124 
PHILOSOPHY. 
fotne attention to fo wonderful a phenomenon in the lite¬ 
rary hiftory of the eighteenth century. My readers will 
perceive that I have taken fome pains to atone for my ina¬ 
bility to read Kant’s works in the original, not only by 
availing myfelf of the Latin verlion of Born, but by con- 
fulting various comments on them which have appeared 
in the Englilh, French, and Latin, languages. As com¬ 
mentators, however, and even tranflators, are not always 
to be trufted to as unexceptionable interpreters of their 
authors’ opinions, my chief reliance, has been placed on one 
of Kant's own compofitions in Latin; his Difi’ertation De 
Mundi Senfibilis atque Intel/igibilis Forma ct Principiis, 
which he printed as the fubjedl of a public difputation, 
when he was candidate for a Profefforlhip in the Univer- 
fity of Kceniglberg. It is far from being improbable, after 
all, that I may, in fome inllances, have mifapprehended 
his meaning; but I hope I fhall not be accufed of wilfully 
mifreprefenting it.. Where my remarks are borrowed 
from other writers, I have been careful in referring to 
my authorities, that my reader may judge for himfelf of 
the fidelity of my ftatements. If no other purpofe, there¬ 
fore, fiiould beanfwered by this part of my work, it may 
at leaft be of ufe by calling forth fome perfon properly 
qualified to corredt any miftakes into which I may invo¬ 
luntarily have fallen; and, in the mean time, may ferve to 
direct thofe who are ftrangers to German literature, to 
fome of the comments on this philofophy which have ap¬ 
peared in languages more generally underfcood in this 
country.” 
We muft do Mr. Stewart the jufiice to fay, that this 
ftntement of his ignorance of the German language, and 
confequent inability to read Kant’s works in the original, 
is a candid acknowledgment of his inability to perforin 
the talk he has'Undertaken, notwithftanding his endeavour 
to atone for this deficiency by confulting various com¬ 
mentators, and poffeffing himfelf of a Latin tranflation of 
the works he is about to criticife. I cannot here avoid 
remarking, that a tranflation of this fyftem into a dead lan¬ 
guage is by no means calculated to convey a diflindl idea 
of the new difcoveries it contains to one totally unac¬ 
quainted with them. 
Let us now proceed to an examination of this curious 
fedlion, and fee in what manner it is put together. It 
commences by a brief notice of the Philofophy of Leib¬ 
nitz, and of his difciple Wolfe, and then proceeds imme¬ 
diately to an examination of the “ Critic of Pure Reafon," 
the moll: celebrated of Kant’s metaphyfical works, which 
appeared in 1781. The remaining part of the fedlion is 
almoft entirely devoted to this great man. But whence 
are the materials obtained upon which Mr. Stewart 
grounds the remarks and obfervations which he fo pro- 
fufely lavilhes upon this German Metaphyfician. From 
the Work itfelf ? certainly not; for our Critic fays, he 
cannot read the language in which it is written. Perhaps 
then from his Latin tranflation of the Critic of Pure Reafon? 
No! for he confeffes, whenever he has attempted to read it, 
he has been forced to abandon the ‘undertaking in defpair. 
He has availed himfelf, however, of a moll eafy way to cri¬ 
ticize this eminent performance of Kant; he has had re- 
courfeto a work publifhed by Dr. Willich in 1798, enti¬ 
tled “ Elements of the Critical Philofophy.” This fmall 
performance poffeffes the merit of giving a Chronological 
Analyfis of thirty principal works of Kant, including the 
“ Critic of Pure Reafon," and fourteen minor perform¬ 
ances of this indefatigable author, publifhed between the 
years 174.6 and 1797. It alfo contains a “Synopsis of 
the Critical Philofophy," which appears by a note to be 
tranllated from the German of Mr. John Schultze, Chap¬ 
lain to the king of Pruffia, at Kceniglberg, by Dr. Reid of 
Glafgow,, as a fpecimen of his proficiency in the German 
language. This Synopfis tends to familiarize the reader 
with the terms which Kant was compelled to employ in 
order to convey to the world his new difcoveries. This 
work alfo contains a Glojfary which may occafionally be 
referred to with advantage by the ftudent in Tranfcen- 
dental Philofophy. It mud, however, not be forgotten, 
that Dr. Willich does not pretend to affume the charadler 
of a critic of this celebrated fyftem, which is evident from 
the following pafiage in his preface, pageiii. “ Although 
I had the good fortune to attend Prof. Kant’s Ledlures 
between the years 1778 and 1781, during my relidence at 
the uni verfity of Kcenigfourg ; and again heard feveral of 
his Ledlures in fummer 1792, when I revifited my native 
country; yet I muft confefs, that my other profelfional 
labours have not permitted me to devote to the ftudy of 
the Critical Syftem of Philofophy that portion of time 
and clofe application which, in more favourable circurn- 
ftances, I fhould have been happy to bellow upon this 
important branch of human knowledge.” The merit 
which the dodlor may fairly claim, is that of laying before 
the Britilh public a very comprehenfive view of the la¬ 
bours of this indefatigable Metaphyfician; and I feel per- 
fuaded that whoever perufes the account given by Dr. 
Willich, in page 55 of his Elements, of a performance of 
our metaphyfician at the age of only twenty-two years, 
in which he fuccefsfully combats the theory of motion 
adopted by Leibnitz, will feel convinced that Kant was 
gifted with very extraordinary powers of reafoning: in¬ 
deed, from this fingle performance by fo young a man, 
it might almoft at the time have fafely predidted that he 
would rife to the higheft eminence. 
In order to furniffi his readers with a clear conception of 
the workentitled the “ Critic of Pure Reafon," Mr. Stew¬ 
art quotes a folitary fentence from the author’s preface 
to the firll edition of this work, taken from his Latin 
tranflation, which heprofeffes not to underftand. He has, 
therefore, endeavoured to throw fome light upon this paf- 
fage by a quotation from Dr. Willich. However much 
this writer may have been perplexed in endeavouring to 
comprehend the barbarous Latin tranflation of Kant’s 
works by Born, I confefs I have not encountered the 
flighted difficulty in turning into Englilh the pafiage from 
the original German, which runs thus: “ By the Critic 
of Pure Reafon, I do not mean a review of books and 
fyftems, but a critical examination of Reafon itfelf, with 
regard 'to the knowledge to which this faculty afpires 
independently of experience; confequently the eftablifh- 
ment of the poffibility or impoffibility of Metaphyfics alto¬ 
gether, the determination of the fource, the extent, and 
limits, of this fcience, all, how'ever, upon principle.” 
(Diflertation, Part II. page 144..) 
The next extradl which he borrowed from Willich’s 
“Elements” is fo mutilated as to deftroy whatever fenfe 
the original might contain. In order, therefore, to vin- 
dicate the dodlor from having written any thing fo unin¬ 
telligible, I have preferred giving the pafiage as it Hands 
in his own words, page 68 et feq. “ Kant difeevered that 
the intuitive faculty of man is a compound of very diffi- 
milar ingredients ; or, in other words, that it confifts of 
parts very different in their nature, and each of which 
performs functions peculiar to itfelf; namely, the Senftive 
Faculty, and the Under(landing. The former teprelents 
the matter of things, fo as it is afiedled by them ; the latter 
connedls the variety of thefe materials into a whole. 
Thefe two operations muft always precede, if there lhaii 
take place a reprefentation or intuition of a determined 
objedi. Both, therefore, are effential conftituents of the 
intuitive faculty of man, and both mult be adlive, at the 
fame time, in every intuition. Leibnitz, indeed, had 
likewife remarked the diftindlion fulfilling between the 
Senfitive Faculty and the Underftanding; but he entirely 
overlooked the effential difference between theirfundlions, 
and was of opinion, that both faculties were different from 
one another only in degree, while he fuppofed the Senfi¬ 
tive Faculty to be only a weaker degree of the Intuitive, 
which, when operating in a ftronger degree, was called 
the Underftanding: both, according to him, reprefented 
the fame objedts, fave that the Senfitive Faculty exhibited 
thofe objedls in a confufed and obfeure manner, which 
the Underftanding precifely and clearly apprehended. 
