林譯小說於晚清民初紅極一時，卻亦招致了長達一個世紀以上關於林紓「中國化」翻譯的爭議。本文乃對於林紓、乃至近代中文翻譯「中國化」論述之反思。首先是對林譯評論作歷史爬梳，發現此「中國化」評語至今仍為華語學界的主要定調，甚至凌駕文本證據之上。其次，本文借鑒近年關於林譯小說中基督教概念之「中國化」研究，提出在使用「歸化、異化」二分批判時，必須考慮語彙翻譯的長期歷史變遷。為指出因時代錯置而誤判的問題，本文試包含較廣的歷史跨度，以不同譯本進行譯詞的歷時性比較。總之，「中國化」概念因其歷史脈絡而具有當時特有的批判內涵，不當引用可能會使研究者無意中越出了研究的客觀性。對於中國近代翻譯的研究，更有效的方法應在於發現目標語所經歷的微妙變化，而不過度受歷史成見所礙。

Considering the century-long controversy over the once most popular translator Lin Shu, this article attempts to serve as a reflection on the popular Sinicisation discourse about his translations and early modern Chinese translations in general. First, reviewing the historical criticisms of Lin Shu reveals the persistence of this discourse, despite inconsistencies with the textual evidence found in his translations. Second, to address the problem of anachronism in research, a particular study on Lin’s “Sinicization” of Christian concepts is drawn upon to demonstrate the need to take into account long-term historical development when applying the critical domestication/foreignization distinction. Thus, diachronic comparison including multiple translated texts is used as a means to avoid ahistoricism in historical case studies such as Lin’s. In conclusion, given that the concept of “Sinicization” carries critical connotations owing to its historical context, citing it unscrupulously may lead the researcher to unintentionally conspire with the original political intention of the concept. It is therefore suggested that a more effective task would be to uncover in the translation subtle transformations in the target language without being unduly influenced by historical preconceptions.