李約瑟的疑惑Needham’s Puzzle

林巍

李約瑟，研究中國科技史的著名英國學者，寫出了六卷本的《中國科學技術史》，但有個問題一直困擾1著他：“中國古代科學技術很發達，為什么沒有產生近代科學”？

Joseph Needham， a well-known British scholar， studied the history of science and technology of China， and wrote the six-volume Science and Civilisation in China. One question， however， always puzzled him： given the highly developed science and technologies in ancient China， why had modern science not emerged in its modern history？

這是一個非常矛盾的問題。首先關乎對“科學”概念的理解。李約瑟經常將science（科學）和technology（技術）兩個詞合在一起使用，似乎以“技術”充當了“科學”。應當說，中國古代的技術，并不是西方嚴格意義上的“科學”;如果他說中國古代有技術，而且遠比西方發達，便易于理解，但他用的是“中國古代科學”，這便讓人費解2。

This is a very controversial issue. Above all， it has to do with the definition of “science”. Since Needham often used “science and technology” as a phrase， and “technology” usually served as “science”， it may confuse people with the question as to whether ancient Chinas science or its technologies were more advanced than those of the West.

而且，李約瑟用的是現代西方的科學分類概念來對中國古代的“科學”進行整理、歸納，于是不免使人誤解3，認為中國古代的“科學”就等于近代意義上的科學，例如：第三卷論數學、天文學、地理學，第四卷論物理學，第五卷論化學和化工，第六卷論生物學、農學和醫學，等等。于是就有了矛盾：既然近代中國都沒能產生近代科學，何以古代便出現了近代科學，而且很“發達”？

Moreover， Needham identified and typed “science” in ancient China based on modern Western scientific classification， which is bound to misdirect the reader to modern “science”， such as mathematics， astronomy， geography in Volume 3 of the book， physics in Volume 4， chemistry， chemical engineering in Volume 5 and biology， agronomy and medicine in Volume 6， etc. That being the case， a contradiction occurred： Since even modern China failed to produce modern science， how could science have appeared in ancient China and have even been highly developed？

通觀《中國科學技術史》，在李約瑟筆下，人類的科學似乎有一個統一的發展模式，即原始型—中古型—近代型。歐洲人走完了這一進程，而中國人卻止步在了第二個階段。顯然，這是把歐洲的科學發展模式當作世界通用模式，套用4在了中古代科技史。

Throughout Science and Civilisation in China， there is a unified model in the development of human science， namely from primitive to medieval to modern. While the Europeans went through this process， the Chinese apparently halted at the second stage. Obviously， the European model has been used as a universal one ethnocentrically applied to Chinas history of science and technology.

其實，科學有廣義和狹義之分。廣義的科學是指有關主客觀世界的系統知識，狹義的科學則“其推理重實驗，其察物有條貫5”;當今世界所通稱的科學多指狹義的科學，即西方現代實驗科學，而這不同于對中國古代科技的理解。

In fact， the idea of “science” can be defined in both a broad and a narrow sense. Broadly speaking， it refers to systematic knowledge about the subjective and objective worlds. In its narrow sense， it can be understood as “reasoning on the basis of experiments while analyzing by logic”. In todays world， so-called “science” is generally denoted in its narrow sense， namely modern experimental science， which is quite different from ancient Chinas “technology”.

從根本上講，決定西方近代科學的基因是希臘理性科學6，而中國傳統文化中卻沒有出現這一理性科學基因。西方理性科學是自古希臘以來一直貫穿西方文明發展過程的主流知識形態，在古希臘和古羅馬，其典型學科是哲學和數學;在中世紀，為神學;在近代，則是自然科學（數理實驗科學）。有理性科學，不一定產生實驗科學（如古希臘），但沒有理性科學，一定不會產生實驗科學。這正是中國近代何以沒有產生西方人認為的“近代科學”的歷史原因。

Fundamentally， the core that determines modern science in the West is ancient Greek rational science， which was absent from traditional Chinese culture. Western rational science has long been the mainstream knowledge developed throughout Western civilization： in ancient Greece and Rome it was mainly in the forms of philosophy and mathematics， in the Middle Ages theology， and in modern times natural science （mathematical and experimental sciences）. Experimental science may not ne-cessarily follow rational science （such as in ancient Greece）; however， without rational science， experimental science is out of the question. This is precisely the historical reason why “modern science” as defined by westerners did not occur in China.

若不顧中國古代基本沒有數理實驗科學傳統的事實，勉強依照數理實驗科學的框架去梳理中國古代的自然知識成就，便難免出現兩個誤區：一是前面提到的以技術代替科學，二是得出許多脫離中國古代語境的術語、觀點和結論，進而產生矛盾和混亂。例如，在中國古代的自然知識中，由于數學沒有優先性，其各種知識沒有顯著的數學化特征，所以中國的傳統數學在本質上是計算“技術”，沒有獨立的知識地位，是“有術無學7”，完全不能等同于西方意義上的“數理科學”。

Should we ignore the fact that there was no such thing as mathematical and experimental science in ancient China， the rigid classification imposed on the history of Chinese explorations in natural know-ledge would inevitably cause misconceptions on two fronts： One， it is very easy to substitute the concept of technology for that of science， as previously mentioned; Two， many academic terms， viewpoints and judgments that have been taken completely out of their context would subsequently be produced， causing confusion and mess. For example， since “mathematics” did not prominently develop in ancient China and other kinds of knowledge were not expressed in mathematical terms， its mathematics in essence remained as a technique of calculation and never gained the status of “mathematical science” as in the West; there was no equivalence between the two.

由此而言，在我看來，李約瑟疑惑的根本原因，在于他沒有充分認識到中西方文明發展進程的本質差別，從而混淆了兩套完全不同性質的“科學8”（包括“技術”）概念。

From this perspective， the root cause of Needhams puzzle， in my view， lies in his lack of recognition of essential differences between the developments of civilizations in China and in the West， and the consequent confusion of the two sets of concepts—“science” and “technology”， which are completely different in their historical contexts.

*博士，杭州師范大學外國語學院翻譯研究所特聘教授，本刊編委。

1一般似可譯成 bother、beset、perplex等，但這里更多是指問題讓人疑惑，即fill one with bewilderment and make them unable to understand it，故用了puzzle。? 2還可譯成hard for people to understand、be obscure/unintelligible for people、inexplicabile等，此處變通為it may confuse people with the question as to ...? 3此“誤解”是使動用法，不宜譯成misunderstand、misread、misconstrue、misapprehend、misconceive 等，而實則為“誤導”，即misdirect、misguide等。

4“套用”通常譯作use indiscriminately、 apply mechanically 等，但這里涉及以歐洲人的思維模式來理解中國歷史，故用了ethnocentrically（有種族中心主義色彩地）一詞。? 5“條貫”為書面用語，即“條理、系統”，似可譯成order、 system、organization等，但這里宜譯為by logic。

6所謂“希臘理性科學”，實質指古代希臘的理性主義，即能超越自己感官欲望和利害關系、不計得失地探究各種抽象思辨的理智。? 7“有術無學”，這里不好直譯，而remained as a technique of calculation and never gained the status of “mathematical science” as in the West 算是一種釋譯。

8鑒于李約瑟文中的“科學”概念通常是science和technology并用的，故這里不妨將“‘科學（包括‘技術）”以同樣形式譯出。