Introduction
導論
A QUESTION OF RELEVANCE
相關性問題
Why read Hegel? It is a good question, one no Hegel scholar should shirk. After all, the burden of proof lies heavily on his or her shoulders. For Hegel’s texts are not exactly exciting or enticing.? Notoriously, they are written in some of the worst prose in the history of philosophy. Their language is dense, obscure and impenetrable. Reading Hegel is often a trying and exhausting experience, the intellectual equivalent of chewing gravel. ‘And for what?’ a prospective student might well ask. To avoid such an ordeal, he or she will be tempted to invoke the maxim of one of Hegel’s old enemies whenever he lost patience with a tiresome book: ‘Life is short!’1
為什么要讀黑格爾？這是一個好問題，也是每一位致力于研究黑格爾思想的學者都無法回避的議題。畢竟，證對于黑格爾思想價值的論證重任，沉重地落在了每一位研究者的肩上，因為黑格爾的文本恰好并不令人興奮或令人著迷。眾所周知，它們是以哲學史上某些最糟糕的散文寫就的，其語言文約義豐、含混不清、令人費解。閱讀黑格爾通常是一種令人厭煩和精疲力竭的經驗，類同于在思想中咀嚼碎石?！澳菫槭裁匆x它呢？”將來的學生可能會這樣問。為了避免這種煎熬，每當對一本令人厭倦的書籍失去耐心時，他可能會被誘惑去援引黑格爾一位宿敵的箴言：“生命是短暫的！”1
The question is all the more pressing when we ask what Hegel has to say to us today in our post-modern age. In the beginning of the last century Franz Rosenzweig, one of the greatest Hegel scholars, declared that he lived in an age post Hegel mortuum.2 Rosenzweig’s statement seems as true now as it was then. Our age seems to have outgrown Hegel. We have lost the feeling for religion, ‘the taste for the absolute’, which was the inspiration for Hegel’s metaphysics. After two world wars, the gulags and the Holocaust, we have lost faith in progress, though this faith is the cornerstone of Hegel’s philosophy of history. We live in such a specialized and pluralistic age that no one expects to see the restoration of wholeness, the recovery of unity with ourselves, others and nature; but these were the grand ideals behind Hegel’s philosophy.? When we consider all these points it seems we have no choice but to accept Rosenzweig’s verdict. Hegel, it seems, has little to say to our age, which has moved beyond him. So the question is all the more imperative: Why read Hegel?
當我們問在后現代的今天黑格爾對我們有什么可說時，這個問題會變得更加緊迫。上個世紀初，弗朗茲·羅森茨威格，最偉大的黑格爾學者之一，宣稱他生活在后黑格爾尸骸的（post Hegel mortuum）時代。2今天看來，羅森茨威格的說法和那時同樣真實?？雌饋砗诟駹栆呀洸贿m用于我們的時代了，我們已經喪失那種宗教感，“對絕對的體味”——而這正是黑格爾形而上學的靈感之所在。經歷過兩次世界大戰(zhàn)，經歷過古拉格群島事件和種族大屠殺（the gulags and the Holocaust），我們已經喪失了對進步的信仰，然而這一信仰正是黑格爾歷史哲學的奠基石。我們生活在一個如此專業(yè)化和多元性的時代，以至于沒人期望看到整全的復位，以及我們、他人和自然的統一性的恢復；但這些恰恰是黑格爾哲學背后的宏偉理想。如果考慮到所有這些要素，我們似乎別無選擇，只能同意羅森茨威格的判斷?？雌饋?，黑格爾對于我們的時代所說甚少，時代已經超越了他。因此，愈益迫切的問題是：為什么要讀黑格爾？
Part of the answer, of course, is that even if Hegel is dead, he was still enormously in?uential, so much so that he is still deeply interwoven into our culture today. If we are to understand that culture, we have to comprehend its origins, which means that, eventually but inevitably, we have to come to terms with Hegel. It is a remarkable fact that virtually every major philosophical movement of the twentieth century – existentialism, Marxism, pragmatism, phenomenology and analytic philosophy – grew out of reaction against Hegel. The concepts, arguments and problems of these movements will remain forever alien and arcane to us until we understand what they grew out of and what they reacted against. So here we have at least one good reason to read Hegel: to understand the roots of our own culture.
當然，問題的答案部分在于，雖然黑格爾已經過世，但是他仍然有著巨大影響，以至于今天他與我們的文化深深纏繞在一起。如果要理解這種文化，我們必須了解它的各個源頭，這意味著，我們最終不可避免地要與黑格爾取得和解。一個引人注目的事實是，20世紀每一種主要的哲學運動——存在主義、馬克思主義、實用主義、現象學和分析哲學——實際上都脫胎于對黑格爾理論的反動。對我們來說，這些運動中的概念、論證和問題將始終是外在和神秘的，直到我們理解它們脫胎于什么和對什么作出回應。因此，我們至少有了一個很好的理由去閱讀黑格爾：為了理解我們自己文化的根基。
We might well question, however, whether Hegel is really that dead after all. In some respects he is more alive than ever. Since the Hegel renaissance of the 1970s, Hegel has become an established ?gure in the history of philosophy. The dissertations, books and articles on every aspect of his philosopy have increased exponentially since then. It is a striking fact that Hegel’s star seems to be steadily rising just as those of his most vocal critics (e.g. Popper and Russell) have been steadily sinking. The reason for the Hegel renaissance lies to some degree in an overdue recognition of Hegel’s historical importance. Many of those who studied Hegel did so to uncover the roots of Marxism, which had a great ?owering in the 1960s. But there were then, as there are now, more philosophical reasons for Hegel’s revival. In the 1970s and 1980s Hegel became, at least in the Anglophone world, the rallying ?gure for the reaction against analytic philosophy. To study Hegel was to protest against the narrow scholasticism of analytic philosophy and to embrace ‘continental philosophy’. Ironically, Hegel was as important for the philosophical counterculture of the 1970s and 1980s as he was for the cultural mainstream in late nineteenth-century England and America.
然而，我們也完全可以問，黑格爾究竟是否真的死去了。從某些方面來說，他比過去任何時候都更加鮮活。自從20世紀70年代黑格爾復興以來，他已經成為哲學史上一位地位穩(wěn)固的人物。自那以后，關于黑格爾哲學各個方面的博士論文、著作和論文成倍地增長。一個驚人的事實是，正當他的最直言不諱的批評者之星（如波普爾和羅素）地位不斷下沉的時候，黑格爾這顆星星似乎在冉冉上升。在某種程度上，黑格爾復興的原因在于對黑格爾歷史重要性的姍姍來遲的承認。許多黑格爾研究者這么做是為了揭示馬克思主義的根源，這種做法在20世紀60年代繁盛一時。但是，對黑格爾的復興來說，那時和今天一樣，有更多的哲學上的原因。20世紀70和80年代，至少在英語世界，黑格爾成為一個反撥分析哲學的號召性人物。研究黑格爾就是抗議分析哲學狹隘的經院主義和擁抱“大陸哲學”。具有諷刺意味的是，黑格爾對于20世紀70和80年代的哲學反文化，和對19世紀晚期英美的文化主流一樣重要。
Nowadays the cultural war between continental and analytic philosophy has lost much of its original meaning. But it is striking that the interest in Hegel remains as strong as ever. Hegel has now been adopted by some prominent philosophers in the analytic tradition, who study him not for historical but philosophical reasons.3 They recognize they share some of the same problems as Hegel, and that he has something interesting to say about them. How is it possible to avoid the extremes of conventionalism and foundationalism in epistemology? How is it possible to combine realism with a social epistemology? How is it possible to synthesize the freedoms of liberalism with the ideals of community? How is it possible to adopt the insights of historicism and not lapse into relativism? How is it possible to avoid dualism and materialism in the philosophy of mind? All these questions are very much on the contemporary agenda; but they were crucial issues for Hegel too. It is no accident that many philosophers now see Hegel as the chief antidote and alternative to many outworn and problematic positions, such as Cartesian subjectivism, naive realism, extreme liberalism and mental-physical dualism, or reductivist materialism. So here is another reason for reading Hegel: he still remains, despite his damnable obscurity, an interesting interlocuter to contemporary philosophical discussions.
如今，大陸哲學和分析哲學之間文化戰(zhàn)爭的許多原初意義已經喪失殆盡。但引人注目的是，對黑格爾的興趣依然強勁。黑格爾現在也為分析哲學傳統中一些杰出的哲學家所吸收，他們出于哲學而非歷史的原因研究黑格爾。3他們意識到自己和黑格爾分享同樣一些問題，并且黑格爾就這些問題有一些有趣的論述。是否可能避免認識論上傳統主義和基礎主義的極端？是否可能將實在論和社會認識論結合起來？是否可能把自由主義的自由和共同體的理想綜合起來？是否可能吸收歷史主義的洞見而又不陷入相對主義？是否可能避免心靈哲學中的二元論和唯物主義？所有這些問題都和當代議程極為相關，而它們對黑格爾來說也是至關重要的議題。絕非偶然的是，現在許多哲學家都把黑格爾視為很多陳腐的和成問題的立場的首要解毒劑與替代物，這些立場包括笛卡爾主觀主義、樸素實在論、極端自由主義和身心二元論，或者還原論的唯物主義等。因此，在這里，有了閱讀黑格爾的另一個理由：撇開他該死的晦澀難懂，黑格爾對當代哲學討論而言仍然是一個有趣的對話伙伴。
A QUESTION OF METHOD
方法問題
Assuming that we should read Hegel, the question remains how we should do so. There are two possible approaches. We can treat him as if he were a virtual contemporary, as a participant in present conversations. In that case we could analyze his arguments and clarify his ideas to show how they are relevant to our contemporary concerns. Or, we can treat him as an historical ?gure, as a contributor to past conversations. In this case we study him in his historical context, trace the development of his doctrines, and attempt to reconstruct him in his historical integrity and individuality. The ?rst approach has been characteristic of many recent analytic interpretations of Hegel; the second approach has been characteristic of many older hermeneutical studies, especially the work of Rudolf Haym, Wilhelm Dilthey and Theodor Haering.
假定我們應當閱讀黑格爾，那么剩下的問題是我們應當如何去閱讀。這里存在兩種可能的路徑。我們可以把他當作一個虛擬的同時代人、一個當前對話的參與者來對待。在這種情況下，我們能夠分析他的論證和澄清他的觀念，以表明它們如何與我們的當代關切相關聯?；蛘?，我們可以把他當作一個歷史人物、一個過去對話的貢獻者來對待。在這種情況下，我們在其歷史語境中研究他，追蹤他的學說的發(fā)展，并努力在其歷史的完整性和個體性方面重構他。最近許多對黑格爾的分析性闡釋帶有第一條路徑的特點；更早的許多解釋學的研究，特別是魯道夫·海謀（Rudolf Haym）、威廉·狄爾泰（Wilhelm Dilthey）和西奧多·海林（Theodor Haering）等人的著作，帶有第二條路徑的特點。
Both approaches have their rewards and pitfalls. The danger of the analytic approach is anachronism. We make Hegel alive and relevant, a useful contributor to our concerns; but that is only because we put our views into his mouth. What we learn from Hegel is then only what we have read into him. With good reason this approach has been caricatured as ‘the ventriloquist’s conception of the history of philosophy’.4 On the other hand, the trouble with the hermeneutical approach is antiquarianism. Although we are more likely to concern ourselves with the philosophy of a real historical being, it is of less interest and relevance to us because his ideas and problems are so speci?c to his age. What we are left with, it seems, is like an historical portrait from a museum.
兩種路徑都有得有失。分析的路徑的危險是時代錯置（anachronism）。我們讓黑格爾變得鮮活和有相關性，變成一個對我們的關切有益的貢獻者；但那僅僅是因為我們借他之口說出了我們自己的觀點。因而，我們從黑格爾那學到的僅僅是我們讀進其中去的東西。這種路徑已經被人以充分的理由漫畫化為“腹語者的哲學史思想”（the ventriloquist's conception of the history of philosophy）表現出來。4另一方面，解釋學路徑的困難是好古成癖（antiquarianism）。盡管更有可能的是，我們關心的是作為一種真正的歷史存在的哲學，但是我們對它興味索然，而它與我們的相關性也程度更低，因為他的觀念和問題是如此特殊，只屬于他的時代。看起來我們能夠得到的，就像是博物館里的一幅歷史肖像畫。
So how do we avoid both anachronism and antiquarianism? This is the eternal dilemma of all history of philosophy. We could attempt an eclectic strategy. We could take the analytic approach and be careful not to confuse our contemporary reconstruction with historical reality; or we could take the hermeneutical approach and be selective about those aspects of the historical Hegel that are relevant to our contemporary concerns. But, either way, we seem to compromise what is of value in each approach. For, unfortunately, there is a discrepancy between the real historical Hegel and the contemporary relevant Hegel. The more we make Hegel relevant to our contemporary concerns, the less he will be like the real historical thinker; and the more we reconstitute Hegel in his historical individuality, the less he will be relevant to our contemporary concerns. In any case, an eclectic strategy approach is easier to devise than execute. For who among the analytic interpreters has a precise historical knowledge of Hegel, so that he or she knows how to avoid anachronism? And who among the hermentical interpreters has a thorough knowledge of contemporary philosophy, so that he or she can escape antiquarianism? Alas, what we know about Hegel is the result of our method; it is not as if we can choose the right method based on what we already know.
那么，我們如何能既避免時代錯置又避免好古成癖呢？這是所有哲學史的永恒困境。我們可以嘗試一種折衷的策略。我們可以采用分析的路徑，而小心不要將我們的當代重構與歷史實在混淆起來；或者，我們可以采用解釋學的路徑，而選取歷史的黑格爾中那些與我們的當代關切相關的方面。但是，無論如何，我們似乎承諾了每一種路徑都有其價值。因為很遺憾，在真正歷史的黑格爾和與當代相關的黑格爾之間有差異。我們越是讓黑格爾與我們的當代關切有相關性，他與真正歷史的思想家的距離就越遠；我們越是在其歷史的個體性中重建黑格爾，他與我們的當代關切的相關性就越少。不管怎樣，折衷的路徑是想想容易做起來難。由于分析的闡釋者對黑格爾具有精確的歷史知識，因此他知道如何避免時代錯置？而解釋學的闡釋者對當代哲學有很好的了解，因此他能夠避免好古癖？唉，其實我們對黑格爾的所知不過是我們方法的結果；而并非好像我們可以在已有知識的基礎上選擇正確的方法似的。
In the face of this predicament the philosophical historian has to make his or her choice. There can be pragmatic reasons for a decision, but there is no right or wrong when each method has its strengths and weaknesses. Contrary to the current preference for the analytic approach, the present study adopts the older hermeneutical method. It does so for two reasons. First, many recent analytic studies of Hegel have lapsed into anachronism, and indeed to such an excessive degree that their reconstructed relevant Hegel has virtually no resemblance to the actual historical Hegel. Rather than frankly admitting the distance between these Hegels, they virtually confuse the two, as if the real Hegel were the analytic thinker of their dreams. Second, contemporary Hegel scholars, especially those in the Anglophone tradition, have failed to individuate Hegel.? They assume that certain ideas are characteristic of Hegel that were really commonplaces of an entire generation. We are told that Hegel’s absolute idealism, his attempt to wed communitarianism and liberalism, to synthesize Spinoza’s naturalism and Fichte’s idealism, were original and unique to him; but these projects were really part of the legacy of early romanticism. If, however, we cannot individuate Hegel – if we cannot state precisely how his views di?er from some of his major contemporaries – can we be said to understand him? Especially when these di?erences were often so crucial to him?
面對這一困境，哲學史家必須做出他的選擇?？赡軙幸恍┕┳鰶Q定的實用理由，但當每一種方法都各有長短時就無所謂對錯。與流行的對分析路徑的偏好不同，當前的研究采取更早的解釋學的方法。這么做有兩個理由。首先，最近對黑格爾的許多分析性研究已經失足于時代錯置，并且確實到了非常過分的程度，以至于他們重構的相關的黑格爾實際上已經與歷史上真實的黑格爾毫無相似之處。事實上，他們把這兩種黑格爾混淆在一起，而不肯坦率承認二者之間的差距，仿佛真正的黑格爾本來就是他們理想中的分析的思想家。其次，當代的黑格爾學者，尤其是英語傳統中的那些人，已經無法將黑格爾個性化。他們假定某些觀念是黑格爾特有的，而實際上不過是整個時代的老生常談。他們告訴我們，絕對唯心主義是黑格爾的原創(chuàng)和獨一無二之處，他試圖嫁接社群主義和自由主義，試圖綜合斯賓諾莎的自然主義和費希特的唯心主義；但這些規(guī)劃實際上是早期浪漫主義遺產的一部分。然而，如果我們不能個性化黑格爾——如果我們不能精確地陳述他的觀點如何不同于他主要的同時代人——我們能稱得上理解他了嗎？尤其是當這些不同對他來說通常是如此至關重要之時？
The most pressing need of Hegel scholarship today is to individuate him, to determine what was his precise relation to his contemporaries. This need will become more apparent when scholars recognize the full import of the latest research on early romanticism. This research, undertaken by Dieter Henrich, Manfred Frank, Violetta Waibel, Michael Franz, Marcelo Stamm, and many others in Germany, has greatly illuminated the philosophical depths of early romanticism. Until we can situate Hegel within that movement – showing precisely what he inherits from it and where he takes issue with it – we cannot claim to have an adequate understanding of his philosophy.
個性化黑格爾，確定他和他的同時代人之間的精確聯系，是今天黑格爾學者最緊迫的需要。如果學者們認識到晚近有關早期浪漫主義研究的充分意義，這種需要會變得更為明顯。迪特·亨利希（Dieter Henrich）、曼弗雷德·弗蘭克（Manfred Frank）、維奧萊塔·魏貝爾（Violetta Waibel）、米夏埃爾·弗朗茲（Michael Franz）、馬塞洛·斯塔姆（Marcelo Stamm）以及其他許多德國人承擔的這一研究，已經極大地闡明了早期浪漫主義的哲學道路。直到我們能夠在這一運動中定位黑格爾——精確地展示他從中繼承了什么，以及在什么地方又持有異議——我們才能宣稱對他的哲學有一種充分的理解。
The anachronism of analytic studies is especially apparent from the many recent non-metaphysical interpretations of Hegel. These studies attempt to rehabilitate Hegel – to make him viable in the light of contemporary concerns – by reading the metaphysics out of his philosophy. If Hegel were a metaphysician, these scholars argue, then his philosophy would be doomed to obsolescence.? Hence Hegel’s philosophy has been read as virtually everything but a metaphysics: as a theory of categories, as social epistemology, as neo-Kantian idealism, as cultural history, and as protohermeuneutics. What all these studies have in common is the belief that Hegel’s philosophy is in its essential purport or spirit nonmetaphysics. This can mean either of two things: that his metaphysics is irreducible but unimportant, so that the rest of his philosophy can be perfectly understood without it; or that his metaphysics, when properly understood, is really reducible to a theory of categories, social epistemology, neo-Kantian idealism, and so on. No one would have protested more stridently against such interpretations, however, than Hegel himself, who regarded metaphysics as the foundation of philosophy, and as the basis of each part of his system. To understand Hegel in his individuality and integrity demands ?rst and foremost restoring metaphysics to its central role in his thinking. For this reason virtually every chapter of this study will stress how metaphysics is fundamental to each part of Hegel’s system. We shall ?nd that metaphysics plays a pivotal role in Hegel’s social and political philosophy, his philosophy of history and aesthetics.
分析的研究的時代錯置，特別明顯地體現在最近許多對黑格爾的非形而上學的闡釋中。這些研究試圖改造黑格爾——依據當代關切使他變得切實可行——通過將形而上學讀出他的哲學。這些學者主張，如果黑格爾是個形而上學家，那么他的哲學就注定是過時的。因此，事實上，黑格爾哲學已然被解讀為形而上學之外的任何東西：作為一種范疇理論、作為社會認識論、作為新康德主義的觀念論、作為文化史學，以及作為最初的解釋學。所有這些研究的共同之處在于，相信黑格爾哲學就其根本的主旨或精神而言是非形而上學的。這可能意味著兩種情況中的一種：或者，黑格爾的形而上學是不可化約但不重要的，因此撇開它，黑格爾哲學的其他方面可以得到充分的理解；或者，黑格爾的形而上學在得到恰當的理解時，可以被化約為一種范疇理論、社會認識論、新康德主義的觀念論，如此等等。然而，沒有人會比黑格爾自己更尖聲地抗議這種闡釋。在黑格爾看來，形而上學是哲學的基礎，是他體系的每一部分的地基。為了在其個體性和整全性中理解黑格爾，首先和首要的是恢復形而上學在他的思想中的核心作用。出于這一原因，實際上本書的每個章節(jié)都將強調形而上學對黑格爾體系的各個部分是多么根本。我們將發(fā)現，形而上學在黑格爾的社會和政治哲學、在他的歷史哲學和美學中發(fā)揮著中樞性的作用。
Those who advocate non-metaphysical interpretations might protest that to read the metaphysics back into Hegel is to make him obsolete to our own non-metaphysical age. It is precisely here, however, that Hegel challenges us to rethink our own philosophical presuppositions and values. For most of the contemporary objections against Hegel’s metaphysics, it must be said, simply beg the question against him, coming from perspectives that he had already questioned. In Hegel’s view, any form of positivism about metaphysics was simply bad philosophy because it involved, but failed to re?ect upon, a metaphysics of its own. Rather than helping to combat such positivism, contemporary Hegel scholarship has simply bowed to it, betraying one of the most valuable aspects of Hegel’s legacy.
倡導非形而上學闡釋的人們可能會抗議說，將形而上學讀回進黑格爾就是使他對我們自己的非形而上學時代來說變得過時。然而，正是在這里，黑格爾對我們提出了重新思考我們自己的哲學預設和價值的挑戰(zhàn)。必須要說的是，黑格爾形而上學的大多數當代反對者，僅僅是想當然地從黑格爾已經質疑過的視角來反對他。在黑格爾看來，關于形而上學的任何形式的實證主義絕對是壞哲學，因為它牽涉一種關于自身的形而上學卻無能對之加以反思。當代的黑格爾學術不是幫助和這種實證主義作戰(zhàn)，而簡直是向它卑躬屈膝，背叛了黑格爾遺產中最有價值的方面之一。
BRIEF BIOGRAPHY
略傳
In 1844 Karl Rosenkranz, Hegel’s ?rst biographer, wrote that ‘The history of a philosopher is the history of his thinking, the history of the formation of his system’.5 Rosenkranz claimed that this maxim was especially true of Hegel. His life was the story of his academic career. Hegel did not have the love a?air of an Abelard, the political intrigues of a Bacon, the religious dramas of a Spinoza. Some biographers would question Rosenkranz’s dictum, which does seem drastically reductionist. A close examination of Hegel’s life shows that it too had its own personal dramas and scandals, such as bouts of melancholy, an illegitimate son by his Putzfrau, a desperate struggle to earn a living. Still, Rosenkranz had a point. For Hegel himself gave little importance to his own individuality and he de?ned himself by his devotion to philosophy. No doubt, his passions and obsessions would ?ll a volume the size of Rousseau’s Confessions. But the problem is that Hegel himself did not regard them as noteworthy. True to Rosenkranz’s dictum, Hegel’s life divides rather neatly, with a few lapses and aberrations, into the stages of an academic career.
卡爾·羅森克蘭茨（Karl Rosenkranz），黑格爾第一個傳記作家，在1844年寫道：“哲學家的歷史就是他的思想的歷史，就是其體系形成的歷史?！?羅森克蘭茨宣稱這一格言尤其適合于黑格爾。他的生平就是他學術生涯的故事。黑格爾沒有阿伯拉爾（Abelard）式的戀愛事件，沒有培根（Bacon）式的政治陰謀，沒有斯賓諾莎（Spinoza）式的宗教戲劇。有些傳記作家大概會質疑羅森克蘭茨的格言，它似乎是徹底還原論的。對黑格爾生活的進一步考察表明，黑格爾也有自己的私人戲劇和丑聞，諸如憂郁的侵襲、與女傭（Putzfrau）的私生子，以及為賺取生活費所做的絕望斗爭等等。然而，羅森克蘭茨還是有道理的。因為黑格爾本人很少看重他自己的個體性，而是通過對哲學的獻身來定義自己。毋庸置疑，他的激情和困擾也能填滿盧梭《懺悔錄》那樣大小的一卷。但問題是黑格爾本人認為它們不值一提。忠實于羅森克蘭茨的格言，除了少數失誤和畸變之外，黑格爾的生活可以相當整齊地劃分為整個學術生涯的各個階段。
1 Stuttgart (August 1770–September 1788)
1 斯圖加特（1770年8月至1788年九月）
Hegel was born in Stuttgart on 27 August 1770, the eldest son of a middle-class family. His father was a minor civil servant in the Duchy of Württemberg. The duchy was a Protestant enclave surrounded by Catholic territories. Several generations of Hegels had been ministers in the Protestant Church, and Hegel’s mother, who died when he was only 11, probably envisaged a career in the clergy for her son. From his earliest years Hegel developed a strong sense of his religious identity. Though he did not become an orthodox Lutheran in belief or habit, his Protestant heritage is still fundamental for understanding his thought. He embraced some of its basic values, imbibed some of its intellectual traditions.6
1770年8月27日，黑格爾出生于斯圖加特，是一個中產階級的長子。父親是符騰堡公國的一位小公務員。這個公國是被天主教領土包圍著的一塊新教飛地。黑格爾家?guī)状硕甲鲞^新教教堂的牧師，黑格爾的母親——在他年僅11歲時過世——可能也設想過他兒子擔任神職人員。黑格爾早年就產生了一種強烈的宗教認同感。盡管他在信仰和習性上沒有成為正統的路德教徒，但他所承繼的新教遺產仍舊是理解他思想的基礎。他擁抱新教的某些基本價值，并從其知識傳統中吸取養(yǎng)料。6
After receiving his ?rst Latin lessons from his mother, Hegel attended a Latin school from the ages of 5 to 7. He was then sent to the Gymnasium illustre in Stuttgart, which he attended for the next eleven years (1777–88). Rosenkranz astutely summarizes his education there by saying that it ‘belonged entirely to the Enlightenment with respect to principle, and entirely to classical antiquity with respect to curriculum’.7 Hegel’s teachers imparted to him the values of the Enlightenment; and the curriculum consisted mainly in the Greek and Latin classics. His education was governed by the belief that classical Greece and Rome are the highest models of civilization.8 This belief would sometimes clash with Hegel’s Protestant education, leaving him, as so many before him, with the perennial problem of reconciling Christianity with ancient paganism.
從他母親那里接受了最初的拉丁文教育之后，黑格爾在5到7歲時進入了一所拉丁語學校。然后，他被送到著名的斯圖加特文科學校，在那里接受了十一年（1777-1788）的教育。羅森克蘭茨以下面的話機敏地概括了黑格爾的這段教育經歷：它“就原則而言完全屬于啟蒙，就課程設置而言完全屬于古典”。7黑格爾的老師們灌輸給他啟蒙的價值觀；而課程設置主要包括希臘文和拉丁文的經典。他所受的教育是在這樣一種信念的支配下展開的：古希臘和羅馬是文明的最高典范。8這一信念有時可能與黑格爾的新教教育相沖突，使他像他之前的許多人一樣，面對長期以來在基督教與古代異教信仰之間取得和解的問題。
2 Tübingen (October 1788–October 1793)
2 圖賓根（1788年10至1793年10月）
After graduating from the Gymnasium, Hegel went to the Tübinger Stift, a seminary to train Protestant clerics for the Duchy of Württemberg. It is a commonplace that Hegel’s training in the Stift biassed him toward religion and made him a covert theologian; but the evidence does not support this: Hegel never intended to be a minister, and he had a profound distaste for the study of orthodox theology.9 He probably entered the Stift only because it allowed him to receive his education at state expense. Like many of his fellow students, Hegel had a deep aversion to the basic values of the Stift, which seemed to represent all the vices of the ancien régime: religious orthodoxy, princely despotism and aristocratic nepotism.10 He was highly critical of the reactionary theology of some of his professors, who attempted to use Kant’s doctrine of practical faith to buttress traditional dogmas.
從文科中學畢業(yè)之后，黑格爾進入了圖賓根神學院，一個為符騰堡公國培養(yǎng)新教牧師的神學院。通常認為黑格爾在神學院接受的訓練使他偏向于宗教并成為一個潛在的神學家；但上述看法缺乏證據支持：黑格爾從來沒有打算成為一名牧師，并且對學習正統神學懷有很深的厭惡。9他進入神學院很可能僅僅是因為可以讓他接受公費的教育。和他的許多同學一樣，黑格爾十分反感神學院的基本價值觀，它似乎代表了舊制度（the ancien régime）的所有罪惡：宗教正統、王權專制，貴族裙帶關系。10他尖銳批判了他的某些教授的反動神學，他們試圖運用康德關于實踐信仰的學說來支持傳統信條。
Although Hegel was not happy at the Stift, he formed two friendships there that were to have the greatest importance for himself, and indeed the history of German philosophy. In autumn 1788 he met Friedrich H?lderlin, who became one of Germany’s greatest lyric poets; and in the autumn of 1790 he met Schelling, who became one of Germany’s leading philosophers and later Hegel’s rival. In the Stift the three became close friends, and for a while even shared a room together. Schelling and H?lderlin, who were more advanced in their philosophical education than Hegel, soon became important in?uences upon him.
盡管黑格爾在神學院并不開心，但在那里他與兩個人結下了友誼。這一點對他自己，并且實際上對德國哲學史都極為重要。1788年秋，他遇見了弗里德里?！ず蔂柕铝郑‵riedrich H?lderlin），此人日后成為德國最偉大的抒情詩人之一；1790年秋，他遇見了謝林，此人日后成為德國最杰出的哲學家之一，后來成了黑格爾的競爭對手。在神學院，他們三個人成為密友，有段時間甚至共處一室。謝林和荷爾德林在哲學教育方面領先于黑格爾，很快對他產生了重要影響。
For the ?rst two years in the Stift, Hegel studied for the degree of Magister. His courses for this degree were mainly philosophical, and included logic, metaphysics, moral philosophy, natural law, ontology and cosmology.11 In his second term, the Summer Semester of 1789, Hegel took a course on empirical psychology, in which he studied for the ?rst time Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.12 For the next three years Hegel had to qualify for the ministry, and so his curriculum became essentially theological. He had to take courses on ecclesiastical history, dogmatics, moral theology and the gospels.13 Apart from the o?cial curriculum, Hegel read, on his own or with friends, some of the latest philosophical literature. He read Plato, Schiller, F.H. Jacobi, Rousseau and Voltaire. His favorite author was Rousseau. Though Hegel had already read Kant, it is noteworthy that he did not join a club to discuss his ideas. It was probably due to the in?uence of Schelling and H?lderlin that he later came to appreciate fully the import of Kant’s philosophy.14
在神學院的頭兩年，黑格爾攻讀碩士（Magister）學位。所修學位課程主要是哲學的，其中包括邏輯學、形而上學、道德哲學、自然法、存在論和宇宙論等。11在第二學期，亦即1789年夏季學期，黑格爾選了一門經驗心理學的課程，從中首次學習了康德的《純粹理性批判》。12接下來的三年，黑格爾必須取得擔任牧師的資格，因此他的課程安排變成以神學為核心了。他必須選擇一些有關教會史、教義學、道德神學和福音書的課程。13除了正式的課程之外，黑格爾獨自或與朋友一道閱讀了一些最新的哲學文獻。他讀過柏拉圖、席勒、F. H.耶可比、盧梭和伏爾泰。他最喜歡的作家是盧梭。盡管黑格爾已經讀過康德，但值得一提的是，他并沒有參加任何一個討論康德思想的讀書會。他后來充分理解康德哲學的重要，或許是由于謝林和荷爾德林的影響。14
The most important event of the Tübingen years was the French
Revolution. Hegel, Schelling and H?lderlin celebrated the events
across the Rhine as the dawn of a new era. They read French
newspapers, sang the Marseillaise, and formed a political club to discuss the events and read revolutionary literature. According to
legend, on one ?ne Sunday morning in 1790 Hegel, Schelling and
H?lderlin went out to a meadow in Tübingen and planted a liberty
tree. While this story is probably false, it at least represents what the
three would have liked to have done. Hegel was known as one of
the most ardent spokesmen for liberty and equality in the Stift.15 His
sympathy for the Revolution lasted his entire life. Even in his ?nal
years he toasted Bastille Day, admired Napoleon, and condemned
the Restoration.
在圖賓根時期，發(fā)生的最重要的事件是法國革命。這一事件傳到萊茵，黑格爾、謝林和荷爾德林把它當作新時代的曙光來慶賀。他們讀法文報紙，唱馬賽曲（the Marseillaise），還組織了一個政治俱樂部討論這一事件和閱讀革命文獻。據傳1790年一個晴朗的星期天早晨，黑格爾、謝林和荷爾德林來到圖賓根城外草地種下了一顆自由樹。盡管這個故事可能是杜撰的，但它至少反映出這三個人本來愿意去做的事情。黑格爾作為自由、和平等理想最為熱烈的代言人之一而聞名于神學院。15對革命的同情貫穿了黑格爾整個一生。甚至在晚年，他還為攻占巴士底獄紀念日干杯，尊崇拿破侖，而譴責復辟。
The surviving writings of the Tübingen period are only four sermons and several short fragments.16 Of these fragments the largest and most important is the so-called Tübingen Essay, the fragment ‘Religion ist eine der wichtigsten Angelegenheiten . . .’.17 This fragment sets the agenda for much of Hegel’s early development. True to his republican politics, Hegel’s main concern is to outline a civic religion. In the republican tradition of Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Rousseau, Hegel believed that the chief source of republican virtue and patriotism came from religion.
黑格爾圖賓根時期幸存下來的著作，僅僅是四份布道文和若干簡短的殘篇。16殘篇中篇幅最大和最重要的是所謂《圖賓根論文》（Tübingen Essay），亦即殘篇《宗教是頭等大事……》。17這份殘篇為黑格爾早期發(fā)展的許多方面設定了范圍。黑格爾忠實于其共和政治理想，主要關心的是勾勒出公民宗教的輪廓。從馬基雅維里、孟德斯鳩與盧梭的共和政治傳統出發(fā)，黑格爾相信共和政體的美德與愛國精神的首要源泉來自宗教。
3 Berne (October 1793–December 1796)
3 伯爾尼（1793年10月至1796年12月）
After passing his Konsistorialexamen in September 1793, Hegel got a job as a Hofmeister, a private tutor, to the Berne patrician family of Hauptmann Friedrich von Steiger. Although the job left him free time to pursue his own studies, Hegel felt lonely and isolated in Berne. He wished to be with H?lderlin and Schelling, closer to the exciting intellectual activity now taking place in Weimar and Jena.
1793年9月通過教會考試（Konsistorialexamen）之后，黑格爾在伯爾尼找到一份工作——在霍普特曼·弗里德里?！ゑT·施泰格爾（Hauptmann Friedrich von Steiger）這個貴族家庭當私人教師（Hofmeister）。盡管這份工作給了他從事自己的研究的空余時間，但黑格爾在伯爾尼感到孤獨和寂寞。他希望與荷爾德林和謝林待在一起，離正在發(fā)生令人興奮的思想活動的魏瑪和耶拿更近一些。
In Berne Hegel read a lot, wrote much, but published nothing.? Still, he had hopes for a literary career. Like many young men of literary ambition in the 1790s, he saw himself as a Volkslehrer, a teacher of the people, in the tradition of the Aufkl?rung or German Enlightenment. His aim was to enlighten the public, to ?ght superstition, oppression and despotism. There was a political objective behind such an education: to prepare people for the high civic ideals of a republic. True to the ideal of a Volkslehrer Hegel explicitly and self-consciously forswore the goal of becoming a professional philosopher, a Doktor der Weltweisheit at a university. He wanted to popularize and apply the principles of Kant’s philosophy, not investigate their foundations.
在伯爾尼，黑格爾勤于閱讀，勤于寫作，但什么著作也沒出版。他還對文學生涯充滿期待。像18世紀90年代許多懷抱文學雄心的青年一樣，黑格爾依照德國的啟蒙（Aufkl?rung）傳統把自己看作是“人民導師”（Volkslehrer）。他的目標是啟迪民眾，與迷信、壓迫和專制作斗爭。民眾教育背后的政治目標是：為建立一個共和國的遠大公民理想準備民眾基礎。忠實于“人民教師”的理想，黑格爾明確和自覺地放棄了在大學里成為一位職業(yè)哲學家、一位世界智慧博士（Doktor der Weltweisheit）的目標。他想推廣和運用康德哲學的各種原則，而不是去審查它們的基礎。
True to his ideal, Hegel continued to occupy himself with his project for a civil religion. This concern is most evident in a series of sketches known as the Berne Fragments.18 These fragments are notable for their many sharp criticisms of orthodox Christianity.? Hegel’s search for a civil religion eventually led him to write the one complete fragment of his early years, his 1795 Life of Jesus.
忠實于他的理想，黑格爾繼續(xù)投身于他公民宗教的規(guī)劃。這一關切最明顯地表現在以《伯爾尼殘篇》聞名的系列草稿中。18這些殘篇之所以引人注目，是因為其中包含對正統基督教的許多尖銳批評。黑格爾對公民宗教的探尋，最終引導他寫下了早年一部較為完整的殘篇，1795年的《耶穌傳》。
Hegel’s main writing during the Berne years, a work constantly revised but never ?nished, was his so-called Positivity Essay.19 The main aim of this essay is to explain how Christianity, whose gospel consists in moral autonomy, degenerated into a positive religion, i.e. a religion commanded by civil authority. To answer this question, Hegel delves into the fundamental issue of alienation, of why people abandon their own freedom. His analysis of this issue anticipates Feuerbach and Marx, and his later account of the ‘Unhappy Consciousness’ in the Phenomenology.
黑格爾在伯爾尼時期的主要著作是他的所謂《實證性論文》（Positivity Essay）19，一部不斷改寫卻從未完成的著作。這篇論文的主要目的是，說明其福音存在于道德自律之中的基督教，如何墮落為一種實證性的宗教——亦即一種由民間權威所掌控的宗教。為了回答這個問題，黑格爾深入研究了異化這一基礎性論題，研究人們?yōu)槭裁磿艞壦麄冏约旱淖杂?。黑格爾關于異化的分析，預見了費爾巴哈和馬克思，也預見了他后來在《現象學》中關于“苦惱意識”的敘述。
The Berne years were especially formative for Hegel’s political thought. He read the Scottish political economists; and he studied closely at ?rst hand the a?airs of the Berne aristocracy, whose nepotism appalled him. True to his republican beliefs and his mission as a Volkslehrer, he decided to expose the despotism of the Bernese by translating a pamplet by J.J. Cart, Lettres confidentielles, which attacked the Bernese aristocracy for depriving the people of the ‘pays de Vaud’ of their native liberties. The pamphlet, published anonymously with Hegel’s notes and introduction, was his ?rst publication.20 More important for the development of Hegel’s political views in the Berne years was his sketch of a liberal political philosophy in some sections of the Positivity Essay. Here Hegel argues that the state has the duty to protect my rights, among which are freedom of speech and conscience as well as security of person and property. Such liberalism did not jibe well with Hegel’s ideal of a civil religion. This tension raised a broader issue of central importance for Hegel’s mature political philosophy: How is it possible to reconcile communitarian ideals with liberal principles?21
伯爾尼時期對黑格爾政治思想的形成有特殊的意義。他閱讀了蘇格蘭政治經濟學家的著作；對伯爾尼貴族政治的事務進行了近距離的第一手研究，貴族之間的裙帶關系讓他大吃一驚。黑格爾忠誠于他的共和信念以及他作為“人民導師”的使命，他決定通過翻譯卡特（J. J. Cart）的小冊子《密信》（Lettres confidentielles）來揭露伯爾尼的專制。這本小冊子攻擊伯爾尼貴族政治剝奪了瓦特州地區(qū)（pays de Vaud）人民的天賦自由，并附以黑格爾的注釋和導論匿名出版，是他的第一份公開出版物。20伯爾尼時期的黑格爾政治觀點更重要的發(fā)展，是《實證性論文》某些章節(jié)中關于一種自由主義政治哲學的草圖。在這里，黑格爾主張國家有責任保護個人的權利，其中既包括個人與財產的安全，也包括言論和內心的自由。這種自由主義和黑格爾公民宗教的理想并不完全一致。這一張力引發(fā)了一個對黑格爾成熟的政治哲學具有核心重要性的更為廣泛的論題：如何可能實現社群主義理想與自由主義原則的和解？21
4 Frankfurt (January 1797–January 1800)
4 法蘭克福（1797年1月至1800年1月）
Later in 1796, thanks to the e?orts of H?lderlin, Hegel got a post in Frankfurt as a Hofmeister to the family of a rich wine merchant, Johann Gogel. H?lderlin had been in Frankfurt since early 1796, and Hegel rejoiced at the prospect of joining him there. In Frankfurt Hegel recovered his spirits, and was happier with his circumstances. Rather than attempting to save humanity as a Volkserzieher, he became more reconciled with his world. He took part in social life, going to balls, concerts and operas. Living close to H?lderlin, he had constant conversations about philosophy, politics and poetry.
1796年底，由于荷爾德林的努力，黑格爾在法蘭克福獲得了一個職位，給富裕的葡萄酒商約翰·戈格爾家做家庭教師。1796初，荷爾德林就已經來到法蘭克福。黑格爾想到可以和他待在一起，內心就充滿喜悅。在法蘭克福，黑格爾的精神狀態(tài)得到恢復，對自己的環(huán)境也更加滿意。他變得與他的世界更協調一致，不再試圖作為人民教師（Volkserzieher）去拯救人類。他融入社會生活，參加舞會、聽音樂會和看歌劇。由于和荷爾德林住得很近，他們經常討論哲學、政治和詩歌。
During the Frankfurt years, Hegel’s thinking about religion and politics underwent a dramatic reversal. In the Berne years Hegel interpreted and criticized religion from the standpoint of the Enlightenment; in the Frankfurt years, however, he defended religion against such criticism and re-interpreted it in more mystical terms. While in Berne Hegel believed he could reform the world according to the principles of reason, in Frankfurt he criticized such idealism and preached reconciliation with history.
法蘭克福期間，黑格爾的宗教和政治思想經歷了一個戲劇性的逆轉。在伯爾尼時期，黑格爾從啟蒙的立場闡釋和批判宗教；然而，在法蘭克福時期，他對抗這種批判而為宗教辯護，并通過一些更神秘的字眼來重新闡釋宗教。在伯爾尼時，黑格爾相信他能夠按照理性的原則改造世界；在法蘭克福時，他批評這種唯心主義，并鼓吹與歷史的和解。
The ?rst manuscripts of the Frankfurt period, the Sketches on Religion and Love, which Hegel probably wrote in the summer of 1797, reveal the radical change in Hegel’s thinking. These sketches are attempts to de?ne the distinctive nature of religion, what separates it from metaphysics and morality. Rather than identifying religion with morality, as Hegel had done in Berne, Hegel now ?nds the essence of religion in the mystical experience of love where subject and object become perfectly identical. The main writing of the Frankfurt years was Hegel’s large manuscript The Spirit of Christianity and its Fate. In many respects, this manuscript is the birthplace of Hegel’s mature philosophy. It is here that Hegel ?rst formulates, if only in nuce, his idea of spirit, his concept of dialectic, his theme of reconciliation, and his organic vision of the world.
法蘭克福時期的第一份手稿《論宗教和愛的草稿》，可能是黑格爾在1797年夏天寫下的，揭示了黑格爾思想的根本變革。這些草稿試圖定義宗教區(qū)別于形而上學和道德的獨特性質。不再像伯爾尼時期那樣把宗教等同于道德，黑格爾現在發(fā)現宗教的本質在于愛的神秘經驗，在這種經驗中主體和客體完美融合在一起。法蘭克福時期主要的著作是黑格爾的大部頭手稿《基督教的精神及其命運》。從許多方面來說，這部手稿是黑格爾成熟哲學的誕生地。簡單來說（In nuce），正是在這里，黑格爾首次制訂了他的精神觀念、他的辯證法概念、他的和解主題，以及他的有機世界觀。
The reversal of the Frankfurt years was in large measure the result of Hegel’s appropriation of early Jena romanticism, of which H?lderlin was an essential contributor and participant. In fundamental respects, Hegel’s thinking adopts the substance of early romanticism: an organic concept of nature, an ethic of love, an appreciation of religious mysticism. Most signi?cantly, he even disputes the Enlightenment principle of the sovereignty of reason, the power of reason to criticize religious belief. Hegel will never depart from the content or substance of the romantic legacy; his main departure from it will be only in terms of its form, in how to demonstrate this substance.
在法蘭克福時期的逆轉在很大程度上是黑格爾挪用早期耶拿浪漫主義的結果，荷爾德林是這一浪漫主義的重要參與者和貢獻者。黑格爾的思想在許多基礎性的方面吸取了早期浪漫主義的實質內容：有機的自然概念，愛的倫理學，對宗教神秘主義的激賞。最重要的是，他甚至駁斥了理性統治的啟蒙原則，質疑了理性批判宗教信仰的權力。黑格爾將永不背離浪漫主義遺產的內容或實質；他主要的背離將僅僅是形式，就如何證明這一實質而言的。
5 Jena (January 1801–March 1807)
5 耶拿（1801年1月至1807年3月）
After receiving a modest inheritance upon the death of his father, Hegel decided to attempt to realize his hopes for an academic career. He joined his friend Schelling in Jena in January 1801.? When Hegel arrived ‘the literary frenzy’ of Jena had already died down, most of its leading lights (Reinhold, Fichte) having left years ago. Hegel became a Privatdozent, his income entirely dependent on student fees; he never achieved there his ambition of becoming a salaried professor.
由于父親過世而獲得一份微薄的遺產之后，黑格爾決定去嘗試實現他過學院生活的愿望。1801年1月，他去耶拿加入了他的朋友謝林的行列。當黑格爾到來時，耶拿的“文學熱”已經平息，大多數領軍人物（萊因霍爾德，費希特）多年前就已經離開。黑格爾成為一名編外講師，其收入完全依靠學生的學費。在那里，他從未實現成為一名帶薪教授的抱負。
Hegel’s resolve to become a university professor marked a signi?cant shift in his intellectual ambitions. He ceased to regard himself as a Volkserzieher who would simply apply philosophical principles to the world; he now saw himself as a philosopher in his own right, devoted to the development of his own system. The reasons for this shift seem to be twofold. First, as a result of political developments, Hegel had lost much of his earlier idealism (see pp. 214–16). Second, he also realized that the Kantian principles he intended to apply were problematic or suspect.
黑格爾決心成為一名大學教授，這標志著他智識抱負上的一個重要轉變。他不再把自己視為可以簡單地將哲學原則運用于世界的“人民教師”；他現在視哲學為自己的本職工作，專心致志于發(fā)展他自己的體系。導致這一轉變的原因似乎是雙重的。首先，作為政治發(fā)展的結果，黑格爾已經失去了他早年的理想主義（參見第214至216頁22）。其次，他也認識到他打算應用的康德哲學的原則是成問題或可疑的。
Hegel’s debut in Jena was his ?rst philosophical publication, his so-called Differenzschrift. True to title, this tract explains the basic di?erences between the systems of Schelling and Fichte; it also defends the thesis that Schelling’s philosophy is superior to Fichte’s. With this thesis Hegel at once ended the old alliance between Fichte and Schelling and forged a new one with Schelling.? The Differenzschrift is Hegel’s manifesto for absolute or ‘objective idealism’, a critique of the ‘subjective idealism’ of Kant and Fichte.
黑格爾在耶拿的首次亮相是他第一份哲學出版物，亦即他所謂的《差異論文》（Differenzschrift）。誠如標題所示，這份小冊子對費希特與謝林體系之間的基本差別進行解說；它也為這一論點做了辯護，即謝林的哲學優(yōu)越于費希特。通過這一論斷，黑格爾立刻終止了費希特與謝林之間的舊聯盟，而鍛造了一個他與謝林之間的新聯盟?！恫顒e》是黑格爾絕對唯心主義或“客觀唯心主義”的宣言，是對康德和費希特“主觀唯心主義”的批判。
The formation of the Schelling–Hegel alliance led to their joint editorship of a common journal, the Critical Journal of Philosophy. Some of Hegel’s most important early works are essays from the Journal.? They include Faith and Knowledge, Scientific Treatment of Natural Right and the Relation of Skepticism to Philosophy. The Journal lasted only a few issues, beginning in January 1802 and ending in spring 1803. The Schelling–Hegel alliance dissolved when Schelling left Jena in the spring of 1803. It is a mistake to think that Hegel was simply Schelling’s disciple, his ‘stout warrior’ or ‘spear carrier’. This ignores too many basic facts: that Hegel developed the outline of his metaphysics before his arrival in Jena; that Schelling’s own metaphysics underwent crucial changes from 1801 to 1803 due to Hegel’s in?uence; and that even in the Differenzschrift and Critical Journal Hegel does not hesitate to express views at odds with Schelling’s.
謝林—黑格爾聯盟的形成，引導他們共同編輯了一份同仁刊物——《哲學評論雜志》。黑格爾最重要的一些早期著作都是刊載于這份雜志上的論文，其中包括《信仰與知識》《自然法的科學探討方式》，以及《懷疑論與哲學的關系》等。自1802年1月開始到1803年春末，雜志僅僅維持了為數不多的幾期。到了1803年春天謝林離開耶拿時，謝林—黑格爾聯盟就解體了。有一種誤解，認為黑格爾僅僅是謝林的信徒，是他“勇敢的先鋒”或“跑龍?zhí)椎娜恕薄＿@種觀點忽視了太多的基本事實：黑格爾在到達耶拿之前已經發(fā)展出了他的形而上學的綱要；由于黑格爾的影響，謝林自己的形而上學從1801年到1803年經歷了至關重要的變化；甚至在《差別》和《評論雜志》中，黑格爾已經毫不猶豫地表達了與謝林不一致的觀點。
Throughout the Jena years Hegel struggled, without success, to formulate his own system of philosophy. His lectures were often preliminary accounts of parts of the system.22 These lectures concerned logic and metaphysics, the philosophy of nature, and the philosophy of spirit. There are many surviving drafts of these lectures, the so-called Systementwürfe of 1803/4, 1804/5 and 1805/6.23
整個耶拿時期，黑格爾都在為制訂他自己的哲學體系而奮斗，但并不成功。他的講演經常是對其體系中某些部分的初步敘述。23這些講演包括邏輯學和形而上學、自然哲學，以及精神哲學。這些講演的草稿有許多幸存下來，亦即所謂的1803/4，1804/5和1805/6《體系草稿》（Systementwürfe）。24
After Schelling’s departure from Jena, Hegel became more critical of his old colleague. In his 1804/5 Winter Semester lectures he began to criticize Schelling’s views openly and to rethink the foundation of his metaphysics. He rejected Schelling’s attempt to base absolute idealism upon an intellectual intuition and developed instead the idea of a science to lead ordinary consciousness up to the standpoint of philosophy. This line of thought eventually culminated in the Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel’s self-described ‘journey of self-discovery’, the beginnings of his mature philosophy.
在謝林離開耶拿以后，黑格爾對他的舊同事變得更具批判性了。在1804/5冬季學期的講演中，他開始公開批評謝林的觀點，并重新思考他的形而上學的基礎。他拒絕謝林把絕對唯心主義奠基于理智直觀（an intellectual intuition）之上的嘗試，而替代性地發(fā)展了一種引導日常意識上升到哲學立場的科學觀念。這一思想路線最終在《精神現象學》（黑格爾自稱其為“自我發(fā)現的旅程”、黑格爾成熟哲學的開端）中達到其頂峰。
6 Bamberg (March 1807–November 1808)
6 班堡（1807年3月至1808年11月）
After failing to ?nd a salaried professorship in Jena, Hegel became in March 1807 the editor of a small town paper, the Bamberger Zeitung.? Hegel was successful at his job, which gave him a nice salary and social status. His newspaper supported the Napoleonic reforms of the Bavarian government, then an ally of the French. Although this job did not ful?l Hegel’s academic aspirations, it did suit his political ideals. Hegel held that the Napoleonic reforms could succeed only if they found broader-based support among the people; a newspaper was the perfect means to create that support.
在耶拿尋找一份帶薪的教授職位失敗之后，1807年3月黑格爾成為了一份小城報紙《班堡日報》的編輯。黑格爾的工作做得十分出色，這使他薪金豐厚，社會地位大大提高。他的報紙支持拿破侖對巴伐利亞政府的改革，隨后支持與法國的結盟。盡管這一工作不能滿足黑格爾的學術志向，但更符合他的政治理想。黑格爾認為，只要在人民中間找到基礎廣泛的支持，拿破侖的改革便能夠成功——報紙就是創(chuàng)造這一支持的完美手段。
7 Nuremberg (November 1808–October 1816)
7 紐倫堡（1808年11月至1816年10月）
In November 1808, through the mediation of his friend I.H.? Niethammer, the Bavarian minister of education, Hegel became the rector of the ?gidien-Gymnasium in Nuremberg. Here too Hegel proved very successful, both as administrator and teacher. It is noteworthy, however, that he judged the attempt to introduce philosophy into the Gymnasium a failure. In September 1811 Hegel married Marie von Tucher, daughter of a Nuremberg patrician family. Despite his busy life as a rector, Hegel managed to ?nd time to ?nish his Science of Logic, which he had begun in Jena. He published the ?rst volume in 1812, the second in 1813, and the third in 1816.
1808年11月，通過朋友尼特哈默爾（I. H. Niethammer）——巴伐利亞文教大臣的中介，黑格爾成了紐倫堡阿吉迪恩文科中學（?gidien-Gymnasium）的校長。在這里，無論是作為管理者，還是作為教師，黑格爾獲得了巨大的成功。然而，值得注意的是，他判定把哲學引入文科中學的嘗試是一種失敗。1811年9月，黑格爾娶了瑪麗·馮·圖赫爾，紐倫堡一個貴族家庭的女兒。盡管擔任校長很忙碌，黑格爾還是設法擠出時間完成了他在耶拿時期已經動筆的《邏輯學》：第一卷出版于1812年，第二卷出版于1813年，第三卷出版于1816年。
8 Heidelberg (October 1816–October 1818)
8 海德堡（1816年10月至1818年10月）
In October 1816 Hegel ?nally achieved his academic ideal, becoming a professor of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg.? When Hegel arrived at Heidelberg, however, the literary scene had already disappeared, just as happened in Jena; he was disappointed by some professors’ hostility toward philosophy and by the students’ purely vocational attitude toward learning. In Heidelberg Hegel gave his ?rst lectures on aesthetics; his 1817/18 lectures on political philosophy there became the basis for his later Philosophy of Right.? The most important publication of the Heidelberg years was Hegel’s Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, a three-volume work, the ?rst exposition of the whole system.
1816年10月，黑格爾終于實現了他的學術理想，成為海德堡大學的一名哲學教授。然而，就像在耶拿發(fā)生的情況那樣，當黑格爾到達海德堡時，文壇已經消失；一些教授對哲學的敵視，以及學生對待學問的純粹職業(yè)態(tài)度，讓他感到失望。在海德堡，黑格爾首次講授了美學；而他1817/18年度的政治哲學講演則成為后來《法哲學》的基礎。海德堡時期，黑格爾最重要的出版物是《哲學科學百科全書》，一部三卷本的著作，首次闡明了一個完整的體系。
9 Berlin (October 1818–November 1831)
9 柏林（1818年10月至1831年11月）
In December 1817 the Prussian minister of education, Karl Altenstein, wrote Hegel to o?er him the chair of philosophy, once taken by Fichte, at the new University of Berlin. Altenstein wanted Hegel chie?y because he knew him to be sympathetic to the goals of the Prussian Reform Movement, which had begun in 1807 under the leadership of Baron von Stein. This movement hoped to realize the ideals of the French Revolution by gradual reforms from above. Its ideals were a new constitution ensuring fundamental rights for all citizens, freedom of trade, abolition of feudal privileges, and more local self-government. Hegel was greatly attracted to Berlin chie?y because he shared the ideals of the Reform Movement. Prussia laid great importance upon its new university for the regeneration of Prussian cultural life. In Berlin Hegel knew he would ?nally ?nd himself in the center of a lively cultural scene, and in a position to have some in?uence on Prussia’s cultural and political a?airs.
1817年12月，普魯士文教大臣，卡爾·阿爾滕施泰因（Karl Altenstein）寫信給黑格爾，在新柏林大學，提供給他一個費希特曾經執(zhí)教過的哲學教授席位。阿爾滕施泰因想要黑格爾，主要是因為他知道黑格爾同情普魯士改革運動的目標，這一運動是在馮·斯坦男爵（Baron von Stein）的領導下于1807年開始的。該運動希望通過自上而下的漸進式改革，來實現法國大革命的理想，亦即通過一部新的憲法來確保所有公民的基本權利、貿易自由、廢除封建特權，以及更進一步的地方自治。柏林對黑格爾的巨大吸引力主要在于他分享著這一改革運動的理想。普魯士對它的新大學在更新普魯士文化生活方面寄以厚望。黑格爾知道，在柏林，他終將進入鮮活文化舞臺的中心，并贏得一個可以對普魯士的文化和政治事務產生一定影響的位置。
Shortly after Hegel’s arrival in Berlin, however, the Reform Movement su?ered a serious setback. In 1819 the Prussian government under Friedrich Wilhelm III, fearing radical conspiracies, revoked its plans to introduce a new constitution. It then endorsed the repressive Karlsbad Decrees, which introduced censorship and strict measures against ‘demagogues’. Suspected of subversive activity, some of Hegel’s students were banished or imprisoned; Hegel himself was under police surveillance for some time. Although Hegel endorsed the goals of the Reform Movement, and although he was despised by reactionary circles within the Prussian court, many of his liberal contemporaries suspected him of collusion with the reactionary government. Since he enjoyed the support of Altenstein, and since he had supported the dismissal of two liberal professors, whom he had viciously attacked in the preface of the Philosophy of Right, Hegel seemed to many to endorse a reactionary politics. This was the beginning of one of the oldest Hegel legends: that he was a spokesman for the Prussian restoration.
然而，在黑格爾抵達柏林后不久，改革運動遭受到嚴重的挫折。1819年，弗里德里?！ね溃‵riedrich Wilhelm III）領導下的普魯士政府，出于對激進陰謀的恐懼，撤銷了采用一部新憲法的計劃。隨后，政府簽署了鎮(zhèn)壓性的卡爾斯巴德法令，該法令針對“煽動者”引入了審查制度和各種嚴厲措施。黑格爾的一些學生由于被懷疑參與顛覆性活動，而遭到流放或監(jiān)禁；黑格爾自己有一段時間也處于警察的監(jiān)視之下。盡管黑格爾贊同改革運動的目標，盡管他在普魯士的法庭上被反動階層所輕視，許多自由主義的同時代人依然懷疑他和反動政府沆瀣一氣。在很多人看來，黑格爾似乎贊同反動政治，因為他很樂于得到阿爾滕施泰因的支持，也因為他支持解雇兩名持自由主義思想的教授，并曾在《法哲學》序言中惡意地攻擊過他們。這是關于黑格爾的一個老掉牙的傳說的開端：黑格爾是普魯士復辟的代言人。
It was in Berlin that Hegel acquired fame and in?uence.? Although by all accounts Hegel was a poor university lecturer – he stuttered, moved rigidly, gasped for breath, and tirelessly repeated ‘Also’ – his many lectures gained a wide following. On several occasions he held lectures on aesthetics, the history of philosophy, the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of history. Though Hegel himself never published these lectures, they were recorded by his students, who put them in the ?rst edition of his collected works.
正是在柏林，黑格爾獲得了知名度和影響力。盡管據大家所說，黑格爾是一位拙劣的大學講演者——他說話結巴，舉止生硬，氣喘吁吁，不厭其煩地重復“因此”（Also）——但是，他的許多講演贏得了廣泛的追隨者。他的美學、哲學史、宗教哲學和歷史哲學講演，都舉辦過好多次。盡管黑格爾自己從未出版過這些講演稿，但是他的學生把講演內容記錄下來，并收進了黑格爾著作集的第一版中。
Due to his position and success, Hegel ?nally found time and means to travel. An avid tourist, he made trips to Prague, Vienna, Brussels and Paris. Though he gave many lectures, Hegel published little during the Berlin years. In 1826 he founded a leading journal, Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, for which he wrote several review articles; he published two new editions of the Encyclopedia (1827, 1830); and he began to rework his Logic, volume I of which appeared in 1832.
由于他的地位和成功，黑格爾終于有了時間和條件去旅行。作為一個狂熱的旅行者，他去了布拉格、維也納、布魯塞爾和巴黎。盡管黑格爾做了許多講演，但在柏林期間他出版的著作很少。1826年黑格爾創(chuàng)辦了一份居領銜地位的雜志《科學批評年鑒》（Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik），為它寫了幾篇評論文章；出版了《百科全書》的兩個新版本（1827，1830）；并開始重寫他的《邏輯學》，其第一卷出版于1832年。
Hegel died suddenly in Berlin on 14 November 1831, according to legend from cholera, but probably from a stomach ailment or gastrointestinal disease. The funeral was a massive procession of Berlin notables and his students. According to his wish, he was buried next to Fichte in the Dorothea cemetery in Berlin.
1831年11月14日，黑格爾突然逝世于柏林，據說是由于霍亂，但可能是由于胃病或胃腸道疾病。葬禮上，柏林的知名人士和他的學生排成長龍。依據他的遺愿，黑格爾被安葬在柏林多羅特婭（Dorothea）公墓，緊挨著費希特。
