第15章 在家中：1827年至1831年 (1)

15 Home: 1827—1831

Celebrity and Strife: Reformers, Counter-reformers, Liberals, and Hegel

第15章 在家中：1827年至1831年 (1)

名声与冲突： 改革者、反改革者运动、自由主义者和黑格尔

Having returned from paris, renewed in his belief in the essential soundness of his own position, and convinced that the days of the Revolution and the Napoleonic adventures were definitively over, Hegel - still, as ever, true to his belief in the importance and necessity of the Revolution - was all the more convinced that for Germany, indeed for all the post-Napoleonic European states, only a gradual and inevitable process of reform by degrees was now properly on the agenda, and that the process of reform at least in Germany was essentially going to have to come from the top down, from the civil service, which meant in effect that the focal point of reform lay in the university. The bureaucrats of the civil service, trained in Wissenschaft and Bildung in the university, would gradually and rationally transform all the German principalities (the Lander) into modern states, and Prussia would be leading the way. Prussia was the “focal point” of German culture, Berlin was Prussia’s “focal point,” the university was the “focal point” of Berlin, and philosophy - Hegel’s philosophy - was the “focal point” of the university.

    在从巴黎返回后，黑格尔强化了对自身地位愈发稳固的信念，同时确信革命和拿破仑冒险时代已彻底结束。尽管黑格尔一如既往地坚信革命的重要性和必要性，但此时他更加深信，对于德国乃至后拿破仑时代的所有欧洲国家而言，逐步推行循序渐进且必然的改革，才是当下应提上议事日程的关键之事。黑格尔愈发认为，改革过程至少在德国，本质上必须脚踏实地，重点应着眼于行政部门，这实际上意味着改革的核心在于大学。行政官员因在科学和教养方面接受过高等教育，理应逐步合理地将所有德国公国（the Länder）转变为现代国家，而普鲁士将在其中占据领导地位。普鲁士是德国文化的“焦点”，柏林是普鲁士的“焦点”，大学是柏林的“焦点”，而哲学（黑格尔哲学）则是大学的“焦点”。

The stormy days of the early reform movement in Prussia were clearly over, and the initial repression and fears of renewed revolutionary activity which had culminated in the Karlsbad decrees and the pursuit of the “demagogues” also seemed to be winding down. The 1820s were proving to be a quiet period in which the public turmoil surrounding the great political debates of the past seemed to be subsiding, and from one point of view (certainly in Hegel’s view), the turbu- lence of the early years seemed to be transforming itself into more peaceful efforts at reforming this or that institution, putting into place this or that new piece of legislation, and, in general, into a more refined reformist period as people began to find their way about in the new, modern order of things. Quietly and without the drama and fanfare that had accompanied the reform efforts in the Napoleonic past, the civil service began once again asserting its authority over local particularism where it was necessary to achieve rational consistency or economic efficiency. Niethammer’s continued complaints in letters to Hegel about how things were a mess in Bavaria only fell on deaf ears; as Hegel viewed things, everything was now going as it should: Although the great reforming minister in Bavaria, Montgelas, had indeed been dismissed, the bureaucratic structure he had put in place and most of the personnel he had picked to run it were still in power. If anything, the reactionary steps taken by various rulers (such as the Prussian king’s revocation of the emancipation edict for Jews) seemed to Hegel to be temporary hiccups in what was an inevitable transition to a modern, rational state. The repression still at work in Prussian politics was, Hegel apparently thought, only a hangover from the post-Napoleonic period, something bound to vanish as time went on.

    普鲁士早期改革运动的动荡时代显然已经结束，最初对重新出现的革命活动的恐惧与镇压，也逐渐趋于缓和。此前，这种镇压和恐惧在颁布《卡尔斯巴德法令》和追捕“煽动家”期间达到了顶峰。19世纪20年代是一个相对平静的时期，围绕过去政治大争论引发的公众骚动似乎逐渐平息。从某种观点（当然是按照黑格尔的观点）来看，早些年的骚乱似乎正转变为更为平和的努力，人们开始尝试改革各类社会公共机构，并将新颁布的各种法律付诸实践。总体而言，早些年的骚乱似乎正演变为一个更加文雅的改革主义时期，因为人们开始探寻事物新的、现代的秩序。在后拿破仑时代的改革努力中，局势显得相对平稳，没有出现戏剧性的大起大落，民政事务再次开始超越地方特殊恩宠论的影响。而将民政事务置于首位，必然是合理且有利于国计民生的。尼特哈默尔在写给黑格尔的信中，总是抱怨巴伐利亚时局的混乱，当局对此听之任之；但黑格尔看到的却是另一番景象，一切都在按部就班地运转：尽管巴伐利亚部长蒙特格拉斯这位改革中的关键人物确实已被解职，但他当年组建的地方政府机构仍在运行，他挑选的大部分掌控政府机构的人员也依然在位。如果说存在什么差异的话，不同统治者采取的反动措施（例如普鲁士国王收回解放犹太人的法令），在黑格尔看来只是一种暂时的倒退，这种倒退必然会过渡到一个现代、合理的国家。镇压现象在普鲁士政治中仍然存在，但黑格尔显然认为，这只是后拿破仑时期的残余，随着时间的推移必将消失。

What Hegel understood to be the real issue at the time was that of how the various mediating bodies of the emerging German civil society were to be regulated and organized so as to harmonize with the aims of the modern state, instead of setting themselves in opposition to it as had been the tradition in German political life. Hegel’s own political views as manifested in his Philosophy of Right about the necessity for “mediating institutions” such as estates and “corporations” in civil society thus neatly dovetailed with the emerging debate in German political life during the 1820s.' In the view of many (and almost certainly also in Hegel’s view), the strong communitarian bonds of the old particularist and hometown life were not yet sufficiently weakened, and the real opposition to modernizing reform was coming not from the very vocal reactionaries in the Berlin government and the court but from the proponents of particularism and hometown life themselves.  The braying of the reactionaries at the court was, Hegel no doubt thought, simply the last gasp of those fated to be swept away by modern life’s innovations in science, economics, and freedom; the real issue and point of friction had to do with the strong emotional pull that German particularism still exercised on people. The hometowns still provided the average German with his or her basic sense of “belonging,” and the glue that held the those communities together had to do with the communal policing of personal morality and livelihood, which put the hometown squarely in opposition to the modernizing needs such as freedom of occupation and trade and freedom of marriage.^

    黑格尔所理解的当时的现实问题是，如何规范和组织德国市民社会中起中介作用的不同社团，使其与现代国家的目标相一致，而不是像它们在德国传统政治生活中那样与现代国家相对立。黑格尔在其《法哲学原理》中阐述了自己的政治见解，这些见解涉及到必然存在的“起中介作用的社会公共机构”，例如市民社会中的政治团体和“法人团体”，因此，黑格尔的政治见解与19世纪20年代德国政治生活中的争论高度契合。根据许多观点（几乎可以肯定也包括黑格尔的观点），旧特殊恩宠论以及故乡生活中根深蒂固的公社社会成员间的裙带关系，尚未得到足够的削弱。现代化改革的现实对立并非来自柏林政府和法庭上那些声势浩大的反动分子，而是来自特殊恩宠论和故乡生活本身的倡导者。黑格尔肯定认为，法庭上反动分子愚蠢的叫嚣，只不过是那些注定要被现代生活中的自然科学、经济学和自由改革所淘汰的人发出的最后哀鸣；现实的问题和摩擦的关键，与德国特殊恩宠论在人们身上引发的强烈情感关联有关。故乡继续为每个德国人提供基本的“归属感”，这种归属感如同一种粘合剂，将那些共同体凝聚在一起，并且与共同体保护个人道德和生计密切相关。然而，这恰恰使故乡与现代化的需求（如职业、贸易、婚姻自由）处于对立的位置。

The conflict between the hometowners and reformers centered around two different senses of membership: the reformers wanted people to fuse the sense of belonging to their local communities with the sense of belonging to the larger political unity (the state); the particularists rightly saw that if membership in the state as a modern citizen was to take priority, then their right to determine who was a member of the local city or town would effectively vanish; more concretely, if people could marry whom they wanted to marry, work where they could find work, and set up businesses where they pleased, then the central institutions that protected the communal structure of particularist city and town life (such as guild laws that effectively outlawed nonmembers from setting up shop and competing with locals for business) would wither and vanish - exactly what the reformers wanted and the local particularists feared. That strong emotional pull was something Hegel himself as a Wiirttemberger both knew and felt, so for him it was extremely important to make those hometown and particularist emotions rational, to “purify” them, as Hegel would put it, and blend them into a unity with the aims of a modern civil society and state rather than to have them blindly obstruct progress. The conflicts between particularist life and tradition and the assertions of authority by the modernizing civil servants in the various German states was becoming more and more open in the 1820s; Hegel, who followed the political events of the day closely - the reading of the morning paper was one of his unalterable rituals - was of course aware of this and quite worried about it, although his worries were to be fully expressed only after the uprisings of 1830.  Indeed, the weakness and even absence of the traditional hometowns in Prussia was no doubt one of the reasons Hegel was more optimistic about the cause of modernization in Prussia than elsewhere.

    乡镇居民与改革者之间的冲突，核心问题围绕着两种不同的成员资格观念展开：改革者希望人们将地方共同体的归属感与更大的政治单位（国家）的归属感融合；而特殊恩宠论者自然明白，如果国家中作为现代公民的全体成员占据上风，那么他们决定谁是当地城市或乡镇成员的权力实际上就会丧失。更具体地说，如果人们能够与自己想结婚的人结婚，能够在找到工作的地方工作，能够在愿意的地方做生意，那么，对特殊恩宠论城市和乡镇生活的共同体结构起保护作用的核心规章（例如实际上限制非会员开店和与当地生意人竞争的行会行规）将会逐渐萎缩和消失——而这些正是改革者所期望的，却是地方特殊恩宠论者所害怕的。这种强烈的情感关联，黑格尔作为符腾堡人深有体会。因此，对他来说，至关重要的是使乡镇和特殊恩宠论所引发的那些情感趋于合理，要“净化”它们，正如黑格尔一直强调的，使其与现代市民社会和国家的目标相一致，而不是让它们阻碍现代化进程。特殊恩宠论生活、传统与德国不同州中现代化的文职官员所维护的权力之间的冲突，在19世纪20年代变得越来越公开化；黑格尔一直保持着阅读晨报的习惯，密切关注当时的政治事件，他肯定意识到了这个问题，并对此深感担忧，尽管他的担忧直到1830年起义之后才得以充分表达。实际上，普鲁士传统乡镇的弱化甚至消失，无疑是黑格尔对普鲁士的现代化运动比其他地方更为乐观的原因之一。

But what looked like the stillness of political life in 1820s in Prussia (and in Germany in general) concealed implicit turmoil below the surface. Hegel was, of course, not the only one noticing this at the time.  Metternich, as always the cynical antimodernizer when it suited his ambitions, identified the troublemakers in German society in the 1820s to the czar of Russia as “wealthy men, paid State officials, men of letters, lawyers, and the individuals charged with the public education” - in other words, modernizers and people like Hegel. The battle lines were being redrawn, even if more quietly this time.^

    然而，19世纪20年代看似风平浪静的普鲁士（总体而言，德国也是如此）政治生活，实则暗藏着内在的骚动。当然，黑格尔并不是当时唯一观察到这种状况的人。一如既往，犬儒主义的反现代主义者梅特涅在得势时，将19世纪20年代德国社会中的“惹是生非者”，等同于俄国沙皇那样的“富翁、拿国俸官员、文学家、律师、负责公众教育的个人”——换句话说，等同于现代主义者以及像黑格尔这样的人。社会的各种阵营正在重新划分，尽管此时比之前显得更为平静。

During all this, probably unwisely, Hegel continued to write and speak in opposition to the liberal modernizers in Prussian social life.  Hegel’s strong opposition to the liberal wing of reform in Prussia was based on what he saw as the consequences of the liberals’ desire to transfer political power to local individuals in the name of democratic participation; in Hegel’s view, this would be in effect only a recipe for restoring power to the particularists of traditional communal life. Since there simply were no such creatures as fully formed individuals outside of the social context in which they were formed, giving political power to such so-called “individuals” would only give power to what those individuals happened to value, which, under the conditions of the time, was the particularist structure in which they had grown up and whose traditions were strong enough to exercise a kind of cultural gravitational pull on people. Following the liberal path of granting political power to “individuals” would lead, Hegel was certain, to individuals exercising those powers for distinctly nonliberal ends; left to their own devices, the local particularist individuals would reassert their traditional communal structure and restrict freedom of occupation and trade, Jewish civil rights, marital freedom, and the like - in short, would institute a whole set of non-liberal ideals. The issue, so Hegel saw it, was how to have individuals formed by a rational community structure instead of by the older, outdated (that is, “irrational”) structure of the hometowns and particularist communitarian life. And that, he thought, was a matter best left to the university-trained civil servants in the service of the state. It was a matter of devising structures of local government that would harmonize with rational state interests, not a matter of simply leaving matters up to what local individuals happened to want to do; prudent, rational reform had to come to terms with changing what individuals valued only very slowly and very gradually.

    在这整个时期，黑格尔或许有些不明智，他继续发表与普鲁士社会生活中自由的现代主义者相悖的言论。黑格尔强烈反对普鲁士自由主义改革派，他的这种反对基于他所认为的自由主义者渴望以民主参与的名义，将政治权力转移到当地人手中；在黑格尔看来，这实际上只会成为将权力归还给传统公共生活中特殊恩宠论者的“灵丹妙药”。因为在他看来，在社会环境之外几乎不存在所谓得到充分锻炼的个体，将政治权力赋予这样的“个体”，也许只是将权力交给某些居民凭一时兴起所看重的机构，而在当时的情况下，这些机构就是特殊恩宠论的机构，这些居民在其中成长，机构的传统强大到足以对他们产生文化上的吸引力。黑格尔坚信，走上将政治权力授予“个体”的自由主义道路，将会导致个体为了不同的非自由主义目的而行使这些权力；如果任由他们自行其是，那么地方特殊恩宠论的居民就会重申他们的传统公共机构，进而限制职业和贸易自由、犹太人的公民权利、婚姻自由等等——简而言之，就会制定出一整套非自由主义的理念。正如黑格尔所看到的，问题在于如何让个体通过合理的共同体机构得到锻炼，而不是通过陈旧、过时（即“不合理”）的家乡和特殊恩宠论公有社会生活的机构。他认为，这个问题最好由经过大学培训、为国家服务的公务员来解决。这是一个设计地方政府机构以协调合理国家利益的问题，而不是简单地考虑地方居民一时兴起想要做什么的问题。谨慎而合理的改革必须与改变个体仅仅按部就班、循序渐进评估的事物相妥协。

Hegel’s visit to Paris and his heartening encounters with the liberals surrounding Victor Cousin in the city had therefore the paradoxical effect of strengthening his belief in his own views and thereby hardening his own opposition to the reforming liberals back home in Berlin.  Instead of encouraging Hegel to form an alliance with them for common cause, it led him (and consequently some of his supporters) to think that the liberals were in fact opposed in fundamental ways to Hegel’s objectives. Hegel’s opposition to the liberals - his belief that their philosophical error about individualism was tantamount to a political error that would undo the process of reform - thus put him, perhaps unwittingly, on the side of those who opposed the liberals, and in the eyes of his detractors, this only strengthened Hegel’s image as an apologist for the restoration government.

    黑格尔的巴黎之旅，以及他与巴黎城中维克托·库赞身边的自由主义者后人令人振奋的邂逅，产生了颇具悖论性的结果。这表现为他回到柏林后，增强了对自己观点的信念，进而强化了他与改革派自由主义者的对立。巴黎之旅并没有促使黑格尔与他们为共同的事业结盟，反而使他（以及他的一些支持者）认为，自由主义者在基本方面与他的目标是对立的。因此，黑格尔与自由主义者的对立——他相信他们在个人主义哲学上的错误等同于一种可能会阻碍改革发展的政治错误——使他站在了反对自由主义者的阵营一边，这或许是不明智的举动。在他的诋毁者眼中，这只不过进一步强化了黑格尔作为复辟政府辩护者的形象。

Hegel also now clearly saw himself as an elder statesman for the younger generation, both as a man of experience who had weathered the storms of the Revolution and the Napoleonic adventures in Germany and who therefore had sage advice to give, and as someone whose philosophy could provide the needed public philosophy to guide the civil servants in their efforts to bring rational coherence to German life.  Now in his late fifties, he felt that he had earned his right to be heard by Germany’s youth and by his fellow academics. His Wiirttemberg upbringing and his Stuttgart family’s sense of being on the way up but still being excluded by virtue of not belonging to the “non-noble notables” had always left him a bit prickly about his status and reputation; with his new sense of having paid his dues and of being the philosopher of the reform movement, he became all the more sensitive to perceived slights against his social standing and status and all the more autocratic about the status of his philosophy. This did not go unnoticed; it was in fact becoming more and more clear to those around him that he intended not merely to expound his philosophy from the lectern at the university but to found an entire school of thought that would survive him and would provide the nucleus of reform-minded civil servants in the government.

    黑格尔如今显然也将自己视作年轻一代的资深政治家。他一方面认为自己是经历过法国大革命的狂风暴雨，以及拿破仑在德国的冒险，从而能够给出明智忠告的饱经沧桑之人；另一方面，他又将自己看作是其哲学能够提供必要的公共哲学，进而指导公务员努力为德国社会带来合理凝聚力的人。此时，年近花甲的他意识到自己已获得了让德国年轻人和学术同仁听从的权威。然而，他在符腾堡时期所形成的教养，以及在斯图加特成长过程中所形成的家庭观念，却依然因为他不属于“非贵族知名人士”的范畴而被他人另眼相看，这些始终让他对自己的地位和声望隐隐感到不安。带着天降大任于己的使命感，以及成为改革运动哲学家的新志向，他对自己社会身份和地位遭受的轻视变得更加敏感，对自己哲学地位的态度也变得愈发专横。这些变化大家都看在眼里；实际上，在他周围的人看来，他不仅想要在大学讲台上阐述自己的哲学，还打算创建一个完整的思想流派，使自己的哲学能够流芳百世，并为政府中锐意改革的公务员提供核心思想。

Growing Problems: Alexander von Humboldt and Schelltng

It is thus not surprising that very shortly after his return from Paris, Hegel found himself again embroiled in a controversy about some putative affront to his status. Alexander von Humboldt, having also returned from his extensive (and rather famous) travels around the world, gave a series of public lectures in Berlin on the Physical Description of the World. The lectures were an immense success; they were attended by scores of people, including members of the court and even the king himself. Although Hegel did not attend the lectures, his wife, Marie, did. In one of the lectures, Humboldt delivered a thinly veiled attack against all post-Kantian philosophy - in other words, against Hegel, among others. Humboldt began that lecture with a protest against the kind of “metaphysics” that proceeds “without a knowledge by acquaintance and experience” and that had advanced a “schematism” narrower, as he put it, than that of the scholasticism of the Middle Ages. On hearing of this, Hegel, understanding the attack on “scholasticism” to be an attack on his system, was deeply offended and made his complaints known to various people, including Varnhagen von Ense.  Through Varnhagen von Ense, word got back to von Humboldt, who discreetly gave the notes for his fifth lecture to von Ense, pointing out with feigned innocence that he could not see how anybody could find any attacks on philosophy in those lectures. In putting himself forward in this way, von Humboldt knew what he was doing; his attacks on Hegel were contained not in the fifth lecture (which he gave to Varnhagen von Ense) but in the sixth lecture, and he would have known (and probably approved of the fact) that Varnhagen von Ense would show the notes to Hegel. Hegel indeed read the notes and returned them to Varnhagen von Ense two days later, his feelings mollified and himself satisfied that he had not been attacked."^ In fact, he even wrote to Victor Cousin a few months later about the “brilliant success” of von Humboldt’s Berlin lectures.^ (As von Humboldt made clear after Hegel’s death, he had indeed intended to criticize Hegel in those remarks, but the real focus of his criticism, he claimed, was Schelling and all of Schelling’s followers who practiced Schelling’s popular Naturphilosophie. That von Humboldt grouped Hegel and Schelling together was typical of many people’s reactions to Hegel’s thought; Hegel had always had some difficulty separating himself from Schelling in the public mind, and to many people who did not take the time to look closely at what he was actually saying, his thought seemed to be only another version of what many regarded as the overly obscurantist Schellingian line. Hegel’s own less-than-perspicuous vocabulary only reinforced that view.)

无事生非，亚历山大·冯·洪堡和谢林

    因此，黑格尔从巴黎归来后，很快又卷入了一场关于自身地位遭公然轻视的争论，这并不令人意外。亚历山大·冯·洪堡同样刚从（颇为著名的）环球旅行后回到德国，并在柏林举办了一系列关于世界物理学概览的公开讲座。这些讲座取得了巨大的成功，吸引了众多听众，其中包括宫廷成员，甚至国王本人也亲临现场聆听。虽然黑格尔没有去听这些讲座，但他的妻子玛丽去了。在其中一次讲座中，洪堡几乎毫不掩饰地抨击了所有后康德哲学，而黑格尔自然也在被抨击之列。洪堡在讲座一开始就反对一种“形而上学”，他认为这种“形而上学”自行其是，“不具备认识和经验知识”，提出了一种比中世纪“经院哲学”的“图式性表述”更为狭隘的“图式性表述”。黑格尔听到这些言论后，立刻意识到对“经院哲学”的攻击实则是对自己哲学体系的攻击，这让他深受伤害，于是便向包括瓦恩哈根·冯·恩泽在内的许多知名人士抱怨此事。通过瓦恩哈根·冯·恩泽，这些抱怨传到了冯·洪堡的耳中。洪堡非常谨慎地将第五次讲座的讲稿交给了冯·恩泽，并装作无辜地表示，他不明白为何有人会认为这些讲座是对哲学的攻击。洪堡当然清楚自己在做什么，因为他对黑格尔的攻击并不在（他交给瓦恩哈根·冯·恩泽的）第五个讲稿中，而是在第六个讲稿里。他理应知道（并且实际上可能也希望）瓦恩哈根·冯·恩泽会把讲课笔记拿给黑格尔看。黑格尔确实阅读了这些讲课笔记，两天后又将它们归还给了瓦恩哈根·冯·恩泽。此时，黑格尔的情绪逐渐平复，自认为没有受到攻击，感到颇为满意。事实上，数月之后，他甚至还写信给维克托·库赞，称赞冯·洪堡在柏林的讲座取得了“辉煌的成功”。（正如冯·洪堡在黑格尔去世后所澄清的，他确实想在那些评论中批评黑格尔，但他声称自己批评的真正对象是谢林以及所有践行谢林流行的“自然哲学”的追随者。冯·洪堡将黑格尔和谢林归为一类，这是许多人对黑格尔思想的典型反应；在大众的认知中，黑格尔总是与谢林紧密相连，而在很多没有花时间深入研究他思想的人看来，他的思想似乎只是许多人认为过于晦涩的谢林哲学路线的翻版。黑格尔自己表述上的模糊性，更是强化了人们的这种看法。）

Hegel also continued to hear from various friends new reports of how Schelling’s own attacks on him in his lectures had been taking on an increasingly vehement and derisive tone. Schelling’s denunciations of Hegel were, as many people at the time realized, more than just philosophical disagreements. By this point, Schelling felt that Hegel had somehow stolen his ideas, bastardized them, and then somehow used that theft to unfairly displace him in the pantheon of German philosophers, and he minced no words about his feelings on the matter: He characterized Hegel as the “cuckoo” who had planted himself in the nest and complained to Victor Cousin that Hegel had appropriated his (Schelling’s) ideas and claimed they were his own in the same manner that “a creeping insect can believe that by appropriating the leaf of a plant, it has wrapped itself in its own weaving.”*’ (Cousin wisely stayed aloof from the quarrel, replying to Schelling that he was sorry to hear that he and Hegel were in such bad temper with each other, but that he would simply not take sides in the dispute.)’ Schelling went so far as to tell whomever would listen that Hegel had created his “logical transposition” of his (Schelling’s) system on the basis of nothing else than the fact that friends in Jena many years ago had advised Hegel that since the study of logic had been neglected at the university, he could make a nice career by offering courses on it (a little piece of history that also was almost certainly was not true). In stealing his ideas and putting them in the form of his own so-called logic and his system, Schelling said, Hegel had accomplished no more than someone “transposing a violin concerto for piano.Clearly, Schelling was intensely piqued by the way in which Hegel had undeservedly (so he thought) eclipsed him in fame. As Franz von Baader observed of Schelling, he had become so famous so young and had founded his own school at such an early age that he saw his predominance in cultural and philosophical matters as something that rightfully belonged to him, as a principality belongs by right to the prince, in which light he also resented Hegel as some kind of illegitimate usurper within his rightful sovereign domains.’

    此外，黑格尔还不断从朋友那里听到新的传闻，据说谢林在自己的讲座中对黑格尔的攻击愈发激烈且充满嘲讽。谢林对黑格尔的谴责，正如当时许多人所意识到的，不仅仅是哲学观点上的分歧。谢林觉得黑格尔以某种方式窃取了他的思想，将其变得繁杂而低俗，然后又以不正当的方式取代了自己在德国哲学界的地位。他毫不掩饰自己的感受，将黑格尔形容为“鸠占鹊巢”之人，并向维克托·库赞抱怨黑格尔剽窃了他（谢林）的思想，声称这些思想被黑格尔以一种类似于“一只爬虫妄图通过占有植物叶子来编织自己的巢穴”的方式据为己有。（库赞非常明智地对这场争论保持中立，回复谢林说他很遗憾听到两人交恶，但自己绝不会在这场争论中偏袒任何一方。）谢林甚至极端地向所有听众宣称，黑格尔只是基于多年前耶拿的朋友曾建议他，既然逻辑学在大学不受重视，他可以通过讲授这门课程谋得一份好差事这一事实，对他（谢林）的体系进行了“逻辑上的换位”（这很可能也是一条不实的史料）。谢林说，在剽窃了自己的思想并将其以黑格尔所谓的“逻辑学”及其体系的形式进行阐述的过程中，黑格尔充其量不过是完成了“把小提琴协奏曲改编为钢琴协奏曲”。显然，谢林对黑格尔在名气上超过自己感到极为愤怒，他认为黑格尔不应享有如此高的声誉。就像弗朗茨·冯·巴德尔评价谢林时所说的，谢林年轻时就声名远扬，早早地创建了自己的学派，因此他将自己在文化和哲学领域的主导地位视为理所当然，如同一个公国理应属于其国君一样。从这个角度来看，谢林将黑格尔视为在自己“合法统治领域”的非法入侵者，自然对他充满怨恨。

Fueling Schelling’s resentment, however, was the fact that Hegel’s own celebrity in Berlin, already high, only continued to grow, and all of Hegel’s otherwise irritating mannerisms had become accordingly increasingly chic. His lecture style, punctuated as always by its typical stutters, gasps, coughs, his pausing to flip through his papers, and his habit of beginning each sentence with the word “thus,” only became part of the show. When Hegel walked into the lecture hall, the rumble of conversation abruptly stopped, and it became so quiet that people described it with the cliche that “one could hear a pin drop.”*® As one of his Polish hearers described him, Hegel, with his pale white face, clumsily waving his hands as he spoke — often with his eyes closed — seemed like a “phenomenon from another world.”'*

    然而，真正让谢林的怨恨愈演愈烈的是，黑格尔在柏林迅速走红，声望如日中天，且上升的势头有增无减，同时，所有黑格尔式的独特而略显古怪的习性也相应地变得日益时髦。黑格尔的演讲风格独具特色，常常被口吃、喘息和咳嗽打断，他会不时停下来快速翻阅讲稿，还习惯每句话都以“因此”开头，这些都构成了他演讲的独特之处。当黑格尔走进讲堂时，原本嘈杂的交谈声会戛然而止，安静得甚至可以用“能听到一根针掉在地上的声音”这句老套的话来形容。正如一位波兰听众对黑格尔的描述，他有着一张苍白的面孔，说话时双手笨拙地挥动着，常常闭着双眼，看上去就像一个“来自彼岸世界的奇才”。

Indeed, the ideal of the Berlin lecturer found one form of its realization in Hegel: That ideal held that the professor would in his monologue actually create a dialogue - that instead of simply handing over facts to the students in the lecture hall, he would somehow embody in himself and bear witness in his lectures to the way in which one explores thinking as an ongoing process rather than as something already over and done with and whose finished results were only to be communicated. (The other form of the Berlin lecture style lay in the graceful, polished style of Schleiermacher.) Hegel had perfected this manner, turning his greatest liability - his speech impediment, his unpolished demeanor and sometimes clumsy deportment - into his greatest asset; he would formulate a sentence, pause, clear his throat, rephrase the same sentence, cough, shuffle through papers, and then finally return to yet a third formulation of the sentence that would suddenly and brilliantly distill the matter at hand. The students felt that they were witnessing the actual working out of a thought, not just being handed something that had already been decided. Hegel’s improvisational style gave what might have otherwise been intolerable the air of the purely creative; his own obscure formulations and his famous one-liners would quickly circulate throughout the city, and “such speculative formulas were written on the walls of the university building in chalk or pencil” virtually everywhere.'^ Just as quickly circulated around the city were Hegel’s sometimes devastatingly sarcastic remarks about colleagues and other figures in the German cultural scene. “Did you hear Hegel’s remark that . . .” became part of Berlin social currency. As one observer put it, “Whether a new and famous picture emerged from the workplaces of a famous painter or whether a new, very promising invention had directed the attention of the industrialists to it, whether some thought of genius in the sciences made its way into the learned world, or Miss Sontag sang in a concert, in all cases Berlin asked: What does Hegel think about it.?”'" Hegel was deluged with people wanting to see him; he regularly received mail from people wanting him to read their work, put in a good word for them in the university, do a favor for a friend, and so on. Copies of student notes taken in his lectures became sought-after items (to Hegel’s irritation and displeasure), since by this point Hegel was working out his system with regard to his positions on art, religion, the history of philosophy, and the philosophy of history only in his lectures and not in any printed form.

    实际上，柏林演讲者所追求的理想在黑格尔身上得到了一种体现：这种理想认为，教授不应仅仅在课堂上向学生灌输知识，而应该通过独白的方式创造一种对话氛围，言传身教，在演讲中展示一种探究的过程，而不是仅仅传达已有的结论。（施莱尔马赫优美精湛的演讲风格则代表了柏林演讲风格的另一种形式。）黑格尔已经熟练掌握了这种方式，他将自己最大的劣势——口吃、不修边幅和有时举止笨拙——转化为了最大的优势。他总是先确切地阐述一句话，然后停顿一下清清嗓子，换一种措辞重新表述，接着咳嗽几声、匆匆翻阅讲稿，最后再第三次阐述这句话，而这一次往往能迅速且流畅地切中问题的要害。学生们感觉自己仿佛在见证思想的真实诞生过程，而不仅仅是接受一些早已确定的内容。黑格尔的即兴演讲风格营造出了一种独特的创造性氛围，他那些独特而晦涩的表达方式以及著名的俏皮话很快便传遍了整个柏林城，“这些思辨性的表述被用粉笔或铅笔写在了大学建筑的墙上”，几乎随处可见。同样迅速在柏林城传播开来的，还有黑格尔有时对同仁和德国文化界其他人物的辛辣评论。“你听说过黑格尔对……的评论吗？”这句话已经成为了柏林社交圈的流行语之一。正如一位观察家所说：“一幅新的著名画作是否出自知名画家之手，一项新的有前景的发明是否引起了工业家的关注，科学界某位天才的思想是否得到了学界的认可，或者松塔格小姐是否在音乐会上演唱，在所有这些情况下，柏林人都会问：黑格尔对此有何看法？”想要见黑格尔的人络绎不绝，他经常收到各种邮件，有人希望他阅读自己的著作，有人请他为大学的活动捧场，还有人请他帮忙等等。学生们在黑格尔课堂上做的听课笔记也变得十分抢手（这让黑格尔感到恼怒和被背叛），因为在当时，黑格尔仅通过演讲而非任何印刷形式，构建起了确立他在艺术、宗教、哲学史、历史哲学等方面地位的体系。

Attacks and Irritations

As Hegel’s celebrity and reputation as the man of the hour continued to rise, his detractors only intensified their attacks on him. Professor Krug, whom Hegel had already severely criticized in his days at Jena, wrote a scathing review of the revised and greatly expanded 1827 edition of Hegel’s Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in which he accused Hegel’s entire system of being merely a large “game of ideas” that included a philosophy of religion that was no more than an attempt to “inaugurate a new mysticism of faith and knowledge” and a political philosophy in which no real difference between a citizen of a Hegelian state and the “subject of a despotic sultan” could be discerned. This was followed by another attack in another leading journal a few months later in which Hegel’s Encyclopedia was dismissed as a book “full of empty pages,” stuffed with “superstition and mysticism.

攻击与恼怒

    当黑格尔这位备受瞩目的人物迅速声名鹊起时，他的诋毁者们对他的攻击也愈发猛烈。克鲁格教授，这位在耶拿时期曾被黑格尔严厉批评且当时如日中天的人物，撰写了一篇对黑格尔1827年经过修订和大幅扩充的《哲学科学全书》的尖锐评论。在评论中，他指责黑格尔的整个体系不过是一场庞大的“观念游戏”，其中的宗教哲学充其量只是试图“开创信念与知识的新神秘主义”，而其政治哲学则认为，黑格尔式的国家公民与“专制的苏丹臣民”之间并无真正的区别。数月后，克鲁格教授又在另一家一流杂志上再次对黑格尔发起攻击，呼吁人们摒弃黑格尔这本“空洞无物”且充满“迷信和神秘主义”的《哲学科学全书》。

Karl Ernst Schubarth, an acquaintance of Goethe’s and opponent of Hegel, published a book attacking Hegel and accusing him of being anti-Prussian in his politics and revolutionary in his teachings.'^ The dispute between Hegel and Schleiermacher also hardened into a dispute between their supporters, and little middle ground seemed possible; there were those on Hegel’s side, and there were those on Schleiermacher’s side; Altenstein tended to side with Hegel, the faculty tended to side with Schleiermacher. As one young academic put it, it seemed that one had to choose sides when joining the faculty at Berlin.''*

    卡尔·恩斯特·舒巴特，这位歌德的座上宾、黑格尔的对手，出版了一本攻击黑格尔的书。书中指责黑格尔在政治上反对普鲁士，并且在教学中宣扬革命思想。黑格尔与施莱尔马赫之间的争论也逐渐升级，演变成了他们各自支持者之间的对立，几乎没有中间立场可言。一些人站在黑格尔这边，而另一些人则支持施莱尔马赫；阿尔滕施泰因倾向于站在黑格尔这边，而其他教职员工则打算支持施莱尔马赫。正如一位年轻学者所说，似乎人们在加入柏林大学教师队伍时，都不得不选择站在哪一方。

Ty pifying many people’s reactions to all the hue and cry about Hegel was that of Wilhelm von Humboldt. Humboldt actually personally got along quite well with Hegel but was more or less dumbfounded at the success of Hegel’s system. He represented a great many people who found Hegel charming as a person but who found the Hegelian system unfathomable and therefore distrusted it."' Hegel’s very critical review of Humboldt’s book on the classic Indian work the Baghvad Gita, in the fahrhuch in 1827, also did not exactly encourage von Humboldt to change his mind about Hegel’s philosophy.

    威廉·冯·洪堡对黑格尔的反应，代表了许多人对黑格尔的整体抗议态度。洪堡实际上与黑格尔私交不错，但他或多或少对黑格尔体系的成功感到惊讶。许多人觉得黑格尔本人极具人格魅力，但又对他高深莫测的哲学体系持怀疑态度，洪堡便是其中之一。1827年，黑格尔在《科学批评年鉴》上对洪堡所著的关于印度经典著作《薄伽梵歌》的书发表了极具批判性的评论，这并没有完全改变冯·洪堡对黑格尔哲学的看法。

The issue of Hegel’s joining the Academy of Sciences also kept popping up, and the whole affair began to resemble an ongoing, badly written farce: Hegel would be proposed for membership, and then, to everyone’s hard feelings, Hegel would be denied because Schleiermacher would always blackball him. Schleiermacher had in fact taken some extraordinary steps in order to keep Hegel out, including an attempt to abolish altogether the “philosophical section” of the academy; having failed at that, Schleiermacher at first simply refused to call meetings of the section and in 1826 even resigned from it and founded a new class, the “philosophical/historical section,” with himself as the head. On November 12, 1827, the only two remaining members of the “philosophical class,” J. P. F. Ancillon (a prominent figure in governmental circles but not a philosopher) and H. F. Link (a professor of medicine and director of the botanical garden) actually voted to accept both Hegel and Heinrich Ritter (a historian of philosophy and a Schleiermacher student) into the section, but Link (perhaps under pressure from Schleiermacher and certainly fearing bad blood between Hegel and Schleiermacher) then changed his vote. The “philosophical section” (with a new, pro-Schleiermacher member) then voted in December to merge with the “philosophical/historical section” (under Schleiermacher’s leadership). That seemed to end the matter once and for all.

    黑格尔加入科学院的问题也一直争论不休，整个事件从一开始就像是一场糟糕的闹剧：黑格尔多次被提名成为科学院成员，但每次都遭到拒绝，原因很可能是施莱尔马赫总是对他投反对票。施莱尔马赫甚至采取了一些不正当手段来阻止黑格尔加入科学院，其中包括试图彻底取消科学院的“哲学部”；在这个计划失败后，施莱尔马赫起初干脆拒绝召开哲学部会议，1826年甚至直接撤销了哲学部，成立了一个新的部门“哲学部或历史学部”，并亲自担任该部门的领导。1827年11月12日，当时“哲学部”仅剩下两名成员，J.P.F.安齐隆（一位政府部门的知名人士，而非哲学家）和H.F.林克（医学教授兼植物园主任），他们实际上投票同意黑格尔和海因里希·里特尔（一位哲学史家，也是施莱尔马赫的学生）加入“哲学部或历史学部”。然而，林克（可能受到了施莱尔马赫的压力，当然也担心黑格尔与施莱尔马赫之间的矛盾）随后改变了自己的投票意向。（在施莱尔马赫的领导下，拥有了新的亲施莱尔马赫成员的）“哲学部”于12月合并成了“哲学部或历史学部”，看似一劳永逸地解决了这个问题。

Hegel was surely miffed at this new rebuff, and, as if to raise his anxiety level, new matters kept popping up that could only have been disquieting. The flap over his birthday celebration in 1826 had long since blown over, and his trip to Paris the next year, which had taken him out of Berlin on his own birthday, had seemed to effectively distance him from any such recurrence. But the January 26, 1827, edition of the liberal French newspaper the Constitutionel included an article roundly praising Hegel for his virtuous efforts in securing Victor Cousin’s release from the hands of the unscrupulous Prussian police; and when the head of the Berlin police, von Kamptz, learned of the existence of the French article, he once again became furious and told people that Hegel had in fact arranged his whole trip to Paris simply in order to arrange for the Constitutionel to publish the article. (Von Kamptz had been equally outraged a couple of years before on learning of Victor Cousin’s praise of Hegel with regard to this affair in the Preface to his book on Plato.) Once again, Hegel found himself having to tread lightly around the police powers of the Prussian state. This had to hit Hegel particularly hard; by temperament, he was a conservative fellow, hardly one to rock the social boat, but at the same time he was a celebrator of modern life who remained firmly attached to the ideals of the Revolution. Hegel, who always combined contradictory elements in his own personality, wanted to be both a reformer and an upstanding member of the existing social order. To be accused of deliberately fomenting trouble would thus have been an offense to his sense of himself.

    黑格尔对这次新的挫折确实感到愤怒，而且，似乎是为了增加他的焦虑，新的问题不断涌现，这无疑让他内心更加不得安宁。围绕1826年他生日祝贺所引发的风波早已过去，而他次年的巴黎之旅似乎也让他完全避免了因生日祝贺而可能带来的麻烦，因为那年他是在巴黎度过的生日。然而，1827年1月26日，自由主义的法国报纸《立宪党人》刊登了一篇文章，高度赞扬了黑格尔通过道义上的努力，使维克托·库赞从无耻的普鲁士警察手中获释。当柏林警察局长冯·坎普茨得知这篇法文文章发表后，他再次恼羞成怒，并宣称黑格尔安排整个巴黎之旅的目的，就是为了授意《立宪党人》发表这篇文章。（两年前，冯·坎普茨在得知维克托·库赞在关于柏拉图专著的序言中颂扬黑格尔时，也曾同样愤怒。）黑格尔再次发现自己在普鲁士国家警察的压力下不得不谨慎行事。这对黑格尔来说是一个特别沉重的打击，因为他本质上是一个保守主义者，并非社会动乱分子，但同时他也是法国大革命理想的坚定信仰者和现代生活的赞美者。黑格尔的性格中始终存在着矛盾的元素，他既希望成为一名改革者，又想做现存社会秩序下的忠实成员。因此，指责他故意挑起事端，这很可能违背了他的本意。

As if this were not enough, Marie’s health also seemed to remain on the low side in 1828, which only increased Hegel’s worries, especially given her past history of threatening illnesses. He dealt with this as he always did, retreating into his Whist games with Zelter and his other friends, continuing his attendance at the theater and opera, taking his daily walks, head bowed, as he strolled silently among the Berliners marveling at the pale sight moving amongst them, focusing his energy on his lectures, and churning out a series of long critical articles for the Jahrbiicher about various literary and philosophical figures of the day (articles that, had they been collected together, would have formed a lengthy book on their own).

    似乎祸不单行，1828年这一年，玛丽的身体状况一直不太好，这无疑加剧了黑格尔的担忧，尤其是考虑到她过去曾患过重病。他像往常一样应对这种情况，潜心与策尔特和其他朋友玩惠斯特纸牌游戏，继续去看戏、听歌剧，每天坚持散步。当他低头默默走在街头时，柏林人常常对这个面色苍白的人感到惊讶。他将精力都投入到了演讲中，还精心为《科学批评年鉴》撰写了一系列关于当时不同文学和哲学人物的长篇批判性文章（这些文章如果收集起来，或许会成为一部具有独立价值的鸿篇巨著）。

There were other irritations that accompanied Hegel’s increasing celebrity and renown. In 1826, one of his former students, Christian Kapp, published a book. The Concrete Universal in History^ that for all intents and purposes was plagiarized from Hegel’s lectures. Hegel was, to say the least, not pleased, but he did not press the issue. Kapp later defended himself in the way that plagiarists typically do, at least at first: He claimed that the similarities were purely coincidental and that a friend on reading his first book had told him how similar his and Hegel’s views were and had then communicated some Hegelian sentences to him, and, somehow, some way, those sentences became incorporated into Kapp’s own system, but that, after all, he really was praising Hegel’s philosophy in his book, and, besides, he had always distinguished in his lectures which were his and which were Hegel’s views.'** To make matters worse, Kapp later published another book in 1829, Goethe, Schelling, Hegel, which among other things made the witless claim that Schelling was the prudent Menelaos of German philosophy and Hegel the avenging Agamemnon. Hegel was again irritated at Kapp’s inanities and made his feelings about them quite well known; Schelling, for his part, simply hit the roof and accused Kapp of plagiarizing both himself and Hegel, which in turn caused Kapp to reply by accusing Schelling of committing the sin of idolatry vis-a-vis himself.  (Moritz Saphir remarked about the ensuing dispute among Hegel, Kapp, and Schelling that it showed that philosophers think obscurely but swear very clearly.

    此外，黑格尔迅速走红和声名远扬也带来了其他的烦恼。1826年，他从前的学生基督徒·卡普出版了一本名为《历史中的具体共相》的书，几乎在各个方面都抄袭了黑格尔的讲稿。至少可以说，黑格尔对此非常不满，但他并没有过多追究此事。卡普后来像惯常的抄袭者一样为自己辩解，起初他声称自己的书与黑格尔的讲稿相似纯属巧合。他说，一位朋友在读了他的第一本书后告诉他，他的观点与黑格尔的观点非常相似，还向他转述了黑格尔的一些语句，不知怎的，这些语句就融入了他自己的体系中。不过，他也表示，自己确实在书中赞颂了黑格尔的哲学，并且在讲稿中始终区分了哪些是自己的独特观点，哪些是黑格尔的观点。更糟糕的是，卡普在1829年又出版了另一本书，名为《歌德，谢林，黑格尔》。这本书除了其他问题外，还做出了一个愚蠢的论断：谢林是德国哲学中精明的梅内莱厄斯，而黑格尔则是复仇的阿伽门农。黑格尔再次被卡普的浅薄言论激怒，并发表了自己对这些言论的看法；谢林本人更是怒不可遏，指责卡普抄袭了他和黑格尔的观点。这反过来又导致卡普指责谢林对自己盲目崇拜作为回应。（莫里茨·扎菲尔对黑格尔、卡普和谢林之间这场争论的评论是，这表明哲学家们思考的内容晦涩难懂，但相互谩骂的言辞却清晰明了。）

His experiences with Kapp made Hegel perhaps a bit too sensitive to issues of plagiarism. Copies of notes taken during his lectures were now widely in circulation, and there was nothing he could do to stop it.  When he learned that his old acquaintance K. J. Windischmann had published a piece on Chinese history that seemed to him to resemble his own lectures too closely to be merely coincidence, he turned to his usual sarcasm in his lectures, making various jibes about how Windischmann had stolen his ideas. On hearing of this, Windischmann was furious and deeply insulted; he wrote to Hegel to express his displeasure, pointing out that he had been saying those things for a long time, that all his friends would attest to it, and furthermore that he had been working and publishing on that subject since 1804, hurtfully telling Hegel that as one of the very first people to have seen the importance of Hegel’s work and brought it to public attention, he simply had not “deserved such a hostile allusion” on Hegel’s part.^° To others, he privately expressed his intense aggravation about the matter, claiming that he had been working on that material for much longer than Hegel had and that he could as easily say that Hegel had stolen from him rather than the other way around.^'

    黑格尔与卡普的过往经历，或许使黑格尔对剽窃问题变得格外敏感。在他演讲期间，学生所做的笔记广泛流传，而他却无力阻止。当他得知老熟人K.J.温迪施曼发表了一篇关于中国史的文章，且在他看来这篇文章与自己的讲稿极为相似，绝非巧合时，他在演讲中毫不掩饰地展现出惯有的讽刺，大肆调侃温迪施曼如何剽窃了自己的思想。温迪施曼听闻后，怒不可遏且深感屈辱，他给黑格尔写信表达不满，指出这些内容他已阐述许久，他的朋友们都可以为此作证。此外，他自1804年起就开始研究这个话题，并发表了相关作品。他痛苦地向黑格尔表示，作为最早认识到黑格尔著作重要性并大力宣扬的人之一，自己不该遭到黑格尔如此“充满敌意的暗示”。在旁观者眼中，温迪施曼私下里对这件事极为愤慨，声称自己研究该课题的时间远比黑格尔长，甚至还说他也有理由指责黑格尔剽窃了自己的思想，而非自己剽窃了黑格尔的。

The Calm before the Storm

Health Problems

Hegel’s health had also taken a turn for the worse in 1829. He began complaining about chest pains, and his rather shaky financial state made him all the more nervous. Everybody who saw Hegel during this period remarked on the absolute whiteness of his face; he was quite likely suffering from some sort of anemia brought on by a chronic upper gastrointestinal disease that eventually would lead to his death. His “chest pains” were most likely not heart problems but problems associated with the kind of acid reflex that often accompanies such diseases.  Hegel consulted physicians, but they could do little to help him. He also therefore had to give up drinking tea in the evenings, something he clearly much enjoyed.

暴风雨来临之前的平静

健康问题

    1829年，黑格尔的健康状况开始亮起了红灯。他时常抱怨胸痛，而他本就不稳定的经济状况更是让他情绪焦虑。在那个时期见过黑格尔的人，都提到他脸色异常苍白。他很可能饱受由慢性胃肠道疾病引发的贫血之苦，而这种慢性疾病最终也导致了他的离世。他所说的“胸痛”，很可能并非心脏问题，而是与一种常伴随胸痛出现的酸反应有关。黑格尔向医生寻求治疗方法，但医生们对此也束手无策。无奈之下，他不得不改变自己一直以来颇为享受的晚上饮茶的习惯。

In May 1829, he wrote Altenstein another letter complaining of his health, how it had weakened him, how it had hampered his work, and how his physician had recommended a lengthy trip to a spa, which he could not afford. His weakness was so bad, he told Altenstein, he could offer only one set of private lectures for extra money, and that compounded the financial troubles in which he found himself In requesting money for such an extended stay at a spa, he also pointed out that since coming to Berlin he had not had a single increase in salary, “for which I was led to hope by Your Excellency’s gracious promises upon my entry into the Royal civil service, though I have not dared to inquire further about this matter.(The issue of his nonappointment to the academy was clearly still on his mind, as Altenstein was only too painfully aware.) It was also clear to Hegel he could not expect automatically to receive any extra money without giving some special reasons, and he thus poignantly implored Altenstein for more money by noting that if Altenstein were to grant his request, he “might perhaps prolong the life of a man” who had taught loyally and seriously for eleven years at the university.^^ As always, Altenstein secured the money for Hegel’s travels.

    1829年5月，黑格尔写信给阿尔滕施泰因，倾诉自己身体欠佳的状况。他说，疾病让他变得虚弱，严重影响了工作。医生建议他去矿泉疗养地进行长途旅行调养，但他的经济状况不允许。他告诉阿尔滕施泰因，自己身体虚弱，无法为了赚取外快而开设私人讲座，这无疑加重了他的经济负担。在申请前往矿泉疗养地长期疗养所需的资金时，他还提到，自来到柏林后，自己的薪水从未增加过，“因此，我希望阁下能施以援手，答应让我成为王国文官，尽管我一直没敢向您进一步询问此事。”（阿尔滕施泰因十分清楚，黑格尔未能被任命为柏林科学院成员一事，显然仍让他耿耿于怀。）在黑格尔看来，若没有充分的理由，很难指望能自动获得额外资金。所以，他恳切地向阿尔滕施泰因强调：如果阿尔滕施泰因答应他的请求，他“或许能够延长自己的生命”。他已在柏林大学执教11年，一直以来对教学工作兢兢业业。一如既往，阿尔滕施泰因帮黑格尔弄到了旅行所需的资金。