| KANT IN THE CLASSROOM Materials to aid the study of Kant’s lectures | |||||
|
Kant’s Writings
| |||||
|
The following bibliography of Kant’s writings is ordered chronologically by date of publication, except for six posthumously published writings, which are ordered by their presumed date of composition: On Fire (1755), Sensory Illusion (1777), Philosopher’s Medicine (1788?), First Introduction (1789; to the Kritik der Urteilskraft), Progress in Metaphysics (1793), and the Opus postumum. Individual writings can also be located using an alphabetized index that includes variant English titles. | |||||
|
1749 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 •Funk |
1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1768 1770 1771 1775 |
1776-77 1777 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 |
1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 |
1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 |
1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 |
|
Bibliographical Entries: The original title is given, followed by its first publication and where it is reprinted in the Academy Edition (Ak.) of Kant’s writings (these page numbers include just the text, omitting introductory title pages and other blank pages). This is followed by a standard translation of the title into English, and one or more published translations of the text itself into English, if one is readily available. In preparing this list, I have benefitted at several points from the corresponding list of publications presented at Immanuel Kant: Information Online, as well as Borowski [1912, 23-40], Adickes [1970], and Warda [1917]. A complete list of English translations of Kant’s writings (as of 1994) is available on Stephen Palmquist’s website. | |||||
|
1749 Gedanken von der wahren Schätzung der lebendigen Kräfte und Beurteilung der Beweise derer sich Herr von Leibniz und andere Mechaniker in dieser Streitsache bedienet haben, nebst einigen vorhergehenden Betrachtungen welche die Kraft der Körper überhaupt betreffen (Königsberg: Martin Eberhard Dorn, 1746), xxiv, 240 pp. [Ak. 1:3-181] “Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces.” A comparison of Descartes and Leibniz, this first publication was dedicated to J. C. Bohl [bio], a professor of medicine at Königsberg. Not much is known about Bohl, and rather less about the relationship between him and Kant; but that Kant would dedicate his first publication to a professor of medicine (and not, for instance, to Knützen [bio], who was traditionally understood to be Kant’s primary mentor) is remarkable. The least it suggests is that Kant must have attended some of Bohl’s lectures, although Borowski claims it was done to thank Bohl for various kindnesses shown to Kant and his parents when he was a child [1912, 89]. According to Borowski, Kant began working on this book in 1744. Printing began in 1746, after it had been submitted to the university censor; in 1747 Kant added sects. 107-113A and 151-56. The whole was not published until 1749.[1] Kant’s inaugural publication received some critical notice, but not much, and the most significant attention came in the form of a witty dismissal by G. E. Lessing:
K. unternimmt ein schwer Geschäfte, [1] In a letter of 23 August 1749, sent with a copy of the book and a request for a review, Kant notes that “the printing of this little work was finished only in this year, although it was begun in 1746, as indicated on the title page“ (#2, Ak. 10:1). [2] “K. pursues a weighty course, / To teach the world a lesson. / He measures every living force, / — His own the lone exception.” [Zammito transl.] 1754 Rotation of the Earth [index] [top] “Untersuchung der Frage, ob die Erde in ihrer Umdrehung um die Achse, wodurch sie die Abwechselung des Tages und der Nacht hervorbringt, einige Veränderung seit den ersten Zeiten ihres Ursprungs erlitten habe und woraus man sich ihrer versichern könne, welche von der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin zum Preise für das jetztlaufende Jahr aufgegeben worden,” in Wochentliche Königsbergische Frag- und Anzeigungs-Nachrichten (1754), #23 (June 8) and #24 (June 15). [Ak. 1:185-91] “Investigation of the Question, Whether the Axial Rotation of the Earth, through which Day and Night are brought about, has Changed since its Beginning, and How One Can be Certain of this, which the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlin has offered a Prize for the current year.” At the end of this essay, Kant promises a longer work with the title Cosmogony, or Essay on the Origin of the Cosmos, the Formation of the Heavenly Bodies, and the Causes of their Motion, derived from the general laws of motion of matter, in accordance with Newtonian theory [Kosmogonie, oder Versuch, den Ursprung des Weltgebäudes, die Bildung der Himmelskörper und die Ursachen ihrer Bewegung aus den allgemeinen Bewegungsgesetzen der Materie, der Theorie des Newton gemäß, herzuleiten] — which did in fact appear the following year, although under a different title. Age of the Earth [index] [top] “Ob die Erde veralte Die Frage, ob die Erde veralte, physikalisch erwogen.” in Wochentliche Königsbergische Frag- und Anzeigungs-Nachrichten (1754), ##32-37 (Aug 10 - Sep 14). [Ak. 1:195-213] “The Question Whether the Earth is Aging, Considered Physically.” 1755 Universal Natural History [index] [top] (anon.) Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels, oder Versuch von der Verfassung und dem mechanischen Ursprunge des ganzen Weltgebäudes, nach Newtonischen Grundsätzen abgehandelt (Königsberg and Leipzig: Johann Friederich Petersen, 1755), 200 pp. [Ak. 1:217-368] Published anonymously. “Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, or Essay on the Constitution and Mechanical Origin of the Entire Universe, treated in accordance with Newtonian Principles.” Translated by W. Hastie (Glasgow: J. Maclehose,1900). Revised and edited by Willey Ley (New York: Greenwood Publ. Co., 1968). Translated by Stanley L. Jaki (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1981). Not long after this book was printed, the publisher went bankrupt and his inventory was seized. Consequently this work — dedicated to the King and carrying with it the hopes for some literary fame for the young author — scarcely enjoyed a public viewing in Kant’s day, and was little known outside of Königsberg; Goldbeck [1781, 248] notes that “this work is one of his first writings and only lately become recognized.” Later scholars arrived at conclusions similar to and independently of Kant — Johann Lambert in 1761 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796. This certainly would have troubled the young Kant, who near the end of his 1763 Only Possible Argument tried to correct the public record with the following footnote: “The title of the book is Allgemeine Naturgeschichte [...]. This work, which has remained little known, cannot have come to the attention of, among others, the celebrated J. H. Lambert. Six years later, in his Kosmologische Briefe 1761, he presented precisely the same theory of the systematic constitution of the cosmos in general, the Milky way, the nebulae, and so forth, which is to be found in my above-mentioned theory of the heavens, the first part, and likewise in the preface to that book. [...] The agreement between the thoughts of this ingenious man and those presented by myself at that time almost extends to the finer details of the theory, and it only serves to strengthen my supposition that this sketch will receive additional confirmation in the course of time” [Ak. 2:69; Walford transl.] In later years, Kant tried to interest publishers in re-issuing the book, without success. Eventually his younger colleague and close friend, J. F Gensichen [bio], published a selection alongside a translation into German of three essays by William Herschel: Über den Bau des Himmels (Königsberg: Nicolovius, 1791). See Vorländer [1924, i.104, ii.86]. Meditationum quarundam de igne succincta delineatio. [Ak. 1:371-84] “Concise Outline of Some Reflections on Fire.” Translated by Lewis White Beck in Kant’s Latin Writings, 2nd ed. (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), pp. 16-33. Commonly referred to as De igne. Presented to the Philosophy Faculty at the university at Königsberg on 17 April 1755 as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Magister degree. Only doctoral dissertations of the three higher faculty were required to be published, so Kant never published this work. It was first published in 1839. Principiorum primorum cognitionis metaphysicae nova dilucidatio (Königsberg: Johann Heinrich Hartung, 1755), ii, 38 pp. [Ak. 1:387-416] “New Elucidation of the First Principles of Metaphysical Cognition.” Translated by J. A. Reuscher in Lewis White Beck, Kant’s Latin Writings, 2nd ed. (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), pp. 42-83. Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 5-45. Commonly referred to as Nova dilucidatio. Presented to the philosophy faculty at the university at Königsberg as his Habilitationsschrift, and defended on 27 September 1755 as Kant’s disputatio pro receptio, required for obtaining the right to offer lectures at the university. This was the first of three public Latin defenses in which Kant served as the principal, and is briefly described in the Professors pages. 1756 Terrestrial Convulsions [index] [top] “Von den Ursachen der Erderschütterungen bei Gelegenheit des Unglücks, welches die westliche Länder von Europa gegen das Ende des vorigen Jahres betroffen hat,” in Wochentliche Königsbergischen Frag- und Anzeigungs-Nachrichten (1756), #4 (Jan 24) and #5 (Jan 31). [Ak. 1:419-27] “On the Causes of the Terrestrial Convulsions, on the Occasion of the Disaster afflicting the Western Countries of Europe towards the End of Last Year.” “Geschichte und Naturbeschreibung der merkwürdigsten Vorfälle des Erdbebens, welches an dem Ende des 1755sten Jahres einen großen Teil der Erde erschüttert hat,” in Wochentliche Königsbergischen Frag- und Anzeigungs-Nachrichten, February 1756. [Ak. 1:431-61] “History and Natural Description of the Most Remarkable Occurrences associated with the Earthquake which at the End of the Year 1755 Shook a Great Part of the Earth.” Further Consideration [index] [top] “Fortgesetzte Betrachtung der seit einiger Zeit wahrgenommenen Erderschütterungen,” in Wochentliche Königsbergischen Frag- und Anzeigungs-Nachrichten (1756), #15 (Apr 10) and #16 (Apr 17). [Ak. 1:465-72] “Further Consideration of the Terrestrial Convulsions that have been Perceived for Some Time.” Physical Monadology [index] [top] Metaphysicae cum geometrica iunctae usus in philosophia naturali, cuius specimen I. continet monadologiam physicam (Königsberg: Hartung, 1756), 16 pp. [Ak. 1:475-87] “The Employment in Natural Philosophy of Metaphysics combined with Geometry, of which Sample One Contains the Physical Monadology.” Translated by Lewis White Beck in Kant’s Latin Writings, 2nd ed. (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), pp. 92-106. Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 51-66. Presented to the philosophy faculty at the university at Königsberg on 23 March 1756 as partial fulfilment of the requirements to become an associate professor. This was the occasion for Kant's second public Latin defense, which took place on April 10th and is briefly described in the Professors pages. Neue Anmerkungen zur Erläuterung der Theorie der Winde (Königsberg: Johann Friedrich Driest, 1756), 12 pp. [Ak. 1:491-503] “New Remarks towards the Elucidation of the Theory of Winds, whereby he at the same time offers an invitation to his lectures. Königsberg, the 25th of April, 1756.” Lecture announcement for SS 1756. 1757 Entwurf und Ankündigung eines Collegii der physischen Geographie nebst dem Anhange einer kurzen Betrachtung über die Frage: Ob die Westwinde in unsern Gegenden darum feucht seien, weil sie über ein großes Meer streichen (Königsberg: Johann Friedrich Driest, 1757), 8 pp. [Ak. 2:3-12] “Outline and Announcement of a Course of Lectures on Physical Geography, to which is Appended a Brief Consideration of the Question, Whether the West Winds in our Regions are Humid because they pass over a Large Sea.” Lecture announcement for SS 1757. This essay primarily concerns Kant's lectures on physical geography, which he will give for the second time this semester: a preliminary discussion of the subject (pp. 3-4), a short sketch of the physical geography lectures (pp. 4-9), a brief paragraph noting the other lectures on offer that semester (pp. 9-10), and then the discussion of the winds (pp. 10-12). 1758 Neuer Lehrbegriff der Bewegung und Ruhe und der damit verknüpften Folgerungen in den ersten Gründen der Naturwissenschaft (Königsberg: Johann Friedrich Driest, 1758), 8 pp. [Ak. 2:15-25] “New Theory of Motion and Rest, and the connected Consequences in the First Principles of the Natural Sciences, whereby he also announces his lectures for this semester, the 1st of April, 1758.” Lecture announcement for SS 1758. 1759 Versuch einiger Betrachtungen über den Optimismus von M. Immanuel Kant, wodurch er zugleich seine Vorlesungen auf das bevorstehende halbe Jahr ankündigt. Den 7. October 1759 (Königsberg: Johann Friedrich Driest, 1759), 8 pp. [Ak. 2:29-35] “An Attempt at Some Reflections on Optimism by Immanuel Kant, also containing an announcement of his lectures for the coming semester. 7th October 1759.” Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 67-83. Lecture announcement for WS 1759/60. This essay began as a response to the Prussian Academy of Science prize essay question (announced for 1755); its publication occured one day after the habilitation defense of a new lecturer, Daniel Weymann [bio], a follower of Crusius, who thought Kant’s defense of Leibnizian optimism was directed at himself. Weymann promptly published a rejoinder that Kant chose to ignore (see Kant’s letter to Lindner, 28 October 1759, and Kuehn’s discussion of the affair [2001, 122-4]). Borowski [1912, 29] reports that Kant, in his later years, wished for this essay to be suppressed — perhaps, as Nauen [1992] suggests, because it made Kant sound too much like a Spinozist. 1760 Gedanken bei dem frühzeitigen Ableben des Herrn Johann Friedrich von Funk, in einem Sendschreiben an seine Mutter (Königsberg: Johann Friedrich Driest, 1760), 8 pp. [Ak. 2:39-44] “Thoughts on the Premature Death of Mr. Johann Friedrich von Funk.” Borowski [1912, 29-30], in the annotated catalog of Kant’s publications included in his 1804 biography, suggests that this brief memorial piece for Funk (whom Borowski knew well) was written at the request of Funk’s Hofmeister, in the belief that Kant’s words would help console the grieving mother. 1762 Die falsche Spitzfindigkeit der vier syllogistischen Figuren erwiesen (Königsberg: Johann Jakob Kanter, 1762), 35 pp. [Ak. 2:47-61] “The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Demonstrated by M. Immanuel Kant.” Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 89-105. Lecture announcement for WS 1762/63. 1763 The Only Possible Argument [index] [top] Der einzig mögliche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des Daseins Gottes (Königsberg: Johann Jakob Kanter, 1763), xiv, 205 pp. [Ak. 2:65-163] “The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God.” Translated, and with an introduction, by Gordon Treash (Abaris, 1979; repr. Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1994). Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 111-201. This bears a “1763” publication date, but was in fact published mid-December of 1762, as suggested by Hamann's letter of 21 December 1762, which notes that the work had “just left the press” [Walford 1992, lvii, lix]. Kant argues here that the existence of God is prior to God’s and the world’s possibilility; predication presupposes some prior thing to be predicated, but what exists prior to any and all conditions is “pure existence” (i.e., God). Negative Magnitudes [index] [top] Versuch den Begriff der negativen Größen in die Weltweisheit einzuführen (Königsberg: Johann Jakob Kanter, 1763), viii, 72 pp. [Ak. 2:167-204] “Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitudes into Philosophy.” Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 207-41. Submitted to the academic censor on June 3, 1763, “along with an appendix containing a hydrodynamic exercise” (as qtd. in Walford/Meerbote 1992, lxi). The appendix has been lost. Criticizes Wolff’s theory of judgment for obscuring the real and conceptual orders (collapsing causality into a subject/predicate analytic relation). 1764 Beautiful and Sublime [index] [top] Beobachtungen über das Gefühl des Schönen und Erhabenen (Königsberg: Johann Jakob Kanter, 1764), 110 pp. [Ak. 2:207-56] “Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime.” Translated by John T. Goldthwait (Univ Cal. Press, 1991), 126 pp. Translated by Paul Guyer in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 23-62]. Completed by 8 October 1763, the submission date to the philosophy dean for censoring, Kant wrote this during the summer recess at a house in Moditten owned by his friend Wobser, a forester. Kant's own copy was interleaved, and the remarks that he made here in 1764-65 can be found at Ak. 20:3-192, and in the more useful edition by Rischmüller [1991]; a selection of these remarks have been translated into English and included in Guyer et al. [2005, 3-24]. Maladies of the Mind [index] [top] “Versuch über die Krankheiten des Kopfes,” in Königsbergsche Gelehrte und Politische Zeitungen, ##4-8, 13-27 February 1764. [Ak. 2:259-71] “Essay on the Maladies of the Mind.” Translated by Holly Wilson in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 65-77]. Borowski [1912, 31], Adickes [1893], and Warda [1919] also list an item appearing in the previous issue of the KGPZ (#3; Feb. 10): “Ueber den Abenteurer Jan Pawlikowicz Zdomozyrskich Komarnicki,” about which Borowski offers the following: “This concerns a half-crazed fanatic [halbverrückten Schwärmer] who at that time lived in the vicinity of Königsberg — a cheerful youth traveling about with a herd of goats — who was always reciting Bible passages, especially from the prophets, for which reason he was called the ‘Goat-Prophet’ by the crowd of gaping onlookers. This person was the principal occasion for [Kant’s “Essay on the Maladies of the Mind”].” Borowski appears to reprint this text as Appendix I of his Kant biography [1912, 95-96]; here we are given more details of the man, who we learn was accompanied by an eight-year-old boy, all described by Hamann (the editor of the newspaper), and followed by a paragraph of text from Kant, who viewed the child as a kind of noble savage. “This fanatic is in fact deranged from a supposed immediate inspiration, and a great familiarity, with the powers of heaven. Human nature knows no more dangerous illusion.” [Ak. 2:267] [Dieser ist eigentlich ein Verrückter von einer vermeinten unmittelbaren Eingebung und einer großen Vertraulichkeit mit den Mächten des Himmels. Die menschliche Nature kennt kein gefährlicheres Blendwerk.] “Rezension von Silberschlags Schrift: Theorie der am 23. Juli 1762 erschienenen Feuerkugel,” in Königsbergsche Gelehrte und Politische Zeitungen, #23, 23 March 1764. [Ak. 8:449-50; 2nd ed (1912): 2:272d-e] “Review of Silberschlag’s Writing: Theory of the Fireball that Appeared on July 23, 1762.” “Untersuchung über die Deutlichkeit der Grundsätze der natürlichen Theologie und der Moral,” in Abhandlung über die Evidenz in metaphysischen Wissenschaften (Berlin: Haude and Spener, 1764), pp. 67-99. [Ak. 2:275-301] “Inquiry concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality.” Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 247-75. Written in 1762 in response to the question proposed by the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlin for the year 1763. Kant’s second-place essay — which opposed Wolffian rationalism by claiming that the methods of mathematics and philosophy were wholly different — was published by the Academy alongside Moses Mendelssohn’s winning Wolffian essay. Following their translation of Kant’s essay, Walford and Meerbote also translate a 1763 summary of Mendelssohn’s essay (Ibid., pp. 276-86). The Academy question was “whether the metaphysical truths in general, and the first principles of natural theology and morality in particular, admit of distinct proofs to the same degree as geometrical truths; and if they are not capable of such proofs, one wishes to know what the genuine nature of their certainty is, to what degree the said certainty can be brought, and whether this degree is sufficient for complete conviction” (as qtd. in Walford/Meerbote, p. lxii). 1765 “Nachricht von der Einrichtung seiner Vorlesungen in dem Winterhalbenjahre von 1765-1766.” (Königsberg: Johann Jakob Kanter, 1765), 16 pp. [Ak. 2:305-13] “Announcement of the Programme of his Lectures for the Winter Semester 1765-1766.” Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 291-300. Lecture announcement for WS 1765/66. 1766 Dreams of a Spirit-Seer [index] [top] (anon.) Träume eines Geistersehers, erläutert durch Träume der Metaphysik (Königsberg: Johann Jakob Kanter, 1766), 128 pp. [Ak. 2:317-73] Published anonymously. “Dreams of a Spirit-Seer Elucidated by Dreams of Metaphysics.” Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 305-59. The publisher Kanter submitted the published book to the university censor on 31 January 1766.[1] The work appeared anonymously, although Kant did not keep his authorship a secret, sending copies to Moses Mendelssohn and others in Berlin. Mendelssohn responded negatively to the writing (in a no longer extant letter), and Kant’s reply of 8 April 1766 (#37, Ak. 10:69-73; English translation in Zweig 1999, 89-92) offers helpful insights into his own understanding of that work. Walford [1992, lxviii] notes that, apart from the above printing, which is considered the most reliable, this work was also printed twice more in 1766 by Johann Fridrich Hartknoch (Riga and Mitau). [1] This led Kanter being fined 10 rthl., since he had failed to submit the written manuscript for censoring prior to it being printed, as required. In his appeal to the Academic Senate, Kanter noted the difficulties of submitting a written manuscript, since it was nearly illegible, and because it had been sent to him (from Goldap, where Kant was vacationing), sheet by sheet, for typesetting, such that the work, in its present form, hardly existed until after it was printed [Dietzsch 2003, 91, quoting from the minutes]. Kant thus appears to have finished this work during Christmas break — which usually lasted the month of December — on the estate of Daniel Friedrivh von Lossow [Ibid.]. 1768 Directions in Space [index] [top] “Von dem ersten Grunde des Unterschieds der Gegenden im Raume,” in Wochentliche Königsbergische Frag- und Anzeigungs-Nachrichten, ##6-8 (1768). [Ak. 2:377-83] “Concerning the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Directions in Space.” Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 365-72. 1770 Inaugural Dissertation [index] [top] De mundi sensibilis atque intelligibilis forma et principiis (Königsberg: Johann Jakob Kanter, 1770), 38 pp. [Ak. 2:387-419] “On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and the Intelligible World.” Translated by Lewis White Beck in Kant’s Latin Writings, 2nd ed. (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), pp. 121-57. Translated by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote (from G. B. Kerferd’s translation) in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 377-416. This was Kant's third (and final) public Latin defense, which took place on 21 August 1770, his so-called disputatio pro loco, the public defense of an essay made upon assuming a new professorship; see the brief description in the Professors pages. In this work, Kant criticizes Leibniz and Wolff for failing to separate sensibility from the intellect. Making this separation suggests the existence of two worlds (phenomenal and noumenal), avoids certain antinomies, and secures a foundation for mathematics by viewing space and time as forms of sensible intuition. 1771 Review of Moscati [index] [top] (anon.) “Rezension zu Peter Moscati, Von dem körperlichen wesentlichen Unterschiede zwischen der Struktur der Tiere und Menschen,” in Königsbergsche Gelehrte und Politische Zeitungen, #67, pp. 265-6 (23 August 1771). [Ak. 2:423-25] “Review of Moscati’s Book: On the Essential Bodily Difference in the Structure of Animals and Human Beings.” Translated by Günter Zöller in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 79-81]. This is a review of Johann Beckmann’s translation from the Italian into the German (Göttingen, 1771), 100 pp. Moscati (1739-1824) [some sources give 1736 as his birth year] was born and died in Milan. He was a surgeon and politician, and from 1763-1772 a professor of anatomy at Pavia. His book was published as Delle corporee differenze essenziali che passano fra la struttura de' bruti, e la umana (Milan, 1770). 1775 Races of Mankind [index] [top] Von den verschiedenen Racen der Menschen, zur Ankündigung der Vorlesungen der physischen Geographie im Sommerhalbjahr 1775 (Königsberg: Hartung, 1775), 12 pp. [Ak. 2:429-43] “On the Different Races of Humankind, and to announce the lectures on physical geography for the summer semester 1775.” Translated by J. M . Mikkelsen in The Idea of Race, edited by R. Bernasconi and T. Lott (Indianapolis: Hackett Publ., 2000), pp. 8-22. Translated by Holly Wilson and Günter Zöller in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 84-97]. A lecture announcement for SS 1775, and the last that we have from Kant. An amplified version of this essay was printed in J. J. Engel, Philosoph für die Welt (Leipzig, 1777), ii.125-64; the additions are included in the Academy Edition, and the later version serves as the basis of the Mikkelsen translation. 1776-77 Philanthropin Essays [index] [top] (anon.) “Zwei Aufsätze, betreffend das Basedow’sche Philanthropin.” in Königsbergsche Gelehrte und Politische Zeitungen, 28 March 1776 and 27 March 1777. [Ak. 2:447-52] Published anonymously. “Essays Concerning the Phlanthropin.” Translated by Robert Louden in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 100-104]. See also Kant’s letter of 28 March 1776 to Christian Heinrich Wolke, the director of the Philanthropin school in Dessau (#109, Ak. 10:191-94)[1] — Kant enclosed a copy of his KGPZ article with the letter — and Kant’s letter of 19 June 1776 to Johann Bernhard Basedow, who founded the school (#110, Ak. 10:194-95). The following spring, near the publication of the second essay, we find Kant still working on the school's behalf in correspondence with Friedrich Wilhelm Regge (22 March 1777, #114; Ak. 10:201) and Joachim Heinrich Campe (two letters: 26 August 177, #121, Ak. 10:214, and 31 October 1777, #122, Ak. 10:216). Given the urgency Kant felt to finish the Critique of Pure Reason, the amount of time he devoted to the support of this experimental school is quite remarkable. [1] See also a second letter to Wolke, dated 4 August 1778 (#138, Ak. 10:236), written shortly after a letter to Wilhelm Crichton (29 July 1778, #136, Ak. 10:234). Crichton (1732-1805) was a local pastor and editor at Kanter’s KGPZ. 1777 Sensory Illusion [index] [top] “Concerning Sensory Illusion and Poetic Fiction.” [Ak. 15:903-35] This was an untitled Latin commentary provided at the inaugural dissertation (the disputatio pro loco) of the new professor of poetry, Johann Gottlieb Kreutzfeld [bio], on 28 February 1777. Kant wrote this on his bound, interleaved copy of Kreutzfeld’s published disputation: Dissertatio philologico poetica de principiis fictionum generalioribus (Königsberg, 1777), 26 pp. Kant’s text was first published by Arthur Warda in Altpreussische Monatsschrift, 47 (1910), 662-70. Translated into German by Bernhard Adolf Schmidt and published in Kant-Studien 16 (1911), 5-21. Translated into English by Ralf Meerbote in Lewis White Beck, editor, Kant’s Latin Writings (Peter Lang, 1992), pp. 169-83. 1781 Critique of Pure Reason [index] [top] Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Riga: J. F. Hartknoch, 1781), 856 pp. 2nd (B) ed: 1787. [A-edition (Ak. 4:5-252); B-edition (Ak. 3:2-552)]. “Critique of Pure Reason.” Translated by Norman Kemp Smith (Macmillan 1929). Translated by Werner Pluhar (Indianapolis: Hackett 1996). Translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood in Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (Cambridge University Press, 1997). “In the current Easter book fair there will appear a book of mine, entitled Critique of Pure Reason [...] This book contains the result of all the varied investigations that start from the concepts we debated together under the heading mundi sensibilis and mundi intelligibilis.” — thus begins Kant’s letter to Marcus Herz from 1 May 1781 (Ak. 10:266). Kant’s own copy of this book was housed at the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Königsberg, before being lost in 1945. Fortunately Kant’s marginalia had already been printed at Ak. 23:17-50, as well as in Erdmann [1881]; they are also included in the Guyer/Wood translation. 1782 Lambert’s Letters [index] [top] “Anzeige von Joh. Bernoullis Ausgabe des Lambertischen Briefwechsels,” in Königsbergsche Gelehrte und Politische Zeitungen, #10, 4 February 1782. [Ak. 8:3-4] “A Notice of Johann Bernoulli’s Edition of Lambert’s Correspondence.” Johann Bernoulli’s (1744-1807) edition of the Lambert correspondence appeared between 1782 and 1785. He had visited Königsberg in 1778 (June 29-July 2), making Kant’s acquaintance at that time. [more] Bernoulli's letters to Kant have gone missing, but we have two letters from Kant: 16 November 1781 (#172, Ak. 10:276-78) and 22 February 1782 (#174, Ak. 10:280-81). In the former, Kant apologizes for not being able to locate (or have saved) some of his correspondence with Lambert; in the latter, he thanks Bernoulli for the volume of correspondence, and mentions the above notice that he had published. See also Kant’s letter to G. C. Reccard [bio] (7 June 1781; #167, Ak. 10:270-71). Report to Physicians [index] [top] “Nachricht an Ärzte” in Königsbergsche Gelehrte und Politische Zeitungen, #31, 18 April 1782. [Ak. 8:6-8] “Report to Physicians.” Translated by Günter Zöller in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 106]. This concerns the influenza epidemic of 1782, and consists of a reprint of an article by a Dr. John Fothergill, originally printed in Gentleman’s Magazine (February 1776) and translated into German, with an introductory paragraph by Kant. Kant was interested in the physico-geographical aspects of this illness, how it was able to spread around the globe by means of ships and trade caravans. Kant’s colleague, the professor of medicine J. D. Metzger [bio], published a work on this epidemic: Beytrag zur Geschichte der Frühlings-Epidemie im Jahr 1782 (Königsberg & Leipzig, 1782). 1783 Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysic, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können (Riga: F. J. Hartknoch, 1783), 222 pp. [Ak. 4:255-383] “Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics that will be able to present itself as a Science.” Translated by Lewis White Beck (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1950). Translated by James Ellington (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1977). Translated by Gary Hatfield in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, edited by Henry Allison and Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 51-169. Review of Schulz [index] [top] “Rezension von Schulz, Versuch einer Anleitung zur Sittenlehre für alle Menschen, ohne Unterschied der Religion, nebst einem Anhange von den Todesstrafen,” in Räsonnirendes Bücherverzeichnis (Königsberg: Hartung, 1783), pp. 97-100.[1] [Ak. 8:10-14] “Review of Johann Heinrich Schulz’s Essay on the Moral Instruction of all Humans, regardless of their Religion.” Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 7-10. Johann Heinrich (“Pony-tail Schulz”) Schulz [bio] was a Lutheran pastor arguing against human freedom. His book was published anonymously. [1] Warda [1919, 30] reads: “Raisonnirendes / Verzeichniß neuer Bücher. / No. VII. / April 1783. / 8°.” 1784 Universal History [index] [top] “Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (November, 1784), pp. 385-411. [Ak. 8:17-31] “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose.” Translated by Ted Humphrey in Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), pp. 29-39. Translated by Allen W. Wood in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 108-120]. “Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (December, 1784), pp. 481-94. [Ak. 8:35-42] “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” Translated by Ted Humphrey in Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), pp. 41-46. Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 17-22. J. F. Zöllner [bio] published an article in the December 1783 issue of the Berlinische Monatsschrift in which he opposed the institution of civil marriage — an idea suggested in an article anonymously written by the journal’s editor, J. E. Biester [bio], for the previous September issue and which claimed that tying marriage to religion was contrary to Enlightenment ideals. Zöllner countered that marriage was too important an institution for this and required a stability that only religion could provide. The very foundations of morality were being shaken, Zöllner wrote, and we should rethink our steps before “confusing the hearts and minds of the people in the name of Enlightenment” — at which point he asked in a footnote: “What is enlightenment? This question, which is nearly as important as ‘What is truth?’ should be answered before one begins to enlighten.” Zöllner’s question led to a series of essays appearing in the Berlinische Monatsschrift and elsewhere, most famously Kant’s (Dec. 1784). An essay by Moses Mendelssohn (“On the Question: What is Enlightenment?”) was first delivered as a speech (16 May 1784) before the “Wednesday Society” to which he, Zöllner, Biester, and other leading figures of the Berlin Enlightenment belonged. 1785 Review of Herder 1 [index] [top] (anon.) “Rezension zu Johann Gottfried Herder, Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit (Erster Teil)” in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, #4, 6 January 1785, pp. 17-22 + Appendix to #4, pp. 21-22. [Ak. 8:43-66] “Review of Herder, Ideas on the Philosophy of Human History.” Translated by H. B. Nisbet in Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, edited by Hans Reiss, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 201-20. Translated by Allen W. Wood in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 124-42]. Christian Gottfried Schütz [bio] wrote to Kant on 10 July 1784 (#233; Ak. 10:392-94), inviting him to contribute to a new journal that he was planning, and hoping that Kant might begin with a review of Herder’s Ideen; Kant agreed, and his review appeared in the journal’s inaugural issue. Schütz wrote again on 18 February 1785: “You have probably seen a copy of your review of Herder [bio] by now. Everyone who has read it with impartial eyes thinks it a masterpiece of precision and — are you suprised? — many readers recognized that you must be the author. I can tell you that this review, since it came out in the trial issue of the journal, has certainly accounted for much of the favorable response to the A.L.Z.. They say that Herr Herder is very sensitive to the review. A young convert by the name of Reinhold [bio] who is staying in Wieland’s house in Weimar and who has already sounded an abominable fanfare in the Merkur about Herder’s piece intends to publish a refutation of your review in the February issue of that journal.” Review of Herder 2 [index] [top] (anon.) “Errinerungen des Rezensenten der Herderschen Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit über ein im Februar des Teutschen Merkur gegen diese Rezension gerichtetes Schreiben” in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, Appendix to the March issue (2 pp., unpaginated). See the note to Herder 1, above. The essay countering Kant’s earlier review of Herder was published anonymously in the Teutschen Merkur. K. L. Reinhold [bio] later claimed responsibility for the essay (in a letter to Kant, 12 October 1787; #305, Ak. 10:497-500), although Kant was already aware of Reinhold’s identity from Schütz’s letter (as quoted above). Review of Herder 3 [index] [top] (anon.) “Rezension zu Johann Gottfried Herder, Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit (Zweiter Teil)” in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, #271, 15 November 1785, pp. 153-56. See the note to Herder 1, above. This is Kant’s review of Part Two of Herder’s Ideen. Kant declined to review Part Three when it appeared, since he was needing time to begin work on “the foundation of the critique of taste“ (letter to Schütz, 25 June 1787; #300, Ak. 10:489-90). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1785), xiv, 128 pp.; 2nd edition: 1786. [Ak. 4:387-463] “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.” Translated by Lewis White Beck, Immanuel Kant: Critique of Practical Reason and Other Writings in Moral Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949). Translated by James Ellington (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1981). Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 43-108. “Über die Vulkane im Monde,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (March, 1785), pp. 199-213. [Ak. 8:69-76] “On the Volcanoes on the Moon.” This and the following essay were sent to J. E. Biester [bio] with a letter dated 31 December 1784 (#236; Ak. 10:397). Counterfeiting Books [index] [top] “Von der Unrechtmäßigkeit des Büchernachdrucks,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (May, 1785), pp. 403-17. [Ak. 8:79-87] “On the Wrongfulness of Unauthorized Publication of Books.” Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 29-35. “Bestimmung des Begriffs einer Menschenrasse,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (November, 1785), pp. 390-417. [Ak. 8:91-106] “Determination of the Concept of a Human Race.” Translated by Holly Wilson and Günter Zöller in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 145-59]. |
1786 Conjectural Beginning [index] [top] “Mutmaßlicher Anfang der Menschengeschichte,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (January, 1786), pp.1-27. [Ak. 8:109-23] “Conjectural Beginning of Human History.” Translated by Ted Humphrey in Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), pp. 49-59. Translated by H. B. Nisbet in Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, edited by Hans Reiss, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 221-34. Translated by Allen W. Wood in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 163-75]. Metaphysical Foundations [index] [top] Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaften (Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1786), xxiv, 158 pp. (2nd printing: 1787; 3rd printing: 1800). [Ak. 4:467-565] “Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.” Translated by James W. Ellington in Immanuel Kant, Philosophy of Material Nature (Indianapolis: Hackett Publ., 1985). Translated by Michael Friedman in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, edited by Henry Allison and Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 171-270. Kant reports finishing this in the summer of 1785 (letter to C. G. Schütz, 13 Sep 1785; #243, Ak. 10:405-7). Review of Hufeland [index] [top] “Rezension von Gottlieb Hufeland, Versuch über den Grundsatz des Naturrechts,” in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, #92, 18 April 1786, cols. 113-16. [Ak. 8:127-30] “Review of Gottlieb Hufeland’s Essay on the Principle of Natural Right.” Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 115-17. Gottlieb Hufeland [bio] was at the time a young lecturer in law and moral philosophy at Jena. Orientation in Thinking [index] [top] “Was heißt: sich im Denken orientieren?” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (October 1786), pp. 304-30. [Ak. 8:133-47] “What does it mean to orient oneself in thinking?” Translated by H. B. Nisbet in Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, edited by Hans Reiss, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 237-49. Translated by Allen W. Wood in Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, edited and translated by Allen W. Wood and George di Giovanni (Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 7-18. This was Kant’s long awaited entry into the Pantheismusstreit between Jacobi and Mendelssohn. Both sides had anticipated Kant’s defense, and he disappointed them both by rejecting Jacobi’s sentimentalist faith (“leap of faith”) as well as Mendelssohn’s rationalist faith (as exemplified in his Morgenstunden, in which proofs of God’s existence were defended as successful – a form of dogmatism), viewing them both as leading to fanaticism. The proper function of reason was to free concepts from contradictions and to defend the “maxims of sound reason” from the “sophistical attacks of speculations.” Remarks on Jakob [index] [top] “Einige Bemerkungen” on Ludwig Heinrich Jakob, Prüfung der Mendelssohnschen Morgenstunden (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1786), pp. li-lx. [Ak. 8:151-5] “Some Remarks on L. H. Jakob’s Examination of Mendelssohn’s Morgenstunden.” Translated by Günter Zöller in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 17881-62]. Jakob [bio] taught philosophy at Halle. Kant’s remarks were printed as a preface to Jakob’s book. 1787 Critique of Pure Reason (2nd edition) [index] [top] See entry for the 1st edition. 1788 Critique of Practical Reason [index] [top] Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1788), 292 pp. [Ak. 5:1-164] “Critique of Practical Reason.” Translated by Lewis White Beck, Immanuel Kant: Critique of Practical Reason and Other Writings in Moral Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949). Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 139-271. Kant sent the manuscript to the printers (Grünert, in Halle) in summer 1787 (letter to C. G. Schütz, 25 June 1787: “I intend to send it to Halle for printing next week” (Ak. 10:490); letter to L. H. Jakob, 11 September 1787: “My Critique of Practical Reason is at Grunert’s now” (Ak. 10:494). Originally given to Wasianski as a gift, Kant’s own copy of this book is available in Halle (at the university archive). Kant’s marginalia are recorded in the “Lesarten” printed in Ak. 5, and a complete set of facsimilies of this copy is available at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences website. Teleological Principles [index] [top] “Über den Gebrauch teleologischer Principien in der Philosophie” in Teutscher Merkur (January and February 1788), pp. 36-52, 123-36. [Ak. 8:157-84] “On the Use of Teleological Principles in Philosophy.” Translated by Günter Zöller in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 195-218]. Kant completed this essay in December 1787, having sent it with a letter to K. L. Reinhold [bio] (28/31 December 1787; #313, Ak. 10:513-16), who was helping his father in law, C. M. Wieland [bio], edit the Teutsche Merkur. As Kant explained in that letter, the essay had a double occasion and purpose: (1) to acknowledge the accuracy of Reinhold’s “Letters on the Kantian Philosophy” and (2) to respond to various criticisms raised by Georg Forster [bio] (in the Teutschen Merkur, October and November, 1786, pp. 57-86, 150-66) against Kant’s “Concept of Race” (1785) and “Conjectural Beginning” (1786). Reinhold had asked, in a letter introducting himself to Kant, for such an acknowledgement (12 October 1787; #305, Ak. 10:497-500). Philosophers’ Medicine [index] [top] “On Philosophers’ Medicine of the Body” (“De medicina corporis, quae philosophorum est”), published posthumously in Johannes Reicke, “Kant’s Rede ‘De medicina corporis, quae philosophorum est’,” Altpreussische Monatsschrift, 18 (1881), pp. 293-300, and published separately as Immanuel Kant, Rede de medicina corporis, quae philosophorum est (Königsberg: Beyer, 1881), 19 pp. [Ak. 15:939-53] “On Philosophers’ Medicine of the Body.” Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Kant’s Latin Writings: Translations, Commentaries, and Notes, edited by Lewis White Beck (New York: Peter Lang Publ., 1986), pp. 228-43, and in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 184-91]. Dating is uncertain; the text was given as an address at the completion of a term as the university rector, a role that Kant filled twice [more]: SS 1786 and SS 1788, so the address would have been given either 10 Oct. 1786 or 4 Oct. 1788. Gregor precedes her translation with an excellent introduction (pp. 217-27). “Kraus’ Recension von Ulrich’s Eleutheriologie,” in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, #100, cols. 177-84, 1788. [Ak. 8:453-60] “Kraus’s Review of Ulrich’s Eleutheriologie.” Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 125-31. C. J. Kraus [bio] wrote this review of Ulrich’s [bio] book at Kant’s request and with his input. The history of this review, and Kant’s connection with it, is discussed in Stark [1987b, 171-3]. Three years earlier Ulrich had sent Kant a copy of his Insitutiones logicae et metaphysicae (Jena, 1785), and C. G. Schütz, editor of the A.L.Z., hoped that Kant would review it and, if not Kant, then perhaps his colleague Johann Schultz [bio]. Schultz published his review 13 December 1785. 1789 First Introduction [index] [top] “Erste Fassung der Einleitung in die Kritik der Urteilskraft.” [Ak. 20:195-251] “First Introduction to the Critique of the Power of Judgment.” Translated by James Haden (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965). Translated by Werner S. Pluhar in his translation Critique of Judgment (Indianapolis: Hackett Publ., 1987), pp. 385-441. Translated by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews in Immanuel Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment, edited by Paul Guyer (Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 3-51. 1790 Critique of the Power of Judgment [index] [top] Kritik der Urteilskraft (Berlin and Libau: Lagarde and Friederich, 1790), lviii, 476 pp. (2nd ed. 1793) [Ak. 5:165-486] “Critique of the Power of Judgment.” Translated by Werner S. Pluhar, Critique of Judgment (Indianapolis: Hackett Publ., 1987). Translated by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews Immanuel Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment, edited by Paul Guyer (Cambridge University Press, 2000). Kant claims to have completed the manuscript for this work in mid-September 1789, and he began sending sections to the Berlin publisher beginning 21 January 1790, with the final installment (the preface and introduction) sent March 22. Lagarde was able to have copies printed for the Leipzig book fair at the end of April. This was the only book Kant published with Lagarde. On a Discovery (Against Eberhard) [index] [top] Über eine Entdeckung, nach der alle neue Kritik der reinen Vernunft durch eine ältere entbehrlich gemacht werden soll (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1790), 126 pp. [Ak. 8:187-251] “On a Discovery, according to which any new Critique of Pure Reason is made Dispensable through an Older.” Translated by Henry E. Allison in The Kant-Eberhard Controversy (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973) and in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, edited by Henry Allison and Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 283-336. This is Kant’s reply to the Wolffian philosopher J. A. Eberhard [bio] who, among other things, argued that Wolff had already explained the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments. K. L. Reinhold [bio] and August Rehberg [bio] had been defending Kant in the pages of the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, and hoped for Kant’s assistance in countering Eberhard’s attacks. See especially Kant’s long letters to Reinhold of May 12 and May 19, 1789 (#359, Ak. 11:33-39; #360, Ak. 11:40-48). See Beiser [1987, 217-25] and Allison’s introduction to his translation (op cit.). Illegitimate Edition [index] [top] “Über die Ankündigung einer (unrechtsmäßigen) Ausgabe von I. Kants kleinen Schriften.” in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, Intelligenzblatt, #71, col. 572, 12 June 1790. [Ak. 12:359] “On the Announcement of an (illegitimate) Edition of I. Kant’s Minor Writings.” (anon.) “Über den Hang zur Schwärmerei und die Mittel dagegen,” in Ludwig Ernst Borowski, Cagliostro, einer der merkwürdigsten Abentheurer unsres Jahrhunderts. Seine Geschichte, nebst Raisonnement über ihn und den schwärmerischen Unfug unsrer Zeit überhaupt (Königsberg: Gottlieb Lebrecht Hartung, 1790), pp. 160-62.[1] [Ak. 11:141-43] Published anonymously. “On the Propensity to Fanaticism and the Means to Oppose it.” Translated by Arnulf Zweig in Immanuel Kant, Correspondence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 337-39. Borowski’s book (2nd ed.), along with the few pages by Kant, are reprinted in Kiefer [1991, 332-455]. Borowski writes: “Not a single collector of Kant’s writings has spied out this remarkable essay” [1912, 38n1]. He had solicited it from Kant in a letter of 6 March 1790 [#410, Ak. 11:140], and then published it immediately thereafter, his preface to the book bearing the date March 22, 1790. Borowski issued a 2nd edition of this work the following month (preface dated April 15), with Kant’s essay now appearing at pp. 186-89. Both editions were printed anonymously, as was Kant’s contribution.[2] Borowski reprinted the essay as Appendix III of his Kant biography, now with full acknowledgement of the authorship, of course, and under the title: “Ueber Schwärmerei und die Mittel dagegen” (this essay was omitted in the 1912 edition of the biography). Borowski thanked Kant in a letter of 22 March 1790 [#413, Ak. 11:144]: “With all due humility am I sending to you here the last three sheets of the Cagliostro, along with the title page and preface. From page 159, I let you speak, without identifying you. Thanks, a thousand thanks, most worthy patron and teacher!, for the brief yet powerful words that you spoke against this affair of the fanatic.” In a biographical sketch of Borowski, Zweig [1999, 567] claims that Kant’s essay appeared as a newspaper article, but I have found no confirmation of this. [1] Warda [1919] gives the page run as pp. 160-64 for the 1st edition, and pp. 186-89 for the 2nd edition (also published in 1790).; the corresponding note in the Academy edition of Kant’s correspondence gives pp. 160-62, and for the 2nd ed., pp. 186-89 [Ak. 13:262]. [2] Borowski introduces Kant’s essay with these words: “While writing these pages, I asked a philosopher — known and honored throughout Europe — for his opinion of this wide-spread fanaticism [schwärmerische Wesen] and of the means to oppose it, and here is his explanation: [...].” Given the Königsberg publication of this book, the identity of the philosopher “known and honored throughout Europe” would have been obvious to any reader. 1791 “Über das Misslingen aller philosophischen Versuche in der Theodicee,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (September 1791), pp. 194-225. [Ak. 8:255-71] “On the miscarriage of all philosophical trials in theodicy.” Translated by Georg di Giovanni in Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, edited and translated by Allen W. Wood and George di Giovanni (Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 24-37. 1792 “Über das radikale Böse in der menschlichen Natur” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (April 1792), pp. 323-84. “On Radical Evil in Human Nature.” This is the first part (of four) of what would become Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (1793). Kant had planned on publishing all four parts in Biester’s journal, but the second essay was stopped by Hermann Daniel Hermes [bio] (the Berlin censor working under Wöllner). “Über den Verfasser des Versuchs einer Kritik aller Offenbarung,” in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, Intelligenzblatt, #102, col. 848 (22 August 1792). [Ak. 12:359-60] “On the Author of the Essay Toward a Critique of All Revelation.” The notice is dated “31 July 1792” and concerns the authorship of Versuch einer Critik aller Offenbarung (Königsberg: Hartung, 1792), 182 pp., which had been published anonymously.[1] Because the reading public was expecting a work on religion from Kant’s pen, it assumed Kant to be the author of this essay, something Fichte [bio] had written in the space of six weeks while visiting Königsberg, and with the hope of favorably impressing Kant.[2] Kant’s notice here, proclaiming Fichte as the rightful author and praising the book, gave Fichte’s career a fine boost. But see also his declaration against Fichte [see] published seven years later. [1] As noted in the J. G. Fichte Gesamtausgabe, there were actually four variant publications, all but one of which omitted Fichte’s name. [2] Kant was impressed enough to help Fichte get the book published with Hartung, although he admitted to Borowski at the time that he had read only up to page eight. What especially boosted the book’s publicity was the glowing praise it received from Gottlob Hufeland, in a review he published in the Allgemeine Literature-Zeitung (##191-92, 18 July 1792), written under the belief that Kant was book’s author. 1793 Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1793), xx, 296 pp.; 2nd enlarged edition: 1794 (xxviii, 314 pp). [Ak. 6:1-202] “Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason.” Translated by Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson as Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (New York: Harper & Row, 1960). Translated by George di Giovanni in Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, edited and translated by Allen W. Wood and George di Giovanni (Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 57-215. The preface is dated ‘6 January 1794’, but Kant sent the manuscript to the theology faculty in Königsberg in late August 1792 for their decision on how it should be censored: “three philosophical essays which, along with the essay in the Berlin Monatsschrift, make up a whole work” [#526, Ak. 11:358]. The essay already published was Kant’s “Radical Evil” (1792). “An die Herren Buchhändler” in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, Intelligenzblatt, #61, cols. 595-96, 22 June 1793. [Ak. 12:360] “To the Bookdealers.” Kant’s letter to the ALZ is dated June 6. Progress in Metaphysics [index] [top] Welches sind die wirklichen Fortschritte, die die Metaphysik seit Leibnitzens und Wolf’s Zeiten in Deutschland gemacht hat? Edited by Friedrich Theodor Rink and published with the additional title prefixed to the above: Immanuel Kant über die von der Königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin für das Jahr 1791 ausgesetzte Preisfrage: (Königsberg: Goebbels and Unzer, 1804). [Ak. 20:257-332] “What Real Progress Has Metaphysics Made in Germany since the Time of Leibniz and Wolff?” Translated by Ted Humphrey (New York: Abaris Books, 1983). Translated by Peter Heath in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, edited by Henry Allison and Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 351-424. Composed in 1793 in answer to a Prize Essay question posed by the Berlin Academy, but not submitted and left unpublished. It was published postumously by Rink in April 1804. Theory and Practice [index] [top] “Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (September 1793), pp. 201-84. [Ak. 8:275-313] “On the Common Saying: ‘That may be correct in theory, but it is of no use in practice’.” Translated by Ted Humphrey in Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), pp. 61-89. Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 279-309. 1794 Influence of the Moon [index] [top] “Etwas über den Einfluß des Mondes auf die Witterung,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (May 1794), pp. 392-407. [Ak. 8:317-24] “On the Influence of the Moon on the Weather.” The End of All Things [index] [top] “Das Ende aller Dinge,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (June 1794), pp. 495-522. [Ak. 8:327-39] “The End of All Things.”Translated by Ted Humphrey in Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), pp. 93-103. Translated by Allen W. Wood in Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, edited and translated by Allen W. Wood and George di Giovanni (Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 221-31. 1795 Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1795), 104 pp. 2nd expanded edition (Königsberg: Nicolovius, 1796), 112 pp. [Ak. 8:343-86] “Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Project.” Translated by Ted Humphrey in Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), pp. 107-39. Translated by H. B. Nisbet in Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, edited by Hans Reiss, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 93-130. Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 317-51. Written in approval of the signing of the Treaty of Basel, which promised the survival of the French Revolution. 1796 “Von einem neuerdings erhobenen vornehmen Ton in der Philosophie,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (May 1796), pp. 387-426. [Ak. 8:389-406] “On a New Superior Tone in Philosophy.” Translated by Peter Fenves, Raising the Tone of Philosophy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), pp. 51-72. Translated by Peter Heath as “On a recently prominent tone of superiority in philosophy” in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, edited by Henry Allison and Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 431-45. This and the “Announcement of the Near Conclusion of a Treaty for Eternal Peace in Philosophy” form a pair of essays: the first is a satirical discussion of Johann Georg Schlosser and Count Friedrich Leopold zu Stolberg, and the mystical Platonism that they were peddling; the second is a reply to Schlosser public response to the first essay (see Fenves [1993] and Allison/Heath [2002]). “Bemerkungen zu Sömmering’s Über das Organ der Seele,” printed in Samuel Thomas Sömmering, Über das Organ der Seele, nebst einen Schreiben von Imm. Kant (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1796), pp. 81-86. [Ak. 12:30-5, appendix to a letter to Sömmering, Aug. 10, 1795] “Remarks on Sömmering’s On the Organ of the Soul.” Translated by Arnulf Zweig in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 222-26]. Soemmerring (also: Sömmering) [bio] was Europe’s leading neuroanatomist, and living in Frankfurt am Main at the time of his correspondence with Kant. He had invited Kant to write a response to his work Über das Organ der Seele, which Soemmerring then included as an afterward, writing that it was “an amplification and refinement” of his own ideas. Mathematical Conflict [index] [top] “Ausgleichung eines auf Mißverstand beruhenden mathematischen Streits,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (October 1796), pp. 368-70. [Ak. 8:409-10] “Settlement of a Mathematical Controversy which is Resting on a Misunderstanding.” Translated by Peter Heath in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, edited by Henry Allison and Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 449. This one-page note is a response to Johann Albert Heinrich Reimarus (1729-1814), who published a criticism of a comment made by Kant (concerning Pythagorean triangles) in his essay “On a recently prominent tone of superiority in philosophy” — all occuring in the pages of Biester’s Berlinische Monatsschrift. (Reimarus owned a set of student notes from Kant’s anthropology lectures [more].) “Verkündigung des nahen Abschlusses eines Traktats zum ewigen Frieden in der Philosophie,” in Berlinische Monatsschrift (December 1796), pp. 485-504. [Ak. 8:413-22] “Announcement of the Near Conclusion of a Treaty for Eternal Peace in Philosophy.” Translated by Peter Fenves, Raising the Tone of Philosophy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), pp. 83-93. Translated by Peter Heath in Immanuel Kant, Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, edited by Henry Allison and Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 453-60. (See the note to New Tone, above.) Although published in the December 1796 issue of the Berlinische Monatsschrift, this issue didn’t actually appear until July 1797 (cf. Ak. 8:515). 1797 Metaphysics of Morals [index] [top] Die Metaphysik der Sitten in zwei Teilen (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1797); 2nd edition: 1798. [Ak. 6:205-355, 373-493] “The Metaphysics of Morals.” Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 365-603. The two parts were published separately (in January and August, respectively): Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre (235 pp) and Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre (190 pp). The following year, apart from a scarcely altered second edition of the Rechtslehre (which does, however, include an appendix that replies to Bouterwek’s review of the Rechtslehre that appeared 18 Feb 1797) Kant also published: Erläuternde Anmerkungen zu den metaphysischen Anfangsgründen der Rechtslehre (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1798), 31 pp. [Ak. 6:356-72]. “Explanatory Notes on the Metaphysical Foundations of the Doctrine of Right.” The Rechtslehre suffered from some textual corruptions at the printers [Mautner 1981]; a reconstruction of the text has been attempted in Bern Ludwig’s recent edition (Hamburg: Meiner Verlag, 1986). Hippel’s Authorship [index] [top] “Erklärung wegen der von Hippel’schen Autorschaft,” in Allgemeiner Litterarischer Anzeiger, #2, cols. 15-16 (5 January 1797). [Ak. 12:360-61] “Declaration regarding Hippel’s Authorship.” The notice is dated “6 December 1796.” Against Schlettwein [index] [top] “Erklärung gegen Schlettwein,” in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, Intelligenzblatt, #74, col. 616 (14 June 1797). [Ak. 12:367-68] “Declaration against Schlettwein.” Translated by Arnulf Zweig in Immanuel Kant, Correspondence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 510-11. Johann August Schlettwein [bio], in a letter dated “Greifswald, 11 May 1797,” challenged Kant to an exchange of letters, in which he hoped to overthrow Kant’s entire philosophy. Kant responded in his letter dated 29 May 1797 and published in the ALZ, June 14 issue (as listed above). Schlettwein then wrote a second letter, dated June 4 (Ak. 12:368-70). J. E. Biester [bio], in the September 13 (1797) issue of his Berlinische Blätter, reprinted Schlettwein’s first letter (pp. 329-40; Ak. 12:362-66) and Kant’s reply (pp. 350-52; Ak. 12:367-68), as well as his own prefatory remarks (pp. 321-29) in which he roundly criticizes Schlettwein and his tactics — all under the title: “Neue Art literatischer Herausforderung.” In the November 5th issue (pp. 146-53) of the Blätter, Biester then printed Schlettwein’s second letter (with Biester’s prefatory remarks). Among other correspondence mentioning Schlettwein, see especially Kant’s letter to Johann Schultz (9 January 1798; #795, Ak. 12:231-32), whom Kant had named as the ablest interpreter of the Critical Philosophy. What is yet unclear is the fashion in which Schlettwein’s letters were first made public, since Kant makes his “open declaration” against Schlettwein only because of the publicity of Schlettwein’s letter — and all this happened, of course, before Biester reprinted the letters in September. Zweig [1999, 511, 609] claims that Kant is replying to an “open letter” from Schlettwein, but then gives only the publication by Biester, which occured after Kant’s own letter. Biester’s own prefatory remarks suggest that Kant supplied him with Schlettwein’s letter. “Über ein vermeintes Recht, aus Menschenliebe zu lügen,” in Berlinische Blätter 10. Blatt (6 September 1797), pp. 301-14. [Ak. 8:425-30] “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy.” Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 611-15. The Berlinische Blätter was a periodical published by Johann Erich Biester [bio] and bridged a two-year gap between his Berlinische Monatsschrift, which ceased publication with the December 1796 issue, and Biester’s Neuen Berlinischen Monatsschrift, which began publication in January 1799. 1798 Power of the Mind [index] [top] “Von der Macht des Gemüths durch den blossen Vorsatz seiner krankhaften Gefühle Meister zu seyn,” in Journal der practischen Arzneykunde und Wundarzneykunst (Jena, 1798), vol. 5, pp. 701-51. [Ak. 7:97-116]. “On the Power of the Mind to Master its Morbid Feelings by Sheer Resolution.” Conflict of the Faculties [index] [top] Der Streit der Facultäten, in drey Abschnitten (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1798), xxx, 205 pp. [Ak. 7:5-116] “The Conflict of the Faculties.” Translated by Mary J. Gregor (New York: Abaris Books, 1979). Translated by Mary J. Gregor and Robert Anchor in Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, edited and translated by Allen W. Wood and George di Giovanni (Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 239-327. This book was cobbled together from three essays written before the conception of this volume, and which comprise the three sections of the book: The conflict between the philosophy faculty and the (1) theology [7:17-25], (2) law [7:79-94], and (3) medical [7:97-116] faculties. This third essay was also published separately (see the previous entry: Power of the Mind). Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht abgefaßt (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1798), xiv, 334 pp. 2nd corrected edition: (Königsberg: Nicolovius, 1800), xvi, 332 pp. [Ak. 7:119-333] “Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View.” Translated by Mary J. Gregor (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974). Translated by Victor Lyle Dowdell, revised and edited by Hans Rudnick (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1978). Translated by Robert B. Louden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) and in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 231-429]. 3rd edition, unchanged: (Königsberg: Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1820). 4th edition, with a preface by J. F. Herbart: (Leipzig: Müller, 1833, xx, 332 pp). Unauthorized edition: (Frankfurt & Leipzig, 1799, viii, 356 pp). This consisted of lecture notes from Kant’s popular course on anthropology which he gave every winter semester beginning with 1772/73. Unlike the later publications of Kant's lectures on logic (1800, edited by Jäsche), physical geography (1802, edited by Rink), and education (1803, edited by Rink), Kant prepared this publication himself, based on a manuscript written in his hand (referred to in the literature as H, or the Rostock manuscript (as it is housed in the library at Rostock). See the Anthropology: [lectures] [notes]. Über die Buchmacherei. Zwei Briefe an Herrn Friedrich Nicolai von Immanuel Kant (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1798), 22 pp. [Ak. 8:433-8] “On Turning Out Books. Two Letters to Mr. Friedrich Nicolai from Immanuel Kant.” Translated by Mary J. Gregor in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 623-7. Kant’s target in these open letters is Christoph Friedrich Nicolai (1733-1811), a successful Berlin author and book publisher, friend of Lessing and Mendelssohn, a man of empiricist tastes and a “popular” philosopher, who founded the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek in 1765 and served as its editor for forty years. Reiss [2005] offers a helpful discussion of Kant’s polemic. 1799 “Erklärung in Beziehung auf Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre” in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, Intelligenzblatt, #109, col. 876-78 (28 August 1799). [Ak. 12:370-71] “Declaration Regarding Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre.” Translated by Arnulf Zweig in Immanuel Kant, Correspondence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 559-60. This small piece was the last that Kant published by himself. Having been supportive of Fichte’s [bio] early work (Critique of All Revelation, 1792) [see], he now wished to distance himself from Fichte’s Theory of Science as “a totally indefensible system.” 1800 Preface to Jachmann [index] [top] “Vorrede zu Reinhold Bernhard Jachmann: Prüfung der Kantischen Religionsphilosophie in Hinsicht auf die ihr beigelegte Aehnlichkeit mit dem reinen Mysticismus” (Königsberg, 1800). [Ak. 8:441] “Preface to Reinhold Bernhard Jachmann’s Examination of the Kantian Philosophy of Religion.” Translated by Allen W. Wood in Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, edited and translated by Allen W. Wood and George di Giovanni (Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 333-4. R. B. Jachmann [bio] was a former student and amanuensis [glossary] of Kant’s, and at the time of this current book had already begun work on a biography of Kant, which would appear in 1804 shortly after Kant’s death. Jachmann’s Prüfung der Kantischen Religionsphilosophie was prompted by Kant a few years earlier, who had sent Jachmann a book by Karl Arnold Wilmans (The Similarity of Pure Mysticism with the Religious Doctrine of Kant, 1797), suggesting that Jachmann reply to it (#831, 1798?; Ak. 12:273). In the book, Jachmann rejects Wilman’s claims that the Kantian philosophy of religion is compatible with mysticism and special revelation. Afterword to Mielcke [index] [top] “Nachschrift eines Freundes zu Heilsbergs Vorrede zu Christian Gottlieb Mielckes Littauisch-deutschem und deutsch-littauischem Wörterbuch” (Königsberg: Hartung, 1800). [Ak. 8:445] “Afterword to Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s Lithuanian-German and German-Lithuanian Dictionary.” Translated by Günter Zöller in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 432-33]. Immanuel Kants Logik, ein Handbuch zu Vorlesungen, edited by Gottlob Benjamin Jäsche (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1800), xxiv, 232 pp. [Ak. 9:1-150] “Logic.” Translated by Robert Hartman and Wolfgang Schwartz (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1974). Translated by J. Michael Young in Immanuel Kant: Lectures on Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 521-640. This book was edited, at Kant’s request, by G. B. Jäsche [bio], a one-time student of Kant’s (WS 1791/92 + ?) and briefly a colleague (Fall 1799 until July 1801), although Kant was already retired at the time. This work appears in the Academy edition alongside Kant’s published writings, but more appropriately belongs in the 4th section devoted to student notes from Kant’s classroom; it is based on one or more sets of student notes (possibly Jäsche’s own) [more], also making use of Kant’s annotations in his copy of Meier’s logic textbook (Kant’s “reflections” as printed in the Nachlaß, vol. 16). While Kant authorized this publication, he was not in any way involved in its preparation. 1801 “Nachricht an das Publicum, die bey Vollmer erschienene unrechtmäßige Ausgabe der physischen Geographie von Imm. Kant betreffend” in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, Intelligenzblatt, #120, col. 968 (24 June 1801). [Ak 12:372] “Public Notice regarding the Illegitimate Edition, published by Vollmer, of Imm. Kant’s Physical Geography.” This brief notice was directed against an unauthorized publication of Kant’s physical geography lectures, based on (allegedly) three sets of student notes [more] in Vollmer’s [bio] possession. 1802 Physical Geography [index] [top] Immanuel Kants physische Geographie, edited and in part revised at the author’s request, from his own manuscript, by Friederich Theodor Rink (Königsberg: Göbbels and Unzer, 1802). 1st vol: xvi, 312 pp. 2nd vol: 248 pp. [Ak 9:151-436] “Immanuel Kant’s Physical Geography.” Translated by Ronald Bolin (Indiana University thesis, 1968). Unlike the Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View published by Kant in 1798, which offered an official version of Kant’s popular lectures on anthropology, the Physical Geography published by Rink should be used only with the greatest caution. The Anthropology was based on a manuscript of Kant’s, and much of it agrees with this manuscript verbatim; furthermore, Kant himself saw the work through production. The Physical Geography, on the other hand, suffers from a much cloudier production history. [more] 1803 Über Pädagogik, ed. by Friedrich Theodor Rink (Königsberg: Friederich Nicolovius, 1803), vi, 146 pp. [Ak. 9:439-99] “On Education.” Translated by Annette Churton (London: Kegan Paul, 1899). Translated by Robert Louden in Zöller/Louden, et al. [2007, 437-85]. Despite its tremendous popularity, we know almost nothing of the provenance of the material found in this book — whether Rink [bio] based it on one or more (or his own) sets of student notes, or on Kant’s own notes, or even marginalia in textbooks that Kant used (either Basedow or Bock). No such materials now exist, if they ever did. The only extant student notes from these lectures (if they are student notes)[ | ||||