第9章 海德堡時期：成為焦點人物(2)
For Hegel and most of his generation, Jena’s dedication to Wissenschaft, to the construction of rigorous theory, to a more dynamic model of learning and thinking, and to a different, nondisciplinarian relation between professor and student was clearly the preferable model of university life. The older universities had only trained and drilled peo? ple into a certain type of orthodoxy by virtue of a certain type of rote learning, and consequently, the civil servants they produced had learned things almost solely by the book and without imagination; in turn, those graduates of the older university had become the model officials of the German Enlightenment’s version of the “machine state” (against which the author of the “The Oldest System Program of German Idealism” had inveighed). However, after the crushing and humbling defeat of the Prussian “machine state” by Napoleon at Jena in 1806, that ideal of learning and of the university itself had fallen from favor. Faced with the daunting task of coming to terms with the post-Napoleonic restruc? turing, the various reorganized governments of Germany began looking for some new way to train their civil servants so that they did not find themselves out of step with the times once again. The new, Jenainspired university seemed therefore to be the kind of thing that could supply the new kind of educated civil servant for which they were looking.
? ? 對于黑格爾和他那代人中的絕大多數人來說，耶拿大學致力于科學，致力于嚴格理論的建構，致力于一種更有活力的學習和思考模式，致力于教授與學生之間的與眾不同的非懲戒性的關系，所有這些顯然都是更可取的大學生活模式。舊式大學只是借特定類型的死記硬背的學習把人培養成特定類型的具有正統觀念的人，從而那些由舊式大學培養出的國家公務員幾乎只是通過書本學到知識而根本不具備想象力；依次地，這些舊式大學畢業生成了德意志啟蒙運動視為的“機器國家”的模范官員（這樣的官員遭到《德國唯心主義最早體系綱領》作者的痛斥）。不過，在1806年普魯士“機器國家”被當時在耶拿的拿破侖決定性地和令人蒙羞地擊潰后，學習的理想和大學自身的理想不再受到人們的青睞。面對如何完成后拿破侖一世時期艱巨的重建任務，德國各個經過重組的政府著手尋求一些新的方式培養國家公務員，所以它們沒有發覺它們自己再一次被時代步伐甩在后面。這種新型的受耶拿大學啟發的大學因此看來好像應該成為那種被它們在尋找的能夠提供新型國家公務員的大學。
Consequently, the number of students attending universities in? creased rapidly (nearly doubling between 1800 and 1835), and in places like Heidelberg, grew at an even greater rate. The new ideal of Wissenschaft, moreover, put new demands on those students. They could no longer be the loutish brawlers famous from earlier times, protected by the traditional medieval corporate immunities; they had to become the serious, even “moral” students committed to Bildung and the life of the mind that Fichte had tried to establish at Jena.
? ? 因此，上大學的學生人數急劇增長（1800年至1835年間幾乎翻了一番），在像海德堡這樣的地方，大學生人數以更快的速度增加。再者，新科學理想對這些學生提出新的要求。他們可能不再是早先時代有名的粗野的打架斗毆者，不再享有中世紀傳統社團豁免權；他們必須成為嚴肅認真的、甚至是成為“品行端正的”學生，承諾要有教養和過著那種由費希特嘗試在耶拿確立的精神生活。
The Rise of the Philosophical Faculty
Likewise, the universities themselves and the professors within them had to change their ways. The central faculties of the traditional German university were law, medicine, theology, and philosophy. (The philosophical faculty included subjects such as history and the natural sciences.) One of the key features of the newly emerging university based on Wissenschaft and Bildung was the way in which the philosoph? ical faculty came to be central to the mission of the university as the place where all the other subjects taught at the university were to be unified and ordered. (Niethammer’s “General Normative” for schools in Bavaria, for example, had attempted to build this newly emerging centrality of the philosophical faculty into the curriculum of the Gym? nasium.) Both law and medicine - and, increasingly, theology itself - thus began to understand themselves as guided and ordered by the philosophical faculty and, as Fichte had argued at Jena and then later at Berlin, within that faculty itself, the philosophers per se were to be the leading lights.
哲學系的崛起
? ? 同樣，一些大學自身和這些大學里的教授也不得不改變自己的發展方向。傳統德國大學里的龍頭系科是法學系、醫學系、神學系和哲學系。（哲學系包含諸如歷史學和自然科學這樣的學科。）新問世的大學奠基于科學和教化，這樣的大學的關鍵特色之一在于某種方式，借此方式哲學系最終成為完成作為特定場所的大學使命的中堅系科，在這個特定場所，所有在大學講授的其他學科都必將得到統籌協調。（舉例來說，尼特哈默爾關于巴伐利亞院校的“通用規范”就已嘗試把這種新問世的以哲學系為中心的做法搬到高級中學課程中。因此，法學系和醫學系這兩個系科——還有神學系自己也越來越——著手把自己理解為受引領和聽命于哲學系，像費希特早在耶拿和之后在柏林時就已力主的，有些哲學家本身注定是航標燈式的人物。）
That the philosophical faculties rose to this position had in part to do with the decline of theology as a central faculty in the university.? Part of that decline was surely based on the decreasing number of jobs for trained theologians; but another and equally important part of it was the attempt by the modern faculties to free themselves from the chains of theological orthodoxy. Most of the disputes between the university and the ruling orders had traditionally been about theological matters and had usually had to do with some alleged violation or undermining of accepted orthodoxy. Kant himself, for example, had run into trouble for his writings on religious issues that challenged the governing ortho? doxy. The modern concern with freedom, however, which had been so intoxicatingly developed first by Kant himself and then by his idealist successors at Jena, gave the modernist reformers a firm motivation to cut the university free from its older theological bondage, and the philosophical faculty naturally emerged as the most likely candidate to supply the missing foundation for university studies that theology had partially supplied in the past. Indeed, it was in part in order to escape from such theological control of the university that the professoriate put the philosophers in charge, and even more strikingly, many of the leading theologians of the period also enthusiastically subscribed to this view. For example, the theologians Daub and Paulus were the key figures in bringing Hegel to Heidelberg (Paulus was also a good friend of Hegel’s), and Schleiermacher, the great theologian of the university at Berlin, openly lamented losing Hegel to Heidelberg, remarking in a letter in 1816 to a friend (a professor at Heidelberg), “It may be that our minister von Schuckmann is responsible for your having snatched Hegel away from under our noses. God knows what is to become of our university when it so sorely lacks philosophers.”^*^
? ? 哲學系地位的上升部分地與神學系作為大學核心系科的下降有關。下降的部分原因當然奠基于培養出的神學家就業不景氣；但是下降的另一同樣重要的部分原因在于現代學科試圖擺脫神學正統觀念的束縛。大學與統治秩序之間的絕大多數爭端傳統上都是神學的事情，并且通常與某些所謂的違反或削弱公認的正統觀念有關。舉例來說，康德本人就因他關于宗教問題的著作對占支配地位的正統觀念構成挑戰而招惹麻煩。然而，現代人對自由的關注，最先由康德自己接著由他在耶拿的唯心主義繼承者發揚的令人興奮的對自由的關注，使現代主義改革者堅定信心去讓大學掙脫舊有的神學的束縛，而哲學系自然顯出可能最有資格提供那過去部分地由神學提供的現已缺失的大學學業基礎。實際上，部分地是為了擺脫這樣的神學對大學的控制，教授委員會才委任哲學家執掌，更惹人注目的是，那時的許多一流神學家同樣也熱情地支持上述觀點。舉例來說，神學家道布和保盧斯是把黑格爾挖到海德堡的關鍵人物（保盧斯也是黑格爾的好友），施萊爾馬赫這位柏林大學大神學家公開悲嘆黑格爾投向了海德堡，他在1816年致友人（海德堡教授）信中說道：“我們的馮·舒克曼部長可能要對你從我們眼皮底下搶走黑格爾負責。天曉得在極其缺乏哲學家時我們的大學必將變成何種模樣?！?br>
The decline in the status of theology was accompanied, naturally enough, by a huge drop in enrollments during this period. But, inter? estingly enough, enrollments in philosophy, at least at Heidelberg, did not necessarily increase as a result of the decline in theology. The reformed civil services were, after all, to be staffed with the graduates of the new universities, most students viewed the university simply as a path to a promising career, and since cameralistics and law seemed to be the surer path to a career, most students took that path and enrolled in that faculty. What Schiller had dismissively characterized in his address in Jena as the Brotgelehrte (the students studying for their “bread,” that is, their careers, instead of for the joy of learning itself) had in fact become the main constituents of the new university. This put the students in direct conflict with the way that the professors understood themselves and the university at which they were working and gave a tremendous impetus for the philosophical faculty further to assert its supremacy in the curriculum and in the wider life of the country.
? ? 神學地位的下降自然而然地帶來了這個階段學生入學人數的銳減。然而，極為有趣的是，哲學系入學人數，至少海德堡大學哲學系入學人數，并沒有因神學地位的下降而必然有所增加。畢竟，改革后的公務員必將由新型大學的畢業生擔任，絕大部分大學生簡單地把大學看作獲得有前途的職業的途徑，因為財政學和法學看來好像成為謀取職業的更穩妥的途徑，所以絕大多數學生選擇這條途徑且進入這些系科。席勒在耶拿演講中輕蔑地形容為的“Brotgelehrte”（為“面包”也即為職業而非為學習自身帶來的樂趣而學習的學生）實際上已經成了新型大學的主要組成部分。這就使大學生與教授借以理解自身的方式和教授正在供職于的大學產生直接的沖突，這就使哲學系增添無窮動力進一步維護自己在大學課程中和廣闊的國家生活中的優先地位。
Tensions in the New Universities
The particular tension between a faculty devoted to Wissenschaft and students devoted to their careers had a special edge to it at Heidelberg, which was populated with students studying for a career but who had already absorbed a certain Romantic view of the world. Many students had been drawn to Heidelberg because of the way in which the faculty and the Romantic writers associated with the university had developed a form of Romanticism in light of an emerging sense of German iden? tity. The bucolic setting of the town and its famous ruined castle on the hill (something that particularly caught the imagination of a generation becoming fascinated by the spectacle of ruins of all sorts) did nothing to diminish its appeal as a worthy Romantic successor to Jena. However, by the time Hegel arrived, the Romantics had themselves long since departed Heidelberg, and the more professorial, rationalist faculty soon found themselves at odds with students who were attempting to lead what was already by then the emerging myth of romantic student life at “old Heidelberg.”
新型大學中的緊張關系
? ? 致力于科學的系科與致力于職業的學生之間特殊的緊張關系在海德堡變得特別尖銳，這里充斥著為謀求職業學習的學生，但是他們已經吸收了一些浪漫派作家的世界觀。很多學生由于一種方式而被吸引到海德堡，借助這種方式，大學系科和那與大學相聯系的浪漫派作家依照現存的德國人認同感闡發浪漫主義形式。小鎮田園牧歌般的環境和小鎮附近山上著名的傾毀的城堡（某種特別引起沉迷于各種廢墟景觀的一代人幻想的東西）絲毫沒有減少小鎮作為可敬的耶拿浪漫主義繼承者的吸引力。然而，至黑格爾抵達的時候，浪漫主義者老早就已經離開海德堡，而思想較為古板的奉行理性主義的教職員工很快發覺他們自己與那些學生意見分歧，因為這些學生在嘗試為到那時已在“新海德堡”問世的浪漫主義學生生活神話的東西鳴鑼開道。
But in making this break with the past and setting up the university on the model of Wissenschaft^ the reformers were also setting themselves on a course that was to lead to some unexpected collisions between themselves and the ruling powers. From then on, the main areas of dispute between the universities and the ruling powers were not so much theological as political - that is, they were concerned not so much with violations of theological orthodoxy as with breaches of political observance. This was only to be expected as states gradually assumed the financing of the universities and as the traditional medieval corpo? rate structure of self-rule and corporate immunity vanished in the wake of the revolutionary restructuring of German life.
? ? 但是，在與過去決裂和依據科學模式創辦大學時，改革者自己同樣也在逐漸使他們自己置身于一種過程，這種過程必將導致某些意想不到的在他們自己與統治勢力之間的沖撞。從那時起，大學與統治勢力之間爭論的主要領域主要不是神學領域而是政治領域——也即爭論的主要領域大體上不涉及違反神學正統觀念而涉及違犯政治慣例問題。只不過必將指日可待的是，隨著德國人實現生活上的全新重建，國家逐漸承擔起大學財政事務，傳統的中世紀的自治團體結構和團體豁免權就不復存在了。
Several other things conspired to make life particularly chaotic for the professors in the new university. Student enrollments were going up, and professorial status and pay were on the rise; but revenues were not increasing as rapidly, inflation was running high, and the reorgan? ized, rationalized governments were now completely footing the bill for universities in a time of fiscal chaos for themselves. Since the newly reorganized universities were more or less making up the rules as they went along, there were ongoing struggles for authority as to who was to decide which issues about university life. Roughly, those struggles broke down into conflicts between attempts by the professoriate to run the university and attempts by the government to run them. This was particularly evident in the matters of appointments. The government tended to think that since they were footing the bill, they had the right to appoint all the professors, and, not unsurprisingly, the faculty re? sisted that view. The government was also interested in teaching the large numbers of new students for as little money as possible, which made the government especially receptive to hiring “extraordinary” professors or Privatdozenten (“private academics”). The “ordinary” professors (such as Hegel) drew respectable salaries; the “extraordinary” professors, on the other hand, drew either very little salary (often only 300 Thalers or less, in contrast with Hegel’s 1,500 Thalers) or even none at all; and the Privatdozenten drew no salary at all. Both “extraor? dinary professors” and Privatdozenten therefore had to have money from independent sources (in other words, from their families) in order to support themselves; and they were encouraged to take these positions by the lure or merely the hope of one day securing “ordinary” profes? sorships for themselves. Since part of the “ordinary” professor’s income depended on student lecture fees (along with fees for reading doctoral work and for participating in doctoral examinations), the low-paid “ex? traordinary” professors and Privatdozenten came into direct competition with the “ordinary” professors for students and the money they brought with them. This of course gave the faculties powerful incentives to make the entrance requirements to the professoriate more stringent so that there would be less competition for student fees.^’
? ? 若干其他東西交織起來致使新型大學教授生活特別混亂。學生入學人數不斷增長，教授地位和工資也在提升；可是，國家財政卻沒有相應地迅速增長，通貨膨脹持續走高，而重組后的經過合理化改革的政府在自身財政一團糟時為大學負擔了全部費用。既然新近重組后的大學或多或少制定了自己正常運行時的規章制度，就誰來決定大學生活事務而論繼續存在著與當局的斗爭。粗略地說，這些斗爭導致嘗試由教授委員會管理大學與嘗試由政府管理大學之間的沖突。上述沖突在任命問題上表現得尤為突出。政府傾向于認為既然是政府買單，政府就有權利任命所有的教授，而且，并不令人驚奇的是，大學教職員工竭力反對這個觀點。政府同樣也對花盡可能少的錢來教育大量的新學生感興趣，這就使得政府特別樂于雇傭“臨時”教授或Privatdozenten（“私人學者”）。“專任”教授（例如黑格爾）要領取相當可觀的薪水；從另一方面來說，“臨時”教授要么領取很微薄的薪水（常常只有300泰勒或更少，這與黑格爾領取的1500泰勒薪水形成鮮明的對比），要么甚至根本不領分文薪水；私人學者根本沒有薪水?！芭R時教授”和“私人學者”因此不得不從單獨的來源（換句話說，從他們的家庭）拿錢養活他們自己；他們因“專任”教授職位的誘惑或僅僅是因希望有朝一日他們自己能夠獲得“專任”教授職位而被激勵去謀取這些職位。因為“專任”教授部分收入依賴于學生選課費（連同評閱博士學位論文和參加博士學位答辯的費用），所以地位低下的“臨時”教授和私人學者開始直接與“專任”教授競爭選課學生及其繳納的選課費。這當然有力地促使系科設置更加嚴厲的教授任職門檻，因此教授對學生選課費的競爭程度就會相對弱些。
With regard to these kinds of disputes, Hegel on the whole displayed a certain (and in some ways, uncharacteristic) humility, claiming that since he had been out of the university for so long he felt he needed to defer to his colleagues’ more seasoned judgments. (He even remarked in a letter to Niethammer about how he was “only a beginning univer? sity professor.”)^*^ But he was also quite forceful when it came to issues of professorial authority and autonomy. He was at the same time always very open to the particular needs of the students; in cases in which worthy students lacking money were applying for their doctoral degrees, Hegel would consistently waive his fees for examining them even though it clearly meant a reduction in his own income.
? ? 對于上述這類爭論，黑格爾大體上表現出一種特有的（從某些方面說向來少有的）謙卑，聲稱因為他長期以來不在大學工作，所以他覺得自己需要聽從同事更加成熟的看法。（他甚至還在致尼特哈默爾信中說道他“只是個初出茅廬的大學教授”。）然而，他在涉及教授權威和自律問題時又很強勢。他同時總是對學生的各種要求盡量予以滿足；在優秀學生缺少申請博士學位費用的情況下，黑格爾常常會免去他們的答辯費用，縱使這樣做顯然意味著他自己減少了收入。
A typical struggle over authority between the government and the faculty in which Hegel was involved was the case of Joseph H. Hillebrand. Hillebrand had been a Catholic priest teaching at a Catholic seminary who had lost his teaching position after he converted to Prot? estantism. He then applied to be an “extraordinary” professor in Hei? delberg and found support in the Badenese interior ministry for this.? The Badenese ministry made his permission to teach conditional on his getting the status of doctor from the philosophical faculty. (Why the Badenese ministry was interested in his case is not clear.) The faculty countered with the claim that Hillebrand could not be allowed to teach until he had submitted an appropriate Habilitation, the traditional work that bestows the right to teach. Some, like the dean of the faculty (Johann Heinrich Voss), however, thought that the matter was moot, since the government had appointed Hillebrand and that was that.? Others were not so sanguine, Hegel among them. Hegel complained that the request that the faculty grant Hillebrand a doctorate was super? fluous if the government really was to take unto itself the authority to appoint people to academic positions without any consultation with the faculty, and he was therefore certainly not ready in this case (as he was in so many other cases) to waive his examination fees. Hegel’s friend, the classicist Creuzer, joined him and called for the universities to assert their “dignity” against governments. When Hillebrand nonetheless sub? mitted a written work to the faculty - he submitted something he had written while still teaching at the Catholic seminary - the faculty casti? gated it; among the charges made against him was that he “understood no Latin” and that his work was composed mostly of “windy phrases.”
? ? 約瑟夫·H.希勒布蘭德事件是一場典型的黑格爾卷入其中的關于政府與學校之間的權力之爭。希勒布蘭德是一名在天主教神學院執教的天主教牧師，他在皈依新教后喪失了教學職位。他后來申請擔任海德堡大學“臨時”教授，并獲得巴登內務部對這件事的支持。巴登內務部要他承諾執教的條件是他將獲得哲學系博士身份。（目前無法弄清為什么巴登內務部對希勒布蘭德執教這樣感興趣。）系里則反對巴登內務部的上述做法，主張希勒布蘭德除非提交一份相應的大學執教資格證書（這是獲得教學權利的傳統做法），否則不可能被允許來哲學系執教。然而，有些教工，像系主任（約翰·海因里?！じＫ梗┮粯?，認為這項要求是無實際意義的，原因在于政府已任命希勒布蘭德為“臨時”教授且這是鐵板釘釘的事情。其他人卻并不如此樂觀，黑格爾就是其中一位。黑格爾抱怨道，如果政府真正動用權力任命人們學術職位而根本不與哲學系做磋商的話，那么要求哲學系授予希勒布蘭德博士學位就是多此一舉。黑格爾因此在這種情況下（像他在很多其他情況下）肯定不準備免收答辯費。黑格爾的友人古典主義者克羅伊策爾與黑格爾齊心合力，呼吁大學應該維護自己的“尊嚴”，反對政府那套做法。當希勒布蘭德仍然向哲學系提交一份書面作品（他提交自己還在天主教神學院執教時就已寫就的作品）的時候，哲學系把這個作品說得一錢不值；在對他作出不利的指責中包括他“不懂拉丁文”和他的作品絕大部分由“空洞無物的言辭”構成。
Although firmly on the side of upholding the rights of the faculty to oversee new appointments, Hegel was nonetheless concerned to see that Hillebrand was treated fairly and did not become a mere vehicle on which the faculty could vent its displeasure with the government’s interference in the university. On reading a book by Hillebrand on pedagogy (which implicitly criticized Niethammer’s own work), Hegel noted that although “it cannot be taken for a scientific work,” that was not “its goal,” and that it moreover displayed a good “acquaintance with many philosophical thoughts”^^ The faculty was not nearly as kind as Hegel and demanded a Latin dissertation and a Latin oration from Hillebrand before the doctorate could be conferred on him. Tempers continued to heat up over the matter, but after Hillebrand finally man? aged to satisfy most of the faculty that he had done the necessary work for the doctorate (after having already been appointed by the govern? ment as “extraordinary professor”), many felt quite relieved that matter was over and that they had preserved their rights to examine candidates.
? ? 盡管堅定地站在支持系里有權利監督新人事任命這一方，黑格爾卻依然關注希勒布蘭德是否得到相當公正的對待，黑格爾也沒有純粹變成系里可能發泄對政府干涉大學的不滿情緒的工具。在審閱一本由希勒布蘭德撰寫的關于教育學的著作（該著作包含對尼特哈默爾自己的著作的批評）時，黑格爾強調指出：“它不能被當作一部有關科學的著作看待”，“它的目標”不是成為關于科學的著作，并強調指出它還展現出作者非?！傲私庵T多哲學思想”。哲學系幾乎不像黑格爾這么仁慈，要求希勒布蘭德在可能被授予博士學位前提交一篇拉丁文博士學位論文和做一次拉丁文演講。一些人對這件事的憤怨繼續發酵，但是，在希勒布蘭德最終設法使系里大部分人滿意，因為他完成了獲得博士學位的必要工作后（在他已被政府任命為“臨時教授”之后），很多人感到非常寬慰，因為事情結束了，因為他們保有了他們考察博士資格候選人的權利。黑格爾對這種安慰作出了辛辣的評論，指出他贊同“系里的權利得到了保留”的說法，因為，從這次具體的對抗來看，系里顯然已經沒有這樣的權力。
Hegel sarcastically commented on these reassurances by noting that he agreed that “the rights of the faculty have been preserved, since from this particular confrontation it has become clear that the faculty has no such rights.? There were many other such cases, although none that raised tempers quite as much as Hillebrand’s case. As the philosophical faculty began to emerge as the central faculty of the university, disputes between it and other faculties naturally arose. When a student (Franz Anton Regenauer) who had won a prize in cameralistics offered himself as a candidate for a doctorate from the philosophical faculty, the issue arose as to whether the faculty from the cameralistic section were to be allowed to be among the examiners for the degree in philosophy. (The degree could be conferred after an examination by the faculty; the examination consisted of answering some questions posed by the fac? ulty.) The philosophical faculty rejected the cameralistic faculty’s claims to be among the examiners, claiming that the philosophical faculty and they alone were competent to decide if the philosophical doctorate was to be conferred on Mr. Regenauer. Regenauer’s claim, however, that the cameralistic faculty should question him for the philosophical degree in fact rested on a government edict of 1812 that seemed to require exactly that. In the debate, Hegel tried to compromise between the factions by arguing that the 1812 edict only had to do with “disserta? tions” (and not examinations) that “were to have at the same time philosophical and cameralistic content” and thus that the philosophical faculty had in fact the right to examine Regenauer by themselves. (This put Hegel on the side of Johann Voss, the dean of the faculty, who himself had sided with the philosophers.) But when the faculty required a written work from Regenauer, Hegel also argued that their original timetable was unfair to Regenauer and should be extended. (Regenauer later dropped the matter, pleading that he did not have the necessary seventy-four florins for the required doctoral fees.)’**
? ? 還有很多其他類似的事件，盡管沒有哪個事件像希勒布蘭德事件一樣引起某些人的憤怒。隨著哲學系開始成為大學的核心系科，它與其他系科之間出現沖突在所難免。當一個獲得財政學獎學金的學生（鄧朗麥，安東·雷格瑙爾）參加哲學系博士學位候選人角逐的時候，出現了財政學系教師是否將被允許擔任哲學學位考官的問題。（學位可在通過系里考試后授予；考試內容包括回答系里提出的一些問題。）哲學系拒絕財政學系教師也擔任考官的要求，聲稱哲學系教師且單單他們才有資格決定哲學博士學位是否將被授予雷格瑙爾先生。不過，雷格瑙爾聲稱財政學系教師應該就哲學學位對他進行提問，這個主張實際上依據的是1812年政府法令，而且這項法令看來確實是作出了這樣的要求。在這場爭論中，黑格爾努力通過以下做法在各派之間做好調和工作：主張1812年政府法令僅僅與“同時具有哲學和財政學內容”的“學術演講”（而非考試）有關，因此哲學系教師其實有權利單獨組織對雷格瑙爾進行考試。（這就使黑格爾站到系主任約翰·福斯這一方，約翰·福斯自己同哲學家們站在一方。）然而，當哲學系教師要求雷格瑙爾提交一篇學術論文時，黑格爾同樣認為他們原定的時間表對雷格瑙爾有失公平，因此原定時間表應該向后推遲。（雷格瑙爾后來不再提這件事情，辯稱他不必再交納博士學位答辯要求交納的74弗羅林費用。）
Not everything turned on such weighty issues. When another student (a Mr. Franz Jakob Gobel) pleaded that he needed to put the examina? tion quickly behind him because he had been offered a position as a professor in the Netherlands (apparently as a professor of mathematics), the dean told the faculty that in his opinion, they should expedite things. But a quick examination by some of the professors discovered great gaps in Gobel’s knowledge of Greek and mechanics, and Hegel noted that to his surprise Gobel showed no understanding at all of the difference between integral and differential calculus or of the fine points of mechanics, which made Hegel all the more skeptical that any univer? sity would actually make such a person a professor of mathematics; if the faculty were to bestow a doctorate on Gobel, Hegel sarcastically noted, “the doctoral diploma would easily appear here as an instrument to compensate for his lack of knowledge.”’*^
? ? 還是有些事情沒有變成這樣沉重的問題。當另一個學生（弗朗麥，雅各布·格貝爾先生）請求他需要盡快參加博士學位答辯，因為他已被聘為荷蘭大學教授（顯然被聘為數學教授）的時候，哲學系主任向全系教授們通報了他的請求：按照他的意見，他們應該盡快處理他的博士學位答辯相關事宜。然而，一些教授對他進行快速考試后發現格貝爾在希臘文和力學知識方面非常欠缺，黑格爾也強調指出，令他驚訝的是，格貝爾顯然根本不懂積分學與微分學的差異，或對力學的若干細節一無所知，這使黑格爾更加懷疑大學將會讓這樣一個人做數學教授。如果哲學系計劃授予格貝爾博士學位，黑格爾辛辣地說道：“博士文憑在這里就會容易成為一種彌補他知識匱乏的工具。”然而，在哲學系教授最終同意格貝爾重寫的學術論文質量上完全達到授予博士學位水平的時候，黑格爾同樣也贊同他們對格貝爾這篇學術論文的考量。
But when the faculty finally agreed that Gobel’s rewritten work was of sufficient quality, Hegel went along with their judgment. When a Mr. James Bothwell applied for the doctorate but was turned down (for being in the eyes of one of the relevant faculty members “superficial, limited . . . and a shameless windbag”), he then applied for the right to conduct lectures and some? how managed to enlist the vice-rector of the university in his cause; Hegel was only too happy in that case to concur with his colleagues (who had since come to judge Mr. Bothwell even more harshly as a “liar and a braggart” about his credentials) and to deny Bothwell any consideration at all.^^
? ? 當雅梅斯·博特韋爾先生申請博士學位遭拒的時候（因為在系里一位相關的審核論文成員眼中，這篇博士學位論文是“膚淺的、眼界狹隘的……論文申請者是無恥的空談者”），他接著申請進行試講的權利并且千方百計贏得大學副校長在這件事上對他的支持；黑格爾在這件事上二話沒說同意同事的做法（他們自那以后對被認為是像博特韋爾這類“吹牛撒謊的人”的博士學位證書審查工作變得更加嚴厲了），并且同意絕對不對博特韋爾再作考慮。
Underlying all of Hegel’s participation in the struggles over authority between the government and the university and over the newly emerg? ing standards of learning to be expected from students was a deeper view' of the role of the university and the role of the professor in the new university. As a professor in the newly reorganized university, Hegel understood himself as a man of Bildung and a professor devoted to Wissenschaft, something he shared with many other colleagues. More? over, in understanding himself in this way, he understood himself as playing a role and occupying a social position that cut across other more familiar and more traditional social divisions, such as class and estate.? Indeed, the ideal of the modern university as the linchpin of modern life w'as not, in Hegel’s eyes, a matter of social class at all; it was a matter of being part of a more universalistic body of people who were not bound by the particularistic strictures of hometown life. Hegel was not in his own eyes offering up a “bourgeois” philosophy; as he would have understood himself, he was not attempting, for example, to replace the power of the aristocracy with that of the newly energized bourgeoi? sie. In fact, Hegel (and people like him) would not have thought of themselves as particularly “bourgeois” at all. They would instead have thought of themselves as men of Bildung, as not tied to any particular social class, since an aristocrat, a bourgeois, or even the son of a ribbon maker (such as Fichte) could become a man of Bildung. In fact, they would be at odds with many of the more obviously “bourgeois” values around them. That one of the great disputes in the university was that between the faculty (who were devoted to making the university a center of Wissenschaft) and the students (who tended to look on the university as a way to advance their careers) only illustrated the way in which people like Hegel would have thought of themselves as rejecting certain so-called bourgeois values without at the same time taking on any aristocratic affectations or necessarily identifying with aristocratic val? ues. The university was to be the place where the particularisms - whether regional or class-based - were to be overcome in the new, postNapoleonic modern collection of German states, and the men of Bildung were to be the universalistic “movers and doers” of that social order.
? ? 在黑格爾所有參與的關于政府與大學權力斗爭和關于新面世的學生期待的學習標準斗爭背后，是一種對大學角色和新型大學中教授角色的深度看法。作為一名新近重組的大學中的教授，黑格爾和他很多其他同事一樣，把自己理解為有教養的人和獻身科學的教授。不止于此，在以上述方式理解自己的過程中，他把自己理解為扮演某種角色和具有社會地位的人，這樣的角色和社會地位跨越了其他更為人熟悉的更加傳統的社會分工，例如，階層和財產。實際上，在黑格爾眼中，現代大學的理想是大學自身要成為現代生活中的關鍵元素，這樣的理想根本不是關乎社會階層的問題；這樣的理想是關乎某種更加具有普遍性的人的問題，而且他們不受家鄉生活中特殊恩寵論結構的束縛。在黑格爾自己眼中，他不是在提出一套“中產階級”哲學；像他大概對自己作出的理解那樣，他沒有嘗試例如以新近精力充沛的中產階級權力取代貴族階層的權力。實際上，黑格爾（和像他一樣的人們）大概根本沒有特別把自己當作“中產階級”看待。他們反而也許把自己看作有教養的人，而非看作受任何具體的社會階層牽制的人，因為一名貴族、一個中產階級甚或一個緞帶生產商的兒子（例如費希特）都可能成為一個有教養的人。實際上，他們總是與自己周遭很多較為明顯的“中產階級”價值觀念格格不入。大學里很多重大爭議之一是教職員工（他們致力于把學校變成科學的中心）與學生（他們傾向于把大學當作使他們自己將來能找到好職業的途徑看待）之間的爭議，這樣的爭議僅僅說明，在某個方面，那些像黑格爾一樣的人們大概認為他們自己拒絕所謂的特定的中產階級價值觀念，同時絲毫未表現出貴族階層裝腔作勢或未必認同貴族階層的價值觀念。大學應該是這樣的場所，在這里，各種特殊恩寵論——無論是地域的還是以階層為基礎的特殊恩寵論——都必將葬身于新的后拿破侖一世時期的現代德國各州，而有教養的人必將成為心懷普遍論的“立即行動起來實實在在重塑”社會秩序的人。
The structure of the modern world, which had been so hazy in 1806, now seemed to be coming into focus, to be gaining a sharper edge and determinacy before Hegel’s eyes. At this point in his life, nothing in his entire life experience seemed to be at odds with the philosophy he had begun in Frankfurt and Jena and worked out in Nuremberg; if anything, life around him seemed only to be confirming it. In light of his experi? ence, Hegel was becoming more and more convinced that his philoso? phy was in fact the account that the modern world had been implicitly seeking in order to understand for itself how its attempt to base itself in freedom was in fact a real possibility and not a historical illusion.? Although Heidelberg was not the central attraction it had been a few years before, nonetheless Hegel had good reason to believe that his own life, his philosophy, and the modern world in general were now finally achieving a kind of clarity about themselves and beginning to assume their proper shape.
? ? 現代世界的結構，早在1816年就已經是如此模糊的現代世界的結構，現在看來好像逐漸顯豁明朗，現在看來好像以更加清晰和確定的形式展現在黑格爾眼前。在他生命中的這個時刻，他的全部人生經歷中看來好像沒有什么東西是與他那始于法蘭克福和耶拿時期、制定于紐倫堡時期的哲學不相一致的；如果說有區別的話，他周遭的生活看來好像在逐漸證實他的哲學獨樹一幟。根據他自己的經歷，黑格爾變得越來越深信他自己的哲學實際上是一種為現代世界所暗中尋求的解釋，現代世界這樣做旨在自為地理解它使自己基于自由的嘗試怎么實際上是確實可能的而非歷史的幻想。盡管海德堡在幾年前還不是德國最具吸引力的城市，黑格爾仍然有著充分的理由相信，他自己的生活、他自己的哲學和現代世界，一般說來，終將達到一種它們自身的澄明，開始呈現出它們相宜的形態。
Conviviality and Settling Down Middle Age
Hegel was reentering the university at a relatively late stage in his life.? At thirty, he had decided to prepare himself for a university career, and at forty-six, he was only acquiring for the first time a university position that actually paid him an income on which he could live (and, moreover, live quite comfortably, even if he did complain about the high rate of inflation then prevalent in all of Germany). During his period in Hei? delberg, short as it was, Hegel had begun to slow down his pace of work, to enjoy his middle-aged family and professional life, and to learn to be comfortable in his own skin. His frequent excursions for boat trips and visits to local scenic spots with Marie alone, with the entire family, and in the company of other Heidelberg friends were part of this. He was particularly enamored of the natural beauty of the region while at the same time apparently completely unmoved by the famous ruins of the Heidelberg castle that inspired so many contemporary Romantics (he never even mentions the ruins); he enjoyed standing at his window in the house he had rented, staring out at the wafts of mist drifting down from the neighboring hills; indeed, the students at the time did not take him to be particularly industrious at all/^ (Like many of Hegel’s admirers in the nineteenth century, his first biographer, Karl Rosenkranz, romanticized some of Hegel’s habits. He took Hegel’s wistful observations out his window to be periods of “Socratic reflection,” periods when the great man was lost deep in thought; and he related a story that is almost surely apocryphal but which has gone down in Hegel legend, that one day as Hegel was taking a stroll, he became so lost in thought that when one of his shoes became stuck in the mud, he remained so deeply lodged in his reflections that he did not even notice his missing shoe and simply continued walking. Although the story fits the nineteenth century image of the “genius” fairly well, it is probably not true of Hegel, who was quite aware of his professional status, and who dressed in a fairly modern style. Rosenkranz himself notes that in his walks, Hegel was typically attired in his “gray trousers and gray jacket,” obviously wearing what by then was the very fashionable English-inspired - and more or less modern - suit.)"*^
安居樂業：步入中年
? ? 黑格爾在自己人生相對很晚的階段才重返大學。早在而立之年，他就已決定著手為在大學供職做準備，在46歲時，他才僅僅第一次在大學供職，這確實提供給他一份賴以生存的收入（而且生活得有滋有味，縱使他確實抱怨過那時在整個德國普遍很高的通貨膨脹率）。在海德堡這個階段，盡管很短暫，黑格爾已經開始放慢自己的工作節奏，著手享受自己的中年家庭生活和教授生活的樂趣，開始學著去安然面對他自己的境遇。他單獨與瑪麗或與全家人或與海德堡其他朋友結伴頻繁地乘船旅游和參觀當地的名勝古跡，可以說所有這些都構成了他自己的生活不可或缺的一部分。他特別迷戀本地的自然美景，而與此同時則顯然完全不為海德堡城堡的著名遺址所打動，盡管這些遺址激起很多同輩的浪漫主義者的靈感（他甚至從未提及這些遺跡）；他享受獨自站在自己租住的房子窗前的樂趣，向外凝視從附近小山頂飄來的層層薄霧；實際上，那時的學生認為他根本就不是個特別勤奮的老師。（像黑格爾的19世紀眾多仰慕者一樣，他的首位傳記作者卡爾·羅森克蘭茨使黑格爾某些生活習慣浪漫化了。他把黑格爾向窗外沉思式的觀察看作“蘇格拉底式反思”的時刻，看作巨人陷于深思的時刻；他講述了一個幾乎肯定是杜撰而已被列入黑格爾傳奇的故事：有一天，黑格爾在散步時如此陷入沉思，以致當他一只鞋陷在爛泥中時，他仍舊如此深陷思考中，甚至沒有注意到失去了鞋子，只是繼續往前走。這個故事與19世紀“天才人物”的形象非常契合，但這可能不是黑格爾的真實情況，他非常在意自己的教授身份，穿著風格相當現代。羅森克蘭茨自己指出，在散步時，黑格爾通常穿著“灰褲子和灰夾克”，明顯穿著的是那時非常時尚的英倫風格的——或多或少現代的一套西裝。）
That Hegel was coming to be at ease for himself was not, however, as evident in his lectures. The anxieties that drove his speech impedi? ment and that had proved so unfortunate in his lectures in Jena - where he was obviously less sure of himself and more nervous about the impact he was making - did not go away. His stuttering, and his gasping for words, nonetheless do make a bit less of a documentary appearance in Heidelberg. In both Jena and Heidelberg, people commented on Hegel’s tormented lecture style, and the few comments in Heidelberg speak of a lecturer still unsure of himself before official bodies of people. In Heidelberg, Hegel remained rather wooden in his delivery, completely beholden to his lecture notes, possessed (as one hearer put it) of an “as it were tubercular” delivery, with the tendency to begin “every third part of a sentence or every third sentence with ‘thus’ ” (which did not stop some other students, as always less in awe of their professors than the professors might have preferred, to note how many times “thus” appeared in a Hegel lecture and compare notes afterwards).^'’ The ac? counts of Hegel as a Gymnasium teacher in Nuremberg make him out to be a relatively engaging and lively teacher; and while the accounts of his lecturing in Heidelberg were on the whole not quite so negative as they had been in Jena, it seems fair to conclude that Hegel’s tranquil.? satisfied life at Heidelberg, while lowering the level of his anxiety, did not eradicate it.
? ? 可是，黑格爾自己過得悠閑自得，這在他講課時卻看不出來。講課口吃給他帶來的焦慮，以及在耶拿（他明顯底氣不足，并對自己講課口吃產生的影響更加提心吊膽）講課證明是差強人意的，從而促使他產生的焦慮，始終盤踞在他的心中。他的口吃，他說話時的喘息，確實仍然在海德堡留下了些許記錄。在耶拿和海德堡，人們常常對黑格爾的折戟沉沙的講演風格進行評論，而海德堡鮮有評論述及黑格爾作為講演者面對官方機構人員依然顯得底氣不足。在海德堡，黑格爾在講演中仍舊相當死板，依舊完全依賴講課說明，具有（像某個聽眾描述的）一種“好像結核病人的”講演特征，喜歡“以‘因此’開始每句話的第三部分或每第三句話”（這并不妨礙其他一些學生，通常在乎教授更有愛的東西而不在乎對教授敬畏的學生，會記下“因此”在黑格爾一堂課中出現多少次并與以后課堂筆記作比較）。在黑格爾擔任紐倫堡高級中學教師期間，有關描述證明他是個相當吸引人的、充滿活力的教師；雖然學生們對他在海德堡時期授課的描述總體上不像他們對他在耶拿時期授課的描述那樣充滿負面性，但看來好像可以公正地斷定，黑格爾海德堡時期安靜的、令他滿意的生活盡管降低了他的焦慮程度，但沒有從根本上消除他的焦慮。
As with many people reaching middle age, Hegel was now able to reflect more on his own youth and on the changes that had overtaken him. In offering advice to Niethammer about Niethammer’s son, Julius (who was then studying at Heidelberg), Hegel autobiographically noted, “I can imagine you are dissatisfied with the state in which you found him after a year and half at the university. My father was likewise said to have been incapable of being satisfied with me at that age.” It is one of the few places where Hegel mentions his father; but it is clear that at the age of forty-seven, he had come to see his father’s point of view in a way that he clearly could not have done earlier in life. In speaking to Niethammer about Julius, he further reminded him that although par? ents must maintain certain expectations for their children, it is necessary that young people experiment with different things in order to “learn by experience of its futility” - something with which he could at that point in his life identify - and noted that much in life both depends on luck. “We know what pains we had to take, and with what ultimate consequences. You and I would like to give something else to our sons besides, they themselves are doing something quite different with them? selves.”'^’
? ? 正如很多步入中年的人們的情況一樣，黑格爾現在能夠對他自己的青年時期和對他自己經歷的變化作出更多的反思。在就尼特哈默爾兒子尤利烏斯（他那時在海德堡求學）成長問題向尼特哈默爾提出建議時，黑格爾自傳式地說道：“我能夠想象到您對所發覺的貴公子在大二下半期的狀態感到不甚滿意。據說我的父親同樣也無法對處在那個階段的我感到滿意。”這是黑格爾一生為數不多地提到父親的地方之一；但是顯然在47歲時，他已經以某種方式明白了父親的觀點，這在他早年顯然是不可能做到的。在和尼特哈默爾說到尤利烏斯時，他進一步提醒尼特哈默爾，盡管父母親必須對子女保有某種期望，青年人卻必須用不同的東西做試驗，以便“從對徒勞的試驗式體驗中長見識”——他可能在人生那個時期認同的東西——并強調指出人生許多東西是要依靠運氣的?！拔覀儠缘梦覀儽仨氉龀龊畏N努力和必須面對何種最終結果。您和我都想給予自己的兒子某種其他的東西——除此之外，他們自己在做與他們自己身份很不相同的事情?！?br>
Hegel clearly thought he had reached a watershed; his youth in the old regime of Wiirttemberg was now something belonging to distant history; the youthful enthusiasm for the Revolution, the critical decision to become a professor in the new university that was only dreamed about in Jena, the tumult of the Napoleonic period, all were now historical relics; the new world, of which Hegel was now determined to be the theorist, was developing on all sides and, in 1817, seemingly in the right direction. The Revolution was now his past; the post? revolutionary modern life was the world in which he was living and was the only real world people like Julius Niethammer or his own children would ever know. Now he felt that he, like the world around him, could really settle down.
? ? 黑格爾顯然認為他已經到達人生十字路口；他在符騰堡舊政權治下的青年時期現在已成為遙遠的歷史；青年時期對法國大革命懷有的滿腔熱情，在耶拿時期只是夢想成為新型大學教授的關鍵要素，拿破侖一世時期的騷亂，所有這些現在都成了歷史的遺物；新的世界，黑格爾現在決意為之充當理論家的新的世界，正在得到全面發展并在1817年看來好像沿著正確方向發展。法國大革命眼下已經被他甩在身后；后革命時期現代生活是他正置身于其中的世界，是像尤利烏斯·尼特哈默爾或他自己的子女一樣的人們大概所曾知道的唯一真實的世界?，F在他覺得他自己，像周遭的世界一樣，可以真正安頓下來了。
Social Life and Friendships
Hegel’s social life in Heidelberg seems to have been mostly restricted to professors (unlike his life prior to Heidelberg and later in Berlin). In part this was due of course to the nature of a small town, but in part it was due to his hnding among his fellow professors kindred spirits.? Socializing in general in Heidelberg was infrequent - at least according to Hegel’s own account - although (again according to his own account) it was nonetheless quite cordial.^’* Two of his closest acquaintances were theologians: Karl Daub, who had been instrumental in recruiting him to Heidelberg and who then converted to Hegelian philosophy; and Friedrich Heinrich Christian Schwarz, a professor of both pedagogy and theology. Hegel’s other close acquaintance at Heidelberg was some? one he had known (but not well) in Jena and Nuremberg: the jurist Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut, one of the outstanding legal thinkers of the period, whose juristical ideas Hegel in large measure shared.? Hegel was to participate in the many musical evenings that Thibaut staged at his house. Besides being one of the leading legal thinkers of his day, Thibaut was also a musicologist of no small repute and had a tremendous interest in what counted as “old” music at the time. It was probably at this time and partly under Thibaut’s influence that Hegel began working out his ideas on music as part of his aesthetics; indeed, Hegel was intensely interested in those evenings at Thibaut’s and often volunteered his own house for such gatherings. (Thibaut’s musical evenings were the beginnings of the foundation of the “choral societies” that were to become the nineteenth-century replacement for the “read? ing societies” of the eighteenth century to which Hegel’s parents be? longed.)
社交生活和友情
? ? 黑格爾在海德堡時期的社交生活看來好像主要局限于教授交往（不像他之前的紐倫堡時期和之后的柏林時期社交生活）。之所以出現這樣的情況，當然部分地應歸于小城鎮的性質，而部分地應歸于他發覺與教授同事志趣相投。海德堡時期的社交活動總體上并不頻繁——至少根據黑格爾自己的描述并不頻繁——盡管（再度根據他自己的描述）他在這個時期的社交活動中是非常熱情真誠的。他的兩位知音都是神學家：一位是卡爾·道布，他對于黑格爾受聘海德堡大學教授功不可沒，后來成了黑格爾哲學信徒；另一位是弗里德里?！ずＲ蚶锵！た死锼沟侔病な┩叽?，他既是個教育學教授又是個神學教授。黑格爾在海德堡時期的其他親近的熟人是某個早在耶拿和紐倫堡時期他就已認識的（但不很熟的）人：法學家安東·弗里德里希·約斯特斯·蒂鮑特，那個時期最為杰出的法學思想家之一，他的法學思想在很大程度上為黑格爾所分享。黑格爾肯定多次參加蒂鮑特在家中舉辦的音樂晚會。除了是一流法學家之外，蒂鮑特還是一位頗有名聲的音樂學家，并對當時被算作“舊式”音樂的音樂懷有極大的興趣。很可能是在那時，部分地在蒂鮑特的影響下，黑格爾著手把他自己音樂方面的思想發展為他自己美學的一部分；實際上，黑格爾對那些在蒂鮑特家中舉辦的晚會有著濃厚的興趣，并常常自愿在他自己屋里舉行這樣的聚會。（蒂鮑特的音樂晚會是“合唱會”創建的開端，“合唱會”必將在19世紀取代黑格爾的父母所屬于的18世紀的“朗誦會”。）
Hegel also became well acquainted with Georg Friedrich Creuzer, the classical philologist and founder of the scientific study of mythology; Creuzer’s work clearly influenced Hegel’s thoughts on theology.? Creuzer, one of the more respected classicists of the period, himself openly praised Hegel’s understanding of the Greeks and his philological talents, and was equally open in his admiration for Hegel’s immense learning.^'' (Creuzer himself had some notoriety; he had had a passionate affair with the young Romantic poet Karoline von Giinderode, but had broken it off and returned to his wife after being nursed by his wife through a crucial illness; Karoline von Giinderode then committed suicide in 1806. The whole affair was later brought to public attention in Bettina von Arnim’s 1840 memorial tribute to her friend. Die Gunderode\ but at the time of Hegel’s stay in Heidelberg, Creuzer’s past was no doubt only an element of gossip among the locals.) Hegel and his wife took many of their excursions and boat trips in the company of these people and their families.
? ? 黑格爾還與格奧爾格·弗里德里?！た肆_伊策爾結為至交，后者是位古典語文學家和科學的神話研究奠基者；克羅伊策爾的著作顯然對黑格爾神學思想產生很大影響?？肆_伊策爾本人，作為那個時期很受尊崇的古典主義學者之一，公開贊揚黑格爾對古希臘人的解讀和黑格爾的哲學天賦，同時公開對黑格爾學富五車表示欽佩。（克羅伊策爾自己有些聲名狼藉；他與年輕美貌的浪漫派詩人卡羅琳·馮·貢德羅德有過一段風流韻事，但是在重病中始終得到妻子悉心照料后中斷了這場戀愛并回到妻子身邊；卡羅琳·馮·貢德羅德隨后在1806年自殺身亡。整個事件后來因貝蒂娜·馮·阿尼姆1840年為緬懷友人而寫就的《貢德羅德》這部作品才引起公眾的注意；但是，在黑格爾待在海德堡時，克羅伊策爾的過去無疑只是當地人閑聊的話題而已。）黑格爾和妻子在這些人和他們家人的陪伴下進行過很多次遠足和乘船旅行。
