380 Kant: A Biographyof the people. He could not have negatively evaluated Christianity because
he had not evaluated Christianity at all. He greatly respected religion, and
he had always been tolerant, that is, he had not intruded on the beliefs
of others. Finally, he wrote: "I believe the surest way, which will obviate
the least suspicion, is for me to declare solemnly, as Your Majesty's loyal sub¬
ject, that I will hereafter refrain altogether from discoursing publicly, in
lectures or writings, on religion, whether natural or revealed."^199 Kant later
made clear that the phrase "as Your Majesty's loyal subject" signaled a men¬
tal reservation. His promise applied only to himself as the subject of "His
Majesty." As soon as "His Majesty" was dead, it no longer applied.
Some have argued that this was dishonest of Kant, that either he should
not have made such a promise at all or he should have kept it. Some have
claimed that when Kant promised to abstain from writing on religious mat¬
ter, he was making a reservatio mentis. But is that fair? Frederick William II
had made it a personal issue. Kant had opposed his paternal will, and he was
to promise not to do it again. He did precisely that, and he kept his word.
Furthermore, Kant did not know that he would survive the king. He had
every reason to believe that he would not.^200 Some have argued that the
whole affair showed cowardice on Kant's part, that he should have stood
up for his rights. Yet apart from being difficult, this would have been in¬
effective. The situation was rather the following: Kant had knowingly pro¬
voked the censors in Berlin, they had been afraid to act, and the king him¬
self had finally been goaded into action. He had shown his true colors, and
that was some sort of success.
Characteristically, Kant withdrew. A more opportune moment might
present itself. Following his Stoic motto, sustine et abstine, he was prepared
to endure and abstain from making comments - at least for a time. The
largely theological essay "On the Progress of Metaphysics" was one of the
things that had to wait.^201
Kant had inflicted damage on Wöllner, for the latter was reprimanded
for his leniency and for not making enough progress against the forces
of rationalism. On April 12,1794, the king had stripped Wöllner of one of
his offices so that he could pay more attention to religious matters. The
king's special order against Kant was a further expression of his dissatis¬
faction with Wöllner. He was to be more zealous in the fight against ra¬
tionalism and for orthodox Christianity (and Rosicrucian ideals). Wöllner
still advised caution, but his more zealous subordinates pushed harder, with
undesirable effects. When a commission came to examine the professors
at Halle for orthodoxy, the students rioted. This riot was probably instigated