123 
PHILOSOPHY. 
mull not be palled over in filence, that, whenever Mr. 
Stewart happened to obtain a glimpfe of light in the 
perufal of the Latin iranjlation of Kant's works, it arofe 
from his previous acquaintance with the opinions of 
other philofophers which Kant had appropriated to himfelf 
wider the deep difguife of his new phrafeology; but that he 
never derived any light from Kant himfelf. This is 
really almoft ludicrous. Mr. Stewart a Herts that the 
little fenfe he met with in the works of this German quack 
(as he would infinuate), he had ftolen from his moft cele¬ 
brated predecelfors and contemporaries: thus candidly 
acknowledging that he is utterly unable to underjland Kant 
himfelf, and yet pof lively averting that his works are deftitute 
of all meaning and fenfe ! 
Tranfcendental Philofophy , as I have already obferved, is 
a fyftem which embodies the truth that had been fcattered 
over all the former fyftems of fpeculative philofophers. 
That their fyftems contained a mixture of abfurdity 
blended with truth has been very frequently admitted. 
Now Mr. Stewart, having cafually met with fome coinci¬ 
dence of opinion between Kant and other fpeculative 
philofophers, very incautioufly concluded, that he had 
furreptitioufty appropriated to himfelf the glory due to 
them. This unhappy mode of reafoning may account 
for Mr. Stewart’s fancying that, on every occafion when 
Kant fpoke truth, he ftole it from others. Q. E. D. 
As the work from which the preceding extradt has 
been taken was publilhed in the year 1810, it affords a 
complete proof, that, at that period, Mr. Stewart was 
totally unacquainted with the valuable difcoveries made 
in fpeculative philofophy by Profefi'or Kant. It remains 
now to be feen, what fteps this gentleman has taken fince 
that period to inform himfelf on this fubjedl, and to 
qualify himfelf to do juftice to the merits of “ Kant and 
other Mctaphyfieians of the New .German School," of whom 
he undertakes to give an account in the feventh fefticn 
cf the Second Part of his Diftertation to the fupplemental 
volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. If, however, 
it fnould turn out that he has really made no proficiency 
on this fubjedf, it mult be admitted that he has engaged 
in a very ungrateful tafk, and one that mu ft greatly dif- 
appoint his warmed admirers. Should it appear that he 
has not penetrated far enough into the fyftem to refute 
one at lead of its fundamental pofitions, however he may 
deal in general aflertions, or indulge in inventive, his 
Diftertation will not be confidered as furnifhing a very 
fatisfadlory account of this renowned fyftem. 
The fir ft thing that ftrikes the reader on entering upon 
the feventh fedtion of the Diftertation, is a copious note 
at the bottom of the page, to which we are referred im¬ 
mediately upon reading the title of that fedlion. By this 
note it does not appear that Mr. Stewart has qualified him¬ 
felf in any very particular manner to epter upon this part 
of his fubjecl ; for it feems his ignorance of the German 
language would have prevented his faying any thing of 
the Philofophy of Kant, if the extraordinary pretenfions 
with which it was firft introduced into this illand, com¬ 
pared with the total oblivion into which it foon after very 
luddenly fell, had not demanded feme attention, as an 
extraordinary literary phenomenon of the eighteenth cen¬ 
tury. I am extremely curious to learn what this gentle¬ 
man alludes to by the extraordinary pretenfions with which 
this philofophy was firft ufhered in to the philofophers of 
Britain. Does Mr. Stewart mean to fay, that any of the 
fundamental works cf this great man have appeared in 
an Englifti drefs, and that I have remained unacquainted 
with the fadl ? If this really be the cafe, I lhall be-moft 
happy to be informed of the circumftance. All the w orks 
that had come to my knowledge (not German), when my 
“ Alfiraft of the Critical Philofophy" went to prefs, which 
was in the year 1812, were included in a lift I then pub¬ 
lilhed, and which may be feen in the Eleventh Volume of 
this Encyclopaedia, page 629. This Abftradt I forwarded 
to Mr. Stewart in the following year, in the hope of re¬ 
ceiving from him his kind criticifni, being fully aware 
that,-unlefs this fubjeft were taken up by fome Philofc- 
pher of eminence, the attention of the learned would not 
beattradled to it; however much the efforts of an ob- 
feure individual like mylelf might be devoted to this de¬ 
finable end. The works enumerated in that lift I pofl'efs, 
as well as thofe of Madame de Stael. Ihavealfo confulted 
the hiftorical volumes of De Gerando, Buhle, and others, 
where they treat of the Philofophy of Kant. I have care¬ 
fully examined the notices of the works from which Mr. 
Stewart has made his extracts ; and I do not find an allu- 
fion to any Englifti work on Kant’s Philofophy that I am 
unacquainted with. Surely Mr. Stewart cannot pre¬ 
tend to refer to an article in the 2d Number of the 
Edinburgh Review, January 1803. which undertakes 
the examination of a French work, entitled, “ Philo- 
fophie de Kant, par Charles Villers,” written to in¬ 
troduce this philofophy to the notice of his country¬ 
men. My fentiments on that review I have elfewhere ex- 
prefied ; it does not in any way a ft eft the Critic of Pure 
Reafon, efpecially as, from its want of liberality, it is really 
a difgrace to an Englifn reviewer. I am therefore una¬ 
ble to divine what this author means by the great preten¬ 
fions with which this philofophy was introduced into 
England. I have devoted the leifure of twenty-feven 
years to the ftudy of this Philofophy; but have never 
found it otherwife, I lament to fay, than funk in obli¬ 
vion, notwithftanding it deferves a much better fate. 
When 1 forwarded my Abftradl to our great Metaphyft- 
cian of the North, I accompanied it with the following, 
note. “ Should the explanation here given of the Kante- 
fian Philofophy have the good fortune to diredt the atten- 
tian of Profellor Stewart to an examination of the work 
itfelf (Crilih der reinen Vermuft), and fhould he become 
convinced, not only of the truth of its dodlrines, but 
abfolutely convinced that it is the only true ‘ Philosophy 
of the Human Mind!’ what might not be expedited 
from the pen of fo elegant, accomplifhed, and fublime, a 
writer; and thus, ultimately, what might not, through the 
medium of his talents, be hoped for, with refpedl to the 
promulgation and eftablifhment of this genuine philofo¬ 
phy in Britain ! The confcioufnefs of the immortality 
that would attach to his name, could never equal the in¬ 
ward fatisfadlion of foul that would attend lb glorious 
an undertaking. That fuch an event may take place, is 
the earneft wifli and prayer of—the Author. 14th 
April, 1813.” 
I could think of no better plan for bringing the princi¬ 
ples of profefi’or Kant before the Britilh public, than, if 
poffible, to intereft the Profefi’or of Moral Philofophy in 
the Univerfity of Edinburgh in their inveftigation ; who, 
from the high official fituation he filled, had the defirable 
opportunity of exercinng the minds of the Undents upon 
this new doctrine;' particularly as this gentleman had 
publifhed a work on the “ Elements of the Philoso¬ 
phy of the Human Mind,” and enjoyed the reputa¬ 
tion of a Metaphyfician of the firft order. What atten¬ 
tion Kant’s Syftem has met with in this quarter, in ccnfe- 
quenceof my efforts, will be evident on a perufal of the 
ledfion under contemplation. 
Twelve years have elapfed fince the work was pub- 
lilhed that contained the preceding extract dating Mr. 
Stewart’s utter inability to comprehend the works of Kart. 
Surely, if he poflefled the inclination, there muft have 
been frequent opportunity, during this period, to have 
caufed at lead fome one of the fundamental pofitions of 
this fyftem to be difeufl’ed. This would have afforded him 
the means of preparing himfelf for the talk he has at 
length undertaken, in this Section of his elegant Differta- 
tion. The note with which he commences it, and to 
which I have alluded, is as follows: “ My ignorance of 
German would have prevented me from faying any thing 
of the Philofophy of Kant, if the extraordinary preten¬ 
fions with which it was at firft brought forward in this 
illand, contrafted with the total oblivion into which it 
foon after very fuddenly fell, had not feemed to demand 
fome 
