无支体官理之金石水土对。凡此皆有质可称量之物也，合之无质不可称量之声热光电诸动力，而万物之品备矣。总而言之，气质而已。故人者，具气质之体，有支体官理知觉运动，而形上之神，寓之以为灵，此其所以为生类之最贵也。虽然，人类贵矣，而其为气质之所囚拘，阴阳之所张弛，排激动荡，为所使而不自知，则与有生之类莫不同也。

　　有生者生生，而天之命若曰：使生生者各肖其所生，而又代趋于微异。且周身之外，牵天系地，举凡与生相待之资，以爱恶拒受之不同，常若右其所宜，而左其所不相得者。夫生既趋于代异矣，而寒暑燥湿风水土谷，洎夫一切动植之伦，所与其生相接相寇者，又常有所左右于其间。于是则相得者亨，不相得者困；相得者寿，不相得者殇。日计不觉，岁校有余，浸假不相得者将亡，而相得者生而独传种族矣，此天之所以为择也。且其事不止此，今夫生之为事也，孳乳而寖多，相乘以蕃，诚不知其所底也。而地力有限，则资生之事，常有制而不能逾。是故常法牝牡合而生生，祖孙再传，食指三倍，以有涯之资生，奉无穷之传衍，物既各爱其生矣，不出于争，将胡获耶？不必争于事，固常争于形。借曰让之，效与争等。何则？得者只一，而失者终有徒也。此物竞争存之论，所以断断乎无以易也。自其反而求之，使含生之伦，有类皆同，绝无少异，则天演之事，无从而兴。天演者以变动不居为事者也，使与生相待之资，于异者匪所左右，则天择之事，亦将泯焉。使奉生之物，恒与生相副于无穷，则物竞之论，亦无所施，争固起于不足也。然则天演既兴，三理不可偏废。无异、无择、无争，有一然者，非吾人今者所居世界也。

　　复案：学问格致之事，最患者人习于耳目之肤近，而常忘事理之真实。今如物竞之烈，士非抱深思独见之明，则不能窥其万一者也。英国计学家即理财之学。马尔达有言：万类生生，各用几何级数。几何级数者，级级皆用定数相乘也。谓设父生五子，则每子亦生五孙。使灭亡之数，不远过于所存，则瞬息之间，地球乃无隙地。人类孳乳较迟，然使衣食裁足，则二十五年其数自倍，不及千年，一男女所生，当遍大陆也。生子最稀，莫逾于象。往者达尔文尝计其数矣，法以牝牡一双，三十岁而生子，至九十而止，中间经数，各生六子，寿各百年，如是以往，至七百四十许年，当得见像一千九百万也。又赫胥黎云：大地出水之陆，约为方迷卢者五十一兆。今设其寒温相若，肥确又相若，而草木所资之地浆、日热、炭养、亚摩尼亚莫不相同。如是而设有一树，及年长成，年出五十子，此为植物出子甚少之数，但群子随风而飏，枚枚得活，各占地皮一方英尺，亦为不疏，如是计之，得九年之后，遍地皆此种树，而尚不足五百三十一万三千二百六十六垓方英尺。此非臆造之言，有名数可稽，综如下式者也。

　　夫草木之蕃滋，以数计之如此，而地上各种植物，以实事考之又如彼。则此之所谓五十子者，至多不过百一二存而已。且其独存众亡之故，虽有圣者莫能知也。然必有其所以然之理，此达氏所谓物竞者也。竞而独存，其故虽不可知，然可微拟而论之也。设当群子同入一区之时，其中有一焉，其抽乙独早，虽半日数时之顷，已足以尽收膏液，令余子不复长成，而此抽乙独早之故，或辞枝较先，或苞膜较薄，皆足致然。设以膜薄而早抽，则他日其子，又有膜薄者，因以竞胜，如此则历久之余，此膜薄者传为种矣，此达氏所谓天择者也。嗟夫！物类之生乳者至多，存者至寡，存亡之间，间不容发，其种愈下，其存弥难。此不仅物然而已，墨、澳二洲，其中土人日益萧瑟，此岂必虔刘脧削之而后然哉！资生之物所加多者有限，有术者既多取之而丰，无具者自少取焉而啬；丰者近昌，啬者邻灭。此洞识知微之士，所为惊心动魄，于保群进化之图，而知徒高睨大谈于夷夏轩轾之间者，为深无益于事实也。