第13章 独树一帜：柏林和巴黎时期(1824 - 1827)(2)
The Jahrbiicher During this rather trying period, Gans had gradually attached himself to Hegel and perhaps by 1821 (by 1822 at the latest) had become a fullfledged Hegelian. Hegel, a good friend of his teacher, Thibaut, seemed a kind of sympathetic, fatherly figure to Gans; Hegel had a long¬ standing interest in students whom he thought were serious and devoted to Wissensfha/t, and he was unsparing with his time when it came to helping them. At a time when Gans was being rejected by powerful professors such as Savigny, a supportive figure like Hegel was bound to appear all the more attractive. And was it not Hegel who, in Gans’s presence, had toasted the storming of the Bastille during the height of the repression? Hegel himself was also a frequent visitor at many of the social gatherings and salons thrown by the prosperous, emancipated Berlin Jewish community (of which Gans was a member), and thus Hegel seemed to be the kind of successful academic who would be sympathetic to Gans’s ambitions; and Hegel had, of course, openly declared in §270 of his Philosophy of Right that to be true to themselves, modern states were rationally compelled to grant full emancipation to Jews and not to make this emancipation conditional on their conversion to Christianity. Moreover, Gans’s attraction to Hegel and Hegelian philosophy came at a time when he himself had begun to despair (with good reason) of ever being able to accomplish anything in Germany at all; he and some other Berlin Jews had even at one point contemplated emigrating to America and establishing a homeland for emancipated Jews like themselves on the banks of the Mississippi.^' (His friend, the poet Heinrich Heine, a participant in the scheme, joked that the capital would be called “Ganstown.”)^^
《科学批评年鉴》
在这段相当艰难的时期，甘斯逐渐向黑格尔靠拢，或许在1821年（最迟在1822年），他完全成为黑格尔哲学的信徒。在甘斯看来，黑格尔作为他老师蒂鲍特的好友，似乎是一位富有同情心、爱生如子的人物。黑格尔对那些在他看来严肃认真献身科学的学生，始终保持着浓厚的兴趣，并且在他们需要帮助时，从不吝惜自己的时间。在甘斯遭到萨维尼等大牌教授拒绝时，能得到像黑格尔这样的人物支持，必然更具吸引力。而且，不正是黑格尔在甘斯在场时，在镇压最为血腥的时期为巴士底狱风暴干杯吗？黑格尔本人也是许多由学术繁荣、思想解放的柏林犹太人社团（甘斯也是该社团成员）发起的社会集会和沙龙的常客，因此，黑格尔作为学术上功成名就的人士，似乎总是对甘斯的雄心壮志深表同情。当然，黑格尔在《法哲学原理》第270节中公开宣称，对于现代国家本身而言，毫无疑问，现代国家理应合理地承认犹太人享有全面解放的权利，而不应不合理地将这种解放变成他们皈依基督教的条件。不仅如此，甘斯在因在德国一直未能有所建树（这个充分理由）而开始绝望时，受到了黑格尔和黑格尔哲学的吸引。他和其他一些柏林犹太人甚至在此时盘算着移民去美国，在密西西比河沿岸建立一个由像他们一样思想解放的犹太人组成的国家。（他的朋友，诗人海因里希·海涅，也是这套方案的参与制订者，开玩笑说这个国家的首都应该叫作“甘斯城”。）
Under Hegel’s influence, friendship, and encouragement, though, Gans continued his scholarly work on his own, and in 1823 he published a historical study of the Roman law of inheritance that was expressly and openly Hegelian in its theoretical stance, and he sent Hegel a personal copy in October 1823.^^ Both Hegel and Johannes Schulze were quite impressed with Gans’s work, seeing in Gans’s book the best appropriation of Hegel’s thought that had yet been done. In that work, Gans also took off the gloves and began attacking Savigny’s jurispruden¬ tial views with a vengeance (from a more or less Hegelian perspective). Hegel even recommended the work to friends, but there was nothing, it seemed, he could do for Gans’s career, since the king himself had expressly forbidden Jews from holding public offices. In the spring of 1825, Gans took his stipend from Altenstein and set out on a trip abroad, and most of his friends, including Hegel, did not expect to see him ever return to Berlin.
尽管如此，在黑格尔的影响、友情与鼓励下，甘斯继续独立开展学术研究。1823年，他发表了关于罗马法律遗产的历史研究成果，公开表明站在黑格尔派理论立场上。1823年10月，他将这项研究手稿呈给黑格尔。黑格尔和约翰尼斯·舒尔茨对甘斯的研究成果印象深刻，认为这是当时对黑格尔思想最好的吸收。在这部著作中，甘斯（或多或少依据黑格尔的观点）还毫不留情地对萨维尼的法学观点展开攻击。黑格尔甚至向朋友们推荐这部著作，但由于国王已明令禁止犹太人担任公共职务，他似乎无法在事业上给甘斯提供实质帮助。1825年春天，甘斯从阿尔滕施泰因处领取生活补助费后，开始了海外之旅，他的大多数朋友，包括黑格尔在内，都希望他回到柏林后不再离去。
Gans visited Paris from May until December 1825; while in Paris, he moved in the circle of French liberal thinkers such as Benjamin Con¬ stant and liberal constitutionalists such as the philosopher-politician Pierre Paul Royer-Collard. (He also became an unabashed Francophile during this visit.) He visited with Victor Cousin, whom he had met in 1825 during the “Cousin affair” in Berlin, and he met the famous German publisher Baron von Cotta, who at that time was visiting Paris. (Von Cotta was one of the proprietors of one of the major liberal reform journals in Paris, the Constitutionel.) Gans and von Cotta discussed the possibility of a new literary undertaking in Germany, and on his return from Paris, Gans stopped off in Stuttgart to discuss matters with von Cotta. One of Hegel’s pet projects had been the establishment of a new journal that would help to solidify the intellectual forces supporting modern life, and Gans brought up the subject with von Cotta, who was intrigued with Gans’s suggestion (taken from Hegel) that German lit¬ erature needed a “focal point,” and that the scholars associated with the Berlin university - with its modern, nonmedieval foundation - would be ideally suited to provide such a focal point. (Gans himself was interested on his own in such a journal; in 1822, he had proposed to his friend Heinrich Heine that they edit a similar journal together.)2‘*
1825年5月至12月，甘斯访问巴黎。在巴黎期间，他成为了像邦雅曼·康斯坦特这样的法国自由主义思想家，以及像哲学家兼政客皮埃尔·保罗·鲁瓦耶 - 科拉尔这样的自由主义立宪主义者圈子中的一员。（在此期间，他还变得极度亲法。）他拜访了维克托·库赞（上一次见面还是在1825年“库赞事件”期间的柏林），并邂逅了德国著名出版商巴龙·冯·科塔，当时冯·科塔正在巴黎参观。（冯·科塔是巴黎自由主义改革主要期刊《立宪党人》的主办者。）甘斯和冯·科塔一同探讨在德国开展新文学事业的可能性，从巴黎返回途中，甘斯在斯图加特与冯·科塔继续讨论相关问题。黑格尔一直心仪的方案之一便是创办一份新杂志，以增强支持现代生活的知识分子力量。甘斯和冯·科塔确立了这一主题，冯·科塔整合了甘斯（源自黑格尔）的建议：德国文学需要一个“焦点”，与柏林大学——与柏林大学现代而非中世纪的基础——相关联的一些学者，理应非常适合提供这样一个焦点。（甘斯自己对这样一份期刊尤为感兴趣，早在1822年，他就已向好友海因里希·海涅提议，两人共同主编一份类似的杂志。）
After von Cotta expressed a firm interest in the journal (and also agreed to publish the next volumes of Gans’s work on inheritance law), Gans straightway returned to Berlin and immediately called on Hegel at his home on Kupfergraben. He found Hegel sitting at his desk, wearing (typically) his old sleeping gown over his regular clothes while sporting his terribly unfashionable (for the time) large black beret, all the while sorting through a pile of disarranged papers with one hand while taking snuff out of his tin with the other.(One of the most famous pictures of Hegel, done by the lithographer Julius Ludwig Sebbers in 1828, portrayed him in his study wearing the same outfit Hegel’s friend and longtime Whist partner, the musician K. F. Zelter, described the picture to Goethe as making Hegel look like some odd “Doctor Faust. . . with Aristotle at his feet” and said that if the picture had not cost him so much, he would have been sorely tempted to draw a big “rat’s tooth” on iF® - but despite the fame of the picture, Hegel himself disliked it; his wife joked to Christiane Hegel that it annoyed him because of its rather “uncomfortable likeness” to him.)^’ Hegel greeted his friend quite jovially and with characteristic understatement: “Eh, you’re back again; we’ve been waiting for you for some months; privy councilor Schulze thought you’d never come back.”^® When Gans informed Hegel about his conversations and his agreement with von Cotta, Hegel became quite interested, although maintaining a bit of skepticism, but then reassured both himself and Gans with the thought that “Cotta understands this stuff better than all of us, and when he’s started something, we might just as well hand ourselves over to his direction.”^’
在冯·科塔对这份杂志表现出浓厚兴趣（并且还同意出版甘斯继承法著作的另一卷）后，甘斯径直返回柏林，立刻前往库普弗拉格本街黑格尔的家中拜访。他看到黑格尔坐在书桌前，像往常一样，在日常穿着外面套着旧睡衣，还戴着一顶（在当时）极为落伍的大黑贝雷帽，一只手在整理一堆杂乱的论文，另一只手从马口铁器皿中挑出灯花。（黑格尔最著名的画像之一，由尤利乌斯·路德维希·泽贝斯于1828年所作，描绘的就是黑格尔穿着同样不合身的衣服在做学问。黑格尔的友人、长期一起玩惠斯特牌游戏的搭档、音乐家K.F.策尔特，向歌德描述这幅画像，说黑格尔看上去像某种稀奇古怪的“浮士德博士……脚下是亚里士多德”，还说要是这幅画像没耗费他太多精力，他很可能早就忍不住在上面画上一颗大大的“老鼠牙”。尽管这幅画像很有名，但黑格尔自己却讨厌它。黑格尔夫人对克里斯蒂亚娜·黑格尔开玩笑说，这幅画像因为“令人不舒服地像”他，让他感到十分苦恼。）黑格尔愉快地向甘斯打招呼，并说了句很有他风格的话：“呃，你回来了，我们都等你好几个月了，私人评议员舒尔茨还以为你永远不回来了呢。”当甘斯把自己与冯·科塔的会谈内容以及达成的共识告诉黑格尔时，黑格尔虽感兴趣，但也带有一丝怀疑。不过，黑格尔让自己和甘斯都相信，“科塔是我们当中最了解这个项目的人，当他着手做这件事时，我们或许也正好可以跟着他一起干。”
The idea of such a journal appealed to Hegel on several levels. He had always been interested in such undertakings. His first real academic position had been putting out the journal that he and Schelling had edited together, and over the years he had penned several drafts for proposals for starting new journals, most recently in an 1819-20 report for Altenstein. He also had a personal reason for being especially inter¬ ested in the journal. The Academy of Sciences had effectively black¬ balled him; Schleiermacher was one of the main obstacles to his accep¬ tance, and Savigny was another firm opponent of Hegel’s membership. Together, they wanted to limit, if not eliminate, Hegel’s influence in Berlin and in German letters. The animosity toward Schleiermacher was largely personal; both he and Schleiermacher belonged to the re¬ form wings of Prussian politics. But the animosity toward Savigny was also deeply political; Savigny stood for just about everything Hegel argued against, and the anti-Semitic attacks on Cans would only have hardened Hegel’s feelings about him. The idea of setting up a “critical journal” thus offered Hegel a way in which he could set up, as it were, a Counter-Academy on his own, and in fact, when the journal was finally published in January 1827, it was seen by many people as exactly that: Hegel's “counter-Academy,” even derisively called by some the “Hegeljournal.”
创办这样一份杂志的想法在多个层面吸引着黑格尔。他一直对创办杂志抱有兴趣，他最初真正的学术职位便是出版与谢林共同编辑的杂志。在过去几年里，他已为创办新杂志制定了许多草案，最新的是1819 - 1820年间呈交给阿尔滕施泰因报告中的草案。此外，他对杂志情有独钟还有个人原因。科学院极力排挤他，施莱尔马赫是阻止他加入的主要障碍之一，萨维尼则是他争取成员资格的另一强劲竞争对手。总之，他们两人都想削弱（如果不是消除的话）黑格尔在柏林和德国文学界的影响力。黑格尔对施莱尔马赫的厌恶主要出于个人原因，他们俩都属于普鲁士政治改革派。但黑格尔对萨维尼的厌恶同样有着深刻的政治原因，萨维尼赞成的一切几乎都是黑格尔竭力反对的，萨维尼对甘斯的反犹主义攻击，更让黑格尔从感情上对他愈发冷漠。因此，创办“评论杂志”的想法为黑格尔提供了一种途径，通过这种方式，他似乎可以独立创办一个与之抗衡的“学院”。实际上，当杂志最终于1827年1月出版时，很多人就将它视为黑格尔的“抗衡学院”，甚至有人冷嘲热讽地称之为《黑格尔杂志》。
But Hegel’s interest in the journal was based on more than settling a grudge and gaining some status for himself. Hegel’s vision of the mod¬ ern state gave a crucial place to the idea of trained civil servants, the Beamte, running things, and it was the job of the university to train such civil servants and form them, to round out and firm up their sense of Bildung, of self-cultivation, culture, self-direction, and good judg¬ ment. In Hegel’s view of modern life, technical training for the civil servants was not enough; civil servants also had to be cultured and educated, had to be men of good judgment and character for them to be able to assume their role in the “universal estate,” as the movers and doers who could assume positions of authority in any of the modern states irrespective of their own personal hometown backgrounds. Cru¬ cial therefore to a civil servant’s cultural education was his acquiring a sense of philosophy - which for Hegel of course meant his own idealistic philosophy, philosophy as Wissenschaft, not just as a loose connection of maxims by which to live; well-educated, cultured civil servants had to have a sense of how the whole of modern life hung together, and only philosophy could give them that sense of the whole. It was not enough, though, simply to give civil servants a good education at the university and then expect that to suffice for the rest of their lives. Modern Wissenschaft was too dynamic, too much in process, for that to be possible. The purpose of such a journal would therefore be to give those movers and doers of post-revolutionary German life an ongoing educa¬ tion in progress in the “sciences” that would allow them to keep up with developments in them, not to acquaint them with new techniques or methods but to maintain their Btldung, their status as “learned, cultured” men.
然而，黑格尔对杂志的兴趣并非仅仅基于回应怨恨和为自己争取地位。黑格尔对现代国家的构想，为培训国民公仆、国务院及管理事务等理念提供了关键的空间。大学的职责在于培训这样的国民公仆并塑造他们，培养和巩固他们的教养意识、自我教养意识、文化意识、自我指导意识以及良好的判断意识。按照黑格尔对现代生活的看法，仅仅对国民公仆进行技术培训远远不够，他们还必须有教养、受过教育，具备良好的判断力和品格，以便能够以“普通等级”的身份担当重任，就像一些活动家和实干家可以在现代国家担任权威职位，而无需计较个人的出身背景。对于国民公仆的文化教育而言，至关重要的是他们要获得一种哲学意识——在黑格尔看来，这里的哲学当然指他自己的唯心主义哲学或作为科学的哲学，哲学绝非指导生活的松散格言。受过良好教育且有文化的国民公仆必须意识到整个现代生活是如何整合的，而只有哲学才能赋予他们这种整体意识。然而，仅仅为公仆提供良好的大学教育，然后期望他们在余生都满足于此，这远远不够。现代学科发展动力强劲，现代科学进步迅猛，他们无法仅仅满足于大学教育。因此，这样一份杂志的目的在于为那些身处后革命时期德国生活中的行动者和实干家，提供特定“科学”发展的继续教育，使他们能够跟上特定“科学”的发展步伐，能够通过新的技术或方法掌握特定“科学”，从而维持他们的修养，保持他们“学识渊博、有教养”的地位。
In this respect, the Academy of Sciences was clearly not suited to the job. Besides having no real philosophy in it (thanks mostly to Schleiermacher), it had devolved into an academic clique devoted to the pursuit at best of “science” for its own sake and neglecting the public role that “science” had to play in modern life itself. Hegel thus never conceived of the new publication as a Hegelian journal; it was never intended to propagate Hegel’s philosophy but to propagate the ideal of Wissenschaftcormected-with-Bildung in general. Not surprisingly, Hegel’s oppo¬ nents’ charges that the Jahrbucher were only “Hegel journals” were immediately rebutted by the members of the editorial board, who quite rightly pointed out that many of the key articles were written by people who by no stretch of the imagination could be said to have anything to do with Hegel’s philosophy. But given the hothouse atmosphere, the competition for status, and the sense of the stakes being high circulating in Berlin at the time, the charge of its being a “Hegel journal” proved difficult to shake.
在这方面，柏林科学院显然不适合此项工作。除了柏林科学院内部没有真正的哲学体系（主要是施莱尔马赫的原因）之外，它早已沦为一个学院派团体，至多只是为了“科学”本身而追求“科学”，却忽视了“科学”在现代生活中应扮演的公共角色。因此，黑格尔从未将这份新出版物设想为一份黑格尔哲学杂志，它并非旨在宣传黑格尔哲学，而是旨在宣传通常与教养相关联的科学理想。毫不奇怪，黑格尔的对手指责《科学批评年鉴》只不过是《黑格尔杂志》，这一指责随即遭到编辑部成员的反驳，他们公正地指出，很多关键文章实际上出自与黑格尔哲学毫无关系的人之手。然而，考虑到当时的环境、地位竞争以及在柏林迅速传播的问题意识，关于它是《黑格尔杂志》的指责很难被消除。
Hegel, Cans, and Hotho continued to discuss the possibility of such a journal (with Hegel fretting over all the small details - to Gans’s mild irritation - and always bringing up all the ways in which the whole enterprise could fall apart). Finally, though, the die was cast.“ Hegel circulated a memorandum around the university to interested parties on July 16, 1826, and when Marie was away with the children, Hegel had a meeting with the interested parties at his home on July 23, 1826, at which time the Sozietdt fur wissenschaftliche Kritik (Society for Scientific Criticism) was founded pretty much along the lines Hegel had sug¬ gested, with its publication to be called the ‘'^Jahrbucher fiir wissenschaftItche Kritik’’’’ (“Yearbooks for Scientific Criticism”). The “Yearbooks” were to be a general review of progress in the sciences and of new discoveries; no scholarly compendia, no pastoral works, no schoolbooks, no editions of the classics, and no purely technical works were to be reviewed; and there was to be no anonymity among the reviewers. The general setup of the “society” was like that of the Academy of Sciences: There were three sections called “classes” - philosophical, natural sci¬ entific, and historical-philological - with secretaries for each “class” and rules and regulations binding everything. Gans was elected secretary for the whole “society” and was put in charge of all its affairs (in other words, scheduling meetings and, most importantly, taking care of all the work involved in publishing the “Yearbooks”). One obvious out¬ come of this (which Hegel’s opponents noted) was that Hegel had finally secured a potentially powerful position for his friend and follower that skirted all the objections that the reactionary, anti-Semitic forces had mustered against Gans.
黑格尔、甘斯和霍托继续探讨创办这样一份杂志的可能性（黑格尔对所有细节问题都考虑得相当周全——这让甘斯有些无奈——并且始终提出整个事业可能失败的各种因素）。最终，这个方案得以实施。1826年7月16日，黑格尔让大学里对此感兴趣的人员传阅一份便笺，当玛丽和子女不在家时，1826年7月23日，黑格尔在家中召集对办杂志有兴趣的人开会。与此同时，“科学批评协会”（Sozietät für wissenschaftliche Kritik）按照黑格尔先前提出的思路成立，其出版物被命名为《科学批评年鉴》（Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik）。《科学批评年鉴》旨在对自然科学的发展和新发现进行一般性评论，学术概略、田园诗式作品、教科书、经典版本和纯技术作品均不在评论范围内，评论家将一律署真名。“科学批评协会”的总体设置类似于科学院，设有三个“分类”部分——哲学分类、自然科学分类和历史哲学分类，每个“分类”都配备秘书，并设有准则和规章来规范一切事务。甘斯被选为整个“科学批评协会”的秘书，掌管所有事务（换句话说，安排会议日程，最重要的是，负责涉及出版《科学批评年鉴》的所有工作）。（黑格尔的对手指出）这一举措的明显结果是，黑格尔最终为友人和追随者保留了潜在的重要职位，因为这在一定程度上掩盖了反动的反犹主义势力针对甘斯的异议。
Hegel and Gans, however, differed in some crucial ways about what shape the “Yearbooks” should take. Hegel thought that the “Year¬ books” should be a state-supported institution with its impartiality and authority guaranteed; Hegel had in mind something like the indepen¬ dence of the judiciary and of civil servants in general, and, ever the admirer of France, he also thought that since t\\t Journal des Savants in France was state-sponsored and impartial, so too should the Berlin journal be state-sponsored and impartial. Gans, on the other hand, younger and more republican-oriented, wanted it to be free of state control of all sorts (including financial control). Gans also wanted it to be modeled after Le Globe, a more recent, independent journal in France, and not after xht Journal des Savants (which Gans knew to be much the stuffier of the two). Le Globe was edited by men of Gans’s age; it was more intellectual, more romantic, less stuffy, and, curiously, more philosophical than the Journal des Savants. Interestingly, Victor Cousin had his feet in both camps; he was, however, much more the spiritual leader of the group putting out Le Globe than he was vis-a-vis the Journal des Savants. But Hegel was by and large to get his way on the matter, even though Gans was to inject a bit of the spirit of Le Globe into the life of the “Yearbooks.
然而，黑格尔和甘斯在《科学批评年鉴》应采取何种形式的一些关键问题上产生了分歧。黑格尔认为，《科学批评年鉴》应成为一个得到政府支持的公共机构，确保立场公正、具有权威性。他觉得该年鉴总体上应具备类似司法部和公务员的独立性，并且，作为法国文化的推崇者，他还认为，既然法国的《学者杂志》由国家主办且立场公正，那么柏林的这份杂志同样也应由政府主办且保持公正。另一方面，年轻气盛且倾向共和制的甘斯，则希望杂志摆脱国家的各种控制（包括财政控制）。甘斯还想让杂志效仿《地球》这份近期更为独立的法国杂志，而非《学者杂志》（因为在甘斯看来，《学者杂志》比《地球》沉闷乏味得多）。《地球》由与甘斯同时代的人编辑，富有知识性，带有浪漫色彩，并不沉闷，而且，奇怪的是，《地球》比《学者杂志》更具哲学性。颇为有趣的是，维克托·库赞在这两份杂志中左右逢源，不过，他是《地球》出版团队的精神领袖，而非《学者杂志》的。尽管如此，黑格尔大体上还是按自己的想法推进此事，尽管甘斯势必会将《地球》的某些精神融入《科学批评年鉴》之中。
Thus, although the “Yearbooks” were not (as its critics charged) only “Hegel journals” dedicated to propagating Hegelianism, the society constituting it was nonetheless sharply characterized by who was not a member: Neither Schleiermacher nor Savigny was ever asked to join, and it was clear why. This was a bit embarrassing, since both Schleier¬ macher and Savigny were major intellectual figures in their time. The issue touched a nerve with Hegel. When in December 1826 (about five months after the journal’s initial founding), it was proposed that Schleiermacher and Savigny be made members, Hegel exploded and flew into a rage. He leapt from his chair and angrily paced the room, muttering that bringing Schleiermacher into the “society” would be tantamount to throwing him out of it. In what members recalled as one of the “stormiest” sessions ever held (with raised voices and much contention), it was finally resolved that it was perhaps “imprudent” at that time to extend an invitation to Schleiermacher. (Even Gans thought that Hegel’s opposition to Schleiermacher on this point had become purely personal.The proposal was never to be tendered again.
因此，尽管《科学批评年鉴》并不像其批评者所指责的那样，仅仅是致力于宣传黑格尔哲学的《黑格尔杂志》，但它的创建者——“科学批评协会”的鲜明特征，依然受到协会以外成员的关注。施莱尔马赫和萨维尼都未被邀请加入协会，原因显而易见。这多少有些尴尬，因为施莱尔马赫和萨维尼在当时都是知识界的重量级人物。这个问题触动了黑格尔的敏感神经。1826年12月（大约在杂志创办5个月后），当有人提议应吸收施莱尔马赫和萨维尼为协会成员时，黑格尔大发雷霆，怒不可遏。他从椅子上跳起来，气愤地在房间里踱来踱去，叹息着说，让施莱尔马赫加入“科学批评协会”，就等于把他黑格尔踢出协会。在协会成员记忆中堪称协会“最激烈”（嗓门最高且备受关注）的一次会议上，争论最终以当时邀请施莱尔马赫加入协会或许“过于轻率”而得以平息。（甚至连甘斯也认为，黑格尔在这一关键时刻与施莱尔马赫的对抗，已完全演变成个人恩怨。）此后，再也没人提起让施莱尔马赫加入协会的提议。
The “Yearbooks” were unfortunately only partially successful. They never managed to generate enough subscriptions to pay for themselves, and, to Hegel’s disappointment, the government at first refused to offer any financial support for such a venture, although after Von Cotta recorded a loss of 2,700 Thalers for 1827 and 1828, Altenstein was eventually able to obtain an 800 Thaler per year subvention for the “Yearbooks,” which allowed their continued publication until some years after Hegel’s death.^^ Even Hegel was disappointed in the results; the articles, he thought, had turned out to be too scholarly and tedious to have the kind of general public interest he had intended. He even complained to Niethammer on August 9, 1827, that “to me [the articles] have, vis-a-vis the viewpoint taken in our original plans, turned out almost too learned. However, we German scholars - but fortunately we philosophers do not belong to the class of scholars - are only with great difficulty phased out of our learnedness, thoroughness (Grundlichkeit) and mere shop talk.”-’'* However, not everyone was disappointed with the “Yearbooks”; in a reversal, Schleiermacher himself found the first issues quite good and even found Hegel’s pieces in them quite interest¬ ing; but he still found it distasteful that the “Yearbooks” were, in his opinion, only a “Hegel journal.”-’^
可惜的是，《科学批评年鉴》在某些方面只取得了部分成功。它始终未能吸引足够的订阅量来维持收支平衡，令黑格尔失望的是，政府起初拒绝为这样的风险提供任何财政支持。尽管据冯·科塔记录，在1827 - 1828年间亏损2700泰勒后，阿尔滕施泰因最终为《科学批评年鉴》争取到每年800泰勒的补助金，使得该年鉴能够继续出版，直至黑格尔去世数年后。即便黑格尔自己也对这一结果大失所望，他认为有些文章过于学术化、单调乏味，难以引起他所期望的普通公众的兴趣。1827年8月9日，他甚至向尼特哈默尔抱怨道：“在我看来，[有些文章]与我们最初计划采用的观点相悖，几乎过于学术化了。然而，我们德国学者——但庆幸的是，我们哲学家不属于这类学者——根本很难做到深入浅出，一味追求严谨（Gründlichkeit），满口专业行话。”然而，并非所有人都对《科学批评年鉴》感到失望，恰恰相反，施莱尔马赫本人觉得最初发行的几期相当出色，甚至黑格尔发表在上面的文章也颇有趣味。但他仍然觉得不满意的是，在他看来，某些期的《科学批评年鉴》俨然成了《黑格尔杂志》。
Gans had set the ball rolling for the “Yearbooks” on his trip to Paris, which in another way had proven terribly eventful for Gans. For reasons he never publicly explained but which were obvious, Gans had himself baptized into the Christian faith in Paris on December 12, 1825. Gans’s conversion was almost certainly what Heinrich Heine, Gans’s close friend, described it as being: an “entry ticket” into the academic world, not a deep change of religious sentiment. Gans never expressed any particular religiosity or attachment to Christianity. Gans’s official con¬ version, however, deeply shook the Jewish community in Berlin; it particularly distressed his friend Heine, who had already converted before Gans’s change of heart for much the same reason (not a belief in Christianity but an acceptance that one had to formally acknowledge it if one was to have a career in Prussia). Gans was considered by all to be the best man to push for emancipation: Intellectually and organization¬ ally gifted, possessing enormous energy and appeal, Gans had, after all, heroically challenged the Prussians on their own terms to live up to the edict of 1812 and had not backed down. Gans was the great hope, the hero of a multitude of people in Berlin seeking to realize the postNapoleonic reform ideals, and his conversion was widely seen as a depressing blow to hopes for Jewish emancipation. Even those who, like Heine, had made the same decision were profoundly saddened by Gans’s decision, even though its real basis was clear to all. Gans himself was reported to have said of his conversion, “If the state is so stupid as to forbid me to serve it in a capacity which suits my particular talents unless I profess something I do not believe - and something which the responsible minister knows I do not believe; all right then, it shall have its wish.”^^
早在去巴黎旅行期间，甘斯就已着手筹备《科学批评年鉴》的创刊工作，而这件事却以另一种方式给甘斯带来了极其糟糕的影响。出于某些甘斯从未公开解释但原因明显的因素，1825年12月12日，甘斯在巴黎接受洗礼，皈依基督教。甘斯的皈依几乎无疑像他的挚友海因里希·海涅所描述的那样，只是一张进入学术界的“入场券”，并不代表他在宗教情感上有深刻的转变。甘斯从未表现出对基督教有特殊的宗教信仰或依恋。然而，甘斯的正式皈依却让柏林犹太人社团大为震惊，尤其让他的友人海涅感到沮丧，因为海涅自己在甘斯改变信仰之前，就因许多相同的原因改变了自己的信仰（并非真正信仰基督教，而是接受了若想在普鲁士找份工作，就不得不从形式上认可基督教这一现实）。甘斯被所有人视为推动思想解放的最佳代表，凭借其在智力和组织方面的天赋，以及旺盛的精力和强大的吸引力，甘斯始终英勇地挑战着墨守1812年法令的普鲁士人，并坚持自己原有的主张。甘斯是众多试图实现后拿破仑一世时期改革理想的柏林人心目中的伟大希望和英雄，他改变信仰被广泛视为对犹太人思想解放希望的沉重打击。即便那些像海涅一样做出相同决定的人，也为甘斯的决定感到惋惜，尽管在所有人看来，甘斯做出这一决定的真正原因一目了然。甘斯本人这样描述自己的皈依：“如果国家愚蠢到，除非我承认某种我并不相信的东西——而且有责任感的部长也知道我并不相信——否则就阻止我以适合自己特殊天赋的能力为它服务，那么，国家就只能这样了。”
His conversion did, however, serve its purpose; on March 13, 1826, Gans was appointed an “extraordinary” professor in the law faculty, and, to Savigny’s horror, Hegel now had a follower on the law faculty at Berlin. Gans became a phenomenal success as a teacher, and his scholarly career continued its upward climb, but the disputes between him and Savigny became more open and bitter, and Savigny clearly felt himself under attack by the “Hegelians.” (“The Hegelians passionately hang together like a sect and have become my powerful opponents,” Savigny complained in 1826.)^' On November 15, 1828, a cabinet order from the king empowered Altenstein to name Gans to a position of “ordinary” professor on the law faculty, which Altenstein promptly did on December ii over Savigny’s loud protests. Gans tried to reconcile with Savigny, but Savigny repelled Gans, refusing to have anything to do with him.^* Savigny even enlisted the crown prince on his side in the dispute. For Savigny and his followers, Gans’s conversion was irrelevant; in their eyes and in the eyes of those who sympathized with them, Gans remained a Jew on the faculty. But the deed was done: A Hegelian now held one of the most prestigious positions on the law faculty, and his charismatic personality was drawing students to his lectures not just by the hundreds but sometimes by the thousands.
不过，他的皈依确实达到了目的。1826年3月13日，甘斯被聘为法律系的“杰出”教授，这让萨维尼极为恐慌，因为此时黑格尔在柏林大学法律系有了一位追随者。甘斯作为教师取得了巨大成功，他的学术生涯蒸蒸日上，而他与萨维尼之间的争论却愈发公开和激烈，萨维尼明显感觉到自己正受到“黑格尔哲学信徒”的攻击。（“黑格尔哲学信徒紧密团结在一起，已成为我强有力的对手。”萨维尼在1826年抱怨道。）1828年11月15日，国王通过内阁下诏，授权阿尔滕施泰因在法律系为甘斯安排“普通”教授职位，阿尔滕施泰因于12月11日立即办妥此事，尽管萨维尼对此高调反对。甘斯试图与萨维尼和解，但萨维尼不予理会，断绝与甘斯的来往，甚至在争论中争取让王室站在自己这边。对于萨维尼及其追随者，以及那些同情他们的人来说，甘斯的皈依无关紧要，在他们眼中，甘斯在法律系依旧是个犹太人。然而，显而易见的是，一位黑格尔哲学信徒占据了法律系最显赫的职位之一，他的人格魅力吸引了成百上千的学生前来聆听他的讲座。
Satire, Saphir, and Unexpected Troubles
Berlin Wit
The “Yearbooks” were not Hegel’s only endeavor related to periodicals. During this same period, he also became good friends with one of Berlin’s leading humorists, Moritz Gottlieb Saphir. Saphir (born 1793 as Moishe Saphir) was a Hungarian Jew who came to Berlin via Vienna in 1825. He caused a scandal immediately in Berlin by publishing a poem supposedly extolling the virtues of Henriette Sontag (an ex¬ tremely popular singer with the Berlin theater), who herself had also come to Berlin in 1825; Saphir revealed after the poem was published that it was an acrostic, the letters of its first lines spelling out ''ungeheure Ironie''’ (“monstrous irony”).” There was talk of a scandal, and Saphir became famous because of it. His newfound renown landed him the editorship of a recently founded newspaper, the Berliner Schnellpost fur Literalur, Theater, und Geselligkett {Berlin Express for Literature, Theater and Good Fellowship), which began publication in January 1826. (It had a postal coach on its masthead, and the additional sections of the paper were labeled ‘‘‘‘Beiwagenf “accompanying coaches.”) Saphir and his collaborators wrote often devastating, and always very humorous, re¬ views of plays and operas; they commented with barbed wit on the Berlin scene, and Saphir laced it all with his own esprit, which was a combination of bon mots, word play, roguish anecdotes, and the occa¬ sional sexual innuendo. (Like all wit, it does not transfer well across time; but here is one of the favorite Saphir jokes, told all across Berlin at the time - to be expressed in the properly overdrawn, authoritative tone of voice: “Are these gentlemen brothers?” “Of the one I am sure of it; of the other one, I can’t say for certain.”)"*® Saphir then started another, similar paper in 1827, which was equally successful: Der Ber¬ liner Courier, ein Morgenblatt fiir Theater, Mode, Eleganz, Stadtleben und Lokalitdt {The Berlin Courier, a Morning Paper for Theater, Fashion, Elegance, City Life, and Local News) Even the king read Saphir’s papers, and his pleasure in Saphir’s humor gave Saphir some latitude against the censors that others did not enjoy. The Schnellpost was an immediate success; its circulation for the first year was 1,300, and in 1827 its circulation reached 2,500 by subscription alone. (Since Berlin at that time had a population of 220,000, one person in eighty-eight was sub¬ scribing to the Schnellpost, and even more - from all classes, from the king to carriage drivers - were reading it.)*' Hegel himself began to write for the Schnellpost, publishing a review of a theater piece in 1826, and he encouraged his students to write for it. In 1827, Saphir also founded a society dedicated to generalized tomfoolery called the “in¬ verted world.” (Initiates were called “classics,” one had to say “bad” when one meant “good,” and so on.)^^ Saphir took to dressing extrava¬ gantly, if not outrageously, even sporting a curly blond wig for a while. But not everybody was equally enamored of Saphir’s wit and word play; Saphir offended all kinds of official people, and the police, aware that Saphir could lose the king’s protection any day, insisted on giving him only temporary residence permits instead of full Berlin citizenship. In 1829, Saphir finally went too far: He published an article calling for, of all things, freedom of the press; humor was one thing, but freedom of the press was another; the king was no longer amused, and the police immediately expelled Saphir from Prussia.
讽刺的、有趣的、意外的麻烦
柏林的风趣
《科学批评年鉴》并非黑格尔唯一参与的期刊相关工作。在同一时期，他还与柏林一流幽默作家之一莫里茨·戈特利布·萨巴成为好友。萨巴（1793年出生时名为莫斯克·萨巴）是匈牙利裔犹太人，1825年经维也纳来到柏林。他因发表一首据称称赞亨利埃特·松塔格（柏林剧院极受欢迎的歌唱家）美德的诗作而在柏林引发丑闻，亨利埃特·松塔格本人也于1825年来到柏林。萨巴在这首诗发表后透露，该诗是一首离合诗，诗的开头几行字母清晰地表明“xnge Rexre Irozie”（“巨大的讽刺”），暗示这是一桩丑闻，萨巴也因此诗一举成名。他一夜成名，很快获得了一家新创办报纸《柏林文学、戏剧和社交快报》（*Berliner Schnellpost für Literatur, Theater, und Geselligkeit*）的编辑职位，该报于1826年1月开始发行。（这家报纸的报头有一辆邮政汽车，报纸副刊带有“边车”“附随的汽车”标志，萨巴及其合作者撰写的戏剧和歌剧评论往往具有批判性，却又总是非常风趣幽默。他们以讽刺的智慧评论柏林社会，萨巴用自己独特的才智——名言、文字游戏、无赖的奇闻轶事和偶然的暗讽相结合——对柏林社会的一切进行调侃。和所有的幽默一样，萨巴的智慧未能巧妙地经得住时间考验。不过，这里有一则当时在全柏林城广为流传且深受欢迎的萨巴笑话——以一种故作权威的夸张语调表述：“这些先生是兄弟吗？”“关于这位先生，我敢肯定他是兄弟；但是，关于另一位先生，我不确定他是不是兄弟。”萨巴接着在1827年创办了另一份类似的报纸《柏林信使，戏剧、时尚、典雅、城市生活和地方新闻晨报》（*Der Berliner Corrier, ein Morgenblatt für Theater, Mode, Eleganz, Stadtleben, Lokalität*），同样取得了成功。甚至连国王也阅读萨巴的文章，因喜爱他的幽默而特许他免受书报检查官审查，而其他人则无此待遇。《柏林文学、戏剧和社交快报》很快获得成功，第一年发行量为1300份，到1827年，仅订户就高达2500家。（因为当时柏林人口为220000人，每88个人中就有一人订阅该报，而且还有更多来自各个阶层的人——从国王到马车夫——都在阅读这份报纸。）黑格尔自己也开始为《柏林文学、戏剧和社交快报》撰稿，1826年发表了一篇戏剧评论，并鼓励弟子为该报投稿。1827年，萨巴还创办了一个致力于推广“颠倒世界”理念的协会（入门教材被称作“经典之作”，在这个协会里，人们想说“好的”时必须说“坏的”，等等）。萨巴穿着极其夸张，甚至有段时间还戴着卷曲的金色假发。然而，并非所有人都欣赏萨巴的幽默和文字游戏。他得罪了各类官员，警察意识到萨巴总有一天可能会失去国王的庇护，因此只允许他享有临时居住许可，而非柏林市民的全部权利。1829年，萨巴终于做得太过火了：他发表了一篇要求新闻自由的文章。幽默是一回事，新闻自由又是另一回事。国王不再觉得有趣，警察随后将萨巴逐出普鲁士。
Hegel’s friendship with Saphir was typical of his “dual life,” as Hegel’s son described it. Ever the proper bourgeois professor, Hegel also had a need to hang out with swift-tongued artists, bohemians of various stripes, and figures somewhat on the margin of things. Both Hegel and Cans were Saphir’s friends and shared many evenings to¬ gether with Saphir. Saphir even embroiled Hegel (or Hegel perhaps embroiled himself) in what turned out to be a legendary comical inci¬ dent among that crowd in Berlin. In May 1826, Carl Schall came to Berlin; Schall was a high-living, big-spending, grandly eating (and very rotund) dilettante, a passionate devotee of the theater and of actresses in particular, who, after scoring big in the lottery, decided that Berlin would be a nice place to indulge his tastes. Like so many Berliners at the time, he was totally smitten with Henriette Sontag, the beautiful, chaste singer in the musicals staged in the main Berlin theater. (People spoke of “Sontag fever” at the time.) Saphir, always the debunker, was, on the other hand, forever making jokes at Sontag’s expense in his newspaper. As Sontag announced that she was leaving Berlin for Paris, a group of admirers, including Schall, met at the Cafe Royal in Berlin the night before her last performance to plan an homage to her, finally deciding that they would litter the stage with poems written in her honor immediately upon conclusion of the final performance. Saphir remarked that he too would throw a poem onto the stage but in honor of one of the members of the chorus, a young woman of, as it were, tarnished reputation. Schall exploded at this perceived insult to Sontag, and, claiming to defend Sontag’s honor against Saphir’s insults, chal¬ lenged Saphir to a duel, which Saphir accepted. The challenge itself was already absurd; Schall, whose size was round and grand, even joked that Saphir, tall and very thin, would not make as good a target as him. The duel was set for the next day. Schall and his second showed up; Saphir showed up alone. All waited, tensely, for Saphir’s second to appear. Who, after all, in Berlin would agree to be the second for that outrageous Jewish humorist.^ Finally, a taxi-coach pulled up bearing Saphir’s second, and out stepped, of all people, Hegel! - all of which suddenly gave the whole scene, as one observer put it, an “irresistibly comical air.”‘‘^ From that moment on, it was clear that no duel was to take place; Hegel persuaded Schall - he was also one of Schall’s friends - to apologize to Saphir, and everything was put back in order. Berlin wit had won the day.
黑格尔与萨巴的友情，恰如黑格尔儿子所描述的，是黑格尔“双重生活”的典型体现。身为一位彼时得体的资产阶级教授，黑格尔也需要与一群直言不讳的艺术家、形形色色不拘小节的艺术家以及与世无争之人交往。黑格尔和甘斯都是萨巴的常客，他们一同度过了许多个不眠之夜。萨巴甚至让黑格尔卷入（确切地说，黑格尔或许是自愿卷入）了一场在柏林人群中成为传奇的喜剧性事件。1826年5月，卡尔·沙尔来到柏林。沙尔是个生活优渥、挥霍无度、讲究吃喝（且身材极为肥胖）的业余艺术爱好者，尤其痴迷戏剧，对女演员更是热情追捧。在中了一次大奖后，他认定柏林将是他纵情声色的好地方。和当时许多柏林市民一样，他完全倾倒于亨利埃特·松塔格的魅力之下，松塔格是柏林主要剧院上演的音乐剧中美丽质朴的歌手。（当时人们常说萨巴是“松塔格的狂热粉丝”。）另一方面，一贯爱揭露的萨巴，总在自己的报纸上取笑松塔格的开销。当松塔格宣称她将离开柏林前往巴黎时，一群爱慕者，包括沙尔在内，在她最后一场演出的前一晚，聚集在柏林皇家咖啡馆，商议以何种方式向她表达敬意，最终决定在她演出结束后，立刻用写满祝贺诗的纸张铺满舞台。萨巴则表示，他也会往舞台上扔诗，但祝贺的对象是合唱队中一位年轻貌美却名声不佳的女子。沙尔因松塔格受到侮辱而大发雷霆，声称要为捍卫松塔格的荣誉，向萨巴发起决斗挑战，萨巴接受了挑战。这场挑战本身就荒谬至极，身材圆胖的沙尔甚至嘲笑身材高瘦的萨巴，称他不会像自己一样受女性青睐。决斗定在第二天进行。按照约定，沙尔及其助手准时到场，而萨巴独自现身。所有人都在屏息等待萨巴助手的出现，毕竟在柏林，究竟有谁会愿意成为这个蛮横犹太幽默家的助手呢？最终，一名出租车司机停车充当萨巴的助手，就在这时，黑格尔从人群中走了出来！黑格尔的出现，瞬间给整个场景增添了一种如一位观察者所描述的“无法抗拒的滑稽氛围”。从这一刻起，显然决斗不会发生了，黑格尔说服了沙尔——黑格尔也是沙尔的朋友之一——向萨巴赔礼道歉，一切恢复如常。这一天，柏林式的风趣取得了胜利。
The Surprise Birthday Party
For almost the entire summer of 1826, Marie and the children were away from Berlin visiting the relatives in Nuremberg. Hegel passed his time working very hard (he admitted to Marie and the boys that “I have certainly been able to work more on things since you are away”), playing Whist with his friends, and socializing with Gans."^ In fact, by the middle of August 1826, he remarked to Marie and the children that “I’m living very quietly; I see virtually only Gans, my true friend and companion.Gans quite shrewdly kept it a secret from Hegel that his friends were planning a large birthday celebration for him. On August 26 (the day before his birthday), Hegel went over to the home of his friend August Friedrich Bloch’s house for (what else.?) a game of Whist (with his usual partners, the painter Rdsel and the music teacher Zelter). As a ruse, Hegel’s partners put off beginning the game of Whist on account of a late dinner, and when midnight struck they brought out the wine and began toasting Hegel’s birthday (the 27th). The next morning, well-wishers came to visit Hegel at his house, and letters with poems began arriving. (Even the powerful von Kamptz, the head of police, paid a friendly visit.)
意想不到的生日宴会
几乎在1826年整个夏天，玛丽和她的子女都离开柏林，前往纽伦堡走亲戚。这段时间里，黑格尔工作十分努力（他向玛丽和儿子承认，“自你们离开后，我当然能投入更多时间做事”），还会和朋友玩惠斯特牌游戏，与甘斯一同出入社交场合。实际上，到1826年8月中旬，他写信给玛丽和子女说：“我的生活很平静，我每天真正见到的只有甘斯这位挚友和同事。”甘斯巧妙地对黑格尔隐瞒了朋友们计划为他举办盛大生日宴会的事。8月26日（生日前一天），黑格尔（与他平常的牌友画家罗塞尔和音乐教师策尔特）前往朋友奥古斯特·弗里德里希·布洛赫家（或其他什么地方）玩惠斯特纸牌游戏。作为密谋的一部分，黑格尔的牌友们以晚餐推迟为由，相应地推迟了游戏开始时间。当午夜钟声敲响时，他们拿出葡萄酒，为黑格尔8月27日的生日干杯。次日清晨，所有牌友都前往黑格尔的住所拜访，写有诗的信件也按时送达。（甚至连位高权重的警察局长冯·坎普茨也友好地前来黑格尔寓所拜访。）
For dinner, Hegel was invited to the opening of a new cafe - a Lokal, as the Germans call it, named after the great boulevard in Berlin, Unter den Linden - in the heart of the city for a birthday dinner, and, after the dinner, a delegation of students led by Forster and Gans suddenly arrived bringing with them a silver cup on a velvet cushion with poems inside the cup celebrating Hegel. (The poems were bound in green, and in gold lettering was inscribed, “To the 27th of August, 1827”). The silver merchant, Hegel proudly noted, had also been one of his students. Rosel presented him a small antique Egyptian statue of Isis, and he received a crystal flower vase from another student. It was then an¬ nounced that his triends had commissioned the most famous student of the most famous sculptor living in Berlin (Ludwig Wilhelm Wichmann, the student of Christian Daniel Rauch) to do a bust of Hegel. (Rauch himself had pleaded that he was overcommitted and could not do it himself; Wichmann finished the bust in 1828.) The celebration then extended late into the night amid much music and fanfare, and after midnight (the 28th), Goethe’s birthday was cele¬ brated alongside Hegel’s. Gans gave a speech celebrating Goethe as having both been witness to the birth of modern German letters and having since developed that literature, and Hegel as having been witness to modern (German) philosophy that had destroyed the old metaphysics and then having also developed it. This is, Gans said, “a festival of German art and German Wissenschaft."*^ Zelter then read a new poem by Goethe. Hegel gave a long speech at midnight having to do with his feelings about being surrounded by such devoted friends and students. He noted how much younger he felt in the presence of those students, but also how there comes a time when one suddenly realizes that one is no longer young oneself, that one is now the elder person in relation to youth, and how that time had finally come for him (a common theme for Hegel after 1820). He also reminisced about how he himself had grown up under the influence of a great poetic spirit, Goethe, and at that he raised his glass and drank to Goethe’s birthday, thereby setting off another round of celebration and drinking.
晚宴期间，黑格尔还应邀参加一家新咖啡馆的开张仪式（一家以柏林林荫大道椴树命名的酒吧，德语中如此称呼），庆生晚宴在柏林市中心举行。晚宴后，以福斯特为首的学生代表和甘斯带着一只银色杯子突然现身，银杯放在柔软的垫子上，杯中装有祝贺黑格尔的诗。（诗用绿丝带捆扎，杯子上刻有金字“献给1827年8月27日”。黑格尔颇为自豪地提到，这位银器商人也曾是他的学生。）罗塞尔送给黑格尔一尊小巧的古埃及伊希斯雕像，他还收到另一位学生赠送的水晶花瓶。之后，又有人宣布，黑格尔的朋友们已委托柏林在世的最著名雕刻家（路德维希·威廉·维希曼）的得意门生（克里斯蒂安·达尼尔·劳赫）为黑格尔创作一尊半身雕像。（劳赫表示自己虽极其敬重黑格尔，但无法完成这尊半身雕像，维希曼于1828年完成了这尊黑格尔半身雕像。）随后，充满音乐和喇叭声的庆生活动一直持续到深夜，午夜过后（28日），紧接着庆祝了歌德的生日。甘斯发表了一场庆祝歌德和黑格尔的演讲，称赞歌德既是现代德国文学诞生的见证者，又推动了现代德国文学的发展；赞誉黑格尔是打破旧形而上学的现代（德国）哲学的见证者，进而推进了现代（德国）哲学的发展。甘斯说，这是“德国文学艺术和德国科学的庆典”。策尔特随后朗诵了一首歌德的新诗。午夜时分，黑格尔发表了长篇演讲，谈及自己被如此忠诚的朋友和学生环绕的感受。从黑格尔的日记中可以看出，置身于这些学生当中，他不仅感觉自己瞬间年轻了许多，还意识到这样一个时刻的到来：自己不再年轻，与年轻人相比已成为年长者，而这样的时刻对他来说终于来临（这是1820年后黑格尔常挂在嘴边的话题）。他还深情回忆了自己在大诗人歌德精神影响下的成长历程，此时他举起酒杯为歌德的生日干杯，由此引发了另一轮的庆祝和干杯。
Hegel was obviously deeply moved by the occasion; the display of loyalty and affection from his friends and students was much more than he had could have expected. Exhausted, he slept until 11:00 A.M. the next day, only to rise and find yet more poems waiting for him with the post. After all his troubles, it was gratifying to see his achievements celebrated by those who clearly appreciated him as both a friend and an intellectual figure. As if to underwrite Hegel’s celebrity, the local news¬ paper, the Vossische Zeitung, even reported on August 30 about the grand celebration, reprinting many of the poems and detailing the course of the evening. Hegel could not help but feel satisfied with the way things had gone.
黑格尔显然被这一场景深深打动，友人和弟子们所展现出的忠诚与友爱，远超他之前的预期。由于疲惫不堪，他一直睡到次日上午11点才醒来，一起床就发现还有许多诗歌和邮件在等着他。在所有纷扰过后，看到自己的成就得到这些人的祝贺，且他们显然既将他视为朋友，又欣赏他非凡的智慧，黑格尔感到心满意足。
But not everyone was as enthusiastic. The king, for one, was peeved at the coverage of Hegel’s birthday. His own birthday on August 3, 1770, was close to Hegel’s, and he could not help noticing that Hegel’s birthday celebrations were getting perhaps a bit too much coverage in relation to the coverage of his own birthday celebrations. Being the king, however, he was not obliged to sit around and pout, since he could do something about it, and he therefore issued a cabinet order in October banning any further reporting on “private” birthday celebra¬ tions in newspapers — only truly “worthy” occasions, such as the king s own birthday or officially proclaimed festivals, could henceforth be reported in the press.
然而，并非所有人都对他如此热情。国王便是其中之一，他因黑格尔生日的排场而心生不悦。国王自己的生日是1770年8月3日，与黑格尔生日相近，他不禁注意到黑格尔生日宴会的庆贺场面或许比他自己生日宴会更为盛大。不过，身为一国之君，他不能只是被动地沉着脸，坐视不管，而是可以对这件事采取行动。于是，他在10月发布了一道内阁命令，禁止报纸再报道任何“私人”生日庆贺，只有真正“有价值”的场合，如国王自己的生日或官方宣布的节日，此后才可见诸报端。
Hegel and his friends had no difficulty detecting the ominous tones in the edict and even the hint of a threat behind the king’s pronounce¬ ment. Then, to make matters worse, in the same month the director of the police, von Kamptz, learned of Victor Cousin’s 1826 Preface in France to his French translation of Plato’s Gorgias, in which Cousin spoke of his arrest in Germany, his mistreatment by the Prussians, of Prussia’s overly zealous police and its “odious politics,” and how, in the same Preface, he had praised Hegel in lofty tones for his “noble con¬ duct” in the whole affair, repeating how Hegel had presented himself immediately before the police to tell them that Cousin was “his friend,” how Hegel had worked for Cousin’s release, and how all of this dis¬ played Hegel’s “great courage” in running such a risk."*’ The king was peeved; but von Kamptz was outraged; and being on the bad side of both the king and the director of police in Berlin in those days was no trifling matter. Varnhagen von Ense noted that although philosophy was still in good standing with the ruling powers, there were those at the court who would like to pin something on it (charges of “demagogu¬ ery,” for example), and it would be wise for the philosophers (in other words, Hegel) to be on their guard, since in this matter, “Hegel is no more secure than others.”"^** After several years of maneuvering the treacherous waters of the reaction in Berlin while continuing to publish reform-minded pieces, Hegel needed no warning about that. For the rest of the year, he continued work on his lectures, his articles for the “Yearbooks,” and resumed living “very quietly.”
黑格尔及其友人敏锐地察觉到法令中的言外之意，甚至感受到国王宣旨背后隐含的威胁。接着，更糟糕的是，就在同一个月，警察局长冯·坎普茨得知维克托·库赞在1826年为自己翻译的法译本柏拉图《高尔吉亚篇》所作的译序中，提及自己在德国被捕的情况，称受到普鲁士人不公正的对待，还提到普鲁士“十分热心”的警察和“可恶的政治”。在这篇译序中，库赞还以崇敬的语调赞扬了黑格尔在整个事件中的“高尚行为”，重述黑格尔如何面对警察毫不犹豫地挺身而出，称库赞是“他的朋友”，以及黑格尔怎样为营救库赞从中斡旋，这一切如何展示了黑格尔在面临如此风险时的“巨大勇气”。国王龙颜大怒，而冯·坎普茨则觉得受到了侮辱。在当时的柏林，与国王或警察局长作对都绝非小事。瓦尔恩哈根·冯·恩泽指出，尽管哲学仍得到统治者的大力支持，但法庭上有些人总想给哲学安上些罪名（比如“煽动群众”的指责），哲学家们（此处指黑格尔）捍卫自己的地位是明智之举，因为在这个问题上，“黑格尔和其他人一样处于危险境地”。在柏林多年来一直逆流而行，不断发表思想变革的文章后，黑格尔在这方面无需他人提醒。在同年余下的时间里，他继续开设讲座，为《科学批评年鉴》撰稿，过着“平静”的生活。
Ludwig's Departure
Casting a pall over all the otherwise joyous events and accentuating the more negative ones was the poignant fact of Ludwig Fischer’s departure from the family (most likely earlier in 1826). It was clear that there had always been trouble with Ludwig’s presence in the Hegel household. On his own account, Ludwig’s life in the Hegel family had been more filled with fear than with love; more than once he had decided to run away from home, stopping only when he realized that he had no means of support by which he could make his escape. He seems to have fought often with his two brothers, who clearly were favored in the household and who rubbed that in. He wanted to study medicine and in fact was successful enough in his scholarly endeavors to qualify for such studies; instead, Hegel simply ordered him to banish that idea from his thoughts because, purely and simply, he was to be shipped off to Stuttgart to apprentice himself to a trade, and there would be no financial support from the family for any other enterprise than that.
路德维希离家出走
路德维希·菲舍尔（很可能在1826年初）离家出走这一令人痛心的事实，给所有欢乐事件都蒙上了可怕的阴影，也让一些事情显得更为消极。显然，路德维希在黑格尔家的生活一直麻烦不断。据路德维希自己描述，他在黑格尔家感受到的更多是恐惧而非关爱。他多次决定离家出走，却因意识到自己虽能离开却难以维持生计而被迫放弃。他似乎常常与两个兄弟打架，而那两个兄弟在家中很受宠爱且以此为傲。路德维希想学医学，实际上他在学术方面很有天赋，适合从事这一领域的学习。然而，黑格尔却责令他打消这个念头，坚持让他去斯图加特学做生意，声称除了做生意，他若选择其他职业，家里将不会给予经济支持。
Ludwig at first reluctantly complied with his father’s wishes but quickly found the whole thing unacceptable and the man to whom he had been apprenticed more than particularly tedious. It also cannot have helped Ludwig’s attitude that as more and more people flocked into the apprenticeships in post-Napoleonic Germany, the prospects for such apprentices ever becoming masters were growing fainter by the year as the economy modernized. (This was something that Hegel, for all his sharp observations of the modern economy, simply failed to see with regard to his own son.) After a sharp exchange of words one day with his employer/master, he asked for and received his discharge from his apprenticeship and managed rather quickly to acquire for himself a commission as a lower-level officer in the Dutch army for service in East India. (Legend had long had it that Hegel acquired the commission for him; that is, unfortunately, simply not the case; Ludwig got it for himself.) Ludwig felt badly treated by his father and claimed that Hegel refused to let him take any of his books and very few of his own linens with him, and that Hegel did not even communicate his farewell to him directly but only indirectly through a letter to the man to whom he had been apprenticed. (Ludwig was so incensed about this that in a letter to a friend in which he related this story, he underlined the sentence about Hegel’s cold-heartedness to him; strikingly, he did not even refer to Hegel as “father” but simply as “Hegel,” indicating his extreme alien¬ ation from him.)'*’ He also joined the army under the name Ludwig Fisher; according to one account at the time, he had been forbidden by Hegel from using the family name after he had been caught stealing eight Groschen (not a large amount) from the family money-box; until then, he had gone by the name Georg Ludwig Friedrich Hegel (as noted in his matriculation papers at the French Gymnasium), and he took this prohibition as a severe humiliation. (It was also clear that the Hegel family took the issue of stealing money seriously; Karl Hegel related a story about how he and a brother — we presume it was Immanuel, since Karl Hegel liked to pretend that Ludwig never even existed — once stole a Thaler coin they found lying on the table and spent it; when they were caught, they were given such a burning reproach by their parents that it remained firmly implanted in his memory for the rest of his life. If the story about Ludwig and the stolen Groschen is true, it is merely another example of a double standard exercised in the family.)™
路德维希起初勉强顺从了父亲的意愿，但很快就发现这一切让他无法接受，而且带他的师傅极为冷漠无情。在德国后拿破仑一世时期，随着越来越多的人加入学徒行列，然而由于经济现代化的发展，学徒们有朝一日成为师傅的前景却逐渐黯淡，这种状况无疑也影响了路德维希对学徒生活的态度。（这是黑格尔未能察觉到的关乎自己儿子前途的问题，尽管以他敏锐的洞察力，本应能看出现代经济的发展趋势。）在与雇主或师傅激烈争吵几天后，他主动要求解约，并设法尽快获得了东印度荷兰军队低层军官的职务。（一直有传言说，是黑格尔帮路德维希获得了这个委任，但不幸的是，这种说法毫无根据，路德维希是凭借自己的能力得到这个职位的。）路德维希觉得自己受到了父亲的虐待，声称黑格尔不准他带走一本书，几乎所有他自己的优质纸张也不许拿走，还说黑格尔甚至没有亲自与他道别，只是通过他的师傅转交一封信间接与他告别。（路德维希对此事极为愤怒，在给朋友的信中讲述了这件事，强调黑格尔对他的冷漠。令人瞩目的是，他甚至不称黑格尔为“父亲”，而只是称“黑格尔”，表明他与黑格尔关系已形同陌路。）他还以路德维希·菲舍尔的名字参军。按照当时的一种说法，在他被当场发现从家中钱柜偷了（数额不大的）8便土银币后，黑格尔禁止他使用（家族的）姓。在此之前，他一直使用格奥尔格·路德维希·菲舍尔·黑格尔这个名字（写在他法语中学录取通知书上的名字），显然他将这种禁止视为奇耻大辱。（同样明显的是，黑格尔家对偷钱这件事看得很重。卡尔·黑格尔讲述过他和弟弟——我们推测弟弟是伊曼努尔，因为卡尔·黑格尔似乎希望世上根本不存在路德维希这个人——有一次如何偷了放在桌上的一泰勒硬币并花掉，被抓住后，他们受到了父母极为严厉的责备，这责备一直留在卡尔·黑格尔余生的记忆中。假如路德维希的描述以及他偷8便土银币这件事属实，这无疑是黑格尔家对待不同子女采用双重标准的又一例子。）
Although Ludwig perhaps justifiably felt abandoned by Hegel, it is clear that Hegel did not simply disavow Ludwig and banish him from memory. Hegel obviously knew that Ludwig had joined the Dutch army; in fact, he discussed the matter with van Ghert when he visited van Ghert during his return from Paris in 1827, and van Ghert, loyal friend that he was, wrote to Hegel wanting to know to which regiment Ludwig belonged so that he might in his official capacity be of some assistance to him.-"’' But in any event, Ludwig’s life in the Dutch army was tragically short; he died of a fever while serving in the Dutch army in Batavia in 1831; Hegel, who died a short while later, in fact never learned of Ludwig’s death.
路德维希或许觉得自己被黑格尔抛弃了，但黑格尔显然没有将路德维希说得一文不值，也没有将他从记忆中抹去。黑格尔清楚路德维希已经加入了荷兰军队，实际上，1827年他从巴黎归来拜访梵·戈尔特时，还与梵·戈尔特讨论过此事。梵·戈尔特是位忠实的朋友，他写信给黑格尔，想知道路德维希隶属哪个军团，以便在自己职权范围内对路德维希有所提携。但无论如何，路德维希在荷兰的军旅生活非常短暂且充满悲剧色彩。1831年，他在巴达维亚荷兰军中服役时死于发烧，而不久后辞世的黑格尔，其实从未得知路德维希的死讯。
