12 Kant: A BiographyIn any case, it is all too clear what bothered Borowski. He could not ap¬
prove of Kant's religion. Rejecting both his religious theory and his reli¬
gious practice, he had great difficulty in praising Kant. To be sure, he
praised Kant as a moral person, but there was always the religious caveat.
Borowski felt he had to make excuses. His biography thus at times takes
the form of a defense: Kant was nothing like his followers; he really was a
good man. Furthermore, he was nothing like his work; and even his work,
if properly understood, was not as detrimental to the Christian religion
as it may appear. Wherever possible, Borowski emphasized Kant's solid
Pietistic background, making that background and that connection seem
stronger than it was. His account must therefore be checked carefully
against and supplemented by other sources. Fortunately, such sources do
exist, even if they have not received the attention they deserve.
Jachmann, who was in 1804 the principal of a school near Königsberg,
also had approached Kant earlier about a possible biography. Indeed, he
had asked Kant in 1800 to answer fifty-six questions about his life.^38 Kant
had never answered. Why, we do not know. It is interesting, however, that
while Jachmann suggested in the biography that Kant had asked him to
write it, Jachmann's letter, a more trustworthy source, makes clear that it
was he who first approached Kant. He said that he wanted to write his
biography because "the entire world wants your authentic biography and
it will recognize your own contribution to it with the highest gratitude."^39
Jachmann, unlike Borowski, did not have an anti-Kantian ax to grind, and
he is, at least to that extent, more trustworthy than the latter. His own out¬
look was more "liberal" or more "Kantian." This is shown by his Examina¬
tion of the Kantian Philosophy of Religion in Regard to its Alleged Similarity
to Pure Mysticism of 1800, which defended Kant against certain allega¬
tions.^40 Yet Jachmann's allegiance to Kant raises other problems. His bi¬
ography has only good things to say about Kant, and he wrote his account
from the perspective of a student who uncritically adores his teacher. An¬
other problem is that he viewed Kant from a theological perspective: his
emphasis on theology gave a peculiar slant to his account of Kant's life.
Thus, Jachmann claimed that Kant liked to lecture to theologians, and that
he hoped "the bright light of rational religious convictions would spread
throughout his fatherland," adding that Kant "was not deceived because
many apostles went off to teach the gospel (Evangelium) of the kingdom
of reason."^41 Whether Kant had that kind of missionary zeal may very well
be doubted. Jachmann's account, taken by itself, is also of limited value for
a true understanding of Kant's life, and since we can check Jachmann's