第3章 “從伯爾尼到法蘭克福再到耶拿時期：失敗的計劃和新的開始”(4)

By the autumn of 1801, Holderlin had managed to land another position as Hofmeister with a German official in Bordeaux, France, and set out on December lo for Bordeaux, finally arriving there on January 28. In 1802, Susette Gontard, already suffering from tuberculosis, died of measles contracted from her children; Holderlin, unaware of this, ran into some unexplained difficulties in Bordeaux and returned home.? Once there, he learned of Susette Gontard’s death, and his precarious mental health only worsened. Very soon thereafter he began his rapid slide into the severe schizophrenia that was to render him more or less helpless for the rest of his life.

到1801年秋，荷爾德林已經想方設法找到另一個職位，將成為法國波爾多德國裔官員的家庭教師，12月10日動身前往波爾多，最終在1802年1月28日到達那里。1802年，蘇塞特·貢塔德，已經患上嚴重肺結核的蘇塞特·貢塔德，死于由她子女傳染的麻疹；荷爾德林不知道這件事，在波爾多遇到某些未被描述的困難，隨后回家了。一到家，他便獲悉蘇塞特·貢塔德的死訊，他岌岌可危的心理健康狀況因此雪上加霜。此后不久，他就開始迅速患上嚴重的精神分裂癥，精神分裂癥或多或少將使他余生呼天不應叫地不靈。

By 1800, it was thus more than clear that Hegel’s partner in philosophical conversation and closest friend was leaving, and there is some reason to suppose that the two friends were in fact already growing apart. Holderlin was more and more undergoing a crisis in his life, whereas Hegel was finally coming to terms with the world and getting his own thoughts in order. The combination of Hblderlin’s increasing personal crises and the death of Hegel’s father almost certainly played the leading role in Hegel’s reassessment of just where his life had been heading and his taking stock of himself and his future. Although it seems quite evident that Hegel had not been especially close to his father, there is, on the other hand, also no evidence of anything like a complete rupture between the two. There are no letters or accounts of Hegel at the time being laid low by his father’s death or bemoaning the event to anyone; but it is significant that Hegel waited until the March following his father’s death in January to return to Stuttgart, where he was needed to help consolidate and divide what was not exactly a large estate. Hegel was not overwhelmed, and he did not feel he had to leave immediately for Stuttgart. Hegel could not have helped being affected by his father’s death, and being led into the kind of self-evaluation that often accompanies such events. His decision to change the course of his life occurred during that period; he finally decided that he had moved around enough; the period of his life where he could put off decisions, remain a Hofmeister, and continuously toy with ideas about making a life for himself as some kind of ill-defined “popular philosopher” was now over; he needed to become more serious; he needed a career.

? ? 到1800年，從而更為清楚的是，黑格爾哲學交流的伙伴和最親密的朋友即將離去。有理由去猜想這兩個朋友其實已經逐漸各奔東西。荷爾德林在遭受著越來越多的人生危機，而黑格爾將最終與世界達成妥協和使他自己的思想變得條理分明。荷爾德林不斷增加的個人危機與黑格爾父親離世，這兩件事合起來幾乎無疑在黑格爾重新評估人生航向和他對他自己和他的未來作出判斷過程中扮演著十分重要的角色。雖然看似非常明顯的是黑格爾沒有特別地親近過父親，但是同樣也非常明顯的是根本不存在像父子兩人間完全決裂一樣的東西。沒有任何信件或記述表明黑格爾當時因父親去世而情緒低落或對任何人表示過對這件事的哀傷；而具有重要意義的是黑格爾從父親1月去世后一直等到3月才重返斯圖加特，在家中需要他幫助整理和分割一筆數額不大的遺產。黑格爾沒有悲痛欲絕，也沒有感到他必須迅速去斯圖加特。黑格爾不可能因父親去世而給他帶來有益的影響，也不可能致使他作出那種通常伴隨著這些事件的自我評估。他在這個階段作出了改變人生進程的決定；他終于決定他應該多出去闖一闖；他下列的這個人生階段此時已經結束了：他可以放棄某些決定，可以一如既往地去做家庭教師，可以繼續兒戲般地想使得他自已一生就做某種沒有棱角的“通俗哲學家”；他需要變得更加嚴肅認真；他需要一個職業。

After a trip in September of 1800 to Mainz to see at first hand the results of the Revolution as it been put into practice in Germany, Hegel, now possessed of a small inheritance, decided to see if he could make it as an academic philosopher. To do this, he summoned up his courage and got in touch with his old friend Schelling, with whom he had not corresponded since his Berne days. Schelling had since become quite a figure; having been introduced into literary circles by Immanuel Niethammer, a former seminarian at Tubingen and an organizing figure among the intellectuals at Jena, at the age of only twenty-three he had become in 1798 an “extraordinary” professor at the same university as Fichte, and, after Fichte’s dismissal from the university in 1799 on spurious charges of atheism, had come to be seen by virtually everyone there as Fichte’s legitimate successor at Jena. In his letter to Schelling (dated November 2, 1800), Hegel informed him about his plans to move to another location, citing Bamberg as a possible place, and asked him for some advice about where he should stay in Bamberg, saying that he was “determined to spend a period of time in independent circumstances, devoting it to works and studies already begun” and noting that he was not yet ready for the intensity and the “literary revels” of Jena, that he was looking instead for a town where there are “inexpensive provisions, a good beer for the sake of my physical condition, a few acquaintances.” (Hegel even mentioned that he “would prefer a Catholic city to a Protestant one: I want to see that religion for once up close” - was he thinking of Nanette Endel.?) After begging Schelling’s pardon for bothering him about such trivialities, he noted that he “hoped that we will once again find ourselves as friends.” Having said that, Hegel rather portentously informed Schelling that “in my scientific development, which started from more subordinate needs of man, I was inevitably driven toward science, and the ideal of youth had to take the form of reflection and thus at once of a system” - the death of his father perhaps prompting that phrase about transforming the “ideal of youth” and also signaling to Schelling, perhaps a bit ruefully, that he, Schelling, had been right all along about the importance of systematic philosophy.? Hegel had originally set out to involve himself in practical affairs as an “educator of the people” who would accomplish his mission through writings that would lead the people to a moral and spiritual renewal by assisting them in the construction of a “people’s religion.” In light of his failure to fulfill that project, Hegel remarked in his letter to Schelling, “I now ask myself, while I am still occupied with it, what return to intervention in the life of men can be found.This was no doubt a set of terribly emotional admissions for Hegel to make to Schelling. He had stubbornly for several years held onto his conception of himself as a man of letters despite what his close friends at the Seminary had no doubt urged him to do. He had disparaged the intricacies and subtleties of the post-Kantian movement as perhaps necessary parts of an “esoteric” philosophy that were nonetheless unnecessary for the more practical “application” of Kant’s philosophy; he had thus more or less insinuated that Schelling was indulging in mere speculation, in the “esoteric,” while he, Hegel, was working on more practical and immediate “intervention” in the form of “popular philosophy.” Now he had to admit to himself and to Schelling that his earlier ambitions had failed, that he had got it wrong, that Schelling had been right all along. He signed the letter in the familiar, “Wilhelm Hegel.”

? ? 在為親眼看看法國大革命在德國踐行時帶來何種結果而1800年9月到美因茨旅行后，黑格爾，現時擁有一小份遺產的黑格爾，決定去看看他能不能成功地當上一名學院派哲學家。為了這樣做，他鼓足勇氣跟老友謝林取得聯系，他自伯爾尼時期以來一直沒有與謝林通過信。謝林從那時以后已經成了相當有名的人物；在被伊曼努爾·尼特哈默爾引入文學小組后，作為圖賓根神學院畢業生和耶拿知識分子中的組織者，年僅23歲時他就在1789年當上了“特聘”教授，和費希特在同一所學校執教，在費希特1799年因面臨嚴重的無神論指控而被大學解聘后，謝林終于實質上被耶拿大學每個人當作費希特合理合法的接替人看待。在致謝林信中（此信日期為1800年11月2日），黑格爾對謝林說他計劃挪挪窩，列出班堡作為可去之處，征求謝林意見他是否應去班堡執教、說他“已下定決心在不受約束的環境中度過一段時間，把這段時間專門用于那早已著手了的寫作和學習”，強調指出的是他還沒有為耶拿的熱情和“文學狂歡”做好準備，他反倒在尋找一個小鎮，那里要有“價廉物美的供應品，出于我身體狀況的緣故要有上好的啤酒，要有幾個熟人?！保ê诟駹柹踔吝€提到他“也許寧可去信奉天主教城市而不愿去信奉新教城市我想看到宗教一勞永逸地終結”——難道他是在想念納內特·恩德爾嗎？）在懇求謝林原諒這些瑣事打擾了他后，他強調指出他“希望我們將再度發覺作為朋友的我們自己”。在寫完這句話后，黑格爾煞有介事地告訴謝林，“按照我的科學發展而且這種發展始自人類更為低等的需求，我勢必被迫拼命地走向科學，年輕時的理想必須采用反思的形式，因而同時采取體系的形式”——父親的去世或許催生了改變“年輕時的理想”這個階段，同樣也向謝林發出信號，或許有點悔恨地，他謝林理所當然地始終圍繞系統哲學的重要性做文章。黑格爾原先著手作為一名“人民教育家”投身實際事務，“人民教育家”應該通過作品來完成他的使命，作品應該通過幫助人們構建“人民宗教”從而引導他們實現道德和精神上的重生。由于未能圓滿完成這個計劃，黑格爾在致謝林信中談論道，“我現在捫心自問，雖然我對這個計劃仍然耿耿于懷，但是我發覺回到了干涉人們生活的東西。”這無疑是黑格爾向謝林表露的一系列極帶感情色彩的肺腑之言。他多年來一直頌固地堅持把他自己設想成是文人，盡管他在圖賓根神學院時的摯友無疑敦促他去這么做。他早就把盤根錯節和深奧精妙的后康德哲學運動貶低成或許是“秘傳的”哲學所必需的組成部分，然而這些組成部分對于康德哲學的更為實際的“應用”不是必不可少的；因此他或多或少地暗示謝林正沉溺于純粹的思辨，正沉溺于“秘傳的”哲學，而他黑格爾在以“通俗哲學”形式致力于更為實踐和更為直接的“介入”。眼下他不得不向他自己和謝林承認，他的早期宏大抱負已化落空，他作出宏大抱負是錯的，而謝林看法始終是對的。他以熟悉的“威廉·黑格爾”在信中簽名。

The imploring tone of Hegel’s letter to Schelling is not hard to miss, and Schelling replied in exactly the way Hegel had no doubt deeply hoped he would: Instead of sending him some addresses in Bamberg, he urged him instead to come to Jena and stay with him, and in January i8oi, in a move that was to prove decisive for him, Hegel arrived in Jena. He must have been both delighted and fearful of the prospect.? For Hegel, his stay in Frankfurt had been a mixture of the best of times and the worst of times. On the one hand, there were reasons for a certain despondency on his part: His attempt at entering the debate in Wiirttemberg had been quashed; his own career was still going nowhere — he was, after all, still just an unpublished Hofmeister, whereas Hblderlin was beginning to achieve some renown for his published poetry, and Schelling’s career had been simply dazzling. Moreover, not only was the Revolution not progressing well in France, sympathy for it in the Holy Roman Empire was decidedly on the wane. His father’s death at the end of this period had jarred him, prompting him to realize that he had to provide himself with a career and not just live on youthful daydreams of being a man of letters. He was now thirty years old with not much to show for himself; his grand ambitions about being a teacher of the people had produced no great publications, no public recognition, and little money. The death of his father only brought home to him how he had been living in a bit of a daydream, that he was no longer the slightly pampered young intellectual at the head of his class but only a barely employed man approaching what counted then as middle age.

? ? 黑格爾在致謝林信中充滿懇切的語氣，謝林完全以一種無疑早已為黑格爾所深切希望的謝林應該采用的方式作出回復：他沒有寄給黑格爾一些班堡講演稿，反倒敦促黑格爾來耶拿和他待在一起，而在1801年1月，通過一次必將證明對黑格爾來說是決定性的移居，黑格爾到達耶拿。他想必是對前景既高興又擔心。對于黑格爾來說，他在法蘭克福的逗留實際上是最美好時光和最糟糕時光參半。一方面，存在著使他產生某種沮喪的理由：有人阻止他試圖參與符騰堡爭論；他自己的生涯八字還沒有一撇——他畢竟仍然恰恰是個未出版過作品的家庭教師，而荷爾德林因發表詩歌開始小有名氣，謝林的事業長期以來簡直使人贊嘆不已。尚不止于此，不僅法國大革命在法國發展得不是很好，而且對它的同情在神圣羅馬帝國也出現了大幅度的削減；父親在這個階段結束時去世對他精神上打擊很大，促使他認識到他必須謀得一份工作，而不只是靠年輕時想當文人的白日夢生活。他眼下已屆而立之年卻碌碌無為；他關于做“人民教師”的宏大抱負沒有使他發表大量作品，沒有使他得到公眾認可，沒有使他腰纏萬貫。父親去世只不過使他確信，他一直以來有點生活在白日夢里，他不再是稍稍放縱的在本階層中處于領頭地位的年輕知識分子，而只是一個幾乎沒有受雇過的步入當時被算作中年的男子。

His decision to go to Jena, though, gave him some reason for optimism: He had been in lively company in Frankfurt, his new ideas were beginning to take form, and he was still fairly confident about the kind of social, moral, and religious renewal for which he longed and in which he wanted to play an important role. Now he had a chance to go to, of all places, Jena itself to pursue a career in letters and philosophy, a chance to be an academic and not a Hofnieister. Nonetheless, as if it were a reminder of just how beholden to others he still was, he once again had to apply to the Wiirttemberg church authorities for permission to visit a “foreign” university.

? ? 盡管如此，他去耶拿這個決定使他有某種理由對前景感到樂觀：他在法蘭克福結識了一批充滿活力的志同道合者，他的新想法在逐漸成形，他依舊對那種社會重生、道德重生、宗教重生抱有很大信心，依舊相信這是為他所期望的和他想在其中扮演重要角色的重生。眼下他有機會首先去耶拿這個地方繼續他的文人和哲學生涯，繼而有機會做大學教師而非家庭教師。然而，好像這樣的機會提醒他仍然恰恰多么對其他人表示感激，他再度不得不請求符騰堡教會當局允許他訪問一所“外國”大學。

The young man who always found it virtually impossible to talk about himself, who always found it easier to speak in generalities than in personal terms, who had mused to Nanette Endel that “I do not know why I always fall into general reflections,” was of course quite naturally emotionally attracted to the ideal of university life taking shape in Jena. He had obviously decided, no doubt at first with some reluctance, that such “intervention” in the life of men could come only by his producing some writing “in the form of a system.” He had decided that in order for him to become an “educator of the people,” it was first necessary to become a philosopher following Fichte’s model and to join the newly conceived Fichtean university within modern life. That decision was not only to affect Hegel’s career, it also decisively changed the very style in which he wrote. After having made that decision, Hegel’s prose became much more “Fichtean” and ivissenschaftlich; he abandoned the free-flowing prose style he had chosen in his earlier writings in favor of what he regarded as the more rigorous, “scientific” mode of presentation - like Holderlin, framing his thoughts in a kind of unrelenting style that refused to allow the reader to fall back on his own familiar use of language. The paradigmatically obscure Hegelian use of self-created technical terms remained the most ambiguous of the modernist ambitions he inherited from his old friend.

? ? 這個總是發覺實際上不能談論自己的年輕人，這個總是發覺容易言說共性而不易言說個性的年輕人，這個早已若有所思地對納內特·恩德爾說“我不知道為什么我總是陷入全面的反思”的年輕人，無疑十分自然地在感情上受到耶拿已經成形的大學生活理想的吸引。他早已明確地斷定，無疑起初帶有某種勉強地斷定，這樣的對人們生活的“干預”只有借助他所創作的某種“以體系形式”出現的作品才有可能實現。他早就決定，為讓他做“人民教育家”，首先必須成為以費希特為楷模的哲學家，首先必須加盟新構想出的現代生活中的費希特式大學。這個決定不僅必將影響黑格爾的職業生涯，它同樣也徹底改變他借以寫作的特有風格。在作出這個決定后，黑格爾的散文體變成更加“費希特式的”和科學的文體；他放棄了他在早期作品中所選擇的自由流動的散文風格，而喜愛使用被他看作的更為嚴謹更為“科學的”表述方式——像荷爾德林一樣，以一種冷峻的風格來建構他的思想體系，為的是不使讀者們依賴他自己對語言的嫻熟應用。對自創專門術語的范式上晦澀的黑格爾式的使用，依舊成為他從老友那里繼承的最為含糊不清的現代主義者的雄心壯志。

Still, although his ambitions remained high, he had been chastened by his experiences in Frankfurt and by having to come to terms with the death of his father; he belatedly came to the realization that he had to throw himself wholeheartedly into becoming what Schelling already was: a systematic philosopher. No other decision Hegel was ever to take was so decisive for him as that resolution to move to Jena and try his luck at something at which, thus far, he had experienced no real success.

? ? 還有就是，雖然他依舊志存高遠，但是他早已因他法蘭克福經歷備受磨煉和因必須讓步于父親去世而備受煎熬；他很遲才認識到他得全身心地使他自己成為謝林已經做成的人：一位自成體系的哲學家。黑格爾很可能有生以來所作出的其他決定都不像他現在決心移居耶拿和決心在某些東西方面碰碰運氣這個決定一樣干凈利落，在某些東西方面，到目前為止，他還沒有嘗到真正成功的滋味是什么。

Jena: Hegel’s Transformation

耶拿：黑格爾的轉型

In making the decision to go to Jena, Hegel thus also resolved to effect a decisive transformation of his old project and his plan for his life. His early identification with Bildung easily fit into the Fichtean model of the university: If the university was the central institution of modern life, and was to be staffed and run by “philosophical minds,” men of Bildung, then people like himself rightfully belonged in the university and in the field that was at the summit of university life: systematic philosophy. His failure at practical “intervention” in the process of moral and spiritual renewal could now be redeemed by following in the footsteps of his friend Schelling.

? ? 由于作出去耶拿的決定，黑格爾因此也就決意使他舊有的計劃和人生規劃出現決定性的轉型。他早期對教養的認同很容易適應費希特的大學模式：假如大學是現代生活的核心機構，假如大學全體職員和管理者將是“有哲學頭腦的”有教養的人，那么像黑格爾自己一樣的人們就恰好適合在大學和適合在這個作為大學生活最高的領域：體系哲學。他在對道德重生和精神重生過程中實際“干預”的失敗現在可能憑借步謝林后塵加以彌補。

Indeed, this decision was to give a definitive shape to the rest of Hegel’s life. Although he was not to get a regular (what was called an “ordinary”) appointment at a university until 1817, when he was fortyseven years old, he never abandoned the goal of securing such an appointment after having committed himself to that ideal. After 1800, he firmly believed that the university was the sole institution in which he could achieve the objectives he had set for himself while at Tubingen, and he was never again to waver in his conviction that not only was systematic philosophy the unifying point of all the disparate faculties of the modern university, but systematic philosophizing was a central if not in fact the central activity of modern life.

? ? 更確切地說，上述這個決定必將給黑格爾余生定下了調子。雖然他必將沒有得到大學定期的（可稱之為“普通的”）聘用直到1817年為止，其時他已近知天命之年，但是他在承諾去實現這個理想后從未放棄謀得這樣一個職位的目標。在1800年后，他堅信大學是唯一的在其中他可以達到他早在圖賓根時就已為他自己確立的特定目標的機構，他肯定絕不會再度動搖他這樣的信念，也即他不僅堅信體系哲學能把現代大學中所有全然不相干的系科融為一體，而且堅信體系哲學化是現代生活的一個中心活動，假如體系哲學化其實不是現代生活的這個核心活動。

Jena: The Modern University Takes Shape

耶拿：現代大學的成形

The town and the university had become famous at the end of the eighteenth century for their dazzling intellectual and cultural life, a development significant not just for Jena itself but for all of Germany.? All universities in Germany were in a state of crisis by this time. They were widely seen an antiquated, medieval institutions, corrupt to the core, run by a professoriate that was increasingly seen as teaching completely outmoded, useless knowledge, and fit only to be abolished (as the French had in fact done immediately after the Revolution). Even worse, the universities were turning out young men with no prospects for employment; there were simply not enough government and pastoral positions for all the men emerging with degrees of Magister from the German university system. Not surprisingly, student attendance at the universities was also dropping off precipitously, and many universities had become only expensive shells supported by increasingly uninterested princes. They were objects of increasing scorn; Goethe, for example, savagely mocked them in his play Faust. Because of this, many old German universities in fact simply ceased to exist during this period, and others were soon to pass away. Among others, Cologne (founded in 1388) ended its life in 1798; Helmstedt (founded in 1576) ceased to be after 1809; and Frankfurt on the Oder (born in 1506) expired in 1811.“ In fact, twenty-two German universities (more than half of the previously existing number) ceased to exist during the Napoleonic period.^’

? ? 耶拿小鎮和耶拿大學早在18世紀末就因它們令人贊嘆不已的知識生活和文化生活聞名，這樣的發展不僅對于耶拿自身而且對于整個德國都具有十分重要的意義。所有的德國大學到這時都處于危機狀態中。它們被普遍地看作是由全體教授把持的過時的中世紀式從頭爛到腳的機構，教授們日益被看作是在傳授完全落伍的史無前例的知識，它們已經到了非廢除不可的地步（像法國人在法國大革命后實際上迅速這樣做的一樣）。雪上加霜的是，有些大學證明年輕人的聘用前景十分堪憂；按照德國大學制度所有獲得碩士學位的畢業生完全不夠資格進入政府和擔任牧師。自然而然的是，大學在校生人數同樣也在出現銳減，很多大學僅僅成了被日益對大學毫無興趣的王公貴族支撐的昂貴而徒有其表的機構。它們逐漸成了被人嘲笑的對象；舉例來說，歌德在他劇作《浮士德》中就狠狠地嘲笑它們。由于這種狀況，德國很多老牌大學其實在這個階段完全不復存在了，其他大學也必定不久就消失了。在其他大學中，（創建于1388年的）科隆大學1798年結束了它的生命，（創建于1576年的）黑爾姆施塔特大學在1809年后關閉；（誕生于1506年的）奧德河畔法蘭克福大學1811年停止辦學。實際上，有22所德國大學（超過先前存在大學半數以上）在拿破侖一世時期就已不復存在了。

Moreover, given the ways in which universities seemed to promote a disorderly life among students and the nepotism and corruption that plagued all of them, it increasingly seemed that not only were universities outmoded institutions, they were actually morally harmful institutions for their youthful students. Universities thus seemed like the last place from which an important cultural movement of any kind would emanate, much less a movement as vibrant as had come out of the small, unimportant backwater town of Jena, whose university had traditionally been well known only for the exceptional rowdiness of its students.? Jena’s students were famous for their crudity, their habit of dueling, their secret societies, their drunkenness, and their bullying of townsfolk lower in station than themselves. The students at Jena - as contemptuous of learning as any students had ever been anywhere at any time practiced the ritual of conferring on each other the title of Doctor cerevisiae et vim (doctor of wine and beer), the ceremony for which consisted in a candidate’s drinking as much beer as three other selected opponents.**'* Jena was, to put it mildly, not known as a place where the life of the mind flourished.

? ? 尚不止于此，考慮到看來好像受到大學助長的學生混亂的生活方式和使他們所有人都受到禍害的裙帶關系和腐敗，漸漸看來好像不僅僅大學成了過時的機構，大學實際上也成了對它們的青年學生造成道德傷害的機構。大學因而似乎像各種重要文化運動都將發源于的最后場所，更不必說這樣的運動和出自耶拿這個很不起眼的死氣沉沉小鎮的運動一樣充滿生機，耶拿大學歷來只是因它學生特有的粗暴行為而惡名在外。耶拿大學學生因他們的粗野、他們的決斗習慣、他們的秘密社團、他們的酗酒和他們欺辱比他們自己地位低下的鎮民而惡名在外。耶拿大學學生——作為在任何時候任何地方都總是懷有的苔視學習的學生——練習一種彼此授予Doctor cerevisiae et vini（葡萄酒和啤酒博士）頭銜的儀式，這種儀式在于要求一位候選人所飲啤酒數量上要等于其他三位備選對手所飲啤酒的總量，耶拿大學，說得客氣點，根本就不是一個思想生活活躍的場所。

There were of course some exceptions in Germany to this model of university life, but they were few and far between. The most significant of these was Gottingen University, founded by the Hannoverian princes in 1737 and dedicated to modern principles.**^ The founders of Gottingen gave theology - traditionally the dominant subject in the university, and at many universities for all practical purposes the only subject - a very subordinate position. Having seen the damage that religious disputes had caused at Halle — an uncharacteristically prosperous university that had declined sharply when the Pietists there managed to get Christian Wolff (at that time the leading philosopher in Germany) dismissed from his position on doctrinal grounds - the founders of Gottingen were anxious to avoid the sectarianism that had often plagued German universities. The corresponding academic freedom that resulted from playing down the role of theology curiously enough even made Gottingen the leader in Enlightenment biblical criticism. The founders also consciously deemphasized philosophy, the other characteristically central faculty of a traditional German university; unlike the case of theology, however, that did not lead to its becoming a center of philosophical thought.

? ? 在德國當然有人對大學生活模式提出某些異議，而這些異議實屬鳳毛麟角。這些大學中最重要的當屬哥廷根大學，由漢諾威親王創建于1737年，致力于現代原理的研究，哥廷根大學創建者把神學——歷來是大學龍頭學科在很多大學實際上是唯一學科——放在非常次要的位置。在看出了宗教爭論對哈勒大學——一所那里的虔信派教徒設法把克里斯蒂安·沃爾夫（那時德國一流哲學家）從教義寶座上拉下馬時驟然衰微了的毫無特色的興旺發達的大學——造成的危害后，哥廷根大學創建者們極力地避免這樣的常常會給德國大學造成危害的宗派主義。因降低神學扮演的角色而帶來相應的學術自由，甚至還使哥廷根成了啟蒙運動中《圣經》批評的領導者，這是令人感到非常好奇的事情。哥廷根大學創建者同樣也自覺地降低哲學這另一門在傳統德國大學中富有特征的核心系科的重要性；可是，和神學情況不一樣，這種做法不會導致神學將成為哲學思考的中心。

Gottingen offered its professors both high salaries relative to other universities and freedom of thought, and it sought to attract only famous professors. It quickly excelled in what we would now call the social sciences. Most importantly, Gottingen made a conscious effort to attract a clientele not traditionally oriented to university life: the nobility. The nobility had typically ignored university life, preferring instead to go to a “knightly academy” (a Ritterakademie) where the emphasis was not so much on knowledge as it was on becoming the German version of a Renaissance gentleman.“ Gottingen made a conscious attempt to attract these types (who typically paid higher fees) and thus offered instruction not only in law and social science (knowledge useful for running a Land) but also in “dancing, drawing, fencing, riding, music, and conversation in modern languages.”*^’ Gottingen succeeded; even though the nobility made up only two percent of the population, they composed more than thirteen percent of the students at Gottingen.

? ? 哥廷根既為教授們提供相對高于其他大學的薪水又為教授們營造自由思考的氛圍，這樣做只是試圖吸引名教授前來哥廷根執教。它迅速擁有超強的我們現在通常所稱作的社會科學。最重要的是，哥廷根有意努力去吸引一種不是傳統意義上為大學生活定位的客戶：貴族。貴族通常忽視大學生活，反倒寧可去“騎士學院”（Ritterakademie），騎士學院重點不在于使人滿腹經綸而在于使人變成德國版文藝復興時期的紳士。哥廷根大學有意識地嘗試去吸引這些類型的人（他們通常繳納學費更高），哥廷根大學因而不僅講授法學和社會科學（對治理公國有用的知識），而且還講授“舞蹈、繪畫、擊劍、騎術、音樂和現代語交流”。哥廷根大學取得了成功；盡管貴族只占人口總數2%，他們卻構成了哥廷根大學在校生30%以上。

Jena’s intellectual supplanting of Gottingen was due to some contingent factors that put it in the position to answer some deeply felt needs of the time. Jena had none of Gottingen’s natural advantages. It was a small, insignificant town whose population almost never rose above 4,500. The wealthy Hannoverians, linked to the English royal family, lavishly supported their university at Gottingen, but the Thiiringen princes in charge of Jena were more or less indifferent to their own, both in enthusiasm and in financial support. The salaries at Jena were notoriously low, amounting to between 460 to 260 Thalers per year.? whereas a student was assumed to need 200 Thalers a year just to subsist.?^ However, for completely accidental reasons having to do with the history of Saxony (the Land in which Jena was located), the university, unlike all the other German universities, was not answerable to one individual noble for its patronage but instead to the four different Thiiringen nobles of Weimar, Coburg, Gotha, and Meiningen. This was fortunate for Jena; beholden to four different princes, it ended up for all practical purposes answering to none; the respective nobles could never meet or agree on anything, and they could not have cared less about the university. Although this meant that none of the Thiiringen princes was willing to give the university much support (or to increase professors’ salaries), it also meant that the Jena professoriate could achieve for themselves an unprecedented arena for freedom of thought and teaching, all of which they began exploiting around 1785.

? ? 耶拿知識界對哥廷根的排擠緣于某些偶然的因素，這些偶然因素使它能夠回答當時某些被人深深感到的需求。耶拿根本沒有哥廷根的天然優勢。它是一個很小的無足輕重的城鎮，人口幾乎絕不會超過4500人。富裕的漢諾威人，與英國皇室有聯系的漢諾威人，慷慨地支持他們的哥廷根大學，而掌管耶拿的圖林根親王或多或少情感上和財政上對他們自己的大學漠然置之。耶拿大學教職工薪水出了名的低，平均每人每年總共在460至260泰勒之間，而一個學生一年據說需要200泰勒才能勉強維持生計?？墒牵鲇谂c薩克森（耶拿所在的公國）歷史有關的完全偶然的原因，耶拿大學，不像所有的德國其他大學，不向一個單獨為它提供庇護的貴族負責而向魏瑪、科堡、哥達、邁寧根這四個不同的圖林根貴族負責。這是耶拿大學的幸運；由于依靠這四位不同的貴族，耶拿大學實際上最終不向任何人負責；各個貴族絕不可能為任何事情碰面或就任何事情達成一致，他們可能絲毫不關心大學事務。雖然這種情況意味著圖林根貴族根本不愿意提供耶拿大學很多資助（或增加教授薪水），但這種情況意味著耶拿大學全體教授可以獨享空前的自由思考和教學舞臺，所有這些在1785年左右開始在逐步拓展。

Jena was also fortunate because it lay in those territories protected by the 1795 Treaty of Basel, which exempted it from the Napoleonic decrees that had disrupted the activities of other German universities.? Largely because of this and the freedom of thought it offered to intellectuals, in the period following 1785 Jena quickly attracted a series of literary and scientific leaders who came to enjoy the liberty offered them by the university, and it quickly developed an outstanding faculty in medicine, theology, law, and of course philosophy. In 1784 (or maybe as late as 1785), Christian Gottfried Schiitz began lecturing on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and Jena (not Konigsberg, where Kant lived) almost instantly became the center for the propagation of Kantian philosophy. Schiitz founded a journal, the Allgemeine Literatur Zeitung, which also quickly acquired a wide circulation across Germany and became the chief organ for the discussion and dissemination of Kantian ideas. The Jena professors were able to augment their meager incomes by writing for the Allgemeine Literatur Zeitung, which also paid uncharacteristically high honoraria for published articles.

? ? 耶拿大學之所以是幸運的還有一個原因，它所處的地區受到1795年《巴塞爾條約》保護，該條約使耶拿大學豁免于拿破侖一世時期為瓦解德國其他大學活動而頒布的法令。主要由于這一點和它為知識分子營造的思考自由的氛圍，在1785年后這段時間耶拿大學很快吸引了一批文學和科學領軍人物，他們著實喜愛耶拿大學為他們營造的自由氛圍，耶拿大學很快在醫學、神學、法學、當然還有哲學方面培養出了杰出系科。1784年（或大概晚至1785年），克里斯蒂安·戈特弗里德·許茨著手開設伊曼努爾·康德哲學講座，耶拿（而非康德居住的柯尼斯堡）幾乎立即成了康德哲學傳播中心。許茨創辦了《文學總匯報》這份雜志，該雜志同樣也迅速地在全德國大量發行，成為探討和傳播康德哲學思想的主要工具。耶拿大學教授能夠借助為《文學總匯報》撰稿增加他們的微薄收入，這同樣也算是對得到發表文章的難得的高回報。

One of the most important elements in the development of Jena’s university was the acquisition in 1775 of a far-sighted minister of culture in Weimar who oversaw the university: Johann Wolfgang Goethe. When he came to Weimar, Goethe was already a figure of immensely high esteem in German life and letters and had also become quite a celebrity - indeed, perhaps the first real literary celebrity, in the sense of being an author whom people wanted to meet, and to hear him connect his personal experiences with his literary creations. Goethe took a keen interest in the development of the university and appointed a capable official, Christian Gottlob Voigt, to oversee the development of the institution. He was able to convince the poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller to come to the university in 1789 as an “extraordinary” professor (so called because his position was not one of the officially funded “ordinary” chairs). Although Schiller was to leave Jena to move to Weimar in 1793, the joint prospect of being in the vicinity of two such famous men (Goethe and Schiller) was enough to draw intellectuals to Jena and, following in their wake, more serious students.

? ? 耶拿大學發展中最重要的因素之一是1775年增添了一位魏瑪遠見卓識的文化部長掌管這所大學，約翰·沃爾夫岡·歌德。當他到達魏瑪的時候，歌德已經是德國人生活和文學中極受人尊敬的人物，同樣也早已成了一個大名人——更確切地說，也許早已成了第一個真正的文學名人，從作為一個被人們想見想聽他把他個人經歷與文學創作聯系起來的作者意義上說。歌德對耶拿大學的發展懷有濃厚的興趣，并任命一個能力強的官員克里斯蒂安·戈特洛布·福格特接管這個機構的發展。他能夠說服詩人兼劇作家弗里德里希·席勒在1789年來耶拿大學擔任“特聘”教授（之所以這樣稱呼是因為他的職位不是一個由官方撥款的“普通”教授職位）。雖然席勒預定1793年離開耶拿移居魏瑪，但是有機會一下子與兩位諸如（歌德和謝林）這樣的名人接近必將足以吸引知識分子來到耶拿和緊隨著他們的到來而吸引更多真誠的學生來到耶拿。

The coming of Schiller and then shortly thereafter of Fichte changed the course of the university at Jena and helped to establish a more or less “Jena view” of the world. In his inaugural lecture in 1789 on “What Does It Mean and To What End Do We Study Universal History.?” Schiller sharply distinguished between what he called the Brotgelehrte (literally, bread-scholars) and the philosophischer Kopf (the philosophical mind), the difference being that between the student who comes to the university to learn some skills in order to enter a profession (the Brotgelehrte) and the student who comes solely from the love of learning (the philosophischer Kopf). Only the latter pursues a noble purpose and really belongs in a university, and Schiller called on the students to assume, each on his own, this responsibility for themselves. In 1794, Fichte came to the university (also as an “extraordinary” professor) and intensified the line that Schiller had already taken vis-Tvis the relationship between the university and intellectual life. Fichte’s lectures quickly became a sensation, and students began flocking to Jena to hear him speak; soon his lecture halls were so packed that students stood on ladders to peer in the windows when Fichte was lecturing.*^ Declaring himself a “priest of truth,” Fichte argued that the scholar is both the teacher and the educator of mankind, since only the scholar is able to come to grips and articulate the truth that is the necessary condition for all people to achieve their proper humanity.'*” Moreover, the apex of the scholarly world is occupied by the philosopher, since only he can possibly grasp the unity that is implicit in all the other scholarly activities of the university and hold the university together in its scholarly and moral mission. Even more strongly than Schiller, Fichte called on the students to assume such responsibilities for themselves.

? ? 席勒的到來，接著此后不久費希特的到來，改變了耶拿大學的發展進程，有助于建立一個或多或少的“耶拿世界觀”。在1789年以題為“大學意味著什么和我們研究大學史到底為了什么？”的就職演講中，席勒敏銳地區分他稱之為的Brotgelehrte（直譯為面包學人）和Philosophischer Kopf（有哲學頭腦學人），也即區分那些想通過上大學學習某些技能以便從事一門職業的學生（Brotgelehrte）和那些完全因熱愛學習而上大學的學生（Philosophischer Kopf）。唯獨后者才會追求高尚的目標和真正適合上大學，席勒號召學生每個人都要承擔起他們自己的責任。1794年費希特（同樣也以“特聘”教授身份來耶拿大學執教，并進一步強化席勒關于在大學與知識生活關系方面早已采用的路線。費希特的講演旋即引起轟動，學生們開始成群結隊地涌向耶拿聆聽他的講座；不久他的講座大廳如此地爆滿以致有些學生站在梯子上透過窗戶仔細看費希特講演?！霸谛Q他自己是“真理的牧師”時，費希特論證道，學者既是人類的導師又是人類的教育家，因為只有學者才有能力逐漸把握和系統闡述真理而真理是所有想獲得高尚人性的人們的必要條件?！鄙胁恢褂诖?，學者世界的頂峰被哲學家占據，因為只有他們才有可能把握一種暗含于大學所有其他學者活動中的統一并才有可能體現大學學者何命和道德體命合為一體。甚至比席勒更強烈的是，費希特號召大學生承擔他們自己的這樣的責任。

In Fichte s formulations, the university and, by implication, really only the university at Jena, was therefore to be the central institution of modern life, the place where knowledge was to be unified and the freedom of humanity was to be underwritten. In one fell swoop, Fichte had transformed the idea of the university from that of the antimodern institution per excellence, an outmoded, morally and intellectually bankrupt corporate holdover from medieval times, into the central institution of modernity’s wishes and demands. In some ways, just as Fichte’s philosophy w as a radicalization of Kantianism, his ideas on the university w ere a radicalization of the Enlightenment conception of the Republic of Letters, according to which the central institutions of modern life w ere comprised of the network of writers, publishers, booksellers, and those who ran the Enlightenment salons.

? ? 在費希特的系統闡述中，耶拿大學和暗示真正只有耶拿大學因此才必將成為現代生活的核心機構，才成為知識必將被一體化和人類自由必將得到加強的場所。一下子，費希特改變了世人對大學的看法，把自中世紀以來大學被看作極端反現代的機構或被看作一個過時的道德和知識上破產的社團剩余物，變成被看作現代性的希望和要求的中心機構。在這些方面，正像費希特哲學是激進化的康德主義一樣，他對大學的看法同樣也是使啟蒙運動關于文學共和國的構想激進化了，依據這種被推向極端的構想，現代生活的中心機構由作家、出版商、書商和那些主辦啟蒙運動沙龍的人這一網絡組成。

Kant himself was a proudly self-proclaimed member of the Republic of Letters, which, as the phrase at the time had it, claimed to know no national boundaries, and in his piece The Con flict of the Faculties, Kant had paved the w-ay for Fichte by arguing that not only had the philosophical faculty matured enough to break away from dependence on other faculties (particularly the theological faculty), it could in fact now assume preeminence among them since it and it alone was a fully autonomous study, not beholden to any other body for its core doctrines (making it different, for example, from law, which was beholden to what the legislators had enacted).

? ? 康德本人驕傲地自稱為文學共和國的成員，文學共和國（像那時這個短語具有的含義一樣）宣稱不知道民族界線的存在，早在他的《系科之爭》這部著作中，康德就已借助以下的論證為費希特思想發展鋪平了道路：不僅哲學系早已成熟到足以擺脫對其他系科（特別是神學系）的依賴，而且哲學系其實現在可能在它們中表現得更為出色，因為哲學且唯有哲學才是一門充分自主的學科，才是一門因哲學的核心學說而使哲學自身不依靠任何其他系科的學科（舉例來說，使哲學自身有別于法學，因為法學依靠立法者制定的東西）。

As always, Fichte radicalized Kant’s doctrine and laid the foundation for the typically modern claims about the centrality of the university as the gatekeeper for admission to the elite. Certainly before Fichte, few people would have thought that the university was destined for anything more than a subordinate status in the emerging new world of political, economic, and personal freedom. Fichte’s calls for freedom and responsibility and his charge to the university to become the institution of modern life had no less than a revolutionary effect on the students.? Many freely offered to disband their secret societies and devote themselves to the ideals of learning, offering also in the process to hand themselves over to Fichte’s leadership. (Fichte’s rigidly moralistic personality led him to bungle things badly, leaving the students feeling betrayed by him, which led them in turn to disrupt his lectures, throw stones through his windows, and run him out of town; but after military troops were dispatched to Jena from Weimar and the student insurrection was decisively quashed, Fichte was able to reestablish himself, and his student supporters formed a short-lived Gesellschaft freter Manner Society of Free Men - to combat the old fraternities.)*''

? ? 一如既往，費希特使康德學說激進化并為大學作為接受精英的守門人的中心這一典型的現代主張奠定了基礎。當然在費希特之前，很少有人可能認為大學注定在蓬勃興起的政治、經濟和個人自由的新世界中不是處于從屬地位的機構。費希特對自由和責任的訴求與他對大學成為特定現代生活特定機構的指責，此二者絲毫趕不上革命對大學生產生的影響。很多人自愿脫離他們的秘密社團而獻身于學術理想，他們同樣也自愿在這個過程中把自己交給費希特領導。（費希特死板的道德主義個性致使他把某些事情搞得很糟，這就導致有些學生覺得被費希特出賣了，這反過來致使他們擾亂費希特講課，通過窗戶向費希特扔石頭，試圖把他趕出耶拿小鎮；但是在軍隊從魏瑪趕到耶拿且學生暴亂被果斷平息后、費希特才得以回到原位，他的學生支持者成立一個短命的Gesellschaft freier Geister（自由人協會）——以跟舊有的兄弟會作斗爭。）

What is more striking is how the students rapidly accepted Fichte’s claims and even demanded them. The generation of students attending Fichte’s early lectures was, of course, more or less Hegel’s own generation. During the late and post-Enlightenment period in which they had grown up, traditional religion had lost much of its hold on them. Many felt that the established churches had become far more interested in simply persecuting the unorthodox and protecting their privileges than in being the leaders of any kind of spiritual or moral movement. Fichte’s calls for the students to liberate themselves by assuming moral responsibility offered them an alternative to the orthodox religion they had rejected. They were now joined in a cause that went beyond their own private interests; they were called to be participants in a common social project that was to liberate them all collectively and individually.

? ? 更加引人注目的是，有些學生多么迅速地接受了費希特的主張，甚至他們多么迫切地需要費希特的主張。聆聽費希特早期授課的那代大學生當然或多或少就是黑格爾自己這代人。在他們所成長于的啟蒙運動后期和后啟蒙運動階段，傳統宗教大體上喪失了對他們的束縛。很多人覺得，那些已經建立的教會早已僅僅對殘酷迫害異教徒和保護它們自己的特權感興趣，而遠非對做任何種類的精神運動或道德運動的領導者感興趣。費希特號召大學生們通過承擔道德責任從而解放他們自己，這樣的號召為他們提供一種已經被他們摒棄的正統宗教的抉擇。他們眼下投身于超越他們自己私人利益的事業；他們受到召喚去參加制定一項必將使他們在集體和個體意義上得到徹底解放的共同的社會計劃。

Perhaps just as important, Fichte’s new conception of the university gave intellectuals a new place in the world. Before the Revolution, young men in France had flocked to Paris with dreams of becoming “men of letters” only to discover that, contrary to what they had hoped and expected, the Republic of Letters simply had no salaried positions in it, and it was not therefore possible actually to make a living as an “author.” Many of these disappointed young men began increasingly to sympathize with the growing calls for a revolutionary transformation of society. Fichte’s reconceiving of the role of the university, however, effectively gave young German intellectuals (such as Hegel) an alternative to a free-standing career as a man of letters. They could instead pursue their intellectual careers as salaried professors within the institution of the university rather than being locked out of an intellectual career altogether. In effect, young men with modernizing ambitions could within a modern, Fichtean university assume a salaried position in the social order while remaining intellectuals.

? ? 也許正像十分重要的是，費希特關于大學的新構想賦予知識分子在世界中新的地位。在法國大革命前，法國青年人心懷做“文人”夢的想蜂擁而至巴黎，而到了巴黎他們只不過發現，與他們早已希望和期待的東西相反，這個文學共和國中根本就沒有什么帶薪職位，它因而實際上不可能使他們以“作者”身份謀生。在這些大失所望的青年人中，很多人開始逐漸支持日益增長的借助革命改變社會的呼聲。不過，費希特對大學角色的重新構想實際上向德國青年知識分子（例如黑格爾）提供一種作為文人的獨立職業的選擇。他們不可能追求他們在大學機構中作為帶薪教授的知識生涯，而知識生涯完全被拒之門外。實質上，那些心懷現代志向的年輕人可能假定在現代費希特式大學中存在著符合社會秩序而仍然為知識分子提供的帶薪職位。

Fichte’s reconception of the university turned out to be one of the fundamentally modern stratagems for handling intellectuals, not just in Germany but elsewhere as well. By making them into salaried professionals in charge of what was supposed to be the crucial institution for the modern order, the danger that they would instead turn into smoldering, resentful men and women working outside the accepted social framework was put aside. After Fichte’s revolutionary reconceiving of the role of the university in modern life, the intellectual acquired the ability - and maybe even an odd sort of duty - to imagine his or her life henceforth as a Professor, not as a man or woman living outside society in some idealized state of the Republic of Letters. In some ways, the Professor became the salaried position within that idealized Republic.? Fichte thus managed to recast the image of the university from that of a backward, outmoded institution inimical to all that was modern to the focal point of modern life itself, the agent of social and moral renewal; and philosophy was to be the pinnacle of that movement, the point in the university where all those elements came together. Fichte also succeeded in transforming the image of the professor from that of a pedantic, narrowly focused, antiquated fellow fit only to be an object of ridicule into that of a heroic, modern individual, the moral exemplar of modern life - into, in Fichte’s phrase, the “priest of truth.”

? ? 費希特因而想方設法去重塑德國大學的形象，想方設法把一個落后而過時的、對所有作為現代東西充滿敵意的機構形象變成現代生活本身的焦點，變成社會重生和道德重生的行動者；哲學必將成為這場運動的頂峰，成為所有這些因素都匯聚于其中的大學中的焦點。費希特同樣也成功地改變了教授的形象，使教授從一個迂腐、目標狹隘、因循守舊、僅僅適合于作為嘲弄對象的人物變成一個英雄般的現代個人或現代生活的道德楷模——變成，用費希特的話說，“真理的牧師”。

Jena’s “Literary Revels” and the Birth of Romanticism

耶拿的“文學盛宴”與浪漫主義的誕生

The intellectual efflorescence at Jena that had drawn in Schelling and now Hegel himself had attracted not only academics. The Jena environment - and particularly Fichte himself - drew in others who were only tangentially associated with the university. Fichte had put a great set of personal and moral demands on his hearers, summoning them to accept fully and individually the responsibility for their own actions and beliefs, but those demands had, almost paradoxically, been enthusiastically received. The dogmatists, Fichte claimed, were incapable of understanding the deep truths of the post-Kantian idealist turn in thought because they had yet to understand just how free they were; they simply failed to see that the buttresses holding them up were only self-erected props. Thus, no refutation of dogmatism (such as that offered by Kant’s and then Fichte’s philosophies) could gain any foothold in their minds because, as Fichte put it, they were incapable of understanding their own radical freedom.’^ Fichte called out to the audience at his lectures to assume their own freedom, to realize it within their own lives and reflections, and, implicitly, told them that those who continued to abide by the old order were personally incapable of perceiving this truth unless and until they somehow “converted” and came to grasp their own freedom.

? ? 耶拿知識繁榮昌盛早已吸引了謝林且眼下又吸引了黑格爾本人，而耶拿知識繁榮昌盛吸引了的不僅僅是大學教師。耶拿環境——特別是費希特本人——吸引了其他和耶拿大學絕對毫無關系的人們。費希特為他的聽眾提出了一大套個人要求和道德要求，號召他們充分接受從個人角度認同對他們自己的行動和信念負責，但幾乎具有悖論意味的是這些要求早已被他們熱情地接納。獨斷論者們，費希特聲稱，不能理解后康德唯心主義思想轉向的深度真相，因為他們仍然不得不去理解他們恰恰是多么自由；他們完全未能弄清把他們托起的支柱只不過是自我樹立的支撐物。這樣一來，凡是對獨斷論的反駁（例如康德哲學提供的繼而費希特哲學提供的對獨斷論的反駁）都不可能在獨斷論者心目中獲得任何立足點，因為，像費希特指出的，獨斷論者不能理解他們自己的激進的自由?！百M希特在講座上呼吁聽眾假定他們自己的自由，意識到他們自己的生活和反思領域的自由，并含蓄地告訴他們那些繼續守護舊秩序的人們單憑個人不能夠理解這個真相，直到他們設法“改變信仰”和最終把握他們自己的自由為止。

Obviously, a troubling set of questions would have arisen for those who took this message to heart. One was: How does one bring the “dogmatists” around to understanding their own freedom.? How does one effect such a change of soul? In the context of Germany at the time, this question had a real, deeply felt practical force to it. How was the moral and spiritual renewal of Germany - the very idea of the revolution - to be brought about if it was to be accomplished by those who continued to think of themselves as “unfree” (and to rely on the accepted canons of tradition and church)? The answer that quickly emerged came from a creative and brilliant misreading of what Kant and Fichte were demanding: The power of the imagination, especially as employed by self-possessed artists (those willing to break with the accepted, given “classical” standards of art), would be the vehicle by which people would be brought around to this spiritual change. The Romantic artist (and not the classical artist slavishly following the socalled classical forms) would be the vehicle for the dispensation of the new order. By exhibiting freedom at work, art would become emancipatory and thereby also become political.

? ? 十分明顯地，一系列令人煩惱的問題大概對于那些非常關心這個信息的人們來說已經產生了。問題之一是：一個人怎樣致使“獨斷論者們”去理解他們自己的自由呢？一個人怎么使“獨斷論者們”發生這樣的心靈變化呢？在當時德國語境中，這個問題對德國具有一種真正的、被人深深感受到的實踐力量。德國的道德重生和精神重生——革命這一特有的觀念——怎么必將被致使得以產生，如果這兩種重生必將被那些繼續把他們自己看作“無自由的”人們所完成（和必將依賴于得到認可的傳統和教會的規范）？一個不次就出現的答案來自對康德和費希特所要求的東西作出創造性的卓越的誤讀誤解：想象力，特別是作為沉著的藝術家們（那些愿意打破得到認同的、給予的“古典”藝術標準的人們）所使用的想象力，應該成為人們將借以被促使產生精神變化的工具。浪漫派藝術家（而非盲目遵從所謂古典形式的古典派藝術家）將充當傳播新秩序的工具。依靠展示自由的作用，藝術有可能成變成思想解放工具，由此藝術同樣也有可能變成政治工具。