第9章 海德堡時(shí)期：成為焦點(diǎn)人物(5)

Wiirttemberg, Constitutionalism, and the Estates

There were, of course, powerful countervailing tendencies at work of which Hegel was aware, even if he perhaps underestimated their strength. In Austria, Metternich opposed constitutionalism, German unification, indeed, virtually all aspects of modern post-Napoleonic Germany, because he saw them as inimical to Austria’s interests in maintaining its influence in Europe. But whatever his own views about the likely success of his attempts to stop some of those developments, Metternich was determined to quash the Burschenschaft movement and to prevent all forms of constitutionalism from taking root in Germany.? He was, of course, in large measure to succeed, although that outcome could not have been clearly foreseen in 1817.

符騰堡奇瘦，立憲主義，等級(jí)

? ? 當(dāng)然存在著黑格爾意識(shí)到的仍然在發(fā)揮作用的強(qiáng)大的對(duì)抗趨勢(shì)缺脉，即使他或許低估了這樣的對(duì)抗趨勢(shì)的力量。在奧地利找蜜，梅特涅反對(duì)立憲主義傀履，反對(duì)德國(guó)統(tǒng)一，更確切地說筐眷，本質(zhì)上反對(duì)后拿破侖一世時(shí)期現(xiàn)代德國(guó)的一切方面铐炫，因?yàn)樗阉鼈兛醋鲹p害了奧地利在維持它對(duì)歐洲影響力方面的利益垒手。然而，無論他自己認(rèn)為他可能怎樣成功地嘗試阻止這些發(fā)展中的某些發(fā)展倒信，梅特涅都決心鎮(zhèn)壓學(xué)生聯(lián)誼會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)和阻止立憲主義的各種形式在德國(guó)生根開花科贬。他當(dāng)然很大程度上獲得了成功，盡管這個(gè)結(jié)果在1817年還不可能已經(jīng)被清楚地預(yù)見鳖悠。

The heated dispute over constitutionalism in the German Lander over whether each German Land should have a constitution at all, what form they should take, whether they should centralize power or reaffirm the old state of estates - replayed the ongoing dispute between the more universalistic modernizers and the more particularistic hometowners (into which a new Romantic, nationalist element had been injected).? The hometowners wanted to block reform because they had now seen up close just how traditional privileges and ways of life were being threatened and undermined by those reforms; the reformers, on the other hand, had just seen up close that the hometowners both wished to prevent the state from taxing them for developmental projects (which would hinder necessary economic development) and to prevent the state from taking away their right to exclude those whom they wished to exclude from their communities - itinerants, people of low morals, Jews which in turn would undermine the whole idea of the “career open to talent” and therefore the ability of the state to train and recruit capable, modern ministers and leaders.’^ The debate was muddied, however, by the fact that the reformers were joined by another party, the rulers of the newly formed German states, who wanted power to be lodged solely in the state, that is, in themselves, and who did not want that power to be checked by competing authorities. Some reformers saw such sovereignty as the only way to push through modern reforms and thus came to be curiously allied with those princes and their allies who wanted to aggrandize their power, whereas in another corner, some reformers joined with the old estates because they feared a centralizing grab for power on the part of some of the more ambitious princes.

? ? 關(guān)于德國(guó)公國(guó)（Clarder）中展開的立憲主義的激烈爭(zhēng)論——關(guān)于每個(gè)德國(guó)公國(guó)是否都應(yīng)該擁有一部憲法唆迁，它們應(yīng)該采取何種形式，是應(yīng)該實(shí)施集權(quán)制還是應(yīng)該加強(qiáng)舊的等級(jí)狀態(tài)——重演了在更帶有普救論色彩的主張現(xiàn)代化的人與更帶有特殊恩寵論色彩的城鎮(zhèn)居民（早已被注入一種新的浪漫主義和民族主義元素的鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)居民）之間正在進(jìn)行的爭(zhēng)論竞穷。城鎮(zhèn)居民之所以想阻礙改革唐责，是因?yàn)樗麄円呀?jīng)親眼看到傳統(tǒng)的特權(quán)和生活方式正在受到這些改革的威脅和削弱；與之相對(duì)瘾带，主張改革的人則清楚地看到鼠哥，城鎮(zhèn)居民既希望阻止國(guó)家在發(fā)展項(xiàng)目上向他們征稅（這將會(huì)阻礙必要的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展），也希望國(guó)家繼續(xù)使他們有權(quán)把那些被他們想要趕出社區(qū)的人（流動(dòng)散工、道德低下的人朴恳、猶太人）趕出社區(qū)抄罕，這反過來將會(huì)削弱“賢者居上”的整個(gè)理念，因此將會(huì)削弱國(guó)家培養(yǎng)和雇傭有才華的于颖、現(xiàn)代的牧師和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的能力呆贿。然而，這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論事實(shí)上顯得相當(dāng)混亂森渐，因?yàn)楦母镎咧屑尤肓诵陆M成的德國(guó)各州的統(tǒng)治者這個(gè)另外的團(tuán)體做入，這批人希望國(guó)家賦予他們獨(dú)立的權(quán)力，也就是說同衣，賦予他們自己的權(quán)力竟块，他們不想讓這種權(quán)力受到帶有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)色彩的當(dāng)局的制約。某些改革者把這樣的統(tǒng)治權(quán)當(dāng)作推進(jìn)現(xiàn)代改革的唯一途徑看待耐齐，因而他們逐漸莫名其妙地與那些想擴(kuò)張權(quán)力的王公貴族及其同盟者結(jié)成聯(lián)盟浪秘；然而從另一方面看，這些改革者之所以與舊時(shí)的貴族抱成一團(tuán)埠况，是因?yàn)樗麄儞?dān)心某些野心勃勃的王公貴族將會(huì)集中地攫取權(quán)力耸携。

In this context, the king of Wiirttemberg, Friedrich II, sought to use the establishment of a constitution to secure his sovereignty over the Land and to put to rest the elements of the “good old law,” with its accouterment of rights and privileges for the Wiirttemberg estates, that had frustrated his ancestors for centuries in their attempts to pursue their own ambitions. Moreover, like many of his predecessors, he felt it was his prerogative to give Wiirttemberg a constitution and that he would never accept a constitution from anybody else.*'^ But he was faced by opposition from the most reactionary elements of the Romantic nationalists, who called for an immediate restoration of the old Wiirttemberg constitution, arguing that Germany itself would not be completely liberated from French interference until that had been accomplished. The king, however, set to work, and without any consultation with the other reigning powers in Wiirttemberg, came up with a relatively liberal constitution that promised equality among his subjects, gave Jews rights of participation, lifted restrictions against Catholics, but kept the power of the government and the purse strings firmly in his own hands.

? ? 在這個(gè)背景下，符騰堡國(guó)王弗里德里希二世試圖通過制定一部憲法來保衛(wèi)他對(duì)公國(guó)的至高無上的權(quán)威辕翰，并清除“古老的美好的法律”的因素夺衍，終止“古老的美好的法律”賦予符騰堡貴族的權(quán)利和特權(quán)，因?yàn)檫@些權(quán)力和特權(quán)已經(jīng)讓弗里德里希二世的祖先在努力實(shí)現(xiàn)他們自己的雄心壯志過程中頭疼不已金蜀。不僅如此刷后，像他的許多先輩一樣的畴，他也覺得渊抄，為符騰堡制定一部憲法是他的特權(quán)，他絕不會(huì)接受其他任何人制定的憲法丧裁。然而护桦，他面臨著來自浪漫主義的民族主義者中最反動(dòng)分子的反對(duì)，這批人要求立即恢復(fù)舊的符騰堡憲法煎娇，辯稱在恢復(fù)舊的符騰堡憲法之前二庵，德國(guó)自身不會(huì)完全擺脫法國(guó)人的干涉。不過缓呛，國(guó)王著手制定新憲法催享，而且在沒有與符騰堡其他統(tǒng)治勢(shì)力做任何協(xié)商的情況下，制定出了一部相對(duì)自由的憲法哟绊。這部憲法承諾臣民間的平等因妙，賦予猶太人參政議政的權(quán)利，廢除對(duì)天主教種種過嚴(yán)的限制，同時(shí)把政府權(quán)力和財(cái)政大權(quán)牢牢掌握在他自己的手中攀涵。

His first opponents thus came from the mediatized nobility and the Protestant Church, who saw (correctly) that their old privileges would vanish forever if the king’s proposal become reality. The mediatized nobility had something in particular to fear; they had once been immediate to the Holy Roman Emperor and thus had not participated in Wiirttemberg politics at all, being immune from the duke’s (and later the king’s) taxes and such. Now, with the Holy Roman Empire gone, their privileges were particularly in doubt, and the king’s constitution spoke of “equality” among his subjects, something that clearly would have spelled the end of their special status. They found allies in Metternich and in Baron von Stein in Prussia, and fairly soon thereafter a massive protest against the king’s proposed constitution was under way, and calls for the restoration of the “old” constitution grew in intensity.

? ? 他的最早的反對(duì)者因而來自保守的貴族階層和新教教會(huì)铣耘，這兩方面的人（準(zhǔn)確地）看出他們過去的特權(quán)將會(huì)永遠(yuǎn)消失，如果國(guó)王的提議成為現(xiàn)實(shí)的話以故。保守的貴族階層有著某種特別使自己放心不下的東西：他們之前一直直接隸屬于神圣羅馬帝國(guó)蜗细，因此根本就沒有參與過符騰堡的政治事務(wù)，一直免繳公爵的（和后來國(guó)王的）賦稅等∨辏現(xiàn)在炉媒，隨著神圣羅馬帝國(guó)的消亡，他們的特權(quán)格外受到人們的質(zhì)疑棘利，而且國(guó)王的憲法中提到臣民間的“平等”橱野，這理應(yīng)清楚地意味著他們特殊地位的終結(jié)。他們與梅特涅和普魯士的巴龍·馮·施泰因結(jié)成同盟善玫，在之后很短時(shí)間內(nèi)發(fā)動(dòng)了一場(chǎng)聲勢(shì)浩大的抗議國(guó)王提出的憲法的運(yùn)動(dòng)水援，恢復(fù)“舊”憲法的呼聲變得越來越高。

As the debate gathered force, the Wiirttembergers calling for the reestablishment of the old constitution and the “good old law” of Wiirttemberg asserted that they had not fought against Napoleon only to lose their rights to a Wiirttemberg dictator (the memory of Karl Eugen and his predecessors was obviously still running strong). Many of the Wiirttemberg pastors began offering public prayers in their services for the reestablishment of the “good old law.”?^ (The Tiibingen philosopher Adolph Karl August Eschenmayer, an associate and follower of Schelling’s Naturphilosophie, published a book in which he argued for the metaphysical necessity of the threefold division of the social classes of society in Wiirttemberg according to the three faculties of the mind - ideas, imagination, and desire; the book had a wide circulation and seemed to many to bring the intellectual force of German idealism into the argument in favor of those wishing to restore the ancient constitution of Wiirttemberg; Eschenmayer, however, went further and argued that all the particular states of Germany ought to be subordinate to the German state as a whole. The king and his advisors were apparently baffled at the incoherence and popularity of Eschenmayer’s book.)

? ? 隨著這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論吸引了眾人的參與茅郎，一些要求重建舊憲法和符騰堡“古老的美好的法律”的符騰堡人斷言蜗元，他們沒有與拿破侖打仗，而僅僅喪失了他們作為符騰堡專政者的權(quán)利（對(duì)卡爾·歐根及其先人的紀(jì)念活動(dòng)明顯依舊是聲勢(shì)浩大）系冗。符騰堡的很多牧師著手為“古老的美好的法律”的重建工作進(jìn)行公開的祈禱奕扣。圖賓根哲學(xué)家阿道夫·卡爾·奧古斯特·埃申邁爾，這位謝林的副手和謝林《自然哲學(xué)》的追隨者掌敬，出版了一本書惯豆，書中埃申邁爾根據(jù)心靈的三種官能（信念、想象和愿望）辯稱符騰堡社會(huì)等級(jí)三重劃分的形而上的必要性奔害。這本書廣為流傳楷兽，在很多人看來把德國(guó)唯心主義知識(shí)分子帶入這場(chǎng)論戰(zhàn)，促使他們支持那些希望恢復(fù)符騰堡古老憲法的人們华临。不過埃申邁爾走得更遠(yuǎn)芯杀，甚至辯稱德國(guó)所有各州都應(yīng)該隸屬于作為整體的德國(guó)。國(guó)王及其顧問顯然對(duì)埃申邁爾這本書的前后自相矛盾和廣為流行感到困惑不解雅潭。

At this point, the king began to back off from his original plans and announced that he would form a new constitution, at which point the publisher Johann Cotta weighed into the debate, arguing that the new constitution should “serve as the model for Germany.’’'^ Since the kingdom of Wiirttemberg as a state was different and included more territories than the old Land of Wiirttemberg, the king argued that the old constitution could not cover the new territories, and thus that a new constitution was needed, which, the king said, could nonetheless incorporate some key parts of the old constitution. At this point, the debate swung back in the king’s favor, winning him praise from various sides that until then had opposed him, all of which aroused Metternich’s suspicions and made him mistrustful of the king’s motivations and control over the situation. Metternich must, however, have been satisfied with the way that affairs in Wiirttemberg quickly settled back down into mutual mistrust and suspicion between the estates and the king.? with finally virtually everything coming to a standstill. However, when a draft of the constitution finally began making its rounds, and the progressive forces realized that there were no provisions for freedom of the press or for the accountability of the ministers, the anger and suspicion against both the king and the estates once again appeared with renewed force.

? ? 就在這關(guān)鍵時(shí)刻揭厚，國(guó)王開始對(duì)他原初的計(jì)劃打退堂鼓，宣布他將組織制定一部新的憲法扶供。此時(shí)出版商約翰·科塔就爭(zhēng)論發(fā)表重要意見筛圆，堅(jiān)稱新憲法應(yīng)該“用作德意志的范本”。因?yàn)樽鳛橐粋€(gè)州的符騰堡王國(guó)不同于舊的符騰堡公國(guó)椿浓，并比舊的符騰堡公國(guó)擁有更多的領(lǐng)土太援，所以國(guó)王指出舊的憲法不可能包含新的領(lǐng)土漾岳，從而需要一部新的憲法。新憲法粉寞，國(guó)王說尼荆，仍然可能吸納舊憲法的某些關(guān)鍵部分。此時(shí)此刻唧垦，這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論倒向了支持國(guó)王這邊捅儒，為他贏得了在此之前對(duì)他持反對(duì)態(tài)度的各方稱贊，所有這些都引起梅特涅的懷疑振亮，使他不復(fù)信任國(guó)王的動(dòng)機(jī)和對(duì)時(shí)局的控制巧还。然而，梅特涅想必對(duì)后來符騰堡事務(wù)走向感到非常滿意坊秸，因?yàn)榉v堡事務(wù)很快演變成社會(huì)各等級(jí)與國(guó)王之間的彼此不信任和懷疑麸祷，而且最終實(shí)際上一切都逐漸變得風(fēng)平浪靜。不過褒搔，當(dāng)憲法草案最終開始流傳的時(shí)候阶牍，進(jìn)步勢(shì)力意識(shí)到憲法中缺乏書報(bào)出版自由和大臣責(zé)任的相關(guān)條款，于是再度激起人們對(duì)國(guó)王和相關(guān)社會(huì)等級(jí)的憤怒和懷疑星瘾。

The old king died, however, on October 30, 1816. The new king, Wilhelm I, was of a completely different temperament than his father; he was imbued with the ideals of state sovereignty and of the new “German” (and not just Wiirttembergian) consciousness. All eyes, including those of the reformers in Prussia, then turned to Wiirttemberg to see if it would indeed produce the “model constitution” for Germany; Baron von Stein expected it to be the “normal constitution” for Germany.On March 3, 1817, King Wilhelm I of Wiirttemberg called the Diet together to approve his new “German” constitution for Wiirttemberg, with its provisions for a bicameral legislature and popular representation. A more liberalized press law with more freedom for the press was promulgated on January 30, 1817, and this led publishers such as Cotta to fall in firmly behind the king’s proposal. But the estates fought back bitterly, winning to their side in the battle of words both the theologian Paulus and the poet Ludwig Uhland (who perhaps not coincidentally came from the Ehrbarkeit). The estates wished to maintain the old dualistic Stdndesstaat, the “state of estates” with its dual centers of power and authority (with much of the debate centering around issues of power and money having to do with whether the council of estates and the estate treasury would continue to exist as bodies separate from the king’s government).

? ? 然而老國(guó)王弗里德里希一世于1816年10月30日駕崩走孽。新國(guó)王威廉一世性情與父王截然不同；他心中充滿國(guó)家主權(quán)和新“德國(guó)人”（而不只是符騰堡人）意識(shí)的理想琳状。所有人的目光磕瓷，包含普魯士改革者的目光，接著都轉(zhuǎn)向符騰堡念逞，看看它是不是確實(shí)將會(huì)為德意志產(chǎn)生“憲法范本”困食；巴龍·馮·施泰因期待它將會(huì)成為德意志的“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)憲法”。1817年3月3日翎承，符騰堡國(guó)王威廉一世竭力呼吁議會(huì)（Diet）批準(zhǔn)他主持制定的符騰堡新的“德國(guó)”憲法硕盹，批準(zhǔn)憲法中的兩院制立法機(jī)構(gòu)和民眾代表的條款。一部更寬松的审洞、賦予出版業(yè)更多自由的出版法于1817年1月30日得以頒布實(shí)施莱睁，這就致使諸如科塔那樣的出版商死心塌地地追隨國(guó)王的提議待讳。但是芒澜，相關(guān)社會(huì)階層苦苦地抵制這部新頒布的出版法，并在這場(chǎng)文字戰(zhàn)中將神學(xué)家保盧斯和詩(shī)人路德維洗吹·烏蘭爭(zhēng)取到它們一邊（烏蘭來自符騰堡非貴族知名人士也許并非巧合）痴晦。相關(guān)社會(huì)階層希望維持舊的二元論Standesstaat這一有著權(quán)力和權(quán)威的二元中心的“等級(jí)制國(guó)家”（關(guān)于“等級(jí)制國(guó)家”的很多爭(zhēng)論圍繞與下列問題有關(guān)的權(quán)力和金錢問題展開：等級(jí)制議會(huì)和等級(jí)制財(cái)政是不是將會(huì)繼續(xù)作為與國(guó)王統(tǒng)治脫鉤的政治體存在）。

A famine in the land during 1817 did not help matters, as it tended to turn people’s sympathies away from the existing royal government.? On June 2, 1817, the Diet rejected the king’s new constitution (by a margin of sixty-seven to forty-two votes); the coalition defeating the vote was a curious amalgam of old imperial knights, the Ehrbarkeit^ and some prelates who wanted their old ecclesiastical rights restored. The wide support that the constitution had garnered from reformist circles outside of Wiirttemberg counted, if anything, against it, and the rejection of the constitution thus appalled those outside of Wiirttemberg (for example, Baron von Stein). The rejection, however, only stiffened the king’s determination to put his constitution into force, hardened his belief that no compromise with the estates was possible; he therefore concluded that it no longer made any sense to attempt to incorporate any of the “good old law” into the new constitution. The estates had rejected the more universalistic appeals to a “German” sense of freedom in favor of an all-or-nothing approach to the “good old law”; they had endorsed hometown particularism against what the reformers in Germany saw as the necessary, modern “universalism” of state sovereignty and constitutional government.

? ? 1817年期間琳彩，符騰堡公國(guó)的饑荒無助于相關(guān)問題的解決誊酌，因?yàn)轲嚮娜菀资谷嗣駥?duì)現(xiàn)存的王室政體失去同情部凑。1817年6月2日，議會(huì)（Diet）以67票對(duì)43票否決了國(guó)王主持制定的新憲法碧浊。在選票上勝出的聯(lián)盟是由舊的帝國(guó)騎士涂邀、符騰堡非貴族知名人士，以及一些想要恢復(fù)舊教會(huì)權(quán)利的高級(jí)教士組成的奇特混合體箱锐。這部憲法卻得到了符騰堡之外的改革界廣泛支持比勉，這種情況完全出乎王室的意料。如果說有什么不同的話驹止，拋弈新憲法因而會(huì)把符騰堡以外的那些人嚇得魂不附體（例如浩聋，巴龍·馮·施泰因）。然而臊恋，這樣的拋弈只會(huì)增強(qiáng)國(guó)王將憲法付諸實(shí)施的決心衣洁，使他更加相信決不能對(duì)相關(guān)社會(huì)階層作出絲毫的妥協(xié)；他因此斷定抖仅，試圖將“古老的美好的法律”中的某些部分納入新憲法坊夫，這樣的嘗試完全失去了意義。相關(guān)社會(huì)階層早已拒絕了對(duì)更帶有普世論色彩的“德國(guó)人”自由意識(shí)的訴求撤卢，以絕不妥協(xié)的態(tài)度支持“古老的美好的法律”践樱；相關(guān)社會(huì)階層早就贊成城鎮(zhèn)的特殊恩寵論而反對(duì)被德國(guó)改革者看作的國(guó)家權(quán)威和立憲政體所必需的現(xiàn)代“普救論”。

Hegel’s Entry into the Wiirttemberg Debate

Hegel simply could not resist entering such a debate on Wiirttemberg.? Not only did it concern his old homeland and birthplace, it concerned the very issues of modernism that were the centerpieces of his thought.? Moreover, since all eyes were on Wiirttemberg to see how its constitutional debate took shape, Hegel no doubt felt he had a chance to play some role in the constitutional debates going on elsewhere in Germany.? The additional fact that a self-proclaimed idealist and quasi-Schellingian obscurantist such as Eschenmayer in Tiibingen had also inserted German idealism into the debate only made Hegel’s entry into the fray all the more likely, since it raised the stakes for someone like himself, who ten years after the publication of the Phenomenology was still trying to convince much of the literary public that his philosophy was an advance on Schelling’s and not just another version of it.

黑格爾加入符騰堡爭(zhēng)論

? ? 黑格爾可能完全身不由己地加入了這樣一場(chǎng)關(guān)于符騰堡的爭(zhēng)論凸丸。不但這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論關(guān)系到他昔日的故鄉(xiāng)和出生地拷邢，而且也關(guān)系到恰恰作為他思想核心的現(xiàn)代主義問題。尚不止于此屎慢，因?yàn)樗腥说难劬Χ级⒅v堡瞭稼，看看它的憲法論爭(zhēng)采取怎樣的形式，所以黑格爾無疑覺得他有機(jī)會(huì)在德國(guó)其他地方正在進(jìn)行的憲法論爭(zhēng)中發(fā)揮某種作用腻惠。另一個(gè)事實(shí)——一種自稱為唯心主義者和正宗的謝林哲學(xué)的蒙昧主義者环肘，例如圖賓根的埃申邁爾也早把德國(guó)唯心主義拉入這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論——只會(huì)使黑格爾更有可能加入這場(chǎng)論爭(zhēng)，因?yàn)檫@場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論抬高了像他自己一樣的人的身價(jià)集灌，他在《精神現(xiàn)象學(xué)》發(fā)表10年后仍然在努力說服學(xué)界很多人士相信悔雹，他的哲學(xué)是對(duì)謝林哲學(xué)的發(fā)展而不只是謝林哲學(xué)的翻版。

Hegel’s essay “Proceedings of the Estates Assembly in the Kingdom of Wiirttemberg 1815-1816” was published in the Heidelberger jfahrbiicher in the winter of 1817 and 1818 and was clearly intended to play a role in the debate as to whether the constitution should be accepted.? He was partially successful in this aim; the essay was reprinted in 1818 as an inexpensive pamphlet, subsidized and distributed by the Wiirttemberg government, who saw to it that it was widely circulated. It provoked some people to publish attacks on it, which only served to draw even more attention to it. (In 1819, the king, exasperated, simply imposed his constitution on Wiirttemberg and ended the debate by force; but in 1817, Hegel could have foreseen that as he was writing his piece.)

? ? 黑格爾的文章“評(píng)符騰堡邦議會(huì)會(huì)議辯論集（1815—1816）”發(fā)表于1817年至1818年間冬季號(hào)《海德堡年鑒》欣喧，并顯然打算在這場(chǎng)關(guān)于新憲法是否應(yīng)該被接受的爭(zhēng)論中發(fā)揮一定的作用腌零。他部分地達(dá)到了這個(gè)目的；這篇文章在1818年作為一本廉價(jià)的小冊(cè)子出版唆阿，得到符騰堡政府的資助發(fā)行益涧，他親眼見證它得以廣泛傳播。這件事激起了有些人對(duì)這本小冊(cè)子發(fā)起攻擊驯鳖，而這只是起到吸引更多人關(guān)注這本小冊(cè)子的作用闲询。（1819年久免，國(guó)王，被激怒的國(guó)王扭弧，一不做二不休把新憲法強(qiáng)加給符騰堡并強(qiáng)行結(jié)束這場(chǎng)論爭(zhēng)阎姥；然而，早在1817年鸽捻，黑格爾可能就已預(yù)見到了國(guó)王的這一招丁寄，像他在一篇文章中寫到的。）

In the essay, Hegel deployed the key ideas of his own philosophy to illustrate what he took to be at stake in the whole debate. In some ways.? the essay functioned as another way for Hegel to clarify for himself and for the public certain core ideas found in the Phenomenology of Spirit and the Science of Logic as they related to the way in which his own conceptions of the social and political structure of modern life were rapidly coming into focus for him in his lectures at Heidelberg. Like many of Hegel’s more popular writings, it is clear and lucid, and largely free of the tortuous use of technical, abstruse language that Hegel opted for in the expositions of his philosophical works.

? ? 在這篇文章中泊愧，黑格爾亮出了他自己哲學(xué)的關(guān)鍵思想伊磺，以闡明他所看到的整個(gè)爭(zhēng)論的問題所在。在一些方面删咱，這篇文章起到了另一種方式的作用屑埋，這就是黑格爾為自己和公眾闡明見于他的《精神現(xiàn)象學(xué)》和《邏輯學(xué)》中的某些核心思想，因?yàn)檫@兩部著作都涉及一種方式痰滋，借這種方式摘能，他自己關(guān)于現(xiàn)代生活的社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)和政治結(jié)構(gòu)的構(gòu)想很快成為他在海德堡課堂上的焦點(diǎn)。像黑格爾很多較為通俗的作品一樣敲街，這篇文章內(nèi)容清晰团搞，行文流暢，大體上擺脫了黑格爾在自己哲學(xué)作品闡述中所選擇的對(duì)專業(yè)的晦澀語言的曲徑通幽式的運(yùn)用多艇。

The article is nominally concerned with the published “Proceedings of the Wiirttemberg Estates Assembly,” but, as Hegel makes clear in the opening paragraphs, we cannot hope to get an understanding of what is at stake in the debate by approaching the documents from a “psychological view of history.” No investigation of the “so-called secret motives and intentions of single individuals,” whether of the king or of his opponents, can be of any help in understanding what the debate was about and what was at stake in it. The state of mind of the actors in the drama is not significant; we must, as he puts it, understand “men of action from what they doP From the standpoint of the Phenomenology and Logic, to make a judgment is to undertake a commitment, not to be in this or that mental state or to subjectively entertain certain thoughts, and those commitments are not a function of what we subjectively happen to be thinking about at the time. Thus, no amount of research into what actually went on “amongst the populace outside the proceedings” nor the “inner history of the labors of the Cabinet and the Ministry” could help us truly understand the debate. To do this, Hegel argued, we must understand how and why the debate mattered to the people involved in it. What was at stake in the debate thus had to do with what kind of commitments would have to be presupposed for the people involved in the debates to care so deeply about what they were doing.

? ? 這篇文章名義上與已經(jīng)發(fā)表的《評(píng)符騰堡邦議會(huì)會(huì)議辯論集》有關(guān)逻恐，但是，像黑格爾在文章開篇幾段中闡明的峻黍，我們不可能指望借助以“心理學(xué)的歷史觀”探討這些文獻(xiàn)從而理解這場(chǎng)論爭(zhēng)中的關(guān)鍵問題复隆。“對(duì)單個(gè)個(gè)體”（無論國(guó)王還是他的反對(duì)者）“的所謂秘密動(dòng)機(jī)和意圖”的研究姆涩，不可能有助于理解這場(chǎng)論爭(zhēng)涉及的內(nèi)容和這場(chǎng)論爭(zhēng)的關(guān)鍵所在挽拂。劇中人的心靈狀態(tài)無關(guān)緊要；我們必須骨饿，像他論述的亏栈，“根據(jù)劇中人做的事情”來理解“劇中人的行為”。從《精神現(xiàn)象學(xué)》和《邏輯學(xué)》的觀點(diǎn)看宏赘，理解一個(gè)判斷就是作出一項(xiàng)承諾绒北，而不是處于各種精神狀態(tài)，也不是主觀地接受特定的思想置鼻，這些承諾起不到我們主觀上暫時(shí)正好思考的東西的作用镇饮。因此蜓竹，研究實(shí)際上“在辯論集之外的平民中”發(fā)生的事情的全部?jī)r(jià)值和研究“內(nèi)閣和部門人員的內(nèi)心進(jìn)程”都不可能有助于我們真正地理解這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論箕母。為理解這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論储藐，黑格爾辯稱，我們必須理解這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論如何且為何對(duì)卷入其中的人們是至關(guān)重要的嘶是。這場(chǎng)論爭(zhēng)的關(guān)鍵因此關(guān)系到的是，何種承諾必將被以某些卷入這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論中的人們?yōu)橄葲Q條件，因?yàn)樗麄兡敲瓷钋械仃P(guān)心他們自己在做的事情田轧。

For Hegel, the “Proceedings” therefore could be understood only in light of the specific kind of practical project in which the actors were collectively engaged; what is important, therefore, is to present the “nature and course of the substantial matter itself,” that is, the common practical project and the norms that make it the specific kind of project that it is.'“ Moreover, since it a particular practical project that is being investigated, we cannot hope to derive those norms from any perspective outside of them; since we must understand why it matters to these people, we cannot, as Hegel puts it, “cull from any more remote age, especially not from the civilized age of Greece and Rome” the basic commitments by which we are to understand the issues, for those commitments “are unique to our own day.”'“

? ? 對(duì)于黑格爾來說儒洛，《評(píng)符騰堡邦議會(huì)會(huì)議辯論集（1815—1816）》因此可能只被依據(jù)劇中人集體參與的特定種類的實(shí)際計(jì)劃加以理解；最重要的因此就是描述“實(shí)質(zhì)性事件自身的性質(zhì)和過程”希太，也就是描述共同的實(shí)際計(jì)劃和那使它成為它所是的特定種類計(jì)劃的規(guī)范克饶。“不止于此誊辉，既然它作為一項(xiàng)特殊的實(shí)際計(jì)劃在被研究矾湃，那么我們就無法指望以這些規(guī)范之外的視角得到這些規(guī)范；既然我們必須理解為什么它對(duì)于這些人是至關(guān)重要的堕澄，那么我們就不可能邀跃，像黑格爾指出的，“從更遙遠(yuǎn)的時(shí)代蛙紫，特別不可能從希臘羅馬文明時(shí)代拍屑，挑出‘那些注定被我們借以理解特定問題的基本承諾’，因?yàn)檫@樣的基本承諾‘是我們自己的時(shí)代無與倫比的東西’坑傅〗┏郏”

The issue had to do with the conflict between modern life and those wishing to hold onto the past, but it was not an issue, as Hegel saw it, simply of whether the Wiirttemberg king wanted to aggrandize his own power or of whether particular members of the estates believed themselves to be defending their traditional privileges. What was at stake had to do with the differences between the commitments underlying modern life and those which had structured the preceding way of life. What compromises, if any, were possible in the debate depended on what kinds of tensions, oppositions, and compatibilities there were between those commitments, and, as Hegel argued, the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary forms of life had to be understood as competing practical projects, with the commitments of one ruling out the commitments of the other. Moreover, as Hegel reconstructed them, the modern project not merely competed with that of the ancien regime but emerged as that which is rational and required for us because of the failures and insufficiencies of the older project.

? ? 上述這個(gè)問題關(guān)系到現(xiàn)代生活與那些希望緊緊抓住過去的人們之間的沖突，而這根本不是這樣一個(gè)問題唁毒，像黑格爾看出的矢渊，是符騰堡國(guó)王想擴(kuò)大他自己的權(quán)力還是相關(guān)社會(huì)階層具體成員相信他們自己在捍衛(wèi)他們傳統(tǒng)的特權(quán)。成問題的東西關(guān)系到構(gòu)成現(xiàn)代生活基礎(chǔ)的承諾與那些早已塑造了先前生活方式的承諾之間的差異枉证。如果說有什么特別之處的話矮男，這場(chǎng)論爭(zhēng)中可能會(huì)達(dá)成的妥協(xié)取決于這些承諾之間存在的張力、對(duì)立和兼容的類型室谚。而且毡鉴，像黑格爾論證道的，前革命時(shí)期和后革命時(shí)期的生活形式必須被理解成是競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性的秒赤，以一種義務(wù)來排除另一種義務(wù)的實(shí)際計(jì)劃猪瞬。再者，像黑格爾重建它們那樣入篮，現(xiàn)代化工程不僅僅可與古代政體工程相媲美陈瘦，而且表現(xiàn)為合理的和我們需要的東西，因?yàn)榕f的工程以失敗而告終并且是有缺陷的潮售。

The older project itself had to be understood as a response to the failures of its own historical predecessors. The breakup of the powers of governments in the Middle Ages led to the emergence of freestanding individuals, who then for reasons of self-interest and selfprotection had to regroup themselves into various social units of “knights, freemen, monasteries, nobility, merchants, and tradesmen.? These groups did not manage to reconstitute themselves as a social whole, since they shared no common interests; at best, they were able to establish only a way of cooperating and getting along without any explicitly shared commitment to principle, a kind of “tolerable existence of standing alongside each other” - in short, a modus vivendi, not something with which each member took himself (or even could have taken himself) to be identified.The kind of social balance that was maintained was therefore unstable and incapable of producing what Hegel calls a “sense for the state.”'?* When no such “sense for the state” exists, that is, no real identification of one’s own personal ends with the ends of public life, there can be no identification with public life, no shared conception of public authority. The state then appears to individuals merely as a “government,” a faction, something that can be justified only as a means of serving private interest, and the deputies to such political bodies would therefore necessarily approach their work “with the will to give and do as little as possible for the universal.”'?’ Within that kind of normative background, the state would have to be construed as a social contract between, for example, princes and estates, and political obligation would become mingled (and, to Hegel’s mind, confused) with ties of personal dependence — exactly as Hegel thought had been the case in feudal Europe. The terms of a social contract, however, can sustain allegiance only so long as the relevant interests at stake in the contract remain satisfied; as new interests emerge, or old interests that were excluded from the original contract make their voices heard, the contractual state of affairs between prince and estates, or between government and the people, becomes eroded and the stability of the social order is weakened.

? ? 舊的工程自身必將被理解成是對(duì)它自己歷史上先驅(qū)的失敗的回應(yīng)痊项。中世紀(jì)政府權(quán)力的解體導(dǎo)致獨(dú)立的個(gè)人的出現(xiàn)锅风，這樣的個(gè)人后來出于自身利益和自我保護(hù)的原因，必須把他們自己重新組織成諸如“爵士鞍泉、自由民皱埠、僧侶、貴族咖驮、批發(fā)商和零售商”這樣的各種不同的社會(huì)單位边器。這些群體沒有千方百計(jì)地把它們自己重新組織成一個(gè)社會(huì)整體，因?yàn)樗鼈儾幌碛泄餐睦嫱行蓿恢炼嗍峭桑鼈冊(cè)诓痪邆涿鞔_共有的關(guān)于原則的承諾的情況下，只能確立一種合作和相處的方式睦刃，只能確立一種“彼此依賴的可容忍的生存”的方式——簡(jiǎn)而言之袋坑，這是一種權(quán)宜之計(jì)式的生活方式，不是某種被每個(gè)成員看作（甚或可能早已被每個(gè)成員看作）將能得到認(rèn)同的東西眯勾。這種得以維持的社會(huì)平衡因此是不穩(wěn)定的枣宫，并且不能產(chǎn)生被黑格爾稱作的“國(guó)家感”。當(dāng)這樣的“國(guó)家感”不存在的時(shí)候吃环，也就是說也颤，當(dāng)無法真正將一個(gè)人自己的個(gè)人目的等同于公眾生活目的的時(shí)候，不可能存在著人們對(duì)公眾生活的認(rèn)同郁轻，不可能存在著人們共有的關(guān)于公權(quán)力的構(gòu)想翅娶。國(guó)家于是對(duì)于個(gè)人只不過表現(xiàn)為一種“統(tǒng)治”，只不過表現(xiàn)為一種虛構(gòu)的東西好唯，這種東西只能被合理地證明是服務(wù)于私人利益的手段竭沫，而這樣的政治體的代理人因此必將“普遍懷著少管閑事的愿望”來處理他們的工作。舉例來說骑篙，在這種規(guī)范化背景上蜕提，國(guó)家必將被解讀成是國(guó)王與社會(huì)階層之間的社會(huì)契約，政治義務(wù)將被與個(gè)人依賴的紐帶糾纏在一起（并在黑格爾看來將被與個(gè)人依賴的紐帶混為一談）靶端。這種情況谎势，正像黑格爾認(rèn)為的，早已成了封建社會(huì)歐洲的普遍現(xiàn)象杨名。然而脏榆，社會(huì)契約中的條款能夠維持人與人之間的忠誠(chéng)，唯一的條件是社會(huì)契約中相關(guān)的關(guān)鍵利益要能始終令人感到心滿意足台谍；隨著新的利益的出現(xiàn)须喂，或舊的被排除在原初契約之外的利益使它們自己的聲音被人聽到，國(guó)王與相關(guān)社會(huì)階層之間或政府與民眾之間事務(wù)的契約狀態(tài)常常遭到損害，社會(huì)秩序的穩(wěn)定性常常遭到削弱坞生。

The inadequacies of the old order were, Hegel thought, almost too obvious to need spelling out. Moreover, the conflicts between the estates and the prince, between the demands of modernization (with its ways of raising revenue, forming its elite out of the universities, and so on) and the interests found in the ways of life bound up with the old order could not be reconciled. The older view, with its explicit commitment to status as adhering to individuals through ties of personal dependence, turned out to be committed to a view of social life as contractual, as a constant negotiation among parties representing independent interests; the other, modernizing view, with its commitment to a conception of political authority such as having to do with more explicitly shared reasons among all participants, was committed to a view of equality before the law, principles of universal justice, confessional freedom, and the like. The old view had collapsed under its own weight, and the new view could be shown (so Hegel thought) to have not merely reason per se on its side but the kinds of reasons with which modern individuals could subjectively identify.

? ? 舊秩序的不足之處仔役，黑格爾認(rèn)為，幾乎太顯而易見了恨胚，以至于無需詳細(xì)釋述骂因。尚不止于此炎咖，相關(guān)社會(huì)階層與國(guó)王之間的沖突赃泡，或現(xiàn)代化（以及現(xiàn)代化關(guān)于提高稅收的方式和通過大學(xué)培養(yǎng)現(xiàn)代化精英的方式等）的要求與見于跟舊秩序密切相關(guān)的生活方式中的利益之間的沖突，不可能得到調(diào)和乘盼。舊時(shí)的看法及其對(duì)通過個(gè)人依賴性紐帶附著在個(gè)人身上的身份的明確承諾升熊，證明是承諾一種契約式的社會(huì)生活觀，承諾那代表獨(dú)立利益的團(tuán)體間的不斷商談的社會(huì)生活觀绸栅；其他的現(xiàn)代化觀點(diǎn)级野，由于它們承諾去構(gòu)想諸如跟所有參與者間較為明確共有的理由有關(guān)的政治權(quán)威，從而也就承諾在法律粹胯、普世公正的原則蓖柔、懺悔的自由等面前人人平等的觀點(diǎn)。舊的觀點(diǎn)早已因不堪它自己的重負(fù)而坍塌了风纠，新的觀點(diǎn)可能將被證明（黑格爾也這樣認(rèn)為）不僅僅具有它自身這方的本質(zhì)的原因况鸣，而且還具有可能被現(xiàn)代個(gè)體主觀上認(rèn)同的種種理由。

As Hegel pointed out, the arguments given by the estates in Wiirttemberg amounted to saying that since they have had these rights in the past, they should have them in the future; they made this point apparently without even noticing that the whole way of life in which those rights made sense had collapsed precisely because of its own internal insufficiencies and contradictions. The rights that the estates asserted could not be actual rights in the modern world; the modern rules of property, the principles of law, and the social practices of modern life make it impossible to sustain any allegiance to those principles bound up with ties of personal dependency as a basis of political life. They therefore cannot serve as the norms that can underlie any collective project in modern life. Commitments sustaining the collective projects of modern life must be those that when brought to light and articulated can also be justified so they can serve as a rational basis for self-identity in social life, and the dialectic of such reasons led (as the Phenomenology had shown) to a conception that reasons must be universal, must be the kind of reasons that can be good for and shared by all others; but the commitment to reasons that are good for others commits us to the idea that there must be a shared conception of authoritativeness for social life, a shared conception of how authority in social life is to be parceled out, and that in turn commits us to a conception of justice (with its concomitant rights to such things as freedom of religious confession) as the only commitments capable of sustaining themselves in the face of claims for universal justification. That is, a commitment to key norms implicit in the practices of modern life commits one to the existence of modern constitutional states and rules out as irrational the idea of dualistic centers of authority such as existed in the old Stdndesstaat.

? ? 像黑格爾指出的竹观，那些由符騰堡貴族階層提出的觀點(diǎn)等于表明镐捧，因?yàn)樗麄冏赃^去以來始終擁有這些權(quán)利，他們將來也應(yīng)該擁有這些權(quán)利臭增；他們?cè)谔岢鲞@樣觀點(diǎn)的時(shí)候懂酱，顯然甚至還沒注意到的是，那致使這些權(quán)利變得合情合理的整個(gè)生活方式早已恰恰由于生活方式自己內(nèi)在的不足和自相矛盾而土崩瓦解誊抛。那些由貴族階層所維護(hù)的權(quán)利不可能是現(xiàn)代世界中的實(shí)際權(quán)利列牺；現(xiàn)代的財(cái)產(chǎn)法則、法律原理和現(xiàn)代生活中的社會(huì)習(xí)俗使人不可能再去保證自己忠誠(chéng)于那些和個(gè)人依賴性有密切關(guān)系的作為政治生活基礎(chǔ)的原則拗窃。它們因此不可能充當(dāng)那構(gòu)成現(xiàn)代生活中集體工程基礎(chǔ)的規(guī)范昔园。某些用來維持現(xiàn)代生活的集體工程的承諾必須是下列的這些東西：它們?cè)诘玫浇沂竞捅蛔飨到y(tǒng)闡述時(shí)也能夠被證明是合理合法的，這樣它們就可以用作社會(huì)生活中自我統(tǒng)一的合理的基礎(chǔ)并炮。這樣的理性辯證法致使（像《精神現(xiàn)象學(xué)》中早已證明的）人們產(chǎn)生一種構(gòu)想：理性必須是普世的默刚，必須是一種能對(duì)所有其他人都有用和能被所有其他人都共有的理性；但是逃魄，那種對(duì)他者有用的理性的承諾致使我們承諾激起我們?nèi)ニ伎蓟缥鳎篱g必須存在著一種人人共有的關(guān)于社會(huì)生活的權(quán)威性的觀念，必須存在著一個(gè)人人共有的關(guān)于社會(huì)生活中的權(quán)威應(yīng)該被怎樣加以分配的觀念。這樣的承諾又依次使我們承諾把正義（及其相應(yīng)的關(guān)于諸如宗教懺悔的自由這樣的東西的權(quán)利）設(shè)想成是它們?cè)诿鎸?duì)普世公正的主張時(shí)唯一能夠使它們自己信守的承諾邪锌。也就是說勉躺，一種對(duì)暗含于現(xiàn)代生活習(xí)俗中的關(guān)鍵規(guī)范的承諾，使人承諾正視現(xiàn)代憲政國(guó)家的存在觅丰，使人排除諸如存在于舊時(shí)等級(jí)制國(guó)家中的二元權(quán)威中心的非理性的想法饵溅。

To Hegel, the Wiirttemberg estates simply had no other argument for their assertions than that the old constitution was the way things used to be and therefore should remain the way things ought to be. But appeals to tradition per se are a dead letter in modern life; as Hegel put it, “age has nothing to do with . . . whether [such rights] are good or bad. Even the abolition of human sacrifice, slavery, feudal despotism and countless infamies was in every case the cancellation of something that was an old right.”’°'^ What the Wiirttemberg estates presented as a golden age of integrity and honor, Hegel argued, was in fact an age of corruption and looting of the public coffers, of the same old family names appearing over and over again with their hands in the public treasury, the whole show festering in a moral quagmire and leading to the inner collapse of the ethical life of Wiirttemberg. In answer to those who argued that Hegel, like all the reformers, was making the specious, relativistic argument that “a century cannot make wrong into right,” Hegel retorted, “but we should add: Even if this century-old wrong has been called right all the time.”'"'' In his most stinging indictment of the arguments on the part of the defenders of the “good old law,” Hegel compared them to the French aristocrats who returned to France from their exile in Germany after the downfall of Napoleon and the reestablishment of the Bourbon monarchy, for ''they have forgotten nothing and learnt nothing. [The Wiirttemberg estates] seem to have slept through the last twenty-five years, possibly the richest that world history has had, and for us the most instructive, because it is to them that our world and our ideas belong.”"?

? ? 在黑格爾看來，符騰堡貴族階層只得堅(jiān)持他們自己的斷言：舊的憲法是有些東西過去常常得以存在的合法依據(jù)妇萄，因此應(yīng)當(dāng)仍然是這些東西應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)靡院戏ù嬖诘囊罁?jù)蜕企。但是，對(duì)傳統(tǒng)自身的種種訴求是現(xiàn)代生活中的死胡同冠句。像黑格爾指出的轻掩，“時(shí)代與[這樣的權(quán)利]是好還是壞毫無關(guān)系……甚至就連廢除活人獻(xiàn)祭、奴隸制懦底、封建專制和無數(shù)惡行唇牧，無論如何也是取消作為舊權(quán)利的東西【厶疲”“符騰堡貴族階層描述的正直和榮耀的黃金時(shí)代”丐重，黑格爾論證道，“實(shí)際上是一個(gè)墮落的時(shí)代杆查，是一個(gè)掠奪公有財(cái)富的時(shí)代扮惦，是一個(gè)同樣古老的家族中的人們?cè)偃迨止藏?cái)政的時(shí)代，所有這一切都證明道德困境激起人們的怨憤根灯，導(dǎo)致符騰堡倫理生活的內(nèi)在崩潰径缅。” 在回應(yīng)某些人辯稱黑格爾像所有的改革者一樣提出“一個(gè)世紀(jì)不可能使錯(cuò)的變成對(duì)的”這樣似是而非的相對(duì)主義觀點(diǎn)的時(shí)候烙肺，黑格爾反駁道：“但是我們應(yīng)該補(bǔ)充一句：縱使這個(gè)百年的錯(cuò)的東西一直都被稱作對(duì)的東西纳猪。”在他對(duì)“古老的美好的法律”的辯護(hù)者論點(diǎn)作出最激烈的抨擊過程中桃笙，黑格爾把他們比作法國(guó)的一些貴族氏堤，這些貴族在拿破侖垮臺(tái)和波旁王朝復(fù)辟后，結(jié)束在德國(guó)的流亡返回法國(guó)搏明，因?yàn)椤八麄兪裁匆矝]忘記鼠锈，什么也沒有學(xué)到。[符騰堡的貴族階層]看來好像在過去25年中始終沉睡不醒星著，很可能這段時(shí)間是世界歷史具有最為豐富多彩內(nèi)容的時(shí)間购笆，而對(duì)我們來說是最具有啟發(fā)性的時(shí)間，因?yàn)槲覀兊氖澜绾臀覀兊南敕ǘ际菍儆谶@段時(shí)間的虚循⊥罚”

Hegel - as the son of a Tiibingen-educated lawyer who had not been a member of the Ehrbarkeit and therefore not part of that select group that took access to public funds as part of its birthright - was no doubt speaking, from personal experience and probably deriving no small amount of personal satisfaction in bringing this out; the young man who had embraced the cause of moral and spiritual renewal, who as a teenager had understood the Revolution as a new Reformation, was finally able to get back at those in his homeland whom he had seen as morally corrupt. Nor could Hegel conceal his distaste for what he regarded as the retrogressive elements in German life. He noted that the whole debate about the “good old law,” with its hypocritical pretense of invoking a past time of honor and integrity, manifests the “typical disease of the Germans,” namely, “their clinging to formalisms of this kind and their preoccupation with them.”'" The history of the way in which France, England, and Poland developed out of feudal ties of personal dependence into modern states, he notes, lacks that “nauseating side of Germany, namely, the complete legal and documentary paper-bound formalism of the German states.

? ? 黑格爾——作為一個(gè)受過良好教育的圖賓根律師的兒子（而且這個(gè)律師不是符騰堡非貴族知名人士中之一員样傍，因此也不是與生俱來就有權(quán)獲得公共資金的高貴群體中的一分子）——無疑是在根據(jù)個(gè)人的經(jīng)歷發(fā)表高論，很可能對(duì)把這番宏論公之于眾覺得個(gè)人很過癮铺遂。這位心懷道德重生和精神復(fù)興理想的青年人衫哥，這位還在少年時(shí)期就已將法國(guó)大革命當(dāng)作一場(chǎng)新的改革理解的青年人，現(xiàn)在終于能夠?qū)λ枢l(xiāng)的那幫早就被他看作道德敗壞的人們反戈一擊了襟锐。黑格爾同樣也不可能掩蓋他對(duì)被他看作德國(guó)人生活中倒退因素的深惡痛絕撤逢。他強(qiáng)調(diào)指出，關(guān)于“古老的美好的法律”及其引用過去榮耀和正義目的的時(shí)代的偽善借口的全部爭(zhēng)論粮坞，展露了“德國(guó)人的典型病癥”蚊荣，也即展露了“他們對(duì)這種形式主義的依附和他們對(duì)他們自己的先人之見的依附”±搪欤“法國(guó)妇押、英國(guó)和波蘭借以擺脫封建的個(gè)人依賴性的束縛而發(fā)展成現(xiàn)代國(guó)家的方式的歷史”跷究，他強(qiáng)調(diào)指出姓迅，“沒有‘德國(guó)使人厭惡的一面，也即沒有德國(guó)各個(gè)公國(guó)（Lanzder）中的完全合法的和有名無實(shí)的形式主義’俊马《〈妫”

The Reaction to Hegel’s Political Essay Hegel’s decision to publish the piece had, however, one consequence that he himself certainly could not have foreseen; It precipitated a final and irrevocable break with his old acquaintance and fellow Wiirttemberger, Heinrich Paulus. Paulus himself had sent a long piece to the journal on the same topic, only to have it unanimously rejected by the editors as too long and unsuitable. When Hegel shortly thereafter published his own piece on the subject in the journal - in which he argued for very different conclusions than those Paulus had drawn - Paulus took this as a personal act of betrayal on Hegel’s part. Relations between Hegel and Paulus had already been strained before this discord arose between them. Before Hegel had come to Heidelberg, Paulus had asked him for an evaluation of Hegel’s friend Thomas Seebeck, in light of a possible appointment for Seebeck at Heidelberg. Hegel and Seebeck had been on good terms; Seebeck had even been one of the godfathers of Hegel’s son Immanuel. But in his confidential note to Paulus, Hegel noted that Seebeck was indeed a fine fellow but not a first-rate thinker.? Apparently, Paulus then indiscreetly revealed to Seebeck Hegel’s lessthan-enthusiastic evaluation of his intellectual credentials, and this had caused a permanent rupture between Hegel and Seebeck.'*^

對(duì)黑格爾政治論文的反應(yīng)

? ? 不過，黑格爾作出發(fā)表這篇文章的決定柴我，產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)肯定不可能被他自己預(yù)料到的結(jié)果：這個(gè)決定最終促成了他同符騰堡老相識(shí)解寝、老同事海因里希·保盧斯的不可挽回的決裂艘儒。保盧斯本人早已寄給這家雜志一篇相同主題的長(zhǎng)文聋伦，僅僅因?yàn)樵撐奶L(zhǎng)和不合時(shí)宜而遭到編輯們的一致拒絕。當(dāng)黑格爾此后很快在這家雜志上發(fā)表他自己關(guān)于這個(gè)主題的文章（文中他竭力論證的結(jié)論與保盧斯得出的結(jié)論截然相反）的時(shí)候界睁，保盧斯認(rèn)為這是黑格爾這方出賣朋友的個(gè)人行為觉增。黑格爾與保盧斯之間的關(guān)系早在這次他們兩人間發(fā)生意見不合之前就已經(jīng)變得很緊張。早在黑格爾來海德堡前翻斟，保盧斯就已請(qǐng)求黑格爾對(duì)黑格爾友人托馬斯·澤貝克做個(gè)評(píng)價(jià)逾礁，鑒于澤貝克有可能將被海德堡大學(xué)聘用。黑格爾和澤貝克交情很深访惜，澤貝克甚至還是黑格爾兒子伊曼努爾的教父之一嘹履。但是在致保盧斯密函中，黑格爾寫道澤貝克確實(shí)是個(gè)好人债热，但不是一流思想家砾嫉。很顯然，保盧斯之后輕率地向澤貝克透露黑格爾對(duì)他學(xué)術(shù)能力缺乏熱情的評(píng)價(jià)窒篱，這件事造成了黑格爾與保盧斯之間永久的裂痕焕刮。

After Hegel had to tell Paulus that the journal had rejected his piece, he tried to smooth things over with Paulus, reminding him that not just he himself but the entire editorial board of the journal had ruled against Paulus’s piece, but Paulus would hear nothing of it and immediately broke off forever all social contact with Hegel. (Paulus’s irascibility led him to publish the piece on his own; he strongly attacked the king of Wiirttemberg in it and, displaying a complete lack of prudence, even sent the king a copy. The king was not amused. When Paulus later tried to visit his dying son in Wiirttemberg in i8ig, the king immediately had him arrested and deported.)

? ? 在黑格爾必須通知保盧斯雜志社已經(jīng)棄用他的大作后蚓峦，黑格爾試圖為這事安撫保盧斯，提醒保盧斯不只是黑格爾自己而是整個(gè)雜志編委會(huì)都否決了保盧斯的稿子济锄，但保盧斯根本不會(huì)聽信這些暑椰，并隨即永遠(yuǎn)斷絕同黑格爾的一切社會(huì)聯(lián)系。（保盧斯的火爆脾氣致使他自己獨(dú)自署名發(fā)表這篇文章荐绝；他在文中猛烈抨擊符騰堡國(guó)王一汽，表現(xiàn)出完全缺乏審慎態(tài)度，甚至還給國(guó)王寄去了一本刊發(fā)這篇文章的雜志低滩。國(guó)王看到文章后頓時(shí)龍顏不悅召夹。當(dāng)保盧斯后來在1819年試圖探望他在符騰堡生命垂危的兒子的時(shí)候，國(guó)王隨即派人將他逮捕并把他驅(qū)逐出境恕沫。）

The reaction to Hegel’s pamphlet was swift, and even his friends parted company with him on the issues. Not merely was Paulus enraged about it, Niethammer was also deeply displeased with what Hegel had done. In light of his discouraging experiences in Bavaria and the way in which the gains of the last few years (and his work) were rapidly being set aside there, Niethammer thought that Hegel’s pamphlet was simply too idealistic in its treatment of what the debate was really about and that Hegel had been much too naive about the real state of affairs. “I would bet,” he told Hegel, “that you would not have written your review if, like me, you had been in the position of having to see these ruling rationalities face to face.” To Niethammer, the king and his ministers had behaved not as good-faith members of the German confederation established by the Bundesakte but instead “as if they were the Emperor and Empire themselves,” whereas the estates at least (in Niethammer’s view) had comported themselves as members of a federal system. The estates were not simply acting, as Hegel had insisted, as reactionary bodies wishing to turn back the clock. To be sure, Niethammer conceded, the two sides had been a bit petulant in their demands on each other, but the estates had asked for nothing more than a voice in deciding what was going to become of themselves and were refusing to be simply dictated to by the king. Nonetheless, the resulting impasse probably meant, as Niethammer sadly concluded, that the whole thing would have to be settled by force. Ruefully, Niethammer told Hegel that “the least that I can hnd to say about it is that you have ingeniously pleaded a bad cause.” (Closing on a cheerier note, Niethammer noted that Schelling sent his greetings; although Hegel and Schelling had long since ceased to correspond with each other, they continued to hold each other in relatively warm regard.)""^

? ? 很快就有人對(duì)黑格爾的小冊(cè)子作出反應(yīng)监憎，甚至就連他的友人在某些問題上都同他有分歧。不僅保盧斯對(duì)這本小冊(cè)子極為憤怒婶溯，尼特哈默爾同樣也對(duì)黑格爾的所作所為深表不滿鲸阔。根據(jù)他在巴伐利亞的失意經(jīng)歷和過去幾年的所得（和他的工作）很快被擱置一旁的情況，尼特哈默爾認(rèn)為黑格爾的小冊(cè)子在對(duì)待這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論真正涉及何種東西方面簡(jiǎn)直是太理想主義了迄委，并認(rèn)為黑格爾對(duì)于事件的真實(shí)情況顯得太天真幼稚了褐筛。“我敢打賭叙身，”他告訴黑格爾渔扎，“你原本不會(huì)寫出你的評(píng)論，如果像我一樣你能夠不得不直面看待這些執(zhí)政的合理性的話信轿』纬眨”在尼特哈默爾看來，國(guó)王及其大臣沒有起到按照《維也納聯(lián)邦規(guī)約》（Bundesakte）建立的德意志聯(lián)邦忠實(shí)成員的作用财忽，反而“好像他們就是皇帝和帝國(guó)本身”倘核，盡管貴族階層至少（在尼特哈默爾看來）適合作為聯(lián)邦組織中的成員。貴族階層不僅僅做起事來定罢，像黑格爾堅(jiān)信的笤虫，像是想要倒行逆施的反動(dòng)派。當(dāng)然祖凫，尼特哈默爾承認(rèn)琼蚯，這兩方在他們對(duì)彼此的要求方面都有點(diǎn)一意孤行，但是貴族階層早已僅僅要求有權(quán)決定他們自身將何去何從和拒絕完全聽命于國(guó)王惠况。不過遭庶，由此引發(fā)的僵局很可能意味著，像尼特哈默爾悲哀地?cái)嘌缘某硗溃虑楸貙⑼ㄟ^暴力解決峦睡。很遺憾地翎苫，尼特哈默爾告訴黑格爾“關(guān)于這個(gè)問題我發(fā)覺可以說的至少是你巧妙地做了很壞的辯護(hù)”。（以一段溢美之詞結(jié)束榨了，尼特哈默爾說道謝林代向黑格爾致以問候煎谍；盡管黑格爾和謝林很早以前就已彼此中斷聯(lián)系，他們倆依然面子上還是說得過去龙屉。）

To others, Hegel seemed to have simply and unjustifiably sided with the king against the people, and that there was no talk of “democracy” in his pamphlet (except to disparage it) strengthened that view. Hegel had in fact argued against democracy in the piece, although he had clearly argued for political participation. In Hegel’s view, democracy — on the French model, where individual voters select representatives to a national assembly on the principle of majority rule - places each individual voter in the position of having his personal interest represented by a single act, which itself only occurs every few years, and which has only the smallest effect on the general outcome; any rational voter is thus tempted to see his vote as not worth even the small amount of effort it takes to exercise it. Moreover, as a doctrine of majority rule, democracy fails to take into account the interests of the minority, and the example of England shows that it is open to abuses and absurdities of every sort. Thus, some other way must be found to ensure that people’s interests are represented in the political debates of the day, which, Hegel argued, would involve some type of representation that would incorporate already formed and articulated groups who could then choose representatives among themselves from a variety of suitably educated people. The “fitness of electors and elected” would be found in there being an appropriate body of people on whom the kind of ti'ust that is necessary between elector and elected could be bestowed and sustained and who could be expected to give the electors “an opportunity to assess and test the attitudes and competence of the elected.”"^ That could be done only by means of mediating institutions that would gather together people of common interests and common lives and engage them in their own common projects. Within, for example, the guild, the members would then participate in the political life of the state by choosing the men who would represent them at the national level. Political participation would be thus mediated by participation in more local organizations, and all interests would be represented because the national government would necessarily include all the relevant groups. (If anything, Hegel thought that the proposed Wiirttemberg constitution was too “l(fā)iberal” in the sense that it paid too little attention to these mediating groups.)

? ? 在其他人看來呐粘，黑格爾看來好像簡(jiǎn)直毫無道理地站在跟人民作對(duì)的國(guó)王一邊，他的小冊(cè)子中絲毫沒有談?wù)摗懊裰鳌保ǔ速H低民主之外）转捕，這樣就強(qiáng)化了上述這種看法作岖。黑格爾其實(shí)在小冊(cè)子中為反對(duì)民主大書特書，盡管他清楚地為贊成政治參與而論辯五芝。在黑格爾看來痘儡，民主——以法國(guó)模式為例，在法國(guó)個(gè)體投票者按照多數(shù)原則選擇代表參加國(guó)民大會(huì)——使每個(gè)個(gè)體投票者都能讓他自己的利益被單一的行為代表枢步，這種情況本身只是每隔幾年才出現(xiàn)一次沉删，并對(duì)整個(gè)結(jié)果只是產(chǎn)生微乎其微的作用；凡是理性的投票者因此都不禁把他們自己的投票看作是毫無價(jià)值的价捧，甚至把參加投票看作是幾乎得不償失的丑念。再者涡戳，作為多數(shù)人統(tǒng)治學(xué)說结蟋，民主未能考慮到少數(shù)人利益，英國(guó)的例子表明民主易于導(dǎo)致各種各樣的濫用和謬論渔彰。因此嵌屎，某種其他方式必須被找到用以確保人民利益在特定時(shí)代的政治爭(zhēng)論中有人代表，黑格爾論證道恍涂，這樣做總是涉及某種類型的代表宝惰，這類代表應(yīng)該使得已經(jīng)形成和組織嚴(yán)密的各種社會(huì)群體擰成一股繩，這些社會(huì)群體接著可以把從它們中選出的各種受過良好教育的人做代表再沧∧岫幔“選舉人和候選者的資格”應(yīng)該見于適合的民眾體中，對(duì)于這樣的民眾體炒瘸，一種作為有選舉權(quán)的人與競(jìng)選者之間必要的信任可能將被賦予和得到維持淤堵，這樣的民眾體可能有望使選民“有機(jī)會(huì)評(píng)估和檢驗(yàn)競(jìng)選者的態(tài)度和能力”∏昀“上述設(shè)想只有通過仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)才有可能得到實(shí)現(xiàn)拐邪，因?yàn)橹俨脵C(jī)構(gòu)可以把擁有共同利益共同生活的人集合起來并使得他們參與他們自己的共同事業(yè)。舉例來說隘截，在行會(huì)里扎阶，成員總是通過選擇那些將會(huì)在國(guó)家層面上代表他們利益的人適時(shí)參與國(guó)家的政治生活汹胃。政治參與因此將會(huì)以參與更為地方的組織為媒介，所有的利益之所以都將會(huì)得到代表是因?yàn)橐粐?guó)政府必將包括所有相關(guān)社會(huì)群體东臀。（如果說有什么區(qū)別的話着饥，黑格爾認(rèn)為這部已經(jīng)被提議制定的符騰堡憲法從以下的意義上說太“自由”了：這部憲法幾乎沒有照顧到這些起著媒介作用的社會(huì)群體。）

On Hegel’s view, which was a version of the program he had already worked out in Jena in 1805-06, participation in the political life of the state cannot be direct but must be mediated, “organic,” that is, must occur within a set of mediating institutions that weave the individual’s personal projects into more general common projects, which in turn are then woven into the common project of the state (as a political community as a whole). It was, moreover, quite clear whom Hegel thought were to be the elite who would be the leaders of these groupings. Like many other reformers at that time, Hegel appealed to the (largely mythical) idea of the French having been defeated by units staffed with patriotically inspired students; in fact, the French were defeated by well-trained armies, and the size of the “volunteer” corps and its actual effect on the outcome was greatly overstated by the proponents of reform. (Educated youth never made up more than twelve percent of the army, and even in the Liitzow volunteer regiment, famous for its “student composition,” the educated youth only composed one-third.)''*’ But Hegel, latching onto the current sentiment for his own purposes, claimed that the “great events of recent history, the fight for Germany’s independence, have imbued the youth in our universities with a higher interest than mere concentration on future bread-winning and making an income. Some of them have shed their blood together that the German provinces might acquire free constitutions. They have brought back from the field of battle the hope of working some day or other toward that end and of participating in the political life of the state. Their scientific education has equipped them for this purpose and destined them in the main for public service.”"’ The student elite had supposedly fought for the various states of “Germany” and thereby gained entitlement to lead those states for which they had fought. But what Hegel was of course also saying was: The various German states would be led by people trained in the universities by people like Hegel.

? ? 按照黑格爾的看法惰赋，而且他的看法是他1805至1806年早在耶拿時(shí)就已制定出的綱領(lǐng)的翻版：參與國(guó)家政治生活不可能是直接的贱勃，而必須是間接的和“有組織的”參與。也就是說谤逼，必須借助一套起著中介作用的機(jī)構(gòu)參與國(guó)家政治生活贵扰，這套機(jī)構(gòu)把個(gè)體的個(gè)人方案整合成更廣泛的共同方案，共同方案轉(zhuǎn)而被編制成（作為整體的政治共同體的）國(guó)家的共同方案流部。尚不止于此戚绕，十分清楚的是，黑格爾認(rèn)為必將成為精英的應(yīng)該是這些社會(huì)群體中的領(lǐng)袖枝冀。像那時(shí)很多其他的改革者一樣舞丛，黑格爾訴諸于法國(guó)人的（大體上神話式的）觀點(diǎn)，而且此處法國(guó)人成了受愛國(guó)精神激勵(lì)的學(xué)生團(tuán)體手下的敗將果漾。實(shí)際上球切，法國(guó)人敗于訓(xùn)練有素的軍隊(duì)，“志愿”軍的規(guī)模及其對(duì)結(jié)果的實(shí)際影響被改革的支持者過于夸大了绒障。（受過教育的青年人在軍中的成分絕不超過12%吨凑，甚至就連在呂措的以“學(xué)生構(gòu)成”著稱的志愿軍團(tuán)中，受過教育的青年人也只不過占到軍團(tuán)人數(shù)的1/3户辱。）“但是黑格爾鸵钝，出于他自己的目的緊跟時(shí)勢(shì)，聲稱：‘近來一些重大歷史事件庐镐，例如德意志獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)恩商，已經(jīng)深深影響著我們大學(xué)中的青年學(xué)子，使得他們心懷高尚的興趣必逆，而非純粹把眼睛盯在未來的養(yǎng)家糊口和收入多寡上怠堪。他們中一些人已經(jīng)為德國(guó)各州可能獲得自由憲法而流盡了最后一點(diǎn)血。他們已經(jīng)從戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)上帶回的是希望每天都要為達(dá)到一定目標(biāo)而努力工作名眉，并希望參與國(guó)家政治生活粟矿。他們所受的科學(xué)教育已經(jīng)把他們武裝起來去實(shí)現(xiàn)自己的目的，并注定他們成為公共事業(yè)的主力軍璧针∪侣’學(xué)生精英據(jù)稱早已在為‘德意志’各州而戰(zhàn)，由此獲得領(lǐng)導(dǎo)這些被他們?yōu)橹鴳?zhàn)的各州的權(quán)利探橱。不過黑格爾當(dāng)然也在說的是：德國(guó)各州將由大學(xué)中像黑格爾一樣的人所培養(yǎng)出來的人來領(lǐng)導(dǎo)申屹。