138 
PHILOSOPHY. 
doctrine itfelf. They felt themfelves, after fo many 
windings, loft in a labyrinth, and were unable todifpenl'e 
with the affiftance of the guide who had conducted them 
fo far. Others, after fo great a facrifice, wanted the cou¬ 
rage to confef-, to the world, or to themfelves, the difap- 
pointment they had met with. They attached themfelves 
to the do&rine in proportion to the facrifice they had 
made, and eftimated its value by the labour it had coft 
them. As for more fuperficial thinkers, they drew an 
inference from the novelty of the form in favour of the 
novelty of the matter, and from the novelty of the matter 
in favour of its importance. 
“ It is a great advantage for a fefl to poffefs a diftin- 
guifhing garb and livery. It was thus that the Peripate¬ 
tics extended their empire fo widely, and united their 
fubjedls in one common obedience. Kant had, over and 
above all this, the art of infilling, that his difciples (hould 
belong exclusively to himfelf. He explicitly announced, 
that he was not going to found a fchool of Eccleftics, but 
a fchool of his own ; a fchool not only independent, but 
in fome meafure hoflile to every other; that he could 
admit of no compromife with any fedl whatever; that he 
was come to overturn every thing which exilled in philo- 
fophy, and to eredl a new edifice on thefe immenfe ruins. 
The more decided and arrogant the terms were in which 
he announced his defign, the more likely was it to fuc- 
ceed ; for the human mind fubmits more eafily to an un¬ 
limited than to a partial faith, and yields itfelf up without 
referve, rather than confent to cavil about reftriclions and 
conditions even in favour of its own independence.” 
Mr. Stewart feems to revel in thefe and fimilar fenti- 
ments borrowed from other writers; and it really appears 
as if he would rejoice to fee the fyftem of Kant driven 
altogether from the field, without one pang from the 
doubt which his want of information mull furely leave in 
his mind as to whether it might or might not deferve this 
fate. Such at length appears to be his veneration for 
truth and for the Philofophy of Mind! The reader mull, 
however, be cautioned not to follow him in his premature 
triumph on the ground of a fuppofed viilory obtained by 
his foreign ally. The firlr enquiry that naturally fuggells 
itfelf is, how much of the fyftem of Kant does Degerando 
profefs to underftand, and what progrefs has he made in 
the elementary part of tit is celebrated fyftem ? Has he 
apprehended the Categories in their purity previous to 
his attempting to inform the French nation of their 
utility ? If he has been unfuccefsfu! in this point, volumes 
of fimilar prattle will neither bring the fyftem into con¬ 
tempt, nor difprove its truth. Upon a comparifon of the 
Table of the Categories given by this author in page 212 
of the fecond volume of his “ Hiltoire comparee des Syf- 
temes de Philofophie,” Paris 1804, with that of Kant, it 
will be found that he has totally mifunderftood the value 
of thefe effential elements of our unaerftanding. He has 
not even evinced the fidelity of a tranllator in the choice 
of words for this important talk. If the foundation of a 
fcienceds mifunderftood, what will become of the fuper- 
ftruflure? That the French language is rich enough in 
terms adapted to the fubjedl is evident from the excellent 
choice made in the very cafe of the Categories both in the 
works of Monf. Charles Villers, and in an excellent work 
tranllated from the Dutch of I. Kinker into French. 
The latter gives a very lively and interefting account of 
Tranfcendental Philofophy; it is called “ EJfai d'une Ex- 
poftion fuccinte de la Raifoh Pure." How unfit then is 
fuch a commentator as Degerando to play the part of a 
critic, which it feems is attempted to be afcribed to him 
by the extracts from this work. In juftice to this writer, 
however, we mull acknowledge that he regrets the great 
dearth of materials upon which to found a judgment on 
the importance of this great Kantefian revolution ; but 
he hopes that his Iketch, quite new to the French reader, 
might excite curiofity, and perhaps add fome new ele¬ 
ments to the philofophy of mind. This, he lays, would 
juftify his nation from an indifference, of which it is ac- 
cufed, to foreign dodlrines, and bring about that which 
is mod defired by the true friends of Philofophy. 
In Mr. Stewart’s eagernefs to give extracts that might 
afiift him in decrying Kant’s philofophy, it is remarkable 
that he has uniformly omitted thofe paffages in the works 
of his adopted authors that are ftror.gly in favour of the 
new dodlrine, or even fufficiently lo to induce an exa¬ 
mination into its merit. This I have made apparent in 
the cafe of Madame de Stael; and I cannot difmifs De^ 
gerando without doing him fimilar juftice. The paffage 
I allude to occurs in page 245 of the volume juft men¬ 
tioned ; and I think is calculated to encourage a thorough 
examination of its pretenlions. The very high, and I 
fincerely believe juftly-merited, praife of the author of this 
fcienceof fciences, as well as the account given of the 
extraordinary revolution produced by this new do&rine, 
mull certainly awaken curiofity and promote inveftigation. 
I give the author’s own words, that I may not be fup¬ 
pofed to have exaggerated his praife by a tranflation: 
“II n’exifte, je crois, dans l’hiftoire de la philofophie, aucun 
exemple d’une revolution auffi rapide que celle qui a ete 
operee en Allemagne par la doftrine de Kant, du moment 
oii elle a ete connue; elle a paffe fubitement de l’obfcurite 
la plus profonde a la celebrite la plus etonnante. La cu- 
riofite publique avait ete longtems repouffee par cette 
nouvelle nomenclature, qui, comme un rivage efcarpe, 
entoure le Criticifme ; mais enfin, ayant ofe l’aborder, le 
franchir, on fe crut tranfporte dans un monde de mer- 
veiiles. Le profeffeur de Konilberg reunit en lui-meme la 
plupart des qualites neceffaires aux auteurs des grandes 
revolutions philofophiques ; ce coup-d’ceil vafte qui per- 
met d’affembier, de mettre en ordre, un grand nombre de 
connaiffances; cet art de fe faire a foi-meme des points de 
vue nouveaux au fein meme des idees connues; ce talent 
d’analyfe qui conduit aux diftindlions les plus fubtiles ; 
cette force de combinaifon qui fonde les fyltemes ; cette 
hardieffe qui pofe des queftions inattendues ; cette adreffe 
qui dvite les grandes difficultes; cette regularite qui fe 
plait dans les clafiifications ; cette feverite furtout qui 
commande le refpefl et la confiance des hommes; enfin 
ces habitudes d’un efprit familiarife avec les profondeurs 
de toutes les connaiffances; ce genie, en quelque forte 
encyclopedique, qui, dans un fiecle eclaire furtout, de- 
vient neceffaire pour donner des lois a la fcience mere, de 
laquelle dependent toutes les autres.” The admirers of 
Kant are charged with employing fuch high-founding 
and arrogant phrafes in defence of their favourite fyftem 
as the following: “ Grant only the firjl principles of criti¬ 
cal philofophy , and you mnft grant the whole fyftem /” and 
again : “ If you do not grant them, it is becaufe you have not 
underfood us." If the fyftem is true and complete, I am 
at a lofs to know how thefe expreflions are to be avoided. 
Similar phrafes are ftriflly applicable to every geometrical 
propofition : why fhould they not have the lame weight 
in Tranfcendental Philofophy, provided they are equally 
applicable ? Arrogant fcience of Geometry, that delcends 
to no arts of eloquent perfuafion ! Indigent Science of 
Mind, that mull beg its way from country to country ! 
In vain does Ihe gather courage to knock with the bold- 
nefs of an acquaintance at the door of Mr. Dugald Stewart. 
She knocks too loud! and is driven away as an impoftor, 
without being fuffered to teli the important bufinefs Ihe 
comes about. The Kantefian fyftem mull look elfewhere 
to have its merits patiently invelligated. 
Itis a fad miftake in Mr. Stewart to fay, “that Kant 
calls to his aid the principles of what he calls Practical 
Reafon in his zeal to refute the dodtrines of Hume, and 
that this is an after-thought, very remote from his views 
when he firft undertook his work.” So far is this from 
being true, that, on the contrary, the whole fenfe and 
value of the fyllem depends upon the difcovery, that 
Reafon is divilibie into two diftin£l faculties. Firft, 
Speculative Reason, which inceffantly urges us to 
pulh our enquiries into the nature of the furrounding 
objects as far as we can, ftimulating us in the purfuit of 
knowledge 
