Kants Anteil an der Drucklegung der ‚Streitschrift gegen Eberhard' (1790, 1791): Eine Fallstudie anhand dreier Briefe von Nicolovius an Gebauer.
The study examines Immanuel Kant's role in the publication process of his work "On a Discovery that All New Critique of Pure Reason Should Be Made Superfluous by an Older One" (1790, 1791) based on three letters from Friedrich Nicolovius to Johann Jacob Gebauer. It highlights Kant's careful manuscri...
| Publicado en: | Editio (09313079) Vol. 39; no. 1; pp. 214 - 231 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
De Gruyter
Sep2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| Sumario: | The study examines Immanuel Kant's role in the publication process of his work "On a Discovery that All New Critique of Pure Reason Should Be Made Superfluous by an Older One" (1790, 1791) based on three letters from Friedrich Nicolovius to Johann Jacob Gebauer. It highlights Kant's careful manuscript preparation, his printing instructions, and subsequent corrections, but shows that despite his efforts, the first edition contained errors that were largely corrected by Gebauer's staff in the second edition. The study questions previous assumptions about Kant's editorial involvement and emphasizes the need for further research into the production history of his works to gain a better understanding of Kant's relationship with publishers and the logistical challenges of book production in the 18th century. This study examines Immanuel Kant's involvement in the publication process of his On a Discovery, whereby Any New Critique of Pure Reason is to be Made Superfluous by an Older One (1790, 1791) based on three letters from Friedrich Nicolovius to Johann Jacob Gebauer. It highlights Kant's meticulous preparation of the manuscript, his instructions for printing, and his post-publication corrections, including a typographical error in Greek. Despite Kant's efforts, the first edition contained errors, some of which were addressed in the second edition, primarily through the work of Gebauer's staff. The study challenges previous assumptions about Kant's editorial involvement, emphasizing his limited role during the printing process. It also underlines the need for further research into the production history of Kant's works. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of Kant's relationship with publishers and the logistical challenges of 18th-century book production. |
|---|