64 Kant: A Biographyleaving services. His studies were more important to him than anything
else. When he was a more senior student, Kant had something of a follow¬
ing among the younger ones. The younger students looked up to him. He
not only tutored them in academic subjects but also influenced them in
other ways. Thus Heilsberg reports that "Kant did not like any frivolities
and even less 'going out on the town,' and he converted his listeners little
by little to the same view." He was a moral force in the lives of others long
before he graduated and began to teach at the university.
Kant had a serious appearance. He did not laugh often. Though he had a
sense of humor, it did not show itself in ways to which other students were
accustomed. He at least appreciated humor in philosophical writers. His
wit was subtler than most of his comrades could appreciate. Furthermore,
he had a deadpan character. Spontaneous laughter or uncontrolled joy did
not seem to be in his nature. This may or may not have been the influence
of his Pietistic education, which would have given him a tendency to sup¬
press such outbursts. The children of God in Königsberg did not engage
in uncontrolled and undisciplined behavior. Even late in his life his humor
was dry, and his jokes were subtle and delivered with a serious demeanor.
Already as a student Kant seemed to favor self-control as one of the highest
virtues.
When he was criticized by someone for not laughing enough, "he ad¬
mitted this shortcoming, and then added that no metaphysician could do the
world as much good as Erasmus of Rotterdam and the famous Montaigne,"
recommending to his friends that they should make especially the latter
"constant reading." He could cite many passages of Montaigne "by heart."^14
That Montaigne was so important to Kant as a student is not insignificant,
but he was hardly alone in this. Many of his contemporaries, like Hamann
and Scheffner, thought equally highly of him. Nor is it surprising that he
continued to praise Montaigne later in his life, although he also found that
Montaigne spoke too much of himself — a fault that Kant did not have.
Kant was not all work and no play. Again Heilsberg:
Playing billiards was his only recreation. Wlömer and I were his constant companions
in this. We had trained ourselves to the highest skill in this game, and we seldom went
home without having won. I paid my French teacher almost entirely from this income.
When no one wanted to play with us any longer because we always won, we entirely
gave up this means of income and chose the game of l'hombre, which Kant played well.
Even in recreation, Kant never lost sight of utilitarian considerations. Play¬
ing was also a way of making money. The Pietists, and especially Schulz,