PHILO 
gree to feize and to delineate their great outlines. If any 
farther apology be neceflary for quoting a French lady 
as an authority on German metaphyfics, an obvious one 
is fuggefted by the extraordinary and well-merited popu¬ 
larity of her Germany in this country. I do not know if, 
in any part of her works, her matchlefs powers have been 
difplayed to greater advantage. Of this no Itronger 
proof can be given, than the lively intereft (lie infpires, 
even when difcuffing fuch fyftems as thofe of Kant and 
Fichte.” (Diflert. Part II. page 145, 6.) 
It is a very lingular fad, that, though Mr. Stewart 
allows that Madame de Stael was fo eminently qualified 
to execute the ta(k (lie had undertaken, and admits that 
(lie was highly favoured in being placed in fuch advanta¬ 
geous circumftances ; he dill gives this learned lady no 
credit for the truth of the obfervations and corrednefs of 
the information her ardent defire for knowledge had 
induced her to colled on the fpot; for in the courfe of 
this extraordinary l'edion he no-where condefcends to 
make a favourable mention of this new German fyftem. 
On the contrary, he feems gratified if he can at any rate 
apply epithets or make obfervations that will tend to 
bring this new dodrine into difcredit; fuch are the 
phrales: —“ A fyftem fo tranfmutablg and elufive in its 
forms;—The impofing afped of its enigmatical oracles; 
—That myfterious dodrine ;—The deep difguife of its 
new phrafeology;—Cudworth mult be allowed to be far 
fuperior to the German metapliyfician ;—Such jargon, 
involving truth in darknefs;—Kant’s morals reft upon 
a metaphyfical conundrum ;— I do not know that much 
progrefs has been made by the German metaphyficians ; 
—The dark works of this modern Heraclitus;—Deep 
r.eological difguife ;—It is to Hume that we owe the 
Critic of Pure Reason, and to him we are alfo in¬ 
debted for thefarmore luminous refutations of fcepticifm 
by his countrymen;—The cloud-capt metaphyfics;— 
Little more than Englilh verfions of Kant’s works, I am 
fully perfuaded, is neceflary, in this country, to bring 
down the philofopby of Germany to its proper level;” 
&c. See. 
Does it not reflect a little upon the robuft mind of our 
celebrated metapliyfician, to have made fuch obfervations 
as thofe juftquoted from his Diflertation ; and at the fame 
time to have given his unqualified admiration of the 
ability, opportunities, and fidelity, with which this ex¬ 
traordinary lady has in fo eminent a degree feized and 
delineated thegreat outlines of this new German fyftem ? 
Indeed the condud of thel'e two celebrated waiters is 
highly worthy of remark. The ingenuous mind of our fe¬ 
male philofopher induced her to travel to the birth-place of 
the newJ'yftem, that (lie might make her obfervations with 
the fads before her eyes, and converfe with the learned 
on the very fpot where the new dodrine had fpread 
itfelf. She then formed her deliberate judgment on its 
value and importance. Our northern metapliyfician has 
devoted a great part of his life to the attempt to conftrud 
a fyftem for the explanation of the mental phenomena 5 
and, from time to time, has allured the public that he has 
not even yet abandoned his defign. This would have 
been highly praife-worthy, had he not been apprifed, 
more than ten years ago, that what he had been labouring 
fo long to eft’ed, had been accompliftied, and actually 
exifted in the inimitable work of the immortal Kant 
called the ‘Critic of Pure Reason.’ Since that period 
lie has neither examined whether this is really the fad, 
nor prepared himfelf to refute the work if it is not. Yet 
lie now comes forward, acknowledging his total inability 
to comprehend it; and yet attempting with all his might, 
to write it down ! Is there not fomething illiberal in 
this condud ? 
Which of thefe two philofophers is moft to be admired? 
The lady who has exerted the whole force of her highly- 
gifted mind to obtain the moft accurate information re- 
Ipeding this new fyftem by viliting in the country where 
its influence was felt, and who has faithfully detailed its 
Vol. XX. No. 1357. 
SOPHY. 137 
eft'eds to the world ; or the learned metapliyfician who, 
neglecting to make himfelf acquainted either with the lan¬ 
guage in which this new fyftem was delivered to the world, 
or with the fyftem itfelf, through the medium of tranfla- 
tors and commentators, raftlly undertakes to be its hifto- 
rian, not from any wifh to point out its novelties, but to 
banifti it, if pofible, from the face of the earth ? The 
former was not content with feeing it flourifh in the en¬ 
lightened fpot which gave it birth, but ufed all her en¬ 
deavours to extend its influence throughout the world. 
The latter, though repeatedly folicited merely to recom¬ 
mend its inveftigation with a view toafeertain and deter¬ 
mine its worth, has uniformly abftained from this, as if, 
becaufe it did not accord with his own notions, it was 
unworthy of notice. 
If it can for a moment be fuppofed that I am not fully 
juftified in this ftatement, I beg to refer the reader to Mr. 
Stewart’s own words in the note fubjoined to the title of 
the feventh fedion of his elaborate Diflertation, to which 
I have fo often had occafion to refer. He there diftindly 
fays: “ My ignorance of the German would have prevented 
my faying any-thing on the pliilofophy of Kant, if fo won¬ 
derful a phenomenon in the literary hiftory of the eigh¬ 
teenth century had not feemed to demand fome attention.” 
And in page 140 of the fame work he alfo fays; “ In fome 
of my former publications, I have acknowledged myfelf 
(from my total ignorance of the German language) to be 
very imperfedly acquainted with the new German philo- 
fophy ; but the imprefllon which it produced for a few 
years in England (more particularly while our intercourfe 
with the Continent was interrupted) makes it proper for 
me to beftow on it a little more notice in this diflertation 
than I (hould otherwife have judged neceffary or ujefnl." 
A comparifon of the pafl'ages feleded from Madame de 
Stael’s Germany by this writer, with thofe I have laid 
before the reader from the very fame work, will fpeak for 
itfelf. 
I have, I hope, fufticiently vindicated Nitfcii from the 
charge of not having underftood thefyftem heendeavoured 
to teach, or of erroneoufly aferibing to the pliilofophy of 
Kant the fame high charader that has been given of it 
by Madame de Stael. I may therefore pafs over the re¬ 
maining extracts quoted by Mr. Stewart from Nitfch’s 
“ Introduction to Kant’s Pliilofophy,” and proceed to 
notice thofe from the works of Degerando and Buhle, 
which complete this extraordinary fedlion. The fame 
dexterity that this writer has employed in felefting his 
extracts from the works of Madame de Stael, he has called 
to his aid in his choice of pafl'ages from Degerando; and, 
if it were not for detaining the reader, I could oppofe to 
them others of a very oppofite complexion. In page 158 
& feq. fpeaking of the extraordinary imprefllon produced 
in Germany by the Critic of Pure Reafon, and with a view 
to account for this, he takes from Degerando as follows : 
“ The fyftem of Kant was well adapted to flatter the weak- 
nefsof the human mind. Curiofity was excited, by feeing 
paths opened which had never been trodden before. The 
love of myftery found a fecret charm in the obfeurity 
which enveloped the dodrine. The long and troublefome 
period of initiation was calculated to roufe the ambition 
of bold and adventurous fpirits. Theirlove of Angularity 
was gratified by the new nomenclature ; while their va¬ 
nity exulted in the idea of being admitted into a privi¬ 
leged fed, exercifing, and entitled to exercife, the fu- 
preme cenforftiip in pliilofophy. Even men of the moft 
ordinary parts, on finding themfelves called to fo high 
fundions, loft fight of their real mediocrity, and conceived 
themfelves formed into geniufes deftined to form a new 
era in the hiftory of reafon. 
“Another inevitable eft'ed refulted from the univerfal 
change operated by Kant in his terms, in his claflifications, 
in his methods, and in the enunciation of his problems. 
The intellectual powers of the greater part of the ini¬ 
tiated were too much exhaulled in the courfe of their 
long noviciate, to be qualified to judge foundly of the 
N n dodnne 
