i6 Kant: A Biographytoday. Some of the perceived shortcomings might even be considered
virtues by later generations, and some of the perceived virtues do not look
so good today. Still other features of Kant that we do not hear about might
raise new and interesting questions about the person and his thought.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to get behind these texts to the historical
Kant, but this does not mean that we should not try. The situation is some¬
what analogous to our situation with regard to Socrates and Jesus, though
perhaps not quite as problematic. There are, after all, texts written by Kant
himself. There is also an extensive Königsberg correspondence, which gives
us glimpses of how Kant was seen during his life. There are also sources
provided by other famous citizens of Königsberg, which allow us to give
more color to Kant's life. Finally, there is Metzger, who generally is just
dismissed as "unreliable." But what can "unreliable" mean here? After all,
even if he did not know the late Kant quite as intimately as did Wasianski,
he did know him. He knew him as a colleague in the university setting,
and he thus knew him in a role that Wasianski did not. Kant affected him
negatively, but that does not mean that his judgment should simply be
discounted. Borowski is not much more reliable than Metzger, or rather,
Borowski has to be treated with the same caution as does Metzger, and in¬
sofar as Jachmann and Wasianski are engaged in "hagiography," they have
to be treated just as carefully.
I must therefore disagree with those who believe that anyone who writes
a biography of Kant must accept the traditional view of the evidence.
Rudolf Maiter summed it up as follows:
The rank order of the evidence that has long been recognized remains valid: besides
the rare autobiographical utterances by Kant and the correspondence which is funda¬
mental for any biography, the three biographies [by Borowski, Jachmann, and Wasian¬
ski] are the main basis for our knowledge about Kant, his life, his personality, and his
interaction with the citizens of Königsberg.^53
Borowski's biography, while important, should not be put into the same
class with the biographies of Jachmann and Wasianski. The correspondence
of Hamann, Herder, Hippel, Scheffner, and others should be considered
a better source than the biographical sketches of Borowski, Jachmann, and
Wasianski. If Borowski's account is inconsistent with sources independent
of the biographical tradition, such as passages from letters from contem¬
poraries of Kant, the independent evidence should be followed. In any
case, if we treat the three official biographies with a healthy dose of skep¬
ticism, a much more colorful and interesting Kant will emerge.