Prologue 11Borowski included, he only allowed himself "to delete and change some
things." What Kant did is therefore better described as a casual rather than
a painstaking revision. Second, Kant did not see two-thirds of the biog¬
raphy at all. The second narrative is especially interesting in this regard.
Its claims must be carefully compared to what we find in the first part, be¬
cause in it Borowski more explicitly interpreted and characterized Kant's
life and character, not restricting himself to the simple account of the facts
and events we encounter in the part that Kant saw. In it, we get more of
the moral of Kant's life story than of the life, which is not to suggest that
we get much of Kant's life in the first part. This moral was informed by
Borowski's own "heartfelt wishes" that Kant had chosen a different life than
he actually had. Borowski wished that Kant
had not just viewed existing religion, and in particular the Christian religion as a need
of the state, or as an institution that should be allowed to exist for the sake of those who
are weak (something that is now even preached from the pulpit), but that he would
have accepted and truly known the firm, wholesome, and happy aspect of Christianity
... that he had not viewed the Bible merely as an acceptable instrument for leading
and educating publicly the common people... that he had not viewed Jesus as the
personified ideal of perfection but as the sufficiently proven messenger and son of
god, the savior of mankind, that he had not, because of his fear of falling into mysti¬
cism, denied the significant value of true pious feelings, that he had participated in the
public cultus and in the sacraments full of the grace of the Lord... that in all this he
had been a shining example to the thousands of his students. How much good he would
have done.^37
Interestingly enough, Borowski's first attempt at a biography of Kant
dates back to the time just before the king's Maßregelung or censure of
Kant's religious views. Though there were already signs of trouble, Borowski
appears not to have been aware of them in 1792. In 1804 he was all too
aware of the problem, and this often interfered with the presumably "quite
simple narrative."
Borowski's own faith stood more in the way of a "faithful and true ac¬
count" than has been commonly realized. His story is more complex than
that of Metzger, but it is informed by similar reservations,, and it is there¬
fore fraught with ambiguities. Indeed, there is evidence that Metzger and
Borowski were friends, and that he therefore wished to avoid criticizing
Metzger. This is regrettable. Borowski's account is mainly important for
information about the years before 1783, and there is no other extensive ac¬
count of that period. He left out much that might be interesting either be¬
cause he did not think it was relevant or because he did not know the facts.