翻譯從來不僅僅只是翻譯本身而已。在赫爾曼斯（Theo Hermans） 看來，翻譯是一種公共建制（institution），周遭圍繞著種種有形無形 的期待與成規，這些期待與成規會逐步建構起某種場域，左右譯者或 論者的選擇、策略與行動；翻譯因此是一種社會行為，其中有多種力 量相互牽制與協調。考察史傳僧籍，譯場從來也不僅僅只是高僧講經 弘法的場所而已。自漢末，譯場規模從最初三、五人的小聚，發展到 數百、千人的盛會；其組織亦從主譯、傳語、筆受、證義發展到數十 個職司的嚴密建制。在其中，我們既可看到佛典成書的由來始末，也 可見到譯經過程、策略、譯評與論辯。譯場這一文化建制不僅生產佛典， 也是譯史、譯論的發源地。有鑑於此，筆者首先以道安譯論之轉變為 例，並藉助赫爾曼斯關於「翻譯作為建制」（ translation as institution） 的概念，《出三藏記集》相關經序與《高僧傳．譯經篇》的譯場記錄， 探討譯場與翻譯／譯論的關係。據本文考察，譯場監譯大臣以及眾檀 越的介入翻譯過程與策略選擇，對翻譯的走向有重大的影響。以長安 譯場論，監譯大臣趙政不但掌有徵選主譯、譯場主的權力，亦可決定 譯哪部經典、選擇譯經策略乃至潤飾譯文。譯場裏的眾檀越亦具有一 種文化把關的作用。因此中古譯場除了講經弘法，也是國家展現權力、 把關言論的所在。從譯場發展出來的文化產品其實不僅僅是譯著與譯 論本身而已，相反的，那是國家政經力量（趙政）與文化傳統（眾檀 越）相互運作之下形塑出來的產物。譯史與譯論，其實並不單純。

Dao An (312/314-385) was one of the most prominent theorists in early Chinese translation history. His most popular teaching of wu shi san bu (五失 三不) has caused numerous debates since the Jin dynasty. To understand the debated issues, I examined all his sutra prefaces collected within the Collection of Records Concerning the Translation of Tripitaka (出三藏記集) in order of composition and came to a preliminary conclusion that Dao An’s thought could be periodized into an initial and a mature phase, and that the key to understanding the change in his thinking was the Translation Forum (譯場) in the capital city Chang-an (長安). Taking this previous study as an example, the present paper goes a step further into the Translation Forum to investigate the specific elements that might have caused the change in his thinking. According to my study, the Translation Forum produced not only Buddhist sutras but also early translation theories. In a sense, it was a cultural, religious and political institution in which Buddhism was transmitted, Buddhist sutras were translated, and translation discourses were negotiated. More importantly, this paper shows that, within this social institution, those who participated in the process of sutra translation, especially Zhao Zheng (趙政), the government official in charge of the Forum, and other participants, presumably the patrons of the Forum, had the tremendous power to decide which sutras would be translated and what translation strategies would be applied. Translation, according to André Lafevere, does not occur in a social vacuum. Similarly, discourses on translation and translation history cannot be detached from the specific contexts of translation production and use.