Problems with Religion and Politics 333this referred to his altercations with Kant, and perhaps it was just that Kant
brought out the worst in him and that the retreat was a way of saving him¬
self from such troubles.
Neither Kant nor their common friends really knew what irked Kraus.
They made up stories. Someone believed that Kant had refused to take
Kraus's money when he offered to pay his share.^18 Most found the reason
in some disagreement during conversations they had had — and apparently
there had been many. One of their last disputes was on the question of
whether there had ever been a great man who was also a Jew. Kraus is
supposed to have defended the Jews as "a smart (geistreich) and talented
nation," whereas Kant was supposed to have argued that there had never
been a truly great Jewish man. But, as Kraus's biographer has noted, Kraus
never said anything positive about Jews anywhere else and was, in fact,
convinced that Jews could never be good citizens. It is even said that he
had a certain kind of personal antipathy toward Jews he knew. As a good
friend of Hamann, whose anti-Jewish rhetoric certainly comes close to
what some would call anti-Semitism, one would also not expect him to be
too much concerned with defending Jewish honor. Kant, on the other
hand, thought highly of Mendelssohn and had defended him against in¬
sults, and had many Jewish students whom he considered to be talented
and capable. Herz was only the most important of these.^19 If there was
such a dispute, it is more likely that the positions were reversed. In any
case, any such disagreement would not have been the cause of their falling
out, but merely the occasion. The real problem went deeper.
Kant never talked about possible reasons for Kraus's dissatisfaction. He
continued to think highly of him and never said a bad word about him.
Kraus never stated his reasons openly and clearly either, but it appears that
he made a number of veiled comments. Thus he said that he disliked the
long hours of sitting and talking after dinner that were common with Kant.
They took too much time away from his work. It is also clear that Kraus was
increasingly critical of Kant's philosophy. He called it useless and impracti¬
cal, and found it absurd that there should be a "Kantian" philosophy.
Kraus had every reason to feel used by Kant, but Kant probably had no
idea why he might have felt that way. Writing came easily to Kant, and he
believed that Kraus was his friend and ally. Kraus seems never to have had
the courage to face Kant and tell him that he felt used, that he was pres¬
sured into writing things that he did not want to write, and that the long
dinners took away too much time. Instead, they had disputes about other
things that were of less importance to Kraus. Finally, he simply and — at least