Ave Maria and Other Great Sacred Solos 下载 pdf 电子版 epub 免费 txt 2025

The most popular religious songs of the past 250 years. Two versions of Ave Maria are featured as are O Holy Night , Kol Nidre , Fauré's Pie Jesu (from his Requiem), Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus , Sullivan's The Lost Chord , and many other favorites. Attractive vocal accompaniment is provided for either organ manuals or piano.

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：Ave Maria and Other Great Sacred Solos在线阅读

在线听书地址：Ave Maria and Other Great Sacred Solos在线收听

在线购买地址：Ave Maria and Other Great Sacred Solos在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

The most popular religious songs of the past 250 years. Two versions of Ave Maria are featured as are O Holy Night , Kol Nidre , Fauré's Pie Jesu (from his Requiem), Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus , Sullivan's The Lost Chord , and many other favorites. Attractive vocal accompaniment is provided for either organ manuals or piano.

• 作者：豆友jZVlnRgIvI 发布时间：2023-06-17 19:55:30

  首发预订，期待后续，简中版如果能把特典也出了就好了

• 作者：每天都吃もやし 发布时间：2022-05-26 22:42:15

  有点枯燥，主要看图片去了。

• 作者：DINNE 发布时间：2013-04-26 23:34:16

  我曾经想问策展人是什么，现在知道，策展人是企业家。

• 作者：甜水园子温 发布时间：2015-03-01 21:45:28

  把花送给了她，把剑送给了他。

• 作者：aifreedom 发布时间：2013-10-26 19:33:44

  没看太懂。。

• 作者：#ArtfulDodger# 发布时间：2013-01-12 15:29:41

  首先要佩服的还是包天笑的记性……早年间那么多事都还能记得……时代人物都纷纷然纸上，尤其是翻译界早期种种妙事现在看来近乎不可思议，转译日本所译的西文书还可以嫌弃日本人中文不好，片假名平假名的和文用得太多，现在的翻译怕是不能发此言论了。

• 浅显易懂的投资入门课（四课总结版~）

  作者：Kristina 发布时间：2021-03-21 22:27:18

  在书店翻了翻，发现简单易懂，内容挺实用，也有足够的数据和实例。为了立志不做韭菜，后来看了两遍。总结起来就是：俗套的标题，精辟的内容，略啰嗦的表述，以及下面的四个lesson:

  第一课：先学会消费

  富有的定义是相对的，而且要和消费的定义完全区分开，因为高消费不代表高收入，高收入也未必会高消费。这就相当于，收入不高的年轻人买奢侈品，贷款买豪车一样，虽然表面过着富人的生活，实际上却和穷人无异。

  举下面极端的例子，两个同是二十多岁的年轻人：A: 月入五万，花费三万，负债两万；B：月入两万，零负债，月存一万。

  谁更富有呢？表面上看是A，他的生活方式至少是令人羡慕的。但假设这样的状态保持十年，十年后A是零存款，而B却有一百二十万（如果加上正确的投资理财会更多）。时间再拉长一点，这样一下就见分晓了。

  用作者的话说：

  To stay out of harm’s way financially, we need to build assets, not debts. One of the surest ways to build wealth over a lifetime is to spend far less than you make and intelligently invest the difference. But too many people hurt their financial health by failing to differentiate between their “wants” and their “needs.

  要在财务上远离风险，我们就必须积累资产，而不是负债。能让人终身受用的最保险的办法，就是少花多赚，然后用剩下的钱理性投资。然而太多的人因为无法区分“需求”和“欲望”，造成他们的财务健康大打折扣。

  实际上第一课，就是在讲我们常说的开源节流中的后者。然而在消费主义盛行的今天，既要抵御形形色色的物质诱惑，还要抵抗所谓的peer pressure，活出自己的生活方式实属不易。

  第二课：做时间的朋友">

  第二课：做时间的朋友

  巴菲特在十一岁的时候买了第一支股票，然而仍自嘲说自己投资开始的太晚。投资越早开始越好，因为强大的时间魔法—复利。

  这个概念已经太过熟悉，还没有见识过这个魔法的厉害的，这里就只举一个亮眼的例子：投资100人民币，假设每年收益率为10%，一百年后会变成这个数字：1,378,061。

  Starting early is the greatest gift you can give yourself. If you start early and if you invest efficiently (in a manner that I’ll explain in this book) you can build a fortune over time, while spending just 60 minutes a year monitoring your investments.

  尽早开始投资是给自己最好的礼物，加上正确的方法（比如书中介绍的），就可以积累可观的财富，而一年只需花上一个小时。

  第三课：战胜自己，利用大多数人的贪婪和恐惧">

  第三课：战胜自己，利用大多数人的贪婪和恐惧

  关于股票，很重要的一点是，股票并不是虚无缥缈的红红绿绿的方块和线条，拥有股票就相当于间接拥有了企业的一小部分，地产、建筑、交通、品牌、重工业等等。如果不把股价和公司收益联系在一起，就会被短期的贪婪和恐惧冲昏头脑。

  尽管公司收益和股价是两回事，但长期来看反应的是同一个结果。比如，一家公司的收益在三十年涨了1000%，那么我们可以预期股价也有同样的上涨幅度。股票指数也是一样，如果平均来看，一个股指中的公司收益30年涨了1000（相当于每年8.32)，那么这个股指的收益也会接近。

  然而短期来看，股市就和一只绳子上的疯狗一样难以捉摸。我们可以把股价看作疯跑的狗，把公司收益看作主人的速度，他们之间有条绳子，因此不管跑的多远，总会被绳子拉回来。在每个历史时期，当股价背离收益，总有人天真地认为历史会改写，股价可以不再受到牵制，他们相信那只狗会变异，甚至长出翅膀。然而在长期来看，股价永远反应收益水平，一旦背离就值得警惕。

  很多自以为聪明的投资者认为自己掌握了股市的规律，那就是高点卖出，低点买入的时机。然而股市的非理性就像流感一样，时常剧烈波动且毫无规律可言，那些频繁操作的人们便很容易受到情绪左右，结果变成在追涨杀跌。一个错误就会让账户一落千丈。

  如果把股市看作一个超市，那么大跌无疑就是盛大的促销活动，不论是八折还是五折，当其他人恐慌抛售，把价格打入低点，都带来了绝佳买入机会。

  第四课：任何人都可以战胜华尔街

  对于一般投资者，所有的专家，不论是股神巴菲特还是经济学家，都推荐指数基金，而不是公募基金。因为数据显示，长期来看公募基金的收益比不过指数基金。原因有两个，一是，股市里总有赢家和输家，就算某个基金在一些年表现优异，这种‘超过股市平均年收益’的成绩不会一直持续五年、十年、十五年。

  第二的原因，是这些公募基金的高昂手续费，包括买入费率、卖出费率、管理费、服务费等，换句话说，钱都被这些基金赚走了。

  书中的策略，叫做"沙发土豆"投资组合，意思就是懒人都能打理好的投资方法，就是拥有三种指数基金：

  本土股市指数基金

  海外股市指数基金

  政府或公司债券指数基金：债券在投资组合中所占比例应和年龄接近，如果是偏激进的组合，可以是年龄减去10-20的百分比。

  股票：如果实在抵不住诱惑，建议只占投资组合的10%。

  定投策略是，一年调整一次，保持账户中每类型的占比，意思就是说，假如某个月股票大涨，那么在投资组合中金额的比例也会上升，为了平衡，应该定投的时候多买入债类。同样的道理，定投时应优先选择涨幅落后的账户，适当抛售收益高的账户，这样可以将成本压低。

  这样做的好处，是能避免疯狂的大起大落带来的损失，尽管保守，可以在长期保持10%的年化收益，也就是说，账户在十五年后会翻五倍。

  投资股市，千万不要以为跑赢市场是件容易的事，不论过去的投资取得了什么样的成绩。在投资组合中，个股的占比不要超过10%。

  一旦买入股票，就作长期持有的打算。多项国际研究表明，交易的越频繁，扣除税费和手续费的盈利就越低。股市投资者应该掌握两个要点，第一下跌是件好事，以及，如何发现一只潜力股。还需要知道，自己不知道什么。因为只知道一家公司盈利多少远远不够，还需要了解公司运作的方方面面：产品，如何保持竞争优势，发展战略，管理层……

  书里列举了下面需要关注的问题：

  市盈率如何？市盈率反应了股票是“便宜”还是“贵”。整体来说，科技股的市盈率比蓝筹股高，投资者们面对了二重风险，一是公司未来可预见性低，二是投资成本相对更高。

  产品或服务是否有涨价权？

  负债率如何？债务的利息意味着成本，而且一旦经济陷入衰退，购买工产品或服务的人变少，高负债的公司会遭受很大的打击。

  负债的偿还能力如何？

  投资回报率如何？投资回报率反应了公司利用资本和债务来生产产品的效率有多高

  内部股东占比多少？如果超过10%，公司更可能会优先考虑股东利益

  高管的收入如何？如果收入高出同类公司很多，就值得警惕

• Book Review: E.P.Thompson, The Making of English Working Class(NYRB/HNET)

  作者：by 发布时间：2011-10-19 11:15:32

  此书蒙多年前湘姐推荐，稍有接触。但生性懒散，迟迟未毕。近日幸为作业所迫，得以阅毕。间有不解，复览而明。

  想我国朝新时代之工人阶级渐次形成，蚁族工蜂、白领蓝翔，不绝于耳；血泪呼号，不减英伦。二十年目睹之怪现状，不禁掩卷为之恻然耳。

  公元两千零一十一年十月夜，记于合众国圣路易。

  公元两千零一十二年秋改毕。

  E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Pantheon Books, 1963. 848. Pp.

  “Nevertheless, when every caution has been made, the outstanding fact of the period between 1790 and 1830 is the formation of ‘the working class.’ This is revealed, first, in the growth of class-consciousness,” and “second, in the growth of corresponding forms of political and industrial organization” (p.194). E.P. Thompson’s book tells us about how the English working class coalesced in the period from the 1790s to the 1830s. Thompson provides us with abundant details about the varieties of lived experience of the English workers at that time to show how they could come to regard themselves as sharing a common “experience.” He sketches a scene of the struggles of these workers, revealing their screams, their cries, and their history, which was full of blood and tears. Based on the focus of “traditional” cultural issues and class-consciousness, the author makes a case for class as a historical relationship in a way that departs from “orthodox” Marxism.

  The book begins with “The Liberty Tree,” the culturally available resources left by British history. These include the tradition of Dissent, which included dominations such as the Independents, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Baptists (modified by Methodist revival), which could “combine political quietism with a kind of slumbering Radicalism” (p.30); the traditional notions of the “birth-right” of Englishmen; and the ambiguous tradition of the eighteenth-century “Mob” (pp.24-25). Riots, the mob, and popular notions of “free-born” rights are viewed as “sub-political” traditions (p.59). Thompson finds that the London crowd should not be simply identified as ruffians or a part of criminal element, but he also emphasizes that we can observe the crowd well from concrete issues. For example, the Gordon Riots of 1780 clearly showed the three phases that popular agitation would pass through (p.71). Beside the agitated institution, the obscure feeling of defending rights is also crucial. In this section, the influential views of Thomas Paine play a key role: “We can almost say that Paine established a new framework within which Radicalism was confined for nearly 100 years, as clear and as well defined as the constitutionalism which it replaced” (p.94). However, with the suppression of the revolutionary Jacobins, the disorganized and persecuted working people struggled to hold their organization, thus societies such as Sheffield, including their rights-claiming etc. are discussed in the book.

  Part Two, “The Curse of Adam,” examines some personal/private experiences (living standards: goods, homes, life, childhood) of different kinds and groups of workers. Their achievements and their painful lives reflect new kinds of working disciplines and working characteristics. Unlike the Dissenting sects, the Methodists “contribute” to the formation of the working class in a special way: In addition to the forms of popular meetings they provided, Methodist practices included the “collection of penny subscriptions and the ‘tickets,’ so frequently borrowed by radical and trade union organizations, but also an experience of efficient centralised organization” (pp.43-44).

  The third part, “The Working-class Presence,” covers the varieties of riots and movements, relating to the people who engaged in them: Chartists, Owenites, Radical Westminster Committee, Edward Despard, Informers (turncoats or mercenary volunteers, nit an organized group though), Croppers, Stockingers, etc. Thompson finds that the secret political tradition, suffering from its weakness in propaganda (secretive and small-scale) and suspicious environment, could not survive unless it joined with the secret industrial tradition (p.494). And of course the Luddite movement should be highly noticed as this kind of joint character, given its organization. The sources of Thompson’s narrate are appealing: it is based on an abundant source base of pamphlets, archives, public and governmental records, periodicals, etc., and a theoretical perspective expanding the classical Marxism theory. The interpretive framework of the book, with the depiction of details which were supported by the documents and resources, becomes very powerful.

  In what follows, I would like to analyze three aspects of Thompson’s book. First, from a theoretical perspective, Thompson’s revision of Marxist theory (or the context of Marxist doctrine), which innovates on the historical phenomenon and the outcome of experience away from an economic-determined explanation, should be deeply affirmed. It could be viewed as an alternative way of analyzing social transformation. Many scholars find that Thompson abandons the economic determinism of traditional Marxism, in favor of what could be called a kind of cultural Marxism. I would argue that even cultural and political determinisms are rejected by Thompson. The historically-conditioned relationships that inform experience and the formation of class consciousness are of crucial importance for Thompson. William H. Sewell, Jr. points out that Thompson adopts a much looser theoretical model of the relationship of economic conditions to social experience and consciousness. (“How Classes Are Made: Critical Reflections on E. P. Thompson’s Theory of Working-Class Formation,” in Harvey J. Kaye and Keith McClelland eds. E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1990, pp.50-77.) Sewell, however, also finds that Thompson fails to face the productive relations in which the working class actually existed. In so doing, Thompson implicitly affirms what he wants to deny: the class, which is economically structured, is independent from the workers’ consciousness. As a way of moving past the problem of the class struggle and productive relations, I would like to argue that class could be regarded as a kind of personal identity, which is not fully generated by productive relations. The common experiences of workers, as Thompson argues, will lead them to “feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves.” (p.9) While Raymond Williams defines culture as a whole way of life, Thompson views it as a struggle of different ways of living. It is in this meaning that the common experience and identity of workers are formed.

  Second, by highlighting this kind of identity and daily life, Thompson actually keeps on inaugurating a new kind of historical writing, which would later become known as the “New Cultural history.” (Lynn Hunt ed., The New Cultural History. University of California Press, 1989.) The influence of Thompson’s work on the development of the new cultural history is significant. On the one hand, in the wake of scholars such as Richard H. Tawney, “history from below” had become a pursuit for British historians. On the other hand, cultural history borrows from the older tradition of German historiography known as “Kulturgeschichte.” Jacob Burckhardt’s The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy shows various lives in the Italian cities during the Renaissance. Johan Huizinga’s The Waning of the Middle Ages had already shown the importance of cultural mentality in an age. The study of collective memory was on its way to prominence (and was largely developed by the French scholars). At this point, the work of Thompson leads and enhances the trend toward the study of daily lives, memory and popular culture.

  The studies about construction of custom, culture, mentality, crowd, and class were raised in the next several decades following the publication of Thompson’s work. Thompson’s work also has had a deep influence on German scholars’ interest in the cultural dimensions of the daily lives of historical subjects (e.g. class relations) by cultural perspective (e.g., H. Medick, A. Lüdtke, D. Sabean, G. Sider). The 1960s were a period dominated by structuralism, but Thompson tries to save the stockingers, croppers, weavers, and artisans from an unfair historical ideology by depicting specific activities of the workers who assembled to criticize the Bible in the factory, to discuss politics in the pub, to form their own organizations, etc. Sewell finds that Thompson actually uses synchronic depictions broadly but that he disguises them within an explicitly diachronic approach. It could be argued, however, that Thompson actually finds structure to exist in the historical progress. His insistence of explicating diachrony should be viewed as a rebellion against the form of structuralism popular at that time, rather than an approach that he really ignores or rejects.

  Third, the evidence Thompson supplies lends considerable support to his overall framework. Thompson reveals the relative poverty of workers during the “Industrial Revolution,” for instance, even the cotton-spinners in 1818 Manchester, who, after their payments were deducted, were only left with 18s. 4d. (pp.243-244). Beginning with the miserable story of Thomas Hardy, the author rescues the working class status from what he calls the “condescension of posterity” (p.12). As Chengdan Qian has noted, the discourses of Fabianism and liberalism influenced the pessimistic historical views towards the English working class in the industrial process. (“From Weber to Thompson,” History of the World 6, 1984) Liberal historians would even contend that the Tory government appealed to the illusory threat of “violent revolution” in order to justify to the suppression of the political reforms.

  In fact, Thompson compels us to notice two different kinds of the eighteenth-century riots in Britain: “spontaneous popular direct action” and “the deliberate use of the crowd as an instrument of pressure, by persons ‘above’ or apart from the crowd.” (pp.62-63). “Traditional” Marxists, for their part, tend to ignore the role of British traditions. Against whom is Thompson arguing? It is obviously that the New Left tries to reinterpret the experience of social development in England. The Whigs’ clichés that lower people and the riots are meaningless should be abandoned. The focus on the working-class movement supplied by Fabianist historians and liberal historians’ sympathy toward workers’ resistance (against economic exploitation and political oppression) are inherited by Thompson. At the same time, he quarrels with the trend of obscuring the agency of workers and their contributions: “There is the Fabian orthodoxy, in which the great majority of working people are seen as passive victims of laissez faire, with the exception of a handful of far-sighted organizers” (p.12). In addition, “there is the orthodoxy of the empirical economic historians, in which working people are seen as a labour force, as migrants, or as the data for statistical series” (p.12). Thompson also resists what he regards as the error of reading history “in the light of subsequent preoccupations”: “There is the ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ orthodoxy, in which the period is ransacked for forerunners” (p.12). Or, from another perspective, when “the Industrial Revolution was encountering the problems of ‘take-off’,” “the generations of workers between 1790 and 1840 sacrificed some, or all, of their prospects of increased consumption to the future” (p.204). We cannot sacrifice the experience of the individual workers in the interest of “improvement” or “progress” based on economic developments at that time. Nor can we obscure differences out of regard for the welfare state or the happiness of “majorities.”

  In addition to the classified analysis, Thompson is also concerned with showing how the religious or spiritual concerns affected class consciousness and class formation. What role did Methodism play in the “making” of the working class? Thompson denies that at first “Methodism was no more than a nursing-ground for Radical and trade union organizers” (p.41). But at another level, “Methodism was indirectly responsible for a growth in the self-confidence and capacity for organization of working people,” as Sauthey indicated in 1820. Thompson goes on to argue that “throughout the early history of Methodism we can see a shaping democratic spirit which struggled against the doctrines and organizational forms which Wesley imposed” (p.42). Organizational function seems to be crucial in distinguishing Methodism from other religious sects, given “the temporary permeation of Methodism by some of the self-governing traditions of Dissent, and the transmission to working-class societies of forms of organization peculiar to the Methodist Connexion” (p.43). Even if the function of Methodism in shaping the working class is obvious, Thompson still does not attribute all the efficacies of class forming to Methodism. He cites Sauthey to reveal that the Methodists made of religion “a thing of sensation and passion, craving perceptually for sympathy and stimulants.” Of course, he argues that compared to other religious, Methodist theology “was better suited than any other to serve as the religion of a proletariat … to feel themselves to be ‘elected’” (p.362). From the case of Methodism, we can see Thompson in fact shows the procedures that “make” class by both organizational manipulation and spiritual foundation. These two parts show both economic and cultural influences; Thompson’s “making” theory is therefore not just a simple “determination” or “cultural Marxism.”

  Thompson’s narrative abounds with individuals full of emotion and unique experience, real men and women, and concrete daily lives. He punctuates his narrative with dramatic plots. Dissatisfied with the fact that “nearly all the classic accounts by contemporaries of conditions in the Industrial Revolution are based on the cotton industry,” (p.192) Thompson, with the ambition of “seeking to rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the ‘obsolete’ hand-loom weaver, the ‘Utopian’ artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott” from “the enormous condescension of posterity,” (p.12) seeks to discuss these kinds of workers one by one. Yet, only the weaver and the artisan are discussed specifically, thereby leaving the stockinger and the cropper in relative obscurity, even though he argues for their historical significance. The categories of workers surely influence the organization of their movements and their political tendencies. As Thompson observes, “Jacobinism…struck root most deeply among artisans. Luddism was the work of skilled men in small workshops. From 1817 onwards to Chartism, the outworkers in the north and the Midlands were as prominent in every radical agitation as the factory hands” (p.193). It is therefore crucial to distinguish between those categories. It is also curious that Thompson does not explore the division found in the master-servant relationship that he established before. Categories of servants included farm servants (hired by the year or the quarter), regular labour-force (more or less fully employed the year round), casual labour (paid by day-rate or piece-rate) and more or less skilled specialists (might contract to job) (p.215). Although this would make Thompson’s task much more difficult, describing these hinds of workers one-by-one would produce a more convincing result, whether from a statistics standpoint or from a more qualitative perspective.

  Thompson argues that “collective self-consciousness was indeed the great spiritual gain of the Industrial Revolution” (p. 830). Hence, the Chartists, never forgetting to get the vote, served as the key points of political power or social control. So I insist on the useful conception of “experience,” which indicates the way of understanding the rise of the working class’s self-consciousness. Collective experience is not the only factor in deciding the formation of class, but it is nevertheless a basic factor. Why did workers view themselves as a new class? The benefits, the ways of life, the degree of education, and broad connections (and if there were political organization things will be better) could propel a “class” from “experience” (social being) to “consciousness” (social consciousness). Thompson’s work indicates a “conscious” realm and an implied “agency” by emphasizing the feeling and identity of workers and their activities/practices. He mentions in many places to express his opinions of those kinds of feelings: “When we speak of ‘imagery’ we mean much more than figures of speech in which ulterior motives were ‘clothed.’ …The imagery is itself evidence of powerful subjective motivations, fully as ‘real’ as the objective, fully as effective, as we see repeatedly in the history of Puritanism, in their historical agency.”…“It’s the sign of how men felt and hoped, loved and hated, and of how they preserved certain values in the very texture of their language” (p.49). He uncovers workers’ voices by engaging the concrete experience of ordinary people. Radicals, journalists, workers, and Owenites all vividly wrote and read, from newspapers to pamphlets, to handbills. That is the reason why small groups or communities could finally become a real class. That is the difference between Thompson and Louis Althusser. Only based on the confidence of “agency,” we can find, as the workers themselves announced: “That the number of our Members be unlimited” (p.21).

  Boyi Chen(Department of History,Wash U)