摘要
1860年代以前,在华英人曾就汉字“夷”字与barbarian是否构成对等关系,发生过长达半个世纪的“译名之争”。支持者与反对者分别用中国经典文献诠释“夷”字的古今含义和实际用法,以实现各自的论证目的。第一次鸦片战争前,英国主战派以二者的对等关系构建“国耻叙事”,其根本目的是促动英国政府对华使用武力。第二次鸦片战争前,在华英国官员、汉学家旨在破除华夷观,以实现大英帝国与天朝中国之平行的长期追求。汉学爱好者汤姆斯否定二者的对等关系,主张以鸦片战争前的旧制与中国往来,从而维系中英关系的稳固发展。“译名之争”看似围绕于“夷”字与barbarian的对译关系,而其症结在于英国要重新定位百年以来的中英关系。
Before the 1860s,British residents in China engaged in a half-century-long“translation dispute”over whether the Chinese character夷and the English term barbarian were equivalent.Proponents and opponents relied on Chinese classical texts to interpret the historical and contemporary meanings and usage of夷,seeking to support their respective arguments.Before the First Opium War,Britain’s pro-war faction framed the equivalence of the two terms to construct a“national humiliation narrative”,ultimately aiming to advocate for the British government’s use of force against China.Prior to the Second Opium War,British officials and sinologists in China sought to reform the Sino-barbarian ideology to achieve their long-standing goal of placing the British Empire on equal footing with China.Sinophiles such as P.P.Thoms denied the said equivalence,advocating for maintaining pre-Opium War conventions in Sino-British interactions to ensure the stability and development of bilateral relations.Although the dispute ostensibly revolved around the equivalence,its essence lay in Britain’s effort to redefine Sino-British relations after a century of engagement.
出处
《学术研究》
北大核心
2025年第1期138-149,180,共13页
Academic Research
作者简介
万立,华东政法大学外语学院副教授、涉外法治研究院研究员(上海,201620)。
