2io Kant: A Biography
Political Arithmetic for Kanter." But he then confided that Kraus "worked
on something — what it was perhaps neither one of us knew. He became
sick over it because he over-exerted his faculties."^82 This was not the last
reference to Kraus's inability to finish his own work. Later that year Hamann
complains that Kraus, in spite of his great talent, has a "secret, sneaky,
inexplicable something" about him that, "like a dead fly, spoils the best
ointment."^83 He also complained about Kraus's inclination to disorderli-
ness. Given that Hamann was not a paragon of orderliness either, this was
significant.
The context of these remarks is provided by Kraus's wish to participate
in the Prussian Academy's prize essay competition on the sources of the two
original faculties of the soul. Since he "believed that he had the entire work
ready in his head, he thought he could put his thoughts easily to paper. My
credulousness and curiosity caused me to encourage him, since it was en¬
tirely impossible for me to reveal his ideas.... He always pretended to
work on it, and expressed his hope that it would soon be finished. He be¬
came sick over it in body, spirit, and mind."^84 When Hamann looked at his
papers he found nothing, or at least, nothing worthwhile. Herder, whose
work On Knowing and Feeling in the Human Soul was submitted to the com¬
petition, had, of course, a great deal of interest in this subject matter.
Kant, who was working on his Critique of Pure Reason, which dealt with
the same problem, would have been just as interested. He thought highly
of Kraus, even making excuses for him. Thus he wrote to Herz:
A certain misology, which you regret to have noticed in Kraus ... originates, like many
an expression of misanthropy, from the fact that in the former one loves philosophy
and in the latter people, but finds both ungrateful, partly because one expected too
much of them, partly because one is too impatient in awaiting the expected reward
for one's efforts from the two. I also know this sullen mood; but a kind glance from
either of them soon reconciles us with them again and serves to make our attachment
stronger.. ,^85
This is telling not only about Kraus, but also about Kant. By the time he
wrote this, he had been working for at least nine years on the Critique, and
he was impatient himself. Furthermore, he was gradually finding out that
he could expect very little from metaphysics, and in any case much less than
he had hoped for in 1770. Whether the same thing held for people is not so
clear, but it is not unlikely that it did. Kraus must have disappointed Kant
at times, just as he had disappointed Hamann.
Whatever Kraus's problems may have been, Kant continued to take care
of him. He obtained another position for him in the house of the Keyser-