Of the twenty-six known sets of logic notes, twelve are extant, with possibly all of one (an-Jäsche) and fragments of five others (Grünheide, Hintz, Hoffmann, Vigilantius, Weisflog) preserved in early publications; finally, brief fragments of the an-Bering notes have been preserved in a handwritten copy, making a total of nineteen sets of notes available to us in whole or in part. Seventeen sets of notes have been published at least in part. Five (and part of a sixth) have been translated into English.
Not all of the logic notes available to us have been printed in the Academy edition. Most significant are an-Warszawa, Bauch, Hechsel — all printed in their entirety in Pinder  — and Volckmann 2, which was lost in the aftermath of World War II and has only recently been recovered. Similarly, a five-page copy of a fragment of Grünheide has recently been found and published [Kowalewski 2000]. Small fragments of Hoffmann and Vigilantius preserved in Erdmann , Arnoldt [1908-9], and Schlapp  were overlooked during the preparation of AA 24 (they have since been reprinted in Hinske  and Hinske ). Finally, a few fragments of Herder have yet to be transcribed and published.
Users of the Academy edition should be aware of the extensive revisions and corrections to the texts available in the publications of the working group at Trier under the leadership of Norbert Hinske, with volumes on an-Jäsche (in terms of the published Jäsche volume [Hinske 1986b]), Blomberg [Hinske 1989-90], an-Wien [Hinske 1999], an-Pölitz [Hinske 1995], with more to come (according to the publisher’s website; cf. the FMDA bibliography). Highly useful for understanding these notes are Stark [1987a], Hinske [1995, xviii-xl], and Pinder .
Kant lectured on logic an estimated 56 times: once each semester from his first semester (WS 1755/56) up to his last semester as a Privatdozent or lecturer (WS 1769/70), with the exception of 1767, and in SS 1770 — his first term as the Professor of Logic and Metaphysics — he appears to have taught two sections of logic (one public, one private). After promotion to full professor, Kant lectured on logic every summer semester until his retirement (SS 1796). (The pre-1770 records are less reliable, and these numbers include those semesters where the course was announced, but where there is no evidence that it actually took place). See the Logic lectures.
Five (or six) sets of notes (Hechsel, an-Pölitz, an-Warszawa, an-Wien, Hoffmann, an-Jäsche?) are related in a complicated and yet to be fully explicated fashion, with at least one source lecture from 1780-82 (with these compiled notes, each textual source will more likely than not have a different source-lecture; in the table below, I indicate the date-range determined so far). An initial understanding of these notes is that they should be divided into their first and second halves (i.e., 1 and 2), given the textual agreements that suggest a common textual source, viz., Hoffmann1 = an-Wien1, Hechsel2 = an-Wien2, an-Pölitz2 = Hoffmann2 — but these are not entirely verbatim agreements and the level of compilation appears to be more complex. The agreement between Hechsel and an-Wien is close enough that in his English translation of a selection of the logic notes, Young  offers the corresponding text from Hechsel to stand-in for the missing text of the last part of an-Wien. An-Warszawa and an-Pölitz share sources in a complicated way; the former includes fragments from a second source inserted throughout, and these fragments parallel closely the content of Hechsel and an-Wien. About 1/4 of the an-Warszawa text is not in an-Pölitz, and about 1/3 of an-Pölitz (a longer set of notes) is not in an-Warszawa.
Four other sets of notes (an-Blomberg, Bauch, Grünheide, Philippi) are closely related with their source lecture in the early 1770s.
This leaves us with the following line-up of nine available sets of notes: Herder (1762-64), the an-Blomberg group (early 1770s), Hintz (1775), the Hechsel group (1780-82), Volckmann (early 1780s), Mrongovius (1784?), Busolt (1789), Dohna-Wundlacken (1792), and Vigilantius (1793).
It should be stressed, however, that the above grouping hides the compositional complexity of these notes. Apart from the difficulties of the Hechsel group, for instance, Adickes noted some sharing of text between Hintz, Bauch, and Grünheide. Most of these notes are clear products of the notebook-copying industry of the day.
 Conrad [1994, 66] claims that 32 semesters are confirmed, with the intention to teach an additional 24 semesters (thus, with a total of 56).
 A useful overview of some of this complexity can be found in Pinder .
The Logic Notes [top]
(1) an-Bering 1
|Berlin||‡||early 1770s||Schlapp*; AA 24:9-301||Young, 5-246|
|NA||‡||Jäsche; AA 9:1-150 (rpt. Jäsche)||Young, 521-640|
(4) an-Pölitz 3.1
|Leipzig||‡||1780-82||Pölitz; AA 28:531-40 (rpt. Pölitz); AA 24:499-602||A/N, 299-306*|
(5) an-Reicke 5
|NA (Kön)||1775? 1791?|
(6) an-Vollmer 4
|Vienna||+||1780-82||AA 24:790-940||Young, 251-377; Bianco|
|Breslau||‡||early 1770s / 1794||Pinder, 3-267|
(10) Busolt 3
(11) Dohna-Schlob. 2
(12) Dohna-Wundl. 3
|Bentheim||‡||1792||Kowalewski 1924; AA 24:689-784 (rpt. Kowalewski)||Young, 431-516|
|NA (Kön)||-||Kowalewski 2000*|
|Helsinki||‡||1780-82||Pinder, 271-499||Young, 381-423*|
(17) Herder 2
|Berlin||-||1762-64||Irmscher; AA 24:3-6, 1099-1100|
|NA (Kön)||-||1775||Schlapp*; AA 24:943-4 (rpt. Schlapp)|
|NA (Kön)||-||1780-82||Erdmann*; Arnoldt*; Schlapp*; AA 24:944-52* (rpt. Schlapp); Hinske 1991 (rpt. Arnoldt/Schlapp), 1995 (rpt. Erdmann)|
(21) Mrongovius 4.3
(22) Philippi 3
|Rostock||‡||1772||Schlapp*; AA 24:305-496*|
(24) Vigilantius 2
|NA (Kön)||-||1793||Arnoldt*; Hinske 1991 (rpt. Arnoldt)|
(25) Volckmann 2
|NA||-||Weisflog*; AA 24:1021-22 (rpt. Weisflog)|
Abbreviations: A: availability [‡ = the set of notes (either as manuscript or in printed form) appears to be complete, + = a large fragment of the original text is still available, - = only a small fragment of the original text is available, (no sign) = none of the original text is available], * = only part of the available text was printed/translated, AA = Akademie-Ausgabe, an = anonymous, Kön = Königsberg, NA () = not available (last known location), rpt. = reprint of, var = published as a variant reading.
Bibliography: A/N: Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Metaphysics, translated and edited by Karl Ameriks and Steve Naragon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Arnoldt: Emil Arnoldt, Kritische Exkurse im Gebiete der Kant-Forschung, 2 parts, reprinted as vols. 4 (1908) and 5 (1909) of Emil Arnoldt, Gesammelte Schriften, edited by Otto Schöndörffer, 11 vols. (Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, 1906-11). Bianco: Immanuel Kant, Logica di Vienna, translated into Italian and edited by Bruno Bianco (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2000). Erdmann: Benno Erdmann, “Rezension von Moritz Steckelmacher, Die formale Logik Kants in ihren Beziehungen zur transcendentalen (Breslau: 1879)” in Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 20 (1880):609-34. Hinske 1991: Norbert Hinske, Personenindex zum Logikcorpus, vol. 14 of the Kant-Index (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 1991). Hinske 1995: Norbert Hinske, Stellenindex und Konkordanz zur “Logik Pölitz,” vol. 6 (parts 1-2) of the Kant-Index (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 1995). Irmscher: Hans Dietrich Irmscher, ed., Immanuel Kant. Aus den Vorlesungen der Jahre 1762 bis 1764.Auf Grund der Nachschriften Johann Gottfried Herders (Köln: Kölner-Universitäts-Verlag, 1964). Jäsche: Gottlieb Benjamin Jäsche, ed., Immanuel Kants Logik, ein Handbuch zu Vorlesungen (Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius, 1800). Kowalewski 1924: Arnold Kowalewski, Die philosophischen Hauptvorlesungen Immanuel Kants. Nach den aufgefundenen Kollegheften des Grafen Heinrich zu Dohna-Wundlacken (München and Leipzig, 1924). Kowalewski 2000: Arnold Kowalewski, Kant-Volksausgabe, Bd. 1. Edited by Sabina Laetitia Kowalewski and Werner Stark as vol. 12 of Kant-Forschungen (Hamburg: Meiner, 2000). Pinder: Tillman Pinder, ed., Immanuel Kant, Logik-Vorlesung, Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften, 2 vols. (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1998). Pölitz: Immanuel Kant, Vorlesungen über Metaphysik, ed. by Karl Pölitz (Erfurt: Kayser, 1821). Schlapp: Otto Schlapp, Kants Lehre vom Genie und die Entstehung der “Kritik der Urteilskraft” (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901). Weisflog: Karl Weisflog, Phantasiestücke und Historien, 2nd ed., 12 vols. (Dresden/Leipzig: In der Arnoldschen Buchhandlung, 1839). Young: Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Logic, translated and edited by J. Michael Young (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
Benno Erdmann  had access to Hoffmann, which he refers to simply as “the logic notes from the summer of 1782 belonging to the Königsberg university library” [p. 617].
Emil Arnoldt [1908-9] included brief passages from Hoffmann and Vigilantius 2.
Max Heinze  studied an-Pölitz 3.1, and found many verbatim and near-verbatim passages with the published Jäsche notes [pp. 502-4].
Otto Schlapp  had access to five sets of student notes on logic (and included selections in his book): an-Blomberg [pp. 49-60], Philippi [pp. 61-103], Hintz [pp. 103-6], Hoffmann (preserved as variants of Hintz), and an-Jäsche (as printed by Jäsche) [pp. 216-41]. Hinske [1995, xxiv-xxv] has shown that Schlapp’s transcribed selections are inaccurate (reliable as to meaning, but of little use for determining the lineage of the various sets of notes).
Arnold Kowalewski [1924; 1944-45; 2000] published Dohna-Wundlacken 3, along with Dohna’s notes on Anthropology and Metaphysics , and transcribed a fragment of Grünheide for a planned popular edition of Kant’s writings, the first volume of which was completed, but left unpublished, due to the war (finally published in 2000).
Erich Adickes had access to eight sets of notes: Bauch, an-Blomberg, Busolt 3, Grünheide, Hintz, Hoffmann, Philippi, Volckmann 2 (Refl. #3480, AA 16:863). Adickes found that Hintz agrees more or less verbatim with Bauch and Grünheide, while in other passages Bauch is verbatim with Philippi. An-Blomberg matches some passages with Hintz/Bauch/Grünheide [1911a, 44]. Adickes made use of these when editing the logic reflections [1914; AA 16].
Kant taught logic more than any other subject (nearly every semester until 1770, and every summer semester thereafter), and the text he taught from (either always or almost always) was Georg Friedrich Meier’s Auszug aus der Vernunftlehre (Halle: Johann Justinus Gebauer, 1752). [logic lectures] Kant’s copy of this text is extant [online], and his many annotations can be found in vol. 16 of the Academy edition. This book consists of 563 sections. The following table is drawn from Young , who also supplies a concordance in English of Meier, Kant’s reflections in vol. 16, and the Jäsche logic as printed in vol. 9 of the Academy edition [1992, 655-60].
Introduction to the doctrine of reason (§§1-9)
I. Of Learned Cognition (§§10-413)
(1) Of learned cognition in general (§§10-40).
(2) Of the extensiveness of learned cognition (§§41-65).
(3) Of the quantity of learned cognition (§§66-91).
(4) Of the truth of learned cognition (§§92-114).
(5) Of the clarity of learned cognition (§§115-54).
(6) Of the certainty of learned cognition (§§115-215).
(7) Of practical learned cognition (§§216-48).
(8) Of learned concepts (§§249-91).
(9) Of learned judgments (§§292-352).
(10) Of learned inferences of reason (§§353-413).
II. Of the Method of Learned Cognition (§§414-38)
III. Of Learned Exposition (§§439-26)
IV. Of the Character of a Learned Man (§§527-63)
The evidence for these notes is circumstantial, and is presented in Stark . Johann Bering [bio], a young professor of philosophy at Marburg and early promoter of Kant’s philosophy, had written marginalia into his copy of Ulrich’s Insitutiones logicae et metaphysicae (1789), a textbook that he used in his logic and metaphysics lectures (beginning in WS 1787/87). Some of these match passages in other sets of logic notes (such as an-Warszawa), and have no corresponding passage in Kant’s published writings. Ulrich [bio] was a professor at Jena.
(1) Ms: Lost.
(1) Copy: Universitäts-Bibliothek Marburg (XIV C 217). Very brief fragments written as marginalia into Bering's copy of J. A. H. Ulrich's Institutiones Logicae et metaphysicae scholae suae scripsit (Jena: Cröker, 1785).
Logik Blomberg (Lehmann, AA 24).
Hardbound, quarto (16 x 20.5 cm), two-volumes, 1030 pp. (listed at the Ak-Archive as pp. 1-430 [but there are actually 432 pp. of text] and pp. 431-1050). Title-page: “Collegium / des / HErren Professors Kant / über / Meyers = Auszug / aus / der Vernunft = Lehre / nachgeschrieben von” [addition by another hand:] “H. U. v. Blomberg”. The page below this (bottom 4.5 cm) is cut away. There is a wide, creased outer 4.5 cm. margin, but no marginalia. Paginated to p. 1015, but not correctly. The paper is ribbed; the ink is uniformly of a dark brown, and the handwriting is large. Catchwords are used throughout. Pagination by the copyist begins with the first page of text; there are various pagination errors. Pagination by the library begins on p. 1017.
Hermann Ulrich von Blomberg (1745-1813) was a contemporary of Herder’s, matriculating April 22, 1761, and leaving the university by 1764. Kant was lecturing on logic that summer semester when he arrived (classes had begun a few weeks earlier, on April 6). The notes, however, have been dated to the early 1770s on the basis of references in the text; consequently, Blomberg could not have completed these notes as a student, and he may not have been involved in their production at all, instead acquiring them after he had left the university. The manuscript was owned at the turn of the century by Hofrath Diederichs of Mitau (written in pencil on a slip of paper tucked inside the cover: “Hofrath Diederichs in Mitau, Peterstr. 10”): “H. Diederichs / 1875” is written in the top-right corner of the 2nd endpaper. On the left side (thus, the backside of the first endpaper) Diedrichs wrote the following biographical note on Blomberg (in black ink): “Hermann Ulrich Freiherr von Blomberg / geb. 1745 10. März 1745 zu Zohden in / Kurland, studierte zu Königsberg (imma- / trikuliert 17 [sic] April 1761 vgl. Mitteilungen / aus der livländischen Geschichte XVI S. 438 / Nr. 1438) 1780-1807 Landrat des / Piltenschen Kreises, 1804-1807 Präsi- / dent des Piltenschen Landratcolle- / giums in Hasenpoth † 20 März / 1813 Erbherr auf Sergemiden in Kurland.” See Lehmann [1966; AA 24:976-7]. Young [1992, xxv] inadvertently gives Blomberg’s name as “Heinrich.”
 Erler [1911-12, ii.479]: (22 Apr 1761) “Blomberg de Hermann. Ulric., eq. Curon.”.
(1) Mss: Berlin, Ak-Archiv (NL-Kant 24 & 25).
(1) Schlapp [1901, 49-60]. Fragments.
(2) Lehmann [1966; AA 24:16-301].
(3) Young [1992, 5-246]. Translation into English of AA 2-246, making corrections based on the manuscript and on Hinske’s [1989, lxvi-lxxx] lists of corrections of the Academy edition.
Lehmann [AA 24:977] follows Schlapp’s date of 1771. A quotation from Kant’s Inaugural Dissertation (1770) as well as mention of other works published as late as 1770 set the terminus a quo, although these references could have been added by a later copyist or belonged to a later set of notes that were included in an-Blomberg. Several mentions of Crusius (who died October 18, 1775) refer to him in the present tense [AA 24:37, 82], suggesting SS 1775 as a terminus ante quem. Hinske’s statistical analysis of the text also yields a date from the early 1770s [Hinske 1989-90, xxvi].
The notes are fairly complete and polished, written in full sentences, and following the Meier text closely (with numbered sections corresponding to Meier’s paragraphs). Adickes [1911a, 43-44] discovered that the last part of Blomberg (II.776-838) is almost verbatim with the discussion in Philippi 3 of Meier, §§185-206 (see also Conrad [1994, 58]). See Hinske and Reinhardt’s “Introduction” to vol. 3 of the Kant-Index [1989-90, xx] and the table comparing these two manuscripts [lxxxii]. Lehmann noted that they shared, in part, some common set of notes [Lehmann, 1967, 148], but does not mention this in his introductory material to the Academy edition.
Jäsche began his studies in Königsberg beginning WS 1791/92, attending Kant’s lectures on anthropology and metaphysics (and eventually the logic lectures, one would think, although there is circumstantial evidence that he did not). Jäsche returned to Königsberg in February 1799 and habilitated that year, eventually leaving July 1801. Since spring 1802 he was professor of philosophy at the newly founded university at Dorpat (now Tartu). Jäsche had received a large number of manuscripts from Kant, including letters, and took all of this with him to Dorpat.
Jäsche [1800, v-vi; AA 9:3-4] claims to have re-constructed his text from the various notes that Kant wrote in his interleaved copy of Meier’s Auszüge — the “Reflections on logic” now published in vol. 16 of the Academy edition. Erdmann  came across the Hoffmann notes, compared them with the published Jäsche volume, and concluded that Jäsche had used Kant’s reflections “only as a control” [1880, 618] and had based his volume primarily on student notes, both his own and those by Hoffmann [1880, 617]. Erdmann was partly wrong about Jäsche’s use of Kant’s reflections, many of which do in fact appear in the Jäsche Logic, but he was correct in concluding that one or more sets of student notes were also incorporated, although Schlapp [1901, 21-22] thought Erdmann was likely mistaken in pegging Hoffmann as the relevant set of notes, pointing out several important differences between the two. Schlapp did conclude, however, that “the content of Jäsche [...] and Hoffmann agree so closely that we are justified to assume that a large part of the text stems from about the same time” Heinze [1894, 567-68] compared passages from the Jäsche Logic and an-Pölitz — they are similar, with some verbatim agreement suggestive of a common source — and in his preface to the Academy edition of the Logic, Heinze wrote of Hoffmann and an-Pölitz that “Jäsche must have made considerable use of these notes or some very similar, perhaps only one.” Adickes [1911a, 34n] suggests that one of the sets of notes used by Jäsche is a copy of an ancestor to an-Pölitz 3.1, given the verbatim agreements noted by Heinze. Hinske [1995, xiii-xiv] also notes the relevance that an-Pölitz has for the published Jäsche Logic.
For criticisms of Jäsche’s Logic, see Stark [1987a, 126-27], Boswell , and Conrad [1994, 62-5].
 It is unclear how long Jäsche stayed in Königsberg, but there is good reason to believe he was there only for the winter semester. It is doubtful that he attended Kant’s logic lectures as otherwise he would have mentioned it in his preface to the Logic (given his interest in legitimizing his project). At the same time, the logic lectures, held every summer semester, would have been an obvious course for Jäsche to attend. Heinze offers a contrary opinion in his introduction to the Jäsche logic in the Academy edition, where he assumes that Jäsche remained in Königsberg during the remainder of Kant’s lecturing activity and claims that it “is scarcely believable” for him not to have attended Kant’s logic lectures, suggesting that Jäsche would have taken notes which he then used for his publication [AA 9:504].
In general, it appears that Jäsche discussed this project very little with Kant. One striking error about the course is found on the first page of the “Preface” where Jäsche writes that Kant was using G. F. Meier’s logic textbook “since 1765” [AA 9:3]. We know, however, that Kant was using Meier from the very beginning of his teaching career (possibly using a Baumeister text the first or second semester) [more], and it appears that Jäsche offers the “1765” date simply on the basis of Kant’s published lecture announcement for WS 1765/66 [see] wherein Kant mentions his plans to use the Meier text.
 Jäsche later gave his collection of Kantiana to Karl Morgenstern (1770-1852), a younger professor at Dorpat who collected books, and whose collection later formed the basis for the new university library at Dorpat.
 Erdmann wrote:
From the latter [i.e., the Hoffmann notes] it emerges that Jäsche, nearly without exception, only followed the student notes of Kant’s lectures, presumably at first his own. [...] Therefore it is understandable that Jäsche’s textbook agrees in all essential points almost verbatim with the manuscript (acquired by the library only in 1862). [Erdmann 1880, 617]
Aus demselben geht nämlich hervor, daß Jäsche so gut wie ausnahmslos ledglich den Nachschriften der kantischen Vorlesung, vermuthlich zunächst seiner eigenen gefolgt ist. [...] Daher ist es begreiflich, daß das Compendium Jäsches mit dem (erst 1862 von der Bibliothek erworbenen) Manuscript in allen wesentlichen Punkten fast wörtlich übereinstimmt.
 As pointed out by Heinze in his introduction to the Academy edition of the Logic [AA 9:503]. A list of the corresponding passages between Jäsche and Kant's reflections on logic, as printed in the Academy edition (vol. 16), is given in Hinske [1986b, xlv-xlviii].
 In the original: “Jäsche [...] stimmt inhaltlich so sehr mit Hoffmann überein, dass die Annahme, ein grösserer Teil des Textes stamme ungefär aus derselben Zeit, berechtigt ist.” [1901, 216-17]
 In the original: “Diese Hefte oder ihnen sehr ähnliche, vielleicht nur eines, muß Jäsche viel benutzt haben.” [AA 9:504]
 To which passages can be added a passage on Pythagoras [AA 28:537].
(1) Ms: Lost.
(1) Jäsche . All of the following are reprints or translations based on this publication, not on an-Jäsche.
(2) Richardson . Translation into English.
(3) Hartenstein .
(4) Rosenkranz/Schubert .
(5) Tissot . Translation into French.
(6) Hartenstein .
(7) Kirchmann .
(8) Abbott . Translation into English.
(9) Kinkel .
(10) Heinze [1923; AA 9:11-150].
(11) Buchenau .
(12) Hartman/Schwartz . Translation into English.
(13) Guillermit . Translation into French.
(14) Young [1992, 521-640]. Translation into English.
Because these notes are entirely conjectural (or they might be identical with one of the other sets of notes included here), the most that can be said about their dating will be parasitic upon the dating of any notes that appear to share a source with an-Jäsche; and here the only credible candidate is an-Pölitz, which has been dated to 1780-82.
It should be remembered that this putative an-Jäsche set of notes is the basis for only part of the published Jäsche Logic, some of which derives from Kant’s reflections and whose dates run the span of his teaching career.
Logik Pölitz (Lehmann, AA 24).
Quarto volume, 136 pp; bound with a set of metaphysics notes (an-Pölitz 3.2). Title page: “Logik und Metaphysik / von Kant / Ein Collegium ann. 1798 nachgeschrieben”. “1789” is added in darker ink over the “1798”. None of this appears to Heinze to be by the same hand as the notes; he also found the logic notes more neatly written than the metaphysics notes [Heinze 1894, 503-4]. Pölitz claimed (in his “Preface”) that the marginalia was written in a different hand from the main text; Heinze [1894, 502] thought the handwriting, while different, could still stem from the same person several years later. Hinske [1995, xvii] finds six different hands at work; the author of the main text (designated with an 'a') was also responsible for some of the marginalia. Schlapp [1901, 23] estimated the word count at 50,000; Hinske [1995, lxxvii] reports 41,509.
Pölitz [bio] gives no information regarding the source of these notes, claiming merely that they were legally purchased. It was assumed that they came from the estate of Friedrich Theodor Rink [bio] — which was true of the an-Pölitz 2 religion notes — but apparently they do not. Pölitz [1821, v] mentions the existence of these logic notes in the preface to his published notes on Kant’s metaphysics, but indicates that he is not publishing them, given the already published Jäsche logic.
Pages 9-18 are missing; these were published at the beginning of Pölitz , and presented as though belonging to the metaphysics notes and were subsequently lost with the an-Pölitz 3.2 (metaphysics) sheets that had been sent to the printer’s. Heinze noted these missing pages, but Lehmann insisted that the error was simply in the pagination, since there was no break in the meaning of the text itself [Heinze 1894, 503; Lehmann 1966; AA 24:979]. Heinze’s observation was correct, of course, and the first sixteen pages of Pölitz’s publication of the the metaphysics notes belongs indeed with the logic notes (see below, under “Publications”). This error is especially apparent to anyone comparing the parallel passage in an-Warszawa (printed at Pinder 1998, ii.518-30).
 F. T. Rink, a former student of Kant’s and later table-guest and faculty colleague, had edited some of Kant’s materials in the last years of Kant’s life (the “Physical Geography” [writings] and “Education” [writings] notes later reprinted in AA 9, and Kant’s “Progress of Metaphysics” [writings]). Rink had moved to Danzig in 1801 to direct the gymnasium, where he spent the remainder of his life. Stark [1987a, 157n96] was able to inspect a film of some of Rink’s letters, and thus determined that the notes were not written by Rink, and Stark has since discovered that this logic manuscript does not appear in the auction catalog of Rink’s library (the only manuscript of relevance was the an-Pölitz 2 set of notes on religion).
(1) Ms: Leipzig, UB (Rep. VI 42c).
(2) Film: Marburg Kant-Archiv (Film 3).
(1) Pölitz [1821, 1-16]. This introductory section of the logic notes was inadvertently published by Pölitz at the beginning of the an-Pölitz 3.2 (metaphysics) notes.
(2) Lehmann [1970; AA 28:5311-4020]. Inadvertently included in the reprint of the metaphysics lecture notes in Pölitz [1821, 1-16]
(3) Lehmann [1966; AA 24:499-602]. Transcription is from the manuscript. Note the break in the text at 24:50928; the text from 28:5311-4020 should be inserted at this point.
(4) Ameriks/Naragon [1997, 299-306]. Translation into English of Lehmann [1970; AA 28:5311-4020], using Pölitz  as a control.
The best estimate is that this set of notes, along with an-Wien, Hechsel, an-Warszawa, and Hoffmann, all stem from lectures in the early 1780s. See the longer discussion on dating at an-Wien.
The date given with the title is unhelpful, since Kant was not lecturing in 1798, and it is unclear on what basis the correction to 1789 was made. A later reader may have thought that the ‘9’ and ‘8’ were originally reversed (not an uncommon error), or he might have noticed the ‘1790’ on the last page, if indeed it is a ‘1790’ — Heinze [1894, 504] is not certain that he can read this, and Lehmann [1966; AA 24:979] is certain that he cannot. Heinze [1894, 505] points out that there is no reason to believe that the logic notes occurred before the metaphysics notes that follow in the volume, as they were surely bound after the notes were written; he also has no faith in Pölitz’s conjecture of 1788 (Pölitz offers no basis for this guess).
Schlapp [1901, 24] viewed the 1780s as more likely, since there is no reference to material in the Critique of Judgment (1790); he also thought that the close similarity with Hoffmann was enough to view them as having the same date [1901, 218].
Pinder  has shown that an-Pölitz 3.1, an-Wien, Hechsel, and Hoffmann all include a reference to the Berlin Academy prize essay question that was announced in November 1777 (and awarded in 1780), and a reference to Gedikes’ translation of Plato  makes the early 1780s the likeliest date for the source lecture. For a fuller discussion see Pinder  and Hinske [1995, xl-lv].
 Although Heinze dates it as 1790 in his editorial preface to the Academy edition of the Jäsche logic [AA 9:504].
 “Est-il utile au Peuple d’être trompé, soit qu’on l’induise dans de nouvelles erreurs, ou qu’on l’entretience dans celles où il est?” (Should the state deceive the people for their own good?) became quite a celebrated theme, drawing forty-two essays in all. Friederich II asked the Academy (in October 1777) to pull their earlier question and replace it with this; instead, they announced the question for the next year (1780). (See the page on the Academy prize essay questions.)
The notes differ from an-Jäsche in numerous respects, although Heinze claimed that they are more like Jäsche than any of the other logic notes that he has seen [AA 9:503f].
“Logica / von dem Herren Professor Kant / über / Georg Friedrich Meier / d. 9. Mai 1791”. The title comes from Menzer’s 1912 list. Schlapp [1901, 18n], by way of correspondence with Heinze, claims that the source-lecture was 1775. Stark found in the minutes of the Kant commission the following was loaned for an exhibit at the university library of Halle on Feb. 20, 1920: “Kant. Logica (Reicke) 1791” [1987a, 156n95].
The date (May 9) was the first day of lectures for that summer semester, during which Kant was also serving as dean. This was also the semester when Fichte paid Kant a visit. Reicke [bio] was a librarian at the university at Königsberg.
(1) Ms: Königsberg, UB (Ms. 2583). Lost.
Five notebooks on logic; no further information. Their existence is suggested by a comment by Johann Jakob Wilhelm Vollmer [bio] in the preface to vol. 1 of his unauthorized publication of Kant’s physical geography lectures:
“Should my undertaking find approval, I am able to present his logic and his moral philosophy in the same way. I have four sets of notes on moral philosophy, five on logic, from various years and, because they are so popularly written, will certainly cast a new light on his system.”
“Sollte mein Unternehmen Beifall finden, so bin ich erbotig, auch seine Logik und seine Moral auf eben die Art heraus zu geben. Von der Moral habe ich vier, von der Logik fünf Handschriften, aus verschiedenen Jahren, und sie werden, weil sie ohnehin so populär sind, gewiß ein neues Licht über sein System verbrieten.” [1801, 1.1.iv]
Johann Jakob Vollmer [bio] matriculated at the university in Königsberg on 5 October 1787.
 Erler [1911-12, ii.602]: (5 Oct 1787) “Vollmer Joh. Guilielm., Thorunen.”.
(1) Ms: Lost
Quarto volume; 166 sheets. On the spine: “P. Kant’s Logik”. No title page. Sheets numbered in pencil by a librarian. The entire manuscript is written in a single hand; only occasionally are there small additions from other hands. The wide margin (6-7.5 cm) is mostly clean. Catch-words are used to control pagination; there was no original pagination or numbering of the individual signatures. This manuscript is clearly a copy: in various places the writer left a blank space for an illegible word, and there are various errors typical of copied texts. The notes cover the entirety of the logic lectures, although its length is only about 39,000 words. Discovered by Brandt and Stark in 1983/84; see Stark [1987a, 125].
(1) Ms: Warszawa/Poland, National Library (Rps II.4192).
(2) Film: Marburg Kant-Archiv (Film 14).
(1) Pinder [1998, 505-659].
The manuscript was likely prepared in the mid-1780s (the kind of paper used was manufactured between the years 1781-84). The content overlaps heavily with an-Pölitz, an-Wien, an-Jäsche, Hoffmann, and Hechsel, all of which share a source from the late-1770s or very early 1780s. Cf. Pinder  and the longer discussion on dating at an-Wien.
Wiener Logik [Lehmann, AA 24], Vienna logic.
Half-leather volume, 472 pages, bearing a watermark (eagle and imperial orb with cross). On the title-page: “Kant’s / Vorlesungen über Logik geschrieben / von einer Gesellschaft Zuhörern”, in brown ink, as are the notes. Under the title, in blue-black ink: “N 1137”. The lower half of the original title-page is missing. Paginated through-out. Two hands were responsible for this text: the first is likely a professional copyist, and is quite legible, the second hand is responsible for the last two pages, which appear to have been written in the classroom. Notable here is the claim written on the title page that the manuscript was “written by a society of auditors.”
Jerusalem  was the first to discuss this manuscript, indicating that it came from the literary remains of Dr. Franz Theodor Müller (1854-1905) of the Vienna Chamber of Commerce [Handelskammer], whose sister had possessed the manuscript until only recently. The sister suggested to Jerusalem that Müller likely bought the manuscript from a junk dealer in Vienna. Jerusalem facilitated its purchase by the university library at Vienna. Lehmann speculates that the manuscript may have originated with Lazarus Bendavid [bio], who was the only lecturer in Vienna teaching Kantian philosophy at the time. See Lehmann [1966; AA 24:982-3], Pinder , Hinske , Pozzo , Oberhausen .
 Jerusalem [1913, 538] describes the notebook as having a green paper cover, 470 pages, and under the title: “Nr. 1173”.
 Brandt/Stark [1997, lxxi-lxxiii] discuss a form of group dictation, the so-called 'Schreibechor' used by Francke [bio] at Halle.
(1) Ms: Vienna/Austria, UB (Ms. II 859).
(2) Film: Marburg Kant-Archiv (Film 4).
(1) Lehmann [1966; AA 24:790-940].
(2) Young [1992, 251-377]. Translation into English of AA 24:790-940. Young made use of the Academy edition transcription, incorporating some corrections suggested by Norbert Hinske (from a then-unpublished volume of his Kant-Index, presumably vol. 5, published in 1999), and checking the Kant-Archiv microfilm. He found the Academy transcription fairly reliable.
(3) Bianco . Translation into Italian of AA 24:790-940.
SS 1780 or SS 1781. This manuscript shares the same source-lecture (through copying) as parts of Hechsel, an-Warszawa, an-Pölitz 3.1, and Hoffmann.
There are no dates on the title-page to either direct or misdirect us. Jerusalem [1913, 541-42] found in the notes what he took to be a reference to Kant’s “religion conflict” of October 1794, where Kant was ordered by the government — specifically, by J. C. Wollner — to cease publishing on matters of religion:
“It is wrong, accordingly, for the state to forbid men to write books and to judge, e.g., about matters of religion. For then they are deprived of the only means that nature has given them, namely, testing their judgment on the reason of others. The freedom to think in silence is given by the people who tyrannize so despotically.” [AA 24:874-75; Young transl.]
“Es ist demnach Unrecht, im Staate zu verbiethen, daß Menschen Bücher schreiben, und etwa z.B. über Religionssachen urtheilen sollen. Denn da wird ihnen das einzige Mittel genommen, das ihnen die Natur gegeben, nähmlich ihr Urtheil an fremder Vernunft zu prüfen. Die Freyheit im Stillen zu denken geben die Leute, die so  despotisch tyrannisiren.”
This would leave SS 1795 and SS 1796 as the candidate semesters, but Kant quit lecturing about half-way through the latter semester, which was his last, and yet the notes do not reflect such an abbreviated schedule. So the notes would have stemmed from SS 1795.
Lehmann [AA 24:983] supports Jerusalem’s dating with a passage that appears to refer to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776), whose German translation was not published (or so Lehmann believed) until 1794-96:
“In common life the remark is made that it is quite useful that a man should not do the whole of a thing. An ignorant man is one who does not have as many cognitions as he needs in regard to this or that end. E.g. In the production of a needle more than 4 to 10 people cooperate. This division makes everything perfect, and everything easy.” [AA 24:817; Young transl.]
“Es ist im gemeinen Leben die Anmerkung gemacht, daß es sehr nützlich sey, daß ein Mensch nicht das Ganze einer Sache / mache. Ein Ignorant ist derjenige, der nicht so viel Kenntniße hat, als er in Ansehung dieses, oder jenes Zweckes braucht. Z. B. Bey Verfertigung einer Nadel concurriren mehr denn 4 bis 10 Menschen. Diese Vertheilung macht alles vollkommen, und alles leicht.”
Smith discusses a pin factory (Stecknadelfabrik) as his primary example of the efficiencies gained through the division of labor in Book One, Chapter One (“Theilung der Arbeiten”), and here his example also involves 10 people:
“Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day. But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and without any of them having been educated to this peculiar business, they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day.” [vol. 1, p. 8]
“Diese zehn Personen also konnten in einem Tage mehr denn 48000 Nadeln machen. Jeder einzelne unter den zehn also, da der zehnte Theil der Arbeit auf ihn kömmt, kann so angesehen werden, als hätte er 4800 Nadeln in einem Tage verfertigt. Wenn aber jeder für sich hätte alles machen müssen, was zu Verfertigung einer Nadel gehört, ohne daß jeder von ihnen in einem besondern Zweige der ganzen Arbeit eine eigene Fertigkeit erworben hätte; so würde, wie gesagt, jeder vielleicht nur Eine, gewiß aber nicht mehr als zehn Nadeln zu Stande gebracht haben” [vol. 1, p. 10; Garve transl.]
Lehmann notes that Kant referred to this work in his Rechtslehre (1797)[writings], making this reference in the an-Wien notes especially compelling — except for the fact that the first German translation of Smith’s Wealth of Nations was actually published twenty years earlier in 1776. And as for Jerusalem’s point, Brandt noted [1984, 427] that Kant’s concern for freedom of expression in matters of religion was not limited to the 1790s; the same sentiment is found, for instance, in Refl. 2127 [AA 16:245], dated to the 1760s. So the support from Jerusalem and Lehmann for a c.1794 date is nullified. Brandt [1984, 426] refers to two passages in the notes (AA 24:80430-36 and 89112-19) as indicative that the source-lecture had to have taken place just prior to the publication of the Kritik der reinen Vernunft, i.e., SS 1780 or SS 1781.
Pinder [1987, 82-89] offers an extensive discussion of this group of related lectures (an-Wien, Hoffmann, Hechsel, and an-Pölitz). He notes that Schlapp’s discussion of Hoffmann points to SS 1780 [1901, 20-21], Brandt’s discussion of an-Wien points to SS 1780 or SS 1781, and Pinder further supports this dating with two passages from Hechsel: the first mentions the Berlin Academy Prize Essay question announced in 1777 and awarded in 1780, the second mentions Gedike’s 1780 translation of Plato. Pinder concludes that the source-lecture for all four sets of notes can be dated to either 1780 or 1781, but that the material in the first half of Hechsel could possibly stem from as early as 1779 and as late as 1782 [1987, 89].
Hinske [1986, 32-37] also gives convincing arguments for a dating in the early 1780s; see also Oberhausen  and Bianco .
More recently, however, Forster [2012, 490-93] has offered an interesting defense of the original 1790s date, with the following points: (1) Close agreement with text in Kant’s On a Discovery (1790) [writings] that occurs nowhere else in the corpus; (2) the logic notes contain an inordinate amount of discussion of aesthetic judgments, and gives the very same account of them as he gives in the 1790 Critique of Judgment [writings]; (3) the notes contain other clear references to Kant’s conflict with Eberhard in his On a Discovery (at AA 25:864, 868-70); (4) the allusion to the Wollner edict that Jerusalem first noted; (5) the notes contain apparent allusions (at AA 24:874-75) to Kant’s 1784 Universal History [writings]; and finally (6) a later dating of the notes makes better sense of various claims that Kant makes about language and thought (this last being the actual subject of Forster’s essay).
 Adam Smith, Untersuchung über die Natur und die Ursachen des Nationalreichthums, transl. of the 4th English edition of 1786 into German by Christian Garve, 4 vols. (Breslau: Wilhelm Gottlieb Korn, 1794-96). Vol. 1: 1794 (xx, 476 pp); vol. 2: 1794 (274 pp); vol. 3: 1795 (451 pp); vol. 4: 1796 (484 pp).
 Adam Smith, Untersuchung der Natur und Ursachen von Nationalreichthümern, 2 vols., translated into German by Johann Friedrich Schiller (Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben und Reich, 1776), viii, 632; xii, 740pp.
 The first passage reads:
“As for what concerns metaphysics, after we have gone through all the parts we hesitate, and because of the great difficulties one finds among us a kind of indifferentism toward this study. Status anceps. This is the age of critique for this study, and the time is near when its building will be torn down and a wholly new one will be built on the ruins of the old.” [AA 24:804; Young transl.)
“Was die Metaphysik anbetrift, so stutzen wir, nachdem wir alle Theile durchgegangen sind, und es findet sich bey uns gegen dies Studium wegen der weiten Schwierigkeiten eine Art von Indifferentismus ein. Status anceps. Dies ist das Zeitalter der Kritik für dieses Studium, und der Zeitpunkt ist nahe, wo das Gebäude derselben umgerissen, und ein ganz neues auf den Trümmern des alten aufgerichtet werden wird.”
Hinske [1995, xlix] is less confident that such remarks could not have been made after the publication of the first Critique.
 The passage in Hechsel on the Prize Question:
“Ob auch Vorurtheile rathsam sind? Ists rathsam a) Sie zu laßen? b) Sie zu belustigen? Diese Frage ist vor einigen Jahren von der Accademi der Wißenschaften zu Berlin gethan. Es ist erstaunend, daß man so was in diesen Zeiten hat fragen können. Dem Menschen zu täuschen ist niemals erlaubt, und aus einer guten Absicht lügen, macht nicht ein unlauteres Mittel recht.” [p. 51]
And the reference to Friedrich Gedike, Vier Dialogen des Plato: Menon, Kriton, und beyde Alkibiades (Berlin: Voß, 1780):
“What belongs in place of catechistic method is the Socratic method[;] on this, read Gedike’s translation of 4 Platonic conversations. Socrates speaks of matter of reason.”
“In der Stelle der kategorischen gehört die Socratische Methode, darum lese man Goedikens Uebersezzung, von 4 platonischen Gesprächen. Socrates redet von Vernunft Materie.” [p. 117]
 In anon-Wien:
“When the logici say, however, that a proposition is a judgment clothed in words, that means nothing, and this definition is good for nothing at all. For how will they be able to think judgments without words?” [AA 24:93421-23; Young transl.]
“Wenn aber die Logici sagen: ein Urtheil ist ein Satz in Worte eingekleidet: so heißt das nichts, und diese definition taugt gar nichts. Denn wie werden sie Urtheile denken konnen ohne Wörter?”
In On a Discovery (1790):
“The logicians are wrong in defining a proposition as a judgment expressed in words; for we also need to use words in thoughts for judgments that we do not express as propositions” [AA 8:193-94n]
“Die Logiker  thun gar nicht recht daran, daß sie einen Satz durch ein mit Worten ausgedrücktes Urtheil definiren; denn wir müssen uns auch zu Urtheilen, die wir nicht für Sätze ausgeben, in Gedanken der Worte bedienen.”
A full set of notes which, however, break off near the end of the normal sequence of topics. The handwriting changes near the end of the discussion on of the theory of judgment [AA 24:937], and then breaks off again at AA 24:940 (during a discussion of immediate inferences). Jerusalem compared this manuscript with the Jäsche logic closely, and found a great many distortions of meaning.
Pinder [1987, 80-81] finds that the second half of an-Wien [AA 24:900-37] and Hechsel (pp. 61-86, of the 118 pp. manuscript) agree verbatim, which justifies the use of the latter to fill-out the missing final portion of the former. Hechsel is firmly dated to SS 1782.
Breslau (Adickes 1911a, 1914/AA 16).
Quarto volume, 127 pp. Title-page: “Logik, / nach den Vorlesungen / des HE: Prof. Imanuel Kant. / 1789.” A note at the bottom right reads: “Von meinem Grossvater / Friedrich Bauch / Pastor in Laskowitz / †1824 / Dr. G B”; on p. 75, in the margin: “den 13 Aug ‘94”. Wide margins with additions by a second hand (apparently contemporary with the first hand, but much more difficult to read). These marginalia do not appear to be additions, but rather clarifications or recapitulations from another set of lectures. Catch-words are not used to control the pagination. The text is broken into fifty-four sections with headings. Total length is about 52,000 words.The neat but small hand and the consistent use of abbreviations suggests that the manuscript was the product of a professional copyist.
The manuscript was discovered in 1983/84 in the Wroclaw university library by Brandt and Stark, among materials that had earlier been housed in the city library [Stark 1987a, 124; Pinder 2000].
Georg Friedrich Bauch [bio] matriculated on October 29, 1792 as a theology student. Adickes made use of this set of notes in editing the logic “Reflexionen” [1914; AA 16] in Kant’s copy of Meier’s Auszug. Lehmann later reported the manuscript as lost [1966; AA 24:975]. See Stark [1987a, 124-25].
 Erler [1911-12, 621]: (29 Oct 1792) “Bauch Georg. Frdr., Bircksdorf ad Vratislaviam Siles., theol. cult.”.
(1) Ms: Wroclaw/Poland, University Library (R 2472). The manuscript was previously housed in the Stadtbibliothek Breslau (Wroclaw).
(2) Film: Marburg Kant-Archiv (Film 3).
(1) Pinder [1998, 3-267].
The main text = c.1770s; marginalia = 1794. The main text appears to have been copied out in 1789 (thus the date on the title page), although the source lecture was sometime in the first half of the 1770s. The extensive marginalia appear to have been added in SS 1794, presumably by Bauch: on p. 75 we find the marginalium: “den 13 Aug ‘94”, a possible date for the resumption of classes after the summer recess [Pinder 2000, 174]. This date fell on a Saturday, however, so the occasion would have been the logic repetitorium — an odd day to resume the course. Still more problematic is that no repetitorium was recorded for this semester (although admittedly this itself could be in error, since Kant routinely held such repetitoria).
Shares text with Philippi, also (and perhaps to a greater extent) with Hintz and Grünheide; all appear to share a common written source. Adickes had noticed the resemblance with the latter two, and Schlapp  published a series of verbatim passages. On the relationship to Philippi, see its entry, below.
Quarto volume; 167 pages. Title-page: “Die Logik / oder / Vernunftlehre von / Herrn Professor Kant. / Königsberg d 8ten Sept / 1790 / G. C. W. Busolt”, written in a different hand from the notes, and most likely written by Busolt, who probably purchased the notes (Busolt 2 (geography) has a similar title page, and is written by the same hand). See also Busolt 1 (anthopology). The paper has a watermark. Ink is dark brown, pagination is in pencil and added later. See Lehmann [1966; AA 24:980]. [Adickes differs on the above title.]
Gotthilf Christoph Wilhelm Busolt [bio] matriculated at the Albertina on September 23, 1788, as a theology student. Kant’s logic lectures for SS 1790, Busolt’s fourth semester at the university, ended on Friday, September 3; the date on the title page was the following Wednesday.
 Erler [1911-12, ii.605]: (23 Sep 1788) “Busolt Gotthilf Christoph. Wilh., Buchholtz ad Landsberg Boruss., theol. stud.”.
(1) Ms: Berlin, SBPK, Haus II (Ms. germ. quart. 1294).
(1) Lehmann [1966; Ak 24:605-86].
Hinske [1991, xxii] argues that the earliest date for the lectures is SS 1789 (since the notes contain a citation from the March 7, 1789, issue of the Berlinische Monatsschrift), and the latest is SS 1790 (because of the written date on the title page: September 8, 1790).
Lehmann reports that Busolt 3 is the poorest of the logic notes in terms of misspellings, re-writings, and incoherent sentences; it also contains the most Latin text [1966; AA 24:980].
“Logik nach einer Vorlesung des HE. Profess. Kant Koenigsberg 1791, umgearbeitet Berlin 1795”. Wilhelm Heinrich Maximilian Graf zu Dohna-Schlobitten (1773-1843) matriculated at the university on 8 Oct 1790 as a law student. The only evidence for this manuscript is its appearance in the Menzer 1912 list. Notes on anthropology and moral philosophy attributed to Dohna-Schlobitten are also lost.
 Erler [1911-12, ii.614]: (8 Oct 1790) “Dohna-Schlobitten Sacri Romani Imperii comes Maximilian. Guilielm. Hnr., cum testimonio maturitatis, stud. iur.”.
(1) Ms: Private possession . Lost
Bound quarto volume (17.5 x 20 cm), 137pp. On the title-page: “Logik / nach / den Vorlesungen des Herrn Prof. / Kant im Sommerhalbenjahr 1792.” Below this: “Den 23ten April 1792”. There is no endpaper. This volume has 18 signatures; the second is 6 pp, the rest are 8 pp (the last signature contains 1 page of notes followed by 1 3/4 pages of additions, i.e., four texts to be inserted, marked with page numbers and insertion signs) — similar to what we find in Dohna’s metaphysics notes. Each signature is marked with an upper-case letter of the alphabet, in the middle of the bottom margin of the first page. The outer margins (one-fourth the page width) are creased, with a similarly wide margin at the bottom. Many of the headings are ornate (some more than others), giving this the appearance of being prepared as a clean copy while the semester was proceeding. There are a great many marginalia, which appear to be in the same hand as the notes, although written at various times. Many are connected to a single word with a sign, and read like glosses on the word, rather than forgotten text to be inserted into the main notes (See, for instance, the gloss on Dialektic at AA 24:69514). Unfortunately, parts of some marginalia were cut-off when the book was bound. [Kowalewski notes the four additions appended at the end, with signs to be inserted at pp. 9, 16, 57, and 100; check this on the film, and describe here; they fill 1 3/4 pages] The pagination appears to stem from the copyist himself (a pagination error at p. 32 is finally corrected at p. 47). See Kowalewski [1924, 49-50].
Graf Heinrich Ludwig Adolph zu Dohna-Wundlacken [bio] matriculated at the university in Königsberg on June 15, 1791. Apart from the logic notes, Dohna also left notes on anthropology, metaphysics, and physical geography. They are all of similar provenance and format, with running entries of the date and time of the lectures (although only sporadically in the logic notes); these are written in the margin, but appear to have been written when the main text was copied out at home. The format and completeness of the notes would suggest that they all come directly from Dohna, but they are not all written in the same hand.
Various explanations are possible for the marginalia: (1) Dohna purchased the notes, which he then marked during the semester he attended, and at which point he wrote the four additional remarks [this could be decided by comparing the handwriting]; (2) Dohna added the entries in a later semester (although Lehmann thinks it unlikely that Dohna took the course a second time, since he had already attended Poerschke’s logic course before attending Kant’s); (3) Dohna added the marginalia to his fair copy during the Repetitoria at the end of each week on Saturday.
 Erler [1911-12, ii.616]: (15 Jun 1791) “Dohna de Sancti Romani Imperii comes Hnr. Ludov. Adolph., Baro de Wundlacken”.
(1) Ms: Bentheim, private possession of the Dohna family.
(2) Film: Marburg Kant-Archiv (Film 2).
(1) Kowalewski [1924, 391-505]. On this transcription, see Brandt [1987, 72n9].
(2) Lehmann [1966; AA 24:689-784]. This is a reprint of Kowalewski [1924, 387-505], as Lehmann was unable to use the manuscript [AA 24:975]. A list of printing errors can be found in Hinske [1990, 254].
(3) Young , pp. 425-516. Translation into English of AA 24:689-784. Young made use of the Academy edition transcription, checking it against Kowalewski , and consulting a microfilm of the manuscript available at the Marburg Kant archive. He found the Kowalewski/Academy transcription generally reliable.
The lectures almost certainly stem from SS 1792. The various dates (given in somewhat sporadic entries) and corresponding week-days fit only the 1792 calendar (other years would be 1787 and 1798). The date on the title page was when Kant began his logic lectures that semester.
These fairly complete notes have running entries of the lecture hours, giving some sense of how much material Kant presented each day. These hourly numbers appear as marginalia in the manuscript.
Our only evidence of these notes comes from Köstlin [1889, 246], who briefly reported on the Nachlass of recently deceased Privy Councillor Justice Moritz Flach, a grandson of Johann Gottlieb Flach, who matriculated as a law student from Königsberg on March 20, 1794, and had attended Kant’s logic lectures.. Among his papers were a set of logic notes from the lectures and a Latin testimonial written by Kant certifying his attendance.
 Erler [1911-12, ii.625]: (20 Mar 1794) “Flach Joh. Theophil., Regiomontan., iur. cult.”.
(1) Ms: Private possession. Lost.
August Samuel Gerber (1765-1821) matriculated September 25, 1787, as a theology student. Lehmann reports that the Academy had the opportunity to purchase this manuscript in 1927, but did not, and it has since disappeared [1966; AA 24:975].
 Erler [1911-12, ii.601]: (1787 Sep 25) “Gerber August. Sam., Gedanen. Boruss., theol. cult.”.
(1) Ms: Private possession. Lost.
Petrenz [Adickes 1911a].
Quarto volume; 194 pp. “Logic / nach / den Vorlesungen des Herrn Profesor Kant / Grünheid”. Beneath “Grünheid” another entry by an owner: “Petrenz”. Adickes and Kowalewski note that ‘Grünheid’ is crossed out, as though the manuscript changed hands from Grünheid to Petrenz. Kowalewski also notes that additions from a second hand can be found on inserted sheets, and suggests that these notes stem from two different semesters [2000, 455]. Christian Grünheide (1767-183?) matriculated on March 21, 1786, as a theology student.
 Erler [1911-12, ii.594]: (21 Mar 1786) “Grünheide Christ., Seveen prope Friedland. Boruss., theol. cult., a legione de Henckel dimissus.”.
(1) Ms: Königsberg, UB (Ms. 2444). Lost.
(1) Kowalewski [1944-45, 409-14; 2000, 456-62]. Selections from the “Prolegomena,” “On Comprehending,” “On the Different Forms of Assenting,” “On the Limits of Human Cognition.”
This text stands in very close relationship with Philippi 3 (dated SS 1772) and Bauch [Adickes 1911a, 43; Stark 2000a, 490].
Quarto volume; 118 pp. On the title page: “Immanuel Kants / ordentlicher Profeßor der theoretischen Philosophie / Vorlesungen über die Vernunftlehre / nachgeschrieben / von / Johann Friedrich Hechsel. / d:G:G:B: / Koenigsberg d: 12ten October 1782”. At the end: “1782”. The abbreviation “d:G:G:B:” likely expands to “der Gottes Gelehrtheit Beflissener,” a common formula.
The entire text, including the title-page and pagination, is in the same hand, except for one passage (pp. 17f). Binding and cutting has slightly damaged the first line on a few pages; otherwise the text is completely intact. Catch-words are frequently used. The estimated length is 56,000 words. The manuscript was discovered in 1983/84 in the Helsinki university library by Brandt and Stark; see Stark [1987a, 123-24].
Johann Friedrich Hechsel [bio] matriculated at the university on March 23, 1782.
 Erler [1911-12, ii.569]: (23 Mar 1782) “Hechsel Joh. Frdr., ad Lauenburg. Pomer.”. Lauenburg, Pomerania (now: Lębork, Poland) lies 70 km north-west of Gdansk. Christian Fridrich Puttlich [bio], from whom we have notebooks on anthropology and physical geography, also matriculated on this day.
(1) Ms: Helsinki/Finland, University Library (D.III.31).
(2) Film: Marburg Kant-Archiv (Film 1).
(1) Pinder [1998, 271-499].
(2) Young [199, 381-423]. Translation into English of Pinder [1998, 435-499]. This translates only that portion missing from the an-Wien notes, beginning on ms. 86 of Hechsel.
The source lecture is firmly dated to 1780-82. A reference (ms 117) to Gedike’s translation of Plato (published in 1780) provides a terminus post quem of SS 1780 and the dates written on the notes (1782) provide a terminus ante quem. The source-lecture could well be SS 1782, as suggested by the dates on the title-page and at the end of the manuscript, which would have been Hechsel’s first semester at Königsberg. The logic lectures for 1782 ran from April 15 to September 20, with 90 auditors listed as attending. October 12, 1782 (the date on the title page) was a Saturday, and classes for winter semester would begin the following Monday (October 14). This date therefore comes at the very end of the three week recess between semesters, and it is easy to conclude that it refers to when Hechsel finished copying out the notes (although Pinder feels that the title page looks as though it were written before the notes, suggesting that the date refers to when Hechsel began to write out he clean copy [1987, 80]). See Stark [1987a, 134-35], Pinder , and the longer discussion on dating at an-Wien.
 Although the two halves of Hechsel appears to stem from separate sources, so presumably this date is relevant only for the second half of Hechsel (and thus to the text of the second half of an-Wien).
A large portion of Hechsel (ms. 61-86) is nearly verbatim with the last fourth of an-Wien [AA 24:900-37], which breaks off at the end.
Three manuscripts (described below, after their publication data). Logic notes from Herder that have not yet been published were identified (by Naragon in 1998) among the manuscripts collected under NL-Herder XXV.46a, which are primarily metaphysics notes. Included here are two separate octavo sheets, folded once (thus: two 4 pp. signatures), each containing notes on metaphysics but also one page of logic notes (one concerns Meier, §207, the other §§255-8).
Like Herder’s other notes from Kant’s lecture hall, these are highly fragmentary. They are almost certainly written in the lecture hall.
 Erler [1911-12, ii.484]: (10 Aug 1762) “Herder Joh. Godfr., Mohrunga Boruss.”.
(1) Ms: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Haus II, NL-Herder:
 The transcription (by Werner Stark) reads: “/Logik, die Vernunftlehre, die uns unsre SeeleKrafte kennen und brauchen lehrt, um die Wahrheit der Dinge auszuforschen. / 1) Erkenntnis Sie beßert also Vernunft aus, unsern Vorzug vor Thieren, die sich am spätesten bei uns entwickelt. So / 2) Einteilung in / 1) die natürliche Logik die die Natur Kräfte der Seele durch den gemeinen Gebrauch ausbeßert / 2) die künstliche Logik die unsern Verstand in den Wißenschaften schärft und ordnet.”
(1) Irmscher [1964, 43-7]. From the original (NL-Herder XXV.37).
(2) Lehmann [1966; AA 24:3-6]. From the original (NL-Herder XXV.37). Lehmann worked from the manuscript, comparing with Irmscher .
(3) Lehmann [1966; AA 24:1099-1100]. From the original (NL-Herder XXV.37a).
(4) A draft of a new transcription of the notes is available here.
Lehmann [1966; AA 24:976] notes that Herder first attended one of Kant’s lectures in 1762 (metaphysics, for the last few weeks of the semester), and in the following winter semester (1762/63) he would have heard the logic lectures. Thus he dates this fragment to WS 1762/63. Kant lectured on logic each of the semesters that Herder was in Königsberg, however, and while it is reasonable that Herder would have heard the logic as early as possible (the course on logic came to be considered the entry point for studying under Kant), we have no evidence that this is the correct semester (or, indeed, that they all come from the same semester).
Marcus Herz [bio] matriculated 21 April 1766 to study medicine. He clearly attended several of Kant’s lectures during his four years at the university, since by the end he was a trusted enough student that Kant asked him to serve as respondent at the pro loco disputation marking his inauguration as full professor of logic and metaphysics. Herz returned to Berlin in 1770, and after further medical study at Halle began a highly successful medical practice in Berlin. He was a leading intellectual in the Berlin Jewish community, and his younger wife, Henrietta (1764-1847), ran a leading salon.
In 1778, Herz began a series of private lectures on Kant’s philosophy, apparently beginning with logic, as we learn from his November 24, 1778, letter to Kant [see]. Herz notes here that he is in possession of several complete sets of logic notes, although it is unclear how he acquired them and whether they stemmed from his own student years at Königsberg.
 Erler [1911-12, ii.501]: (21 Apr 1766) “Hertz Marc., Judaeus, Berolin. March.”.
(1) Ms: Lost.
Quarto volume; 249 pp. “Vorlesungen / über / die Logik oder Vernunftlehre / im Sommerhalbenjahr 1775 / vom Herrn Professor Immanuel Kant.”; below and to the right: “Nachgeschrieben / von / G. W. Hintz / B.d.R.B.”; at the end: “Dieses Collegium ist am 29. Sept 1775 geendigt.” Schlapp [1901, 20] estimates a word count of 25,000.
Georg Wilhelm Hintz was the sole matriculant on October 31, 1774 (classes had begun on Oct. 10), so SS 1775 would have been his first opportunity to attend Kant’s logic lectures. Kant ended this course on Friday, September 29 (the enrollment that semester was 45), just as is reported at the end of the notes.
These notes once belonged to Rudolf Reicke; see the note at an-Reicke 1 (anthropology). [Menzer reads: “ … über / Logik … Sommerhalben Jahr … ”]
 Erler [1911-12, 534]: (31 Oct 1774) “Hintz Geo. Wilh., Frednav. ad Gilgeburg Boruss.”
(1) Ms: Königsberg, UB (Ms. 2582). Lost.
(1) Schlapp [1901, 103-6]. Fragments.
(2) Lehmann [1966; AA 24:943-44]. Reprint of Schlapp [1901, 103-6]. Lehmann’s title: “Logik-Auszüge Schlapp. Aus der Logik Hintz.”
Schlapp [1901, 19-20] finds nothing in the notes to cast doubt on the SS 1775 date on the title page, noting also that Arnoldt lists September 29 as the final day of Kant’s class that semester, which matches the date given at the end of the notes. There is some textual overlap with Bauch, however, indicating that some of this text originated in lectures from the early 1770s. See also Lehmann [1966; AA 24:984].
Quarto volume; 129 pp. “Imma[n]uel Kants / Professor der Logic und Metaphysic / Vorlesungen / über die / Vernunft-Lehre. / Königsberg d 9. Jul. 1782. / Carl Christoph Hoffmann / D R-G B”. It was acquired by the Königsberg UB in 1862 [Erdmann 1880, 617]. Schlapp [1901, 21] estimates a word count of 66,000 (comparing it to the 46,000 count for the published Jäsche logic.
Carl Christoph Hoffmann was the sole matriculant on 26 April 1779.
 Schlapp [1901, 20] expands this abbreviation as: “Der Rechts Gelehrsamkeit Beflissener” — roughly: “the right learned [and] diligent.”
 Erler [1911-12, 556]: (26 Apr 1779) “Hoffmann Car. Christoph., Domnav. Boruss.” He is also listed as matriculating 28 Sep 1781: “Hoffmann Car. Christoph.” [Erler 1911-12, 568]; perhaps he left town after the first matriculation, and began classes only with WS 1781/82.
(1) Ms: Königsberg, UB (Ms. 1946). Lost.
(1) Erdmann [1880, 615-16]. This is not reprinted in the Academy edition.
(2) Arnoldt [1908-9, v.15]. Arnoldt quotes passages from pp. 5-6 of the manuscript. This is not reprinted in the Academy edition.
(3) Schlapp [1901, 20-22]. A sentence reprinted on p. 22 ("der Popularität, dass die Erkenntnis dem sensu communi angemessen sei") is not reprinted in Hinske .
(4) Lehmann [1966; AA 24:944-52]. Reprint of Schlapp [1901, 103-6]. Lehmann’s title: “Logik-Auszüge Schlapp. Aus der Logik Hoffmann.”
(5) Hinske [1991, 149]. Reprint of the passages in Arnoldt [1908-9, v.15].
(6) Hinske [1991, 151]. Reprint of the passages in Schlapp [1901, 20-21].
(7) Hinske [1995, 673]. Reprint of the passages in Erdmann [1880, 615-16].
Schlapp [1901, 20-21, 216] understood the date on the title page (9 July 1782) as indicating the source lectures could not be SS 1782 (since July 9 is in the middle of the semester), but at least sets a terminus ante quem. References to Sulzer and Madam Geoffrin push the terminus post quem to the late 1770s, and mention of the twelve forms of judgment such as they are presented in the Critique of Pure Reason suggest a semester just prior to 1781, thus SS 1780. See the longer discussion on dating at an-Wien.
 Kant began lecturing on logic that semester on Monday, April 15, and ended on Friday, September 20, with a repetitorium for logic beginning on the second Saturday of the term (April 27), and then held every Wednesday and Saturday thereafter until September 21. The date on the title page (July 9) is a Tuesday and nearly in the middle of the semester; here, or a bit later, classes would have broken for the month-long summer recess (the so-called “harvest” or “dog days” vacation).
Erdmann [1880, 617-18] compared the published an-Jäsche, Kant’s copy of Meier’s Auszug, and Hoffmann, and concluded “that Jäsche, nearly without exception, followed the student notes [Nachschriften] of Kant’s lectures, presumably for the most part his own,” and used the Meier marginalia only as a control, also noting that Hoffmann and the Jäsche publication agree in all the essential points almost verbatim.
Schlapp [1901, 21-22] took considerable exception to Erdmann’s claims, pointing out a number of dissimilarities between the two sets of notes and dispelling Erdmann’s notion that Jäsche had used Hoffmann for his publication.
Pinder [1987, 83-85] found that the first part of Hoffmann is identical with the first part of an-Wien (i.e., the part of an-Wien not identical with Hechsel), while the second part is identical with an-Pölitz.
Quarto volume (17 x 10.5 cm), 5 sheets, from a 170 sheet volume including the following: notes from Kant’s physics [Mrongovius 4.1] (sheets 1-51, followed by blank sheets 52-54), Kant’s moral philosophy [Mrongovius 4.2] (sheets 55-84, with 85-86 blank), Kraus’s ancient history (sheets 87-97, with 98-102 blank), Hagen’s natural history of mammals (sheets 103-115, with 116 blank), Kant’s logic (sheets 117-121, with 122-24 blank), a course on “Astrognosie” (sheets 125b-132,), and a fragment from a natural science course, possibly Hagen’s natural history of mammals (sheets 133-170) [Günther 1909, 214 (see entry)].
On the title page (the front side of the first sheet): “Logic vom HErrn Prof. Kant. / den 25. May 1784.”; at the very bottom: “C. C. Mrongovius”. A narrow column (slightly less than half the width of the page) is drawn on each page, with top and bottom margins also drawn. Logic notes are written only on the front side of each sheet (sheets 118-121), and these columns with text are numbered 1-4. The first column of texts begins “Prolegomena Logices,” and what follows is an introduction to logic. Menzer, in his 1912 list, describes the notes as consisting of three sheets, and as worthless.
Christoph Coelestin Mrongovius [bio] matriculated on March 21, 1782. See also his notes on moral philosophy (WS 1784/85), metaphysics (WS 1782/83), anthropology (WS 1784/85), physics (SS 1785), and natural theology (WS 1783/84).
 Erler [1911-12, ii.569]: (21 Mar 1782) “Mrongovius Chrisoph. Coelestin., Hohenst[ein]. Boruss.”.
(1) Ms: Gdansk/Poland, Biblioteka PAN (Ms. 2218).
(2) Film: Marburg Kant-Archiv (Film 4).
(1) Lehmann [1983; AA 29:1043-47]. Lehmann’s title: “Logik Mongrovius” [sic]. Lehmann published this text without line numbers, notes, or other textual apparatus, and claims in his introduction [1983; 29:1097] that the “Nachschrift, also die Logik selber” is not extant, although it is unclear what reason he has to believe that there existed some complete set of notes from which this fragment was copied.
The dates for Kant’s logic lectures for SS 1784 are April 26 (Monday) to September 17 (Friday). The date given on the title page, May 25, was a Tuesday. The text appears to come from the very beginning of the semester, so it is unclear what the date refers to.
Half-leather quarto volume; 183 pp. On its small, green spine: “KANTS / Vorlesungen/ über die / LOGIC”. On the title-page: “Vorlesungen / des Herrn Professoris Kant / über / die Logic.” At the bottom-right: “Philippi / Koenigsberg im May 1772.”; both are written in the same hand. The pages are edged in red; the endpapers are marbled. Two notes concerning the acquisition of the manuscript are glued on the front endpaper and on the blank page that immediately follows is glued the title-page. The book consists of two different kinds of paper: (a) pp. 1-183, and 12 unnumbered sheets are lightly browned, fibrous paper, (b) 45 (until recently) unnumbered sheets are pure white. Most of the sheets have a watermark that is visible: in the first kind of paper are the letters “E K”, in the second is the name “Honig.”
After the first page of text (numbered ‘1’), beginning with the words “Alles richtet sich in der Welt nach gewissen…” there follow 182 pages, numbered in pencil by a later hand, and whose content appears in the Academy edition [AA 24:311-496]. On the 12 following sheets (= 24 pp) of this kind of paper one finds further entries, not printed in the Academy edition, and which Oberhausen  describes as an appendix of 14 pages of text, 12 of which are excerpts from Kant’s published writings of the 1760s (“Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime” [writings], “The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures” [writings], and “Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitudes into Philosophy” [writings]), and the 14th page has two passages from the preface to the 2nd edition of the Critique of Pure Reason; but the first page of this appendix clearly belongs to the logic lectures.
There follow 45 sheets that have only recently (1980s) been numbered by the Rostock library. On the recto side of sheet 2 of this second sort of paper is the heading: “1816. / Nachrichten / Im Betref des verewigten Proffessor Kraus. / P. Nur in Beziehung auf einige Fragen des Kriegsraths Scheffner.”, followed by 21 pages of biographical notes on Christian Jacob Kraus. The remaining sheets are blank. The notes contain numerous additions and marginalia, suggesting that a student used them again in a later semester.
 The first, from the antique dealer Paul Koehler (Leipzig, 13 July 1934), claims he cannot believe the manuscript belongs to the Preussischen Staatsbibliothek since he had purchased it legally in 1932 from the library of the late Geheimrat Dr. v. Arnim. The second note, from Dr. Wegener of the Preußischen Staatsbibliothek (dated 14 July 1934) is addressed to the Director of the University Library of Rostock, reads: “Philippi’s manuscript from Kant’s lectures on logic, which has been offered to you for purchase, does not belong to the Preußischen Staatsbibliothek. We possess two manuscripts of logic lectures [namely, Busolt 3 and Herder], neither of which come from Philippi’s hand, and the Philippi notebook [that we do possess] contains the lecture on the natural history of human beings [the anthropology]. Adickes appears to have erred in this case.” So having passed into von Arnim’s hands, it was then purchased from his estate in 1932 by Paul Koehler, who later sold it to Klaus Reich on behalf of the Rostock University Library on 15 August 1934. The confusion, and cause for the above acquisition notes, arose because Erich Adickes had previously indicated that the manuscript was owned by the SBPK (Königliche Bibliothek/Berlin), thus holding up the sale of the manuscript to the Rostock Library until the SBPK indicated that it did not own it (and thus that it was not stolen property).
 Stark [1987b, 165-69] argues that these biographical notes on Kraus [bio] stem from Johann Brahl (1753-1812); they are printed at Stark [1987b, 182-91].
 Erler [1911-12, 519]: (25 Mar 1771) “Philippi Wilh. Albert., Berolin.” There is a previous entry from WS 1769/70 (6 Apr 1770): “Philippi Wilh. Albert. Ferdin., Primislauien., bibliopolae scient. cult.” [Erler 1911-12, 515].
(1) Ms: Rostock, UB (Mss. var 33b1).
Lehmann [1966; 24:978] incorrectly gives the signature as “Mss. var. 3361”. This volume was assigned two separate catalog numbers by the Rostock library. The logic notes from Kant’s lectures (pp. 1-183) are assigned Mss. var 33b1 and the biographical notes on Kraus (the remaining 45 sheets, of which 21 pages contain text) are assigned Mss. var 33b
(2) Film: Marburg Kant-Archiv (Film 4).
(1) Schlapp [1901, 61-103]. Selections.
(2) Lehmann [1966; AA 24:311-496]. Lehmann’s title: “Logik Philippi”. This is not a complete transcription of the manuscript (see “Physical Description and History,” above). Oberhausen  has also noted a misplaced sheet.
The main body of the notes is most likely from SS 1772, when Philippi would have attended Kant’s lectures; Schlapp offers good evidence for this assessment [1901, 19]. The marginalia are possibly from some later semester.
Philippi (24:3865-41329) = main text of Bauch (ms. 47-74) = Meier’s Auszug, §§91-114.
Philippi (24:4825-49635) = Blomberg (24:29133-30120.
Adickes worked with this text (and entered a few marginalia) in 1902, noting that roughly 30 pp. — the text corresponding to Meier’s Auszug, §§91-114 (viz., 24:386-413) — is in almost verbatim agreement with Bauch (ms. 47-74) [1911a, 44]. Similarly, the last 14 pages (24:482-496) are in verbatim agreement with an-Blomberg (24:291-301). See also Pinder [1998, xvii].
“Logik des Herrn Kant, D.S.O. zu Königsberg”. Our only evidence for this comes from the catalog of manuscripts for the city library at Königsberg [Seraphim 1909, 294].
(1) Ms: Königsberg, StB (S 82. 4°). Lost.
154 pp. On the title page: “Bemerkungen aus dem Vortrage des H. E. Kant über die Vernunftlehre pro 1793 / ita finitur 26. Febr. 1793”. (Title and page count was recorded in Menzer’s 1912 list.) Johann Friedrich Vigilantius [bio] was Kant’s legal advisor. A fuller description of these notes can be found in the account of his notes on metaphysics (WS 1794/95); see also his notes on physical geography (SS 1793) and moral philosophy (WS 93/94). All of his notebooks had belonged to the library of Friedrich August Gotthold [bio].
(1) Ms: Königsberg, UB (Gotthold Ub 17). Lost.
(1) Arnoldt [1908-9, v.15-17]. Arnoldt quotes passages from pp. 11-12 of the manuscript. This is not reprinted in the Academy edition.
(2) Arnoldt [1908-9, v.47]. Arnoldt quotes a single sentence: “Durch die Erfahrung erkennen wir nur wirkliche Gegenstände, mithin was sie sind, durch die logica pura aber erkennen wir sie a priori, oder wie sie sein müssen.”
(3) Hinske [1991, 150]. Reprint of the passages in Arnoldt [1908-9, v.15-17].
17 signatures, 160 pages (18x c 20 cm), consisting of 212 pages, 52 of which are blank (often there is one blank page opposite a page of text, presumably to offer the purchaser of the notes a place to add his own notes). On the title page in an ornate hand: “Vorlesungen / des Herrn Professor Kant / über die Logic. / nach Meier.”; below and to the right, in a different hand: “J. W. Volckmann.” Without date.
This manuscript has only recently been re-discovered [Knobloch 2002]. Prior to this, our only information came from Menzer’s 1912 list and Adickes [1914; AA 16:863]. Menzer described this as a fragment, and in the possession of Johannes Theodor Paul Wendland (born in 1864 in Hohenstein, East Prussia), a professor of classical philology at Göttingen since 1908. Johann Wilhelm Volckmann [bio] matriculated on 13 August 1782. See his other notes on natural theology (WS 1783/84), metaphysics (WS 1784/85), and physical geography (SS 1785).
According to Dr. Knoblauch, this manuscript had been stored for safe-keeping during World War II, but then was inadvertently shipped east after the war, and recently surfaced in the archives of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia. It was returned with a collection of other books to the SBPK (Berlin), and was identified at that time.
The ribbed paper is off-white and flecked, watermark is a crowned eagle, some pages with “GRG”; this is not the same paper as the Volckmann metaphysics notes, nor is it the same hand. The sheets have neat margins (inside: 1 cm; outside: 4 cm; top and bottom: 1 cm), with occasional marginalia in the outside margins, all written in the same hand as the text, usually with catchwords. The contemporaneous pagination and general use of catchwords suggests that no text is missing within these seventeen signatures, but a catchword (“sagt”) at the bottom of the last page (p. 160, as paginated) suggests one or more missing signatures at the end of the available text.
 All of the blank pages occur in the first nine signatures. The actual signature count is as follows (indicating recto/verso of each sheet, where ‘-’ means the page is blank; the numbers are the contemporaneous pagination by the copyist):
Sig. 1: 6 sheets, 7 pp. of text. (1/2, -/-, -/3, -/-, 4/5, 6/7)
Sig. 2: 8 sheets, 9 pp. of text (8/-, -/-, 9/10, 11/12, -/-, -/-, 13/14, 15/16
Sig. 3: 8 sheets, 8 pp. of text ([1/3 sheet cut, with text on top half with a sign to be inserted into p. 16, line 2]/-, 17/18, -/-, 19/20, -/-, 21/22, -/-, 23/24 [this is the other half of the 1st sheet of the signature, which is cut down to 1/3 size])
Sig. 4: 8 sheets, 8 pp. of text (-/-, 25/26, -/-, 27/28, -/-, 29/30, -/-, 31/32)
Sig. 5: 8 sheets, 8 pp. of text (-/-, 33/34, -/-, 35/36, -/-, 37/38, -/-, 39/40)
Sig. 6: 6 sheets, 6 pp. of text (41/42, 43/44, -/-, 45/46, -/-, -/-)
Sig. 7: 2 sheets, 2 pp. of text (47/48, -/-)
Sig. 8: 4 sheets, 4 pp. of text (-/-, 49/50, -/-, 51/52)
Sig. 9: 4 sheets, 4 pp. of text (-/-, 53/54, -/-, 55/56)
Sig. 10: 4 sheets, 8 pp. of text (57/58, 59/60, 61/62, 63/64)
Sig. 11: 4 sheets, 8 pp. of text (65/66, 67/68, 69/70, 71/72)
Sig. 12: 4 sheets, 8 pp. of text (73/74, 75/76, 77/78, 79/80)
Sig. 13: 8 sheets, 16 pp. of text (81/82, 83/84, 85/86, 87/88, 89/90, 91/92, 93/94, 95/96)
Sig. 14: 8 sheets, 16 pp. of text (97/98, 99/100, 101/102, 103/104, 105/106, 107/108, 109/110, 111/112)
Sig. 15: 8 sheets, 16 pp. of text (113/114, 115/116, 117/118, 119/120, 121/122, 123/124, 125/126, 127/128)
Sig. 16: 8 sheets, 16 pp. of text (129/130, 131/132, 133/134, 135/136, 137/138, 139/140, 141/142, 143/144)
Sig. 17: 8 sheets, 16 pp. of text (145/146, 147/148, 149/150, 151/152, 153/154, 155/156, 157/158, 159/160)
 Erler [1911-12, ii.571]: (13 Aug 1782) “Volkmann Joh. Wilh., Regiomonte-Boruss.”.
(1) Ms: Berlin, Ak-Archiv (NL-Kant 27).
SS 1782? The logic lectures would have been among his first to attend, and SS 1782 would have been his first opportunity.
Karl Christian Weisflog (1770-1828) matriculated as a law student on June 16, 1791. See the brief discussion and references in Lehmann (cited below). The text is a very brief passage on probability.
 Erler [1911-12, ii.616]: (16 Jun 1791) “Weisflog car. Christ., Sagan. Siles., iur. cult.”.
(1) Ms: Lost.
(1) Selection in Weisflog .
(2) Vaihinger [1902, 94-95].
(3) Lehmann [1966; AA 24:1021-22]. Reprint of Weisflog .