168 Kant: A BiographyKant was upset by the developments. He took the side of the former hus¬
band, said bad things about his Princess, and then found it difficult to visit
her after the divorce and the new marriage. He was emotionally involved.
In the end, he found it easiest to break off all contact, probably forming the
maxim never to enter their house.^97 In the "Remarks," in which women
play a large role, he had already noted: "A woman narrows a man's heart.
The marriage of a friend usually means the loss of a friend."^98
It is not difficult to understand what happened. Maria Charlotta, who
in 1768 was just twenty-eight years old, was married to a fifty-one-year-old
man. Her husband could easily have been her father. Furthermore, Jacobi,
at least by some accounts, was not among the most faithful of husbands
himself. She gradually tired of the marriage. At the same time, Goeschen,
just three years older than she was, attracted her interest. They fell in love
and committed adultery. Instead of trying to hide her unfaithfulness, Maria
Charlotta took matters into her own hands, got a divorce, and then mar¬
ried the man she really loved — not paying much attention to the scandal
that ensued. The resolve with which she acted and the willingness with
which she took risks were remarkable, if not admirable.
Kant, by contrast, who was forty-four and closer in age to her former
husband than to either Goeschen or Maria Charlotta, found the matter
neither remarkable nor admirable. Before her involvement with Goeschen,
Maria Charlotta may have been interested in Kant, but after the affair she
probably held a grudge against him for things he had said about her. Though
he was invited to the Goeschen household many times, he did not go. If we
can believe Jachmann, his reason was loyalty to her divorced husband.^99
Kant found it very difficult to sort out his various emotional attach¬
ments, loyalties, duties of fidelity, gratitude, and non-maleficence than did
the old and new partners in marriage and their other friends. He ultimately
acted in what Hippel considered an indelicate and clumsy manner, decid¬
ing to cut off contact with Maria Charlotta and his closest friends. We can
only imagine what he said and did, and how this affected his friends, since
Hippel never relates to us the comedy in five acts. Still, it is clear that Hip-
pel, who had a great gift of observation, found it worthy of a comedy. One
might regret that he never wrote it, or one might be glad he never did — but
at least one thing is certain: Kant would have been one of the characters at
whose expense we would laugh today. Kant himself recognized that he did
not play an admirable role in the affair. If the good citizens of Königsberg
had been asked to serve as judges of Kant's character during this period,
many would have judged it to be ambiguous.