13 Assertion: Berlin, Paris (1824—1827)
第13章 独树一帜：柏林和巴黎时期(1824 - 1827)(1)
New Turmoil
Victor Cousin’s Arrest, Hegel’s Intervention
新的骚动
维克托·库赞被捕，黑格尔从中斡旋
ON October 14, 1824, shortly after Hegel reached Dresden from Prague on his way home from Vienna, his old friend from France, Victor Cousin, was arrested by the Saxon police in Dresden on suspi¬ cion of being a “subversive” and was then quickly handed over to the Prussian police. This came as a great shock; almost certainly, Hegel had seen Cousin in Dresden and spoken with him before the arrest.' The “Cousin affair” was to embroil Hegel in yet another political contro¬ versy, which was once again to put him at some risk.
1824年10月14日，黑格尔从维也纳返程，途经布拉格抵达德累斯顿不久，他的法国老友维克托·库赞被萨克森警方逮捕，随后很快被移交给普鲁士警方，原因是他在德累斯顿被怀疑为“颠覆分子”。这一事件让黑格尔极为震惊。几乎可以肯定，黑格尔在德累斯顿见过库赞，并在其被捕前与他交谈过。“库赞事件”很可能使黑格尔卷入另一场政治争端，让他再次陷入危险境地。
Word of Cousin’s arrest spread throughout Europe, causing a sensa¬ tion when people heard of it. However, what people did not hear at the time was the full story behind the events: Cousin’s arrest was the result of secret machinations between the restoration French government and the restoration Prussian government. In France, Cousin had already been suspended on political grounds from his teaching duties during the 1820s. (He was too liberal.) Cousin then became a tutor to the duchess of Montebello, and when the young duke of Montebello (his protege) was to be married in Dresden, Cousin accompanied him. The French director of police, Mr. Franchet-Desperey, learned of this and alerted the representative of the Prussian government in Paris in an official letter that Cousin was going to be in Dresden, and that “this Professor, known for his quite dangerous opinions” had earlier traveled to Germany to establish contacts with German professors and students for “political” reasons - in other words, for reasons of “demagoguery” - and Franchet-Desperey advised the Prussians that the authorities should simply be “aware” of that. The note was delivered with an accompanying understanding that whatever the Prussians decided to do, neither Franchet-Desperey’s name nor the involvement of the French police was to be mentioned.^ Franchet-Desperey’s involvement in this is no mystery; a fierce reactionary, he had been elevated from depart¬ mental head of the post office to being put in charge of the police by virtue of a cabal led by the Jesuits in the interests of securing the restoration in France.’
库赞被捕的消息传遍欧洲，引起轩然大波。然而，当时人们并不了解事件背后的全部真相：库赞被捕是法国复辟政府与普鲁士复辟政府密谋的结果。在法国，库赞因19世纪20年代担任的教学职务，在政治上早已遭到怀疑（他过于倾向自由派）。库赞时任蒙特贝洛公爵夫人的私人教师，当年轻的蒙特贝洛（库赞的门徒）公爵在德累斯顿举行婚礼时，库赞担任了伴郎。法国警察局长弗朗谢 - 德佩雷先生得知此事后，在一封官方信件中警告普鲁士政府驻巴黎的议员：库赞将前往德累斯顿，“这位教授以发表极其危险的言论而闻名”，早些时候就已到过德国，并出于“政治”原因——换句话说，出于“煽动”目的——与德国的教授和学生建立了联系。弗朗谢 - 德佩雷告诫普鲁士议员，当局应尽快做出“明智”的决断。这封信还附有一项君子协定：无论普鲁士人决定采取何种行动，都不要提及弗朗谢·德佩雷和法国警方参与此事。弗朗谢·德佩雷参与其中已是公开的秘密，他身为狂热的反动分子，从某个邮政局部门领导，靠着由一帮耶稣会会士领导的阴谋小集团，一路晋升为警察局长，而这个小集团维护的是复辟时期法国波旁王朝的利益。
The French reactionaries especially suspected Cousin of being a subversive; his friendship with the Piedmont (Italian) revolutionary Count Santa Rosa had only added more sustenance to that suspicion. After the failure of the Piedmont revolution. Count Santa Rosa fled to Paris under an assumed name, where he met Cousin, and the two shared a house together in Anteuil for a while; but when the French police learned Santa Rosa’s identity, they arrested him, and Cousin came to his defense. Although the police eventually released Santa Rosa, they nonetheless expelled him from all French territory. (Santa Rosa later died fighting for Greek independence; Cousin had a monument erected in Greece on the spot where his friend had died.) Cousin’s involvement with and defense of Santa Rosa gave the French police a substantial interest in having Victor Cousin conveniently disappear, should that prove to be possible.
法国反动分子格外怀疑库赞是颠覆分子，他与（意大利）皮埃蒙特革命党人圣塔·罗沙伯爵的友谊，更是加深了这种怀疑。皮埃蒙特革命失败后，圣塔·罗沙伯爵化名逃往巴黎，在那里结识了库赞，两人一度在安特卫普同住一室。然而，当法国警方得知圣塔·罗沙伯爵的身份后，将其逮捕，库赞则着手应对可能出现的情况。警方最终释放了圣塔·罗沙伯爵，但将他驱逐出法国。（圣塔·罗沙伯爵不久后死于希腊独立战争，库赞在他朋友的死亡地立了一块碑。）库赞为圣塔·罗沙伯爵辩护的举动，成为法国警方要求维克托·库赞适时消失的把柄，后来事情的发展证明这完全有可能发生。
After the all-too-convenient warning from the French police, the Prussian police carried out their own investigation, and their double¬ agent Johann Ferdinand Witt-Doring (himself related to a reactionary official in the French government) testified not only that Cousin had met with French and German revolutionaries in Paris in the summer of 1820 for the purpose of plotting to spread the revolution to Germany, but also that Cousin was personally tied into Karl Follen, the radical leader of the Burschenschaften. One of the co-conspirators in the secret society was also alleged to be one of the Wesselhoft brothers, a close friend of Ludwig Fischer (who was raised by Betty Wesselhoft) and Julius Niethammer. (As became clear in his interrogation. Cousin in fact knew all of the people alleged to be part of the plot.) Since the paranoid, reactionary Prussian police were only too willing to believe in the existence of an internationally based secret society of subversives dedicated to fomenting revolution in Germany, they immediately con¬ tacted the Mainz commission, which then promptly ordered the Saxon government in Dresden to arrest Cousin and hand him over to the Prussian police for arrest and further interrogation. Under the terms of the Karlsbad decrees, the Saxons had no choice but to do so. Everything went smoothly and according to plan until some confusion in the inner workings of the French government led a hapless French representative in Dresden to protest the political arrest of a French citizen. The cat was then out of the bag, and in light of the ensuing public outcry, the French government found itself, absurdly enough, obliged to file a formal protest with the Prussian government, even though they had instigated the whole thing in the first place."*
在得到法国警方极为及时的警告后，普鲁士警方展开了自己的调查。他们的双重间谍约翰·费迪南德·维特 - 德林（他本人与法国政府的一名反动官员有染）证实，库赞不仅于1820年夏在巴黎与法国和德国的反动分子会面，密谋在德国传播革命，而且还亲自猛烈抨击学生联谊会的激进领导者卡尔·福伦。秘密社团的一名同伙据说是韦塞尔赫夫特兄弟会成员，同时他还是路德维希·菲舍尔（由贝蒂·韦塞尔赫夫特抚养长大）和尤利乌斯·尼特哈默尔的好友。（通过审问得知，库赞其实知晓这些人被怀疑为密谋分子。由于多疑且反动的普鲁士警方轻信存在一个具有国际背景的颠覆分子秘密组织，且这个组织专门煽动德国革命，于是普鲁士警方立刻与美因茨市委员会联系，美因茨市委员会迅速命令德累斯顿的萨克森政府扣留库赞，并将他交给普鲁士警方逮捕和进一步审问。根据《卡尔斯巴德法令》，萨克森人别无选择，只能照做。一切都按计划顺利进行，直到法国政府内部出现混乱，导致一名倒霉的法国议员在德累斯顿抗议因政治原因逮捕一名法国公民。尽管无意中泄露了秘密，但由于随后引发的公众抗议，法国政府看似荒谬地被迫正式向普鲁士政府提出抗议，尽管整个事件是他们首先挑起的。
The Prussians, on the other hand, were delighted; they clearly thought they had caught a subversive red-handed. They demanded that the Swiss government extradite the other co-conspirators (who were at that time living in Switzerland), but the Swiss refused, and Follen and Wesselhoft, seeing the writing on the wall, immediately fled to America, while the others still in Germany immediately fled to refuge in Switzer¬ land. The only one the Prussians could get their hands on was Victor Cousin, whom they forthwith threw into solitary confinement and whom they then interrogated about his subversive intentions and con¬ nections.
另一方面，普鲁士人欣喜若狂，他们坚信抓住了一个证据确凿的颠覆分子。他们强烈要求瑞士政府引渡另一名同谋（此人当时住在瑞士），但遭到瑞士政府的断然拒绝。福伦和韦塞尔赫夫特看到四处张贴的通缉令后，立刻逃往美国，而其他仍在德国的人则马上逃往瑞士避难。普鲁士警方最终只抓到了维克托·库赞一人，他立即被关进单人牢房，随后警方就他的颠覆意图和联络情况对他进行盘问。
Schleiermacher, another of Cousin’s Berlin friends, was completely dumbfounded by Cousin’s arrest and said so to his friends, noting that he had heard from one of the other arrested people that it looked like it was going to result in at least a fifteen-year jail sentence.^ On November 4, 1824, Hegel courageously wrote a letter to the Prussian interior ministry arguing on behalf of Victor Cousin. He testified to Cousin’s good character, his interest in Wissenschaft, and, prudently noting that he had not been in contact with Cousin for six years, nonetheless emphatically attested to his belief in Cousin’s innocence. Hegel re¬ quested that he be allowed to visit Cousin in his confinement; the government refused. This was no small matter; Hegel’s friend Varnhagen von Ense remarked at the time (December ii, 1824) that “it belongs to Hegel’s good standing with the government not to have become himself suspect on account of his taking such steps.”*’ Word of Hegel’s note to the ministry became public and only added to the common outcry against Cousin’s imprisonment; but the Prussian gov¬ ernment did not relent, and Cousin’s interrogation continued.
施莱尔马赫，库赞在柏林的另一位朋友，对库赞的被捕感到万分震惊，并向朋友们表达了这一感受，他还强调，从另一名被捕者那里得知，库赞似乎将面临至少15年的牢狱之灾。1824年11月4日，黑格尔鼓起勇气，写信给普鲁士内政部，为库赞求情。他证明库赞人品良好，对科学感兴趣，并谨慎地强调自己已经6年没有和库赞来往，但着重表明自己相信库赞是清白的。黑格尔请求在库赞监禁期间前往探监，政府断然拒绝了他的请求。这对黑格尔来说绝非小事，黑格尔的友人瓦恩哈根·冯·恩泽当时（1824年12月11日）评论道：“黑格尔采取这些行动却未受到怀疑，这得益于他在政府眼中是颇有身份的人。”黑格尔在内政部眼中是名人的消息不胫而走，这进一步引发了公众对库赞监禁的普遍抗议。但普鲁士政府并未采取宽容立场，对库赞的审问仍在继续。
The public pressure, helped along by Hegel’s intervention, led to Cousin’s release from prison at the beginning of February 1825 - but only on condition that he not leave Berlin until the “investigation” of him had been completed. (He was also kept under police surveillance for this period.) Cousin spent his time during this period of “house arrest” mostly in interchanges with Hegel, Schleiermacher, and other intellectuals on the Berlin scene. (Hegel and Cousin visited Ms. MilderHauptmann’s house together, no doubt on Hegel’s instigation; Cousin was ever after always to tell Hegel to say hello to Ms. Milder for him.) The pretext for Cousin’s release from prison was that since his alleged co-conspirators had fled to America, the government was left without any hard-and-fast case alleging Cousin’s membership in that particular secret subversive coterie; but that did not stop the Prussians from looking for more evidence of subversion, and they proceeded to inves¬ tigate whether Cousin had perhaps “conspired” during his visits be¬ tween 1817 and 1818 in Germany. Schelling was even asked to testify, and he wrote that Cousin’s interests in those years were purely scholarly and philosophical. On April 20, 1825, Cousin was declared officially released (although not officially cleared), and a few days later, he left for Weimar, clear in his mind about who had played the largest role in Berlin in keeping his case in the public eye and was therefore responsi¬ ble for his being set free.
公众的压力，加上黑格尔从中斡旋，使得库赞于1825年2月初被释放出狱——但唯一的条件是在完成对他的“调查”之前，他不能离开柏林（在此阶段，他同样始终处于警察监视之下）。库赞在“被囚禁”期间，大部分时间都在与黑格尔、施莱尔马赫以及柏林的其他朋友交流。（在黑格尔的鼓励下，他与黑格尔一同拜访了米尔德 - 豪普特曼夫人，此后库赞总是让黑格尔代他向米尔德夫人问好。）库赞被从监狱释放的理由是，由于他的同谋已逃往美国，政府没有确凿证据证明库赞一定是那个特殊秘密颠覆团体的成员。但这并没有让普鲁士人停止搜寻更多颠覆证据，他们仍在继续调查库赞在1817 - 1818年访问德国期间是否“搞阴谋”。谢林曾被要求为此事作证，他写道库赞这些年完全醉心于学问，尤其是潜心研究哲学。1825年4月20日，库赞被正式宣布无罪释放（尽管没有公开明确宣布），几天后，他启程前往魏玛，他心里清楚，是谁在柏林一直推动这桩冤案公之于众，并对他的无罪释放起到了至关重要的作用。
New Religious Troubles for Hegel
If anything, this only raised the level of Hegel’s celebrity in Berlin, but it did not end his contentious relationship with Schleiermacher. Even though they had been on the same side in the Cousin affair, oddly enough, he and Schleiermacher now seemed more than ever to be rivals. As one student put it, Berlin seemed at the time to be ruled by three powers: Hegel at his lectern in the university, Schleiermacher at his pulpit in the French church, and the actor Eduard Devrient on the stage at the Berlin Theater.’ Hegel continued to attack Schleiermacher in his lectures; indeed, his antagonistic relation to Schleiermacher seems to have become a bit of an idee fixe in Hegel’s mind. But after the Cousin affair, Hegel also settled back down into his usual Berlin routi¬ nes, devoting himself to games of Whist with various partners; he intensified his involvement with the theater and opera and began to solidify the school of thought that was forming around him. He also continued, as many remarked, clearly to remain a Swabian in Prussia (even though Swabians were considered to be a bit provincial by Berli¬ ners); he never lost his Swabian accent — indeed, it seems to have been fairly noticeable - and he kept his Swabian style of life. As one Swabian student jestingly remarked, he continued to look like the “genuine Tubingen Seminarian” at work in the Prussian capital.*
黑格尔宗教上遇到新麻烦
如果说这件事带来了什么改变，那就是它提高了黑格尔在柏林的知名度，但这并没有终结他与施莱尔马赫之间颇具争议的友情。在库赞事件中，他们俩立场一致，然而奇怪的是，此时他和施莱尔马赫看起来比以往更像对手。据某个学生描述，当时的柏林似乎受三种力量掌控：大学讲台上的黑格尔，法国教堂布道坛上的施莱尔马赫，以及柏林剧院舞台上的演员爱德华·德弗里恩特。黑格尔在演讲中继续抨击施莱尔马赫，实际上，他与施莱尔马赫的对抗关系似乎已在黑格尔心中根深蒂固。但在库赞事件后，黑格尔将此事搁置一边，重新投入柏林的日常事务，热衷于和不同伙伴玩惠斯特纸牌游戏，更加频繁地观看戏剧和话剧，并着手巩固围绕他形成的思想学派。此外，如很多人所谈及的，他明确坚持斯瓦比亚人应留在普鲁士（尽管斯瓦比亚人被柏林居民视为一小部分外来者），始终说着带有斯瓦比亚口音的德语——实际上，这件事似乎相当引人注目——并且秉持着斯瓦比亚人的生活方式。就像某个斯瓦比亚学生滑稽评论的那样，黑格尔看起来依旧像活跃在普鲁士首都的“正宗的图宾根神学院学生”。
Shortly after the Cousin affair, Hegel found himself under attack again. A young philosopher, Hermann von Keyserlingk, had applied in i8i6 for promotion to the status of “doctor” by the Berlin faculty. His thesis and his oral defense were so bad, however, that they only awarded him the title oi ‘"‘'Magister." A few years later, in 1819, von Keyserlingk appeared again in Berlin - in the meantime, he had become a Privatdozent in Heidelberg - requesting permission to hold lectures in Berlin even before his habilitation was finished. Once again, the faculty denied the request, and von Keyserlingk then asked to be granted the status at the Berlin university of at least a Privatdozent. The faculty agreed to examine him, and in a lapse of judgment, Hegel approved von Keyserlingk’s request for status as a Privatdozent even though he found his work to be substandard.
库赞事件后不久，黑格尔发现自己再次遭到攻击。青年哲学家赫尔曼·凯泽尔林克早在1816年就向柏林大学申请“博士”学位，但他的论文和答辩表现糟糕，以至于答辩委员会只授予他“硕士”头衔。几年后的1819年，冯·凯泽尔林克再次现身柏林——此时他已成为海德堡大学的无俸讲师——请求校方允许他在柏林大学举办讲座，直至他的矿山投资结束。柏林大学再次拒绝了他的请求，冯·凯泽尔林克进而请求至少授予他柏林大学无俸讲师的头衔。柏林大学同意对他进行考察，由于判断失误，黑格尔批准了冯·凯泽尔林克担任无俸讲师职位的请求，即便黑格尔发觉自己的作品遭到冯·凯泽尔林克的歪曲。
Von Keyserlingk had little success as a teacher, attracting only a handful of students, but nonetheless in December 1824 he requested that he be made an extraordinary professor, and submitted a work accusing Hegelianism of really being pantheism - which in the context of the times was equivalent to accusing Hegel of atheism, which was equivalent to calling for his dismissal from the university. The faculty refused even to respond to his request, so he resubmitted it in January 1825. The ministry and the faculty both agreed that von Keyserlingk did not have the qualifications, and his request was denied. Undaunted, von Keyserlingk passed around a circular in May 1826 announcing a public discussion he was going to host on “Hegelian pantheism.” That was the last straw. The faculty was outraged, Hegel filed an official protest, and the faculty backed him up. It might have seemed like a minor matter, a tempest in a teapot, but von Keyserlingk was raising what for Hegel was a potential nightmare, namely, the problem of being publicly accused of pantheism in the already repressive atmosphere of Berlin in the i82os.‘'
冯·凯泽尔林克作为教师几乎没有取得什么成就，只吸引了为数不多的学生。但在1824年12月，他仍请求被聘为杰出教授，并提交了一部指责黑格尔哲学是彻头彻尾的泛神论的著作——在当时的环境下，这等同于指责黑格尔宣扬无神论，而这种指责相当于请求柏林大学解雇黑格尔。校方甚至拒绝回应他的请求，于是他在1825年1月重新提交了这部作品。政府部门和校方一致认为，冯·凯泽尔林克提交的作品无法证明黑格尔是无神论者，他的请求再次遭到拒绝。毫不气馁的冯·凯泽尔林克在1826年5月四处造势，宣布将发起一场由他主导的关于“黑格尔哲学泛神论”的公开讨论。这是他的最后一搏。校方对此极为恼火，对黑格尔给予了重重保护并力挺他。这看似是小事一桩，如同茶壶里的风暴，但冯·凯泽尔林克提出的问题，对黑格尔来说却是潜在的噩梦，即在19世纪20年代已然令人窒息的柏林氛围中，面临公众对其泛神论的指责。
Von Keyserlingk’s charges were made all the more worrisome by the fact that in March 1826 Hegel’s sarcasm had gotten him into hot water again with a remark he made about Catholicism during his lectures. In his lectures on the philosophy of world history, in the discussion of the medieval period, Hegel repeated a longstanding Protestant canard about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which had to do with what would happen if a mouse were to eat the consecrated wafer (the problem being, supposedly, that the wafer actually contains the body of the Lord). On one telling of the story, Hegel is said to have repeated the old Protestant legend that Catholics would therefore be required to kneel down before the mouse and worship it as bearing the Lord’s body within itself. (But, it should be noted, since that version comes from Rudolf Haym, who was notoriously unfriendly to Hegel, it may well be untrue.) According to another contemporary version (cited by Hegel’s student Hotho), Hegel said that it would follow that if the mouse ate the host, then the Lord’s body would be contained not only in the mouse but also in his excrement.'® (With his penchant for inflamed sarcasm, Hegel may very well have said that.) A complaint was filed with Altenstein at the ministry that Hegel was publicly slandering the Catholic religion in his lectures (again, on one telling, by the Catholic students, who supposedly accused Hegel of blasphemy; or, on another telling, by the chaplain from the Catholic church, St. Hedwig’s, who had been attending the lectures and supposedly accused Hegel of slan¬ der)."
冯·凯泽尔林克的指控因以下事实而变得更加棘手：1826年3月，黑格尔在演讲期间对天主教教义作出冷嘲热讽的评论，再次成为众人热议的对象。在世界历史哲学的演讲过程中，探讨中世纪时期时，黑格尔重提了一个流传已久的新教关于天主教教义走样的谣传，该谣传与如果老鼠吃了祭祀用的圣饼会发生什么有关（这个问题假定圣饼实际上包含上帝的身体）。有一种说法称，黑格尔在讲述这段故事时重提了这个古老的新教传奇，认为天主教徒应该被要求在老鼠面前下跪，膜拜体内承载着上帝身体的老鼠。（但需要指出的是，这个说法出自鲁道夫·海谋之口，而此人众所周知对黑格尔很不友好，所以该说法很可能是虚假的。按照同时代另一种说法（被黑格尔的学生露托引证），黑格尔说应该得出的结论是，如果老鼠吃了圣饼，那么上帝的身体不仅会包含在老鼠体内，还会包含在老鼠的排泄物中。由于黑格尔语言风格浓烈且冷嘲热讽，他很可能这样说了。）教育部长阿尔滕施泰因抱怨连连，因为黑格尔在演讲中当众诋毁天主教（同样，根据天主教学生的说法，阿尔滕施泰因据称指责了黑格尔的亵渎言论；或者，按照另一位来自天主教教会圣海德薇格牧师的说法，阿尔滕施泰因一直在听黑格尔的讲座，可能指责了黑格尔的诋毁言论）。
Altenstein deftly passed the problem over to Schulze, who asked Hegel to respond in writing to the charges. Hegel replied on April 3, quite defiantly, that he was a Protestant teaching at a university in a Protestant Land, which was itself the leading Protestant state in Ger¬ many, and that the Catholics should not be surprised by that; that he had not simply taken some arbitrary opportunity to speak ill of Cathol¬ icism but had done it in the course of his lectures (noting that he had to treat Catholic doctrine in his lectures on the history of philosophy, not mentioning that the incident had occurred in his lectures on the philosophy of world history); that he was only speaking with “scientific determinateness,” which required him to pronounce that Luther’s doc¬ trines were the “true ones and recognized by philosophy on its part as the true ones”; that he was only speaking in an “indeterminate, hypo¬ thetical sense” in the lectures, something indicated by his tone of voice, which was of course not replicated in the complaint. It is a matter, Hegel said, of “indifference to me, whether and which consequences the Catholic church wishes to bind to its doctrines,” but, he added, some of the consequences are only too well known, and he listed among them the “presumptuousness of the Popes and the other clerics” vis-avis secular rulers, “presumptuousness vis-a-vis confessional freedom of Christians in general,” and “presumptuousness vis-a-vis all Wissenschaff' that contradicts official Catholic doctrines.'^ It could be only “weak intellects” that took offense at what he said, and a professor cannot be responsible for the ridiculous conclusions drawn by such “weak intellects” from his lectures. Hegel concluded that if the Catho¬ lics did not like it, they should either blame themselves for attending or blame their Catholic superiors for not warning them, but he, a con¬ firmed Protestant, was not about to change. That seemed to settle matters, but it was clear that life in Berlin was still not without its ups and downs for Hegel.
阿尔滕施泰因巧妙地将这个难题交给了舒尔策，舒尔策要求黑格尔通过作品对这些指控作出回应。黑格尔于4月3日给出了颇具挑衅性的答复：他本人是信奉新教公国（该公国本身就是德国主要的新教州）中信奉新教的大学教师，天主教徒不应为此感到惊讶；他并非随意找机会诟病天主教教义，而是在演讲过程中这样做的（请注意，他必须在哲学史演讲中论述天主教教义，这里未提及世界历史哲学演讲中出现的某些偶然事件）；他只是在进行“科学而确切”的讲述，这就要求他宣扬路德教义是“正确的教义，且通过哲学本身才能认识到它是真实的教义”；他只是在一种“不确定的假定意义上”讲述通过语气表明的内容，而这些内容在控诉中并未得到重复。黑格尔说，“天主教教会是否希望掩盖其教义，以及这样做会产生何种结果”，这类问题“我不感兴趣”，但他补充道，其中一些结果是妇孺皆知的，他列举如下：“罗马教皇和其他教士对世俗统治者的‘横行无忌’”，“罗马教皇和其他传教士对广大基督教教徒忏悔自由的专横”，“罗马教皇和其他传教士对所有与官方天主教教义相抵触的‘科学的专横’”。他认为，上述所有这些可能只是“弱智者们”对他言论的攻击，作为一名教授，他不可能对这些“弱智者们”从他演讲中得出的荒谬结论负责。黑格尔断言，如果天主教徒不喜欢他的讲座，他们要么该责备自己来听讲座，要么不该责备天主教长官没有警告他们不要来听，但他作为笃信新教的人不打算改变初衷。此事看似得到了解决，但柏林的生活显然依旧让黑格尔经历着起起落落。
Eduard Gans and the “Yearbooks”
Cans and the Law Faculty
During this period, Hegel became good friends with Eduard Gans, who was to remain one of his closest friends and followers during the rest of his life in Berlin. Gans was a jurist who, although not beginning as a Hegelian, quickly and fully came to embrace Hegel’s teachings. Born in 1797, Gans came from an affluent Berlin Jewish family. Gans’s father, whose own background had been that of religious orthodoxy, had mar¬ ried into one of the prominent and wealthy Jewish families in Berlin (the Marcuse family) and had played a large role in mediating war debts for the Prussians during the wars against Napoleon, but had, at his death in 1813, left his family in great debt. Eduard Gans, ignoring his mother’s family’s wishes that he pursue a career in commerce so as to retire his father’s debts, chose instead to go to university and study law. The Prussian “emancipation” edict of March 1812 had stated, among other things, that Jews were entitled to assume academic positions, including professorial positions, “for which they have made themselves suitable,” and Gans obviously intended to take the Prussians at their word. He enrolled at the university in Berlin in 1816, during which time he became active in a circle of Jewish students who met regularly to discuss intellectual and cultural issues, especially the nature and role of Judaism in the post-Napoleonic, revolutionary time in which the Jews had supposedly been emancipated in the German confederation in general and in Prussia in particular. In 1817, Gans shifted from Berlin to Gottingen to study law, and in August 1818 he enrolled at Heidel¬ berg, where he completed his dissertation in 1819 under Hegel’s old friend Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut.
爱德华·甘斯和《科学批评年鉴》
甘斯与法律系
在这个阶段，黑格尔结识了爱德华·甘斯，在黑格尔于柏林的余生中，甘斯始终是他的挚友和追随者。甘斯是一位法学家，起初并非黑格尔哲学的信徒，但很快就完全投身于黑格尔学说。甘斯生于1797年，来自柏林一个殷实的犹太家庭。甘斯的父亲有着宗教正统背景，与柏林一个声望颇高且十分富裕的犹太家庭（马尔库塞家族）联姻，并在反对拿破仑战争期间，为普鲁士人斡旋战争债务发挥了巨大作用，但他于1813年去世，给家庭留下了大笔债务。爱德华·甘斯不顾外婆家希望他经商以偿还父亲债务的想法，选择上大学学习法律。1812年3月颁布的普鲁士“解放”法令规定，犹太人有权申请学术职位，包括教授职位，前提是“他们使自己适合学术职位”，甘斯显然希望普鲁士人恪守诺言。1816年，他考入柏林大学，大学期间成为犹太学生圈中的活跃分子，他们定期相聚，探讨知识和文化问题，特别是在后拿破仑一世革命时期犹太教的本质和角色，在这样的革命时期，犹太人据称通常在德国联邦中，尤其是在普鲁士已经获得解放。1817年，甘斯从柏林大学转到哥廷根大学学习法律，1818年8月进入海德堡大学学习，并于1819年在黑格尔的老友安东·弗里德里希·贾斯特斯·蒂鲍特门下完成博士学位论文。
Before coming to Heidelberg, Gans had become publicly known because of his response to an attack on his father by a reactionary nationalist Romantic at Berlin, Friedrich Riihs, who had asserted in a publication that Abraham Gans was a war profiteer and thereby typified the way in which Jews could never be fully patriotic Prussian citizens. (In 1816, Riihs had already published another pamphlet arguing against civil rights for Jews and calling for the “rooting out root and branch” of Jewry in Germany.)'^ Gans responded vehemently and analytically to Riihs’s nasty invective, defending his late father’s dealings as being within the letter of the law; Riihs, hateful person that he was, simply refused to respond to Gans’s arguments, claiming that he would not deal with such Jewish Burschenschaft.
在来到海德堡之前，甘斯就因回应柏林一位反动的民族主义浪漫主义者弗里德里希·鲁斯对其父亲的攻击而成为公众人物。鲁斯曾在一份出版物中宣称，亚伯拉罕·甘斯是战争奸商，并由此代表了一种观点：犹太人绝不可能是完全爱国的普鲁士市民。（1816年，鲁斯已发表另一本小册子，反对犹太人拥有民权，并要求“彻底消灭”德国犹太人。）甘斯剖析并有力地回应了鲁斯的恶毒谩骂，为父亲晚年对法律知识的论述进行辩护，而鲁斯这个令人厌恶的家伙干脆拒绝回应甘斯的争论，并声称他不会与这样的德国犹太学生社团打交道。
Gans had been drawn to Heidelberg undoubtedly because of Thibaut’s fame both as a jurist in favor of a rational codification of law and, most importantly, as a defender of full civil rights for Jews. Thibaut, like Hegel, was a firm opponent of the Romantic nationalist sentiment bubbling up in German life.'"' Gans’s dissertation was full of Thibaut’s influence, and having acquired his doctorate summa cum laude in March 1819, Gans applied for an academic position in Berlin in December 1819. The famous and influential jurist Friedrich von Savigny - who had already in 1816 published a piece in which he had argued against civil and political equality for Jews on the grounds they were essentially “aliens” in German life - wrote a very negative review of Gans’s dissertation (March 1820), and the juristic faculty voted against accept¬ ing Gans in April 1820. The letter from the faculty closed with the statement that “we would venture to point out that we do not know if Dr. Gans, who stems from a well-known Jewish family, has personally converted to the Christian faith, and whether, therefore, there may not be an obstacle to his appointment to a position of public service from this side as well.”'^
甘斯无疑是因蒂鲍特的声望而被吸引到海德堡大学。蒂鲍特既是一位赞同法律理性法典的法理学家，更重要的是，他还是主张犹太人应拥有充分国民权利的辩护者。蒂鲍特和黑格尔一样，坚决反对德国社会中泛滥的浪漫派民族主义情绪。甘斯的博士论文通篇都受到蒂鲍特的影响，1819年3月，甘斯以优异成绩获得博士头衔，同年12月，他申请柏林大学的学术职位。著名且颇具影响力的法理学家弗里德里希·冯·萨维尼——早在1816年，他就发表了一篇文章，极力反对犹太人在国民和政治上享有平等权利，理由是他们本质上是德国生活中的“侨民”——针对甘斯的博士论文撰写了一篇极为负面的评论（1820年3月），并且这位法理权威在1820年4月对甘斯的任职申请投了反对票。这位权威在信件结尾陈述道：“我们或许斗胆指出，我们不知道甘斯博士，这位出身显赫犹太家族的博士，是否个人已经皈依基督教信仰，因此从这方面来看，是否也不存在阻止他获得公共服务职位任命的障碍。”
Hardenberg and Altenstein were not exactly impressed with this display of anti-Jewish sentiment among the law faculty, and Hardenberg instructed Altenstein to send Cans to Breslau and as “soon as possible” to make him an “extraordinary professor” there. Altenstein, for his part, was quite straightforward about his belief that Gans’s Jewishness posed “no legal obstacle” to his assuming such an academic position.''’
哈登贝格和阿尔滕施泰因对法律系教师所展现出的反犹情绪并未留下好印象，哈登贝格指示阿尔滕施泰因将甘斯派往布雷斯劳，并“尽快”让他在那里成为“杰出教授”。而阿尔滕施泰因本人则坦率地认为，甘斯的犹太人血统对他担任这样的学术职位构成“不合法的障碍”。
Gans, however, elected to stay in Berlin and became one of the founders and leaders of the Association for the Science and Culture of Judaism; he was first its secretary and later its president. In the summer of 1820, Gans was in Dresden and was present when Hegel purchased Sillery champagne for all and drank to the storming of the Bastille; it was most likely at this point that Gans began to become interested in Hegel as a figure around which he could orient himself.
不过，甘斯还是选择留在柏林，成为《犹太教科学与文化协会》的创建者兼领导者之一。他最初担任协会秘书，不久后成为主席。1820年夏，甘斯在德累斯顿，目睹了黑格尔为众人购买西耶里香槟酒，并为巴士底狱风暴干杯的场景。很可能从这时起，甘斯就开始对黑格尔产生兴趣，觉得自己可以围绕这样一个人物来定位自身。
Gans defiantly continued to apply for a position on the juristic fac¬ ulty, and in 1821, Savigny wrote a long “expert’s report” on behalf of the faculty to the ministry in which he argued for the impossibility of appointing Jews in general to the law faculty. Noting that the faculty had already expressed some concern over not knowing whether Gans was still Jewish, Savigny said that the matter had since become com¬ pletely clear.
甘斯继续颇具挑战性地申请法律系职位。1821年，萨维尼代表系里给部长写了一份长篇“专家报告”，其中他主张总体上不可能任命犹太人为法律系教师。在强调系里对甘斯是否仍是犹太教徒表示某种关注时，萨维尼也表示这个问题如今已完全明晰。
Savigny offered three arguments against accepting Jews into the fac¬ ulty. First, they are unsuited to legal studies; it is simply unthinkable that one would appoint a Jew to the faculty of theology, and law, like theology, stands in an “immediate relation with the history and unique characteristics of our nation” and is intimately connected with the “whole way of thought” of people and “in particular, with the focal point of such thought (religious conviction).”'^ In light of this, Savigny asked the ministry to imagine what it would be like if “a significant part of the juristic professorial positions were to be held by Jews.”'* Al¬ though such teachers would almost certainly not lead their students to convert to Judaism, they would nonetheless, Savigny argued, almost certainly lead them become “non-Christian, as well as non-German and non-Prussian.”''^ Second, Savigny argued, professors function as “fa¬ therly friends and advisors” to young students, and it would be impos¬ sible for a Jewish professor, not sharing the students’ religious back¬ ground, to speak with the proper moral authority to a Christian student. (Savigny also noted that Christian parents would not be willing to entrust the education of their sons to Jewish professors.) Third, Jews could never possess the authority to carry out any of the “business of the university” - for example, they could never become rectors of the university - since they could never have the “dignity and esteem” necessary for such office. Thus, their presence would devalue the status of other “ordinary professors,” since the ordinances of the university gave all “ordinary” professors equal entitlement to such offices.
萨维尼提出三条反对犹太人进入法律系的理由。第一，他们不适合学习法律。他认为，若任命犹太人为神学系教师简直不可思议，法律如同神学，“与我们民族的历史和独特特质直接相关”，并且与人们“整个思维方式”，“特别是与这种思考（宗教信仰）的焦点”紧密相连。据此，萨维尼请部长设想，如果“重要的法理教授职位部分由犹太人把持”，那将会导致何种后果。他主张，这样的教师几乎肯定不会引导学生皈依犹太教，但他们仍可能引导学生成为“非基督教徒，以及非德国人、非普鲁士人”。第二，萨维尼坚称，教授对青年学子起着“父亲般的朋友和建议者”的作用，而犹太教授由于与学生宗教背景不同，通常无法以适当的道德权威对信奉基督教的学生进行教导。（萨维尼还指出，信奉基督教的父母总是不愿让子女接受犹太教授的教育。）第三，犹太人永远不可能拥有掌管“大学事务”的权力——例如他们永远不可能担任大学校长——因为他们永远不可能具备该职位所需的“尊严和尊重”。因此，他们的存在会贬低其他“普通教授”的地位，因为大学条例赋予所有“普通”教授担任此类职位的平等权利。
In his report, Savigny also drew out an ambiguity in the 1812 Prus¬ sian edict of emancipation. The eighth paragraph of the edict declared that Jews are eligible for those academic positions “for which they have made themselves suitable,” but the ninth paragraph stated that the eligibility of Jews for other “public services and offices of the state” was to be determined by law at some later date. But since Jews were clearly not eligible for theological positions, since they clearly could not take the oath to Christianity called for in the university regulations, and since they were not, for example, capable of giving witness in criminal cases (Savigny cited §357 of the Prussian code of criminal law to back up that statement), they were therefore wholly ineligible for university positions in the law faculty. Savigny broadened the argument to include all university positions: “general experience,” he argued, shows that “suitability for a teaching position is dependent on wholly individual conditions much more so than in other offices,” and Jews are therefore clearly unsuitable for all the reasons already mentioned for such aca¬ demic positions.In effect, Savigny argued that the Prussian emanci¬ pation edict actually did not require universities to accept Jews into professorial posts.
在报告中，萨维尼还列举了1812年《普鲁士解放法令》中模棱两可的条文。法令第八条宣称犹太人有资格担任那些“他们能够胜任”的学术职位，而法令第九条则规定犹太人担任其他公共服务和政府官职的权利将在不久后由法律确认。然而，由于犹太人显然无权担任神学职位，显然无法按照大学规章制度的要求进行基督教宣誓，例如犹太人不能在刑事案件中出庭作证（萨维尼援引普鲁士刑法第357条作为此陈述的佐证），所以犹太人完全不适宜担任大学法律院系职位。萨维尼将这一观点扩展到大学所有职位，他主张：“一般经验表明，一个人是否‘适合担任教师职位完全取决于个人条件，而非取决于这个人是否担任其他职务’，因此犹太人显然不具备上述担任此类学术职位所需的所有条件。实质上，萨维尼认为《普鲁士解放法令》实际上并不要求大学接受犹太人担任教授职位。
To Hardenberg’s credit, he simply ignored Savigny’s and the law faculty’s anti-Semitism and instructed Altenstein to settle the case in favor of Gans. Desperate and nonetheless fully resolved against having a Jew among them, the law faculty voted again against accepting Gans and appealed to the king to decide in their favor. All this put Altenstein in a precarious position. Altenstein concurred with Hardenberg about what should be done about Gans’s application; the law faculty, though, was firmly set against accepting Gans, and because of their appeal to the king, there was a threat of royal intervention; and Altenstein’s own position in the government was already shaky enough. Confronted with those factors, Altenstein took the safe way out and simply prevaricated on the matter, which, however, only served further to irritate Harden¬ berg, who kept sending him letters instructing him again and again to settle the matter in Gans’s favor. Finally, frustrated by Altenstein’s inaction, he wrote Altenstein, as he put it in his letter, for the “seventh time” to order him to decide the case in Gans’s favor.
考虑到哈登贝格的声望，他根本不把萨维尼和法律系教师的反犹主义当回事，指示阿尔滕施泰因从有利于甘斯的角度处理此事。但法律系教师顽固且坚决反对犹太人成为他们的同事，再次投票拒绝接受甘斯，并上奏国君以确定他们的倾向。这一切让阿尔滕施泰因忧心忡忡。阿尔滕施泰因就如何处理甘斯的申请与哈登贝格进行了磋商，尽管如此，法律系教师依旧坚决反对接受甘斯，由于他们上奏国君，这就存在皇室出面干涉的威胁，而阿尔滕施泰因自己在政府中的官位也已岌岌可危。面对这些因素，阿尔滕施泰因采取了稳妥的办法，对此事睁一只眼闭一只眼，然而，这进一步激怒了哈登贝格，他不断致信阿尔滕施泰因，再三指示他从有利于甘斯的角度处理这个问题。最终，因阿尔滕施泰因的不作为而心情受挫的哈登贝格，“第七次”致信阿尔滕施泰因，在信中命令他务必站在甘斯的角度对这件事作出决断。
The law faculty, though, knew where their king stood and where Altenstein had feared that he stood; on August i8, 1822, the king effectively abolished the emancipation edict through a cabinet order and expressly declared that Gans was not to be employed as an “extraordi¬ nary professor.” Altenstein, shaken by what he had always feared was going to happen, wrote to Gans and offered him a stipend of 1,000 Thalers so that he could prepare himself for some other mode of employment.
但是，法律系教师知道国君的立场以及阿尔滕施泰因对国君立场的担忧。1822年8月18日，国君实际上通过一道内阁命令废除了解放法令，并明确宣布甘斯将不会被聘为“杰出教授”。阿尔滕施泰因因一直担心的事情发生而惶恐不安，他写信给甘斯，并提供给他1000泰勒的生活补贴，以便他准备另谋出路。
