156 PHILO 
favourite pofition, that Kant’s works are incomprehen- 
fible. When the reader is informed that forthis Elucida¬ 
tion of the Critic of Pure Reafon we are indebted to that 
very celebrated German mathematician Johann Schultz, 
whofe talents are fo univerfally admired, he may without 
hefitation allow that it is poftible to comprehend Kant’s 
philofophy. 
The following obfervations are extracted from the 
preface to the work above alluded to: “The Critic of 
Pure Reafon which profefior Kant forne years ago fiib- 
mitted to the learned world, is undoubtedly the moll 
ltrlking and important phenomenon that could occur in 
the field of fpeculative philofophy. This work, which, 
in regard to the novelty and treatment of the fubjedf, is 
wholly original, and with refpeft to the acute penetra¬ 
tion, and the fcarcely-attainable profundity which diftin- 
guifli it throughout, is unparalleled in its kind, not only 
proves with aporUfiical certainty, that all preceding metaphy- 
fical fyflems are mere fophijlry, but points out the way by 
which we may at length, arrive at a fyftem of metaphyfics 
which may be depended upon, and which is perfedtly fa- 
tisfa6tory to reafon. This work is not the probationary 
eflay of a hot-headed youth, or a tiffue of the ingenious 
extemporary reveries of an ardent enthufiaft, to whom it 
is as eafy to create new fyflems and worlds as to change 
his coat; but the production of a man whom Germany 
lias long honoured as one of her greatefl philofophers, a 
flruCture, the minuteft details of which are the refult of 
the molt intenfe thought; to the foundation and erection 
of which, the calm enquirer has devoted the greatefl: part 
of his life; on the conception of which he correfponded 
nineteen years'ago with the celebrated Lambert; the firfl 
notions of which he made public fourteen years fince in 
his inaugural diflertation (De Mundi fenfibilis atque intel- 
ligibilis forma et principiis. Reg. die xx. Aug. 1770.) 
“A work of this kind deferves not only the attention 
of every one, to whom the conformation and extenfion of 
knowledge derived from reafon is not matter of indiffer¬ 
ence, but likewife the moil minute and careful exami¬ 
nation of the philofopher. The proof of the illegitimacy 
of our ancient metaphyfical poflefflons is now depofited 
in the archives of this philofophicnl hiilory of the age. 
To leave it there unexamined would be equivalent to a 
tacit admiflion that Kant is right, and that we (hall 
henceforward either profecute our philofophical enquiries 
upon his principles, or difpenfe with philofophy' altogether. 
The latter, as Kant has very aptly remarked, would be 
about as wife as the refolution to abftain entirely from 
breathing in order to avoid inhaling impure air: but the 
former pre-fuppofes a knowledge and invefligation of the 
Kantefian fyftem. 
“ This important work, however, has experienced the 
Angular fate of being almoft univerfally complained of as 
impenetrable, obfeure, and unintelligible. That fuch a 
book as the Critic of Pure Reafon, where the fubjeCt of. 
enquiry embracestheoriginal ground-work anil poffibility 
of all fenj'alion and thought, confequently the molt f’ubtle 
and the moll profound of all /peculations, in every branch 
of which a total abltraftion from every thing fenlible is 
required, and reafon has to labour by itfelf without any 
aid from fenlible images; where, moreover, every path is 
yet untrodden, where every profpeCt is quite It range and 
unexpected, where every tiling, both in representation 
and language is alike new and unfamiliar;—that fuch a 
book cannot be popular and intelligible to every reader, 
that even to perlons accultomed to reflection, it muft be 
very difficult, and occafionally obfeure, and that from its 
coniiderable bulk, it mull fatigue the moll patient reader, 
is, in my opinion, not at all furprifing. But that itjhould 
almojl be confidered as u fealed book, which no man can open, 
or I'o obfeure that even philofophers would Jirive in vain to 
illuminate it with the light of the ordinary underfunding; 
this indeed is matter of juft aftonilhment. 
“ This unexpected fate, which mull naturally have been 
very unpleafant to the author, was, however, productive 
SOPHY. 
of this advantage to the public, that it induced profeflor 
Kant to publifli laft year the Prologomena to every future 
fyftem of Metaphyfics that can claim the charafler of a fcience, 
(fee vol.xv.p. 212.) which contains a molt valuable illuftra- 
tion of his Critic. It din’ufes indeed much pleafing light 
over the fyftem of the author ; it has neverthelefs as yet 
contributed lint little to diminilh the complaints of its 
unintelligibility: nay, it feems as if readers in general 
felt nearly as much horror of the Prologomena as of the 
Critic. The caufe of this, as far as I can judge, is as 
follows. Clearly as the beginning of the Prologomena 
develops the real object of the Critic, in their fartherpro- 
grefs they are in fome places too prolix, and interfperfed 
with too many fubordinate confiderations, to allow the 
reader to feize and retain the connexion of the deductions. 
Here the author became obfeure merely by driving to be 
too explicit. In molt matters, however, they are by no 
means intelligible when taken feparately, but neceflarily 
require an acquaintance and comparifon with the Critic. 
“ Be this as it may, fo much is certain, that the ‘ Critic 
of Pure Reafon' is very little better, even to the majority 
of the learned, than if it confllted entirely of hierogly¬ 
phics: furely then there is juft ground for fuppofmg that 
a concife and geuernlly-intelligible analylis of this im¬ 
portant work mull be as agreeable to every enquiring 
friend of truth, as it feems to be indifpenfable for its due 
examination, and for this very reafon to the farther pro- 
grefs of philofophy. It feems indeed to argue no fmall 
degree of prefumption in him who fancies himfelf equal 
to fuch an undertaking. But, if 1 may without prefump¬ 
tion venture to ajfert, that this obfeure fyftem of the Critic of 
Pure Reafon became by repealed perufal and reflection as 
clear and as familiar to me, who can by no means rank ruyfelf 
with profeffonal metaphyftcians, as any of thofe which I had 
previonfly invefligated; I cannot perceive why it Jhould not 
appear as plain and pcrfpicnohs to every reflecting mind, 
when I have prefmtcd in the narrow compafs of a few fleets, 
the cffcnce of an exlenflve work which it has coji me great pains 
to extract. 
“ As I could not find leifure till laft fummer to go 
through Kant’s Critic conneftedly, mv original inten¬ 
tion was, merely to gi ve an analylis of its contents, with a 
concife examination in an ample review, with the omiffion 
of all new technical terms, and in as popular a llyle as 
poffible. In order to afeertain whether I had feized the 
true meaning of the Critic throughout, I fent a ftatement 
of the fubllance, but which far exceeded the limits of a 
review, to the author for his decifion ; and his kind an- 
fwer very foon afforded me the agreeable certainty that I 
had. ‘ It gives me extraordinary pleafure,’ he thus wrote 
among other things, ‘ to obferve what pains you have 
taken with my eft’ays, but particularly the penetration 
with which you have every-where extracted what is molt 
important and elfential, and the accuracy with which you 
have hit upon my meaning. The latter more efpecially 
confoles me for the mortification oft being understood by 
fcarcely any one, and relieves me from the apprehenfion 
that I poffefs in fo fmall a degree the talent of rendering 
myfclf intelligible; nay that on fo difficult a fubjedl I 
am perhaps wholly deftitute of it; fo that all my labour 
would have been thrown away. As, however, there is one 
perfon, who furnijlies a proof that I may be underflood, and at 
the. fame time an example that my works are not ijuite unwor¬ 
thy of being fludied in order to the nnderjiauding of them ■ 
and forming a judgment of their merits or demerits ; I hope 
it will have the cffeSt I wifi, namely, to advance the lung- 
retarded progrefs of metaphyfics, and to bring the matter to a 
decifion.' On this fubjeCt I received (till Itronger alfuran- 
ces, as well in various perfonal interviews, as in feveral 
flattering letters, in which profefior Kant invariably ex- 
preffed a wilh that I Ihould not infert my Eflay in a jour¬ 
nal, hut publifh it with fome enlargement in a feparate 
form, and accompany it with my obfervations on the pe¬ 
culiar manner in which the examination of his work 
ought to be undertaken, in order to produce the defired 
advantage 
