Enlightenment ways of publishing and the difficulties they are facing.
With some remarks to the question of the authorship of the text Contemplations on the Foundation of Forces from 1784

The 19^th century, asking about sources and evidence and pursuing its favourite method of researching the past objectively (in the sense of historicism), finds it difficult to handle anonymous publications from earlier centuries. If we do not (really) know by whom a book was written, what are we going to do with it? If there are no sources, such as letters or diaries, which might tell about authorship or might make it plausible, all research remains in the realm of probabilities. Probably this is why quite a large number of pseudonymous or anonymous publications from the centuries between the Renaissance and the 20^th century have been more or less ignored.

In terms of cultural history, the problem is that particularly in the 17^th and 18^th centuries anonymous publishing was widely common; just the same, it was frequently common to not give the real place of publishing and printing. From the second half of the 18^th century on, the number of anonymous publications in Central Europe was considerably growing, (like indeed the total number of publications).[1] On the other hand, we are lucky that for quite some time this so called “clandestine” literature has increasingly been dealt with.[2] Covering such kind of information or indeed one´s own person served for providing one´s own life with a certain degree of protection from the restrictions by authorities and Church. Also, often the authors believed it to be necessary to separate their opinion in the context of a debate from themselves as individuals. Just the same, one liked to publish anonymously if a work showed strong satirical or parodistic features.

Historically, it is perhaps not always possible to become certain about an authorship; but when looking into these works one is indeed provided with hints at who might have written some anonymously published text; we may compare wordings, we may identify typical features of word building, of the syntax, of the train of thought, of the structure. We have to negotiate the plausibility and difficulties of attributions, and probably the search will have to be of a large-scale and comparisons will have to cover very much space. But: clearly these texts WERE written by somebody. It is simply impossible that, just because the originators are dubious, these achievements are ignored instead of being dealt with in even more detail.

The programmatic idea of Enlightenment, to work towards immediately free thinking and acting among wider circles, had at first and foremost to be linked to enabling as many people as possible to get knowledge of the ideas of the Enlighteners. The authors of Enlightenment were quite subversive when it came to presenting the public with their considerations. In my opinion, it is thus basically plausible to assume that they may have written more than generally known (and this indeed anonymously or pseudonymously).

The age of Enlightenment was a time of social and political forces which were extremely contradicting. Some wanted to publish and bring about change, others wanted them to be quiet, others again – pursuing reactionary interests – wrote against these “evil change makers” – in such an arena it was important to have disciples and to support them, so that one day they might follow in one´s footsteps. Clearly enough the authors of Enlightenment wanted their ideas to last longer than their own earthly existence. Thus, if somebody published in cooperation with a disciple, this may well be understood in the sense of an intended closing of ranks. In Kant´s case, this closing of ranks happens with the only stalwarts left to him after the attacks by Fichte, Reinhold and Beck (that is, Friedrich Theodor Rink and Gottlob Benjamin Jäsche), and it happens between 1800 and 1804. The 19^th century then did not know anything better than to identify this with Kant´s alleged intellectual decline. As a matter of fact Kant, seemingly dead, was not even capable of himself taking his text to the print but had to find editors and helpers for his last publications, and as allegedly he was seemingly dead already, of course these texts are not really his but are permeated by the thought of his disciples. Well now – in my opinion this assessment is an absolute blunder, based on assumptions which were never methodically assessed. If for once we have a closer look at the texts by Rink and Jäsche themselves, at least we are going find that their ways of making sentences, of working out formulations as well as the items interesting to them is completely different. As furthermore the front pages of these works explicitly say: `` On demand of the author, based on his manuscript, edited by […]´ or `Immanuel Kant´s Logik´ or `Immanuel Kant´s Pädagogik´ or `Immanuel Kant über die … Preisfrage …´, it is not really comprehensible why these texts are denied to be authentically Kant´s. The faithfulness and friendship those mentioned (Jäsche, but most of all Rink) showed towards their teacher makes it even more improbable that, as disciples and editors, they might have done anything with these works which was not in accordance with Kant´s wishes. Certainly, they took it as their task to copy passages (those the author had pointed out to them as being relevant) from manuscripts or from third-hand records of lectures and to prepare the printing of those books which were published between 1800 and 1804.[3] In my opinion, all statements going beyond this are unfounded. To me it seems that the intentions of interpreters and Kant researchers to present these late works by Kant as failures or at least to hold his disciples accountable for passages with which one does not agree is identical with the desire to judge on Kant´s early works (until c. 1770) as first attempts by somebody who had not yet been philosophically matured, sometimes even: as nonsensical scribblings which were e. g. natural-scientifically untenable (e. g. in the case of Kant researcher Erich Adickes this means: wrong in the sense of the insights gained by the 20^th century).

They should be eliminated, these texts, they do not fit to the beautiful picture of Kant, the philosopher, one has come to stick to over the centuries and one intends to paint first of all by help of criticism.

Thus, if in the centuries of Enlightenment it was common, to protect once existence from the restrictions of censorship, to publish anonymously or pseudonymously, then in my opinion, against the background of the historical fact that Enlightenment thought was massively threatened by the circumstances of the time, there is the question of how, after all, we may define the status of unpublished texts from this age. If texts, due to their topical radicalism, could not be published (in my opinion, in Kant´s case this concerns: Opus postumum), as otherwise one might get into serious trouble with the boards of censors and perhaps would even have to reckon with limitations for life and limb, then we must state in retrospect: it was not the author himself who prevented the publication but this was caused by the power relations of those days. Any publication which did not happen for this reason might – today – be understood in the sense of an intended publication, resulting in revaluating it; if today we do count such texts among those deliberately not published by the author, basically we reproduce the power relations of the past.

If an author handed over passages to a disciple because the latter intended to publish them, and if then, for reasons we do not know today, regrettably such a publication did not happen, we must state in retrospect: it was not the author himself who prevented the publication. Also in this case, not-going-to-the-public is due to other circumstances (Kant: seven essays given to Kiesewetter;[4] at least published in some editions). If an author leaves a text to a disciple, so that the latter will make it into a publication of his own, but if then this publication is not particularly good – then this is based, after all, on the author´s intention to have his ideas made known to the public somehow (Kant: First Introduction Into Critique of the Power of Judgment) (and perhaps they might additionally support this disciple´s career). In both cases sketched here, Kant´s manuscripts have been preserved, and in my opinion in both cases the intention – for which the sources provide evidence – of a disciple publishing a text of his own was supposed to produce the result that the original (preserved as manuscripts) texts would be included into the canon of this author´s works.

Quite generally – since the 19^th century – anonymous publications have a bad reputation. But why is this so? Do the interpreters miss the level of the personal exchange? Is or was it perhaps the problem that, if prudent contributions to debates are made anonymously, one must too much focus on positions as such? After all, the anonymous nature of a publication may well work towards the readers focusing more on the stated idea than on the author´s person, and if this is really the case, we may suggest that this was definitely in line with the intentions of the authors of the age of Enlightenment.

Furthermore, anonymous or pseudonymous texts provide the authors with the possibility of taking up a tongue-in-cheek attitude towards themselves and towards those texts as being published openly. In such a case, one may write something like: `the extraordinarily prudent author of essay xyz´, thus – which is otherwise not really possible – recognizing one´s own achievements while at the same time, however, ironically taking distance from oneself.

Even in his early days Kant published several essays anonymously, however in each of these cases his anonymity was of the kind that soon it became well known to everybody who the author was – such as in the cases of 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 or Dreams of a Spirit-Seer Elucidated by Dreams of Metaphysics – moreover, both these texts include a considerable share of satirical and ironic passages. Apart from these generally known cases, in the following three cases of anonymously or pseudonymously published texts I argue in favour of Kant being the author, because in my opinion there is very good evidence for this position (although as yet this has not been recognized by the research on Kant):

1.

Betrachtungen über das Fundament der Kräfte und die Methoden, welche die Vernunft anwenden kann, darüber zu urtheilen (published anonymously in 1784 by Hartung in Königsberg).

2.

Stimme eines Arktikers über Fichte und sein Verfahren gegen die Kantianer, von D. K. (published pseudonymously, no place or year given, beginning of 1799).

3.

Sinnlichkeit und Verstand oder über die Principien des menschlichen Wissens. Eine Kritik über Herrn Herders Metakritik von einem Wahrheitsfreunde (published anonymously, no place or year given, 1800).[5]

In the following I am going to focus on the short treatise titled Betrachtungen über das Fundament der Kräfte und die Methoden, welche die Vernunft anwenden kann, darüber zu urtheilen (Contemplations on the Foundation of Forces and on the Method which Reason may apply to Judge on it), which was anonymously published in 1784.[6] Since the mid-19th century it is believed to be certain that it was the work of a Mr. von Elditten.[7] It is even said to be incomprehensible that it was ever believed to have been Kantian at all.[8]

Well – in my opinion just the opposite is true. One may ask how this paper could ever be attributed to Mr. von Elditten, and if this attribution is no longer tenable – which is suggested by all the evidence – then no other author will be left except Kant.

Ludwig Ernst von Borowski files Foundation of Forces under texts by Kant in his Kant biography, and indeed in that part which was revised by Kant himself.[9] Some claim that Borowski included Foundation of Forces erroneously.[10] If this was true, also Kant would have erred when revising Borowski´s manuscript. Thus, being fully aware that this was not one of his, he would not have objected to including it into the list. Such an assumption contradicts the carefulness with which Kant made plain several times that he was not the author of texts attributed to him.[11] Accordingly, I believe it to be inappropriate to assume such an error by Kant. Another researcher again misunderstood the bibliographic details and believed that Foundation of Forces had been published in a journal – although it had really been published as a brochure of its own. This error made him take a rejecting attitude towards the text as such.[12]

The answer to the question of who had been the author was finally discovered in letters. Before having a closer look at these sources, we have to become aware of the sequence of certain events. The treatise is published 1784. In autumn, 1785, Kant writes a letter and asks why still no review of this text has been published. He asks this question to the editor of Allgemeine Litteraturzeitung, Christian Gottfried Schütz in Jena. If one assumes that a Mr. von Elditten wrote Foundation of Forces, Kant´s question is at least unusual. Why at all should Kant ask the editing staff of the journal about the publication of the review if the book was written by Mr. von Elditten? As a matter of fact, no review of Foundation of Forces was ever published.

Now, even before the publication of the treatise, that is in summer, 1783, there were some occurrences which can be reconstructed from letters. In the following they are going to be shortly sketched.

1.

Kant and von Elditten corresponded in the summer of 1783. Of von Elditten´s letters, only one has been preserved, Kant´s letters to him are lost.

2.

Von Elditten´s letter does not exactly tell about his request. The letter as such consists of ten sentences in the course of which he holds forth – rather generally and somewhat enthusiastically-intricately, using a number of light metaphors – about the enlightening effect of philosophy. In the final one of the ten sentences, however, he mentions that Kant had promised him to send an answer to a “Sendschreiben” (epistle). In those days, the term <Sendschreiben> referred to a covering letter in the context of sending a packet.

3.

These ten sentences are concluded by the closing – and the latter is followed by a post script. There, von Elditten writes: “If you, Sir, should honour me by sending me an answer, I repeat my respectful request also concerning the permission to place my ideas parallel to yours in your sections”.[13]

4.

In my opinion, the only reasonable interpretation of this passage is this one: it referred to a review in the making. Its author (i. e. von Elditten) intended to structure it as a kind of parallel contraposition to the reviewed text.

5.

Based on this again, it must be concluded a) that von Elditten had received the text he was supposed to review before it was published, and b) that the text to be reviewed had been written by Kant himself.

6.

Two years later, Johann Georg Hamann, another inhabitant of Königsberg, writes to his friend, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, about what had happened. He tells Jacobi that Kant had told him, Hamann, that he, Kant, had “been in correspondence with Mr. von Elditten on his Fundament der Kräfte”. “Being the Dean, he [Kant] had fortunately been in charge of revising this text […]. I was promised to be given the text as such and it belongs to my current collection”.[14]

7.

This letter by Hamann makes a clear distinction between a text and “the text as such”. The “text as such”, which Hamann integrated into his collection, must have been a text by Kant, for to which other collection could he have referred? Mr. Von Elditten did not publish anything else which would have made a collection.

8.

Even one month earlier, in May, 1785, Hamann tells Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi that Kant is “not the author of the short text on the Fundament der Kräfte but a Mr. von Elditten (of Wickerau) whose family I knew well during my childhood”.[15]

9.

Here, “the short text” refers to the review, of which in the early summer of 1785 still everybody thought that it would be published soon. That here the review is called a “short text” is an indication that probably it clearly broke the mould of what was common for a review in those days (and if that was so, this may have been a good reason why it was rejected by the editorial staff of ALZ).

10.

Even in his letter of May, Hamann tells Jacobi that Kant had “not [been] satisfied” but had “cancelled all quotations of his organi”.[16] “Quotations of his organi” is what von Elditten´s request for permission by Kant (1783) referred to, indeed that he intended to quote passages from Kant´s text and to contrapose them to his own considerations. The German verb <kassieren> (lit.: <to cash in>), which is here translated as “to cancel”, in Hamann´s letter means: <to forbid>. Also these few lines by Hamann provide evidence that Kant had to do, in the sense of proof-reading, with the review and that he himself is the author of the book Foundation of Forces.

11.

Accordingly, in the already mentioned letter of September, 1785, Kant then asks Schütz in Jena why the review has still not been published. Kant remarks: “Its author, a Mr. Privy Counsellor von Elditten of Wickerau in Prussia, asked me to ask you for this favour,” – which favour? Well, the favour that von Elditten´s review would be published by ALZ, of course.

12.

Kant goes on: “and if the review may somewhat be in his favour, you are free to give his name.”[17] In those days, reviews were rarely signed in full, but at best the initials were given, however the common practice was to publish reviews anonymously. Thus, if in this case permission was granted – by Kant – to give the full name, clearly this refers to the author of the review.

Conclusion: prior to his anonymous publication Fundament der Kräfte, Kant made sure that a review would be written, and indeed the latter´s author sent it to him. Later he approached the editorial staff of ALZ as this author´s advocate and arbiter, however without success.

The following letters are referred to as sources:

A.

letter by Kant to Schütz,[18] where it says: “As yet, I have not found any review of Betrachtungen über das Fundament der Kräfte. It´s author [i. e.: of the review], a Mr. Privy Counsellor von Elditten of Wickerau in Prussia, asked me to ask you for this favour, and if the review may somewhat be in his favour, you are free to give his name.

I must come to a close now, and I commend myself to your friendship and kindness, your servant etc.“[19]

B.

Letter by von Elditten to Kant, of August 5th, 1783, which starts with these words: „Esquire, Very Erudite, Highly Honoured Professor!“ and concludes this way: “If you, Sir, should honour me by sending me an answer, I repeat my respectful request also concerning the permission to place my ideas parallel to yours in your sections.”[20]

C.

Letter by J. G. Hamann to F. H. Jacobi of Wjit Tuesday, 1785: “Kant pointed me out to this treatise. He is not the author of the short text [i. e.: the review] on Fundament der Kräfte but a Mr. von Elditten (of Wickerau) whose family I knew well during my childhood, and our critic is said to have been dissatisfied and to have cancelled all quotations of his organi,[21] I do not know if as a Censor publicus or privatus of the author. I had a look at these sheets right when they were coming from the press, and I appreciate you to remind me.”

D.

Letter by Hamann to Jacobi of June 2nd, 1785: „Found[22] Kant yesterday, at H. Green´s, a merchant where he spends all his afternoons until 7 o´ clock. He said he had been in correspondence with Mr. von Elditten on his Fundament der Kräfte, who had taken the liberty to insert passages from his letter without having asked for permission. Being the Dean, he [Kant] had fortunately been in charge of revising this text and had forbade this nonsense. I was promised to be given the text as such, and it belongs to my current collection.”[23]

If, for once, one bothers to read this little book Contemplations on the Foundation of Forces, there is no doubt that the result will be that it is absurd to assume that anybody else than Kant would have made the countless genuinely Kantian formulations into a short work. Foundation of Forces strikes a popular-scientific, conversational tone, and it is written in the first person. In my opinion, this may be understood to be a polemic reaction by Kant to the accusations coming from the circle of those authors as considering themselves popular philosophers.[24] In this text there are two allegations to Kant, one to the “superb author of a treatise in Engels Philosoph vor die Welt”, which refers to the essay on Racen,[25] and another one to the “famous author of the prolegomena”.[26] Generally speaking, Kant seldom if ever commented on himself, however by help of rhetoric constructions this way a tongue-in-cheek self-reference becomes possible, of course.

In terms of style, this treatise is different from other texts by Kant. It offers a wealth of alluding references and many natural-scientific examples and experiments. Its topic is the concept of matter, a kind of synopsis of philosophical explanations concerning living nature and of questions of how living and inanimate nature are related to each other, as well as a thus connected critique of Spinoza´s system. Furthermore, it considers to which agency in the world creative forces, change and life might go back. Instead of asking what matter is, one should rather ask if matter is active or passive. For, then it would either be a subject; or we would have to assume an animating principle, such as a kind of world soul. Theories on self-creative powers of matter (La Mettrie) are placed next to theories on plastic natures (Leibniz, Cudworth), and both are referred to nature as the active agency. But must nature be understood to be a subject, an animated being? Towards the end of the text it says: “A fundamental activity, a power in the whole universe, always requires a subject within which it must exist.” On the whole, the text clearly, sometimes satirically, rejects that nature can be understood to be such a subject.

By referring to the persuasiveness of “Dialektick in der Critick der Vernunft”, both theories of the forces (atomists, Newton) and teleological theories are referred to a kind of vitality of matter. Then, a number of questions about the concept of force as well as the power of the ether are discussed, which is discussed as the matter of light, as electric and as thermal matter. This leads to the fundamental force [the concept of which Kant introduced in the First Critique] as the precondition for the possibility and reality of physical phenomena or as a pure concept of reason. This is followed by a passage which, rhetorically, links the dubitatio (“I´d rather leave it to the discretion of a great philosopher instead of daring any concrete statement on this”) to a short summary of his own achievements. The passage concludes by: “How pure natural science is possible, on that I do perfectly agree with the famous author of the Prolegomena on any kind of metaphysics”.

Like historical accounts of races and nations, it says, also number mysticism and the Kabbala are no philosophy of nature. Rather, such a kind of philosophy had to collect data and to make observations, to draw its conclusions from them. Accordingly, it says, matter cannot be monadologically or Platonically defined. The second section of the text deals with Spinoza, among others.[27] What is primarily criticized is doing without concrete descriptions of nature, as it is frequent with metaphysical theories, and concrete examples of physical and chemical experiments are given. Commenting on Spinoza´s ethics fits well into this context, because Spinoza sketches cosmos as natura naturata and, in a way, God as an animating principle (natura naturans). How forces and matter could be imagined together is discussed in the further course. Finally the question is raised: could matter be explained by help of Leibniz´s monades? “I admit that for me the vapor intellectualis of the Stoics, of which they made and nourished their sun, is more comprehensible than matter being animated by monades.”

Foundation of Forces – as far as the function of this text for Kant´s entire work is concerned – prepared the impact of his arguments, one resp. six years later, in Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science and Critique of the Power of Judgement by way of purposeful, critical, provocative and sometimes satirical questioning.

As concerns anonymous publications as a whole, apart from the mentioned treatises there are possibly some more minor contributions by Kant, whose authorship is not certain or which have as yet not been connected to him. In 1757, Kant published the Appendix to Outline and Announcement of a Course of Lectures on Physical Geography (Appendix of a Short Contemplation on the Question whether the West Winds in Our Regions are Humid because They Have Traversed a Great Sea) separately, anonymously in Physikalische Belustigungen, No. 30 (p. 1529-1531), where it is followed by an Addendum (ibid. 1531-1533). This addendum is not attributed to Kant but to Kästner, but perhaps its authorship should be checked again.[28] It is possible that Kant wrote texts on progressive education and on Dessauer Philanthropin Academy which are as yet not counted among the canon of his works. Rudolf Reicke suggests this possibility: “It is well possible that some more works by him with similar educational content were displayed and reviewed; concerning Nachricht von Errichtung des Leiningischen Erziehungshauses, oder dem dritten Philantropin auf dem hochgräflichen Schloße zu Heidesheim im oberrheinischen Kreis in the 15^th piece of the 1777 edition I would even staunchly claim Kant´s authorship”. Reicke adds: “however, I leave them out for being of minor value”.[29] Also, Reicke publishes (ibid. 76-81) a review of Philanthropist which was anonymously published, on August 24^th, 1778, in the same journal as the two essays which are recognized as being Kant´s (these are made certain by letters). Concerning this, Hartenstein denies Kant´s authorship, based on certain stylistic features.[30]

I believe this to be too narrow-minded: if, from the point of view of later generations or of today, Kant is nailed down to a certain style (a dry, strict, boring philosophical style) which is not even to be frequently found in his officially published works, it is easy (however at least methodically wrong) to state on any somewhat humorous, perhaps more satirical text one identifies: this can´t be Kant´s.

Granted, there is at least the case that the Faculty files on Kant´s work Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Quantities into Philosophy record an addendum on “eine hydrodynamische Aufgabe” (a Hydro-Dynamic Task), of which, however, “no particulars are known”, according to Kurd Lasswitz.[31] It is thus definitely possible that texts are missing in the canon of Kant´s works, be it because they are not accepted as being Kant´s, be it because they are lost. At least the carefulness with which Kant took lengths to prevent that the works of others were not attributed to himself does not allow for the reverse that he was as interested in exactly telling about the authorship of all texts written by himself.