Rediscovering Culture: Cultural Sociology and its Trajectory
Zulpikar Barat
Introduction
C. Wright Mills, one of the well-known American sociologists of the twentieth century, had once argued that social world requires sociological imagination, and a fully developed sociological imagination requires a deep analysis of culture (1959). For many of the most important social theorists of the twentieth century, the study of society has been carried out only through a full attention of the problem of culture. An attentive reader can realize this fact in the works of many key social theorists from Emile Durkheim (1965) to Jeffery Alexander (1990) including Max Weber (1930a), George Simmel (2001), Antonio Gramsci (1971), Theodor Adorno(1972 [2001]), Raymond Williams (1977[2001]), Pierre Bourdieu(1977,1984), Clifford Geertz (1973), Michael Foucault (1965, 1977), Mary Douglas (1966), Victor Turner (1969), Daniel Bell (1977[1996]) and Ann Swidler (1986).
Defining Culture
“The most significant intellectual movements of t he last three decades … have placed cultural analysis at the center of human and literary disciplines” (Seidman, 1990: 235). However, despite the importance of culture in social sciences and humanities, it has seemed to be both challenging and trivial to define this concept in a proper way. Because, according to Raymond Williams, “culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language….because it has now come to be used for important concepts in several distinct intellectual
disci plines and in several distinct systems of thought” (1976: 76-77). Those who write about culture mean very different things by the term, analyzing culture in alternative theories full of different, controversial concepts and approaches. While investigating the concept of culture, some scholars focus on the difference between culture and society; some emphasize the internal differentiations of culture: high culture versus mass culture, and material versus symbolic culture (Hall, Neitz and Battani 2003). The general debates around cultural analysis today make it impossible to work out an ironclad definition. While reading the important authors on my reading list, I have perceived that many scholars seem to advocate their own standpoints at the cost of some other aspects of culture.
Although defining culture seems challenging, it is still necessary to identify the nature of culture. Classical sociologists had explained
culture in different ways. For example, Marx’s notion of ideology (1972); Durkheim’s ideas about ritual, symbol, and the sacred (1965); Weber’s studies of how subjective meanings direct action (1930a) are still essential for research in cultural sociology. Among these three founders of sociology, Durkheim most powerfully theorized culture seeing it as collective representation (1965; also Alexander 1990; Hall, Neitz and Battani 2003; Smith and Riley 2009). For Weber, culture, like “switchman”, determines “the track along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest” (1946: 280). William’s important chapter entitled “The Analysis of Culture” in the Long Revolution coordinated three different definitions of culture; these are the “ideal”, the “documentary”, and the “social” (1961). Ideal culture is the process of discovery within particular periods and societies, of values which have timeless or general human applicability. “Documentary” culture is the record of distinctive cultural achievements, in intellectual and imaginative work of all kinds. Social culture is entire way of life, as it is expressed, not just through artistic monuments, but through social institutions and practice of all kinds (1961: 57-58). William’s definition has still been influential in cultural analysis since he attempted to define culture in the completeness.
Geertz’s definition of culture is also very influential. Clifford Geertz defined culture as “historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge and attitude towards life” (1973: 89). Geertz’s famous definition can be seen as an idealist approach to culture. Because, like Durkheim (1965) and some other cultural anthropologists such as Turner (1969), he saw symbols, rituals and ideas as the theoretically important aspect of culture. Douglas defined culture as “standardized values of culture” (1966: 39). However, Marxist scholars reject this kind of position and link the most social forces to the process of economics and politics driven more by calculations of self-interest than by meanings. For Marxists, limiting culture to ideas and beliefs downplay the role of other social forces such as power and oppression (Hall, Neitz and Battani 2003).
Many contemporary cultural sociologists also tend to treat culture in different ways. Swidler had directly challenged “the view expressed in action theory that culture shapes action by supplying ultimate ends or values toward which action is directed” (1986: 273). Swidler’s
alte rnative approach holds that culture should be seen as a “tool kit” (1986). She assumes that, analysis should focus on culture as a casual agent, not in defining ends, but in “providing cultural components that
are used to construct strategies of action” (1986: 273). Smith and Riley, drawing on Raymond William’s framework, tend to broadly define culture as “…opposed to the material, technological, and social
structural; …the realm of the ideal, the spiritual and the non-material including a patterned sphere of beliefs, values, symbols, signs, and discourses;…recognized as having a complex and powerful relationship to practices and performances as well (2009: 3). Hall, Neitz and Battani tend to define culture in a broad way; in their words, “culture encompasse s: (1) ideas, knowledge (correct, wrong and unverifiable belief), and recipes for doing things; (2) humanly fabricated tools (such as cameras, computers); (3) products of social action that that may be distributed in social life” (2003:7).
Then, what is the nature of cultural sociology? Spillman (2002) argues that cultural sociology examine meaning-making at the center of society, observing it not only in artifacts and performance but in all corners of social life. Hall, Neitz and Battani (2003) maintains that, sociologists challenge the view in cultural anthropology that culture is shared values, seeking to develop a better understanding of how shared ideas might are widely ignored or disputed; paying close attention to difference and conflict; observing how widespread differentiation in common meanings and values coexisted with claims to common culture. Griswold (1987) argues that cultural sociology and its focus are characterized by the following features: (1) avoids evaluation in favor of relativism; (2) assumes a close links between society and culture; (3) emphasizes the persistence and durability of culture, rather than its fragility; (4) assumes that culture can be studied empirically like anything else.
Theorizing Culture: Key Positions and Approaches
How should culture be theorized and what specifically do sociologists have to contribute? There has always been a strong disagreement on this issue since a number of scholarly positions and approaches in this field differ from one another in identifying the nature of culture. Generally speaking, cultural sociologists observe the following key questions from different perspectives: how independent is culture? How is its interrelationship with society? What are its key elements? In what follows, on the basis of my reading notes, I will introduce different positions and approaches in general, and mainly discuss key positions such Marxian, Weberian, and Durkeimian ones in particular.
“Karl Marx is generally thought of as anti-cultural theorist”, because in his account, culture “operates as dominant ideology” and “reflects the interest of bourgeois” (Smith and Riley 2009: 6-7). For his followers, cultural order is economic and political; cultural phenomenon from legal
codes and religious rituals to art and intellectual ideas are assigned to the superstructure and determined by the base. Alexander argued that, “Marxist scholars postulate a radical dichotomy between superstructure and base, consciousness and social being” (1990: 2). In Marxist position, social power cannot be separated from class; to explain cultural phenomenon, one should not investigate their internal structure or meaning, but must examine the material elements that they reflect; because culture is determined by external forces.
Central to Marxian approach is an idea that social power cannot be separated from economy and class. The strength of Marx’s position is that it “connects culture to power and economic life in systematic ways” (Smith and Riley, 2009: 8). But, the weakness of this position is that it is too deterministic; it overestimates the role of class struggle; discards other realms of phenomenon as unimportant seeing economics as the root cause, the true reality, of our actions and beliefs. Thus, Marxian approach has so far been fiercely attacked by many scholars in other traditions. For example, poststructuralists like Foucault doubt Marxist faith that contemporary conditions will be transformed via the intervention of a self-conscious historical agent like the working class (1977). Another weakness of Marxian position is its incapacity to “theorize the autonomy of culture” (Smith and Riley 2009: 8). For example, In German Ideology Marx (1972) exemplifies the idea that a more fundamental economic reality is responsible for the superstructure of surface appearances. But scholars in Durkeimian position reject this idea, seeing “culture as a medium of power” (Hall, Neitz and Battani, 2003: 174) and a profound source of spiritual meaning.
What Marxists neglects are the focus of Durkheimian approach to culture. Durkheimian scholars see culture as autonomous, religion as the source of social life emphasizing the internal complexity and independence of symbolic systems (Durkheim 1965; Turner 1969; Douglas 1966). Unlike Weber, the Durkheimian scholars are not interested in historical specific understandings of cultural processes or comparative approaches to their social and ethical codes. Their focus is on the structure and process of meaningful systems, which are taken to be universal regardless of historical time and place. For example, in The Elementary Form of Religious Life, Durkheim (1965) demonstrated how cultural systems such as religious belief can represent our experiences of the social. His research shows that all cultural forms are collective representation. They represent not only a particular society but also social experience itself. According to Swidler, collective representation may range from the vivid totemic symbol to moral beliefs to modern society’s commitment to reason and indiv idual autonomy (1995). In Durkheim’s account,
religion is a form of collective representation, described as the vehicle of a fundamental process in which publicly shared symbols constitute social groups. Religion is the basis for all categories of thinking, and religion and categories of thinking alike “are collective representations which express collective realities” (1965: 22), “unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things” (1965: 52). The distinctive character of religion is that the world is divided into sacred and profane realms which are opposed to one another. People first become aware of the collective nature of their lives through religion. Religion brings together believers into the ceremonial organizations such as Church. The sacred is surrounded by myriad rituals and prohibitions which allow it to maintain a distance from profane life. Durkheim’s position influenced many contemporary sociologists and anthropologists such as Mary Douglas and Victor Turner, who argues that society is governed by cultural patterns and shared beliefs.
In Purity and Danger, Mary Douglas (1966) expanded Durkheimian concept of the profane by exploring Jewish dietary prohibitions. Her Durkeimian position suggested that the ideas of purity and danger are central to cultural life; sacred and profane are not only intercultural source of symbolic classification, but sources of strong moral and emotional commitment, and in fact, social control; pollution is a weapon for classifying and strengthening the symbolic order. Like Mary Douglas, Victor Turner also advocated Durkeimian position. At the core of his argument was Durkheimian thinking about collective representation and Durkheimian ideas to the analysis of symbols and rituals (1969). Turner examined how liminality becomes institutionalized to understand “the roles of symbols—religious, mythic, aesthetic, political and even economic—in social and cultural process” (1969: v). He explained his arguments with a discussion of kinship, exploring the ancient ritual process involved in the ascension of a king among the Ndembu in Zambia. His research demonstrated that liminality becomes institutionalized in a way that allows the experiences of “communities” to be accessible in more routine ways; communities involve contact with the sacred, generate intense emotional experience and are responsible for renewing social bonds and energies.
Despite its capacity to theorize the autonomy of culture, the weakness of Durkeimian position is that it focuses on the symbols and collective representation to the neglect of some other key elements such as social conflict, power and historical forces. With such a belief, Charles Tilly, in his book titled “as Sociology Meets History” (1981), fiercely attacked Durkheim’s position seeing it as “useless.
However, despite the fierce attack, Durkheim’s position pioneered functionalism. In the functionalist perspective, a clear affinity exists between culture and society, because any misfit would be dysfunctional (Griswold 1987). In contra st with “Durkheimian scholars” (Alexander 2009: 17; Smith and Riley 2009:69), the functionalists assume a social institution that play an essential role in the well being of the collectivity; identify culture with the values that direct the social, political, and economic levels of a social system. According to Parsons (1951), actors internalize a cultural system that is more general than the set of social systems of which they are also a part. Action is symbolic, social, and motivational at the same time. To carry out a full empirical analysis, one must understand the concrete interrelationship of three analytical systems such as social system, cultural system and character system.
The strength of functionalist scholars is that they tend to emphasize culture with an analysis of real social action (Alexander 1990). But, the weakness of functionalist approach is that values are often reduced to the very social structures. Swidler (1986) challenged Parsonian approach, suggesting that the theory of culture as values in Parsonian tradition persisted because the claim that “culture shapes action by defining what people want” is intuitively plausible. She countered that what “people want is” of little help in explaining their action; culture should be seen as a “tool kit”. According to Alexander’s explanation (1990), Functionalist approach to culture had revealed its weakness since the late 1990s. In the post-World War II era, structuralism and semiotics posed the principal alternatives to functionalist approaches to meaning. Following Saussure’s focus on language rather than speech, the semioticians insist on the internal integrity of symbolic organization (Hall, Neitz and Battani 2003). Drawing on the above discussion, I maintain that, if functionalists present an approach to culture that privileges social system, then semioticians articulate this autonomy through the cultural codes.
Unlike Durkheimians and Marxist scholars, the Weberian conceptualizes culture as an internally generated symbolic system that responds to compelling metaphysical need (Alexander 1990). In Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism, Weber (1930a) investigated the relation between rise of capitalism and Protestantism demonstrating that Europeans develop an ethics that penetrates everyday life. Weber linked culture to meaning arguing that religion is a meaning system that encourages s systematic approach to social action. For Weber, subjective meanings guide action and action is defined in terms of meaning, thus sociological analysis must identify the meaning that actors derived from the very cultural system.
Parsons combined Weberian approach to action with Durkeimian analysis of culture as shared values, borrowing from Weber the vision of action as guided by culturally determined ends, and from Durkheim the notion of culture as shared, collective product. Drawing upon this synthesis, Parson (1951) argued that actions are patterned in cultural system and values are collectively shared ultimate ends to action.
Geertz was Parson’s student. But, he rejected Parson’s position in cultural analysis. Following Weber, Clifford Geertz (1973) argued that culture should be studied for its meanings and not its effect on action. Spillman, as Weber and Geertz do, takes culture to meaning seeing culture as “m eaning-making” (2002: 2-4). Griswold (1987), like Spillman, also emphasizes meaning in cultural analysis, arguing that it would be a mistake for sociologists to neglect the problem of meaning to only focus on the social arrangements through which cultural products are produced and appreciated—what Griswold calls the “institutional approach”. Griswold warns, “An approach to culture that is uninterested in meaning, or in how cultural objects differ from pork bellies, seems destined to continue to play a marginal role in cultural, though perhaps not social, analysis” (1987: 3). Robert Wuthnow (1987) shows the weakness of Weberian culture-meaning position arguing that Weber’s approach to culture, and that of Geertz in the same tradition, overestimates the need to explore the motivation in people’s mind. Wuthnow further argued that sociologists should treat culture as observable behavior than subjective system of meaning making; sociologists should not try to be psychoanalysis (1987).
Overall, cultural sociology has so far been shaped by a wide- ranging positions and perspectives. However, each of these positions reflects only one element of culture. No single position can dominate cultural analyses. Alexander argued: “We can not understand culture without reference to subjective meaning, and we cannot understand it without reference to social structure constraints. We cannot interpret social behavior without acknowledging that it follows the codes it does not invent” (1990: 26). As Spillman clearly explained, “any kind of reductionism—to interpretations, institutions, or texts–is now widely resisted as implausible, and dialogues between researchers doing each type of research are fruitful” (2002: 8).
As shown above, it is illusory to assume that only one perspective can provide a complete cultural account. Since culture and society are complex affairs and culture cannot be studied within the framework of a particular school, we must respect the difference between positions in cultural analysis. Each of these perspectives can interpret only some dimension of culture.
Main Topics and Debates
Cultural sociology has so far investigated many topics, among which the relationships between culture, action and meaning have already been introduced in the discussion of Weberian tradition. Introduction to Durkheimian position looked over the concept of collective representation. Meanwhile, another essay (for Question 1) concerns the relation between power and culture. Therefore, in this section, I will mainly discuss five topics left untouched, and introduce debates revolving around them.
Modernity, Modern Culture and Postmodernity
Central to cultural analysis in the early twentieth century was exploration of modern culture or conditions of modernity. Seidman (1990) surveyed the perspectives on modern culture by examining the following questions that received attention in cultural analysis: what is the nature of modern culture? Is modernity dissolution or reconstruction of moral order? These important questions have so far been explored by many cultural theorists.
In his essay titled “The Metropolis and Mental Life”, Simmel (2001) suggested some distinctive features of culture in modern, complex societies in contrast with the smaller, premodern societies. In large and highly differentiated modern societies, the multiple social circles, the money economy, and the specialized division of labor lead to increasing rationalization and objectification in culture. While the possibilities of individuality and individualism grow, individual experiences become shallower, and that objective cultural products come to dominate subjective meanings and values.
Simmel’s claims about the cultural impact of modernity resonate with Adorno’s analysis of the crisis of modern culture. With Horkheimer, Adorno (1972[2001]) judged the grand enlightenment project to be a failure: the attempt to control social life through the exercise of reason and science had produced only imitation in culture and manipulation. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno examined the rationalized capitalist organization of cultural production in modern societies, and argued that, when art and entertainment are commodified for the mass market in concentrated, rationalized businesses, culture becomes formulaic, commercialized, imaginatively limited and critically stunted; and audiences became passive, conformist, and uncritical. True human needs are repressed and even intimacy is reified.
During the 1970s, however, a somewhat different perspective began to emerge in cultural analysis. For example, Daniel Bell (1976) turned his
attention to the dramatically changed conditions of culture in postwar era of affluence and unbridled mass consumption. The emergence of postindustrial society was described by Daniel Bell (1976) as a catalyst in creating disjuncture and contradictions between social worlds of leisure and those of work. According to Bell, the spheres of work and leisure became disconnected from one another in such a degree that people have played contradictory roles while they are at work versus when they play. The reason is that advanced West, particularly the United States, suffers from a fundamental disjuncture of values. On the one hand, there are the official values of work, thrift, responsibility associated with capitalism; on the other hand, there are the energies and desires released by a society of mass consumption, in which growing range of goods and services has become available to a large proportion of the population. This generated the disjuncture of values and self-exceeding selfhood. Bell attributes this new trend to revolutions in technology and to three social inventions—assembly -line production, the development of marketing and spread of installment buying. Bell also linked the rise of mass consumption during this period with changes in values: “concomitant revolutions in transportation and communications laid the basis for a national society and the beginning of a common culture. Taken all together mass consumption mean to the acceptance… of social change and perso nal transformation” (1976: 66).
A significant, pervasive cultural innovation in the late twentieth century has been characterized by cultural theorists as “postmodern”. Frederic Jameson is one of the theorists contributed to the works on postmodern culture. In Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late capitalism, he (1984) examined some feature of postmodern culture such as an emphasis on pastiche, a focus on images, dissociation between meaning and emotional attachment, and ahistoricism. Jameson observed that commodofication is penetrated into every area of social life during the latter part of the twentieth century and produced “an explosion: a prodigious expansion of culture throughput the social realm, to the point at which everything in our social life—from economic value and state power to practices and to the very structure of the psychic itself—can be said to have become cultural” (1984: 87). Jameson’s central argument is that postmodern culture should be historically situated as a dominant culture expressing the signifying practices and sensibilities generated by contemporary global capitalism. He illustrated his thesis with famous architectural exemplar of the Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles. Jameson’s argument bears comparison with Simmel’s char acterization of modern culture, Adorno’s critique of culture industry.
Social Stratification
The link between culture and social stratification has been one of the central topics in cultural analysis, and explored by key sociologists such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, and most powerfully by Pierre Bourdieu. Although Bourdieu has explored many topics, the conceptual core of his sociology is a vision of social classes and the cultural forms associated with these classes. In his two famous book, Bourdieu (1977, 1984) combined a Marxian theory of class positions in relation to the means to production with a Weberian analysis of status groups (lifestyles, tastes, prestige). In doing so he expanded the conceptualization of capital as more than economic and material resources (see Essay 1 for a brief discussion).
Bourdieu’s perspective suggests that high status individuals are the most culturally exclusive. This means that they distinguish themselves with an exclusive culture that rejects the cultural patterns and tastes of other groups. He argues that: “the higher the level of education, the greater is the proportion of respondents who, when asked whether a series of objects would make beautiful photographs, refuse the ordinary objects of popular admiration…as ‘vulgar’ or ‘ugly” (Bourdieu: 1984: 35). This means that for upper class people taste is a way of masking domination.
Lamont (1992) challenges Bourdieu by developing a new concept of symbolic boundaries that helps analyze the meanings underlying status assessments. Lamont investigated cultural variations in status judgments in interview with 160 upper middle class men in United States and France, exploring the role of the upper-middle class rather than the upper class in setting general terms of struggle. She compared symbolic boundaries cross-nationally, and also assessed differences between residents of major and provincial cities, between upwardly mobile men and others, and between men in different types of occupations. Lamont concluded that in cultural analysis one should not overestimate the nature and importance of high culture status markers. Her position draw into question Bourdieu’s general thesis that an elite social class dominates the struggle over cultural capital. Lament further shows that moral criteria are also useful to assess personal worth except the forms of cultural capital and economic capital. Criticizing Bourdieu, Lament argues that Bourdieu exaggerated the importance of cultural boundaries. What is needed is a model which empirically inv estigates “open, changing and interpenetrating semiotic and social fields” (1992: 183).
Bryson’s investigation adds to research responding to Bourdieu’s studies of the relation between social position and cultural taste. Examining how social status is related to taste, Bryson (1996) asks whether people express social exclusiveness in their musical antipathies, discussing symbolic boundaries marking race and education. Overall, she
finds that racists do dislike music associated with people of color, but musical dislikes tend to be influenced more by education than by racial prejudice. More educated people exhibit patterned tolerance: they dislike fewer types of music, but those genres they don’t like are associated with uneducated audiences. People in lower status positions are much more likely to be exclusive. Their tastes are cultivated on the basis of their race or ethnicity, geographic region and other exclusive badges of identity. Lower status culture is often marked by ethnic exclusivity.
Crane’s resear ch (2000) evaluated the evidence for and against the classical theory of fashion associated with social theorists such as Simmel who regard fashion as a mark of class or status distinction. She asks how fashion differs between moretraditionally class-based societies and those that are lessclass-based. Crane draws on her empirically grounded work, examined nineteenth-and-twentieth century fashion in the U.S., U.K., and France. Her findings shows that the extent to which middle-class fashions were adopted by members of the working class varied from country to country, and also according to occupation, gender and regional location.
Agency and Culture, Social Structure
There has been an important debate in cultural theory that concerns the relationship between agency, culture and social structure (Smith and Riley 2009). The debate revolves round the problem of how structures determine what individuals do, how structures are created, and what are the limits, if any, on individual’s capacities to act independently of social structure. Marxists similarly argue that social relations, not individuals are the proper objects of cultural analysis. Individuals are only the bearers of social relations (Marx 1972). However, functionalists emphasize the power of cultural system and system of meaning to control human agents (Parsons 1951). For functionalists, sociology should be concerned only with social structures that determine the characteristics and actions of individuals, whose agency or special characteristics therefore become unimportant. Talcott Parsons was an early exponent of this position. Some theories such as Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology stress the importance of actor. The traditions of phenomenological sociology and symbolic interactionism mainly take the view that cultural system can not be seen as determining, and emphasis should be placed on the way that individuals create the world around them.
According to Smith and Riley (2009), three contemporary social theories such as Bourdieu, Giddens and Elias have attempted to transcend this dualism. Bourdieu is the most powerful cultural analyst among them. In outline of a theory of practice (1977) and Distinction (1984), Bourdieu
challenged the dualism of macro versus micro and structure versus agency, insisting that the objective and subjective aspects of social life are bound together. Being concerned with both subjective experience and with objective structures, he investigates how cultural socialization places individuals and groups within competitive status hierarchies; how relatively autonomous fields of conflict lock individuals and groups in struggle over valued resources. Bourdieu argued that most human action flows out of a practical sense of things. It is guided by habitus—deeply seated, enduring and transposable dispositions that are derived from previous socialization and operate to generate and organize practices. Practices stem from the intersection between habitus and field. Fields, therefore mediate the relationship between social structure cultural practices.
Giddens also attempted to overcome the division between agency and structure by means of the notion of duality of structure. Structuration is a term used by Anthony Giddens to analyze the relations between agency and structure (1984). To Giddens, structure and action are necessarily related to one another. Societies, communities or groups only have structure as people behave in regular and fairly predictable ways. On the other hand, action is only possible because each of us, as individuals, possesses an enormous amount of structured knowledge. The best way to explain this is thorough the example of language. To exist at all, language must be socially constructed—there are properties of language use which every speaker must observe. What someone says in any given context, for instance, wouldn’t make sense unless it followed certain grammatical rules. Yet, the structural qualities of language only exist as individual language users actually follow those rules in practice. Language is in the process of structuration. He concluded that structure is both the medium and the outcome of the actions which are organized by structure.
Like Bourdieu and Giddens, Norbert Elias regards self as a key tool for theorizing agency. In Civilizing Process, offering historical analysis and tracing the way that modern self has developed over centuries, he concluded (1982) that a new sense of self occurred along with historical changes. He suggests that personality and culture go hand in hand, with culture equipping us with a sense of self and our emotional life.
However, Margaret Archer (2005) argues that from structural functionalism to structuration theory to cultural Marxism, most theories of culture conflate cultural systems of ideas with socio-cultural interaction. She maintained that these terms are analytically distinct; the variations within each of them interact to condition different cultural outcome over time, as part of a systematic theory of structure, culture, and agency.
Production, Distribution and Reception of Culture
The cultural materials consumed by people in social life are differentially distributed among individuals in diverse social locations. These differences, in fact, are the consequences of how culture is produced, distributed and received, by whom and for whom. The cultural object that is distributed and received does not come out of vacuum, rather has to be produced or organized by social action. So, cultural analysis on this issue explores the processes, resources, actors, activities, organizations and recipes by which production, distribution and reception of culture occur.
Since studies of cultural production attempt to identify the social arrangements and activities necessary to create cultural objects and how these shape the content of objects, I apply in this section the production perspective to the arts, to cultural industries, and to mass consumption. First of all, looking at the canon of art is a good starting point for thinking about the production of culture because works of art are produced with certain criterion in art worlds. Zolberg (2005)’s research demonstrates how aesthetic canon have changed in the process of cultural production over decades. She challenged the aesthetic canon in cultural industry, arguing that categories and distinctions that had once supported the commonsense canon have dissolved, more types of work are being considered art, and there is plurality of criteria of aesthetic values. In order to prove her thesis, she explored the development of the aesthetic canon through the modern period, and its dissolution in the process of cultural production in postmodern one. Her research shows that new art forms call into question the criteria of reception and classificatory systems that make distinctions between what is art and what is not.
Howard Becker’s book titled “art worlds” (1982) examined the ways art worlds enable and constrain artistic production, how different artistic roles are defined in relation to art worlds, and how art worlds change. Following the Symbolic Interactionsit tradition, Howard Becker used the term art worlds “to denote the network of people whose cooperative activity, organized via their joint knowledge of conventional means of doing things, produces the kind of artwork that the art world is noted for” (1982: x). Becker argued that producing art is a collective enterprise depending on an extensive division of labor as well as on shared conventions that challenges the commonsense knowledge on individual artistic activity and absolute aesthetic criteria. His research demonstrates that the production of culture perspective is not limited to understanding the outcomes of culture industries involving mass
production but also enables us to understand other sorts of social organization of artistic production.
Cultural Consumptions and Subculture
According to Barbara Rosenblum, “the sociological study of style can contribute a lot to people’s understanding of material culture and its relationship to social processes (1978: 436). In her research, she attempts to point out some possibilities for sociological approach to the analysis of styles by offering a comparative study of news, advertising and fine arts photographers. She argues that stylistic conventions in each of three categories of photography are partly determined by basic structural processes; the greater the rationalization of the work process, the bigger homogeneous the style and less its capacity to absorb variation. Her study provides a meaningful approach to the analysis of material culture
In Fashion and Its Social Agendas, Crane (2000) considers the social agendasof fashion and the ways the dictates of dominant fashion havebeen adopted or subverted by different publics in the 19th and20th centuries in France, England, and the United States. She argued that fashion differs between moretraditionally class-based societies and those that are less; production and receptionof fashion have changed over time.
Davis’s study of fashion is different than that of Crane. Davis (1992) attempts to answer some interesting questions: what do our clothes say about who we are or who we think we are? How does the way we dress communicate messages about our identity? Through interviews with designers, editors, and manufacturers, and drawing on some key sociologists such as Simmel, Veblen, Bourdieu and Baudrillard, Davis attacks the easy assumption that fashion is language and thus people can “read” and “communicate” images they want to deliver. Instead, he argues that much of what we assume to be individual preference really reflects deeper social and cultural forces; in the West people live in an ambivalent social world characterized by tensions over gender roles, social status, and the expression of sexuality; clothing and fashion mirror culturally derived ambivalences of social identity; gender, age, sexual and social status identities are all subject to such a changeable clothing impulses and representations.
Cook (2005) explores the roots of children’s consumer culture—and the commodification of childhood—by looking at the rise, growth, and segmentation of the children’s clothing industry, and by describing how baby shower anticipates and configures the child as a consuming subject—even before it is born. Cook argues that the commodification of
Childhood provides a compelling argument that any consideration of ”the child“ must necessarily take into account how childhood came to be understood through, and structured by, a market idiom.
Fine (1979) explains both cultural diffusion and local variations in cultural content and described the process of culture creation in small groups. Employing symbolic interactionsit theory, Fine’s study shows that researchers can examine cultural creation and usage by conceptualizing cultural forms as originating in a small group context. Focusing on the content of small group interaction, Fine suggests that the meaning of cultural items in a small group must be considered in order to comprehend their continued existence as communication.
Subculture tends to be perceived as “homogenous, static, and closed”, or easily regarded as deviant or lower-class groups in society. Fine and Sherryl (1979) critiques this position by reformulating the concept of subculture. Arguing for an analytical distinction between group and culture, they suggest that it is important to know who among a population participates in a subculture. According to them, subculture is by no means homogenous or static, since in reality information “flows across the boundaries of subculture”.
References
Adorno, Th eodor. 1972 [2001]. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” Pp. 39-46 in in Spillman Lyn (ed.). Cultural Sociology. MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Alexander, Jeffrey. 1990. “Analytic Debate: Understanding the Relative Autonomy of Culture,” Pp. 1-31 in Alexander Jeffrey and Seidman Steven (ed.), Culture and Society: Comparative Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, Margaret, S. 2005. “Structure, Culture and Agency” Pp. 17-34 in Jacobs, Mark and Hanrahan, Nancy (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to The Sociology of Culture. London: Blackwell Publishing.
Becker, Howard, S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkley, Ca: University of California Press.
Bell, Daniel. 1977. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
—-. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryson, Bethany. 1996. “Anything But Heavy Metal: Symbolic Exclusion and Musical Dislikes,” American Sociological Review 61: 884-899.
Cook, Daniel,T. 2005. “Consumer Culture” Pp. 160-176 in Jacobs, Mark and Hanrahan, Nancy (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to The Sociology of Culture.
Crane, Diana. 2000. Fashion and Its Social Agendas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davis, Fred. 1992. Fashion, Culture and Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Introduction.
Douglas, Mary.1966. Purity and Danger: an Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Taylor.
Durkheim, Emile. 1965. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: Free Press.
—–1973. Emile Durkheim on Morality and Society. Robert Bellah (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elias, Norbert. 1982. Civilizing Process. Oxford. Basil Blackwell.
Fine, Gar y A. 1979. “Small Groups and Cultural Creation.” American Sociological Review 44: 733-45.
Fine, Gary A. and Sherryl Kleinman. 1979. “Rethinking Subculture: an Interactionsit Analysis”. American Journal of Sociology 85:1-20.
Foucault, Michel. 1965: Madness and Civilization. A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. New York: Random House.
—–1977: Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” Pp. 3-30 in The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. Constitution of Society.Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selection from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Griswold, Wendy.1987. “A Methodo logical Framework for the Sociology of Culture,” Sociological Methodology17: 1-35
Hall, John R., Neitz, Mary Jo, Battani, Marshall. 2003. Sociology on Culture. New York: Routledge.
Jameson, Fredric.1984. “Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capit alism,” New Left Review 146: 53-92.
Lamont, Michèle. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rosenblum, Barbara. 1978b.“Style as Social Process,” American Sociological Review 43: 422-38.
Marx, Karl. 1959. Marx and Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy. Lewis Feuer, ed., New York: Doubleday and Co.
Marx, Karl. 1967. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1. New York: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl. 1972. The Marx-Engels Reader. Robert C. Tucker, ed., New York: W. W. Norton Co
Mills, Wright, C. 1959. Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rose nblum, Barbara. 1978.“Style as Social Process,” American Sociological Review 43: 422-38.
Seidman, Steven. 1990. “Substantive Debates: Moral Order and Social Crisis—Perspectives on Modern Culture,” Pp 217-238. in Alexander Jeffrey and Seidman Steven (ed.), Culture and Society: Comparative Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Simmel, Georg. 2001. “The Metropolis and Mental Life.” Pp. 28-38 in Spillman Lyn (ed.), Cultural Sociology, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Smith, Philip, and Riley, Alexander. 2009. Cultural Theory: An Introduction (2nd ed.).MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Spillman, Lyn. 2002. “Introduction: Culture and Cultural Sociology,” Pp1-17, in Cultural Sociology. Spillman Lyn (ed.), MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Swartz, David. 1997. Culture and Power:The Sociology Pierre Bourdieu. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,” American Sociological Review 51 (April): 273-286.
—-. 1995. “Cultural Power and Social Movements”, chapter 2 in Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans(eds.), Social Movements and Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1981. “Useless Durkheim”, pp. 95-108 in As Sociology Meets Histor y. New York: Academic Press.
Turner, Victor. 1969. The Ritual Process. Chicago: Aldine. Pp. 94-130.
Weber, Max. 1930a.The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen and Unwin (Introduction).
Weber, Marx. 1946. from Max Weber. H.H. Gertz and C. W. Mills (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, Marx. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Ca: University of California Press.
Williams, Raymond. 1961. The Long Revolution. London: Chatto and Windus.
—1976. Key Words:A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana.
Wuthnow, Robert. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Under Class, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zolberg, Vera. 2005. “Aesthetic Uncertainty: The New Canon?” Pp. 114-130 in Jacobs and
《峄山碑》全文及译文 《峄山碑》是秦始皇二十八年（公元前219年）东巡时所刻，下面是小编为大家带来的峄山碑全文及译文，欢迎阅读。 碑文 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王 讨伐乱逆，威动四极，武义直方 戎臣奉诏，经时不久，灭六暴强 廿有六年，上荐高号，孝道显明 既献泰成，乃降专惠，亲巡远方 登于绎山①，群臣从者，咸思攸长 追念乱世，分土建邦，以开争理 功战日作，流血于野，自泰古始 世无万数，陀及五帝，莫能禁止 廼今皇帝，壹家天下，兵不复起 灾害灭除，黔首康定，利泽长久 群臣诵略，刻此乐石，以箸经纪 注：①绎山：指峄山。 皇帝日：“金石刻尽，始皇帝所为也。今袭号而金石刻辞不称，始皇帝其于久远也。如后嗣为之者，不称成功盛德。”丞相臣斯、臣去疾，御史大夫臣德。昧死言，臣请具刻诏书，金石刻因明白矣。臣昧死请，制日可。 注释： 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王 （维是发语词，不翻。嗣世，一代代，继承。这三句，是一句话。） 讨伐乱逆，威动四极，武义直方 （武义直方，就相当于说正义战争。） 戎臣奉诏，经时不久，灭六暴强 （戎臣，就是带兵的将领。灭六暴强即诛灭六国。） 廿有六年，上荐高号，孝道显明
（皇帝二十六年，公元前221年。群臣上表，请求秦王称皇帝号。就叫上荐高号。这个孝道，是说秦国各代国君，均有统一之志，始皇帝的统一，乃是完成祖先之道。）既献泰成，乃降专惠，亲巡远方 （溥惠，尃惠。溥就是普。我用的书里面，百度百科里面，都错成了专字。既献泰成，乃降尃惠，亲巡远方。应该是这样子才对。既，就是完成了的意思。泰成，就是大成。完成了统一大业。普惠，把恩泽给了所有的人。寴车巛，就是亲巡。从车和从辵，都是表示动作的形符。坐车出巡，就是车巛。） 登于绎山①，群臣从者，咸思攸长 （登上峄山，大家都发起了怀古之悠情。） 追念乱世，分土建邦，以开争理 （过去是乱世，起因于分土建国，就是封建制。所以，大家才会去争斗。） 功战日作，流血于野，自泰古始 （功战就是攻战。自太古以来就是如此。） 世无万数，，阤yi3及五帝，莫能禁止 （无数代以来，到五帝时代，都不能禁止。阤，延续。） 廼今皇帝，壹家天下，兵不复起 （如今统一了，不再打仗了。） 灾害灭除，黔首康定，利泽长久 （黔首，就是百姓。） 群臣诵略，刻此乐石，以箸经纪 （诵略，因为皇帝的功德是说不完的，所以，大臣说的，只是大略。是为诵略。经纪，就是法度，秩序。） 以上内容，是始皇帝的刻辞。下面，是秦二世的内容。上面的是四言诗。下面的，是散文了。 皇帝曰：‘金石刻尽始皇帝所为也，令袭号而金石刻辞不称始皇帝。其于久远也，如后嗣为之者，不称成功盛德。丞相臣斯、臣去疾、御史大夫臣德昧死言：‘请具刻诏书，金石刻因明白矣。’臣昧死请。制曰：“可’。” 译文 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王 讨伐乱逆，威动四极，武义直方戍臣奉诏，经时不久，灭六暴强
晋灵公不君（宣公二年） 原文： 晋灵公不君。厚敛以雕墙。从台上弹人，而观其辟丸也。宰夫胹熊蹯不熟，杀之，寘诸畚，使妇人载以过朝。赵盾、士季见其手，问其故而患之。将谏，士季曰：“谏而不入，则莫之继也。会请先，不入，则子继之。”三进及溜，而后视之，曰：“吾知所过矣，将改之。”稽首而对曰：“人谁无过？过而能改，善莫大焉。诗曰：‘靡不有初，鲜克有终。’夫如是，则能补过者鲜矣。君能有终，则社稷之固也，岂惟群臣赖之。又曰：‘衮职有阙，惟仲山甫补之。’能补过也。君能补过，衮不废矣。” 犹不改。宣子骤谏，公患之，使鉏麑贼之。晨往，寝门辟矣，盛服将朝。尚早，坐而假寐。麑退，叹而言曰：“不忘恭敬，民之主也。贼民之主，不忠；弃君之命，不信。有一于此，不如死也！”触槐而死。 秋九月，晋侯饮赵盾酒，伏甲将攻之。其右提弥明知之，趋登曰：“臣侍君宴，过三爵，非礼也。”遂扶以下。公嗾夫獒焉。明搏而杀之。盾曰：“弃人用犬，虽猛何为！”斗且出。提弥明死之。 初，宣子田于首山，舍于翳桑。见灵辄饿，问其病。曰：“不食三日矣！”食之，舍其半。问之，曰：“宦三年矣，未知母之存否。今近焉，请以遗之。”使尽之，而为之箪食与肉，寘诸橐以与之。既而与为公介，倒戟以御公徒，而免之。问何故，对曰：“翳桑之饿人也。”问其名居，不告而退。——遂自亡也。 乙丑，赵穿①攻灵公于桃园。宣子未出山而复。大史书曰：“赵盾弑其君。”以示于朝。宣子曰：“不然。”对曰：“子为正卿，亡不越竟，反不讨贼，非子而谁？”宣子曰：“呜呼!‘我之怀矣，自诒伊戚。’其我之谓矣。” 孔子曰：“董狐，古之良史也，书法不隐。赵宣子，古之良大夫也，为法受恶。惜也，越竞乃免。” 译文： 晋灵公不行君王之道。他向人民收取沉重的税赋以雕饰宫墙。他从高台上用弹弓弹人，然后观赏他们躲避弹丸的样子。他的厨子做熊掌，没有炖熟，晋灵公就把他杀了，把他的尸体装在草筐中，让宫女用车载着经过朝廷。赵盾和士季看到露出来的手臂，询问原由后感到很忧虑。他们准备向晋灵公进谏，士季说：“如果您去进谏而君王不听，那就没有人能够再接着进谏了。还请让我先来吧，不行的话，您再接着来。”士季往前走了三回，行了三回礼，一直到屋檐下，晋灵公才抬头看他。晋灵公说：“我知道我的过错了，我会改过的。”士季叩头回答道：“谁能没有过错呢？有过错而能改掉，这就是最大的善事了。《诗经》说：‘没有人向善没有一个开始的，但却很少有坚持到底的。’如果是这样，那么能弥补过失的人是很少的。您如能坚持向善，那么江山就稳固了，不只是大臣们有所依靠啊。
峄山碑释文 皇帝立国，维初在昔， 维是发语词，不翻。 嗣世称王，一代代，继承。 这三句，是一句话。 讨伐乱逆，威动四极，武义直方。 武义直方，就相当于说正义战争。 我们的战争是正义的。 我们作战的对象，是乱逆 戎臣奉诏，经时不久，灭六暴强。 戎臣，就是带兵的将领。诛灭六国。 廿有六年，上荐高号，孝道显明。 皇帝二十六年，公元前221年。 群臣上表，请求秦王称皇帝号。就叫上荐高号。 这个孝道，是说秦国各代国君，均有统一之志， 始皇帝的统一，乃是完成祖先之道。 既献泰成，乃降专惠，亲巡远方。 溥惠， 尃惠。 溥就是普。 我用的书里面，百度百科里面，都错成了专字。 既献泰成，乃降尃惠，亲巡远方。 应该是这样子才对。 既，就是完成了的意思。泰成，就是大成。 完成了统一大业。 普惠，把恩泽给了所有的人。 寴车巛，就是亲巡。 从车和从辵，都是表示动作的形符。 坐车出巡，就是车巛。 登于峄山，群臣从者，咸思攸长。 登上峄山，大家都发起了怀古之悠情。 追念乱世，分土建邦，以开争理。 过去是乱世，起因于分土建国，就是封建制。所以，大家才会去争斗。功战日作，流血于野，自泰古始。 功战就是攻战。自太古以来就是如此。 世无万数，陀及五帝，莫能禁止 无数代以来，到五帝时代，都不能禁止。 阤，延续。 乃今皇帝，壹家天下，兵不复起 如今统壹了，不再打仗了。 灾害灭除，黔首康定，利泽长久 黔首，就是百姓。 群臣诵略，刻此乐石，以著经纪 经纪，就是法度，秩序。
诵略，因为皇帝的功德是说不完的，所以，大臣说的，只是大略。是为诵略。以上内容，是始皇帝的刻辞。 下面，是秦二世的内容。 上面的是四言诗。 下面的，是散文了。 皇帝曰，金石刻尽始皇帝所为也， 今袭号，而金石刻辞不称始皇帝，其于久远也。如后嗣为之者，不称成功盛德。丞相臣斯，这是李斯。 臣去疾，此人据说是姓杜。 御史大夫臣德，此人史传无载。 左丞相，右丞相，御史大夫， 是政府首脑。 当时的官制，这三位均是宰相。 当时的制度，是宰相负责制。 可以开府。 就是可以自己组成一个行政班子。 人员由宰相任命。不通过皇帝。 当时的宰相，权利是很大的。 皇帝基本就是个国家象征。 秦始皇很厉害，所以他能管事儿。 到了二世，就不管事了。事全交给宰相处理。 汉朝的皇帝，其实也是不太过问事情的。 政务交给宰相处理。 皇权，相权，在中国历史上， 是皇权越来越大， 相权越来越小。 昧死言，臣请具刻诏书金石刻，因明白矣。臣昧死请。 制曰，可。这是皇帝说的。 皇帝说，可以。 昧死言，就是冒着因冒犯皇帝而可能被处死的危险，来进言。 这是一种大臣上书的格式。 因为皇帝总是对的，皇帝即是圣人。 你对他说话，可能就是错的。 这个峄山刻石就讲完了。 简单的，跟现代汉语没什么区别的词就不用讲了。 其实在战国后期，所有的人， 不论是哪国的百姓， 都是希望统一的。 春秋战国之际的所有思想家，其思想都是要求统一的。 无论是儒，墨，老庄，都要求统一。 社会整体的愿望就是统一，结束战争。 所以，如果不是秦国政治比较急功近利， 他完全可以是一个好的帝国。
如何翻译古文 学习古代汉语，需要经常把古文译成现代汉语。因为古文今译的过程是加深理解和全面运用古汉语知识解决实际问题的过程，也是综合考察古代汉语水平的过程。学习古代汉语，应该重视古文翻译的训练。 古文翻译的要求一般归纳为信、达、雅三项。“信”是指译文要准确地反映原作的含义，避免曲解原文内容。“达”是指译文应该通顺、晓畅，符合现代汉语语法规范。“信”和“达”是紧密相关的。脱离了“信”而求“达”，不能称为翻译；只求“信”而不顾“达”，也不是好的译文。因此“信”和“达”是文言文翻译的基本要求。“雅”是指译文不仅准确、通顺，而且生动、优美，能再现原作的风格神韵。这是很高的要求，在目前学习阶段，我们只要能做到“信”和“达”就可以了。 做好古文翻译，重要的问题是准确地理解古文，这是翻译的基础。但翻译方法也很重要。这里主要谈谈翻译方法方面的问题。 一、直译和意译 直译和意译是古文今译的两大类型，也是两种不同的今译方法。 1．关于直译。所谓直译，是指紧扣原文，按原文的字词和句子进行对等翻译的今译方法。它要求忠实于原文，一丝不苟，确切表达原意，保持原文的本来面貌。例如： 原文：樊迟请学稼，子曰：“吾不如老农。”请学为圃。子曰：“吾不如老圃。”（《论语?子路》） 译文：樊迟请求学种庄稼。孔子道：“我不如老农民。”又请求学种菜蔬。孔子道：“我不如老菜农。”（杨伯峻《论语译注》） 原文：齐宣王问曰：“汤放桀，武王伐纣，有诸？”（《孟子?梁惠王下》） 译文：齐宣王问道：“商汤流放夏桀，武王讨伐殷纣，真有这回事吗？（杨伯峻《孟子译注》） 上面两段译文紧扣原文，字词落实，句法结构基本上与原文对等，属于直译。 但对直译又不能作简单化理解。由于古今汉语在文字、词汇、语法等方面的差异，今译时对原文作一些适当的调整，是必要的，并不破坏直译。例如： 原文：逐之，三周华不注。（《齐晋鞌之战》） 译文：〔晋军〕追赶齐军，围着华不注山绕了三圈。
峄山碑全文及译文文件排版存档编号：[UYTR-OUPT28-KBNTL98-UYNN208]
《峄山碑》全文及译文《峄山碑》是秦始皇二十八年（公元前219年）东巡时所刻，下面是小编为大家带来的峄山碑全文及译文，欢迎阅读。 碑文 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王 讨伐乱逆，威动四极，武义直方 戎臣奉诏，经时不久，灭六暴强 廿有六年，上荐高号，孝道显明 既献泰成，乃降专惠，亲巡远方 登于绎山①，群臣从者，咸思攸长 追念乱世，分土建邦，以开争理 功战日作，流血于野，自泰古始 世无万数，陀及五帝，莫能禁止 廼今皇帝，壹家天下，兵不复起 灾害灭除，黔首康定，利泽长久 群臣诵略，刻此乐石，以箸经纪 注：①绎山：指峄山。 皇帝日：“金石刻尽，始皇帝所为也。今袭号而金石刻辞不称，始皇帝其于久远也。如后嗣为之者，不称成功盛德。”丞相臣斯、臣去疾，御史大夫臣德。昧死言，臣请具刻诏书，金石刻因明白矣。臣昧死请，制日可。 注释： 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王
（维是发语词，不翻。嗣世，一代代，继承。这三句，是一句话。） 讨伐乱逆，威动四极，武义直方 （武义直方，就相当于说正义战争。） 戎臣奉诏，经时不久，灭六暴强 （戎臣，就是带兵的将领。灭六暴强即诛灭六国。） 廿有六年，上荐高号，孝道显明 （皇帝二十六年，公元前221年。群臣上表，请求秦王称皇帝号。就叫上荐高号。这个孝道，是说秦国各代国君，均有统一之志，始皇帝的统一，乃是完成祖先之道。） 既献泰成，乃降专惠，亲巡远方 （溥惠，尃惠。溥就是普。我用的书里面，百度百科里面，都错成了专字。既献泰成，乃降尃惠，亲巡远方。应该是这样子才对。既，就是完成了的意思。泰成，就是大成。完成了统一大业。普惠，把恩泽给了所有的人。寴车巛，就是亲巡。从车和从辵，都是表示动作的形符。坐车出巡，就是车巛。） 登于绎山①，群臣从者，咸思攸长 （登上峄山，大家都发起了怀古之悠情。） 追念乱世，分土建邦，以开争理 （过去是乱世，起因于分土建国，就是封建制。所以，大家才会去争斗。）功战日作，流血于野，自泰古始 （功战就是攻战。自太古以来就是如此。） 世无万数，，阤yi3及五帝，莫能禁止 （无数代以来，到五帝时代，都不能禁止。阤，延续。） 廼今皇帝，壹家天下，兵不复起
鞌之战选自《左传》又名《鞍之战》原文：楚癸酉，师陈于鞌(1)。邴夏御侯，逢丑父为右②。晋解张御克，郑丘缓为右(3)。侯日：“余姑翦灭此而朝食(4)”。不介马而驰之⑤。克伤于矢，流血及屦2 未尽∧6)，曰：“余病矣(7)！”张侯曰：“自始合(8)，而矢贯余手及肘(9)，余折以御，左轮朱殷(10)，岂敢言病吾子忍之！”缓曰：“自始合，苟有险，余必下推车，子岂＿识之(11)然子病矣！”张侯曰：“师之耳目，在吾旗鼓，进退从之。此车一人殿之(12)，可以集事(13)，若之何其以病败君之大事也擐甲执兵(14)，固即死也(15)；病未及死，吾子勉之(16)！”左并辔(17) ，右援拐鼓(18)。马逸不能止(19)，师从之，师败绩。逐之，三周华不注(20) 韩厥梦子舆谓己曰：“旦辟左右！”故中御而从齐侯。邴夏曰：“射其御者，君子也。”公曰：“谓之君子而射之，非礼也。”射其左，越于车下；射其右，毙于车中。綦毋张丧车，从韩厥，曰：“请寓乘。”从左右，皆肘之，使立于后。韩厥俛，定其右。逢丑父与公易位。将及华泉，骖絓于木而止。丑父寝于轏中，蛇出于其下，以肱击之，伤而匿之，故不能推车而及。韩厥执絷马前，再拜稽首，奉觞加璧以进，曰：“寡君使群臣为鲁、卫请，曰：‘无令舆师陷入君地。’下臣不幸，属当戎行，无所逃隐。且惧奔辟而忝两君，臣辱戎士，敢告不敏，摄官承乏。” 丑父使公下，如华泉取饮。郑周父御佐车，宛茷为右，载齐侯以免。韩厥献丑父，郤献子将戮之。呼曰：“自今无有代其君任患者，有一于此，将为戮乎”郤子曰：“人不难以死免其君，我戮之不祥。赦之，以劝事君者。”乃免之。译文1：在癸酉这天，双方的军队在鞌这个地方摆开了阵势。齐国一方是邴夏为齐侯赶车，逢丑父当车右。晋军一方是解张为主帅郤克赶车，郑丘缓当车右。齐侯说:“我姑且消灭了这些人再吃早饭。”不给马披甲就冲向了晋军。郤克被箭射伤，血流到了鞋上，但是仍不停止擂鼓继续指挥战斗。他说:“我受重伤了。”解张说:“从一开始接战，一只箭就射穿了我的手和肘，左边的车轮都被我的血染成了黑红色，我哪敢说受伤您忍着点吧！”郑丘缓说:“从一开始接战，如果遇到道路不平的地方，我必定（冒着生命危险）下去推车，您难道了解这些吗不过，您真是受重伤了。”daier 解张说:“军队的耳朵和眼睛，都集中在我们的战旗和鼓声，前进后退都要听从它。这辆车上还有一个人镇守住它，战事就可以成功。为什么为了伤痛而败坏国君的大事呢身披盔甲，手执武器，本来就是去走向死亡，伤痛还没到死的地步，您还是尽力而为吧。”一边说，一边用左手把右手的缰绳攥在一起，用空出的右手抓过郤克手中的鼓棰就擂起鼓来。（由于一手控马，）马飞快奔跑而不能停止，晋军队伍跟着指挥车冲上去，把齐军打得打败。晋军随即追赶齐军，三次围绕着华不注山奔跑。韩厥梦见他去世的父亲对他说:“明天早晨作战时要避开战车左边和右边的位置。”因此韩厥就站在中间担任赶车的来追赶齐侯的战车。邴夏说:“射那个赶车的，他是个君子。”齐侯说: “称他为君子却又去射他，这不合于礼。”daier 于是射车左，车左中箭掉下了车。又射右边的，车右也中箭倒在了车里。（晋军的）将军綦毋张损坏了自己的战车，跟在韩厥的车后说: “请允许我搭乗你的战车。”他上车后，无论是站在车的左边，还是站在车的右边，韩厥都用肘推他，让他站在自己身后——战车的中间。韩厥又低下头安定了一下受伤倒在车中的那位自己的车右。于是逢丑父和齐侯（乘韩厥低头之机）互相调换了位置。将要到达华泉时，齐侯战车的骖马被树木绊住而不能继续逃跑而停了下来。（头天晚上）逢丑父睡在栈车里，有一条蛇从他身子底下爬出来，他用小臂去打蛇，小臂受伤，但他（为了能当车右）隐瞒了这件事。由于这样，他不能用臂推车前进，因而被韩厥追上了。韩厥拿着拴马绳走到齐侯的马前，两次下拜并行稽首礼，捧着一杯酒并加上一块玉璧给齐侯送上去，
《鞌之战》阅读答案（附翻译）原文及翻 译 鞌之战[1] 选自《左传成公二年（即公元前589年）》 【原文】 癸酉，师陈于鞌[2]。邴夏御齐侯[3]，逢丑父为右[4]。晋解张御郤克，郑丘缓为右[5]。齐侯曰：余姑翦灭此而朝食[6]。不介马而驰之[7]。郤克伤于矢，流血及屦，未绝鼓音[8]，曰：余病[9]矣！张侯[10]曰：自始合，而矢贯余手及肘[11]，余折以御，左轮朱殷[12]，岂敢言病。吾子[13]忍之！缓曰：自始合，苟有险[14]，余必下推车，子岂识之[15]？然子病矣！张侯曰：师之耳目，在吾旗鼓，进退从之[16]。此车一人殿之[17]，可以集事[18]，若之何其以病败君之大事也[19]？擐甲执兵，固即死也[20]。病未及死，吾子勉之[21]！左并辔[22]，右援枹而鼓[23]，马逸不能止[24]，师从之。齐师败绩[25]。逐之，三周华不注[26]。 【注释】 [1]鞌之战：春秋时期的著名战役之一。战争的实质是齐、晋争霸。由于齐侯骄傲轻敌，而晋军同仇敌忾、士气旺盛，战役以齐败晋胜而告终。鞌：通鞍，齐国地名，在今山东济南西北。 [2]癸酉：成公二年的六月十七日。师，指齐晋两国军队。陈，
列阵，摆开阵势。 [3]邴夏：齐国大夫。御，动词，驾车。御齐侯，给齐侯驾车。齐侯，齐国国君，指齐顷公。 [4]逢丑父：齐国大夫。右：车右。 [5]解张、郑丘缓：都是晋臣，郑丘是复姓。郤（x ）克，晋国大夫，是这次战争中晋军的主帅。又称郤献子、郤子等。 [6]姑：副词，姑且。翦灭：消灭，灭掉。朝食：早饭。这里是吃早饭的意思。这句话是成语灭此朝食的出处。 [7]不介马：不给马披甲。介：甲。这里用作动词，披甲。驰之：驱马追击敌人。之：代词，指晋军。 [8] 未绝鼓音：鼓声不断。古代车战，主帅居中，亲掌旗鼓，指挥军队。兵以鼓进，击鼓是进军的号令。 [9] 病：负伤。 [10]张侯，即解张。张是字，侯是名，人名、字连用，先字后名。 [11]合：交战。贯：穿。肘：胳膊。 [12]朱：大红色。殷：深红色、黑红色。 [13]吾子：您，尊敬。比说子更亲切。 [14]苟：连词，表示假设。险：险阻，指难走的路。 [15]识：知道。之，代词，代苟有险，余必下推车这件事，可不译。 [16]师之耳目：军队的耳、目（指注意力）。在吾旗鼓：在我们
《鞌之战》阅读答案（附翻译） 《鞌之战》阅读答案（附翻译） 鞌之战[1] 选自《左传·成公二年（即公元前589年）》 【原文】 癸酉，师陈于鞌[2]。邴夏御齐侯[3]，逢丑父为右[4]。晋解张御郤克，郑丘缓为右[5]。齐侯曰：“余姑 翦灭此而朝食[6]。”不介马而驰之[7]。郤克伤于矢， 流血及屦，未绝鼓音[8]，曰：“余病[9]矣！”张侯[10]曰：“自始合，而矢贯余手及肘[11]，余折以御，左轮 朱殷[12]，岂敢言病。吾子[13]忍之！”缓曰：“自始合，苟有险[14]，余必下推车，子岂识之[15]？——然 子病矣！”张侯曰：“师之耳目，在吾旗鼓，进退从之[16]。此车一人殿之[17]，可以集事[18]，若之何其以 病败君之大事也[19]？擐甲执兵，固即死也[20]。病未 及死，吾子勉之[21]！”左并辔[22]，右援枹而鼓[23]，马逸不能止[24]，师从之。齐师败绩[25]。逐之，三周 华不注[26]。 【注释】 [1]鞌之战：春秋时期的著名战役之一。战争的实质是齐、晋争霸。由于齐侯骄傲轻敌，而晋军同仇敌忾、 士气旺盛，战役以齐败晋胜而告终。鞌：通“鞍”，齐
国地名，在今山东济南西北。 [2]癸酉：成公二年的六月十七日。师，指齐晋两国军队。陈，列阵，摆开阵势。 [3]邴夏：齐国大夫。御，动词，驾车。御齐侯，给齐侯驾车。齐侯，齐国国君，指齐顷公。 [4]逢丑父：齐国大夫。右：车右。 [5]解张、郑丘缓：都是晋臣，“郑丘”是复姓。郤（xì）克，晋国大夫，是这次战争中晋军的主帅。又称郤献子、郤子等。 [6]姑：副词，姑且。翦灭：消灭，灭掉。朝食：早饭。这里是“吃早饭”的意思。这句话是成语“灭此朝食”的出处。 [7]不介马：不给马披甲。介：甲。这里用作动词，披甲。驰之：驱马追击敌人。之：代词，指晋军。 [8]未绝鼓音：鼓声不断。古代车战，主帅居中，亲掌旗鼓，指挥军队。“兵以鼓进”，击鼓是进军的号令。 [9]病：负伤。 [10]张侯，即解张。“张”是字，“侯”是名，人名、字连用，先字后名。 [11]合：交战。贯：穿。肘：胳膊。 [12]朱：大红色。殷：深红色、黑红色。 [13]吾子：您，尊敬。比说“子”更亲切。
【原文】用笔 用笔不欲太肥，肥则形浊；又不欲太瘦，瘦则形枯；不欲多露锋芒，露则意不持重；不欲深藏圭角，藏则体不精神；不欲上大下小，不欲左高右低，不欲前多后少。欧阳率更结体太拘，而用笔特备众美，虽小楷而翰墨洒落，追踵钟、王，来者不能及也。颜、柳结体既异古人，用笔复溺于一偏。予评二家为书法之一变，数百年间，人争效之，字画刚劲高明，固不为书法之无助，而魏、晋之风规，则扫地矣。然柳氏大字，偏旁清劲可喜，更为奇妙，近世亦有仿效之者，则浊俗不除，不足观。故知与其太肥，不若瘦硬也。 【译文】用笔不要太肥，太肥了字形就浑浊；也不要太瘦，太瘦了字形就憔悴；不要多露锋芒，锋芒太露，字就不稳重；不要深藏棱角，不见棱角，字就没有精神；不要上面大，下面小；不要左边高，右边低；不要先占地位多，后占地位少。欧阳询的书法，结体虽太拘束，但用笔独具众美，就是小楷，笔墨也潇洒利落，上追钟王，后来人是谁也及不上他的。颜柳结体，既与古人不同，用笔又陷于偏执。我说这两家书派是书法的变体，几百年来，人们争相效学，固然其笔画的刚劲高明，对书法艺术的发展不能说毫无帮助，可是魏晋人的风格规模，究已扫地无遗。至柳氏的大字偏旁，清劲可喜，更为奇妙，近代也有效学的，那就免不了俗和浊，变得毫不可观，所以说字与其写得肥，还不如写得瘦些好。 【解读】这一段主要讨论书法用笔的肥瘦问题。关于这一问题，古代书家多有讨论。所谓“古肥而今瘦”，常与“古质而今妍”对举。诗圣杜甫关于开元之前书法“书贵瘦硬”的判断，常被人误解为所有的书法都应该以瘦硬为上。杜甫在其论书诗《李潮八分小篆歌》中，写到： 苍颉鸟迹既茫昧，字体变化如浮云。陈仓石鼓又已讹，大小二篆生八分。秦有李斯汉蔡邕，中间作者寂不闻。峄山之碑野火焚，枣木传刻肥失真。苦县光和尚骨立，书贵瘦硬方通神。……吴郡张颠夸草书，草书非古空雄壮。 在杜甫看来，使用枣木传刻《峄山碑》而使其点画丰肥，坏了风气，书风不古。诗中对仓颉石鼓文、秦相李斯、东汉蔡邕书法的赞叹，对李潮“小篆逼秦相”的赞叹和对当时著名书家张旭“草书非古”的贬斥都反映出杜甫崇尚“瘦硬”的观念。杜甫的这种观念在论及初唐褚薛书风的时候更为突出，如《寄刘峡州伯华使君四十韵》云：“学并卢王敏，书偕禇薛能。”《发潭州》赞曰：“贾傅才未有，禇公书绝伦。”杜甫书贵瘦硬说，主要是就初唐书风而言。“书贵瘦硬”在作为他自己的审美概括的同时，也是初唐书风的真实写照。众所周知，初唐欧、虞、褚、薛四家、盛中唐颜真卿书风、中晚唐柳公权书风代表了唐楷演变三阶段。正如康有为所说： 唐世书凡三变，唐初，欧、虞、褚、薛、王、陆，并辔叠轨，皆尚爽健。开元御宇，天下平乐，明皇极丰肥，故李北海、颜平原、苏灵芝辈并驱时主之好，皆宗肥厚。元和后沈传师柳公权出，矫肥厚之病，专尚清劲，然骨存肉削，天下病矣。 从此角度来说，唐代书法史似乎可以看作肥瘦的演变史。这与姜夔的看法基
左传《齐晋鞌之战》原文+翻译+注释 楚癸酉，师陈于鞌(1)。邴夏御侯，逢丑父为右②。晋解张御克，郑丘缓 为右(3)。侯日：“余姑翦灭此而朝食(4)”。不介马而驰之⑤。克伤于矢， 流血及屦2未尽∧?6)，曰：“余病矣(7)！”张侯曰：“自始合(8)，而矢贯余手 及肘(9)，余折以御，左轮朱殷(10)，岂敢言病？吾子忍之！”缓曰：“自始合，苟有险，余必下推车，子岂＿识之(11)？然子病矣！”张侯曰：“师之耳目，在 吾旗鼓，进退从之。此车一人殿之(12)，可以集事(13)，若之何其以病败君之大事也？擐甲执兵(14)，固即死也(15)；病未及死，吾子勉之(16)！”左并辔(17) ，右援拐?鼓(18)。马逸不能止(19)，师从之，师败绩。逐之，三周华不注(20) 韩厥梦子舆谓己曰：“旦辟左右！”故中御而从齐侯。邴夏曰：“射其御者，君子也。”公曰：“谓之君子而射之，非礼也。”射其左，越于车下；射其右，毙于车中。綦毋张丧车，从韩厥，曰：“请寓乘。”从左右，皆肘之，使立于后。韩厥俛，定其右。逢丑父与公易位。将及华泉，骖絓于木而止。丑父寝于轏中，蛇出于其下，以肱击之，伤而匿之，故不能推车而及。韩厥执絷马前，再拜稽首，奉觞加璧以进，曰：“寡君使群臣为鲁、卫请，曰：‘无令舆师陷入君地。’下臣不幸，属当戎行，无所逃隐。且惧奔辟而忝两君，臣辱戎士，敢告不敏，摄官承乏。”丑父使公下，如华泉取饮。郑周父御佐车，宛茷为右，载齐侯以免。韩厥献丑父，郤献子将戮之。呼曰：“自今无有代其君任患者，有一于此，将为戮乎？”郤子曰：“人不难以死免其君，我戮之不祥。赦之，以劝事君者。”乃免之。 在癸酉这天，双方的军队在鞌这个地方摆开了阵势。齐国一方是邴夏为齐侯赶车，逢丑父当车右。晋军一方是解张为主帅郤克赶车，郑丘缓当车右。齐侯说:“我姑且消灭了这些人再吃早饭。”不给马披甲就冲向了晋军。郤克被箭射伤，血流到了鞋上，但是仍不停止擂鼓继续指挥战斗。他说:“我受重伤了。”解张说:“从一开始接战，一只箭就射穿了我的手和肘，左边的车轮都被我的血染成了黑红色，我哪敢说受伤？您忍着点吧！”郑丘缓说:“从一开始接战，如果遇到道路不平的地方，我必定（冒着生命危险）下去推车，您难道了解这些吗？不过，您真是受重伤了。”daier解张说:“军队的耳朵和眼睛，都集中在我们的战旗和鼓声，前进后退都要听从它。这辆车上还有一个人镇守住它，战事就可以成功。为什么为了伤痛而败坏国君的大事呢？身披盔甲，手执武器，本来就是去走向死亡，伤痛还没到死的地步，您还是尽力而为吧。”一边说，一边用左手把右手的缰绳攥在一起，用空出的右手抓过郤克手中的鼓棰就擂起鼓来。（由于一手控马，）马飞快奔跑而不能停止，晋军队伍跟着指挥车冲上去，把齐军打得打败。晋军随即追赶齐军，三次围绕着华不注山奔跑。
书法的故事｜秦始皇用他的字统一了中国文字！ 书法的故事秦代刻石统一规范的小篆书法小篆的形成 及其特点李斯小篆是秦代产生的规范篆书，与大篆（古文、籀文等）相对而言，也叫秦篆。在小篆这种新型字体形成的过程中，值得重视的历史人物是李斯。李斯（？—前208），楚上蔡（今属河南）人，秦朝丞相，书法家。据《太平广记》引《蒙恬笔经》载，公元前221年秦王政（秦始皇）统一中国后，丞相李斯上奏章说：“上古时所创制的大篆，在社会上还很通行，但这些大篆字体毕竟是远古时期的产物，很多人不认识。现在删略大篆中繁琐的笔画，选取复合字体中的一部分，加工改造，变成小篆。”他的建议得到秦始皇的恩准。于是，李斯等人以西周以来秦系文字为基础统一全国文字，并以新造的小篆作为学童启蒙的识字课本和推广应用的楷模，从此与先秦大篆相对而言的小篆就成了秦代的通行书体。李斯擅长书法，宦官赵高以下的官员，都佩服李斯创造小篆的才华。当时刻在名山、碑碣、印玺、铜人上的文字，都出自李斯的手笔。他在书秦望山记功石时，竟然说：“我死后五百三十年，当会有一个人接替我的书迹。”可见他在书法艺术上的自信心和自豪感。小篆有什么特点呢？与大篆相比，小篆的特点表现为：线条圆匀，结构统一定型，字形呈纵势长方。秦始皇留下的六处七篇刻石秦峄山刻石（五
代徐铉摹刻本）从书法发展上看，秦代以小篆光耀史册。而小篆又以秦始皇在位十二年间留下的六处七篇记功刻石文 字最值得称道。这六处七篇刻石是：峄山刻石、泰山刻石、琅琊台刻石、之罘刻石、东观刻石（刻于之罘）、碣石刻石、会稽刻石。《史记·秦始皇本纪》载，秦始皇统一中国后，第三年（前219）即率大臣，浩浩荡荡东巡，宣扬其威德盛治，到峄山、泰山、琅琊山等处刻石，以歌颂其功业。第四年再东巡，在之罘山留下之罘刻石、东观刻石。过了三年再东巡至碣石，面对苍茫大海，他喜气洋洋不可一世，又立石颂德。第十年（前210），始皇南巡，至会稽，再刻石彪炳其伟业，愿江山千秋永固。这四次巡游，刻石六处，文章七篇。二世皇帝即位后下了一道诏书，命令在始皇帝所刻石上加刻一段文字，说明这是始皇帝所刻，使后世不疑。六处七篇刻石，据说都出自李斯手笔。其中东观刻石、碣石刻石，历代都无著录。之罘一刻，原石也早已散佚，欧阳修所得拓本，是二世皇帝加刻的诏书21字，原文付阙（见欧阳修《集古录跋尾》卷一）。传世仅见久已失真的宋代《汝帖》本13字，风格与其他刻本差别很大。因此宋代流传的秦始皇刻石拓本仅峄山、泰山、琅琊、会稽四种，称为“秦四山刻石”。秦峄山刻石拓本局部放大《峄山刻石》，又名《峄山碑》，为始皇东巡第一刻。其前段是秦始皇颂赞文，刻于秦始皇二十八年（前219）；后段是秦二世诏书，刻于秦二世元年（前209）。
峄山碑全文及译文 Document number【AA80KGB-AA98YT-AAT8CB-2A6UT-A18GG】
《峄山碑》全文及译文 《峄山碑》是秦始皇二十八年（公元前219年）东巡时所刻，下面是小编为大家带来的峄山碑全文及译文，欢迎阅读。 碑文 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王 讨伐乱逆，威动四极，武义直方 戎臣奉诏，经时不久，灭六暴强 廿有六年，上荐高号，孝道显明 既献泰成，乃降专惠，亲巡远方 登于绎山①，群臣从者，咸思攸长 追念乱世，分土建邦，以开争理 功战日作，流血于野，自泰古始 世无万数，陀及五帝，莫能禁止 廼今皇帝，壹家天下，兵不复起 灾害灭除，黔首康定，利泽长久 群臣诵略，刻此乐石，以箸经纪 注：①绎山：指峄山。 皇帝日：“金石刻尽，始皇帝所为也。今袭号而金石刻辞不称，始皇帝其于久远也。如后嗣为之者，不称成功盛德。”丞相臣斯、臣去疾，御史大夫臣德。昧死言，臣请具刻诏书，金石刻因明白矣。臣昧死请，制日可。 注释： 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王 （维是发语词，不翻。嗣世，一代代，继承。这三句，是一句话。） 讨伐乱逆，威动四极，武义直方 （武义直方，就相当于说正义战争。） 戎臣奉诏，经时不久，灭六暴强 （戎臣，就是带兵的将领。灭六暴强即诛灭六国。） 廿有六年，上荐高号，孝道显明
（皇帝二十六年，公元前221年。群臣上表，请求秦王称皇帝号。就叫上荐高号。这个孝道，是说秦国各代国君，均有统一之志，始皇帝的统一，乃是完成祖先之道。） 既献泰成，乃降专惠，亲巡远方 （溥惠，尃惠。溥就是普。我用的书里面，百度百科里面，都错成了专字。既献泰成，乃降尃惠，亲巡远方。应该是这样子才对。既，就是完成了的意思。泰成，就是大成。完成了统一大业。普惠，把恩泽给了所有的人。寴车巛，就是亲巡。从车和从辵，都是表示动作的形符。坐车出巡，就是车巛。）登于绎山①，群臣从者，咸思攸长 （登上峄山，大家都发起了怀古之悠情。） 追念乱世，分土建邦，以开争理 （过去是乱世，起因于分土建国，就是封建制。所以，大家才会去争斗。） 功战日作，流血于野，自泰古始 （功战就是攻战。自太古以来就是如此。） 世无万数，，阤yi3及五帝，莫能禁止 （无数代以来，到五帝时代，都不能禁止。阤，延续。） 廼今皇帝，壹家天下，兵不复起 （如今统一了，不再打仗了。） 灾害灭除，黔首康定，利泽长久 （黔首，就是百姓。） 群臣诵略，刻此乐石，以箸经纪 （诵略，因为皇帝的功德是说不完的，所以，大臣说的，只是大略。是为诵略。经纪，就是法度，秩序。） 以上内容，是始皇帝的刻辞。下面，是秦二世的内容。上面的是四言诗。下面的，是散文了。 皇帝曰：‘金石刻尽始皇帝所为也，令袭号而金石刻辞不称始皇帝。其于久远也，如后嗣为之者，不称成功盛德。丞相臣斯、臣去疾、御史大夫臣德昧死言：‘请具刻诏书，金石刻因明白矣。’臣昧死请。制曰：“可’。” 译文 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王
鞌之战[1]选自《左传·成公二年（即公元前589年）》【原文】癸酉，师陈于鞌[2]。邴夏御齐侯[3]，逢丑父为右[4]。晋解张御郤克，郑丘缓为右[5]。齐侯曰：“余姑翦灭此而朝食[6]。”不介马而驰之[7]。郤克伤于矢，流血及屦，未绝鼓音[8]，曰：“余病[9]矣！”张侯[10]曰：“自始合，而矢贯余手及肘[11]，余折以御，左轮朱殷[12]，岂敢言病。吾子[13]忍之！”缓曰：“自始合，苟有险[14]，余必下推车，子岂识之[15]？——然子病矣！”张侯曰：“师之耳目，在吾旗鼓，进退从之[16]。此车一人殿之[17]，可以集事[18]，若之何其以病败君之大事也[19]？擐甲执兵，固即死也[20]。病未及死，吾子勉之[21]！”左并辔[22]，右援枹而鼓[23]，马逸不能止[24]，师从之。齐师败绩[25]。逐之，三周华不注[26]。【注释】 [1]鞌之战：春秋时期的著名战役之一。战争的实质是齐、晋争霸。由于齐侯骄傲轻敌，而晋军同仇敌忾、士气旺盛，战役以齐败晋胜而告终。鞌：通“鞍”，齐国地名，在今山东济南西北。 [2]癸酉：成公二年的六月十七日。师，指齐晋两国军队。陈，列阵，摆开阵势。 [3]邴夏：齐国大夫。御，动词，驾车。御齐侯，给齐侯驾车。齐侯，齐国国君，指齐顷公。 [4]逢丑父：齐国大夫。右：车右。 [5]解张、郑丘缓：都是晋臣，“郑丘”是复姓。郤（xì）克，晋国大夫，是这次战争中晋军的主帅。又称郤献子、郤子等。 [6]姑：副词，姑且。翦灭：消灭，灭掉。朝食：早饭。这里是“吃早饭”的意思。这句话是成语“灭此朝食”的出处。 [7]不介马：不给马披甲。介：甲。这里用作动词，披甲。驰之：驱马追击敌人。之：代词，指晋军。 [8] 未绝鼓音：鼓声不断。古代车战，主帅居中，亲掌旗鼓，指挥军队。“兵以鼓进”，击鼓是进军的号令。 [9] 病：负伤。 [10]张侯，即解张。“张”是字，“侯”是名，人名、字连用，先字后名。 [11]合：交战。贯：穿。肘：胳膊。 [12]朱：大红色。殷：深红色、黑红色。 [13]吾子：您，尊敬。比说“子”更亲切。 [14]苟：连词，表示假设。险：险阻，指难走的路。 [15]识：知道。之，代词，代“苟有险，余必下推车”这件事，可不译。 [16]师之耳目：军队的耳、目（指注意力）。在吾旗鼓：在我们的旗子和鼓声上。进退从之：前进、后退都听从它们。 [17]殿之：镇守它。殿：镇守。 [18]可以集事：可以（之）集事，可以靠它（主帅的车）成事。集事：成事，指战事成功。 [19]若之何：固定格式，一般相当于“对……怎么办”“怎么办”。这里是和语助词“其”配合，放在谓语动词前加强反问，相当于“怎么”“怎么能”。以，介词，因为。败，坏，毁坏。君，国君。大事，感情。古代国家大事有两件：祭祀与战争。这里指战争。 [20]擐：穿上。执兵，拿起武器。 [21]勉，努力。 [22]并，动词，合并。辔（pèi）：马缰绳。古代一般是四匹马拉一车，共八条马缰绳，两边的两条系在车上，六条在御者手中，御者双手执之。“左并辔”是说解张把马缰绳全合并到左手里握着。 [23]援:拿过来。枹（fú）:击鼓槌。鼓:动词，敲鼓。 [24]逸:奔跑，狂奔。 [25] 败绩：大败。 [26] 周：环绕。华不注：山名，在今山东济南东北。【译文】六月十七日，齐晋两军在鞌地摆开阵势。邴夏为齐侯驾车，逢丑父担任车右做齐侯的护卫。晋军解张替郤克驾车，郑丘缓做了郤克的护卫。齐侯说：“我姑且消灭了晋军再吃早饭！”齐军没有给马披甲就驱车进击晋军。郤克被箭射伤，血一直流到鞋上，但他一直没有停止击鼓进。并说：“我受重伤了！”解张说：“从开始交战，箭就射穿了我的手和胳膊肘，我折断箭杆继续驾车，左边的车轮被血染得深红色，哪里敢说受了重伤？您还是忍住吧。”郑丘缓说：“从开始交战，只要遇到险峻难走的路，我必定要下去推车，您哪里知道这种情况呢？——不过您确实受重伤了！”解张说：“我们的旗帜和战鼓是军队的耳目，或进或退都听从旗鼓指挥。这辆战车只要一人镇守，就可以凭它成事。怎么能因为受伤而败坏国君的大事呢？穿上铠甲，拿起武器，本来就抱定了必死的决心。您虽然受了重伤还没有到死的地步，您就尽最大的努力啊！”于是左手把马缰绳全部握在一起，右手取过鼓槌来击鼓。战马狂奔不止，晋军跟着主帅的车前进。齐军大败，晋军追击齐军，绕着华不注山追了三圈。
峄山碑及译文 TTA standardization office【TTA 5AB- TTAK 08- TTA 2C】
《峄山碑》全文及译文 《峄山碑》是秦始皇二十八年（公元前219年）东巡时所刻，下面是小编为大家带来的峄山碑全文及译文，欢迎阅读。 碑文 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王 讨伐乱逆，威动四极，武义直方 戎臣奉诏，经时不久，灭六暴强 廿有六年，上荐高号，孝道显明 既献泰成，乃降专惠，亲巡远方 登于绎山①，群臣从者，咸思攸长 追念乱世，分土建邦，以开争理 功战日作，流血于野，自泰古始 世无万数，陀及五帝，莫能禁止 廼今皇帝，壹家天下，兵不复起 灾害灭除，黔首康定，利泽长久 群臣诵略，刻此乐石，以箸经纪 注：①绎山：指峄山。 皇帝日：“金石刻尽，始皇帝所为也。今袭号而金石刻辞不称，始皇帝其于久远也。如后嗣为之者，不称成功盛德。”丞相臣斯、臣去疾，御史大夫臣德。昧死言，臣请具刻诏书，金石刻因明白矣。臣昧死请，制日可。 注释： 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王 （维是发语词，不翻。嗣世，一代代，继承。这三句，是一句话。） 讨伐乱逆，威动四极，武义直方 （武义直方，就相当于说正义战争。） 戎臣奉诏，经时不久，灭六暴强 （戎臣，就是带兵的将领。灭六暴强即诛灭六国。） 廿有六年，上荐高号，孝道显明
（皇帝二十六年，公元前221年。群臣上表，请求秦王称皇帝号。就叫上荐高号。这个孝道，是说秦国各代国君，均有统一之志，始皇帝的统一，乃是完成祖先之道。） 既献泰成，乃降专惠，亲巡远方 （溥惠，尃惠。溥就是普。我用的书里面，百度百科里面，都错成了专字。既献泰成，乃降尃惠，亲巡远方。应该是这样子才对。既，就是完成了的意思。泰成，就是大成。完成了统一大业。普惠，把恩泽给了所有的人。寴车巛，就是亲巡。从车和从辵，都是表示动作的形符。坐车出巡，就是车巛。） 登于绎山①，群臣从者，咸思攸长 （登上峄山，大家都发起了怀古之悠情。） 追念乱世，分土建邦，以开争理 （过去是乱世，起因于分土建国，就是封建制。所以，大家才会去争斗。） 功战日作，流血于野，自泰古始 （功战就是攻战。自太古以来就是如此。） 世无万数，，阤yi3及五帝，莫能禁止 （无数代以来，到五帝时代，都不能禁止。阤，延续。） 廼今皇帝，壹家天下，兵不复起 （如今统一了，不再打仗了。） 灾害灭除，黔首康定，利泽长久 （黔首，就是百姓。） 群臣诵略，刻此乐石，以箸经纪 （诵略，因为皇帝的功德是说不完的，所以，大臣说的，只是大略。是为诵略。经纪，就是法度，秩序。） 以上内容，是始皇帝的刻辞。下面，是秦二世的内容。上面的是四言诗。下面的，是散文了。 皇帝曰：‘金石刻尽始皇帝所为也，令袭号而金石刻辞不称始皇帝。其于久远也，如后嗣为之者，不称成功盛德。丞相臣斯、臣去疾、御史大夫臣德昧死言：‘请具刻诏书，金石刻因明白矣。’臣昧死请。制曰：“可’。” 译文 皇帝立国，维初在昔，嗣世称王
齐晋鞌之战的全文翻译 1、版本一 晋鞌之战（成公二年） 作者：左丘明 【原文】 楚癸酉，师陈于鞌(1)。邴夏御侯，逢丑父为右②。晋解张御克，郑丘缓为右(3)。侯日：“余姑翦灭此而朝食(4)”。不介马而驰之⑤。克伤于矢，流血及屨２未尽∧?6)，曰：“余病矣(7)！”张侯曰：“自始合(8)，而矢贯余手及肘(9)，余折以御，左轮朱殷(10)，岂敢言病？吾子忍之！”缓曰：“自始合，苟有险，余必下推车，子岂＿识之(11)？然子病矣！”张侯曰：“师之耳目，在吾旗鼓，进退从之。此车一人殿之(12)，可以集事(13)，若之何其以病败君之大事也？擐甲执兵(14)，固即死也(15)；病未及死，吾子勉之(16)！”左并辔(17)，右援枴?鼓(18)。马逸不能止(19)，师从之，师败绩。逐之，三周华不注(20)。 【注释】 ①师：指、晋两国军队。羞：同“鞍”，国地名，在今山东济南西北。②邴(bing)夏：国大夫。侯：顷公。逢丑父：国大夫。右：车右。③解张：晋国大夫，又称张侯。克：即献子，晋国大大，晋军主帅。郑丘缓：晋国大夫，姓郑丘，名缓。(4)姑：暂且。翦灭：消灭。此；指晋军。朝食；吃早饭。⑤不介马：不给马披甲。驰之：驱马追击敌人。(6)未绝鼓音：作战时，主帅亲自掌旗鼓，指挥三军，
所以克受伤后仍然击鼓不停。(7)病：负伤。(8)合：交战。(9)贯：射。穿。肘：胳膊。(10)朱：大红色。殷：深红色。(11)识：知道。 (12) 殿：镇守。(13)集事：成事。(14)擐（huan）：穿上。兵：武器。 (15) 即：就。即死：就死，赴死。(16)勉：努力。(17)并：合在一起。辔（Pei）：马组绳。(18)援：拉过来。枴〉襲）：鼓槌。(19)逸：奔跑，狂奔。(20)周：环绕华不注：山名，在今山东济南东北。 【译文】 六月十七日，国和晋国的军队在鞌摆开了阵势。邴夏为顷公驾车，逢丑父担任车右。晋国解张为卻克驾车，郑丘缓担任车右。顷公说：“我暂且先消灭了这些敌人再吃早饭。”军没有给马披甲就驱车进击晋军。卻克被箭射伤，血流到鞋子上，但他一直没有停止击鼓，并说：“我受伤了！”解张说：“从开始交战，我的手和胳膊就被箭射穿了，我折断了箭，继续驾车，左边的车轮因被血染成了深红色，哪里敢说受了伤？您还是忍住吧？”郑丘缓说：“从开始交战，只要遇到险阻，我一定要下去推车，您哪里知道这些？可是您却受伤了！”解张说：“我们的旗帜和战鼓是军队的耳目，军队进攻和后撤都听从旗鼓指挥。这辆战车只要一个人镇守，就可以成功，怎么能因为负了伤而败坏国君的大事呢？穿上铠甲，拿起武器，本来就是去赴死；受伤不到死的地步，您要奋力而为啊！”解张左手把马绳全部握在一起，右手拿过鼓槌来击鼓。战马狂奔不已，晋军跟著主帅的车前进，军大败，晋军追击军，围著华不注山追了三圈。 2、版本二
创作编号：BG7531400019813488897SX 创作者：别如克* 鞌之战选自《左传》又名《鞍之战》原文：楚癸酉，师陈于鞌(1)。邴夏御侯，逢丑父为右②。晋解张御克，郑丘缓为右(3)。侯日：“余姑翦灭此而朝食(4)”。不介马而驰之⑤。克伤于矢，流血及屦2 未尽∧?6)，曰：“余病矣(7)！”张侯曰：“自始合(8)，而矢贯余手及肘(9)，余折以御，左轮朱殷(10)，岂敢言病？吾子忍之！”缓曰：“自始合，苟有险，余必下推车，子岂＿识之(11)？然子病矣！”张侯曰：“师之耳目，在吾旗鼓，进退从之。此车一人殿之(12)，可以集事(13)，若之何其以病败君之大事也？擐甲执兵(14)，固即死也(15)；病未及死，吾子勉之(16)！”左并辔(17) ，右援拐?鼓(18)。马逸不能止(19)，师从之，师败绩。逐之，三周华不注(20) 韩厥梦子舆谓己曰：“旦辟左右！”故中御而从齐侯。邴夏曰：“射其御者，君子也。”公曰：“谓之君子而射之，非礼也。”射其左，越于车下；射其右，毙于车中。綦毋张丧车，从韩厥，曰：“请寓乘。”从左右，皆肘之，使立于后。韩厥俛，定其右。逢丑父与公易位。将及华泉，骖絓于木而止。丑父寝于轏中，蛇出于其下，以肱击之，伤而匿之，故不能推车而及。韩厥执絷马前，再拜稽首，奉觞加璧以进，曰：“寡君使群臣为鲁、卫请，曰：‘无令舆师陷入君地。’下臣不幸，属当戎行，无所逃隐。且惧奔辟而忝两君，臣辱戎士，敢告不敏，摄官承乏。” 丑父使公下，如华泉取饮。郑周父御佐车，宛茷为右，载齐侯以免。韩厥献丑父，郤献子将戮之。呼曰：“自今无有代其君任患者，有一于此，将为戮乎？”郤子曰：“人不难以死免其君，我戮之不祥。赦之，以劝事君者。”乃免之。译文1：在癸酉这天，双方的军队在鞌这个地方摆开了阵势。齐国一方是邴夏为齐侯赶车，逢丑父当车右。晋军一方是解张为主帅郤克赶车，郑丘缓当车右。齐侯说:“我姑且消灭了这些人再吃早饭。”不给马披甲就冲向了晋军。郤克被箭射伤，血流到了鞋上，但是仍不停止擂鼓继续指挥战斗。他说:“我受重伤了。”解张说:“从一开始接战，一只箭就射穿了我的手和肘，左边的车轮都被我的血染成了黑红色，我哪敢说受伤？您忍着点吧！”郑丘缓说:“从一开始接战，如果遇到道路不平的地方，我必定（冒着生命危险）下去推车，您难道了解这些吗？不过，您真是受重伤了。”daier 解张说:“军队的耳朵和眼睛，都集中在我们的战旗和鼓声，前进后退都要听从它。这辆车上还有一个人镇守住它，战事就可以成功。为什么为了伤痛而败坏国君的大事呢？身披盔甲，手执武器，本来就是去走向死亡，伤痛还没到死的地步，您还是尽力而为吧。”一边说，一边用左手把右手的缰绳攥在一起，用空出的右手抓过郤克手中的鼓棰就擂起鼓来。（由于一手控马，）马飞快奔跑而不能停止，晋军队伍跟着指挥车冲上去，把齐军打得打败。晋军随即追赶齐军，三次围绕着华不注山奔跑。韩厥梦见他去世的父亲对他说:“明天早晨作战时要避开