本文以嚴復與他的晚輩胡適的翻譯觀點來做比較研究，指出他們之間的異同。探討面向有四：（一）翻譯動機：他們都是要引進西洋新知、學理來解決中國當時的困境。嚴復的翻譯主題較廣，多為邏輯、政治、經濟、社會及科學等；胡適的焦點則較集中於「中國文藝復興」、新文化、文學語言的建構和教育，並受杜威實驗主義的影響，「要輸入新的學理」來改造文學創作的方法，且帶有點個人喜好的性質。（二）翻譯策略：嚴復的策略對象為當時讀古書的中國菁英，因此使用的是傳統的文言文(桐城派文體)，貶抑近世利俗的文字，其翻譯原則要守住的是「意義則不倍（悖）本文。」胡適的對象則是廣大的平民，主張用「漢字寫白話」，用活的語言，反對死的語言(文言文)；翻譯的第一個條件是「要使它化成明白流暢的本國文字」，與其譯而失真，不如不譯。（三）翻譯目的與影響：嚴復譯書的目的就是要透過能讀古文的少數菁英，社會的上方階層來做快速、有效改變並拯救當時敗落的中國。但今日能流暢地閱讀文言文的人群已逐漸減少，其傳播力有遞減之虞。胡適的目的是要趕緊翻譯西洋文學名著做我們的模範，達成建設「國語的文學」與「文學的國語」之使命；因他採用白話文，所以能持續與廣大讀者群的接觸。(四) 翻譯方法與運用：以嚴復和胡適的翻譯思想與譯作為基礎，用翻譯學方法來探討其現象，並驗證他們的翻譯主張與實務之間的關係。

This essay is a preliminary comparative study of the viewpoints of translation between Hu Shi and his predecessor Yan Fu, with an aim to show what they differ from each other in their translation businesses. Four aspects to be explored: (1) Translation Motivation: both of them used translation as a medium to introduce contemporary Western knowledge, thought, and theory, in the hope that they could help solve the various difficult situations facing the then China. The subjects Yan Fu covered are mostly logic, politics, economics, sociology, and science, which are broader than those of Hu Shi, who rather focused on such topics as the “Chinese Renaissance,” the construction of new culture and literary language, and education with John Dewey’s Experimentalism/ Pragmatism as guidance. Hu also imported new theories from the West in order to innovate on Chinese literary creation, yet, with a tint of personal hobby involved in. (2) Translation Strategy: For rendering Yan Fu adopted classical Chinese, also known as “Tongcheng Style,” a commonly used language among the elite in Imperial China, while downgrading vulgate Chinese used by the ordinary people. Yan believed that keeping fidelity to the original meaning of the source text was the supreme policy. Hu appealed to the public, employing vulgate Chinese, a living language, and domesticating the foreign text, tried to make translations as clear and fluent as if they were originally written in a living Chinese language. For Hu believed that classical Chinese was a dead language and thus lacked vitality. Furthermore, Hu would rather not do any translation if he failed to retain the genuine meaning. (3) Translation Purpose and Influence: Yan’s translated texts were mainly addressed to the literati who had the power to reform the then backward government, by arousing their awareness. But, as time elapses, the number of Chinese readers who are well-versed in classic Chinese is now dwindling. Consequently, the dissemination of Yan’s texts seems to be on the decline. Hu’s translated texts were geared to setting up examples of literary creation for Chinese intellectuals in order that they might emulate and producing what he termed “literature in the national language” and “the national language of literary worth.” Today, Hu’s advocacy of adopting vulgate Chinese for creative writing and translation has been proven to be justifiable and it still sustains a large readership. (4) Translation Methodology and Its Application: Yan’s and Hu’s translation views and translated texts are, as a research base, examined to explore possible phenomena appearing in their translating activities and compare relationships between their ideas and practices in light of Translation Studies.