李照国
有子曰：“礼之用，和为贵。先王之道斯为美；小大由之。有所不行，知和而和，不以礼节之，亦不可行也。”
“礼”是“五常”——即仁义礼智信——之一。“仁义”之后便是“礼”，可见“礼”在儒家学说中的重要意义，在中华文明史中的重要地位。《左传·隐公十一年》说：“礼，经国家，定社稷，序民人，利后嗣者也。”就是说，“礼”具有治理国家、稳定社稷、建立秩序、教育下一代的重要作用。
孔子的弟子有子谈到“礼之用”，即“礼”的重要作用时，将其概括为“和为贵”。有子对“礼”的这一总结，经过儒家的传扬和《论语》的传播，成了老百姓人际交往的一个基本原则。当然，老百姓挂在嘴上的“和为贵”与有子所说的“和为贵”同中又有大异。老百姓所说的“和”，就是和和气气，不争不吵。而有子所说的“和”，则是《中庸》“致中和”的“和”，境界更高，意义更深。
《中庸》说，“喜怒哀乐之未发，谓之中；发而皆中节，谓之和”，即喜怒哀乐的情绪没有迸发出来，依然隐含在自己的心中，这就叫做“中”；迸发出来了，但表现得有节有制，这就叫做“和”。这样的“和”，就充分体现了一个人的思想境界，文化素养和良好品德。
所以《中庸》说，“中也者，天下之大本也；和也者，天下之达道也”。就是说，保持“中”——即将激动的情绪调和在自己的内心世界里——是维持天下太平的根本；保持“和”——即有节制地控制好自己的情绪——是人生的通畅大道。如果人人都能做到这一点，那么，天下自然太平，万物自己兴旺。用《中庸》的话说，就是“致中和，天地位焉，万物育焉”。
所以，要理解有子的这段话，仅仅照字面释义，显然是远远不够的。
谈到以礼治国的时候，有子说，“先王之道斯为美；小大由之。有所不行，知和而和，不以礼节之，亦不可行也”。意思是说，“古代的圣明君王治理国家的时候，无论大事小事，都采用礼治的方略。即便有不妥的地方，他们也采用以和求和的方式来处理，不按规章制度来解决，也是不可以的”。
Arthur Waley 将其译为：
Master Yu said,; In the usages of ritual it is harmony that is prized, the Way of the Former Kings from this got its beauty. Both small matters and great depend upon it. If things go amiss, he who knows the harmony will be able to attune them. But if harmony itself is not modulated by ritual, things will still go amiss.
辜鸿铭将其译为：
A disciple of Confucius remarked, “In the practice of art, what is valuable is natural spontaneity, According to the rules of art held by the ancient kings it was this quality in a work of art which constituted its excellence; in great as well as in small things they were guided by this principle. But being natural there is something not permitted. To know that it is necessary to be natural without restraining the impulse to be natural by the strict principle of art, — that is something not permitted.”
丘氏昆仲将其译为：
You Zi said, “The most important function of Etiquette is harmony. This is the finest principle in the Way of past kings. In minor and in major affairs, they were guided by it. But sometimes this principle cannot be implemented. Knowing the necessity of harmony, and then seeking harmony without control by Etiquette also means that it cannot be implemented.”
要翻译“礼之用，和为贵”，对“礼”与“和”的深入理解，是至关重要的。Arthur Waley将其译为In the usages of ritual it is harmony that is prized，将“礼”译为ritual，与较为流行的表化译法基本一致，内涵方面自然稍显轻浅；将“和”译为harmony，与百姓对“和”的理解是一致的，但与原文的所指还是有一定距离的。辜鸿铭将其译为In the practice of art, what is valuable is natural spontaneity，将“礼”译为art，虽然比较宽泛，但也颇有创新，有点西洋的味道；将“和”译为natural spontaneity，与《中庸》所谓的“发而皆中节”还是有些差异的，毕竟有子所强调的“和”含有人为节制的意思，并非完全是自然的表现。丘氏昆仲将其译为The most important function of Etiquette is harmony，也是采用了较为流行的理解和译法，与Arthur Waley 的做法大体一致。
所谓“先王之道斯为美”中的“先王”，指的是三皇五帝这样的圣明君王，并不是泛指过去所有的帝王（即the great kinds in the past, 而不是kings in the past）。只有圣明的君王，其治国安邦平天下的策略和方法才是值得称道的。所谓的“先王之道斯为美”，说的就是这个意思。Arthur Waley 将其译为the Way of the Former Kings from this got its beauty，将“先王”译为Former Kings，显然过于宽泛；将“美”译为beauty，自然过于表化。
辜氏将其译为According to the rules of art held by the ancient kings it was this quality in a work of art which constituted its excellence，“斯为美”译得比较实际，ancient kings 比former kings 似乎语义上与原文更为接近一些。丘氏昆仲将其译为This is the finest principle in the Way of past kings，虽然仍然将“先王”译为past kings，但因有the finest principle in the Way加以限定，语义上还是有可取之处的。但如果能将past kings 改为the great kings in the past，或许更为贴切一些。
对“小大由之”的理解，要与“先王之道斯为美”结合起来解读。所谓“小大由之”，指的是“先王”处理问题，无论大小，都是按照其令人称道的方式进行的。Arthur Waley将其译为Both small matters and great depend upon it，理解上与“先王之道斯为美”脱节了。辜氏将其译为in great as well as in small things they were guided by this principle，丘氏昆仲将其译为In minor and in major affairs, they were guided by it，与原文之意基本保持一致。
所谓“有所不行，知和而和”，一般理解为“如果有行不通的地方，也应按照中和的原则进行调和”（ If anything cannot be done naturally, it should be regulated according to the principle of harmonization）。当然也有其他一些自圆其说的不同理解。如皇侃在其《义疏》中，将“有所不行”和“小大由之”连为一体，即“小大由之，有所不行”。其实按照原文之意，即便是将“有所不行”和“小大由之”关联起来，也不能将其与“知和而和”完全脱节。
从有子的论述、儒家的观念和《中庸》的思想来看，“知和而和”，才是至关重要的为人处事之大法。Arthur Waley 将其译为If things go amiss, he who knows the harmony will be able to attune them，似乎还是比较达意的，虽然将“知和”理解为he who knows the harmony 有些偏狭。辜氏将其译为But being natural there is something not permitted，语义似乎不太清晰。丘氏昆仲将其译作But sometimes this principle cannot be implemented，意思不但不完整，而且有些偏离原文之意。
所谓“不以礼节之，亦不可行也”，意思是说“和”的追求如果不以一定的规章制度加以节制，也是不行的。Arthur Waley 将其译为But if harmony itself is not modulated by ritual, things will still go amiss，将“不以礼节之”解读为不依照“礼”来节制“和”，显然有背原文之旨。所谓“不以礼节之”中的“礼”指的是规章制度，“之”指的是相关的事务，而不是“和”。
辜鸿铭将其译为To know that it is necessary to be natural without restraining the impulse to be natural by the strict principle of art, —that is something not permitted.意思似乎有些含糊。丘氏昆仲将其译为Knowing the necessity of harmony, and then seeking harmony without control by Etiquette also means that it cannot be implemented.意思似乎近似于原文，但结构上仍显含混。
