Most students of Kant are acquainted with Prof. Erdinann's edition of the text of the Prolegomena published in 1878. In an elaborate Introduction, the editor Bought to establish the view that the treatise in its present form was the result of a twofold " Redaction " on the part of its author, and believed himself able to distinguish the sections to be ascribed •'-each. In consequence of repeated complaints about the difficulty ami obscurity attaching to the mode of writing followed in his chief

more »

... work, Kant, according to this view, resolved, soon after the appearance of the Critique in 1781, to prepare a popular presentation of the main principles of his philosophy. The project, however, was never carried out; apparently not so muoh as a commencement was made. After a few months it was dropped in favour of another scheme, that, namely, of composing a short compendium or abstract of his system, " for the use, not of pupils, but of future teachers ". The fulfilment of this latter design had almost reached completion when the Garve-Feder review of the Critique appeared anonymously in the Go'ttingen Otlehrte Anzeiqen of 19th January, 1782. Then Kant became aware of the extent to which a misconstruction of his philosophical position was possible, and the discovery led to a further ohange of plan with respect to the little volume upon which he was engaged, as also to a corresponding remodelling of the sections he had ready for publication. By the end of August, 1782, the Prolegomena was substantially dritrJcferiig, although it was not given to the public until the middle of the year 1783. Suoh very briefly was Erdmann's theory of the way in which the Prolegomena, as we now have it, came to be written. In editing the text, he printed those passages which he regarded as the later insertions and additions, together with such as appeared to him to have been composed after the change of plan in January, 1782, in smaller type than the rest. The prinoipal sections thus indicated were the whole of the preface, 3, parts of 4 and 6, the three Anmerkungen to 13, 27, 28, 89, 30, 31, 39, and everything after and including 57. Erdmaun's theory gave rise in Germany to a good deal of discussion. It was disputed notably in an able Essay (which appeared originally in the AUpreuuuche Monatttchrifl, xvi., 1, and was afterwards republished separately) by Dr. Emil Arnoldt, who contended that the alleged composite character of the Prolegomenn could not be maintained on the ground either of internal or external evidence. Erdmann did not reply at the time, but after an interval of twenty-five years he has recently had occasion to go into the matter again by reason of the task entrusted to him of editing the Prolegomena for the Berlin Academy edition of Kant's Collected Works. The present monograph contains the result of his renewed investigation. So far as the internal evidence is concerned, the author does not consider it necessary to undertake any fresh examination of the text. With a few minor modifications he adheres to the analysis made by him in 1878. He is here occupied almost exclusively with the external evidenoe, the materials of which have been greatly enriched by the three valuable volumes of Kant's Correspondence which Rudolf Reicke has edited for the Berlin Academy Edition. A further source of information made use of is the Correspondence of Haroann, particularly the letters addressed during the years 1781-1783 to Herder and to Hartknoch, then Kant's publisher. Erdmann does not claim, even now, to be in possession of a conclusive proof, but he is of opinion that the additional material supports and confirms his hypothesis to such a degree 18 19