10 Berlin: Reform and Repression at the Focal Point (1818-1821)
第10章 柏林时期：改革与镇压的中心(1818—1821)(3)
As Hegel soon learned on his return, the flap over Asverus had turned out to be more than the isolated incident he had at first taken it to be. Kotzebue’s assassination had continued to provoke interest and fear, and one person paying particular attention to it was Metternich, who saw in it the means to transform the fear of revolution among the German nobility and ruling elites into a fear of reform itself and thus to shore up his continued attempts to turn back the clock for the European monarchies (and thereby protect Austria’s interests). In fact, it was secret negotiations between Metternich and the Prussians (along with participation by other major powers) that had led to the first phase of the crackdowns against the “demagogues” that had landed Asverus in such trouble. These early crackdowns, however, were not enough for Metternich, who realized that he needed and probably could bring about a more far-reaching program of hunting down so-called “radical” elements in German society - which meant, in his mind, any person or group that threatened the established order imposed by the Congress of Vienna. Metternich himself had already argued at the first European Congress in September 1818 that “secret” forces of revolution threatening the established order were gathering steam and were already poised and ready to strike; Metternich advised the delegates that those forces needed to be met with firm resistance by the German princes; he also argued that social unrest, revolution, and constitutionalism were all part of the same package, so that to countenance one was to encourage all of them. He pressed his points further in a series of communications to the Prussian king, arguing that military strength was incompatible with representative government and that the introduction of representative government into Prussia would inevitably spell its demise. The king, who had already been made wary of constitutionalism by various reactionaries in his court and who had been greatly influenced by a pamphlet written by T. A. H. Schmalz in 1815 equating constitutionalism with the French Revolution, was obviously a receptive audience for Metternich’s admonitions.
黑格尔回来后不久获悉，阿斯费鲁斯的事情证明并不只是起初他所认为的孤立事件。科策比遇刺事件持续引发关注和恐惧，一个叫梅特涅的人尤其在意此事，他从中看到可以通过某种手段，将德国贵族和统治精英对革命的恐惧转化为对改革本身的恐惧，进而使人们继续支持他恢复欧洲君主政体的尝试（以此保护奥地利人的利益）。实际上，正是梅特涅与普鲁士人（以及其他主要强国）之间的秘密谈判，导致了初期对那些使阿斯费鲁斯陷入麻烦的“煽动事件”的镇压。然而，这些早期镇压对梅特涅来说远远不够，他意识到自己需要且或许有可能制定一个影响深远的纲领，在德国社会绞杀所谓的“激进”分子——在他心目中，“激进”分子指的是那些威胁到由维也纳会议强制推行的现存秩序的某些人或团体。梅特涅本人早在 1818 年 9 月的第一次欧洲会议上就辩称，对现存秩序构成威胁的“秘密”革命力量正在聚集，伺机发动进攻；他告诫与会代表，这股势力需要德意志王室予以严厉打击；他还坚称，社会动荡、革命和宪政主义本质相同，赞同其中任何一个，就是纵容这三者。他通过一系列沟通，进一步向普鲁士国王强调自己的观点，主张军事力量与代议政体势不两立，将代议政体引入普鲁士势必导致普鲁士的灭亡。普鲁士国王，早已因宫廷中形形色色的反动分子而对宪政心生警惕，又深受 T.A.H.施马尔茨 1815 年撰写的将宪政与法国大革命相提并论的小册子影响，显然接受了梅特涅的告诫。
Kotzebue’s assassination was, quite simply, a stroke of great luck for Metternich, offering him the opening he had been seeking. Already made nervous by Metternich’s warnings of insurrection, the Prussian king had issued a cabinet order on January i, 1819, proclaiming that “dispositions dangerous to the state” were not to be tolerated among university professors."^^ While visiting the Prussian king in Teplitz in August 1819, Metternich managed to convince him even further of the rightness of his views and of the need for firm resistance to these revolutionary tendencies in German society; the king promptly instructed his chancellor, Hardenberg, to issue a decree, using Kotzebue’s murder as the pretext, revoking all plans to introduce the constitution including representative government that he had earlier promised the Prussian people. Metternich also managed to persuade the king to participate in a meeting with other German rulers at the spa resort of Karlsbad from August 6 to August 31, 1819.
科策比遇刺对梅特涅而言简直如同天赐良机，为他提供了一直寻觅的契机。普鲁士国王早已因梅特涅关于犯上作乱的警告而寝食难安，于1819年1月1日下达一道内阁诏书，宣称不可容忍有“对国家有危险意向”的大学教授。1819年8月在特普利茨觐见普鲁士国王时，梅特涅费尽心思进一步说服国王，让其相信自己的看法是正确的，并且坚信必须坚决消除德意志社会中的某些革命倾向。普鲁士国王旋即吩咐大臣哈登贝格发布政令，以科策比遇刺为借口，撤销他早先向普鲁士人民承诺的引入包含代议政体的宪法的所有计划。梅特涅还设法说服国王答应与其他德意志统治者共同参加1819年8月6日至31日在卡尔斯巴德温泉度假胜地举行的会议。
The result of that meeting was the Karlsbad decrees, which included four essential provisions providing for political repression: First, any lecturer or professor in a German university who was deemed to be hostile to public order or to be undermining the basic principles of the state - in other words, who was found to be a “subversive,” a “demagogue” - was to be immediately dismissed, and there was to be a government appointed supervisory commission for each university to oversee whether any professors or students were guilty; furthermore, no other German university was permitted to employ any professor who had been dismissed on those grounds. Second, a press law established a central commission that was to provide for the effective censorship of all papers, books, and journals throughout the German confederation. Third, an investigative commission was to be established in Mainz with broad powers to ferret out “demagogues.” Fourth and finally, there were to be strong executive powers that the confederation could use against unruly member states - in other words, against states that refused to participate in the repression that the decrees mandated.^" By September, 1819, the federal Diet of the German confederation had enacted these decrees as law, and the Prussians began to enforce them with special ardor. Rifts within the reform movement in Prussia now opened wide; Wilhelm von Humboldt, for example, vigorously protested against the Karlsbad decrees as a violation of freedom and of the conditions under which Btldung could be pursued, but Hardenberg saw them as necessary to maintain order.^' Humboldt’s opposition to the Karlsbad decrees led to his being forced to resign from the government; others so inclined were also forced to resign, and the number of reformers holding governmental posts began inexorably to shrink.
此次会议的成果是与会各方签订了《卡尔斯巴德法令》，该法令包含进行政治镇压的四项基本条款：其一，凡是在德意志大学中被认定对公共秩序怀有敌意或暗中破坏国家基本准则的讲师或教授——换言之，任何被发现是“颠覆分子”或“煽动分子”的讲师或教授——都将立即被解职，每所大学都必须设立一个由政府委任的监督委员会，审查教授或学生是否存在犯罪行为；更有甚者，德意志其他大学一律不得聘用因上述原因被某所大学解职的教授。其二，新闻出版法设立了一个中央委员会，对德意志联邦全境所有的报纸、书籍和杂志实施有效审查。其三，一个拥有广泛权力搜查“煽动分子”的调查委员会将在美因茨成立。其四也是最后一点，德意志联邦可以对不守规矩的成员国行使强大的行政权力——也就是说，对那些拒绝参与该法令授权的政治镇压的国家行使此权力。到1819年9月，德意志联邦的联邦议会（Diet）已将这些法令作为法律颁布，普鲁士人尤为卖力地执行这些法令。普鲁士改革运动内部的裂痕愈发扩大；例如，威廉·冯·洪堡对《卡尔斯巴德法令》侵犯自由以及破坏追求教化的前提条件提出强烈抗议，但哈登贝格却将《卡尔斯巴德法令》视为维持秩序所必需之物。洪堡因反对《卡尔斯巴德法令》，最终被迫辞去政府职务；其他有类似倾向的官员也不得不离职，在政府中任职的改革者人数开始急剧减少。
The newspaper Allgemeine Preufiische Zeitung had already reported in its July 13, 1819, issue that the measures by which people like Asverus were being arrested had been made necessary by the “conclusive proofs of the existence and revolutionary high-treasonous tendencies” of certain “demagogic machinations” abroad in the land.^^ Seven days later (July 20), the newspaper published an elaboration of the supposed necessity of and rationale for the crackdown. It claimed that there was proof of the existence throughout the various German principalities of “alliances of evil-minded people and misled youth” whose goal was the “overthrow” of the existing social order, to be replaced by a “republic grounded in unity, freedom, and so-called nationality,” and these people had unfortunately already seduced many youth at German universities. The newspaper further claimed that these subversive groups were, according to their own documents, aiming at no less than the murder of princes and leading citizens. As if it were not clear what was meant, the paper described these as “authentic Jacobin doctrines” unfortunately being propagated by people “under the mask of [speaking of] holy things.It was clear to all whom the last phrase referred to: the theologians at Berlin, particularly Schleiermacher and the friend and student of Fries, Wilhelm Martin Lebrecht de Wette, who were known to be sympathetic to the Burschenschaft and its goals. De Wette himself was summoned to an interrogation, which he refused, firing off an angry letter to the minister of police, the highly reactionary Count Wilhelm Ludwig Georg Wittgenstein zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein, on August 19, 1819, saying that he did not even want to give the appearance of being involved in the “demagogic machinations” and thus refused to cooperate with such a waste of time.^'*^ Schleiermacher organized the theologians into a protest against the measures.
早在1819年7月13日，《普鲁士总汇报》就报道称，警方对像阿斯费鲁斯这类人采取的逮捕措施已被证明十分必要，有确凿证据表明德意志境内到处存在某些“带有煽动性的密谋活动”以及“革命的高度反叛倾向”。7天后（7月20日），该报纸精心策划，刊登了实施政治镇压所谓的必要性和全部理由。它同时宣称，有证据表明“心怀恶意之人与受误导的青年结成的联盟”遍布德意志各公国，这些人的目标是推翻现存社会秩序，取而代之的是一个基于“统一、自由、所谓民族的共和国”，不幸的是，这些人已诱惑了德意志大学中的众多青年学子。该报纸进一步声称，这些颠覆集团依照自身纲领，至少企图刺杀王室成员和达官显贵。似乎生怕别人不明白其意图，该报纸将上述宣称描述为那些“带着[述及]圣物的面具”的人正在不幸宣扬的“真正的雅各宾派学说”。后一句话显然指向了柏林的神学家们，尤其是施莱尔马赫和弗里斯的朋友兼学生威廉·马丁·勒贝雷希特·德魏特，后者因同情“学生社团”及其目标而闻名。德魏特本人被传唤接受审问，但他拒绝了，并于1819年8月19日向警务大臣威廉·路德维希·格奥尔格·维特根施泰因·楚·赛恩 - 维特根斯泰因 - 霍恩施泰因这位极端反动的伯爵发出一封愤怒的信，信中称他根本不想造成卷入“带有煽动性的阴谋活动”的假象，因此拒绝配合这种纯属浪费时间的传唤。施莱尔马赫组织神学家抗议警方的这一举措。
Although it was clear that it was primarily de Wette and Schleiermacher who bore the brunt of suspicion - the authorities even put Schleiermacher’s sermons under surveillance to see if “demagogic” ideas were being promulgated from the pulpit — Hegel had reason to be nervous that such investigations might be extended to him. In September 1819, shortly after his return from the rainy vacation in Riigen, things began to heat up. The theologian de Wette, in what was surely an astonishing display of bad judgment, wrote a condolence letter to Sand’s mother, in which he said that although Sand’s act was wrong, his “conviction” was that he was doing the right thing, and that when each acts “according to his best conviction, he will do the best.” Sand’s act was therefore a “beautiful testimonial of the time.”” The letter caused a furor; it was denounced as the leading wedge in a campaign to overthrow the existing order and to justify regicide. The king’s cabinet order of January was invoked against de Wette, and without any due process or hearing, de Wette was summarily dismissed from the university on September 30, 1819.” The faculty senate, joined by even its most conservative members, protested sharply, and the king replied to them just as curtly that he would “do harm to his conscience” if he were to “further entrust the instruction of youth” to a man “who holds assassination to be justified under certain conditions and presuppositions.”” De Wette wrote a defiant letter to the king and departed from Berlin for Weimar. The crackdown on the alleged demagogues continued and in November 1819 the Weimar government was forced, more or less against its will, to live up to the Karlsbad decrees and discharge Fries from his position at the Jena university.
尽管很明显主要是德魏特和施莱尔马赫受到怀疑的冲击——当局甚至对施莱尔马赫的讲演进行监视，查看是否有煽动性思想通过他的讲坛传播——黑格尔仍有理由担心这样的调查会波及自己。1819年9月，他从多雨的吕根岛度假回到柏林后不久，事情开始升温。神学家德魏特，想必是对局势做出了令人惊讶的误判，竟然给桑德的母亲写了慰问信，信中他写道，尽管桑德的行为有误，但他“坚信”桑德在做正事，他“坚信”当每个人“依照自己的最佳信念”行事时就能做到最好。因此，桑德的行为是“那个美好时代的证明”。这封信引发了轩然大波，被指责为这场推翻现存秩序、为弑君者开脱的运动中的重要精神支柱。国王1月的内阁政令被用来针对德魏特，在没有任何正当程序且未举行任何听证会的情况下，德魏特于1819年9月30日被官方草率地解除大学职务。大学理事会强烈反对这一决定，甚至理事会中最保守的成员也加入了反对行列，国王只是简短回复他们，如果他“继续把青年教育工作交托”给一个“坚信暗杀在特定条件和假设下”具有正当性的人，那将“有损于他的良知”。德魏特向国王发出一封抗争信后，离开柏林前往魏玛。对所谓“煽动分子”的镇压仍在继续，1819年9月，魏玛政府或多或少被迫无奈地遵守《卡尔斯巴德法令》，解除了弗里斯在耶拿大学的职务。
Carove
Like all the other professors, Hegel was understandably anxious about this turn of events. He was, after all, linked to a student in the Burschenschaft (Asverus) who was still under arrest at the time of de Wette’s dismissal, and even his brother-in-law was a member. Hegel had also brought Friedrich Wilhelm Carove with him to Berlin to act as his assistant and had hopes of eventually getting Carove a professorship in Berlin or elsewhere. Carove had been one of the leading lights in the Burschenschaft movement, and Hegel especially admired Carove’s devotion to philosophy. Carove had in fact given up a good career in law and his position as an official in the customs office in Cologne to dedicate himself to philosophy. Hegel brought Carove to Berlin to work as a Repetent for his lectures — essentially a teaching assistant who would go over the material from the professor’s lectures with the students in a separate session, illustrating and elaborating on various points and giving the students various “exercises” to do so that they could better understand and integrate what they had heard in the lectures. Since there were no official posts for such teaching assistants at Berlin, Carove at first did this without remuneration, but Hegel had well founded hopes for remedying that very soon.
卡罗韦
和其他所有教授一样，黑格尔对事态的这种变化感到焦虑不安，这完全可以理解。毕竟在德魏特被解雇时，他与当时已被关押的学生社团成员阿斯费鲁斯有所关联，甚至他的小舅子同样也是学生团体成员。黑格尔早已把弗里德里希·威廉·卡罗韦带到柏林做助手，并希望最终能为卡罗韦在柏林或其他地方谋得教授职位。卡罗韦一直是学生团体运动的领袖人物之一，黑格尔对卡罗韦献身哲学的精神格外钦佩。卡罗韦实际上放弃了法律领域的好职业以及在科隆海关的官职，投身于哲学。黑格尔带卡罗韦来柏林担任他的授课“Repetent”——特别是做教学助手，通常的工作是通过个别辅导与学生共同复习教授讲课内容，详细讲解并精心阐释各个要点，带领学生做各种“练习”，以便他们能更好地理解和融会贯通课堂所学。由于在柏林这样的教学助手没有正式职位，所以卡罗韦起初做这份工作是无偿的，但黑格尔很快就希望能对此做出合理补偿。
In August 1818, a couple of months before Hegel had arrived in Berlin, the faculty had gone to work to set the rules and regulations for a Repetenteninstitut (an organization of such teaching assistants that designated their rights and duties and their remuneration from the university), and Hegel participated in the final deliberations. Hegel fully agreed with the majority opinion of the faculty, that the provision of paid teaching assistants to professors (who should be allowed to choose them themselves) was not aimed so much at helping the professors with their workloads but at providing subsistence and support for young scholars who would one day become professors in their own right. In his official request of November 9, 1818, to have Carove named as his teaching assistant, Hegel also argued that such assistants were necessary for the pedagogical aims of a university such as Berlin; in philosophy such sessions led by teaching assistants were especially necessary, Hegel argued, because only in such sessions could one have the “conversations” and “disputes” that were necessary to learning philosophy; only in such sessions could the students voice “their own views and doubts” about the material and learn to come to grips with the material; philosophical knowledge could not, Hegel argued, be gained by simply memorizing books or by requiring more reading; a level of personal involvement and disputation was necessary.^*
1818年8月，也就是黑格尔抵达柏林两个月后，哲学系就已着手为“Repeterteninstitut”（一个关于此类教学助手的组织，负责确定他们的权利、义务以及从学校获得的报酬）制定规则和章程，黑格尔参与了规章的最终审议。黑格尔完全赞同系里多数人的意见，即为教授配备有报酬的教学助手（教授应有权选择自己的教学助手），这样做的目的绝非减轻教授的工作量，而是为了让青年学者能够维持生计，并给予他们应有的支持，因为这些青年学者日后也会成为独当一面的教授。在1818年11月9日关于提名卡罗韦做教学助手的正式请求中，黑格尔还坚称，这样的教学助手对于像柏林大学这样的高校实现教育目标是必不可少的；在哲学教学中，由教学助手带领的课堂讨论尤为必要，黑格尔认为，因为只有在这样的讨论会上，学生才有可能进行“对话”和展开“争论”，而这两种方式对于学习哲学至关重要；同样只有在这样的讨论会上，学生才有可能提出对授课内容“自己的看法和疑惑”，并学会如何消化吸收授课内容；黑格尔辩称，哲学知识不可能仅通过背书或大量阅读来获取，一定程度的个人参与和辩论必不可少。
To Hegel’s disappointment, the faculty refused in December 1818 to accept Carove as a teaching assistant until he “habilitated.” Carove continued to act as Hegel’s teaching assistant but without pay. Hegel made another entreaty to officials and the faculty in April 1819 to grant the request that Carove be made his teaching assistant, but it was to no avail.5'^ In June 1819, Carove himself, still not having heard from Minister Altenstein about his request to become a teaching assistant, wrote to him about it, and in what turned out to be act of consummate imprudence, also sent Altenstein a piece he had written on Sand’s assassination of Kotzebue from a “Hegelian” perspective (in which he tried to show how the “one-sidedness” of the views of Kotzebue’s assassination as either a crime or a beautiful deed were misguided). This was perhaps the worst possible time to be relying on subtlety of any sort or to be linking oneself in any way whatsoever to the assassination in any other manner than by wildly condemning it. To make matters worse, Carove’s own links with the Burschenschaft had made him suspect from the outset, even before he sent the pamphlet. As if to cast even more suspicion on himself, Carove was also on relatively good terms with Gustav Asverus - the two had hated each other in Heidelberg but had reconciled in Berlin - and so when Asverus came under suspicion, Carove did too.'’®
令黑格尔失望的是，学校在1818年12月拒绝接受卡罗韦作为教学助手，除非他“取得任职资格”。卡罗韦继续担任黑格尔的教学助手，但依旧是无偿的。1819年4月，黑格尔再次恳请官方和学校批准他让卡罗韦担任教学助手的请求，然而这次依旧徒劳无功。1819年6月，卡罗韦本人在始终未收到阿尔滕施泰因部长对他担任教学助手请求的回复的情况下，就此事致信阿尔滕施泰因，这一行为最终被证明是极其鲁莽的，他还给阿尔滕施泰因寄去一篇以黑格尔哲学信徒视角撰写的关于科策比遇刺的文章（文中他试图表明，把科策比遇刺单纯看作犯罪或高尚行为的片面观点是多么具有误导性）。在这个时候，大概最不适合依赖任何微妙的关系，或者无论从何种观点看，都最不适合以其他方式将自己与暗杀事件扯上关系，而最合适的做法是果断谴责暗杀事件。更糟糕的是，卡罗韦与学生团体的联系从一开始就使他成为被怀疑的对象，甚至在他寄出这篇短文之前就是如此。似乎让他更遭人怀疑的是，卡罗韦和古斯塔夫·阿斯费鲁斯关系较好——这两人早在海德堡时积怨颇深，但在柏林时已冰释前嫌——所以当阿斯费鲁斯遭到怀疑时，卡罗韦同样也受到怀疑。
This took a toll on Hegel; he began to be a bit gloomy about the prospects for the future. It seemed that everything for which he had been preparing himself since his youth was possibly about to be dashed. He had been dedicated to playing a part in fashioning a modern world in Germany since his youth; but his original aspirations to be a reforming “popular philosopher” had fallen short; his first professorial position in Jena had collapsed; he had been out of university life for most of his adult life; and now, just when he thought he was ready to settle down into a productive career and a satisfying domestic life, it looked like things were coming unglued again. He was also feeling more and more like an old man, not somebody who could afford to wait out the storm in hopes of a better time. In an October 30, 1819, letter to Creuzer, Hegel noted that “you will surely understand as well, moreover, that all this does not help brighten one’s spirits. I am about to be fifty years old, and I have spent thirty of these fifty years in these eternally uneasy times of fear and hope. I had hoped that for once we might be done with it. Now I see that things are continuing forward as ever, indeed, in one’s darker hours it seems they are getting ever worse.”®'
上述情况对黑格尔造成了一定的负面影响；他开始对前景感到些许悲观。似乎他自青年时期起就一直在为之准备的一切，很可能即将毁于一旦。他自青年时期起就始终致力于为把德国建设成现代世界贡献力量；然而，他最初成为富有革新精神的“通俗哲学家”的远大抱负早已落空；他在耶拿的第一个教授职位以失败告终；他成年后的大部分时光都在大学校门之外度过；眼下，正当他以为可以静下心来大展拳脚，并享受称心如意的家庭生活时，似乎又有些事情要让他心烦意乱。他也越发感觉自己像个老人，不像是能经得起等待这场风暴结束、期待美好时光的人。在1819年10月30日写给克罗伊策尔的信中，黑格尔着重指出，“不仅如此，你当然也能理解，所有这些都无助于振奋一个人的精神。我即将步入知天命之年，这50年里有30年是在充满恐惧与希望、始终心神不宁的状态中度过的。我早就希望这是我们唯一一次被迫经历这些。现在我明白，有些事情不会停止，更确切地说，在人郁郁寡欢时，似乎有些事情变得愈发不顺心。”
Feeling terribly upset with the way things were suddenly turning out, Hegel found a scapegoat: his old nemesis Fries (and his acolyte, de Wette). To his way of viewing things, it was the imprudent and ignorant actions and pronouncements of Fries and his followers that had brought all the trouble down on the univ-ersities. He had always detested Fries (the feeling was mutual); throughout most of their lives, they had been rivals, first for university positions and now for influence in the German philosophical world; now Fries seemed to Hegel to be responsible for the possible unraveling of Hegel’s plans, maybe even of his career, and maybe even of the project of reforming the German world through the universities. If he had hated him before, he surely hated him even more now.
在因一些事物突然消逝的方式而倍感苦恼的情况下，黑格尔找到了一个替罪羊：他的宿敌弗里斯（以及弗里斯的助手德魏特）。按照黑格尔看待事物的方式，正是弗里斯及其追随者轻率愚蠢的言行给大学带来了所有这些麻烦。他一直厌恶弗里斯（两人彼此都有这种感觉）；在人生的大部分时间里，他们俩始终是竞争对手，起初为大学职位竞争，随后又为在德意志哲学界的影响力竞争；如今在黑格尔看来，弗里斯很可能要为破坏他的计划负责，甚至或许要为破坏他的人生事业负责，乃至可能要为破坏通过大学变革德意志世界的这项工程负责。如果说他以前就憎恶弗里斯，那么现在无疑更加痛恨。
Things, however, w^ere not just “seeming” to get worse, as Hegel said he sometimes felt in his “darker hours”; they really were getting worse, and not just for Carove. Altenstein, himself nervous about doing anything imprudent, put off answering Carove’s June request, and on November 19, 1819, officially asked the minister of the interior, von Schuckmann, if Carove was being investigated or was a participant in any of the alleged “secret societies” that were supposed to be flourishing in Germany at the time. Altenstein’s suspicions were further aroused when the director of the ministry of police, von Kamptz, answered a week later that Carove was not a member of any “secret society,” but that he was reputed to have given a rather “curious” speech at the Wartburg festival, and was also reputed to have defended Kotzebue’s murder, and that he therefore intended to interrogate Asverus about Carove.
不过，有些情况可不只是如黑格尔所说，在他“郁郁寡欢时”“表面上”感觉变得更糟；实际上它们确实变得更糟了，而且不只是对卡罗韦而言。阿尔滕施泰因因自己唯恐行事草率，所以推迟回复卡罗韦6月份的请求。1819年11月19日，阿尔滕施泰因以官方身份向内务大臣冯·舒克曼打听，卡罗韦是否会接受调查，或者是否是当时被认为在德意志相当活跃的任何所谓“秘密社团”的成员。一周后，警察局长冯·坎普回复说，卡罗韦不属于任何“秘密社团”成员，但人们普遍认为他在瓦尔特堡节上发表了颇为“离奇古怪”的言论，还普遍认为他为科策比遇刺案鸣不平，因此警察局长打算询问阿斯费鲁斯关于卡罗韦的情况，这进一步加深了阿尔滕施泰因对卡罗韦的怀疑。
Dispute with Schleiermacher
In the midst of this tension, at a gathering at the Gesetzlose Gesellschaft on the evening of November 13, 1819, the tensions surrounding all this bubbled over, and Hegel and Schleiermacher ended up in an ugly quarrel over the firing of de Wette, exchanging sharp words in public. By this time, Hegel had come to think that getting rid of de Wette was a good thing, that people like de Wette (in other words, any member of the Fries school) were bringing calamity on the university and that both the university and German society were simply better off without them. The confrontation began when Hegel offered the opinion that the university was justified in firing de Wette provided that it continue to pay his salary. Hegel and Schleiermacher were treading on dangerous emotional ground for both of them; Schleiermacher, after all, was already under suspicion and was having his sermons watched by the authorities; his acquaintances were being removed from their positions by the authorities, and he had reason to worry that he might be next, Hegel, like Schleiermacher, also had reason to worry that he might be next, but he put the blame elsewhere. Schleiermacher took great umbrage at Hegel’s defense of de Wette’s dismissal, and the squabble began, with Hegel and Schleiermacher essentially trading insults. (Despite his deep-seated aversion to de Wette, Hegel held fast to his belief that the university had an obligation to continue to pay de Wette, and when the university refused de Wette his income, which de Wette countered by haughtily refusing a few months’ severance pay, a group of professors, including Hegel, gathered up a secret fund to provide de Wette with some income during his absence from university life; each professor contributed yearly to the fund - Schleiermacher contributed 50 Thalers, while Hegel contributed 25 Thalers — and the whole thing had to be kept secret from the government, which would not have looked kindly on the professors supporting a “subversive.”)“
与施莱尔马赫争执
在众人神经都高度紧绷之际，1819年11月13日晚，在一个非法学术团体的聚会上，围绕上述种种事情的紧张情绪达到了顶点，黑格尔和施莱尔马赫终于就开除德魏特一事发生了一场极为难堪的争吵，双方公然恶语相向。到此时，黑格尔逐渐觉得，解雇德魏特是件好事，像德魏特这样的人（换言之，弗里斯学派的任何成员）必将给大学带来灾难，德国大学和德国社会要是没有他们这群害群之马，肯定会更加光彩照人。这场冲突的起因是，黑格尔当时发表意见称，大学解聘德魏特是合理的，前提是大学继续给他发薪水。黑格尔和施莱尔马赫两人都带着威胁的口吻，各自情绪化地陈述理由。施莱尔马赫毕竟已遭到怀疑，而且他的讲课一直受到当局监视；他的熟人不断被当局解职，他有理由担心自己可能是下一个被解聘的人；黑格尔和施莱尔马赫一样，同样有理由担心自己可能成为下一个被解聘的对象，但他把责任推给了其他人。施莱尔马赫对黑格尔拿德魏特被开除这件事说三道四极为不满，于是引发了一场激烈争吵，黑格尔和施莱尔马赫几乎是在相互辱骂。（尽管黑格尔对德魏特深恶痛绝，但他依然坚信柏林大学有责任继续给德魏特发工资。当柏林大学拒绝支付德魏特薪水，而德魏特则傲慢地拒绝领取数月的解聘补贴时，包括黑格尔在内的一群教授募集了一笔秘密基金，作为德魏特失去大学工作期间的某种收入来源。每位教授当年都为这项基金捐款——施莱尔马赫捐了50泰勒，黑格尔捐了25泰勒——而且整个事情必须对政府保密，因为政府大概不会把支持“颠覆分子”的教授们视为良善之辈。）
The spat between Schleiermacher and Hegel was probably inevitable, and all the more unfortunate since both belonged firmly to the reformist movement in Prussian society even though they represented different points of view within that movement. But Schleiermacher had never been exactly enthusiastic about bringing Hegel to Berlin; it was in fact Karl Solger, not Schleiermacher, who had proposed Hegel for the chair, and Schleiermacher had ended up voting for Hegel, ironically enough, only because he thought it was the only way to block Fries from receiving the appointment. Schleiermacher’s views on the kind of philosophy Hegel practiced, moreover, were well known; in 1811 he had publicly argued before the Academy of Sciences in Berlin that “speculative philosophy” (the kind practiced by Schelling and Hegel) was not even a discipline at all and therefore did not belong in the university. Hegel also held no love for Schleiermacher’s theology; as far as he was concerned, it was to be lumped together with Fries’s views as a philosophy of feeling instead of reason.
黑格尔与施莱尔马赫之间的争执或许难以避免，更令人惋惜的是，此后他们都坚定地属于普鲁士社会中的改革主义运动，尽管两人在这场运动中代表着截然不同的观点。实际上，施莱尔马赫从未对黑格尔来柏林工作表现出热情；提议黑格尔担任柏林大学校长职位的，是卡尔·佐尔格而非施莱尔马赫，施莱尔马赫最终对黑格尔担任校长投了赞成票，极具讽刺意味的是，他投赞成票仅仅是因为他认为这是阻止弗里斯得到这个职位的唯一办法。此外，施莱尔马赫对黑格尔所践行的哲学的看法众人皆知；早在1811年，他就在柏林科学院公开坚称，“思辨哲学”（黑格尔和谢林所践行的那种哲学）甚至根本算不上一门学科，因此不应属于大学学科范畴。黑格尔同样不欣赏施莱尔马赫的神学；在黑格尔看来，施莱尔马赫的神学与弗里斯的观点都可归结为感性哲学而非理性哲学。
Although von Altenstein had virtually promised Hegel that he would be admitted to the Academy of Sciences in Berlin, the tiff with Schleiermacher almost ensured that Hegel would never be invited to join the academy (and indeed he never was). Besides losing a stipend that would have augmented his income, Hegel also experienced his exclusion from the academy as a personal affront, and it was probably no secret to Hegel that Schleiermacher was one of the main opponents to his receiving such an appointment. (The other was the jurist Friedrich von Savigny.) Hegel had always been a bit touchy about his own standing and the role that “speculative philosophy” had to play in modern German life, and he had experienced several years of being passed over for important positions that were given to people to his mind not nearly as talented as himself. Moreover, he had always felt that a number of well-placed lesser lights were simply prejudiced against “speculative philosophy” (and thus against all post-Kantian attempts to craft a “modern” philosophy) and were determined to keep it (and therefore him) out of the university. The academy had previously refused to admit Fichte; now it was refusing to admit Hegel, and this refusal only stung all the worse.
尽管冯·阿尔滕施泰因实际上早已向黑格尔承诺他将被柏林科学院接纳，但与施莱尔马赫的争执几乎让黑格尔确信自己绝不会收到加入柏林科学院的邀请（事实上他也从未收到邀请）。除了失去一笔肯定会增加他收入的俸禄外，黑格尔还觉得被柏林科学院排斥是对他个人的一种侮辱，而施莱尔马赫是他获得这一任命的主要反对者之一，这在黑格尔看来或许并非秘密。（另一个从中作梗的人是法学家弗里德里希·冯·萨维尼。）黑格尔总是对自己的身份以及“思辨哲学”在现代德国生活中应发挥的作用过于敏感，多年来他一直觉得自己无缘重要职位，而那些获得重任的人在他看来才智远不如他。不仅如此，他总觉得许多位高权重却目光短浅的人对“思辨哲学”（进而对所有后康德哲学家构建“现代”哲学的尝试）抱有先入为主的偏见，并决心将“思辨哲学”（因此也包括他自己）拒于大学校门之外。柏林科学院此前已拒绝接纳费希特为院士；如今又拒绝接纳黑格尔，这无疑让情况变得更糟。
Rumors of the row’ between Hegel and Schleiermacher quickly circulated around Berlin. The two quickly made up, exchanging letters and apologizing for their mutually uncivil behavior at the club. Schleiermacher tendered the address of a Bordeaux wine merchant on Alexanderplatz in Berlin, Hegel thanked him for it, and each apologized; but the damage was done. The Schleiermacher-Hegel enmity had become public and remained in place for a long time.
关于黑格尔与施莱尔马赫之间争吵的谣言很快在柏林的大街小巷传开。两人迅速互致信件，重归于好，并在俱乐部向在场的每个人为他们的失礼行为赔礼道歉。施莱尔马赫向黑格尔提供了一个住在柏林亚历山大广场附近的法国波尔多葡萄酒商人的地址，黑格尔对此表示十分感谢，他们还向当天争吵时在场的所有人表达了歉意；然而，这场争吵还是对两人造成了伤害。施莱尔马赫与黑格尔之间的敌意已然公开化，并持续了很长一段时间。
Carove’s Troubles Increase
In the meantime, Carove’s troubles continued to mount. On December I, 1819, the police minister. Count Wittgenstein, one of the more reactionary and ignorant members of the antireform crowd - who, appointed to membership on the commission to draft a constitution after Humboldt’s dismissal, had vehemently opposed the writing of a constitution at all - denounced Carove to Altenstein as clearly a subversive, whose bad character was evidenced by the people with whom he associated, who included, on Wittgenstein’s account, other students of Hegel’s. Despite Wittgenstein’s allegation, von Kamptz more or less exonerated Carove on December 24, 1819, after the interrogations and further investigations; but the damage had been done; in an ominous note to the proceedings von Kamptz also remarked that although he had concluded that Carove had not in fact approved of Kotzebue’s murder, his writings on the matter were so obscure that one might have mistakenly though he had, and that this was not Carove’s fault - Carove’s writing could be mistaken for a justification of Kotzebue s assassination “on account of the wretched mysticism of recent German philosophy and in particular that of the Hegelian, to which Carove has dedicated himself.”^
卡罗韦麻烦不断
与此同时，卡罗韦的麻烦接踵而至。1819年12月1日，警察大臣维特根施泰因公爵——反改革群体中极端反动且无知的成员之一，这位在洪堡被免职后被任命为修宪委员会成员、从根本上强烈反对宪法修订的维特根施泰因公爵——公然向阿尔滕施泰因告状，称卡罗韦是个颠覆分子，他恶劣的品格已被与他交往的某些人证实，据维特根施泰因描述，这些人包括黑格尔的其他学生。尽管遭到维特根施泰因的指控，冯·坎普茨在经过审讯和深入侦查后，于1819年12月24日基本上宣告卡罗韦无罪；但此事还是给卡罗韦造成了伤害。在一份含糊不清的诉讼记录中，冯·坎普茨还指出，尽管他已判定卡罗韦实际上不赞同刺杀科策比，但他就此事撰写的一些文章晦涩难懂，以至于人们可能会错误地认为他赞同刺杀科策比，即便他本意并非如此，而这或许不能归咎于卡罗韦——“由于近来德国哲学中令人苦恼的神秘主义，特别是卡罗韦所钻研的黑格尔哲学中令人苦恼的神秘主义”，卡罗韦的文章有可能被误解为是在为刺杀科策比的行为辩护。
Although von Kamptz had exonerated Carove, Count Wittgenstein thundered back a few days later on December 29, 1819, rejecting Carove’s exoneration, arguing that it seemed perfectly evident to him that Carove approved of the murderer (Sand), and that moreover Carove himself was a “mystic” who should under no conditions be appointed to the university. Wittgenstein got many of his ideas about all of this from a person even more ignorant and doctrinaire than himself, Christian Moritz Pauli, who, besides claiming that the Burschenschaft ideal of “Germanness” was really just “Jewishness” - which in Pauli’s twisted worldview meant of course that it was depraved - also claimed explicitly that Carove’s so-called defense of Kotzebue’s assassination was “inspired by Hegel.That settled matters for Altenstein; he told Carove that it would be better if he left Berlin, went to the university at Breslau, became a private lecturer (Privatdozenl) and did his “habilitation” there. The writing was now starting to appear on the wall: Hegel’s students were being arrested, his own choice for his teaching assistant was being denounced, and he himself was precariously close to being denounced along with him.
尽管冯·坎普茨已经宣布卡罗韦无罪，维特根施泰因公爵仍在数天后，即1819年12月29日，以威胁的口吻旧事重提，驳回卡罗韦无罪的判决，辩称在他看来，有充分证据表明卡罗韦赞成刺客（桑德）刺杀科策比，而且卡罗韦本人是个“神秘主义者”，无论如何都不应得到柏林大学的任命。维特根施泰因公爵受比他自己更无知、更教条主义的克里斯蒂安·莫里茨·保利的影响，对这件事的来龙去脉进行了诸多揣度。克里斯蒂安·莫里茨·保利不仅声称日耳曼性的学生联谊会的理想实则等同于“犹太性”（在保利扭曲的世界观中，“犹太性”当然意味着堕落），还明确宣称卡罗韦对科策比遇刺的所谓辩护是“由黑格尔授意”。这便给了阿尔滕施泰因一个借口，他告知卡罗韦，如果他离开柏林，前往布雷斯劳大学担任无俸讲师（Privatdozent）并在那里取得“任教资格证”，应是上策。厄运就此开始降临到黑格尔及其弟子头上：黑格尔的弟子遭到逮捕，他对助教的选择受到谴责，他本人也濒临被谴责的边缘。
By March 1820, Carove’s troubles were increasing. The commission in Mainz proposed to Hardenberg new interrogations of Carove, Asverus, and another of Hegel’s students, Leopold Dorotheus von Henning. Carove was interrogated in Breslau on April 15, 1820, and the interrogator reported back to Hardenberg on April 28, 1820, that he indeed suspected Carove of “demagogic activity.” The commission in Mainz received the report on May 13, 1820, and on May 25 Hardenberg sent it to Altenstein, remarking that many things were notable in the report. That sealed Carove’s fate; having already grasped what was afoot, Carove left in April for a long trip to Cologne, Dresden, Prague, Munich, Switzerland, and then back to Cologne. When he did not promptly return, Altenstein took this as the pretext he needed; the Prussian government banned Carove from all academic life. Carove was in fact never to receive an academic position; when he tried to obtain the status of a mere Privatdozent at Heidelberg in 1821, the government was legally compelled to reject his request. Left without any possibility of academic employment, Carove was forced instead to eke out his livelihood for the rest of his life as an independent writer; but he never broke off his affectionate ties to Hegel, even dedicating his book Kosniorama in 1831 to him.*’’
到1820年3月，卡罗韦的麻烦仍在持续。美因茨委员会建议哈登贝格对卡罗韦、阿斯费鲁斯以及黑格尔的另一弟子利奥波德·多罗特乌斯·冯·亨宁进行新一轮审问。卡罗韦于1820年4月15日在布雷斯劳接受审问，审问者于1820年4月28日向哈登贝格汇报了审讯情况，表示确实怀疑卡罗韦有“煽动行为”。美因茨委员会于1820年5月13日收到这份报告，5月25日哈登贝格将报告呈递给阿尔滕施泰因，并表示报告中有很多内容值得关注。这便决定了卡罗韦的命运。按照既定且已在推进的计划，卡罗韦4月将开启从科隆、德雷斯顿、布拉格、慕尼黑、瑞士，最后回到科隆的长途旅行。当卡罗韦未能按时返回时，阿尔滕施泰因以此为借口，普鲁士政府禁止卡罗韦进行任何学术活动。实际上，卡罗韦从未获得过学术职位。1822年，当他试图谋取海德堡无俸讲师职位时，政府依法拒绝了他的请求。由于无法担任学术职位，卡罗韦余生只能被迫以自由撰稿人身份维持生计。不过，他始终与黑格尔保持着深厚的情谊，甚至将他1831年发表的著作《kosmorama》献给黑格尔。
As Carove’s troubles were coming to a head, Hegel also heard from his cousin Ludwig Friedrich Gbriz sometime around May 1820 that his sister, Christiane, had suffered a relapse in her bout with mental illness. This was one more woe to be added to Hegel’s other worries. Hegel wrote to Gbriz a couple of times that this was the most unhappy thing that could befall a man - there is no reason to doubt that is how he felt — and he wondered whether it was “hysteria” brought on by the physiological changes “natural” to her age. However, on June 17, 1820, feeling himself too far away to do anything himself and obviously being unwilling (given the past difficulties between Christiane and Marie) to bring her to Berlin for treatment, Hegel washed his hands of the matter and gave Gbriz full authorization to serve as her guardian so that she could be committed to the sanitarium at Zwiefalten. He also contributed some money for her upkeep so that she could be well attended.
就在卡罗韦遭遇大难之时，大约在1820年5月的某一天，黑格尔收到堂弟路德维希·弗里德里希·格里茨的来信，得知妹妹克里斯蒂亚娜精神病复发。相较于加诸黑格尔身上的其他担忧，妹妹旧病复发是一场更大的灾难。黑格尔多次致信格里茨，称这可能是降临到一个人身上的最大不幸——没有人会怀疑他的这种感受——他不知道旧病复发是否是因她年龄增长引发“自然的”心理变化而导致的“歇斯底里”。然而，1820年6月17日，黑格尔觉得自己离得太远，无法为妹妹做些什么，并且（考虑到过去克里斯蒂亚娜与玛丽之间积怨颇深）显然不愿将妹妹接到柏林治疗，于是决定不插手此事，全权委托格里茨充当她的监护人，以便将她托付给格维法尔滕疗养院。同时，他还拿出一笔钱作为妹妹的抚养费，确保她能得到精心照料。
Hegel’s Second Choice: von Henning
With Carove having been rejected by the authorities, Hegel had to make a second choice for teaching assistant. Somewhat defiantly, he chose Leopold von Henning, an aristocrat who had fought in the wars against Napoleon as a volunteer. Von Henning, a friend of Asverus and Carove, had also been arrested on July 8, 1819, mostly on the basis of comments in some letters that his stepmother sent to him that the authorities (after intercepting the letters) had found “suspicious.” He was held for seven weeks with a policeman guarding the door to his prison cell.“ During von Henning’s imprisonment, Hegel did something a bit extraordinary. Henning’s cell had a window facing the Spree River in Berlin, not far from the university and Hegel’s apartment. Hegel joined his students on a skiff and at midnight they all rowed up to the point at which Henning’s cell window faced the river and began a conversation with him in Latin so that it could not be understood by the guards if they were to overhear it; they wished to let him know that they were convinced of his innocence and that they were working hard to prove it. As the boat pulled up next to Henning’s window, close enough for Hegel and Henning to shake hands, Hegel, aware of the general absurdity of the situation into which he had put himself, uttered in Latin in a mock grave tone, “num me vides” (literally translated: “now you surely see me”), which provoked no small amount of mirth among those present. Hegel then continued with some vague generalities (in Latin), and the group went home, the students amused (and probably a bit surprised) by Hegel’s ironic treatment of the situation, and all (including Hegel) joking about the matter on the way back. (Hegel’s first biographer, Karl Rosenkranz, laconically noted that it would have been all too easy for Hegel to have been shot by a zealous Prussian watchman.)*’“ It took Hegel another whole year, but by July 22, 1820, he had managed to obtain Henning as an official teaching assistant (to be paid the sum of 400 Thalers per year), but Henning was unable to get a certificate of not-guilty from the government and had to teach for a year without pay (in his own apartment, not in a university building) in order to prove his suitability to the authorities.“
黑格尔的第二人选：冯·亨宁
由于选择卡罗韦当助手未获官方批准，黑格尔不得不重新挑选教学助手。他略带挑衅地选择了利奥波德·冯·亨宁。冯·亨宁是个贵族，曾作为志愿兵多次参加反对拿破仑的战争。冯·亨宁作为卡罗韦与阿斯费鲁斯的友人，也曾在1819年7月8日被逮捕，主要是因为当局（截获信件后）在他继母写给他的一些信件中发现了“值得怀疑的”评论。他被关押了7周，牢房门口有警察看守。在冯·亨宁被关押期间，黑格尔做了一件颇为不同寻常的事。亨宁的牢房有扇窗户朝向柏林施普雷河，这条河离柏林大学和黑格尔的寓所不远。黑格尔带着弟子乘坐小船，在午夜时分划到亨宁牢房窗户朝向的施普雷河河面处，并用拉丁语与亨宁交谈，目的是即便被守卫偷听，守卫也听不懂他们在说什么。他们希望让亨宁知道，他们坚信他是清白无辜的，并且正在努力证明他的清白。当小船紧挨着亨宁的窗户停靠，近到黑格尔足以与亨宁握手时，黑格尔意识到自己所处情境极其荒谬，便用低沉的语调说了句拉丁语：“numme vides”（字面直译：“现在你确实看到我了”），引得在场众人哄笑。黑格尔接着继续（用拉丁语）进行了一些含糊的泛泛交谈，最后带着弟子返回，弟子们被黑格尔对这一情境的讽刺式处理逗乐了（很可能还感到有点惊讶），所有人（包括黑格尔）在返回途中都拿这件事打趣。（黑格尔的第一位传记作者卡尔·罗森克兰茨曾简明扼要地指出，黑格尔有可能极易被某个狂热的普鲁士看守射杀。）选择助教这件事又耗费了黑格尔整整一年时间。不过，到1820年7月20日，他设法让亨宁成为他的正式教学助手（年薪为400泰勒）。然而，亨宁未能从政府拿到无罪释放证明，不得不无偿教书一年（住在自己的寓所而非大学公寓），以证明自己的做法符合当局要求。
Dresden: Drinking to the Revolution
Another person who had attached himself to Hegel after Hegel’s move to Berlin, Friedrich Forster, also fell into trouble with the police. Forster shared some of Henning’s profile; he had fought as a volunteer in the wars against Napoleon and, having been severely wounded, had been brought to Berlin to teach at the Royal Artillery and Engineering School there. He was interrogated simply because he published a piece in 1818 that not only called for a constitution for Prussia (something the king had previously promised), but also maintained that laws legitimately come only from the people; and he specifically charged and criticized the director of the ministry of police, von Kamptz, for blocking access to the king. Von Kamptz, a man of little irony and a taste for finding subversives everywhere, was enraged; he had Forster interrogated and then had him suspended from his position in the Royal Artillery and Engineering School. On September 30, 1819, Hardenberg declared Forster unfit for state service, and he was not to be rehabilitated until March 31, 1823.'’''
德累斯顿：为法国大革命举杯
黑格尔移居柏林后，另一位与他关系亲密的人弗里德里希·弗斯特也遭到了警方的盘问。弗斯特与亨宁外貌有些相似，他曾作为志愿者参加反对拿破仑的战争，身负重伤后被调到柏林皇家炮兵工程学校执教。他之所以受到审问，是因为他在1818年发表的一篇文章，不仅要求制定普鲁士宪法（一种先前得到国王应允的宪法），而且坚持法律理应来自人民，还特意控诉和批评警察局长冯·坎普茨阻止人们向国王提意见。冯·坎普茨这个几乎没有幽默感、一心搜寻颠覆分子的人被激怒了，他先是审讯弗斯特，随后将他从皇家炮兵工程学校解职。1819年9月30日，哈登贝格宣布弗斯特不再适合为国家服务，直到1823年3月31日，弗斯特才得以官复原职。
Forster had been a member of Fries’s school, but he had quickly shifted over to Hegelianism. Someone other than Hegel might have taken that as a good reason to keep his distance from Forster; after all. Hegel himself was too close for comfort to many of those being investigated, and becoming associated with Fries in any way might have seemed too dangerous. Instead, Hegel and Forster became and remained good friends. Forster wrote his brother, “Many loyal students of Fries have since come over to become loyal students of Hegel. I would like to know whether any have abandoned Hegel in order to go over to Fries.”
弗斯特原本是弗里斯学派的一员，但很快就转而支持黑格尔主义。有人（除黑格尔外）可能会觉得这是与弗斯特保持距离的充分理由，毕竟黑格尔本人已经与众多受到调查的人关系过于密切，这让他心里很不踏实，如果再与弗斯特有联系，他自己的处境可能就更加危险了。然而，黑格尔却与弗斯特成了好朋友，并一直维持着这份友谊。弗斯特在给兄长的信中写道：“很多曾经忠诚于弗里斯的学生后来改变立场，成了黑格尔的忠实信徒。我倒想知道有没有人抛弃黑格尔转投弗里斯门下。”
Hegel made a quick excursion with Forster in July 1820 for a few days to Dresden to see some of the various art treasures they had there. At the inn called the Blue Star (where Hegel thereafter always stayed when going to Dresden), various friends and compatriots from other universities gathered for dinner (Eduard Cans, another of Hegel’s students and later a close friend, was apparently among them); when the usual local MeiBner wine was offered to Hegel, he rejected it, ordering instead some bottles of Champagne Sillery, the most distinguished champagne of its day.’' Having sent the expensive bottles of Sillery around the table, he then entreated his companions to empty their glasses in the memory of the day on which they were drinking. Everyone happily downed the Sillery, but when it became clear that nobody at the table knew exactly why they should be drinking to that particular day, Hegel turned in mock astonishment and with raised voice declared, “This glass is for the 14th of July, 1789 - to the storming of the Bastille.” Needless to say, those around Hegel were astonished; the old man had not only bought them the finest champagne available, he was drinking to the Revolution at the height of the reaction and at a time when he himself might have been in danger. (But maybe this was not so odd; in 1826, Hegel, once again in the company of young people, again drank a toast to the storming of the Bastille, telling Varnhagen von Ense at the time that he in fact always drank a toast to the storming of the Bastille on July 14.)
1820年7月，黑格尔与弗斯特进行了一次为期数天的德累斯顿短途旅行，去观赏当地的各类艺术珍品。在一家名为蓝星的旅馆（黑格尔此后去德累斯顿旅行时一直都住在此处），来自其他大学的朋友和志同道合者聚集在一起共进晚餐（爱德华·甘斯，黑格尔的另一位门生兼后来的挚友显然也在其中）。当普通的迈斯讷山葡萄酒端到黑格尔面前时，他拒绝饮用，而是点了几瓶当时最有名的西耶里香槟酒。几瓶名贵的西耶里香槟酒摆上桌后，黑格尔提议友人干杯，以纪念他们开怀畅饮的这一天。在场的人都愉快地喝下了香槟，但当显然没有人确切知道为何要为这个特殊日子干杯时，黑格尔佯装吃惊，高声宣布：“这杯酒是为了1789年7月14日——为了巴士底狱风暴而干的。”不用说，黑格尔身旁的人都很惊讶，这位老人不仅买了如此名贵的香槟请大家喝，而且在反动势力猖獗、自身可能身处险境之时，为法国大革命干杯。（不过，这件事或许也并非特别奇怪，1826年，黑格尔再次在年轻人的簇拥下，为巴士底狱风暴干杯，那时他告诉瓦恩哈根·冯·恩泽，他实际上每年7月14日都会为巴士底狱风暴举杯。）
