I take it for granted that every person of education
will acknowledge some interest in the personal history
of Immanuel Kant. A great man, though in an unpopular
path, must always be an object of liberal curiosity.
To suppose a reader thoroughly indifferent to Kant,
is to suppose him thoroughly unintellectual; and,
therefore, though in reality he should happen not
to regard him with interest, it is one of the fictions
of courtesy to presume that he does. On this
principle I make no apology to the reader for detaining
him upon a short sketch of Kant’s life and domestic
habits, drawn from the authentic records of his friends
and pupils. It is true, that, without any illiberality
on the part of the public in this country, the works
of Kant are not regarded with the same interest which
has gathered about his name; and this may be
attributed to three causes—first, to the
language in which they are written; secondly, to the
supposed obscurity of the philosophy which they teach,
whether intrinsic or due to Kant’s particular
mode of expounding it; thirdly, to the unpopularity
of all speculative philosophy, no matter how treated,
in a country where the structure and tendency of society
impress upon the whole activities of the nation a direction
exclusively practical. But, whatever may be the
immediate fortunes of his writings, no man of enlightened
curiosity will regard the author himself without something
of a profounder interest. Measured by one test
of power, viz., by the number of books written
directly for or against himself, to say nothing of
those which he has indirectly modified, there is no
philosophic writer whatsoever, if we except Aristotle,
who can pretend to approach Kant in the extent of
the influence which he has exercised over the minds
of men. Such being his claims upon our notice,
I repeat that it is no more than a reasonable act
of respect to the reader—to presume in
him so much interest about Kant as will justify a sketch
of his life.
Immanuel Kant, [Footnote: By the paternal side,
the family of Kant was of Scotch derivation; and hence
it is that the name was written by Kant the father—Cant,
that being a Scotch name, and still to be found in
Scotland. But Immanuel, though he always cherished
his Scotch descent, substituted a K for a C,
in order to adapt it better to the analogies of the
German language.] the second of six children, was
born at Koenigsberg, in Prussia, a city at that time
containing about fifty thousand inhabitants, on the
22d of April, 1724. His parents were people of
humble rank, and not rich even for their own station,
but able (with some assistance from a near relative,
and a trifle in addition from a gentleman, who esteemed
them for their piety and domestic virtues,) to give
their son Immanuel a liberal education. He was
sent when a child to a charity school; and, in the
