第7章 纽伦堡受尊敬的人(6)
That result must have been discouraging for Hegel, but Niethammer found it even more depressing, since his ally in his fight had in effect declared one of the main goals of the “General Normative” to be virtually unattainable and not even worth the effort to salvage it. Rue¬ fully, Hegel had concluded that philosophy was not best taught in the Gymnasium at all, a conclusion that surely served to underscore for him his distance from what he took to be the true centers of his vocation. Hegel had to reassure Niethammer that it was not the “General Nor¬ mative” he was attacking, but only one small part of it (the idea that speculative philosophy should be a key element of Bavarian education), and that even that criticism was aimed not at Niethammer but “against myself, for on account of my audience I do not know how to get by with what is speculative, while on account of myself I do not know how to get by without it.”*"' Sadly, Hegel concluded that the ideal for the Gymnasium would be “Ciceronian philosophizing . . . but it is against my nature.
结果想必使黑格尔心灰意冷,而尼特哈黯尔发觉结果更加令人汹丧,因为他的战斗同盟实际上宣布了他的“通用规范“的主要目标之一实质上是无法达到的,甚至是不值得花费力气去挽救的。非常愧悔地,黑格尔断定哲学最好根本不要在高级中学讲授,这样一个结论肯定是服务于强调对他来说他要远离他所看作的他职业的真实的中心。黑格尔不得不安慰尼特哈黯尔,说他所抨击的不是整个“通用规范“而只是拌击其中的一小部分(思辨哲学应该成为巴伐利亚教育的关键要素这个想法),甚至说这个批评不是旨在针对尼特哈黯尔而是“针对我自己的,因为我不知道如何使听众弄懂什么是思辨哲学,而我自己也不知道若无思辨哲学如何活下去.。“可悲的是,黑格尔断言高级中学的理想应该是“把西塞罗作品哲学化…...而这违反了我的本性。““
Modern Life and School Life
现代生活与学校生活
However discouraged Hegel was about philosophy in the Gymnasium in 1812, by 1816 he had become not nearly so discouraged by the course of events in the world. His beliefs about the way in which the Napo¬ leonic reforms were the social expression of certain key changes in how people had come to think of themselves, the course of their lives, and what they were committed to, seemed to be confirmed for him in the outcome of the Congress of Vienna and events since. In a metaphor that captured his sense of the direction of events, Hegel said to Nie¬ thammer in July 1816 that he held fast to the idea that “the world spirit has given the times the command to advance, and the command is being obeyed.”'5* The forces of the reaction have merely taken up the reforms and declared them to be matters they themselves have carried out, but “the sum and substance remains the same.”'^’* In order to genuinely turn back the clock, the forces of reaction would have to get people fully to alter their sell-identities and to commit themselves to modes of self-understanding that had already proved to be insufficient.
黑格尔1812年对高级中学哲学课程不管是多么心灰意冷,到1816年他因一系列世界性事件而已经儿乎变得不那么心灰意冷了。他对于树种方式的看法似乎对他来说通过维也纳会议和此后事件的结果得到了证实,此处某种方式是指拿破仑一世改革借以成为对在以下的方面某些关键变化的社会表达的方式,在人们早已着手怎样思考自我、人们的生活进程和人们对何种东西作出保证的方面。在一个俘获他关于事件发展方向的意向的比喻中,黑格尔1816年7月对尼特哈默尔说道,他(黑格尔)本人坚持认为,“世界精神已经向时代发出了发展的命令,而命令在得到服从.。“反动势力仅仅佯装改革,宣布改革是它们自己解决了的问题,但是“改革的要旨依然如故。“为了真正地开历史倒车,反动势力必将使人们完全改变自己的个性和使人们采用自我理解的模式,这已被证明是远远不够的。
Hegel’s last graduation address in 1815 gave him a forum for asserting this more upbeat view to the assembled parents, students, and notables. In a somewhat muted rhetorical broadside against the hopes of the more conservative elements of the German population for a restoration of the pre-revolutionary social order, Hegel argued before the assemblage that it is an understandable mistake that '‘‘‘change so often presents itself as having the same meaning as loss," since when people continually find that the “fruits of their sacrifices are so often consigned into the future,” they will tend to fasten the “object of their yearnings to the past.”'” But rather than mourn for what has been, they should instead under¬ stand that “the world has given birth to a great epoch,”’” and that a genuine “insight into our times” “reveals in part the dawn” of a “day of essential improvement” in all things.’”
黑格尔在1815年的最后一次毕业演讲中，有机会将他更加乐观的观点传达给在场的家长、学生和贵族。在对德国保守派希望恢复革命前社会秩序的倾向进行隐晦而尖锐的批评时，黑格尔坚定地指出，认为“改变现状等同于失去现状”的说法是一种可以理解的错误。因为当人们发现“他们用牺牲换来的果实有时被交给了未来”时，他们往往会将“他们向往的对象”寄托于“过去”。然而，他强调，人们不应为此痛心疾首，而应认识到“世界已经产生了一个伟大的时代”，并理解一种真正的“成为我们时代的洞察力”，揭示出本质上进步的时代曙光。
Social life had, to be sure, become more complex, and the kinds of tradition-bound private activi¬ ties that had previously been the warp and woof of social life had therefore to make way for the emerging and more rational (even if more complex) social order. In particular, he reminded them, the missions of school instruction must be reformed in light of certain social goals - in particular, that of freedom — and made independent of the private, arbitrary wishes of the parents, whose own wishes for their children’s personal development might be at odds with the aspirations of freedom in modern life.’”
诚然，社会生活变得更加复杂，那些曾经被传统束缚、被社会生活扭曲的私人活动不得不让位于现存的更合理（尽管更加复杂）的社会秩序。黑格尔特别提醒听众，学校教育的任务必须根据特定的社会目标进行改革，尤其是自由的改革，以使学生摆脱家长个人武断的意愿。家长将自己的意愿强加于子女的个人发展，这可能与现代生活中对自由的追求背道而驰。
All practices and institutions had to be integrated into the emerging life of the modern social order and made to fit into modern life’s overall goal of freedom, which itself made the reform of the schools necessary and the practical problems of pedagogy especially difficult. Sounding some older notes, Hegel noted that freedom’s being the goal of modern life does not imply that the schools should dispense with discipline, even though, as Hegel noted, “it is difficult to find the middle way between too great a freedom permitted for the children and too great a restriction of them.”’” But it is necessary in light of the goals of the “new times” to find a way to impose discipline in the schools not in the name of tradition but for the sake of educating the children so that as adults they would be able to direct their own lives and be at home in the emerging, modern world in which they would live.
一切习俗和制度都必须纳入现存的社会生活秩序，并被迫适应现代生活全面自由的目标。这本身就使学校改革变得非常必要，同时也让教学中的实际问题变得尤为棘手。在研究过去的经验后，黑格尔强调，自由作为现代生活的目标，并不意味着学校应该废除纪律制度。尽管他承认“在赋予学生最大自由与最大约束之间寻求平衡”极为困难，但根据“新时代”的目标，有必要以传统为依托，找到一种方式让学生在校期间遵守纪律制度。这样，他们在长大成人后能够指导自己的生活，并在现存的现代世界中从容不迫。
Hegel also made it clear that he did not endorse any of the newfangled ideas about giving children complete and undisciplined freedom in the schools; that simply falsified the way in which humans become socialized and in fact under¬ mined the goals of making them into free adults.
黑格尔还明确表示，他并不赞同赋予在校学生完全无纪律的自由这种荒谬观点。这不仅会扭曲人类社会化的过程，还会偏离将他们培养成自由成年人的目标。
Hegel also assured the parents that he did not mean to argue for the complete subordination of the individual to the state, only for an inte¬ gration of social life into a more rational form; “Much as on the one hand a limit must prevail as holy, within which the government of the state may not touch the private life of the citizens, so must the private lives of the citizens more closely assimilate those things connected with the purposes of the state and subordinate them to a methodical over¬ sight. Over this entire period, he had been likewise telling the stu¬ dents in his classroom that in the well-ordered, modern state, “the essential disposition of the citizens {Burger) vis-a-vis the state and its government is [not] to consist in the blind obedience of its commands . . . but rather trust in and insightful obedience to the state’s com¬ mands.”''’'
黑格尔对家长和学生的观点
黑格尔使家长确信，他并不意味着主张个人完全从属于国家，而只是主张使社会生活具有一种更加合理的形式：“一方面，和一种限制作为神圣物必须得以流行、因而治国不可触及公民私人生活几乎一样，公民的个人生活也必须更加彻底地吸收那些与国家目的相关联的东西，并且也必须更加彻底地使它们受到一种有条不紊的照管。”在整个学期中，他同样在课堂上告诉学生们，在一个秩序井然的现代国家内，“面对国家及其管理，公民（Bürger）的本质意向并不在于对国家命令的盲从，而在于更加深刻地理解国家命令，并更加富有深刻见解地服从国家命令。”
University Posts
大学职位
Hegel also continued his efforts to secure a position for himself in a
university. Having done a commendable job of reorganizing the Gym¬
nasium and Nuremberg’s school system, he nevertheless began to feel
more and more isolated from what for him was the center of things;
he was a professor of the preparatory philosophical sciences in an in¬
stitution that he had come to think should not even be teaching phil¬
osophical sciences, and the great reform movements - especially after
the fall of Napoleon - seemed to be ready to take off without him.
黑格尔同样继续为谋得大学职位而努力。在重组高级中学和纽伦堡学校体系之后，他越来越感到自己离他所认为的事业中心越来越远。他是一名大学预备哲学科学的教授，但他最终认识到，哲学科学甚至不应该在高级中学讲授。而这个伟大的改革运动——特别是在拿破仑垮台后——似乎很容易因失去拿破仑而被断送。
A visitor and later friend, Sulpiz Boisseree (an art collector), noted that Hegel felt so isolated from major intellectual centers that he told Boisseree that if he did not already have a wife, he would certainly leave Nuremberg and (as he had done at Jena) take his chances with an unpaid lectureship at one university or another."’^ He wrote to his old friend Friedrich Frommann in April i8i6 inquiring about the possibility of a new professorship in Jena. Having heard that Schelling had been offered the position but had turned it down (since Schelling had a nonteaching, well-paid position in Munich at the Academy of the Plastic Arts), he of course wondered if he might be considered for the slot.
一位来访者兼黑格尔后来的朋友苏尔皮斯·波瓦塞雷（这位艺术品收藏家）强调指出，黑格尔因脱离主流思想中心而感到孤立，甚至告诉波瓦塞雷，如果他不是已有妻室，他肯定会离开纽伦堡，并像他在耶拿时一样，通过从事大学免费讲演或其他事情来碰碰运气。1816年4月，他致信老友弗里德里希·弗罗曼，询问是否可以在耶拿谋得一个新的教授职位。在听说谢林已经被提供这个职位却又拒绝了（因为谢林在魏玛造型艺术学院有一个非教学且薪水丰厚的职位）之后，他当然也想知道他是否可以被校方考虑顶替这个职位。
He also made a revealing comment to Frommann: “My first efforts there as a lecturer, from what I hear, left behind a prejudice against me. To be sure, I was a beginner, had not yet worked my way through to clarity, and was bound to the letter of my notebook in oral presentation. I have since acquired complete freedom through almost eight years’ practice at the Gymnasium, where one is constantly interacting in con¬ versation with one’s listeners and where being understood and express¬ ing oneself clearly by itself is of the utmost necessity.”'*^ Among his teenage students in Nuremberg, however, Hegel seems to have lost the anxiety (or at least a bit of it) that led to his infamously bad public speaking, and he (unfortunately falsely) believed that his difficulties in lecturing to university students had been only a temporary problem for which he had found the solution.
讲演风格与职位追求
他也向弗罗曼做了坦诚的说明：“我首次尝试担任讲师时，据我听说，引起了一些人对我的偏见。固然，我是个初学者，还没有掌握自己的方法，讲课时还不能脱稿。但经过在高级中学近八年的实践，我在教学上已经游刃有余。在高级中学，通过不断与听众对话，我可以实现教学相长，而被人理解和清晰自然地表达自己是极为必要的。”然而，置身于纽伦堡十几岁的学生中时，黑格尔似乎已经不再有那种导致他声名狼藉的糟糕的公开讲演的忧虑（或至少是一点忧虑）。令人遗憾的是，他错误地相信，他在给大学生作讲演时遇到的困难只是一个暂时的问题，因为他已经找到了解决的方法。
When Fries accepted the position in Jena that Hegel had earlier sought and thus vacated his position at Heidelberg (which Hegel had also earlier sought), Hegel inquired to Paulus in May 1816 about the possibility of his acquiring Fries’s newly unoccupied position, and he made the same point about his having overcome his old lecturing style, using almost identical words to describe the matter. (He also quite uncharacteristically says something nice about Fries in the letter, the one place in which he does so; but it was almost certainly not heartfelt and was most likely a feigned gesture of magnanimity in order not to come across to Paulus as a cranky, resentful fellow.)
当弗里斯接受了黑格尔早先寻求过的耶拿职位，从而让出了他在海德堡的职位（这个职位也曾是黑格尔早先的目标）时，黑格尔在1816年5月向保卢斯打听他获得弗里斯空缺职位的可能性，并用几乎相同的言辞表明他已克服了自己过去的讲演风格。他在信中也公允地为弗里斯美言，说这个位置非弗里斯莫属。不过，几乎可以肯定的是，这并非他发自肺腑之言，而很可能是一种伪装的宽宏大量姿态，以免给保卢斯留下性格暴躁、愤愤不平的印象。
Unfortunately, his anxiety about speaking authoritatively before
groups - about being the “professor” addressing an audience from the
lectern, a position he clearly and desperately wanted - was in fact never
to leave him. Although his lecturing style irritated no small number of
people, it also, curiously enough, helped to underwrite a kind of Ro¬
mantic appropriation of Hegel. His followers, from Jena to Berlin, were
inclined to take his monotonic delivery - punctuated by gasps, coughs,
and stutters - to be a sign of his great “interiority,” of the depths of his
genius struggling to bring those dark, difficult thoughts to the light of
day, rather than being the expressions of an anxious man doing some¬
thing that he loved but which also burdened him with no small amount
of agitation and anxiety.
令人遗憾的是，他对在大庭广众之下权威地讲演的忧虑——这种忧虑显然与他渴望得到的教授职位密切相关——实际上始终如影随形。尽管他的讲演风格激怒了不少人，但令人好奇的是，他的讲演风格也促使听众认同一种“黑格尔式的浪漫风格”。他的追随者，从耶拿时期到柏林时期的追随者，倾向于将他单调的讲演——被喘气、咳嗽和结巴打断的讲演——视为他主要“内在特质”的标志，认为这是他天生努力将晦涩难懂的思想变得通俗易懂而又不失深刻性的表现，而非一个焦虑者的表达。这种焦虑源于他所热爱的事业，却也给他带来了不小的激动和忧虑。
The Misfired Offier from Berlin
柏林失败的聘请
Unknown to Hegel at this time, there was great maneuvering going on at Berlin University to fill the chair left empty by Fichte’s death in January 1814. Hegel had already inquired in 1814 to Paulus about the possibility of his taking Fichte’s position, but nothing had come of it. Paulus had reported back that he had no contacts of any importance in Berlin. Besides, as Paulus’s wife and Hegel’s friend sarcastically asked him, “Why would you want to be in sandy Berlin, where people drink wine out of thimbles.^Two years later, after intense political maneu¬ vering (during which Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, a theology professor who had previously been at both Jena and Heidelberg during Hegel’s time, lobbied heavily for an appointment for his close friend Fries), the faculty decided to make Hegel an offer and voted decisively against Fries. However, de Wette continued his academic politics by going to the official responsible for overseeing the university, the min¬ ister of the interior, Kaspar Friedrich von Schuckmann, a self-styled “Kantian” who detested Schelling’s Naturphilosophie - indeed, who was deeply suspicious of all philosophers and whom Wilhelm von Humboldt once dismissively characterized as somebody filled with the utilitarian projects of the Enlightenment.
当时，黑格尔并不知道，柏林大学正在酝酿人事大调整，以填补费希特于1814年1月辞世后留下的大学校长职位空缺。早在1814年，黑格尔就已向保卢斯打听是否有可能顶替费希特的职位，但关于此事没有任何消息。保卢斯回信说他与柏林的头面人物没有任何联系。甚至保卢斯夫人和黑格尔的朋友也辛辣地追问：“你为什么总是想要待在那个常有沙尘天气的柏林，在那里人们喝葡萄酒时杯子上都带着防尘罩呢？”两年后，经过剧烈的政治动荡（在这段时期，威廉·马丁·莱贝雷希特·德魏特，这位先前与黑格尔同时在耶拿和海德堡生活过的神学教授，为了密友弗里斯谋得校长一职而大肆游说），学院决定邀请黑格尔，果断投票反对向弗里斯发出邀请。然而，德魏特通过找负责监察大学的官员从中说项，继续坚持他的学术政见。这位官员就是内务大臣卡斯帕·弗里德里希·冯·舒克曼，他自封为“康德哲学的信徒”，讨厌谢林的自然哲学（Naturphilosophie）。实际上，舒克曼对所有哲学家都持怀疑态度，他曾被威廉·冯·洪堡轻蔑地描述为一个满脑子都是启蒙运动功利主义计划的人。
De Wette told von Schuckmann that Hegel was only another Schellingian, that his lectures were obscure, that his Logic was a confused mess, and that, besides. Fries was a good Kantian. To make his point, he also gave Schuckmann a copy of a novel by Fries, which (unfortunately for Fries’s and de Wette’s plans) had an effect exactly the opposite of that which was intended: Von Schuckmann’s immediate dislike of the novel sank Fries’s already foundering candidacy once and for all.
德魏特向冯·舒克曼诉说，黑格尔只不过是另一个谢林哲学的信徒，他的讲演十分晦涩难懂，他的《逻辑学》简直就是一团乱麻，而弗里斯则是一个很好的康德哲学的信徒。为了证明他的看法，他还给冯·舒克曼呈上一册弗里斯小说的副本。然而，这一举动（对弗里斯和德魏特的计划来说极为不幸）恰恰产生了与他们期望相反的效果：冯·舒克曼顿时对弗里斯的小说心生厌恶，这彻底毁掉了弗里斯作为候选人的基础。
But von Schuckmann’s suspicions about Hegel had thus been aroused, and he undertook to see if Hegel’s lecture style was really as bad as it was reputed to be and if his philosophy really was just another form of the Schellingian system he so disdained. Professor Friedrich von Raumer, a professor of history at Berlin university, who was going on a visit to Nuremberg for other reasons, was thus informally commis¬ sioned by Schuckmann to visit Hegel and report back on what he found. The visit took place in the summer of 1816; von Raumer found that Hegel “received him in a very friendly way, and I spent several inter¬ esting evenings with him in diverse conversations with him. . . . His conversation was fluid and reasonable, so that I cannot believe that his professorial lectures would lack these properties.Von Raumer asked Hegel to sketch out a report on what he took to be goals of teaching philosophy at a university. Hegel wasted no time in responding, and wrote back to von Raumer on August 2, 1816. Hegel’s reply outlines his understanding of the state of post-Kantian idealism. metaphysics, he tells von Raumer, has vanished just like the constitutional law of the Holy Roman Empire has vanished.'*^ Both of them have, as it were, collapsed under the weight of their own shortcomings. Consequently, philosophy can be of value in the universities now, so Hegel argues, only if it takes a “methodical course.” This means, as Hegel outlined his position to von Raumer, that it must reject the idea that “thinking for oneselP’ (which Kant had identified with Enlightenment itself) is falsely opposed to learning the ways of philosophizing. As Hegel put it in his letter, philosophy is thus the basic science, even though the nature of its being basic is not such that it can be learned and understood apart from the other human endeavors on which it reflects: “Philosophy’s content,” he said, is “what is universal in spiritual and natural relation¬ ships [and] immediately leads for itself to the positive sciences ... to such an extent that conversely their study proves necessary to a thorough insight into philosophy.”'** In Hegel’s eyes, post-Kantian idealism had shown that the old ways of ordering the curriculum of philosophy needed to be changed; the new philosophical curriculum, Hegel claimed, should be ordered into the three spheres into which he had ordered his own system, namely, logic, philosophy of nature, and phi¬ losophy of spirit (which itself includes philosophical psychology, philo¬ sophical anthropology, morals, ethics, aesthetics and the philosophy of religion), along with the history of philosophy itself
然而，这反而引起了冯·舒克曼对黑格尔的怀疑。他试图验证黑格尔的讲演风格是否真的像别人所说的那样差劲，以及他的哲学是否确实是冯·舒克曼极其讨厌的谢林哲学体系的改头换面。弗里德里希·冯·劳默尔教授，这位因其他原因即将前往纽伦堡的柏林大学历史学教授，受冯·舒克曼口头委托去拜访黑格尔，并向舒克曼汇报他的感受。这次拜访发生在1816年夏季。冯·劳默尔发现黑格尔“以非常友善的方式接待了我，我花了很多个有趣的夜晚与黑格尔进行不同的交谈……黑格尔的谈话流畅且有道理，所以我不相信他的专业讲演会缺少这些特质。”冯·劳默尔要求黑格尔草拟一份关于他所认为的在大学讲授哲学目标的报告。黑格尔随即作出回应，并在1816年8月2日给冯·劳默尔写了回信。在信中，黑格尔概述了他对后康德唯心主义状况的理解。他向冯·劳默尔诉说，形而上学已经像神圣罗马帝国宪法一样消失了：“形而上学和神圣罗马宪法这两样东西，可以说，都在自身缺陷的重压下彻底坍塌了。因此，哲学目前在大学中可能具有很大的价值。”黑格尔辩称，哲学应当成为一门“有条不紊的课程”。这意味着，哲学必须拒绝这样的想法，即“独立思考”（被康德等同于启蒙运动本身）被错误地与学习哲学思考的方式相对立。正如黑格尔在信中所论述的，哲学是一门基础科学，尽管除非其他人试图学习或理解哲学所反思的内容，否则哲学因其作为基础学科的性质，是无法被真正学得或理解的。他说道：“哲学的内容是作为精神和自然的关系的共相，以及作为直接引领自身走向实证科学的东西……达到这样的程度，即实证科学研究反过来证明是对彻底洞察哲学来说必需的。”在黑格尔看来，后康德唯心主义已经表明需要改变排列哲学课程的旧方法。新的哲学课程，黑格尔声称，应该被排列成他在自己的体系中已经排列出的三个方面，即逻辑学、自然哲学和精神哲学（精神哲学本身包含哲学心理学、哲学人类学、伦理学、美学和宗教哲学），连同哲学本身的历史。
That was not the end of the matter. Although von Raumer found himself very satisfied with the report (which he passed on sotto voce to Minister von Schuckmann), von Schuckmann himself decided that he needed to know more, and he therefore wrote Hegel a letter telling him that it had come to his attention that Hegel might be interested in a position at his university, but that, since Hegel had been out of univer¬ sity teaching for some time, “doubt has been raised” about his ability to return to university lecturing, and indeed, that doubt has been raised about whether Hegel had the “skills” necessary to give “lively presen¬ tations” before the youthful students of Berlin.'*'' The letter reached Hegel near the end of August i8i6. The tone was certainly deprecatory, but Hegel did not have to take offense. Although Hegel had already learned of Berlin’s interest in him some time before he received that letter, by the time the letter finally arrived another offer had come forth: His reputation and contacts had finally landed him an offer of a position at Heidelberg, and he had, after some negotiation about salary, happily accepted.
事情尚未有结果。尽管冯·劳默尔对这份报告感到满意（该报告被他私下传给冯·舒克曼审阅），但冯·舒克曼决定他需要作更多的了解。因此，他给黑格尔写了一封信，信中提到，他已经注 意到黑格尔可能对大学教授职位感兴趣，但由于黑格尔已经很久不在大学教书了，校方对他重返大学讲课的能力“提出质疑”，更确切地说，校方质疑黑格尔是否具备面对柏林青年学子进行“生动讲演”所必 需的“技巧”。这封信在1816年8月底送到了黑格尔手中。黑格尔的口气无疑不以为然，但他未必动气生怒。尽管黑格尔在接到这封信之前的一段时间里已经得知柏林大学对他很感兴趣，但当他收到这封信时，另一所大学已经向他发出了邀请：他的声望和人脉终于为他赢得了海德堡大学的职位。经过对薪水问题的某种商谈后，他愉快地接受了这个职位。
Heidelberg had been looking for a person to fill a professorship in philosophy for some time, and Hegel had not been at the top of their list. One of the others on the list, Hegel’s old nemesis and a Jacobi confidante, Koppen, had been ruled out when it was pointed out that a book he had written on natural law consisted in some parts of line-forline copies of parts of Fries’s book on the same subject.'
海德堡大学一直在物色人选，填补暂时空缺的哲学教授职位，而黑格尔并不在候选名单上的首选人物。候选名单上的其他人之一、黑格尔的宿敌兼雅科比的知己克彭，此君最终被从候选名单中删除，因为有人检举，他撰写的一本关于自然法的著作中，有些部分竟然逐字逐句抄袭了弗里斯相同主题的著作。