嚴複是時代造出來的笑話

蘆笛


老河提到的模糊語言問題，我起碼在網上說過N次了，當真是軲轆笛，蘆笛繞梁信口吹。

“盡管用母語討論有關母語的種種現象乃是很普通的做法，但唯獨有關母語的清晰問題是不能通過母語來討論得到清晰的結論的。因為語言是否清晰是一個學術問題，對這類問題的討論首先要有清晰的語言。假設一個語言模糊或清晰後，再用該語言來論證它，立刻有邏輯上的衝突。”

自從我提出中文的缺陷來後，國故的捍衛者們一直在用這所謂悖論來駁斥我。就連天地間第一怪腦貝蘇尼，居然都知道“以子之矛攻子之盾”，問我指出中文缺陷的文章是不是用中文寫的。後來我又用這去嘲笑啟明。他們指責我沒道理，我嘲笑啟明則完全合適：）

我和啟明的區別，在於他完全否定了中文作為思想載體的功能，甚至將其譴責為萬惡之源，把自己徹底變成了笑話，而且他還不聽勸告，最後我失去耐心，管他叫“ 絕對零度”。那意思是說他是世上最蠢的人，再沒能蠢過他了：）確實如此：既然你說中文絲毫不能作為思維載體，那請問你寫中文文章指出這問題豈不是扯淡？

但我說的根本不是這個意思，我認為，中文作為學術語言不夠稱職，但作為藝術語言很優秀。但我也同時指出，現代中文經過改進，一般的學術任務還是能承擔的，並不是完全不能用，否則連邏輯學教科書都無法翻譯了。它現在的限製主要妨礙了以精準複雜的敘述來表達的深奧學科諸如哲學。這個問題不解決，則我看未來中國不會出什麽大思想家。但這並不是說，中文連用來探討本身缺陷的能力都不具備。

中文的缺陷主要在這些方麵：模糊，保守，缺乏接納口語與外來語的容量，望文生義的暗示誤導作用。這我已經寫過許多文字，不想再重複論證。老河若還要扯這事，我就把蘆笛全集給你寄去，以免重複：）

啟明的錯誤，其實和反駁他的愛國者們一樣，都是絕對化。恕我直言，上引老河那悖論也有點非白即黑，把語言清晰當成了個零一態：要麽整體是清晰的，要麽全部模糊。其實語言錯綜複雜，哪能如此簡單歸類？中文並非時時處處模糊，否則人們還怎麽交流？如果隻想停留在“溫飽態”，那中文當然夠用。但若想精益求精，就必須指出它的限製。指出它的限製並不是什麽複雜高深的哲學思想，中文本身完全可以勝任。

再重複一遍，中文模糊的缺陷是兩方麵的問題造成的：語言的限製和傳統的影響，我認為後者更嚴重。中國人曆來沒有清晰思維的習慣，寫出文章來當然就是模糊的。這個問題當然可以用中文指出。蓋其模糊不是語言限製造成的，最常見的表現是不興界定討論的概念和前提。這一直是我“療愚”的重點。

察覺傳統造成的模糊思維並不需要懂雙語，我早在青年時代秘密讀書時就發現這問題了。那時我根本沒有外語閱讀能力。這參照物來自於西洋書的中文版。光這一事實本身就證明如果中國學者養成西式清晰思維習慣，照樣可以寫出人家那種清晰的學術著作來。

察覺語言的限製則需要外文作為參照係統，但同樣可以指出這問題，隻是此時必須引入外語單詞，而讀者也必須懂外語。例如我察覺中文的“可能”包括了 “probable”與“possible”，因此無法判別“畝產萬斤糧是可能的”一說的正誤，如果那可能是possible，它就一點沒錯；如果是 probable就完全是扯淡。類似地，指出中文詞匯貧乏也需要指出它缺乏哪些詞匯，例如implosion這個詞中文就沒有等價物，不使用外語就無法說清缺的是哪個詞。

我那兩句詩舉的很不妥當，蓋那是藝術作品而非學術作品。改舉個簡單例子吧：“眾議員有權彈劾總統”，“總統有權否決國會議案”，“十三級以上幹部出差時有權坐軟臥”請問，這裏的“權”，到底是right，是power，還是privilege？在我提出這個問題來之前，請問有哪個中國人想到此事？

至於古文那原始粗陋簡單破敗含混糊塗的交流工具，我覺得不必再爭論了。上次我請東海一梟那當代大儒用古文寫篇最簡單的政論，他都沒本事，告訴我“孔子聖之時也”，那意思是孔子本人提倡與時俱進，所以即使沒法用古文寫政論也不說明國學的簡陋。如果古文有足夠表達力，他還會用這種方法回避我的挑戰麽？

我在舊作中談過這問題，（ http:///bbs/viewtopic.php?p=2607622&highlight=%E6%B4%BB%E6%B0%B4#2607622 ）請你去看看。西學東漸前，中國處在原始野蠻的中古社會中，思維涉及到的概念非常簡單，因此詞匯極度貧乏，連詞匯都沒有，怎麽可能翻譯反映複雜的文明生活的思想和學說？

我上次已經指出了，《論法的精神》第三章是： Of the Principles of the Three Kinds of Government，中文翻譯是《三種政體的原則》，這翻譯倒灶，應該是“三種政府的原理”，創造出“政體”這個不必要而含混的詞，屬於故意製造混亂，譯者隻配被押送五七幹校接受再教育，但這也不去說它了，咱們隻來看看中文對那“三種政體”的翻譯：

Monarchical Government：君主政體

Despotic Government：專製政體

Republican government：共和政體

如光看中文，有誰能告訴我頭兩種“政體”的區別是什麽？連現代中文都無法區分這兩種政體，何況是古文？請問嚴複有什麽本事翻譯？“共和”這個詞雖然古已有之，但乃是日本人首先借來翻譯republic的，並不是他的發明。《法意》我沒有看過，我隻看了《天演論》就夠了，那完全是他的改寫，算不得翻譯。改寫也可以，你別誤解人家的意思啊，可他就是有本事胡亂發揮一氣，還哄得全國讀書人（小於等於初一知青）如中風魔。

老河覺得很奇怪：既然嚴複是亂譯，為什麽還會譯出這麽多書來？還會轟動一時？這有什麽奇怪的？那無非是一個野蠻國家驟見文明之光引起的震撼與狂喜罷了。嚴複的《天演論》坑了一代初一知青，魯迅畢生受其影響，但到死也沒懂進化論到底是怎麽回事，這我已經在舊作中指出過了。

至於說老嚴到底是誤解還是曲解，我沒有證據不敢亂說，但我覺得誤解的可能更大。請想象一個原始野蠻國家的生番跑到西方去囫圇吞棗讀了一堆書，能有什麽深入理解？當然難免錯謬百出，等到要翻譯過去就更受到古文的限製，那結果也就可想而知了。

有趣的是老嚴底氣還特別足，曾經在給友人的信中說，刻下有數部書，仆下正準備翻譯，如我不做此事，則中國無人可以做（大意如此，不敢保證準確）。令人遺憾的是，他說的竟然是實話！直到許多年後，才有人重譯那些被他譯爛了的名著。由此可見當時的中國是何等文明沙漠。世無英雄，遂使豎子成名。

作者：蘆笛 在 蘆笛自治區 發貼, 來自 http://www.hjclub.info
返回頂端
閱讀會員資料 蘆笛離線 發送站內短信

* 【附錄】《天演論》頭兩段中英文對照 -- 蘆笛 - (16884 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 上午1:48 (96 reads)
* 詞匯還好辦些。中文的語法太差。 -- 路過 - (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:) -- 蘆笛 - (232 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 上午2:02 (68 reads)
+ 低手沒關係，俺讓高手給俺幹活兒就是啦:)。給老蘆一個obvious反例 -- 路過 - (172 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 上午11:32 (33 reads)
# You, a low hand, failed to see the most obvious :( -- 蘆笛 - (75 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 下午12:56 (31 reads)
* You, a free hand, have the privilege to impose your freehand -- 路過 - (25 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 下午1:41 (20 reads)
o 嗬嗬，也有可能是你老哥的中文太差。不排除這個可能性。 -- 小小衲 - (0 Byte) 2008-7-30 周三, 下午3:39 (22 reads)
+ 嗬嗬。您要是有過在苛刻限製下翻譯嚴謹技術文獻的經曆，就會有另一種感覺了。 -- 路過 - (0 Byte) 2008-7-31 周四, 上午11:34 (9 reads)
* 愛你（因為藝術）， 恨你（因為科學），一生一世。（嗨，說的是中文，不是蘆子）。 -- 小小衲 - (0 Byte) 2008-7-30 周三, 下午2:46 (15 reads)
蘆注：

我記得這是最忠實的部分，後半截就完全是老嚴自己的創作了。當然這是30多年前對照閱讀《進化論與倫理學》和《天演論》留下的印象，不一定可靠。

我剛才匆匆對照著看了一遍，還是很佩服老嚴的，他竟然能用原始的中文轉達個大概其，確實難為他了。真了不起。

下文中的“複案”是老嚴自己作的解釋，並非正文。


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.

導言一　察變

　赫胥黎獨處一室之中，在英倫之南，背山而麵野，檻外諸境，曆曆如在幾下。乃懸想二千年前，當羅馬大將愷徹未到時，此間有何景物。計惟有天造草昧，人功未施，其借征人境者，不過幾處荒墳，散見坡陀起伏間，而灌木叢林，蒙茸山麓，未經刪治如今日者，則無疑也。怒生之草，交加之藤，勢如爭長相雄。各據一抔壤土，夏與畏日爭，冬與嚴霜爭，四時之內，飄風怒吹，或西發西洋，或東起北海，旁午交扇，無時而息。上有鳥獸之踐啄，下有蟻蝝之齧傷，憔悴孤虛，旋生旋滅，菀枯頃刻，莫可究詳。是離離者亦各盡天能，以自存種族而已。數畝之內，戰事熾然。強者後亡，弱者先絕。年年歲歲，偏有留遺。未知始自何年，更不知止於何代。苟人事不施於其間，則莽莽榛榛，長此互相吞並，混逐蔓延而已，而詰之者誰耶？

　　英之南野，黃芩之種為多，此自未有紀載以前，革衣石斧之民，所采擷踐踏者。茲之所見，其苗裔耳。邃古之前，坤樞未轉，英倫諸島，乃屬冰天雪海之區，此物能寒，法當較今尤茂。此區區一小草耳，若跡其祖始，遠及洪荒，則三占以還年代方之，猶瀼渴之水，比諸大江，不啻小支而已。故事有決無可疑者，則天道變化，不主故常是已。特自皇古迄今，為變蓋漸，淺人不察，遂有天地不變之言。實則今茲所見，乃自不可窮詰之變動而來。京垓年歲之中，每每員輿，正不知幾移幾換而成此最後之奇。且繼今以往，陵穀變遷，又屬可知之事，此地學不刊之說也。假其驚怖斯言，則索證正不在遠。試向立足處所，掘地深逾尋丈，將逢蜃灰。以是蜃灰，知其地之古必為海。蓋蜃灰為物，乃贏蚌脫殼積疊而成。若用顯鏡察之，其掩旋尚多完具者。使是地不前為海，此恒河沙數贏蚌者胡從來乎？滄海颺塵，非誕說矣！且地學之家，曆驗各種僵石，知動植庶品，率皆遞有變遷，特為變至微，其遷極漸。即假吾人彭聃之壽，而亦由暫觀久，潛移弗知。是猶蟪蛄不識春秋，朝菌不知晦朔，遽以不變名之，真瞽說也。

　　故知不變一言，決非天運。而悠久成物之理，轉在變動不居之中。是當前之所見，經廿年卅年而革焉可也，更二萬年三萬年而革亦可也。特據前事推將來，為變方長，未知所極而已。雖然，天運變矣，而有不變者行乎其中。不變惟何？是名天演。以天演為體，而其用有二：曰物競，曰天擇。此萬物莫不然，而於有生之類為尤著。物競者，物爭自存也。以一物以與物物爭，或存或亡，而其效則歸於大擇。天擇者，物爭焉而獨存。則其存也，必有其所以存，必其所得於天之分，自致一己之能，與其所遭值之時與地，及凡周身以外之物力，有其相謀相劑者焉。夫而後獨免於亡，而足以自立也。而自其效觀之，若是物特為天之所厚而擇焉以存也者，夫是之謂天擇。天擇者，擇於自然，雖擇而莫之擇，猶物競之無所爭，而實天下之至爭也。斯賓塞爾曰：“天擇者，存其最宜者也。”夫物既爭存矣，而天又從其爭之後而擇之，一爭一擇，而變化之事出矣。”

　　複案：物競、天擇二義，發於英人達爾文。達著《物種由來》一書，以考論世間動植種類所以繁殊之故。先是言生理者，皆主異物分造之說。近今百年格物諸家，稍疑古說之不可通。如法人蘭麻克、爵弗來，德人方拔、萬俾爾，英人威裏士、格蘭特、斯賓塞爾、倭恩、赫胥黎，皆生學名家，先後間出，目治手營，窮探審論，知有生之物，始於同，終於異。造物立其一本，以大力運之，而萬類之所以底於如是者，鹹其自己而已，無所謂創造者也。然其說未大行也，至鹹豐九年，達氏書出，眾論翕然。自茲厥後，歐美二洲治生學者，大抵宗達氏。而礦事日辟，掘地開山，多得古禽獸遺蛻，其種已滅，為今所無。於是蟲魚禽互獸人之間，銜接迤演之物，日以漸密，而達氏之言乃愈有征。故赫胥黎謂古者以大地為靜居天中，而日月星辰，拱繞周流，以地為主。自歌白尼出，乃知地本行星，係日而運。古者以人類為首出庶物，肖天而生，與萬物絕異。自達爾文出，知人為天演中一境，且演且進，來者方將，而教宗摶土之說，必不可信。蓋自有歌白尼而後天學明，亦自有達爾文而後生理確也。斯賓塞爾者，與達同時，亦本天演著《天人會通論》，舉天、地、人、形氣、心性、動植之事而一貫之，其說尤為精辟宏富。其第一書開宗明義，集格致之大成，以發明天演之旨。第二書以天演言生學。第三書以天演言性靈。第四書以天演言群理。最後第五書，乃考道德之本源，明政教之條貫，而以保種進化之公例要術終焉。嗚乎！歐洲自有生民以來，無此作也。不佞近翻《群誼》書，即其第五書中之編也。斯賓氏迄今尚存，年七十有六矣。其全書於客歲始蕆事，所謂體大思精，殫畢生之力者也。達爾文生嘉慶十四年，卒於光緒八年壬午。赫胥黎於乙未夏化去，年七十也。

導言二　廣義

自遞嬗之變遷，而得當境之適遇，其來無始，其去無終，曼衍連延，層見迭代，此之謂世變，此之謂運會。運者以明其遷流，會者以指所遭值，此其理古人已發之矣。但古以謂大運循環，周而複始，今茲所見，於古為重規；後此複來，於今為疊矩，此則甚不然者也。自吾黨觀之，物變所趨，皆由簡入繁，由微生著。運常然也，會乃大異。假山當前一動物，遠跡始初，將見逐代變體，雖至微眇，皆有可尋，迨至最初形，乃莫定其為動為植。凡茲運行之理，乃化機所以不息之精。苟能靜觀，隨在可察。小之極於跂行倒生，大之放乎日星天地；隱之則神思智識之所以聖狂，顯之則政俗文章之所以沿革。言其要道，皆可一言蔽之，曰：天演是已。此其說濫觴隆古，而大暢於近五十年。蓋格致學精，時時可加實測故也。

　　且伊古以來，人持一說以言天，家宗一理以論化。如或謂開辟以前，世為混沌，沕湣膠葛，待剖判而後輕清上舉，重汕下凝；又或言摶上為人，咒日作晝，降及一花一草，蠕動蠉飛，皆自元始之時，有真宰焉，發揮張皇，號召位置，從無生有，忽然而成；又或謂出王遊衍，時時皆有鑒觀，惠吉逆凶，冥冥實操賞罰。此其說甚美，而無如其言之虛實，斷不可證而知也。故用天演之說，則竺幹、大方、猶太諸教宗，所謂神明創造之說皆不行。夫拔地之木，長於一子之微；垂天之鵬，出於一卵之細。其推陳出新，逐層換體，皆銜接微分而來。又有一不易不離之理，行乎其內。有因無創，有常無奇。設宇宙必有真宰，則天演一事，即真宰之功能。惟其立之之時，後果前因，同時並具，不得於機緘已開，洪鈞既轉之後，而別有設施張主於其間也。是故天演之事，不獨見於動植二品中也。實則一切民物之事，與大宇之內日局諸體，遠至於不可計數之恒星，本之未始有始以前，極之莫終有終以往，乃無一焉非天之所演也。故其事至賾至繁，斷非一書所能罄。姑就生理治功一事，模略言之。先為導言十餘篇，用以通其大義。雖然，隅一舉而三反，善悟者誠於此而有得焉，則筦秘機之扃鑰者，其應用亦正無窮耳。

　　複案：斯賓塞爾之天演界說曰：“天演者，翕以聚質，辟以散力。方其用事也，物由純而之雜，由流而之凝，由渾而之畫，質力雜糅，相劑為變者也。 ”又為論數十萬言，以釋此界之例。其文繁衍奧博，不可猝譯，今就所憶者雜取而粗明之，不能細也。其所消翕以聚質者，即如日局太始，乃為星氣，名涅菩刺斯，布濩六合，其質點本熱至大，其抵力亦多，過於吸力。繼乃山通吸力收攝成珠，太陽居中，八緯外繞，各各聚質，如今是也。所謂辟以散力者，質聚而為熱、為光、為聲、為動，未有不耗本力者，此所以今日不如古日之熱。地球則日縮，彗星則漸遲，八緯之周天皆日緩，久將迸入而與太陽合體。又地入流星軌中，則見隕石。然則居今之時，日局不徒散力，即合質之事，亦方未艾也。餘如動植之長，國種之成，雖為物懸殊，皆循此例矣。所謂由純之雜者，萬化皆始於簡易，終於錯綜。日局始乃一氣，地球本為流質，動植類胚胎萌芽，分官最簡；國種之始，無尊卑上下君子小人之分，亦無通力合作之事。其演彌淺，其質點彌純。至於深演之秋，官物大備，則事莫有同，而互相為用焉。所謂山流之凝者，蓋流者非他，此流字兼飛質而言。由質點內力甚多，未散故耳。動植始皆柔滑，終乃堅強。草昧之民，類多遊牧；城邑土著，文治乃興，胥此理也。所謂由渾之畫者，渾者蕪而不精之消，畫則有定體而界域分明。蓋純而流者未嚐不渾，而雜而凝者，又未必皆畫也。且專言由純之雜，由流之凝，而不言由渾之畫，則凡物之病且亂者，如劉、柳元氣敗為癰痔之說，將亦可名天演。此所以二者之外，必益以由渾之畫而後義完也。物至於畫，則山壯入老，進極而將退矣。人老則難以學新，治老則篤於守舊，皆此理也。所謂質力雜糅，相劑為變者，亦天演最要之義，不可忽而漏之也。前者言辟以散力矣。雖然，力不可以盡散，散盡則物死，而天演不可見矣。是故方其演也，必有內涵之力，以與其質相劑。力既定質，而質亦笵力，質日異而力亦從而不同焉。故物之少也，多質點之力。何謂質點之力？如化學所謂愛力是已。及其壯也，則多物體之力。凡可見之動，皆此力為之也。更取日局為喻，方為涅菩星氣之時，全局所有，幾皆點力。至於今則諸體之周天四遊，繞軸自轉，皆所謂體力之著者矣。人身之血，經肺而合養氣；食物入胃成漿，經肝成血，皆點力之事也。官與物塵相接，由涅伏俗曰腦氣筋。以達腦成覺，即覺成思，因思起欲，由欲命動，自欲以前，亦皆點力之事。獨至肺張心激，胃回胞轉，以及拜舞歌呼手足之事，則體力耳。點體二力，互為其根，而有隱見之異，此所謂相劑為變也。天演之義，所苞如此，斯賓塞氏至推之農商工兵、語言文學之間，皆可以天演明其消息所以然之故。苟善悟者深思而自得之，亦一樂也。

　號物之數曰萬，此無慮之言也，物固奚翅萬哉！而人與居一焉。人，動物之靈者也，與不靈之禽獸魚鱉昆蟲對；動物者，生類之有知覺運動者也，與無知覺之植物對；生類者，有質之物而具支體一官理者也，與無支體官理之金石水土對。凡此皆有質可稱量之物也，合之無質不可稱量之聲熱光電諸動力，而萬物之品備矣。總而言之，氣質而已。故人者，具氣質之體，有支體官理知覺運動，而形上之神，寓之以為靈，此其所以為生類之最貴也。雖然，人類貴矣，而其為氣質之所囚拘，陰陽之所張弛，排激動蕩，為所使而不自知，則與有生之類莫不同也。

　　有生者生生，而天之命若曰：使生生者各肖其所生，而又代趨於微異。且周身之外，牽天係地，舉凡與生相待之資，以愛惡拒受之不同，常若右其所宜，而左其所不相得者。夫生既趨於代異矣，而寒暑燥濕風水土穀，洎夫一切動植之倫，所與其生相接相寇者，又常有所左右於其間。於是則相得者亨，不相得者困；相得者壽，不相得者殤。日計不覺，歲校有餘，浸假不相得者將亡，而相得者生而獨傳種族矣，此天之所以為擇也。且其事不止此，今夫生之為事也，孳乳而寖多，相乘以蕃，誠不知其所底也。而地力有限，則資生之事，常有製而不能逾。是故常法牝牡合而生生，祖孫再傳，食指三倍，以有涯之資生，奉無窮之傳衍，物既各愛其生矣，不出於爭，將胡獲耶？不必爭於事，固常爭於形。借曰讓之，效與爭等。何則？得者隻一，而失者終有徒也。此物競爭存之論，所以斷斷乎無以易也。自其反而求之，使含生之倫，有類皆同，絕無少異，則天演之事，無從而興。天演者以變動不居為事者也，使與生相待之資，於異者匪所左右，則天擇之事，亦將泯焉。使奉生之物，恒與生相副於無窮，則物競之論，亦無所施，爭固起於不足也。然則天演既興，三理不可偏廢。無異、無擇、無爭，有一然者，非吾人今者所居世界也。

　　複案：學問格致之事，最患者人習於耳目之膚近，而常忘事理之真實。今如物競之烈，士非抱深思獨見之明，則不能窺其萬一者也。英國計學家即理財之學。馬爾達有言：萬類生生，各用幾何級數。幾何級數者，級級皆用定數相乘也。謂設父生五子，則每子亦生五孫。使滅亡之數，不遠過於所存，則瞬息之間，地球乃無隙地。人類孳乳較遲，然使衣食裁足，則二十五年其數自倍，不及千年，一男女所生，當遍大陸也。生子最稀，莫逾於象。往者達爾文嚐計其數矣，法以牝牡一雙，三十歲而生子，至九十而止，中間經數，各生六子，壽各百年，如是以往，至七百四十許年，當得見像一千九百萬也。又赫胥黎雲：大地出水之陸，約為方迷盧者五十一兆。今設其寒溫相若，肥確又相若，而草木所資之地漿、日熱、炭養、亞摩尼亞莫不相同。如是而設有一樹，及年長成，年出五十子，此為植物出子甚少之數，但群子隨風而颺，枚枚得活，各占地皮一方英尺，亦為不疏，如是計之，得九年之後，遍地皆此種樹，而尚不足五百三十一萬三千二百六十六垓方英尺。此非臆造之言，有名數可稽，綜如下式者也。

　　夫草木之蕃滋，以數計之如此，而地上各種植物，以實事考之又如彼。則此之所謂五十子者，至多不過百一二存而已。且其獨存眾亡之故，雖有聖者莫能知也。然必有其所以然之理，此達氏所謂物競者也。競而獨存，其故雖不可知，然可微擬而論之也。設當群子同入一區之時，其中有一焉，其抽乙獨早，雖半日數時之頃，已足以盡收膏液，令餘子不複長成，而此抽乙獨早之故，或辭枝較先，或苞膜較薄，皆足致然。設以膜薄而早抽，則他日其子，又有膜薄者，因以競勝，如此則曆久之餘，此膜薄者傳為種矣，此達氏所謂天擇者也。嗟夫！物類之生乳者至多，存者至寡，存亡之間，間不容發，其種愈下，其存彌難。此不僅物然而已，墨、澳二洲，其中土人日益蕭瑟，此豈必虔劉脧削之而後然哉！資生之物所加多者有限，有術者既多取之而豐，無具者自少取焉而嗇；豐者近昌，嗇者鄰滅。此洞識知微之士，所為驚心動魄，於保群進化之圖，而知徒高睨大談於夷夏軒輊之間者，為深無益於事實也。