PHILOSOPHY. 
in itfelf, is neceffary to anfwgr one Angle queftion, can it 
he wonderful that this folution is attended with trouble 
and difficulty; nay, even at fir ft withjome obfcunty ? 
“ Some incompetent judges, unwilling to find any thing 
new that differs from their own perverfe though common 
opinions, and not entering into the fpirit of new philofo- 
phicql terms, are apt to fubftitute their own erroneous 
ideas in the place of well-determined conceptions, and 
thus to pervert and deform all new difcoveries. It ne¬ 
ver entered into the minds of the dogmatical philosophers, 
that the end of their exertions was fo near at hand, nor in¬ 
deed into the minds of thofe who boaft of Common Senfe, 
iince they never dreamt, nor were able to conceive, that 
an entirely-new fcience, Transcendental Philosophy, 
could be difcovered, that would for ever put a flop to their 
futile labours!” 
Such is the language which this father of the only true 
Philofophy of Mind ie It it his duty to employ when re¬ 
viewing his own fyftem and his own difcoveries. Call it 
arrogant, call it inflating, or call it what you will ; if it is 
but true, all the offence vaniflies, and you then lee in 
him a man who has really made a wonderful difcovery , 
tiling every exertion not oniy to communicate it to the 
world, but anxious that mankind Ihould participate in 
its benefits. Why Mr. Stewart fliould not have recom¬ 
mended an inveftigation of this fyftem of “ Tranfcendental 
PMlofophf \ is not eafily to be accounted for. It will 
fcarcely be credited, that this accomplifhed fcholar Ihould 
have been in poffeffion of an Englifn tranllation ol Kant’s 
Prolegomena for thefe fix years paft, and not have made 
one ailulion to, or quoted one pnffage from, it in the 
whole courfe of his elaborate Differtation. The fa& how¬ 
ever is as follows: that in the year 1817 I had the ho¬ 
nour totranfmit to Kinneil Houle, my Englifh verfion of 
this work, which the reader may fee in vol xv. page 212 
& feq. of this Encyclopaedia. I then 1 'olicited this wri¬ 
ter’s critical remarks; or, if he was too much occu¬ 
pied in his own literary purfuits, that he might lay it be¬ 
fore fome young and enterpriling ftudent of his own uni- 
verfity for inveftigation, in order that its merits might be 
canvaffed. I received the molt polite acknowledgment 
of my prefent, but there all intereft in the lubjedl leemed 
to end. It was on fome fimilar occafion that this gen¬ 
tleman was pleafed to addrefs me as follows : 
“ Kinneil Hcufe, near Borrowftounnefs, (N. B.) 
27th July, 1813. 
“ Dear Sir,—I can with great fincerity allure you, that 
I feel very gratefully the offer which you have made me 
of the ufe of your papers, and that I entertain all the ref- 
pe<5t which is juftly due to your difmterefted zeal for the 
improvement of your favourite fcience ; but at the age of 
threefcore, it would be vain for me to begin the ltudy 
of new fyftems ; and I tnuft, therefore, content myfelf 
with giving to the world, in their prefent very imperfeft 
ftate, the fpeculations of my better years. I lhall return 
your manufeript by the firft fafe opportunity which I can 
find from this neighbourhood ; and would indeed have 
done fo feveral weeks ago, if I had not been anxious to 
fend it by fome friend who might deliver it into your own 
hands. I am, with great regard, dear fir, your obliged 
and meft obedient fervant, Dugald Stewart.” 
Thomas Wirgman, Efq. 
, 68, St. James’s Street, 
London.” 
In a fubfequent communication with which he ho¬ 
noured me, he thus expreffes himfelf: 
“ Langley Park, near Montrofe, 
ill June, 1817, 
“ Dear Sir,—I cannot fufficiently admire the zeal and 
perfeverance with which you have fo long laboured to 
diffufea knowledge of thofeZc/giraZand Metaphyfical prin¬ 
ciples which you conceive to be of fuch importance to 
143 
the world ; and feel myfelf perfonally indebted to you 
for the flattering kindnefs with which you have been 
pleafed fo repeatedly to call my attention to your favour¬ 
ite author. I am glad to hear that you have foms 
thoughts of undertaking an Englifli tranllation of the 
Critic of Pure ReaJ'on ; for although, at my period of life, 
I fee little probability of my changing my philofophical 
creed, I fliould certainly confider a faithful verfion of a 
work fo highly extolled by men of talents and candour as 
a very valuable acceflion to the ftock of our national lite¬ 
rature. May I requeft that you will have the goodnefs 
to infert my name in the lift of fubferibers for your tranf- 
lation of the Critic of Pure Rerfon. Your kind prefent, 
the Metaphysics, reached me fome weeks ago, but I 
have not as yet had a moment’s time to beftow upon it. 
I aryi, &c. Dugald Stewart.” 
And yet it is this gentleman, the author of the “ Ele¬ 
ments of the Philosophy of the Human Mind,” 
who fays of the very work he appears to encourage, “ Lit¬ 
tle more, I am fully perfuaded, than Englifli verfions of 
the works, is neceffary, in this country, to bring down the 
philofophy of Germany to its proper level.” (Differt. 
Part II. page 184.) I really know not how to reconcile 
this apparent inconfiftency. Of the baneful influence cf 
the authority of this writer, I need only inftance the effedl 
it has produced on fo grave a work as that of Dr. Brew r - 
fter’s Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. In the article Meta¬ 
physics, he fays : “ We are extremely forry that an at¬ 
tempt has been made in modern times to veil philofophy 
in her ancient myftery, with a view to exclude her from 
the profane eyes of the vulgar. This attempt confifts, not 
in reviving the phrafeology of the peripatetic fchool, but 
in the invention of a Jet of new terms equally incomprehen- 
fible, and equally 1'ufceptible of ambiguity and mifeon- 
ception. The author who has made this attempt is Kant, 
the founder of the Critical or Tranfcendental Philofophy, as 
it is called in Germany. We have never been fortunate 
enough to meet with any who pretended to comprehend 
bis Syftem; and forourfelves we have never yet attempted 
it. Wejhall be excufed for this confejjion of our ignorance, 
after the following declaration of Mr. Stewart: ‘As to 
Kant’s own works, I mull fairly acknowledge, that, al¬ 
though I have frequently attempted to read them in the 
Latin edition printed at Leipfic, I have always been 
forced to abandon the undertaking in defpair; partly 
from the fcholaftic barbarifm of the ftyle, and partly from 
my utter inability to unriddle the author's meaning. Wherever 
I have happened to obtain a momentary glimpfe of light, 
I have derived it, not from Kant himfelf, but from my 
previous acquaintance with thofe opinions of Leibnitz, 
Berkeley, Hume, Reid, and others, which he lias endea¬ 
voured to appropriate to himfelf under the deep difguife of his 
new phrafeology .’ This mode of philofophizing deferves 
to be reprobated and exploded; and we fincerely hope 
that the German adepts will never be able to make a fyf- 
tern of myfticifm popular in a country which has been 
imbued with the philofophy of a Locke.” So much for 
the force of authority ! 
But, as Mr. Stewart has allowed Lambert to poffefs the 
invaluable gift of a found underftanding, he furely cannot 
be indifferent to the judgment formed of this Latin per¬ 
formance by that great man. I fincerely wifti that Mr. 
Stewart had added to his other accomplishments the ac- 
quifition of the German language, a ftudy not altogether 
unworthy of his great talents; he might then have en¬ 
tered fully into the fpirit of Lambert’s perfpicuous and 
learned remarks on this Differtation, in his reply to Kant’s 
letter. For it really does appear, that, if we allow found 
intellect to Lambert, we mult totally deny that gift to 
Mr. Stewart; for the judgment of the one is diametrically 
oppofite to that of the other, on the fubjeft of the work 
in queftion. In Lambert’s reply he enters fully into the 
arguments deduced by Kant in favour of his divifion of 
things into Senfible and Intellectual, or into Phenomena 
4 and 
