Volume 4: Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions (Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources) [1 ed.] 9780754663911, 0754663914

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of Contributors
Preface
Acknowledgements
List of Abbreviations
PART I THE PATRISTIC TRADITION
Athanasius: Kierkegaard’s Curious Comment
Augustine: Kierkegaard’s Tempered Admiration of Augustine
Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers
Chrysostom: Between the Hermitage and the City
Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”
Gregory of Nyssa: Locating the Cappadocian Fathers in Kierkegaard’s Church-Historical Narrative
Irenaeus: On Law, Gospel and the Grace of Death
Origen: Kierkegaard’s Equivocal Appropriation of Origen of Alexandria
Pelagius: Kierkegaard’s Use of Pelagius and Pelagianism
Tertullian: The Teacher of the credo quia absurdum
PART II THE MEDIEVAL TRADITION
Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician
Anselm of Canterbury: The Ambivalent Legacy of Faith Seeking Understanding
Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources
Boethius: Kierkegaard and The Consolation
Dante: Tours of Hell: Mapping the Landscape of Sin and Despair
Meister Eckhart: The Patriarch of German Speculation who was a Lebemeister: Meister Eckhart’s Silent Way into Kierkegaard’s Corpus
Petrarch: Kierkegaard’s Few and One-Sided References to a Like-Minded Thinker
Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics: Kierkegaard’s Reception of Johannes Tauler
Thomas à Kempis: Devotio Moderna and Kierkegaard’s Critique of “Bourgeois-Philistinism”
Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours—“with Respect to the Concept of the Romantic”
Index of Persons
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

KierKegaard and the Patristic and Medieval traditions

Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources Volume 4

Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources is a publication of the søren Kierkegaard research centre

General Editor Jon stewart Søren Kierkegaard Research Centre, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Editorial Board Katalin nun K. Brian söderquist Advisory Board istvÁn czaKÓ david d. Possen Joel d.s. rasMussen Peter šaJda heiKo schulz

This volume was published with the generous financial support of the danish agency for science, technology and innovation

Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval traditions

Edited by Jon stewart

First published 2008 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 2008 Jon stewart Jon stewart has asserted his moral right under the copyright, designs and Patents act, 1988, to be identified as the editor of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Kierkegaard and the patristic and medieval traditions. – (Kierkegaard research : sources, reception and resources ; v. 4) 1. Kierkegaard, søren, 1813–1855 2. christian literature, early – history and criticism 3. christian literature, latin (Medieval and modern) – history and criticism i. stewart, Jon (Jon Bartley) 198.9 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data stewart, Jon (Jon Bartley) Kierkegaard and the patristic and medieval traditions / Jon stewart. p. cm. – (Kierkegaard research ; v. 4) includes bibliographical references and index. isBn 978-0-7546-6391-1 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Kierkegaard, søren, 1813–1855. 2. Fathers of the church – history and criticism. 3. Philosophy, Medieval. i. title. B4377.s739 2007 198’.9–dc22 2007029191 isBn 9780754663911 (hbk) cover design by Katalin nun.

contents List of Contributors Preface Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations Part I

ix xi xiii xv

the PatrIstIC traDItIon

athanasius: Kierkegaard’s curious comment Robert Puchniak

3

augustine: Kierkegaard’s tempered admiration of augustine Robert Puchniak

11

Bernard of clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s reception of the last of the Fathers Jack Mulder, Jr.

23

chrysostom: Between the hermitage and the city Leo Stan

47

cyprian of carthage: Kierkegaard, cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times” Jack Mulder, Jr.

67

gregory of nyssa: locating the cappadocian Fathers in Kierkegaard’s church-historical narrative Joseph Ballan

95

irenaeus: on law, gospel and the grace of death Paul Martens

103

vi

Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions

origen: Kierkegaard’s equivocal appropriation of origen of alexandria Paul Martens

111

Pelagius: Kierkegaard’s use of Pelagius and Pelagianism Robert Puchniak

123

tertullian: the teacher of the credo quia absurdum Pierre Bühler

131

Part II

the MeDIevaL traDItIon

abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician István Czakó

145

anselm of canterbury: the ambivalent legacy of Faith seeking understanding Lee C. Barrett

167

thomas aquinas: Kierkegaard’s view Based on scattered and uncertain sources Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

183

Boethius: Kierkegaard and The Consolation Joseph Westfall

207

dante: tours of hell: Mapping the landscape of sin and despair Thomas Miles

223

Meister eckhart: the Patriarch of german speculation who was a Lebemeister: Meister eckhart’s silent way into Kierkegaard’s corpus Peter Šajda

237

Petrarch: Kierkegaard’s Few and one-sided references to a like-Minded thinker Karl Verstrynge

255

Contents

vii

tauler: a teacher in spiritual dietethics: Kierkegaard’s reception of Johannes tauler Peter Šajda 265 thomas à Kempis: Devotio Moderna and Kierkegaard’s critique of “Bourgeois-Philistinism” Joel D.S. Rasmussen

289

troubadour Poetry: the Young Kierkegaard’s study on troubadours—“with respect to the concept of the romantic” Tonny Aagaard Olesen

299

Index of Persons Index of Subjects

323 329

list of contributors Lee C. Barrett, lancaster theological seminary, 555 w. James street, 17603 lancaster, Pa, usa. Joseph Ballan, university of chicago divinity school, swift hall, 1025 east 58th street, chicago, il 60637, usa. Pierre Bühler, institut für hermeneutik und religionsphilosophie, theologische Fakultät, universität zürich, Kirchgasse 9, 8001 zurich, switzerland. István Czakó, Pázmány Péter catholic university, Faculty of humanities, department of Philosophy, egyetem út 1. Pf. 33., 2087 Piliscsaba, hungary. Paul Martens, department of religion, Baylor university, one Bear Place #97284, waco, tX 76798-7284, usa. thomas Miles, Philosophy department, Boston college, 21 campanella way, chestnut hill, Ma 02467, usa. Jack Mulder, Jr., hope college, department of Philosophy, 126 east 10th street, holland, Mi 49423, usa. Benjamín olivares Bøgeskov, søren Kierkegaard research centre, Farvergade 27d, 1463 copenhagen K, denmark. tonny aagaard olesen, søren Kierkegaard research centre, Farvergade 27d, 1463 copenhagen K, denmark. robert Puchniak, delbarton school, 230 Mendham road, Morristown, nJ 07960, usa. Joel D.s. rasmussen, Mansfield College, Oxford University, Mansfield Road oxford, oX1 3tF, uK. Peter Šajda, Kierkegaard Society in Slovakia, Hurbanova 16, 927 01 Šaľa, Slovakia. Leo stan, department of religious studies, McMaster university, university hall, room 105, hamilton, ontario, l8s 4K1, canada.

x

Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions

Karl verstrynge, vrije universiteit Brussel, vakgroep wijsbegeerte en Moraal wetenschappen, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Joseph Westfall, department of social sciences, university of houston-downtown, houston, tX 77002, usa.

Preface the present volume features articles which employ source-work research to trace Kierkegaard’s understanding and use of authors from the Patristic and Medieval traditions. it covers an extraordinarily long period of time from cyprian and tertullian in the second century to Thomas à Kempis in the fifteenth. The authors from the beginning of this extended period overlap chronologically with a part of the period covered in volume 3 of this series, Kierkegaard and the Roman World. For the sake of thematic continuity, it was decided to feature only pagan authors in that volume and to have the articles treating the christian authors appear in the present volume. Moreover, this collection is also profoundly heterogeneous with respect to the geographical regions and nationalities of the featured sources. in contrast to this series’ more homogeneous volumes on Kierkegaard’s relations to the greeks, the romans, the germans, and his Danish contemporaries, the present volume features articles on figures from all over the colorful world of late antiquity and the Middle ages. like the other volumes in this series, this one is interdisciplinary, treating important figures from philosophy, theology, and literature. despite its heterogeneity and diversity in many aspects, this volume has a clear point of commonality in all its featured sources: christianity. generally speaking, Kierkegaard’s relation to the Patristic and Medieval traditions has been a rather neglected area of research in comparison with his relation to the greeks, the germans or his contemporary danes, each of which area already has its own established research tradition in Kierkegaard studies. to date there is no extended research monograph on his relations to any of the figures treated in the present volume or to the period as a whole. this is somewhat surprising given the fact that the young Kierkegaard learned about the Patristic authors during his studies at the university of copenhagen and, moreover, was clearly fascinated by many aspects of their writings and the conceptions of christian religiosity found there. in 1838 in his Journal FF he refers to the “most noble avenue of the church Fathers, in whose shade I still at times can find rest.”1 towards the other end of his authorship, he praises the Patristic authors for a keen awareness of the radical demands of christianity in contrast to what he regarded as the modern diluted versions of it: “the ancient church Fathers clearly indicate that they still remembered, they still took personally, that there was a time when sacrificing everything was taken literally. it is so long now since such things were taken literally that to us it has become a fable that such a thing was ever carried out.”2 with regard to the Medieval tradition, Kierkegaard, like many of his romantic contemporaries, was witness to and participant in a resurgent interest in this period. 1 2

SKS 18, 103, FF:147 / JP 1, 583. SKS 24, 262, nB23:116 / JP 4, 3830.

xii

Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions

Medieval mysticism, medieval art, the medieval church, troubadour poetry and the monastic movement were all themes that exercised Kierkegaard during different periods of his life. although far from uncritical, he seems at times to idolize the Middle ages—as he does the Patristic tradition—as a contrastive term to the corrupt and decadent modern world with its complacent christianity. in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, for example, he has his pseudonymous author write, “the Middle ages has a certain similarity to greece and had what the greeks had, passion. thus the monastic movement is a passionate decision, as is appropriate with respect to the absolute τελος, and to that extent is far preferable in its nobility to the wretched broken-age wisdom of mediation.”3 in Judge for Yourself! he writes along similar lines as follows: we pause for a moment at the Middle ages. however great its errors were, its conception of christianity has a decisive advantage over that of our time. the Middle ages conceived of christianity along the lines of action, life, existence-transformation. this is the merit. it is another matter that some of the actions they hit upon were strange, that it could think that in itself fasting was christianity, that entering the monastery, giving everything to the poor, not to mention what we can scarcely mention without smiling—scourging oneself, crawling on one’s knees, standing on one leg, etc.—that this was supposed to be true imitation.4

here Kierkegaard praises the Middle ages for its praxis-oriented conception of christianity, which involves an appropriation and realization of the christian truth in action. While he clearly regards the specific forms of this medieval appropriation of christianity to be misguided, he is nonetheless positively disposed toward the general understanding of it as something to be lived and realized by each individual. this conception is then used as a positive model that is contrasted to the, to his mind, misguided understanding of christianity in his own day. this volume will, it is hoped, encourage further research into Kierkegaard’s use of the Patristic and medieval sources featured here. as the articles here demonstrate, this is a highly fruitful research direction for future Kierkegaard studies to explore.

3 4

SKS 7, 366 / CUP1, 402. SV1 Xii, 460 / JFY, 192.

acknowledgements this volume owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to many people, who have helped with its realization in many ways. a special thanks is owed to the sponsor of this series, the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation. Its generous financial assistance has made the creation and execution of this project possible. i would also like to thank niels Jørgen cappelørn, Bjarne laurberg olsen, and the søren Kierkegaard research centre at the university of copenhagen—the host institute of the project—for all their efforts. the quality of this volume has been improved by the meticulous proof-reading of Finn gredal Jensen and Philip hillyer. i am most grateful for the fruitful cooperation with the kind editors at ashgate, Paul coulam and Kate Brown. their support of this series has been greatly appreciated. cynthia lund’s overwhelming help and hospitality was profoundly appreciated. she made possible a very pleasant and productive stay at the hong Kierkegaard library at st. olaf college, during which much of the bibliographical work for this volume was done. Finally, I must thank all of the contributors for their selfless sacrifices of valuable research time and resources that went into writing the outstanding articles that constitute this volume. without their cooperation, this collection would never have been possible.

list of abbreviations Danish Abbreviations B&A

Breve og Aktstykker vedrørende Søren Kierkegaard, ed. by niels thulstrup, vols. i–ii, copenhagen: Munksgaard 1953–4.

Bl.art.

S. Kierkegaard’s Bladartikler, med Bilag samlede efter Forfatterens Død, udgivne som Supplement til hans øvrige Skrifter, ed. by rasmus nielsen, copenhagen: c. a. reitzel 1857.

EP

Af Søren Kierkegaards Efterladte Papirer, vols. 1–9, ed. by h.P. Barfod and hermann gottsched, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1869–81.

Pap.

Søren Kierkegaards Papirer, vols. i to Xi–3, ed. by Peter andreas heiberg, victor Kuhr and einer torsting, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel, nordisk Forlag, 1909–48; second, expanded ed., vols. i to Xi–3, by niels thulstrup, vols. Xii to Xiii supplementary volumes, ed. by niels thulstrup, vols. Xiv to Xvi index by niels Jørgen cappelørn, copenhagen: gyldendal 1968–78.

SKS

Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter, vols. 1–28, K1–28, ed. by niels Jørgen cappelørn, Joakim garff, Jette Knudsen, Johnny Kondrup, alastair McKinnon and Finn hauberg Mortensen, copenhagen: gads Forlag 1997ff.

SV1

Samlede Værker, ed. by a.B. drachmann, J.l. heiberg and h.o. lange, vols. i–Xiv, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag 1901–6. English Abbreviations

AN

Armed Neutrality, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1998.

AR

On Authority and Revelation, The Book on Adler, trans. by walter lowrie. Princeton: Princeton university Press 1955.

ASKB

The Auctioneer’s Sales Record of the Library of Søren Kierkegaard, ed. by h.P. rohde, copenhagen: the royal library 1967.

BA

The Book on Adler, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1998.

xvi

Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions

C

The Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an Actress, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1997.

CA

The Concept of Anxiety, trans. by reidar thomte in collaboration with albert B. anderson, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1980.

CD

Christian Discourses, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1997.

CI

The Concept of Irony, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1989.

CIC

The Concept of Irony, trans. with an introduction and notes by lee M. capel, london: collins 1966.

COR

The Corsair Affair; Articles Related to the Writings, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1982.

CUP1

Concluding Unscientific Postscript, vol. 1, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1982.

CUP2

Concluding Unscientific Postscript, vol. 2, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1982.

EO1

Either/Or, Part i, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1987.

EO2

Either/Or, Part ii, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1987.

EOP

Either/Or, trans. by alastair hannay, harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1992.

EPW

Early Polemical Writings, among others: From the Papers of One Still Living; Articles from Student Days; The Battle Between the Old and the New SoapCellars, trans. by Julia watkin, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1990.

EUD

Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1990.

FSE

For Self-Examination, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1990.

FT

Fear and Trembling, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1983.

List of Abbreviations

xvii

FTP

Fear and Trembling, trans. by alastair hannay, harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1985.

JC

Johannes Climacus, or De omnibus dubitandum est, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1985.

JFY

Judge for Yourself!, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1990.

JP

Søren Kierkegaard’s Journals and Papers, ed. and trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, assisted by gregor Malantschuk, vols. 1–6, vol. 7 index and composite collation, Bloomington and london: indiana university Press 1967–78.

KAC

Kierkegaard’s Attack upon “Christendom,” 1854–1855, trans. by walter lowrie, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1944.

KJN

Kierkegaard’s Journals and Notebooks, vols. 1–11, ed. by niels Jørgen cappelørn, alastair hannay, david Kangas, Bruce h. Kirmmse, george Pattison, vanessa rumble, and K. Brian söderquist, Princeton and oxford: Princeton university Press 2007ff.

LD

Letters and Documents, trans. by henrik rosenmeier, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1978 (a translation of B&A).

M

The Moment and Late Writings, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1998.

P

Prefaces / Writing Sampler, trans. by todd w. nichol, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1997.

PC

Practice in Christianity, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1991.

PF

Philosophical Fragments, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1985.

PJ

Papers and Journals: A Selection, trans. with introductions and notes by alastair hannay, harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1996.

PLR

Prefaces: Light Reading for Certain Classes as the Occasion May Require, trans. by william Mcdonald, tallahassee: Florida state university Press 1989.

PLS

Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. by david F. swenson and walter lowrie, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1941.

xviii

Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions

PV

The Point of View including On My Work as an Author, The Point of View for My Work as an Author, and Armed Neutrality, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1998.

PVL

The Point of View for My Work as an Author including On My Work as an Author, trans. by walter lowrie. new York and london: oxford university Press 1939.

R

Repetition, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1983.

SBL

Notes of Schelling’s Berlin Lectures, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1989.

SLW

Stages on Life’s Way, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1988.

SUD

The Sickness unto Death, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1980.

SUDP

The Sickness unto Death, trans. by alastair hannay, harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1989.

TA

Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age. A Literary Review, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1978.

TD

Three Discourses on Imagined Occasions, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1993.

UD

Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1993.

WA

Without Authority including The Lily in the Field and the Bird of the Air, Two Ethical–Religious Essays, Three Discourses at the Communion on Fridays, An Upbuilding Discourse, Two Discourses at the Communion on Fridays, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1997.

WL

Works of Love, trans. by howard v. hong and edna h. hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1995.

Part i the Patristic tradition

athanasius: Kierkegaard’s curious comment robert Puchniak

I. Historical Introduction athanasius (ca. 295–373) was a Patristic author, bishop of alexandria, champion of nicene orthodoxy, and unrelenting opponent of arianism. he played a prominent role in the development of christian theology and church order in the fourth century. Known for his depth of knowledge of scripture, he was involved in the key doctrinal controversies that addressed the nature and person of christ as well as the relationship of the son to the Father within the trinity. in opposition to those who would consider christ a creature lacking eternal generation, athanasius defended the full divinity of christ, especially given the implications of this belief for the salvation of humankind from death and sin. according to his surviving writings and the ecclesiastical histories of socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen (both dating to the fifth century), Athanasius lived an eventful life.1 selected to succeed alexander as bishop of alexandria in 328, Athanasius was thrust into the disputes that followed the first ecumenical council at nicaea (325). he consistently derided the arguments of arius (d. 336), who claimed that god the Father was alone without beginning and that the son had an origin in time (and therefore once had not existed). arius denied that the son was of the same nature as the Father, contending instead that the son was fundamentally unlike the Father, subordinate and not co-eternal. By contrast, athanasius advocated the use of the term homoousios (“of one being” or “substance”) to describe the relationship of the son to the Father. though controversial for its non-biblical origins, homoousios did attempt to speak to the principle that only one who shares the nature of the Father could save humanity from death and sin (a power no subordinate being could possess). athanasius faced exile on three separate occasions during his lifetime when his opponents gained the favor of the emperor’s court and his life was threatened. he did not enjoy the unfailing comfort of imperial support. In authoring the influential For athanasius’ life and works, see Khaled anatolios, Athanasius, new York: routledge 2004. timothy david Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, cambridge, Massachusetts: harvard university Press 1993. david Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism, Baltimore: Johns hopkins university Press 1998. david M. gwynn, The Eusebians: the Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian Controversy,’ oxford: oxford university Press 2007. 1

4

Robert Puchniak

and widely read Life of Antony, athanasius cast the legendary anchoritic monk as an avowed supporter of the nicene cause. Beyond his extant letters and anti-arian polemics, On the Incarnation (and its complementary work, Contra Gentes) has been recognized as perhaps the singular masterpiece of athanasius.2 It is here that one finds no particular mention of Arius by name, yet a clear statement of the nicene theology to which athanasius was dedicated and which he believed arius endangered. insisting upon the eternal and ungenerated nature of the second Person of the trinity, athanasius asserted that the renewal of creation (which occurs through the incarnation) happens by the very same word that created this world in the beginning. god, he writes, “made all things out of nothing through his own word, our lord Jesus christ.”3 athanasius argued that the second Person did not come into existence with the birth of Jesus, and that “christ is god, the word and Power of god,” nothing less.4 II. Kierkegaard and Athanasius there are precious few occasions when Kierkegaard mentions the name of this important greek Father, and these seem to all date to 1838, several months after Kierkegaard’s father had died and during the time søren was studying for his theological exams (which he would complete in 1840). one mention is simply a reading note from Johann adam Möhler’s (1796–1827) Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit, besonders im Kampfe mit Arianismus,5 and another is a reference to “an inappropriate joy over power and authority in the spiritual sense” found in the Life of Antony, “according to information on athanasius gathered from Möhler.”6 a third, and the most curious, mention of athanasius is this: “i have been reading görres’ Athanasius these days—not only with my eyes but with my whole body, with the solar plexus.”7 here Kierkegaard refers to Joseph von görres’ (1776–1848) book Athanasius, which he owned in the fourth edition from 1838.8 what could the young student have meant by this remark? what was it in reading about athanasius that resonated with him so powerfully? lacking any further particular answer from Kierkegaard himself, readers of his brief note are left to conjecture. Nowhere does Kierkegaard provide further specification about what moved him in görres’ text. see the english translation Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione, trans. by robert w. thomson, oxford: clarendon Press 1971. 3 De Incarnatione, 1.3. 4 De Incarnatione, 8.55. 5 Johann adam Möhler, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit, besonders im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus. In sechs Büchern, vols. 1–2, Mainz: Florian Kupferberg 1827 (ASKB 635–636); see SKS 18, 353–9, KK:5 / KJN 1, 262. 6 SKS 17, 271, dd:178 / JP 2175. 7 SKS 18, 102, FF:142 / JP 5, 5321. the danish text reads: “…ikke blot med Øinene, men med hele min Krop—med Hjertekulen.” Kierkegaard indicates that he reads not superficially but instead with the “pit of his stomach,” that is, with visceral engagement to the text. 8 Joseph von görres, Athanasius, 4th ed., regensburg: Manz 1838 (ASKB 1673). cf. SKS K18, 147. 2

Athanasius: Kierkegaard’s Curious Comment

5

in scholarly works, there is little disagreement with the idea that Kierkegaard’s christian faith holds Jesus christ as fully human and fully divine, in continuity with the athanasian creed.9 after all, Kierkegaard, addressing nineteenth-century denmark, was not attempting to change the what of christianity but the how it ought to be manifest in human existence (with, for example, “transparency,” “pathos” and “earnestness”).10 What direct influence Athanasius might have had upon Kierkegaard, however, is much more difficult to ascertain. J. Heywood Thomas, for one, suggests that Kierkegaard’s understanding of the incarnation as “absolute Paradox” is derived from athanasius (as well as from tertullian) and “receives its form in the Fragments in the context of the discussion of socrates.”11 it is true indeed that athanasius characterizes christ as “paradox” in On the Incarnation. For example, Jesus christ, he says, existed within his mortal body and yet his presence elsewhere was not hindered by that body (he continued “to direct the universe by his Mind and might.”12 The death inflicted upon Christ was thought to inflict dishonor and disgrace but instead “has become the glorious monument to death’s defeat.”13 and, christ as “word of god” has “by strangest paradox” confounded the “choicest sophists” in this world and drawn “all men to himself.”14 to conclude that Kierkegaard received directly from athanasius the idea that the incarnation was the “ultimate Paradox,” however, remains a tenuous assertion. while such a reading is plausible, it remains without definitive confirmation. Beyond athanasius’ interest in the incarnation as paradox, it can be suggested that there were other good reasons why Kierkegaard might have been enraptured by this church Father. what might have appealed to Kierkegaard was athanasius’ ability to draw connections between theology (e.g., christology and soteriology) and human existence (e.g., anthropology and christian practice): in the wellknown formula, god became human that human beings might become like god.15 the incarnation makes all human possibilities possible. athanasius insisted that god became fully human (and yet remained fully divine) so as to “make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.”16 out of mercy for humanity, god took upon himself “corruption” that he might return humanity to “incorruption.”17 in a parable that might provoke reminiscence of the pseudonym Johannes climacus and Philosophical Fragments, athanasius writes:

9 eduard geismar, Lectures on the Religious Thought of Søren Kierkegaard, Minneapolis: augsburg Publishing house 1937. see also, tim rose, Kierkegaard’s Christocentric Theology, aldershot: ashgate 2001; a. Murray rae, Kierkegaard’s Vision of the Incarnation, oxford: clarendon Press 1997. 10 see, for example, Practice in Christianity. 11 John heywood thomas, Subjectivity and Paradox, new York: Macmillan 1957, p. 108. 12 De Incarnatione, 3.17. 13 De Incarnatione, 4.24. 14 De Incarnatione, 8.50 (divine foolishness surpasses human wisdom). the translation consulted here is that of Penelope lawson, On the Incarnation, new York: Macmillan 1981. 15 De Incarnatione, 8.54. cf. Khaled anatolios, Athanasius. 16 De Incarnatione, 2.8. 17 ibid.

6

Robert Puchniak You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honored, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. even so is it with the King of all; he has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be.18

athanasius’ theology of the atonement was accompanied by a message of hope in the resurrection: the same god who created humanity and bestowed “godlikeness” in human persons also “took pity” upon humanity as they were subjected to “the limitation of their nature” and death itself, “lest their very existence should prove purposeless.”19 god, in essence, effected a “re-creation” of human existence,20 and accomplished something human beings could not have done alone: destroy death itself and “give to mortals immortality.”21 in turn, then, christians ought not be disturbed by the fear of death, because they have been “ransomed.”22 according to athanasius, all christian disciples can “tread [death] underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in christ, knowing full well that when they die they do not perish, but live indeed, and become incorruptible through the resurrection.”23 the divine word, says athanasius, assumed human flesh as an “instrument” of salvation and a means to make Himself known to all.24 the invisible god became visible that humanity might know the way to “incorruptibility,” and christ “has taught men what they could never learn among the idols.”25 athanasius draws out, then, the implications of the incarnation for human (and Christian) existence. His theology and the figurative imagery used to unravel the meaning of “god becoming man” must have left a profound impression upon the young student, Kierkegaard, who admitted as much by remarking that he read about athanasius “med Hjertekulen.” Perhaps we can hear the influence uttered in this prayer included in Judge for Yourself!: o redeemer, by your holy suffering and death you have made satisfaction for everyone and everything; no eternal salvation either can or shall be earned—it has been earned. Yet you left your footprints, you, the holy prototype for the human race and for every individual, so that by your Atonement the saved might at every moment find the confidence and boldness to want to strive to follow you.26

De Incarnatione, 2.9. De Incarnatione, 3.11. 20 De Incarnatione, 3.13. 21 De Incarnatione, 4.20. 22 De Incarnatione, 4.21. 23 ibid., 5.27. think here of Kierkegaard’s meditations upon “a fate worse than death” found in The Sickness unto Death, where anti-climacus considers the person who fears the death of the mortal body, despairs, and thus imperils his or her eternal life. 24 De Incarnatione, 7.44. 25 De Incarnatione, 8.52. 26 SV1 Xii, 423 / JFY 147. 18 19

Athanasius: Kierkegaard’s Curious Comment

7

While it may be the case that an Athanasian influence is detectable in Kierkegaard’s christology, it does appear, in the end, that Kierkegaard’s knowledge of athanasius reaches him indirectly, transmitted through works on athanasius, rather than via a direct encounter with athanasius’ writings. there is no clear evidence of Kierkegaard reading a primary text of athanasius.

Bibliography I. Athanasius’ Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library none. II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Athanasius Baur, Ferdinand christian, Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1838, p. 85; p. 94; p. 99; p. 105; p. 108; p. 12; p. 322 (ASKB 423). Becker, Karl Friedrich, Karl Friedrich Beckers Verdenshistorie, omarbeidet af Johan Gottfried Woltmann, vols. 1–12, trans. by J. riise, copenhagen: Fr. Brummers Forlag 1822–9, vol. 3, pp. 797–9 (ASKB 1972–1983). Böhringer, Friedrich, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 1, abtheilung 2, pp. 7–121 (ASKB 173–177). clausen, henrik nicolai, Christelig Troeslære, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1853, p. 131; p. 237; p. 497 (ASKB 256). —— Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 169 (ASKB 468). engelhardt, Johann georg veit, Literarischer Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen über die Patristik, erlangen: ioh. iac. Palm und ernst enke 1823, pp. 32–7 (ASKB 477). erdmann, Johann eduard, Vorlesungen über Glauben und Wissen als Einleitung in die Dogmatik und Religionsphilosophie, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1837, p. 176 (ASKB 479). görres, Joseph von, Athanasius, 4th ed., regensburg: Manz 1838 (ASKB 1673). günther, anton and Johann heinrich Pabst, Janusköpfe. Zur Philosophie und Theologie, vienna: wallishausser 1834, p. 135; p. 168 (ASKB 524). hahn, august (ed.), Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 233; p. 446; p. 459 (ASKB 535). hansen, M. Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, pp. 35–8 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, pp. 115–17; p. 120 (ASKB 160–166).

Athanasius: Kierkegaard’s Curious Comment

9

helfferich, adolph, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung und in ihren Denkmalen, vols. 1–2, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, p. 190; p. 219 (ASKB 571–572). lentz, carl georg heinrich, Geschichte der christlichen Dogmen in pragmatischer Entwickelung, vol. 1, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1834, p. 129; pp. 132–5 passim; p. 139; pp. 149–52 passim; p. 158; p. 171 [vol. 2, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1835] (ASKB 621). Möhler, Johann adam, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit, besonders im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus. In sechs Büchern, vols. 1–2, Mainz: Florian Kupferberg 1827 (ASKB 635–636). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Møller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 90; p. 91 (ASKB 168). rothe, valdemar henrik, Læren om Treenighed og Forsoning. Et speculativt Forsøg i Anledning af Reformationsfesten, copenhagen: J.d. quist 1836, p. 72; pp. 94–5 (ASKB 746). schleiermacher, Friedrich, Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsä[t]zen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt, vols. 1–2, 3rd ed., Berlin: g. reimer 1835–6 (vols. 3–4, in Friedrich Schleiermacher’s sämmtliche Werke, Erste Abtheilung. Zur Theologie, Berlin: g. reimer 1834–64; some of the volumes were published in Berlin: august herbig), vol. 2, p. 61 (ASKB 258). tennemann, wilhelm gottlieb, Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1819, vol. 7, pp. 87–336 (ASKB 815–826). wette, wilhelm Martin leberecht de, Lærebog i den christelige Sædelære og sammes Historie, trans. by c.e. scharling, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1835, p. 108; p. 112 (ASKB 871). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Athanasius geismar, eduard, Søren Kierkegaard. Hans Livsudvikling og Forfattervirksomhed, vols. 1–6, copenhagen: g.e.c. gads 1926–8, vol. 3 (Livsfilosofi), p. 69; p. 107. gouwens, david J., Kierkegaard as Religious Thinker, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1996, p. 145. rae, Murray a., Kierkegaard’s Vision of the Incarnation: By Faith Transformed, oxford: clarendon Press 1997, p. 64; p. 221. rose, tim, Kierkegaard’s Christocentric Theology, aldershot: ashgate 2001, p. 50; p. 66; p. 70; p. 71; p. 77; p. 110. thomas, John heywood, Subjectivity and Paradox, new York: Macmillan 1957, pp. 106–8.

augustine: Kierkegaard’s tempered admiration of augustine robert Puchniak

Bishop, theologian, controversialist and author of a monastic rule, augustine (AD 354–430) has cast a long shadow over the history of christian thought and practice. The vast collection of his surviving writings, most significant among them Confessiones, De Civitate dei, De doctrina Christiana, and De Trinitate, as well as hundreds of sermons and letters, have exercised an influence in all areas of theology, from christology and soteriology to ecclesiology, worship, mysticism, and beyond. Known by Bernard of clairveaux as the “hammer of the heretics,” augustine’s battles against Manichaeism, donatism, and Pelagianism are well documented, and each spurred the further development of his ideas. in his struggle against the Manichees, Augustine would refine his understanding of the nature of one triune god and the origins of evil (with assistance from neoplatonic philosophers). against the donatists, who claimed to be the true “church of the martyrs,” augustine would become a staunch defender of the catholic christian community in north africa, which enjoyed imperial support. and against the Pelagians, he would clarify his doctrines of original sin, grace and redemption. Born in north africa to a christian mother (Monica) and pagan father (Patricius), he was schooled in grammar and rhetoric and claimed an ardent love of philosophy, thanks in no small part to his encounter with cicero’s works. Much of his youth was defined by his allegiance to the Manichees, among whom he served as a “Hearer,” but whom he would denounce after one of his several “conversions.” the trajectory of augustine’s thought would pass through his affection for the philosophy of the “Platonists” (likely Plotinus and Porphyry) and an all-important encounter with ambrose of Milan (AD ca. 340–97), on his way to adopting the christianity of his mother, a path laid out in his Confessiones. Baptized in 387, he was ordained priest in 391, and made bishop of hippo in 395. augustine would participate in several church councils and synods. as he lay dying in 430, the vandals were besieging north africa, further hastening the end of the roman empire. though the complete works of augustine (Augustini Aurelii Opera) were part of Kierkegaard’s own library of resources,1 it remains an open question the extent Augustini Aurelii Opera. Opera et studio Monachorum Ordinis S. Bened. e Congregat, vols. 1–18, ed. by s. Mauri, 3rd ed., venice: Bassani 1797–1807 (ASKB 117–134).

1

12

Robert Puchniak

to which he relied upon augustine. while it may have been that the scholarly world known by Kierkegaard enjoyed a mild renaissance of interest in augustine,2 direct lines of some historical influence of Augustine upon Kierkegaard remain indefinite. there is a smattering of references in Kierkegaard’s published works to augustine, and several dozen instances of augustine being mentioned in Kierkegaard’s Papirer. From these it is possible to suggest that Kierkegaard held augustine in high regard on select matters, but also saw augustine as leaving an unhappy legacy, one of “christian philosophy” in particular, that Kierkegaard vehemently denounced. I. Augustine in Kierkegaard’s Published Works Kierkegaard’s clearest engagement with the theology of augustine, directly by name, can be found in the work, The Concept of Anxiety, authored by the pseudonym, vigilius haufniensis. there Kierkegaard considers the doctrine of hereditary sin, which he recognizes as “something present” in human persons, sinfulness that came into being through adam.3 he attributes the concept, peccatum originale [original sin], transmitted from the origin, to augustine and further recognizes Protestant criticisms of Scholastic definitions of the term.4 rather than delving into an explanation of adam’s sin, haufniensis chooses to understand it in light of its “consequences.” instead of seeing the issue as “adam’s sin,” he argues for attention to “what is essential to human existence,” that is, “that man is individuum and as such simultaneously himself and the whole race,” which must be “held fast,” he argues, or else one will succumb to Pelagian errors.5 thus, he emphasizes that the individual has “a history” and is faced with “a task” (which he also calls “movement”), and each “begins anew.”6 innocence is lost, he continues, “only by the quantitative leap of the individual” into sinfulness.7 there are several other places in the Kierkegaardian corpus where augustine’s name is raised, in all cases in a peripheral manner. in The Concept of Irony, for example, when Kierkegaard discusses the occasion of the need for socrates (it was blessed that human beings “had turned away from the gods and become absorbed in themselves”), he compares the events to the “beata culpa” [happy fault] considered by augustine in De diligendo Deo.8 in Prefaces, Kierkegaard compares the “visible reading public” in copenhagen when it gathers to discuss a new book (“all are milling around in total confusion”) with augustine’s distinction between “the visible and invisible church.”9 the visible church, according to augustine, was a mixed body of saints and sinners (the invisible was filled only with saints). In Stages on Life’s see c. weltzer, “augustinus og Brødrene Kierkegaard,” in Festskrift til Jens Nørregaard, copenhagen: g.e.c. gads 1947, pp. 305–20. 3 SKS 4, 333 / CA, 26. 4 SKS 4, 333–4 / CA, 27. 5 SKS 4, 335 / CA, 28. 6 SKS 4, 335, 340 / CA, 28–9, 34. 7 SKS 4, 344 / CA, 37. 8 see SKS 1, 221 / CI, 173. cf. augustine, De diligendo Deo, 6. 9 SKS 4, 480 / P, 16. 2

Augustine: Kierkegaard’s Tempered Admiration of Augustine

13

Way, in “Some Reflections on Marriage in Answer to Objections” (by “A Married Man”), the author references augustine’s De bono viduitatis, wherein augustine teaches that God’s kingdom will be filled much faster by means of celibacy, and the end of the world will be hastened.10 the “married man” cites this as an example of how an “impatient thinker” might “cross every boundary of sound reasoning.”11 in “guilty/not guilty,” in the pages of quidam’s diary found by Frater taciturnus in søborg lake, the author describes an episode wherein a friend had tried to “stir up a little jealousy” in him, but quidam would not take the bait.12 quidam cites augustine’s words, “non enim est in carendo difficultas, nisi quum est in habendo cupiditas [for there is no difficulty in abstaining, unless there is lust in enjoying].”13 in Works of Love, when contrasting christian love of neighbor and paganism’s eroticism and friendship (passionate preferential love), Kierkegaard refers to pagan virtues as “glittering vices.”14 the term, also used by other church Fathers, is explicated in De Civitate dei. there augustine writes, “For what kind of mistress over the body and the vices can a mind be that is ignorant of the true god and is not subjected to his rule, but instead is prostituted to the corrupting influence of vicious demons?”15 augustine argues that a mind not in proper relation to god cannot bring forth virtues. overall, the space in Kierkegaard’s published works devoted to ideas of augustine is minimal. More is revealed, however, within the confines of Kierkegaard’s journals and papers.16 II. Augustine in Kierkegaard’s Journals and Papers It is here that one finds Kierkegaard’s evident appreciation for elements of augustine’s thought. when Kierkegaard laments that the quality of “reduplication” is almost never seen (this attribute is, briefly, to live as one writes, with authenticity), he makes an exception among “religious authors” for augustine, who, Kierkegaard writes, “actually reduplicates his thought.”17 Kierkegaard also seems to appreciate that Augustine, with his “plain speaking,” saw the Christian life as an “affliction” and an “exile,” that is, because the “Prototype” had to suffer, so too do christians.18 Further, Kierkegaard praises augustine for considering christianity the “most perfect form” of “authority,” “what men need” because they have been wearied by SKS 6, 138 / SLW, 147. cf. augustine, De bono viduitatis, 28. ibid. 12 SKS 6, 315 / SLW, 338. 13 augustine, De Doctrina christiana, iii, 18. 14 SKS 9, 60 / WL, 53. 15 augustine, De Civitate dei, XiX, 25. 16 importantly, it appears that much of Kierkegaard’s acquaintance with augustine is due to his reading of Friedrich Böhringer’s work, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 (ASKB 173–177) [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], which Kierkegaard cites often in his journals and notebooks. 17 SKS 20, 418, nB5:117 / JP 3, 3667. 18 SKS 24, 281, nB23:154 / JP 4, 4670. 10 11

14

Robert Puchniak

the “philosophers’ doubt and the wretchedness of life.”19 this was an apt thought, believed Kierkegaard, in an age when “we think that scholarship is true only when all authority has been speculated away.”20 Kierkegaard also seems to agree with why Augustine “hit upon election by grace,” that is, simply to avoid the difficulty of the idea that a person’s eternal salvation might be decided by “a striving in time,” which, comments Kierkegaard, “is so superhumanly heavy that it will kill a man even more surely than a massive sunstroke.”21 augustine’s “rigorous teaching about truth” garnered him the approval of Kierkegaard.22 it is also true, however, that from within the privacy of his journals Kierkegaard voiced a stern reprimand to augustine. Kierkegaard denounced augustine for the “incalculable harm” he had done, for “the whole system of doctrine through the centuries relies essentially upon him—and he has confused the concept of ‛faith.’ ”23 according to Kierkegaard, augustine had “reinstated” what he called “the whole Greek philosophical pagan definition of faith,” in which “faith is a concept which belongs in the sphere of the intellectual.”24 In so doing, Augustine’s fatal flaw, says Kierkegaard, was that he made christianity “into doctrine, an object for passive, brooding meditation,” and this is “confusion.”25 Kierkegaard concludes that augustine drew his concept of faith “directly from Plato.”26 one who turns faith into a matter of knowledge, argues Kierkegaard, has forgotten that “faith is at home in the existential” and that it is “not a sum of axioms.”27 elsewhere, Kierkegaard denounces the “socalled christian philosophers,” among whom he counts augustine, as “muddleheads” who forget that christianity is related to “the category of the single individual.”28 III. Scholarly Discussion of Kierkegaard and Augustine conclusions about the extent of Kierkegaard’s reading of augustine, as well as speculation upon the possible influence of Augustine upon Kierkegaard, have varied widely in the works of scholarship that consider these questions. some, like george Pattison, have argued that Kierkegaard did not engage the “great tradition” (Plato, aristotle, augustine, etc.) with much seriousness or depth, and that Kierkegaard ought to be considered “at best, a marginal contributor or even a joker in the pack” in relation to it.29 others, such as Jørgen Pedersen have argued that “augustinianism” is “a major presupposition of sK’s own thought” and that many Kierkegaardian Pap. Xi–1 a 436 / JP 1, 191. Pap. Xi–2 a 328 / JP 1, 181. 21 Pap. Xi–1 a 297 / JP 3, 2551. 22 Pap. v B 115:1 / SLW, supplement, p. 601. 23 Pap. Xi–1 a 237 / JP 1, 180. 24 ibid. 25 Pap. X–5 a 134 / JP 4, 3864. 26 Pap. Xi–2 a 380 / JP 2, 1154. 27 Pap. Xi–1 a 237 / JP 1, 180. 28 Pap. Xi–1 a 371 / JP 4, 4299. 29 george Pattison, Kierkegaard, Religion and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Culture, cambridge: cambridge university Press 2002, p. 47. Pattison argues elsewhere that “although Kierkegaard does not seem to have engaged directly with Augustine to any significant degree, 19 20

Augustine: Kierkegaard’s Tempered Admiration of Augustine

15

concepts “will constantly recall the historically rooted augustinianism from which they have their strength.”30 when surveying the number of works which consider Kierkegaard and augustine in the same breath, one finds surprisingly few resources, though what has been written is certainly rich with insight. Ernst Moritz Manasse has argued for “a definite parallelism”31 between the two, pointing to the central idea that “consciousness is a character of the self”32 and is to be equated with will, as it relates to conversion. walter dietz has pointed to the fundamental agreement between the two regarding the relationship between self (as body-soul-spirit) and god as affected by the sinfulness of humanity, as well as the finitude and contingency of human beings in the process of “becoming.”33 others have argued for greater emphasis upon the differences elicited from comparative studies. Blaise romeyer has noted that, regarding faith and reason, Kierkegaardian fideism confronts the rational religion of Augustine.34 lee Barrett, in assessing Kierkegaard and the augustinian doctrine of original sin, has presented Kierkegaard as seeking to avoid both “the atomized individual acts of Pelagianism” but “without absorbing individual acts into a deterministic system.”35 Barrett argues that Kierkegaard’s complaint against the augustinian-lutheran tradition is that it did not fully appreciate the value of psychology in comprehending how an individual responds to “enduring possibilities” of sin.36 timothy Jackson has drawn attention to what he describes as Kierkegaard’s “arminianism” with regard to grace and free will: this view holds that “on our own, we can make no move whatsoever toward God. god must turn us and draw us. the arminian addendum, however, is that we can say ‘Yes’ or ‘no.’ ” it is a “voluntary but exclusively receptive” position. grace, according to Kierkegaard, is thus “indispensable” but not “irresistible” (as augustine might have it).37 it appears that, to whatever extent Kierkegaard read augustine, Kierkegaard’s evaluation of augustine’s ideas were bifurcated into two distinct parts: on the one the indirect presence of augustine was inescapable for someone in the lutheran tradition.” (Kierkegaard’s Upbuilding Discourses, london and new York: routledge 2002, p. 36.) 30 Jørgen Pedersen, “augustine and augustinianism,” in Kierkegaard and Great Traditions, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 6), pp. 54–97, see p. 56. 31 ernst Moritz Manasse, “conversation and liberation: a comparison of augustine and Kierkegaard,” Review of Religion, vol. 7, 1943, pp. 361–83, see p. 361. 32 ibid., p. 381. 33 walter r. dietz, “selbstverhaltnis und gottesverhaltnis bei augustine und Kierkegaard,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 17, 1994, pp. 109–29. 34 Blaise romeyer, “la raison et la foi au service de la penseé. Kierkegaard devant augustin,” Archivio di Filosofia, vol. 18, no. 2, 1952, pp. 7–41. 35 lee c. Barrett, “Kierkegaard’s ‘anxiety’ and the augustinian doctrine of original sin,” in The Concept of Anxiety, ed. by robert l. Perkins, Macon, georgia: Mercer university Press 1985 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 8), pp. 35–61, see pp. 59–60. 36 ibid. p. 60. 37 Timothy P. Jackson, “Arminian Edification: Kierkegaard on Grace and Free Will,” The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, ed. by alastair hannay and gordon d. Marino, cambridge and new York: cambridge university Press 1998, pp. 235–56, see pp. 236–7.

16

Robert Puchniak

hand, Kierkegaard saw Augustine as a “religious author” whose life exemplified the “spiritual trials” of becoming a christian. Kierkegaard also thought that augustine had brought necessary attention to a key dimension of christianity: the divine authority of the incarnation that tested human understanding and evoked a response of obedience or rejection. But, on the other hand, Kierkegaard was critical of what he thought was a distortion of christianity into a rational system of doctrine that misunderstood what “faith” entails. such “confusion,” said Kierkegaard, misconstrues faith as something intellectual and loses “the existential” by turning christianity into philosophy. in Kierkegaard’s eyes, augustine could thus be either a villain or a source of valuable insight into christian existence.

Bibliography I. Augustine’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Augustini Aurelii Opera. Opera et studio Monachorum Ordinis S. Bened. e Congregat, vols. 1–18, ed. by s. Mauri, 3rd ed., venice: Bassani 1797–1807 (ASKB 117–134). S. Aurelii Augustini, de doctrina christiana, ed. by carl hermann Bruder, editio stereotypa, leipzig: tauchnitz 1838 (ASKB 135). II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Augustine adler, adolph Peter, Theologiske Studier, copenhagen: trykt paa Forfatterens Forlag hos louis Klein. i commission hos universitets-Boghandler c.a. reitzel 1846, p. 87 (ASKB u 12). ast, Friedrich, Grundriss einer Geschichte der Philosophie, landshut: Joseph thomann 1807, pp. 184–8 (ASKB 385). Baader, Franz, Vorlesungen gehalten an der Königlich-Bayerischen LudwigMaximilians-Hochschule über religiöse Philosophie im Gegensatze der irreligiösen, älterer und neuer Zeit, vol. 1, Einleitender Theil oder vom Erkennen überhaupt, Munich: Jakob giel 1827, p. 2; p. 44; p. 87 (ASKB 395). —— Philosophische Schriften und Aufsätze, vols. 1–2, Münster: theissing 1831–2, vol. 2, p. 111; p. 135; p. 377; p. 448n. (ASKB 400–401). —— Ueber die Incompetenz unsrer dermaligen Philosophie, zur Erklärung der Erscheinungen aus dem Nachtgebiete der Natur, stuttgart: Brodhag 1837, p. 8 (ASKB 411). —— Revision der Philosopheme der Hegel’schen Schule bezüglich auf das Christenthum. Nebst zehn Thesen aus einer religiösen Philosophie, stuttgart: s.g. liesching 1839, p. 61n (ASKB 416). Baur, Ferdinand christian, Die christliche Gnosis oder die christliche ReligionsPhilosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1835, p. 548 (ASKB 421). —— Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1838, pp. 68; pp. 70-71; p. 85; p. 110; p. 144; p. 161; p. 202; p. 233; p. 510 (ASKB 423). [Becker, Karl Friedrich], Karl Friedrich Beckers Verdenshistorie, omarbeidet af Johan Gottfried Woltmann, vols. 1–12, trans. by J. riise, copenhagen: Fr. Brummers Forlag 1822–9, vol. 4, p. 37; p. 97 (ASKB 1972–1983).

18

Robert Puchniak

Böhringer, Friedrich, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 1, abtheilung 3 (Ambrosius und Augustinus), see pp. 99–774 (ASKB 173–177). Brøchner, hans, Nogle Bemærkninger om Daaben, foranledigede ved Professor Martensens Skrift: Den christelige Daab, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 10 (ASKB u 27). Bruch, Johann Friedrich, Die Lehre von den göttlichen Eigenschaften, hamburg: Friedrich Perthes 1842, p. 20n; p. 149n; p. 166n (ASKB 439). Buhle, Johann gottlieb, Geschichte der neuern Philosophie seit der Epoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, vols. 1–6 (in 10 parts), vols. 1–2, göttingen: Johann georg rosenbusch’s wittwe 1800; vols. 3–6, göttingen: Johann Friedrich röwer 1802–5 (abtheilung 6 in Geschichte der Künste und Wissenschaften seit der Wiederherstellung derselben bis an das Ende des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. Von einer Gesellschaft gelehrter Männer ausgearbeitet, abtheilungen 1–11, göttingen: röwer and göttingen: rosenbusch 1796–1820), vol. 1, pp. 774ff. (ASKB 440–445). clausen, henrik nicolai, Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 134; p. 186; p. 213 (ASKB 468). engelhardt, Johann georg veit, Literarischer Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen über die Patristik, erlangen: ioh. iac. Palm und ernst enke 1823, pp. 104–12 (ASKB 477). Fichte, immanuel hermann, Die speculative Theologie oder allgemeine Religions lehre, heidelberg: akademische Buchhandlung von J.c.B. Mohr 1846 (vol. 3, in Grundzüge zum Systeme der Philosophie), p. 502 (ASKB 509; to vols. 1–2, see ASKB 502 and 503). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 165; p. 214; p. 236; p. 238; p. 242; p. 249; p. 251; p. 300; pp. 320ff.; p. 475; vol. 2, p. 716 (ASKB 158–159). günther, anton, Süd- und Nordlichter am Horizonte spekulativer Theologie, vienna: Mechitaristen 1832, p. 126; p. 138 (ASKB 520). —— Der letzte Symboliker. Eine durch die symbolischen Werke Doctor I. A. Möhler’s und Doctor F.C. Baur’s veranlaßte Schrift, in Briefen, vienna: J.B. wallishausser 1834, pp. 53–7; p. 265; p. 312; p. 315 (ASKB 521). —— “st. augustin,” in his Euristheus und Heracles, Meta-logische Kritiken und Meditationen, vienna: Fr. Beck’s universitäts-Buchhandlung 1843, pp. 278–315 (ASKB 523). günther, anton and Johann heinrich Pabst, Janusköpfe. Zur Philosophie und Theologie, vienna: wallishausser 1834, p. 146; p. 156; p. 169; pp. 242–6 passim; p. 268; p. 285; pp. 298ff.; p. 302; pp. 314ff.; p. 320 (ASKB 524). hahn, august (ed.), Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 3; p. 24; p. 40; p. 47; p. 133; p. 186; p. 191; pp. 270ff.; p. 361; pp. 371ff.; p. 406; p. 495; p. 559 (ASKB 535). [hamann, Johann georg], Hamann’s Schriften, vols. 1–8, ed. by Friedrich roth, Berlin: g. reimer 1821–43, vol. 1, p. 386; vol. 2, p. 296; pp. 298–9; p. 463; vol. 5, p. 84; vol. 6, p. 13 (ASKB 536–544).

Augustine: Kierkegaard’s Tempered Admiration of Augustine

19

hansen, M. Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, pp. 40–43 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 111; pp. 126ff.; p. 145 (ASKB 160–166). —— Hutterus redivivus oder Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. Ein dogmatisches Repertorium für Studirende, 4th revised ed., leipzig: Breitkopf und härtel 1839, p. 31; p. 110; p. 158; p. 165; p. 201; p. 216; p. 251 (ASKB 581). helfferich, adolph, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung und in ihren Denkmalen, vols. 1–2, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, p. 189; p. 219; p. 258; p. 296; p. 325; p. 348; p. 364; p. 379; p. 383 (ASKB 571–572). [leibniz, gottfried wilhelm], God. Guil. Leibnitii Opera philosophica, quæ exstant latina gallica germanica omnia, vols. 1–2, ed. by Johann eduard erdmann, Berlin 1839–40, p. 525; pp. 587–9; p. 600; p. 611 (ASKB 620). lentz, carl georg heinrich, Geschichte der christlichen Dogmen in pragmatischer Entwickelung, vol. 1, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1834 [vol. 2, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1835] (ASKB 621). Marheineke, Philipp, Die Grundlehren der christlichen Dogmatik als Wissenschaft, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1827, pp. 306–7; p. 309 (ASKB 644). —— Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens und Lebens für denkende Christen und zum Gebrauch in den oberen Klassen an den Gymnasien, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: in der nicolai’schen Buchhandlung 1836, p. 27 (ASKB 257). Martensen, hans lassen, De Autonomia conscientiæ sui humanæ in theologiam dogmaticam nostri temporis introducta, copenhagen: i.d. quist 1837, p. 6; p. 48; p. 67; p. 99 (ASKB 648). —— Den menneskelige Selvbevidstheds Autonomie i vor Tids dogmatiske Theologie, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1841, p. 5; p. 40; p. 55; p. 80 (ASKB 651, translation of ASKB 648; cf. also ASKB a i 41). —— Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849, p. 53; p. 84; p. 240; p. 264; p. 363; pp. 426–7; p. 572 (ASKB 653). Meiners, christoph, Historische Vergleichung der Sitten und Verfassungen, der Gesetze und Gewerbe, des Handels und der Religion, der Wissenschaften und Lehranstalten des Mittelalters, vols. 1–3, hannover: im verlage der helwingischen hofbuchhandlung 1793–4, vol. 2, p. 214; p. 217; p. 359; pp. 746–7; vol. 3, p. 11; pp. 124–5; p. 333; p. 361 (ASKB 672–674). Michelet, carl ludwig, Vorlesungen über die Persönlichkeit Gottes und Unsterblichkeit der Seele oder die ewige Persönlichkeit des Geistes, Berlin: verlag von Ferdinand dümmler 1841, p. 82 (ASKB 680). [Montaigne, Michael], Michael Montaigne’s Gedanken und Meinungen über allerley Gegenstände, ins Deutsche übersetzt, vols. 1–7, Berlin: F.t. lagarde 1793–9, vol. 1, p. 30; p. 159; p. 169; pp. 367–8; vol. 4, p. 70; vol. 6, p. 143 (ASKB 681–687). Müller, carl ludvig, De resurrectione Jesu Christi, vita eam excipiente et ascensu in coelum, hauniæ [copenhagen]: J.d. qvist 1836 (ASKB 688).

20

Robert Puchniak

Müller, Julius, Die christliche Lehre von der Sünde, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., Breslau: Josef Max und Komp. 1849, vol. 1, pp. 395–406; vol. 2, pp. 45–8 (ASKB 689–690). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, pp. 96–7; pp. 105–7 (ASKB 168). Mynster, Jakob Peter, Den hedenske Verden ved Christendommens Begyndelse, copenhagen: schultz 1850, p. 21n (ASKB 693). —— Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1852–3 [vols. 4–6, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1855–7], vol. 1, p. 463 (ASKB 358–363). neander, august, Denkwürdigkeiten aus der Geschichte des Christenthums und des christlichen Lebens, vols. 1–3, Berlin: Ferdinand dümmler 1823–4, vol. 2, pp. 52–66; pp. 84–8; pp. 220–1; pp. 252–3; pp. 265ff.; p. 281 (ASKB 179–180). nielsen, rasmus, De speculativa historiæ sacræ tractandæ methodo commentatio, havniæ [copenhagen]: tengnagel 1840, pp. 45–6 (ASKB 697). —— Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 21 (ASKB 698). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Om det borgerlige Ægteskab. Bidrag til en alsidig, upartisk Bedømmelse af denne Institution, nærmest fra Kirkens Standpunkt, copenhagen: otto schwartz 1851, p. 13; p. 19 (ASKB 752). —— Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.g. iversen 1854, p. 45; p. 54; p. 77 [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). schleiermacher, Friedrich, Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsä[t]zen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt, vols. 1–2, 3rd ed., Berlin: g. reimer 1835–6 (vols. 3–4, in Friedrich Schleiermacher’s sämmtliche Werke, Erste Abtheilung. Zur Theologie, Berlin: g. reimer 1834–64 (some of the volumes were published in Berlin: august herbig)) (ASKB 258). schopenhauer, arthur, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, vols. 1–2, 2nd revised and enlarged ed., leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1844 [1819], vol. 1, pp. 457–8; vol. 2, pp. 600–601; pp. 614–15 (ASKB 773–773a). —— Parerga und Paralipomena: kleine philosophische Schriften, vols. 1–2, Berlin: druck und verlag von a.w. hayn 1851, vol. 2, pp. 306–9; p. 320 (ASKB 774–775). stäudlin, carl Fridrich, Geschichte und Geist des Skepticismus vorzüglich in Rücksicht auf Moral und Religion, vols. 1–2, leipzig: bey siegfried lebrecht crusius 1794, vol. 1, pp. 531–8 (ASKB 791). sulzer, Johann georg, Allgemeine Theorie der Schönen Künste, in einzeln, nach alphabetischer Ordnung der Kunstwörter auf einander folgenden, Artikeln abgehandelt, vols. 1–4 and a register volume, 2nd revised ed., leipzig: in der weidmannschen Buchhandlung 1792–9, vol. 1, p. 177; vol. 2, p. 662; vol. 3, p. 156; vol. 4, p. 53; p. 55; p 84; p. 310 (ASKB 1365–1369). tennemann, wilhelm gottlieb, Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1819, vol. 7, pp. 87–336 (ASKB 815–826).

Augustine: Kierkegaard’s Tempered Admiration of Augustine

21

tiedemann, dietrich, Geist der spekulativen Philosophie von Thales bis Sokrates, vols. 1– 6, Marburg: in der neuen akademischen Buchhandlung 1791–7, vol. 3, pp. 455–519 (ASKB 836–841). trendelenburg, adolf, Logische Untersuchungen, vols. 1–2, Berlin: g. Bethge 1840, vol. 2, p. 348 (ASKB 843). weiße, christian hermann, Die Idee der Gottheit. Eine philosophische Abhandlung. Als wissenschaftliche Grundlegung zur Philosophie der Religion, dresden: ch.F. grimmer’sche Buchhandlung 1833, p. 73n; p. 111n; p. 112n; p. 266n; p. 267n; p. 312n; p. 346n (ASKB 866). wette, wilhelm Martin leberecht de, Lærebog i den christelige Sædelære og sammes Historie, trans. by c.e. scharling, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel, 1835, pp. 121ff. (ASKB 871). zeuthen, ludvig, Humanitet betragtet fra et christeligt Standpunkt, med stadigt Hensyn til den nærværende Tid, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandling 1846, p. 23 (ASKB 915). —— Om Ydmyghed. En Afhandling, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel 1852, p. 27n; p. 77; p. 98 (ASKB 916). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Augustine Barrett, lee c., “Kierkegaard’s ‘anxiety’ and the augustinian doctrine of original sin,” in The Concept of Anxiety, ed. by robert l. Perkins, Macon, georgia: Mercer university Press 1985 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 8), pp. 35–61. dallago, carl, “augustine, Pascal, und Kierkegaard,” in his Der große Unwissende, innsbruck: Brenner verlag 1924, pp. 424–552. (originally published in Der Brenner, vol. 6, 1921, pp. 642–734.) dietz, walter r., “selbstverhaltnis und gottesverhaltnis bei augustine und Kierkegaard,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 17, 1994, pp. 109–29. Dolby Múgica, María del Carmen, “San Agustín y Kierkegaard: dos filósofos religiosos,” Revista Agustiniana, vol. 36, no. 111, 1995, pp. 791–807. Furtak, rick anthony, Wisdom in Love: Kierkegaard and the Ancient Quest for Emotional Integrity, notre dame: university of notre dame Press 2005, p. 9; p. 20; p. 32; p. 107. guanti, giovanni, “tempo musicale e tempo storico in agostine e in Kierkegaard,” Revista di Estetica, vol. 30, no. 36, 1990, pp. 95–141. Jackson, Timothy P., “Arminian Edification: Kierkegaard on Grace and Free Will,” The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, ed. by alastair hannay and gordon d. Marino, cambridge and new York: cambridge university Press 1998, pp. 235–56. Manasse, ernst Moritz, “conversation and liberation: a comparison of augustine and Kierkegaard,” Review of Religion, vol. 7, 1943, pp. 361–83.

22

Robert Puchniak

Pattison, george, “Johannes climacus and aurelius augustinus on recollecting the truth,” in Philosophical Fragments and Johannes Climacus, ed. by robert l. Perkins Macon, georgia: Mercer university Press 1994 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 7), pp. 245–60. Pedersen, Jørgen, “augustine and augustinianism,” in Kierkegaard and Great Traditions, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 6), pp. 54–97. quadros gouvêa, ricardo, “Kierkegaard lendo agostinho: intoduçao a um diálogo filosófico-teológico,” Fides Reformata, vol. 4, no. 2, 1999, pp. 25–4. romeyer, Blaise, “la raison et la foi au service de la penseé. Kierkegaard devant augustin,” Archivio di Filosofia, vol. 18, no. 2, 1952, pp. 7–41. teisen, niels, Søren Kierkegaard’s Betydning som kristelig Tænker, copenhagen: J. Frimodt 1903, see pp. 63–4; p. 73. thomas, John heywood, Subjectivity and Paradox, new York: Macmillan 1957, pp. 106ff. Torralba Roselló, Francesc, “Lectura de san Augustín,” in his Poética de la libertad. Lectura de Kierkegaard, Madrid: Caparrós editores 1998, pp. 45–8. tsakiri, vasiliki, Fall, Repetition and Freedom Revisited. ‘Taking Notice’ of Religious Themes in Kierkegaard’s Aesthetic Writings with References to St. Augustine, Kant and Schelling, Ph.d. thesis, university of london 2003. vergote, henri-Bernard, “augustine et Pélage: sporadique et paradigmatique,” in his Sens et répétition. Essai sur l’ironie kierkegaardienne, vols. 1–2, Paris: cerf/ orante 1982, vol. 2, pp. 237–43. weltzer, c. “augustinus og Brødrene Kierkegaard,” in Festskrift til Jens Nørregaard, copenhagen: g.e.c. gads 1947, pp. 305–20. zorgbibe, guillaume, Les Paradoxes de la loi: Saint Augustin et Kierkegaard, Paris, Budapest and turin: l’harmattan 2003.

Bernard of clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s reception of the last of the Fathers Jack Mulder, Jr.

when Pope Pius Xii conceded st. Bernard of clairvaux as “the last of the Fathers” in his encyclical letter, Doctor Mellifluus, thomas Merton, a keen reader of both Kierkegaard and Bernard,1 commended the encyclical, numbering Bernard among those whose “doctrine penetrates the ‘deep things of god’ and scrutinizes the mysteries of faith not merely with the light of human dialectics, but with the far more searching light of charity which knows god less by ‘seeing’ than by ‘tasting’ the very substance of his goodness.”2 there is at least one way in which Kierkegaard belongs in the same category. Kierkegaard, like Bernard, is concerned to recover the existential core of christianity and to demand of its adherents a high degree of commitment and longing for god, as opposed to the distanced, academic understanding of christianity. Bernard, too, was frustrated with the “academic theology” of his day, represented by the likes of gilbert of Poitiers, and Peter abelard.3 nonetheless, Bernard’s title as the “last of the Fathers” inadvertently reveals something about how Kierkegaard actually received him. on the one hand, Bernard is

Merton’s affinity for Bernard hardly needs to be mentioned since Merton was a Trappist cistercian and Bernard joined the cistercian order in 1113 shortly after it had been founded, later to become far and away its most influential voice. See Jean Leclercq, Thomas Merton on St. Bernard, Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications 1980. Merton’s affinity for Kierkegaard is less transparent, though he occasionally shows knowledge of his works, and once calls him “the most sophisticated religious thinker of the [nineteenth] century.” see thomas Merton, The Inner Experience, ed. by william h. shannon, san Francisco: harper 2003, p. 29. 2 thomas Merton, The Last of the Fathers, new York: harcourt, Brace and company 1954, p. 74. Kierkegaard uses a similar gustatory metaphor when he prays, at SKS 18, 28, ee:67 / JP 3, 3378, “god in heaven, let me rightly feel my nothingness, not to despair over it, but all the more intensely to feel the greatness of your goodness. (this wish is not, as the scoffer in me would say, an epicureanism, as when a gourmand starves himself in order that the food may taste all the better).” 3 see g.r. evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, new York: oxford university Press 2000, chapter 3. i think a parallel with respect to Kierkegaard and Bernard could be sustained here, but of course, there is no reason whatever to conflate those schools of thought against which they each respectively inveighed. 1

24

Jack Mulder, Jr.

a “Father” of the christian faith, a title which luther himself gladly attributed to him.4 he thus has an important role as a defender of the very substance of the faith. on the other hand, Kierkegaard often finds “dubiousness” the further one gets away from the originally pure christian message.5 thus, Bernard’s monasticism as well as his late position as a Father of the Church suggests that we should find what we in fact do find, that Kierkegaard’s view on Bernard is mixed with both sympathy and antipathy. I. From Bernard to Kierkegaard As with many saints, it is difficult to know how to separate fact from fiction in the case of Bernard of clairvaux. william of st. thierry, along with several other writers, produced a hagiographical account of his life known to us as the Vita Prima Bernardi.6 some of these individuals, not least william himself, had close dealings with Bernard, and so some of the material, especially as one moves into the time of Bernard’s adult life, is likely to become more and more accurate. nonetheless, as g.r. evans points out, “in Bernard’s time, hagiography had a purpose and an agenda; it set out to present its subject in a particular light; its canons of accuracy were not those of the historian, because it seeks to edify and to instruct, rather than simply to record.”7 A first instance of this hagiographical principle is the claim found in the Vita Prima Bernardi that Bernard’s mother, aleth, had a vision of a barking dog inside her while she was pregnant, which, it was told to her, was a sign that her son would be a great preacher.8 while some might be prepared to grant that god works in such mysterious ways, there is enough embellishment in hagiography as a matter of genre for us to view some of these claims with some suspicion. we know that Bernard was born in 1090, to a family of minor nobility in Fontaine-les-dijon in northern France. it is usually surmised that he was fairly welleducated by the canons of st. vorles de châtillon, though precious little is known for certain about his early years.9 the Vita Prima Bernardi often details his zeal for chastity, which he manifested by punishing himself for gazing idly at women by leaping into a pool of cold water until “his lust had been cooled by means of grace.”10 the trick seems to have worked; Bernard later rebuffed the advances of a brazen young girl who climbed naked into his bed, as well as the persistent advances of a see Franz Posset, Pater Bernhardus: Martin Luther and Bernard of Clairvaux, Kalamazoo: cistercian Publications 1999, especially pp. 60–61. luther so regularly mentions Bernard, as Posset shows, that his appreciation for Bernard could not have escaped Kierkegaard’s notice. 5 SV1 Xiv, 193 / M, 181. 6 a translation is found in St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. by geoffrey webb and adrian walker, london: a.r. Mowbray and co. 1960. i will refer to this as Vita Prima Bernardi to avoid confusion, and cite the chapter, together with the page number from this translation. 7 evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, p. 7. 8 Vita Prima Bernardi, chapter 1, pp. 14–15. 9 see Jean leclercq’s introduction to Bernard of Clairvaux: Selected Writings, trans. by g.r. evans, new York: Paulist Press 1987, pp. 15–16. 10 Vita Prima Bernardi, chapter 3, p. 20. 4

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

25

married woman who tried to tempt Bernard three times.11 his method for doing the latter was to call out “thief! thief!” as the woman attempted to join Bernard in his bedroom. upon being chided in the morning for his nocturnal protests, he is to have said, “there really was a thief … and it was our hostess, who was trying to steal something very precious to me, the matchless treasure of my chastity.”12 his early youth is perhaps best summed up by Brian Patrick Mcguire, who writes, “Perhaps an industrious scholar will one day find sizeable skeletons in Bernard’s closet, but I see none, only the tale of a boy who grew up in family surroundings where he was loved and could love in return.”13 Bernard’s desire for holiness, on any account, appears to have been electric and contagious. when he was twenty-one, he became a monk at cîteaux, the (at that time) new monastery from which the cistercian order would take its name. Significantly, he chose the monastery amid the insistence of family members that he instead become a man of letters. his resolve to join the house at cîteaux won out, perhaps strengthened by visions of his late mother.14 he is said to have taken with him some thirty companions to cîteaux. drawn by the cistercian emphasis on the strict observance of the Benedictine rule, Bernard not only joined but, it is thought, eventually convinced all of his brothers (of whom he was the third oldest), sister, uncle, and father to forsake the world for the monastery (it seems his mother died prior to his decision to become a monk). his oldest brother, guy, took some convincing on the order of the miraculous (though accounts of Bernard’s life are as replete with the miraculous as to make it seem almost ordinary). guy was already married at the time that Bernard’s preaching of the monastic life convinced him to join it, which guy would only agree to do with his wife’s consent. she would turn out to be a hard sell, but Bernard assured her that death would soon arrive for her if she did not agree! soon enough, she took deadly ill, at which point she relented and asked to undertake a religious vocation herself. soon all of Bernard’s remaining family were converted (as was the term) to a religious vocation, and Bernard’s star rose so quickly that he became a very young abbot (in charge even of his older brothers), and founded a monastery at clairvaux in 1115. his teachings as abbot grew to be widely discussed and, eventually, requested in written form from surrounding monasteries. he was asked to help to moderate a dispute between monks of his own cistercian order and of the cluniac order over the proper observance of the Benedictine rule.15 his relative fairness gained for him a reputation as an arbiter of disputes. Bernard’s counsel soon became among the most ibid., chapter 3, pp. 21–2. ibid., chapter 3, p. 22. 13 Brian Patrick Mcguire, The Difficult Saint: Bernard of Clairvaux and his Tradition, Kalamazoo: cistercian Publications 1991, pp. 21–2. 14 Vita Prima Bernardi, chapter 4, p. 24. 15 this takes place in Bernard’s An Apologia to Abbot William, trans. by Michael casey, in Bernard of Clairvaux Volume One: Treatises I, spencer, Ma: cistercian Publications 1970. Prior to this time, Bernard had produced The Steps of Humility and Pride, in The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux Volume Five: Treatises II, trans. by M. ambrose conway, washington d.c.: cistercian Publications 1974, and Four Homilies in Praise of the Virgin Mother, in Magnificat, trans. by Marie-Bernard saïd and grace Perigo, Kalamazoo: cistercian Publications 1979. 11

12

26

Jack Mulder, Jr.

sought after in the christian world, as he played pivotal roles (for better or worse) in a number of important and highly controversial events in the life of the church during this time. among these were the papal schism, which began in 1130 with the death of Pope honorius ii, and the subsequent controversy over the rival elections of innocent ii and anacletus ii. Bernard sided decidedly with innocent ii, whom he saw as a reformer, and by 1138, innocent’s rivals had submitted. Bernard also played important roles in the trials of the likes of Peter abelard and gilbert of Poitiers (in 1142 for abelard’s trial at sens, and in 1148 for the condemnation of propositions from gilbert’s writings at the council of rheims). it is also important to mention his role in preaching the failed second crusade, a task he began in 1146.16 Bernard is reputed to have lived a rigorous life with respect to things others would regard as necessities, such as sleep and nourishment. he ate and slept precious little, and was often stricken with serious digestive ailments. though he worked hard at manual labor, doctors were often amazed at how he could manage to do so. they are said to have compared him to a “lamb harnessed to a plough and forced to till the fields.”17 once, when Bernard was so ill that “he seemed about to breath his last,” he had a vision of appearing before the judgment seat of god, with satan as his accuser. at the end of the devil’s statement against him, Bernard calmly replies, in words that would signal one of his important contributions to theology, “i admit i am unworthy, and unable by merits of my own to gain entrance to the kingdom of heaven. on the other hand, my lord has won the kingdom by a twofold right, namely, by inheritance from his Father and by the merits of his passion. The first he has reserved for himself, but the second he gives to me; and by that gift i assert my right and shall not be confounded!” these words threw the enemy into confusion, the meeting was closed, and the man of god came to himself.18

this is Bernard’s statement of christ’s “double right to heaven,” that of christ’s inheritance and the right which his passion won for him, and for us, which was to become an important theological principle, and one which luther would willingly inherit.19 Bernard’s work20 has the somewhat unique character of being almost entirely occasional or requested. Many of his works are dedicated or addressed to particular people with whom he associated. his knowledge of christian scripture is so obvious in his works that one gets the clear sense that novelty for him would have been a Bernard’s role in these events is pivotal but by no means simple. see evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, Chapter 2. In this respect, it is fitting that even Jean Leclercq, the most influential scholar of Bernard of the previous century, applies John henry newman’s dictum about st. cyril of alexandria to Bernard, to wit, “i know that cyril is a saint, but nothing obliges me to assert that he was a saint in 412.” see Jean leclercq, Bernard of Clairvaux and the Cistercian Spirit, trans. by claire lavoie, Kalamazoo: cistercian Publications 1976, p. 9. 17 Vita Prima Bernardi, chapter 15, p. 63. 18 Posset, Pater Bernhardus: Martin Luther and Bernard of Clairvaux, p. 298. see also Vita Prima Bernardi, chapter 18, p. 74. 19 see Posset, Pater Bernhardus: Martin Luther and Bernard of Clairvaux, pp. 297–307. 20 For a list of Bernard’s works, and a helpful discussion of their historical context (in many cases, exact dates are unknown), see Jean leclercq’s introduction to Bernard of Clairvaux: Selected Writings. 16

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

27

reproach much more than a compliment. it is, no doubt, this aspect of his temperament that grounds his antipathy to the developing Scholasticism of his day. It is significant in this respect that in his first major work, The Steps of Humility and Pride, the first step toward sinful pride is curiosity, which is exemplified, for Bernard, by none other than lucifer himself.21 Bernard’s most voluminous works are simply his sermons and letters on various occasions (some of which are often collected under various themes), though his eighty-six Sermons on the Song of Songs belong in a special class of the former, and represent an incomplete work to which he was quite devoted for eighteen years beginning in 1135.22 Many other works abound, especially bearing on issues of church discipline and administration, but three more works are worth mentioning, perhaps because they come the closest to independent theological treatises, and could be profitably discussed in connection with Kierkegaard’s own theological work. these works are, in rough historical order, On the Love of God,23 On Grace and Free Choice,24 and On Consideration.25 The first is a short work devoted to explaining how and why god is to be loved for god’s own sake (which, on the whole, shares more concerns with Kierkegaard’s work in general than, say, Works of Love in particular). the second is simply a treatise devoted to the relationship between grace and free will, a concern which runs throughout Kierkegaard’s corpus. The final work is Bernard’s lengthy “advice” to Pope eugenius iii, which deals with the papacy and how one should conduct oneself in the office, also discussing significant theological themes in the latter part of the work. Below I will briefly discuss some themes from these works, to which i will return later in an effort to compare Kierkegaard’s own theological contribution to Bernard’s. Forming perhaps Bernard’s most lasting contribution to theology are his Sermons on the Song of Songs. It is at first surprising to a reader who knows only the biblical see The Steps of Humility and Pride, 10.28–38, in The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, Volume Five: Treatises II, trans. by M. ambrose conway, washington d.c.: cistercian Publications 1974, pp. 57–66. 22 these sermons of Bernard would have been required reading (though one hardly suspects that they would have been agreeable) had Kierkegaard’s pseudonym, Johannes the seducer, ever written his proposed work on the kiss (SKS 2, 404 / EO1, 416). see especially sermons 2–4 in The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, Volume Two: On the Song of Songs I, trans. by Kilian walsh, spencer, Massachusetts: cistercian Publications 1971, pp. 8–24. see also Jean leclercq, Bernard of Clairvaux and the Cistercian Spirit, especially p. 28, on further details of Bernard’s authorship. 23 in The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, Volume Five: Treatises II, trans. by robert walton, washington d.c.: cistercian Publications 1974. an accompanying text that simply bears the title On Loving God, Kalamazoo: cistercian Publications 1995, was also published in the same series with an analytical commentary by emero stiegman. i will refer to the former volume unless otherwise noted. this work is usually dated before On Grace and Free Choice, though its exact date is unknown. For more, see stiegman’s commentary. 24 in The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, Volume Seven: Treatises III, trans. by daniel o’donovan, Kalamazoo: cistercian Publications 1977. Bernard Mcginn’s introduction and commentary (pp. 3–50) is an especially helpful companion to this work. 25 Five Books on Consideration, trans. by John d. anderson and elizabeth t. Kennan, Kalamazoo: cistercian Publications 1976. 21

28

Jack Mulder, Jr.

text on which Bernard proposes to preach that Bernard can use the Song of Songs as the occasion for some of his most theological work. the reader, however, is quickly intrigued by Bernard’s method of interpretation. in the second sermon, he begins by commenting on the opening phrase of Song of Songs: “let him kiss me with the kiss26 of his mouth.” in the second sermon, Bernard goes on to write of how Jesus is in fact the longed-for kiss of the mouth. Bernard writes: I must ask you to try to give your whole attention here. The mouth that kisses signifies the word who assumes human nature; the nature assumed receives the kiss; the kiss however, that takes its being both from the giver and the receiver, is a person that is formed by both, none other than “the one mediator between god and mankind, himself a man, christ Jesus.” it is for this reason that none of the saints dared say: “let him kiss me with his mouth,” but rather, “with the kiss of his mouth.” in this way they paid tribute to that prerogative of christ, on whom uniquely and in one sole instance the mouth of the word was pressed, that moment when the fullness of the divinity yielded itself to him as the life of his body.27

thus, Bernard uses the Song of Songs as the occasion to discuss christology, by noting that the incarnation itself is the kiss of the mouth that is the divine word, and thus to long to be kissed by the kiss of the mouth is to long for intimacy with the person of Jesus in the flesh. Significantly, in the next sermon, Bernard employs a different interpretive strategy on the very same scriptural theme (“let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth”). he opens, “today the text we are to study is the book of our own experience.”28 Bernard now shifts to decidedly mystical theology in his interpretation. he writes, “those to whom it is given to utter these words sincerely are comparatively few, but any one who has received this mystical kiss from the mouth of christ at least once, seeks again that intimate experience, and eagerly looks for its frequent renewal.”29 however, noting that this is the highest longing of the spiritual life, Bernard, in his characteristically humble and self-effacing way, writes, “But a soul like mine… may not presume to make such a request, almost totally unacquainted as it is with the joys of the supernatural life.” this category of people, into which Bernard humbly places himself, “may not rashly aspire to the lips of a most benign Bridegroom, but let them prostrate with me in fear at the feet of a most severe lord.”30 accordingly, Bernard discusses a certain dialectical movement within the sinful individual. instead of boldly demanding the kiss of the mouth, Bernard advises, “Prostrate yourself on the ground, take hold of his feet, soothe them with kisses, sprinkle them with your tears, and so wash not them but yourself.”31 This is the first kiss, the kiss of the feet, which signifies the repentance of the individual. Bernard insists, however, that we are not yet ready for the kiss of the mouth. he writes: the nrsv correctly translates the hebrew with “kisses,” but the vulgate (which Bernard is likely to have used in this instance) has a singular rather than a plural here. 27 sermon 2.3, p. 10, in On the Song of Songs I. 28 sermon 3.1, p. 16, in On the Song of Songs I. 29 ibid. 30 sermon 3.2, p. 17, in On the Song of Songs I. 31 ibid. 26

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

29

he, however, who gave me the grace to repent, must also give me the power to persevere, lest by repeating my sins i should end up by being worse than i was before. woe to me then, repentant though i be, if he without whom i can do nothing should suddenly withdraw his supporting hand….For these reasons I must confess that I am not entirely satisfied with the first grace by which I am enabled to repent of my sins; I must have the second as well, and so bear fruits that befit repentance, that I may not return like a dog to its vomit.32

For this reason, Bernard counsels us to the second kiss, the kiss of the hand, in part because, “the impudence of the sinner displeases god as much as the modesty of the penitent gives him pleasure.”33 the kiss of the hand also comes with the grace that lifts the sinner to receive the kiss of the mouth.34 Bernard reminds us that, just as with Kierkegaard, the individual’s love of god is not initiated but rather crowned and perfected in the final stage of loving God.35 nor is the love simply a reward for the individual’s striving independently of god’s help, since as we just saw, Bernard recognizes (again, as with Kierkegaard), that without god we humans can do nothing.36 in Bernard’s work, On Grace and Free Choice,37 he maintains that god’s prevenient grace “impels” him to good,38 and that our salvation is owed to god’s mercy and never to our own deeds. this is a consistent theme in Bernard’s works, and one with which Kierkegaard, of course, has a great deal of sympathy. at the same time, Bernard recognizes, as will Kierkegaard, that we must make a “little concession” to the human being’s freedom, or we will wind up with nothing but fatalism.39 Bernard writes: take away free choice and there is nothing to be saved. take away grace and there is no means of saving….god is the author of salvation, the free willing faculty merely capable of receiving it. none but god can give it, nothing but free choice can receive it. what, sermon 3.3, p. 18, in On the Song of Songs I. sermon 3.3, p. 19, in On the Song of Songs I. 34 It is perhaps significant to note in this regard that the kiss of the mouth is the only kiss for which the subject of the verb is christ, which is to say that the highest reward of the spiritual life is accomplished by grace. 35 Kierkegaard writes: “and you who feel so far removed from your god, what else is your seeking god in repentance but loving god” (SKS 21, 100, not7:49 / JP 3, 2390). despite the fact that Bernard’s kisses seem to all be a part of the specifically Christian life as Kierkegaard conceives it, the dialectical movement as exhibited in Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous works can be demonstrated to be, in some important respects, a seeking of god. 36 on this point, see Kierkegaard’s “to need god is a human Being’s highest Perfection” (SKS 5, 291–316 / EUD, 297–326). also, see Jack Mulder, Jr., Mystical and Buddhist Elements in Kierkegaard’s Religious Thought, lewiston: edwin Mellen Press 2005, especially chapter 3. 37 it is worth noting that the latin title is De gratia et libero arbitrio, and that vigilius haufniensis has some harsh words for the concept of liberum arbitrium in The Concept of Anxiety (see SKS 4, 414–15 / CA, 112). it is left as an exercise for the reader to determine whether Bernard’s understanding of freedom is any better or worse off than haufniensis’ or Kierkegaard’s. 38 On Grace and Free Choice, 1.1, p. 53. 39 see SKS 22, 415, nB14:123 / JP 4, 4551. see also timothy P. Jackson, “arminian Edification: Kierkegaard on Grace and Free Will,” in The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, ed. by alastair hannay and gordon Marino, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1998, pp. 235–56. 32 33

Jack Mulder, Jr.

30

therefore, is given by god alone and to free choice alone, can no more happen without the recipient’s consent than without the bestower’s grace. consequently, free choice is said to co-operate with operating grace in its act of consent, or, in other words, in its process of being saved.40

Bernard also appears to share with Kierkegaard an inclination to lean more in the direction of voluntarism than in the direction of rationalism, or intellectualism.41 Bernard writes: in whatever direction [the will] turns, it has reason as its mate, one might even say as its follower. not that it is moved invariably by reason—indeed it does many things through reason against reason, or, in other words, through the medium of reason as it were, yet contrary to its counsel and judgment—but it is never moved without reason.42

Bernard’s most famous contribution to theology from On Grace and Free Choice, however, is his notion of the three freedoms. Below is a table which distinguishes these three freedoms, which are developed throughout the work, but are given their first formulation in Chapter 3.43 Freedom of Choice

Freedom of Counsel

Freedom of Pleasure

(Freedom from necessity)

(Freedom from sin)

(Freedom from sorrow)

Definition: absence of external coercion

higher order: not being able to sin.

not being able to be disturbed.

note: Freedom of choice is inalienable, and admits of no gradation in rational creatures.

lower order: Being able not to sin.

lower order: Being able not to be disturbed.

For Bernard, Freedom of choice is inseparable from human beings. even sinful humans after the Fall possess it, and with no diminution whatsoever.45 For Bernard, Freedom of choice corresponds to the image of god that sin does not destroy, while the other two freedoms, Freedom of counsel and Freedom of Pleasure, correspond to the likeness of god, which is lost through sin.46 while Bernard emphasizes that On Grace and Free Choice, 1.1, pp. 54–5. see Mcginn’s introduction to On Grace and Free Choice, pp. 16–18. 42 ibid., 2.3, p. 58. see The Sickness Unto Death, especially SKS 11, 201–8 / SUD, 87–96 for anti-climacus’ discussion of the intellect and will in the context of a refutation of socrates. 43 see On Grace and Free Choice, 3.6–8, pp. 61–4. 44 Bernard makes the degrees of the second two freedoms explicit at On Grace and Free Choice, 7.21, p. 79. 45 nonetheless, Freedom of choice is said to be more “orderly” in the just (On Grace and Free Choice, 4.9, pp. 65–6). 46 ibid., 9.30, pp. 85–6. 40 41

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

31

Freedom of choice is never lost, post-Fall sinful human beings nonetheless “cannot not sin.”47 the reason for this is that sin ruins the other freedoms, but Freedom of counsel in particular shows the will, through the power of the intellect, what is good. while Bernard appears to believe that the will can choose to obey or not to obey the intellect on this score, it is nonetheless unable to do either without Freedom of counsel. as Mcginn puts it, “Free choice is free for Bernard, but free only to sin.”48 Bernard, like anselm of canterbury before him,49 notices that true freedom must be more than simply the absence of external constraint, since if it were not, god, the angels, and the blessed in heaven would not be free.50 rather than being less free, they are freer than earthly human beings. accordingly, Bernard insists that Freedom of counsel and Freedom of Pleasure, while capable of being possessed in this life, can only be possessed permanently and in their fullness in the next life by human beings. he similarly claims that the damned in hell are also free, despite the fact that they can no longer choose the good, precisely because they no longer have the other two freedoms.51 while Kierkegaard never develops this point at length, the basic thrust of it is echoed in his writings. For instance, recall anti-climacus’ point about despair in eternity, which reads, “eternity nevertheless will make it manifest that his condition was despair and will nail him to himself so that his torment will still be that he cannot rid himself of his self….”52 the thing to notice here is that it is precisely the self, which, anti-climacus also tells us, is freedom,53 that is not lost in hell.54 if freedom is not lost in hell, but the self is nonetheless nailed to itself in torment, there must be some way of talking about a freedom that it lacks in addition to one that it possesses. Bernard’s three freedoms provide an interesting strategy for doing so. For Bernard, the will is what distinguishes humans from the rest of earthly creation and is thus what makes us most particularly what we are.55 that is to say, it is primarily ibid., 23, p. 80. here Bernard is following a long line of interpreters, among whom augustine is the most notable. see Mcginn’s introduction for more on this point. 48 see the introduction to On Grace and Free Choice, p. 23. 49 see anselm’s On Free Will, chapter 1 in Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, ed. by Brian davies and g.r. evans, oxford: oxford university Press 1998, p. 176. 50 On Grace and Free Choice, 4.9, p. 65. 51 Bernard’s insistence that the damned in hell continue to possess Freedom of choice (On Grace and Free Choice, 9.30, p. 86) is a helpful supplement to Kierkegaard’s understanding of hell and human freedom, on which, see Jack Mulder, Jr., “Must all be saved? a Kierkegaardian response to theological universalism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, no. 59, 2006, especially pp. 13–16. 52 SKS 11, 136–7 / SUD, 21. 53 SKS 11, 145 / SUD, 29. 54 i think the case is strong for thinking that this is basically Kierkegaard’s understanding of the traditional category of hell. For more, see my “Must all be saved? a Kierkegaardian response to theological universalism.” 55 there may be a very slight discrepancy here, since anti-climacus claims that it is the possibility of despair (or sin) that is “man’s superiority over the animal” (SKS 11, 131 / SUD, 15), while for Bernard this possibility is only actual when Freedom of counsel is possessed (in some measure) in tandem with Freedom of choice. nonetheless, this fact suggests that the very superiority 47

32

Jack Mulder, Jr.

the will that is a person’s very self, for Bernard. granting this point, Bernard and Kierkegaard agree that a person is free, and thus remains him- or herself in hell. as for the blessed in heaven, Bernard claims that they have the fullness of all three freedoms, insofar as they are humanly able to possess them, which means that they possess these freedoms in such a way that they can never be lost. again, while Kierkegaard does not develop this point at length, he does make an interesting claim about eternity in this respect (albeit in passing). he writes: therefore, if anyone can demonstrate that the world or christendom has now become essentially good, as if it were eternity, then i will also demonstrate that christian selfdenial has been made impossible and christianity abolished, just as it will be abolished in eternity, where it will cease to be militant.56

Kierkegaard and Bernard appear to have similar views about heaven and the state of the blessed, according to which they experience the love of god without the earthly striving otherwise so inseparably connected to christian faith. this is the reward that appears to await the faithful servant of god, but Bernard, like Kierkegaard, insists that this reward is nothing other than god, and that god should be loved for god’s own sake, and not for the sake of a heterogeneous reward. Bernard writes: god is not loved without a reward, although he should be loved without regard for one…. Paul does not evangelize in order to eat; he eats in order to evangelize; he loves the gospel and not the food….how much more the soul that loves god seeks no other reward than that god whom it loves. were the soul to demand anything else, then it would certainly love that other thing and not god.57

This text, which reflects the central concern of On Loving God, namely, that god should be loved for god’s own sake, bears some comparison with Kierkegaard’s text, “An Occasional Discourse,” which forms the first part of Kierkegaard’s Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits. there, Kierkegaard also insists that “the good” must be willed in truth and not for the sake of the reward.58 Bernard certainly regards this as an imperative of the spiritual life, but also sees a gradual progression in this respect from self-regarding to god-regarding.59 over the rest of earthly creatures that humans have because of the will must also be tied in some way to the other freedoms, for Bernard. 56 SKS 9, 194 / WL, 194, italics mine. see my “Must all be saved? a Kierkegaardian response to theological universalism,” pp. 14–15 for discussion of this point. 57 On Loving God, 7.17, pp. 110–11. 58 see SKS 8, 150–51 / UD, 37. there Kierkegaard makes it clear that, “the reward we are speaking of here is the world’s reward, because the reward that god has eternally joined together with the good has nothing dubious about it and is also adequately sure.” Bernard would agree, so long as by the latter reward Kierkegaard understands god himself, a claim to which i believe Kierkegaard would assent. see Jack Mulder, Jr., “on Being afraid of hell: Kierkegaard and catholicism on imperfect contrition,” in Kierkegaard Studies. Yearbook, 2007, pp. 88–114. 59 see my “on Being afraid of hell” for an argument that Kierkegaard’s distinction between double-mindedness and willing the good without any admixture of fear of punishment is too sharp, because human beings actually progress through stages in this respect.

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

33

Bernard develops four stages of love in this work. The first stage is when a person loves himself or herself for his or her own sake. this gives way to the love of god for the person’s sake in the second stage. Bernard writes, in a letter which was to accompany the treatise itself, “Thus man first loves himself for himself because he is carnal and sensitive to nothing but himself. then when he sees he cannot subsist by himself, he begins to seek for god by faith and to love him as necessary to himself.”60 The final two stages occur when the person loves God for god’s own sake and when a person loves himself or herself for god’s sake. while, as Jean leclercq notes, the fourth stage is, for Bernard, “an exceptionally rare foretaste of the absolutely perfect love to come in heavenly glory,” i would argue that it also bears considerable resemblance to Kierkegaard’s conception of love in Works of Love, a love which Kierkegaard considers a duty.61 there, Kierkegaard writes, “the neighbor, then, is nearer to you than anyone else. But is he also nearer to you than you are to yourself? no, that he is not, but he is just as near, or he ought to be just as near to you.”62 once one is united with god in Kierkegaardian faith, one regards others as on the same plane with oneself, indeed, as other selves. thus, one loves oneself because god loves on=eself.63 it is tempting to suggest that Bernard’s framework of the stages of the love of god might admit of (and perhaps even, in some respects, be benefited by) a Kierkegaardian interpretation along the lines of the stages of existence, but to develop this reading at length would far exceed the scope of this article. A final work by Bernard is worthy of mention, namely, On Consideration. this work is Bernard’s mature (and often strongly worded) advice to Pope eugenius iii, a reluctant Pope, who was, at one time, a monk at clairvaux. thus, Bernard still considered himself the spiritual parent of eugenius in important respects.64 Bernard’s regard for Eugenius’ station, with all the decorum befitting a letter to the Pope, does not keep him from performing the function of a “second Jethro”65 in exhorting eugenius to behave quite differently in his office. Much of Bernard’s advice concerns Eugenius’ tendency to have his time taken up by secular concerns or with matters that leave no time for the kind of devotion that is necessary for a proper Pope to conduct himself as the shepherd of both the sheep and other shepherds (i.e., bishops).66 while Kierkegaard clearly rejects the kind of papal authority that Bernard accepts,67 he accepts apostolic authority, which is the sort of authority claimed for On Loving God, 15.39, p. 130. see SKS 9, 31 / WL, 24. 62 SKS 9, 23 / WL, 21. 63 see my Mystical and Buddhist Elements in Kierkegaard’s Religious Thought, especially chapter 4, for some discussion of this point. 64 Bernard writes: “it is true that i have been freed of maternal obligation toward you, but i am not stripped of affection for you. You were once in my womb; you will not be drawn from my heart so easily….therefore i will instruct you not as a teacher, but as a mother, indeed as a lover” (Five Books on Consideration, Preface, p. 24). 65 ibid., Book 1, 2.3, p. 28. 66 ibid., Book 2, 8.15, p. 67. 67 while Kierkegaard has mixed admiration for catholicism, he clearly rejects papal authority, claiming that rome is merely a “peripheral point” (SKS 17, 268, dd:66 / JP 3, 2458). 60 61

34

Jack Mulder, Jr.

the Pope. Kierkegaard’s requirements for apostolic authority are ones that can often be found in Bernard’s work here, as well. in his work, “the difference between a genius and an apostle,” h.h. (Kierkegaard’s pseudonym) writes: the doctrine communicated to him is not a task to him to cogitate about; it is not given to him for his own sake….Even if an apostle is never persecuted, his sacrificial life consists essentially in this: “that he, himself poor, only makes others rich,” that he never dares take the time or the quiet or the freedom to be enriched by that with which, through its proclamation, he enriches others. spiritually understood, he is like the busy housewife who herself, in order to prepare food for the many mouths, scarcely has time to eat.68

it is likely that Bernard would have a mixed response to this passage. on the one hand, Bernard clearly agrees that the life of a Pope is one of service. he writes, “this is the precedent established by the apostles: dominion is forbidden, ministry imposed.”69 earlier in the work, he writes, “learn that you need a hoe, not a scepter, to do the work of a Prophet.”70 accordingly, a Pope must “vanquish the wolves, but …not lord it over the sheep.”71 Bernard is, at times, very direct in his demands to eugenius. once, in righteous indignation, he writes, “either deny openly that you are the shepherd of this people or show it by your actions.”72 Bernard clearly believes that it is necessary for a Pope (or an apostle) to be an example of the spiritual life for those to whom he has been appointed to minister. Yet, for Bernard, it is necessary that one in such an office “take time for consideration,” the essence of which Bernard identifies with the command, “Be still and know that i am god.”73 Bernard might wonder why Kierkegaard appears to picture the exhausted housewife as the exemplar for the proper use of apostolic authority. thus, Bernard would agree that it is necessary that the Pope be virtuous, but spiritual refreshment must also be taken to ensure that this requirement can be met.74 in this section, i have discussed Bernard’s life and work with a view to salient points in Bernard’s authorship and possible parallels with Kierkegaard’s authorship. in the subsequent sections of this article, i will discuss Kierkegaard’s explicit reception of Bernard and go on to discuss how Kierkegaard assessed Bernard’s contribution to christianity more generally.

SKS 11, 109 / WA, 106. Five Books on Consideration, Book 2, 6.11, p. 59. 70 ibid., Book 2, 6.9, pp. 56–7. 71 ibid., Book 2, 8.15, p. 67. 72 ibid., Book 4, 3.6, p. 117. 73 ibid., Book 1, 7.8, p. 37. see also Psalm 45:11. 74 i think Bernard, as a catholic, might also differ from Kierkegaard with respect to the kind of requirement (logical or ethical) that virtuous behavior is for an apostle. see Jack Mulder, Jr., “the catholic Moment?: the apostle in Kierkegaard’s ‘the difference Between a genius and an apostle,’ ” in Without Authority, ed. by robert l. Perkins, Macon, georgia: Mercer university Press (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 18), 2006, pp. 203–234. 68 69

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

35

II. Kierkegaard’s Reception of Bernard turning to Kierkegaard’s reception of Bernard, it must be admitted that Bernard’s name rarely makes an appearance in Kierkegaard’s writings. the Auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s library reveals that Kierkegaard owned Bernard’s Opera, but there is little direct indication that he read Bernard’s works to a great extent. as for what we can say with certainty that he read, we know that he not only owned but read, and, we suspect, quite carefully, Friedrich Böhringer’s lengthy chapter on Bernard in his work, Die Kirche Christi, und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen.75 Kierkegaard also read the second edition of august neander’s book, Der heilige Bernhard und sein Zeitalter, which he refers to three times in his journals and notebooks.76 Beyond this, Kierkegaard makes only a couple of scattered remarks about Bernard, often in relation to others figures, such as Abelard, Savonarola, or Pascal. In relation to abelard, Bernard’s name appears only because Kierkegaard extracts a point about abelard from august neander’s biography of Bernard.77 about savonarola, we read, “Bernard says: ingratitude dries up the springs of compassion, but savonarola adds: gratitude opens them.”78 while this, as far as its approval or disapproval of Bernard, is still ambiguous,79 Bernard’s appearance alongside Pascal is respectful but disapproving. Kierkegaard calls Bernard and Pascal both “significant characters,” which appears to be a concession to their wisdom in other matters, but reproves them later in the same entry. Kierkegaard writes: When a man like Bernard of Clairvaux or Pascal, both of them significant characters, let such a confusion go undisturbed as the Pope’s calling himself Peter’s successor

Friedrich Böhringer, “Bernhard von clairvaux,” in his Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 2, abtheilung 1, pp. 436–719; Kierkegaard refers to p. 550 and discusses the material from p. 527 (ASKB 173–177). 76 august neander, Der heilige Bernhard und sein Zeitalter, 2nd ed., hamburg: gotha 1848. Kierkegaard directly refers to p. 68 and pp. 246–7 and discusses material from pp. 158–60. 77 SKS 24, 91f., nB21:149 / JP 3, 2722. here Kierkegaard makes the (perhaps surprising) point against neander and for abelard that “more miracles, if possible, are needed when it is a matter of tearing people out of the illusion that they are believers.” 78 SKS 24, 338, nB24:34 / JP 2, 1517. compare Bernard, “ingratitude is the soul’s enemy, a voiding of merits, dissipation of the virtues, wastage of benefits. Ingratitude is a burning wind that dries up the source of love, the dew of mercy, the streams of grace.” see sermon 51.6 in On the Song of Songs III, trans. by Kilian walsh and irene M. edmonds, Kalamazoo: cistercian Publications 1979, p. 45. Kierkegaard is using andreas gottlob rudelbach’s Hieronymous Savonarola und seine Zeit: Aus den Quellen dargestellt, hamburg: Perthes 1835, pp. 372–3 as his source. 79 other mentions of works on Bernard, which give no verdict on the saint, are in connection with arnold of Brescia (see SKS 24, 121, nB22:32 / JP 6, 6703), from neander’s aforementioned biography of Bernard, and hildegard (see Pap. X–5 a 135 / JP 3, 2899), from Böhringer’s aforementioned work. 75

36

Jack Mulder, Jr. [Efterfølger] (and thus nonsensically parodying the imitation [Efterfølgelse] of christ),80 there is still the question of whether this is connected with their wanting to coddle themselves or their perhaps unconsciously and with instinctive cunning refraining from risking what would of necessity come to be martyrdom, a bloody martyrdom.81

in an earlier entry on the same topic, Kierkegaard notes that this is a general trend in the behavior of the apostles, namely, to want to emphasize the role of christ as redeemer at the expense of christ’s role as the prototype (Forbilledet). Kierkegaard writes: the relationship was soon turned around because men preferred to adore the prototype, and finally in Protestantism82 it became presumption to want to resemble the prototype— the prototype is only the redeemer. the apostle imitates christ and enjoins: imitate me. the apostle was soon turned around; men adored the apostle. and this is how it skids downward.83

I juxtapose these two journal entries to show that the interesting thing about the first is not so much Bernard’s endorsement of the papal title,84 but rather the theological relevance of the sort of title that Bernard allows the Pope. Kierkegaard seems to find in the title one more step in the direction of the imitation of Peter, rather than of christ. this, according to Kierkegaard, was a principal fault of catholicism, to imagine that humans could become perfect and like (ligne) christ, thus usurping the role that belonged only to christ.85 In the next section, I will comment briefly on what this means for our understanding of the relationship between Kierkegaard and Bernard. another topic that receives some mention in Kierkegaard’s journals and notebooks is the topic of Bernard’s preaching. Kierkegaard’s complaint against

one can imagine Kierkegaard responding in a similar way to innocent iii’s preference for the title, “vicar of christ,” to the title, “vicar of Peter.” one is enjoined to imitate the apostle, rather than christ, but enjoined to obey christ’s vicar, rather than Peter’s. see gerald o’collins and Mario Farrugia, Catholicism: The Story of Catholic Christianity, oxford: oxford university Press 2003, p. 308. 81 Pap. Xi–1 a 306 / JP 2, 1930. 82 Kierkegaard elsewhere claims that a fault of catholicism is the “despairing presumption” to want to be perfect, to be (evidently too much) like christ, whereas the corresponding fault of Protestantism is the “despairing humility” of regarding the imitation of christ as too lofty to achieve, thus appearing humble while shirking the responsibility of christianity (Pap. X–5 a 139 / JP 2, 1923). an alternative might be Bernard’s humble recognition of his own pride and unfitness to write his treatise, The Steps of Humility and Pride, which he nonetheless dutifully wrote. see Bernard’s preface to this work, in The Steps of Humility and Pride, p. 28. 83 Pap. Xi–1 a 158 / JP 2, 1929. 84 Bernard clearly upheld papal supremacy, despite the forceful and sometimes rebuking tone he often takes with eugenius iii in On Consideration. see, for instance, letter 140.2 in The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. by Bruno scott James, Kalamazoo: cistercian Publications 1998, pp. 208–9. readers are advised that James’ numbering of the letters departs somewhat from the critical cistercian edition, though James provides a numerical index in his volume to rectify this. 85 Pap. X–5 a 139 / JP 2, 1923. 80

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

37

Bernard’s preaching (in particular, his preaching of the second crusade) is that it caters too much to the animal instinct. he writes: Bernard of clairvaux preaches crusades; under the open heavens (see the passage in Böhringer) thousands and thousands are assembled; he cannot even finish before the crowd roars: the cross, the cross—this is working in the direction of the animal category, to work men into—a crowd….Bernard is a christian, and this takes place in christendom— and socrates is a pagan—and yet there is more christianity in the socratic approach than in saint Bernard’s.86

Kierkegaard praises the socratic approach as being, in effect, “more christian” than Bernard’s. the reason is that Bernard’s approach is taken to appeal to the baser instincts of the crowd in a human being, whereas socrates endeavors to divide the crowd and appeal to the spirit of an individual human being. despite this criticism of Bernard, there are two other places in Kierkegaard’s journals where Bernard is lauded as an important christian teacher. in the previous entry, Kierkegaard seems to link Bernard with “christendom” (in Kierkegaard’s sense) and the easy appeal to “the crowd.” in contrast, another entry reveals nearly the opposite sort of appreciation for Bernard. Kierkegaard writes: this is a sample of “christendom.” it is told of Bernard of clairvaux that parents held back their children and wives their husbands—lest Bernard should persuade them to become christians in such a way that they actually forsook everything. and so it is always with the vital christian. he is like the πεισιθανατος of antiquity to the extent to which he calls a person away from the sensate man’s lust of the eye and the pride of life—and yet in christendom we are all assumed to be christians! and in our present age, when there lives not even one πεισιθανατος.87

surprisingly, Bernard turns out, in this entry, to be the sort of “vital christian” of which there is not even one example in Kierkegaard’s time! his preaching in this instant is perhaps not less “powerful” than it was in the previous case, but the preaching in this case is directed toward what Bernard would have called “conversion,” which refers not to becoming a christian, but to forsaking the world for the monastery.88 Kierkegaard appears to see Bernard calling people to a difficult life of self-denial,89 Pap. X–5 a 133 / JP 4, 4295. Böhringer attributes this to the powerful effect (mächtige Wirkung) that Bernard’s preaching had on the crowd (see Friedrich Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, p. 527. Böhringer would probably have garnered this information from the Vita Prima Bernardi, which is itself a series of texts on Bernard’s life from a number of his contemporaries. a translation of this account, evidently from odo of deuil, appears in chapter 27, p. 110. 87 SKS 23, 34, nB15:48 / JP 1, 201. 88 see evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, pp. 23–4. 89 this was in fact the inspiration for the cistercian order, namely, to restore the monastic (or rather, Benedictine) life to its proper rigor, in opposition to the cluniacs, where the cistercians saw corruption in their observance of the Benedictine rule (see evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, p. 8). Perhaps this explains Bernard’s love for his order, and his claim, at one time, that if Judas himself had become a cistercian, he would have been able to gain his salvation (see Mcguire, The Difficult Saint, p. 27). From the same spot in Mcguire’s work we also learn 86

38

Jack Mulder, Jr.

with which he virtually identifies the Christian life. Nonetheless, it should be clearly pointed out that Bernard means to call his listeners to a monastic vocation, and Kierkegaard’s own view on the monastery is not wholly sympathetic.90 the last place where we see Bernard mentioned is again decidedly favorable. referring to neander’s work on Bernard, Kierkegaard writes that Bernard “said it beautifully—‘let us not forget that Martha and Mary still were sisters’ (meaning the other side of life should also be included).”91 it is well known that Mary and Martha, the sisters mentioned in luke 10:38–42, are classically treated as symbols of contemplative and active devotion in christian spiritual thought. Martha symbolizes the active life, which many have linked with lay devotion in the secular world, but, in the controversy between the cluniac and cistercian orders (over the proper observance of the rule of st. Benedict), Martha was used as a type for the hardworking cistercian order, as opposed to the lazy (or so the cistercians thought) cluniac order!92 Mary, on the other hand, symbolizes those who have chosen to devote themselves exclusively to christ, thus choosing “the better part.”93 Bernard also sees these two as necessarily joined since, as he notes, helping himself to James 2:26, “faith without works is…dead.” Bernard writes: For who can enjoy the light of contemplation—i do not say continually but even for long—while she remains in the body? But, as i said, as often as she falls away from contemplation she takes refuge in action, from which she will surely return to the former state as from an adjoining place, with greater intimacy, since these two are comrades and live together: for Martha is sister to Mary. and though she loses the light of contemplation, she does not permit herself to fall into the darkness of sin or the idleness of sloth, but holds herself within the light of good works.94

thus, for Bernard, it is not so much (although it is that, too) that there is diversity with respect to active and contemplative lives in the unity of the church, but reality demands that everyone (including those who have a contemplative vocation)95 have

of what Kierkegaard might have regarded as an even bolder claim: that each of Bernard’s cistercian listeners, were he to die in the cistercian habit, would gain his eternal salvation. 90 commentators on Kierkegaard have sometimes seen more antipathy to monasticism in his writings than is actually present. even climacus concedes that monasticism at least has passion, which makes it vastly preferable to hegelianism (SKS 7, 367 / CUP1, 402). as for Kierkegaard, his own viewpoint allows that monasticism could be joined with a genuine faith, and that the problem with monasticism was only the meritoriousness that it eventually presumed to have (SKS 23, 367f., nB19:57 / JP 3, 2521). For more on Kierkegaard’s treatment of monasticism, see Jack Mulder, Jr., Mystical and Buddhist Elements in Kierkegaard’s Religious Thought, pp. 23–33. on Bernard’s view of monasticism, see evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, chapter 2. 91 SKS 24, 89, nB21:144 / JP 4, 5015. 92 on this point, see Bernard’s An Apologia to Abbot William. see especially p. 39, note 24. 93 see luke 10:42. 94 sermon 51.2 in On the Song of Songs III, p. 41. 95 Bernard writes: “my profession implies prayer even if my conduct falls short of my obligations” (On Loving God, Prologue, p. 91).

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

39

some mixture of action and contemplation,96 if only to better resume contemplation after having fallen away from it. despite Bernard’s affection for those who choose the “better part” (however this is construed), he will certainly acknowledge that salvation can be gained by those on other paths of life. Bernard writes, “we would never guess that noah, daniel, and Job share the same kingdom, since we know they followed very different paths of virtue. Finally, we would have to affirm that either Mary or Martha or both failed to please the lord, since their efforts to do this were so very unlike.”97 here, Bernard is writing to abbot william discussing the controversy between different orders over the proper way to live a monastic life. as part of his argument that it would simply make no sense for him to condemn other orders per se, he writes: if it is true that by entering one order, a man is bound to hold the others in contempt, or to believe that this is their attitude toward him, how can he possibly find peace and security in his vocation, since it is quite impossible for one man to join all the orders? at the same time, no one order is suitable for everybody.98

while Bernard’s point here seems to be the narrow one that all the religious orders are good, and that no one order is “suitable for everybody,” in reality, his juxtaposition of this statement with the types of noah, daniel, Job, Mary, and Martha makes it clear that the point is not simply that the various religious orders are properly instituted within christ’s church, but also that the laity has its own proper, and indispensable, place. III. Kierkegaard’s Assessment of Bernard By now it should be clear that we can hope for no single verdict from Kierkegaard as to how we are to regard the “last of the Fathers.” there will always have to be an “on the other hand” for Bernard. on the one hand, Bernard, like Kierkegaard, has little patience for those who, with vain or idle curiosity, inquire into matters of theology (a word that Bernard appears never to have used positively).99 on this point, Kierkegaard writes: see John r. sommerfeldt, Bernard of Clairvaux on the Spirituality of Relationship, new York: newman Press 2004, p. 18. we read there: “living in a family informed by love, the monk spends his time not only in the prayer implied by his profession, but in the multitude of practical, down-to-earth activities necessary to the life of the household of god. Bernard finds an appropriate image of that household in the family of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. Bernard sees, ‘…Martha as serving, Mary in repose, and lazarus as groaning beneath the stone, beseeching the gift of resurrection….’ the roles of all three are to be combined in the monk’s life.” 97 see An Apologia to Abbot William, 3.5, p. 38–9. see also p. 38, note 23 regarding the origin, in gregory the great, of the interpretation of noah, daniel, and Job as symbols of the church authorities, professed religious, and good laypeople respectively. on Bernard’s views of the way these orders are combined in the church, see sommerfeldt, Bernard of Clairvaux on the Spirituality of Relationship. 98 see An Apologia to Abbot William, 3.5, p. 39. 99 see evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, pp. 48–51. 96

40

Jack Mulder, Jr. But the trouble is not with these objections but with those hordes of characterless professors, preachers, etc. who have no intention of acting according to christ’s commands but write folios against nonsensical (from a christian point of view) objections.100

Bernard, like Kierkegaard, will have nothing of distanced theological speculation. in fact, one scholar has suggested that Bernard’s theology is expressed best by modifying the augustinian–anselmian dictum that, “i believe that i may understand” so that it reads, “i believe that i may experience.” as Kilian Mcdonnell notes, this has some foundation in Bernard’s own work.101 Bernard writes: “what they do not know from experience, let them believe, so that one day, by virtue of their faith, they may reap the harvest of experience.”102 there is every reason why Kierkegaard would be sympathetic to this view, as we have already seen that he is to Bernard’s insistence that people take upon themselves a rigorous life of faith. Bernard, in effect, wins praise from Kierkegaard for being a genuine pre-reformation christian, since at least the monastery feared secularism, but the reformation simply ushered in “unmitigated profane secularism, worse than paganism.”103 on the other hand, the way that Bernard preaches the life of christian faith would and did provoke some negative responses from Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard once wrote: there certainly was humor in the Middle ages, too, but it was within a totality, within the church, and was partly about the world, partly about itself. therefore, it does not have much of the sickliness which i believe belongs to this concept. this was also why some of the modern humorists became catholics, desired a community again, a backbone which they did not have within themselves.104

Kierkegaard tends to see in catholicism, and especially in monasticism, a tendency to make the inward demands of faith outwardly commensurable, and thus easier to discern and ultimately, to follow. its strength is its passion, but its weakness is conceiving that this passion can be, without further ado, evinced in the outward world and that the outward acts can become meritorious for those who perform them. Kierkegaard writes: we pause for a moment at the Middle ages. however great its errors were, its conception of christianity has a decisive advantage over that of our time. the Middle ages conceived of christianity along the lines of action, life, existence-transformation. this is the merit. it is another matter that some of the actions they hit upon were strange, that it could think Pap. Xi–1 a 338 / JP 2, 1931. see “spirit and experience in Bernard of clairvaux,” Theological Studies, no. 58, 1997, p. 4. 102 sermon 84.7 in Bernard of Clairvaux: On the Song of Songs IV, trans. by irene edmonds, Kalamazoo: cistercian Publications 1980, p. 194. 103 Pap. Xi–1 a 263 / JP 3, 2764. 104 SKS 17, 227, dd:24 / JP 2, 1698. Kierkegaard elsewhere notes that few can bear the Protestant conception of life as opposed to the catholic one (SKS 17, 254, dd:108 / JP 2, 1976). For more on how the “Middle ages” misconceived the true imitation of christ, see SV1 Xii, 460 / JFY, 192. 100 101

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

41

that in itself fasting was christianity, that entering the monastery, giving everything to the poor, not to mention what we can scarcely mention without smiling—scourging oneself, crawling on one’s knees, standing on one leg, etc.—that this was supposed to be true imitation. This was an error….Something worse than the first error did not fail to appear: they came up with the idea of meritoriousness, thought that they earned merit before god through their good works.105

The second error, worse than the first (about which more below) is the error of thinking that by one’s own good works one can gain merit before god. Bernard, however, rarely uses the word “merit” without being absolutely clear about the fact that it is not at all by one’s merits that one gains salvation. he writes, while recounting a conversation in On Grace and Free Choice: “where, then,” said he, “are our merits, or where our hope?” —“listen,” i replied, “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy. what? did you imagine that you create your own merits, that you can be saved by your own righteousness, who cannot even say ‘Jesus is lord’ without the holy spirit? or have you forgotten the words: ‘without me you can do nothing,’ and ‘it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon god’s mercy’?”106

Bernard also notes that the love commandment is fulfilled only by God’s grace. He writes: “nobody will be justified in his sight by the works of the law. Accepting that command then, we shall cry to heaven and god will have mercy on us. and on that day we shall know that god has saved us, not by the righteous works that we ourselves have done, but according to his mercy.”107 if one were to think that Bernard recognizes merit to be the cause of our salvation in some way independently of god’s mercy, this could only be the result of a careless reading, or no reading at all. Kierkegaard identifies the first error of the Middle Ages, however, to be that of identifying certain outward actions with the christian life. here, Kierkegaard has reasons, internal to his own thought, for a bit more skeptical assessment of Bernard. From a Kierkegaardian point of view, to think that outward acts are simply commensurable with the inward passion of faith is an error. while Bernard does indeed, as we have seen, embrace a church of both lay and religious followers of christ, he nonetheless does believe that the monastic or religious vocation is the best way to live a life devoted to christian discipleship.108 Kierkegaard tends to worry about monasticism in general for virtually identifying the christian life with external

SV1 Xii, 460 / JFY, 192. On Grace and Free Choice, 1.1, p. 54. compare Kierkegaard’s claim in “to need god is a human Being’s highest Perfection” that, “But the person who perceived that he was not capable of the least thing without god, unable even to be happy about the most happy event—he is closer to perfection” (SKS 5, 310 / EUD, 318). 107 sermon 50.2 in On the Song of Songs III, pp. 31–2. on p. 31 Bernard also discusses the seeming impossibility of love being commanded, as does Kierkegaard, and divides its fulfillment into action and feeling. He writes: “The former therefore is commanded in view of merit, the latter is given as a reward.” 108 see evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, chapter 2. 105 106

42

Jack Mulder, Jr.

observances (like those mentioned above), and he would probably find some of Bernard’s claims for the monastic life hard to swallow in this respect. i suspect that this impulse is also part of what lay behind his disdain for Bernard’s tolerating the Pope as “Peter’s successor”;109 it is a way of “coddling oneself” with the thought that faith is commensurable with the world (even with a negative reaction to the world, i.e., monasticism), and thus that obedience to god is directly identical with obedience to a religious figure, such as the Pope.110 of course, as we have seen, Bernard is by no means uncritical of popes he believes to have gone wrong, but with respect to the authority of the Pope in general, Bernard clearly believes that the Pope has authority from God in virtue of his office. He writes: “the Apostolic see, by a unique privilege, is endowed with a full authority over all the churches of the world. anyone who withstands this authority sets his face against the decrees of god.”111 while Kierkegaard accepts, within certain limits, the concept of apostolic authority, he also insists that an apostle belongs in the sphere of transcendence, and that apostolic authority can be given no outward or physical proof. h.h. writes:112 But see, god cannot help his emissary in such a physical way as a king can, who gives him an escort of soldiers or police, or his ring, or his signature that all recognize—in short, god cannot be of service to human beings by providing them with physical certainty that an apostle is an apostle—indeed, that would be nonsense. even the miracle, if the apostle has this gift, provides no physical certainty, because the miracle is an object of faith.113

accordingly, in this text, there appears to be no way to guarantee one’s apostolic authority in the abstract. Further, Kierkegaard explicitly assigns only “immanental authority, not the paradoxical conception of authority” to bishops.114 despite the fact that Kierkegaard insists that the inward demands are not so outwardly commensurable as to be capable of being verified by those in ecclesiastical power, he also claims, especially in what is commonly called his “second authorship,” that true christian faith will issue in persecution.115 indeed, the later Kierkegaard pictures active suffering and martyrdom to be the inevitable result of christian faith. withdrawing from the secular world will not do the trick, nor will finding a (sub)community in which to find solace, because Christianity does Pap. Xi–1 a 306 / JP 2, 1930. it must be emphasized that, however Kierkegaard may perceive this relationship, Bernard insists to Pope eugenius iii (a former cistercian monk) that the better metaphor for a Pope is not a ruler, but a sweating peasant. see Five Books on Consideration, Book 2, VI.9–12, pp. 56–60. Bernard’s influence on later thinking about the papacy should not be underestimated in this regard. 111 letter 140.2, in The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, p. 208. 112 there is always good reason to remember that Kierkegaard wrote using pseudonyms, but I think the case is strong for believing that H.H. reflects the main contours of Kierkegaard’s own view on this point. 113 SKS 11, 101 / WA, 97–8. 114 SKS 20, 254, nB3:17.a / JP 1, 183. it hardly needs to be mentioned that the Pope is bishop of rome and so is implicitly being discussed as one who has only the sort of temporal authority (not paradoxical apostolic authority) possessed by the likes of kings and emperors. 115 SV1 Xii, 417 / JFY, 141. 109 110

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

43

not promise suffering and martyrdom in an external fashion only in such and such circumstances, but it promises them unconditionally, according to Kierkegaard.116 By contrast, Bernard was often an important player in ecclesiastical politics, who, while himself living a deeply devoted christian life, was hardly, to any great degree, singled out and made subject to persecution by wholly secular established orders for his Christian faith per se. in 1146, Bernard was commissioned to preach to the roaring crowds to join in the second crusade (which was to fail, to the embarrassment of its defenders, not least Bernard). Kierkegaard can picture, with the aid of Böhringer, the fervor of the crowd, calling for the cross, urged on by the aroma of Pope urban ii’s First crusade in the 1090s, in which the combatants were granted a plenary indulgence.117 with this in mind, Kierkegaard insists that something is being missed; christianity is being diluted so that it is not being presented as the “treason” against the “natural man” that it really is.118 christianity cannot be acquired in this way, much as if it were a transaction. while Bernard would certainly agree with that basic claim (since Christian faith is not simply a matter of externals), Kierkegaard finds that his preaching sometimes caters more to the animal instinct of human beings, who very often treat the faith as an external matter. For all that, Kierkegaard still sees in Bernard significant strengths, not the least of which is that even in this strident preacher of the monastic way of life, there is the recognition that christian faith can be expressed in a variety of ways. in order to bring people to a deeper understanding of the rigor of the christian message, and the surpassing dignity to which god has called them, however, he chooses not the manner of the outspoken preacher, but rather the socratic midwife, in which Kierkegaard finds more Christianity than in the Christendom of Bernard’s day.

116 117 118

SV1 Xii, 468 / JFY, 201. see evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, p. 16. SV1 Xii, 416 / JFY, 140.

Bibliography I. Bernard’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Divi Bernardi, religiosissimi ecclesiæ doctoris, ac primi Clareuallensis coenobij Abbatis, Opera, Basileae [Basel]: Per haeredes ioannis heruagij 1566 (ASKB 427). II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Bernard ast, Friedrich, Grundriss einer Geschichte der Philosophie, landshut: Joseph thomann 1807, pp. 287ff. (ASKB 385). Baader, Franz, Ueber den Paulinischen Begriff des Versehenseyns des Menschen im Namen Jesu vor der Welt Schöpfung. Sendeschreiben an den Herrn Professor Molitor in Frankfurt, vols. 1–3, würzburg: in commission der stahel’schen Buchhandlung 1837, vol. 3, p. 64 (vols. 1–2, ASKB 409–410) (vol. 3, ASKB 413). Baur, Ferdinand christian, Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1838, p. 190; pp. 200–201; p. 205; p. 305 (ASKB 423). [Becker, Karl Friedrich], Karl Friedrich Beckers Verdenshistorie, omarbeidet af Johan Gottfried Woltmann, vols. 1–12, trans. by J. riise, copenhagen: Fr. Brummers Forlag 1822–9, vol. 4, p. 442; p. 461 (ASKB 1972–1983). Böhringer, Friedrich, “Bernhard von clairvaux,” in his Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 (vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8), vol. 2, abtheilung 1, pp. 436–719 (ASKB 173–177). erdmann, Johann eduard, Vorlesungen über Glauben und Wissen als Einleitung in die Dogmatik und Religionsphilosophie, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1837, p. 114 (ASKB 479). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 507; p. 523; p. 527; p. 537; p. 539; p. 542; p. 556; p. 558; p. 561; p. 570; p. 575; p. 578; p. 583 (ASKB 158–159). günther, anton and Johann heinrich Pabst, Janusköpfe. Zur Philosophie und Theologie, vienna: wallishausser 1834, pp. 151–2 (ASKB 524). hahn, august (ed.) Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 92; p. 249; p. 494 (ASKB 535). hansen, M. Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, pp. 143–4; p. 146 (ASKB 167).

Bernard of Clairvaux: Kierkegaard’s Reception of the Last of the Fathers

45

hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, pp. 223–4; p. 254; p. 267; p. 270 (ASKB 160–166). helfferich, adolph, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung und in ihren Denkmalen, vols. 1–2, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, p. 67; p. 125; pp. 263–4; p. 344; p. 358; p. 383; p. 403 (ASKB 571–572). Marheineke, Philipp, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens und Lebens für denkende Christen und zum Gebrauch in den oberen Klassen an den Gymnasien, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: in der nicolai’schen Buchhandlung 1836, p. 33 (ASKB 257). Meiners, christoph, Historische Vergleichung der Sitten und Verfassungen, der Gesetze und Gewerbe, des Handels und der Religion, der Wissenschaften und Lehranstalten des Mittelalters, vols. 1–3, hannover: im verlage der helwingischen hofbuchhandlung 1793–4, vol. vol. 2, p. 124; pp. 149–52; p. 257; p. 586; vol. 3, pp. 4–5 (ASKB 672–674). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 163; p. 194 (ASKB 168). nielsen, rasmus, Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 40 (ASKB 698). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.g. iversen 1854, p. 91; p. 305; p. 313 [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Bernard none.

chrysostom: Between the hermitage and the city leo stan

the christian roots of søren Kierkegaard’s authorship could never be convincingly questioned. Be that as it may, his emphasis on religious subjectivity, the solitude before the divine, the impenetrability of faith, and the absurdity of christian beliefs have led scholars to think that in this respect we are dealing with a novel or highly creative import of monotheism into philosophical psychology. Moreover, the critical stance against the ecclesiastic establishment, the passing into silence of the messianic in Christ, and the absence of any Trinitarian reflection are just a few instances which might confirm that Kierkegaard’s originality preempts the fundamental tenets of Christian dogma and history. The following study can be taken as a refinement of such views. Kierkegaard’s interaction with the tradition of christian thought, dogmatic or otherwise, has been more definite than even he himself acknowledged. In particular, the influence of Tertullian, and especially Augustine, is hard to ignore. however, a survey of Kierkegaard’s encounter with the eastern church tradition, which was never direct, might bring unexpected results. John chrysostom is a telling example which shows that the danish thinker is, theologically, much closer to the western (i.e., Protestant) christianity than its oriental version. in what follows, i shall discuss Kierkegaard’s reception of chrysostom’s life and theology from the standpoint of religious anthropology. a few biographical considerations will introduce us to chrysostom’s existential-ecclesiastical position. after addressing John’s monastic ideals as an indispensable part of becoming a christian, i shall systematically analyze the specific topics Kierkegaard reacts to in connection with the venerable Church Father. the article will close with a few suggestions for further study and an ideational comparison between the theological stances of the two authors. I. A Short Biography around the year AD 347, Anthusa, the wife of a distinguished military officer, prematurely widowed at the age of 20, brought John into the world, soon to be known as chrysostomos, literally golden tongued. in his mother, the boy witnessed an exemplary piety and unconditional devotion to family and religion. unlike many of her contemporaries, anthusa was well aware of the importance of knowledge and, as a result, offered her son the best education available. John was initiated in the intricacies of philosophical thinking by andragathius; the acquaintance with

48

Leo Stan

rhetoric was the responsibility of a renowned sophist, libanius. the pupil made an overwhelming impression on his teachers and proved in addition that his moral conduct was as flawless as his brilliant mind.1 John’s secular life ended with baptism, an event that took place in 367 under the auspices of the christian bishop Meletius. afterwards, chrysostom started frequenting the monastic circle of diodore, bishop of tarsos, which was patterned on the Pachomian canon. 371 was the year when John was appointed official reader, the lowest clerical rank. Probably at the end of the same year, while being deeply convinced of his spiritual unworthiness, John refused ordination. the decision was based on a guileful principle—otherwise known as accommodation (oikonomia, in greek)—according to which it is christianly adequate to deceive as long as one acts for a good cause or with morally good intentions.2 obviously, the public did not applaud such application of theatrical incognito to christian life. Because of the indignation he raised, of his weakness against sexual temptations and also of his lofty spiritual aims, John decided in 372 to “make for the huts of monks” in the cloistral retreat to Mt. silpios. after four years of mild practice in world-renunciation and self-denial,3 while yearning for a richer interaction with god, John embraced an almost inhumanly austere existence of complete solitude and prolonged fasting. an integral part of this severe lifestyle was the struggle for a continual praise of god through prayer, which required constant sleep-deprivation.4 unfortunately, in this period chrysostom damaged his health so significantly that he had to return to the city, bringing with him a chronic digestion sickness, frequent crises of insomnia, and an extreme sensitivity to winter cold. nevertheless, this did not dissuade him from the monastic call, for he never ceased behaving, aspiring, and calling himself a true monk.5 interestingly enough, his unusual comprehensive capacities translated into a fervent interest in attending litigations and theater plays. nonetheless, John later criticized theater attendance for spiritual degradation; see for instance, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew 37.6; J.n.d. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, ithaca/new York: cornell university Press 1995, p. 97. chrysostom’s Homilies on Matthew can be found in Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. by Philip schaff, First series, vol. 10, grand rapids, Michigan: eerdmans 1956. 2 cf. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, pp. 26, 28. see chrysostom, On the Priesthood, 1.6–7; Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First series, vol. 9. 3 in that epoch, a monastic could have been someone who remained in the world (often living with his family), but still endeavored to lead a life exclusively dedicated to god. the self-imposed rules of ascetics in the antiochene environment were: celibacy, abstention from wine and meat, distinctive outfit, devotion through prayer, self-government, moral and spiritual growth, interdiction of secular employment, spiritual and liturgical guidance from the local clergy, assistance in pastoral needs of the ecclesia. cf. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, pp. 19–20. 4 the ceaseless sleeplessness which meant to maintain an uninterrupted communion with god was a highly respected ideal amongst syrian monks. ibid., pp. 31ff. 5 this might be the reason why he bitterly admonishes theodore who, after a period of impressive self-mortification and arduous study of Scriptures, gave up the monastic life to return in the world, take up family business and even marry. theodore is the celebrated 1

Chrysostom: Between the Hermitage and the City

49

a year after his return from the cloister (381), John was ordained deacon by his baptizer, Meletius. the initially refused appointment of pastor was accepted in 386 from the hands and with the blessing of Bishop Flavian. Priesthood was withheld until 398 when, once more against his wish, he was anointed patriarch of constantinople. in a short time, he realized that the church seemed to have gone in the wrong direction, being torn apart by vainglory and mundane interests.6 consequently, chrysostom concentrated his institutional activity and edifying efforts on a grand reform of both the nominal congregation and the clergy by imposing the moral and religious standards that he himself observed. The auxiliary goal was the unification of the church under his centralizing authority. obviously, his subordinates and fellow bishops found his spiritual ideals and reforming agenda rather unrealistic and gratuitously arduous. these facts, plus his own personality—always cruel, irascible, and imperious— attracted considerable enmity on the part of the clergy, especially from theophilus and Severian, who, together with government officials and the sovereigns themselves paved the way for John’s downfall.7 More exactly, at the synod of the oak (403), chrysostom was judged on 29 charges, found guilty, removed from his patriarchate, and exiled to cucusus (armenia). nonetheless, soon afterwards he was recalled to the court. Yet, given his severe, tactless, and denunciatory bearing,8 which concretized in an intransigent position toward the autocratic empress eudoxia and her idolatrous entourage, he was banished in 404 to comana (Pontus) where he died in 407. II. Chrysostom’s Theologico-Ecclesiastical Contribution one would expect that such a full and convoluted destiny gave rise to a correspondingly rich scriptural activity. and, indeed, chrysostom is never a disappointment from this viewpoint. his unique rhetorical skills, combined with a rare hermeneutical astuteness in theological matters, became the source of a vast authorship, comprising approximately six hundred homiletic speeches delivered at antioch and constantinople, moral essays, dogmatic treatises, and over two hundred letters. as to the content of his oeuvre, we have to remember that John felt a deep distaste for the precursor of nestorian theology, who became bishop of Mopsuestia (cicilia) and held that position between AD 392 and 428. however, John’s views of asceticism will acquire a much more nuanced perspective and a less furious tone. For instance, as bishop, he used “to call monks from their seclusion and either ordain them and associate them with his ministry or employ them as missionaries.” Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, p. 18; p. 23; p. 35. 6 this is also a recurrent jeremiad in Kierkegaard’s attacks against his contemporary ecclesia. see for instance, SV1 Xiv, 89–91; 121–3; 159–65; 235–6 / M, 75–7; 109–11; 221–2; 149–53. also Pap. Xi–3 B 115 / JP 3, 2774. 7 Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, pp. 125–7; p. 189; p. 216. 8 while preaching humility and insisting on clerical discipline, chrysostom also vividly condemned the vices of his contemporaries and especially, the mediocre, irresponsible, and hypocritical pseudo-religiosity embraced by the imperial court.

50

Leo Stan

philosophical speculations and allegorization of origenian extraction, which were adopted by the Alexandrian school as a means to overcome the difficulties of sacred texts. Following his master, diodore who was a champion of historical exegesis, John opted for the literal understanding of scripture wherein existential praxis was imbued with theoretical theology, and dogma fused with ethics. as to the context of chrysostom’s authorship, it is obvious that he primarily aimed at an apologetic defense of christianity.9 albeit less original theologically, John proved to be an exceptional sermonizer who based his homilies on a fine exegesis of the Bible. he was mainly interested in deploying the biblical texts and their exhortations for the moral and spiritual uplifting of all those who worship Christ in unison within the unified Church. From a congregational perspective, the holy scriptures were, thus, the source of religious mimesis. until the end of his life, John unconditionally believed that the total commitment to the gospel should be the ultimate telos of our existence. Moreover, owing to our inability to understand divine providence, we must fideistically accept the salvific work of Christ as manifest in, and guaranteed by, his embodiment and self-sacrifice.10 From an anthropological standpoint, John embraces a position of moral perfectionism rooted in christian soteriology. More precisely, he considers that the sole consequential error we can make is to fall into sin, by which he means the deliberate choice to do wrong when knowing the good.11 though sinfulness is a tremendous threat to salvation, John is extremely confident in the power of repentance by which liberation from sins becomes possible.12 every christian needs a penitent and humble heart, while being constantly aware of personal turpitude and the terrible judgment of god. whereas Kierkegaard argues that sin and repentance are the downfall of ethics,13 to chrysostom’s mind, the worth of humankind lies in that moral integrity which, once attained, cannot be taken away by anyone. the underlying principle of this thesis is that the good person who remains true to himself or herself cannot ever be corrupted by evil or any natural disaster. and even if John does not try to justify human omnipotence, what i have called his moral perfectionism is actually grounded on the major tenets of christian dogma. chrysostom argues that goodness is invulnerable to any threat only on the condition that god unconditionally love

see in this sense his Discourse on Blessed Babylas, and against the Greeks and Demonstration against the Pagans that Christ Is God, in John chrysostom, Apologist, trans. by Margaret a. schatkin and Paul w. harkins, washington, d.c.: catholic university of america Press 1985 (Fathers of the Church, vol. 73). and the sermons entitled Discourses against Judaizing Christians, trans. by Paul w. harkins, washington: catholic university of america Press 1979 (Fathers of the Church, vol. 68). 10 Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, p. 43; p. 270. 11 ibid., p. 44. 12 ibid., p. 225. see also Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 9.2–4; 31.3, in Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First series, vol. 14. 13 Most representative in this sense are SKS 3, 321–2 / EO2, 341–54. SKS 4, 148–59; 172–207 / FT, 54–67; 82–120. SKS 4, 320–31; 419–20 / CA, 12–24; 117–18. SKS 11, 149, 206–7, 226 / SUD, 33; 94; 114. 9

Chrysostom: Between the Hermitage and the City

51

human beings and that the crucifixion signifies Christ’s glorification and expiation for the sins of the world.14 John—a convinced anti-arianist—defended a historical-exegetical approach not solely in lieu of biblical hermeneutics, but also regarding christology. though he lacked athanasius’ or augustine’s groundbreaking originality, chrysostom did not shy away from theological reflections. His most frequent topics, in this sense, are: the trinitarian relation between the son and the Father, the particularities of Jesus’ earthly life, and the ontological condition of christ’s dual nature (simultaneously human and godly). in faithfully following the antiochene creed, the bishop of constantinople emphasizes the divinity of christ without denying the reality of his corporeality. with respect to the relationship between the two dimensions of the savior’s existence, chrysostom stands for union and conjunction. consequently, he attacks any attempt to confuse Jesus’ humanity and divinity in a pantheistic or gnostic manner. as Kierkegaard will restate much later, John also states that in christ god’s Logos has kenotically and salvifically become human out of sheer love.15 thus, the church Father seems to disregard the son’s role in creation and the miraculous deeds performed during his earthly existence. according to chrysostom, the transcendent power of christ can be, however, ascertained from the victory over hellenic paganism and Hebraism. Christ’s divinity is evinced by his fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and by the predictions that only his church will survive throughout history (a hypothesis Kierkegaard vehemently opposed in Practice in Christianity). Chrysostom justifies this Christological position by arguing that, “if Christ were not god, if he were not a mighty god, it is inexplicable that his worshippers, in spite of being harried so cruelly, should have increased to such a multitude, and that the Jews who insulted and crucified him should have been completely humbled.”16 III. On Monastic Ideals i have already remarked that, though compelled to leave the monastic retreat outside of antioch, chrysostom remained on principle a monk throughout his life. accordingly, he held that supreme perfection was attainable by means of a complete seclusion from worldliness. the genuine monk should surrender himself entirely to god, control his passions or desires, conquer evil demons, bestow the gifts of spirit, convert the heathens to true religion, continuously study and ponder the Bible, comfort the afflicted, detach himself from the reality (and subsequent fear) of death, while continually expecting a greater posthumous reward than any emperor.17 see in this sense, Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, pp. 268–70. John 17. 15 cf. Mel lawrenz’s entry on John chrysostom, in Biographical Dictionary of Christian Theologians, ed. by Patrick w. carey and Joseph t. lienhard, westport/london: greenwood Press 2000, pp. 280–82. 16 Demonstration against the Pagans that Christ Is God, p. 17; cf. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, p. 42. 17 Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, p. 21; p. 33. 14

52

Leo Stan

chrysostom took asceticism a step further when he concluded that all believers should imitate the angelizing ideals pursued by monks. christian ascetics deserve to be imitated insofar as they typify serenity, inner strength, and incorruptibility.18 in other words, the monastic Weltanschauung targets everyone without exception. at the same time, John carefully escaped a facile idealization inasmuch as he was quite critical of some aspects of asceticism. in particular, he criticized the practice of unmarried ascetics living together and warned against the mental or spiritual ordeals monks might find themselves subjected to. Moreover, he expressed genuine dissatisfaction with those devotees who refuse to undertake an ecclesiastical service in this world because their solitary quest for salvation would be thus disturbed. as Kelly aptly puts it: while always impatient of the recluse who cultivated cloistered virtue in the vain hope of saving himself, John never ceased to regard the monk, whether layman or priest, as representing authentic christianity. what he consistently demanded, with a seriousness which his own experience of clerical office greatly intensified, was that the monk should always be ready to place himself at the service of the community, since “there is nothing chillier than a christian who is not trying to save others.”19

IV. Kierkegaard’s Chrysostom above all, we have to remember that Kierkegaard’s reception of John chrysostom’s theology has been mediated by four academic figures out of whom only one can count as a true source. these are the follownig: christian scriver (1629–93), a german lutheran devotional writer and arndtian pietist;20 andreas gottlob rudelbach (1792– 1862), danish pastor, doctor in philosophy, theologian, translator and editor;21 the german protestant theologian, wilhelm Martin leberecht de wette (1780–1849), who taught in heidelberg, Berlin, and Basel; and the eminent danish theologian and political ibid., pp. 35; pp. 52–3; p. 85. ibid., p. 85. see also Homilies on the First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy 14.1, in Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First series, vol. 13; Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles 20.4, in Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 11. nevertheless, John concomitantly adopted a critical position against monks whose earthly enjoyment of or implication in external matters exceeded their spiritualizing efforts. cf. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, pp. 123–5. 20 Kierkegaard mentions his principal work, Seelen-Schatz, originally published in 1675, which saw no less than 12 editions by 1744. this book is a compendium of sermons for moral upbuilding and a comparative approach to the dogmatic systems of the time, placing a major stress on feeling and praxis. Kierkegaard owned the 1723 edition, [scriver, christian], M. Christian Scrivers...Seelen-Schatz: Darinnen Von der menschlichen Seelen hohen Würde, tieffen und kläglichen Sünden-Fall, Busse und Erneuerung durch Christum, göttlichen heiligen Leben..., vols. 1–5, Magdeburg and leipzig: in verlegung christoph seidels 1723 (ASKB 261–263). 21 andreas gottlob rudelbach, Hieronymus Savonarola und seine Zeit, hamburg: Perthes 1835. 18 19

Chrysostom: Between the Hermitage and the City

53

activist, henrik nicolai clausen (1793–1877).22 nonetheless, these authors are purely incidental to Kierkegaard’s interaction with chrysostom’s christian thinking. the most prominent mediator seems to be the german theologian, university professor, and influential church historian, Johann August Wilhelm Neander (1789–1850). neander’s monograph, Der heilige Johannes Chrysostomus,23 the best one available at the time, points to Chrysostom’s affinities with the Johannine current among the traditional Fathers, as distinct from the Pauline tendency which was augustly exemplified by Augustine. Perhaps, it is also important to keep in mind that, although he describes in full detail the opinions and religious life of chrysostom, neander passes over in silence the less palatable aspects of the bishop’s personality.24 nevertheless, the fact that Kierkegaard has mainly transcribed in his journal a few quotations from chrysostom’s homilies which appear in neander’s book neutralizes the latter’s idiosyncratic treatment of the church Father. in the following, i intend to systematize thematically Kierkegaard’s entries on chrysostom as inspired by his reading of Der heilige Johannes Chrysostomus. I shall also deal briefly with Clausen’s rather cursory mention of chrysostom as an arbitrary (ab)user of the idea of accommodation. there are in all 22 journal entries in Kierkegaard’s journals where the constantinopolitan bishop is mentioned either nominally or in connection with neander’s monograph. two of these are totally irrelevant for the overall objective of this article.25 The rest are quotations and ideas which significantly accord with Kierkegaard’s own religious anthropology in general, or with the specific books he was working on at that moment.26 My overview addresses five separate themes: anthropology, the spiritual function of the church, monasticism, christian gnoseology, and christ’s problematic relation to the Jews. Kierkegaard refers here to wilhelm Martin leberecht de wette, Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi, 2nd revised ed., leipzig: weidmann 1838 [1836], p. 121 (ASKB 109). 23 Johann august wilhelm neander, Der heilige Johannes Chrysostomus und die Kirche, besonders des Orients, in dessen Zeitalter, vol. 1–2, Berlin: dümmler 1821–2 [3rd ed. 1858]. the editors of the second danish edition of Søren Kierkegaards Papirer (copenhagen: Gyldendal 1968–78) imply that Kierkegaard consulted only the first volume of Neander’s book, cf. Pap. X–3, p. 472, n745. 24 Kierkegaard owned the danish translation of Karl von hase’s (1800–90), Kirchen geschichte (carl hase, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837 (ASKB 160–166)), where he might have discovered that neander attenuates the antagonistic-authoritarian side of chrysostom’s personality and ecclesiastical activity. there exists an english translation of hase’s Kirchengeschichte: charles hase, A History of the Christian Church, trans. from the seventh and much improved german edition by charles e. Blumenthal and conway P. wing, new York: d. appleton 1856. 25 see SKS 24, 170, nB22:128.a / JP 2, 1891. SKS 24, 197, nB22:172. in the former, Kierkegaard deplores the insidious transformation of christ, initially conceived as the source of dutiful imitation, into an object of admiration. the second entry deals with the establishment’s nefarious incentive to form associations in order to express one’s personal position, spiritual or otherwise. 26 during the year 1851, Kierkegaard published Two Discourses at the Communion on Fridays, On My Work as an Author, and For Self-Examination. 1851 is also the year when he elaborated Judge for Yourself! 22

54

Leo Stan

to begin with, Kierkegaard quotes from a letter chrysostom addressed to theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, in which it is stated that “[if] a christian does not harm himself, nothing can ever harm him; he is invincible.”27 this idea almost sets the tone of anti-climacus’ The Sickness unto Death, in which despair—a selfcentered phenomenon in relation to the divine—is the sole peril humans should be worried about. the same line of thinking underlies chrysostom’s injunction that “a house collapses not due to the storms, but rather because it is built on sand,”28 which is in agreement with Kierkegaard’s constant preoccupation with the seriousness of life and its religious edification. This may be the reason why the Danish thinker faithfully jots down chrysostom’s counsel that the lord must be praised in an existential manner, viz. by leading a “pure life,” turning oneself into a true exemplar, and tacitly prompting others to worship.29 stepping on more explicitly christian soil, Kierkegaard praises John for realizing the essential corruption of humankind in a gloss on Christ’s curse of the fig tree.30 according to chrysostom, “though christ has never cursed any human being, this was an intimation of what humans deserve,” to which Kierkegaard adds, “and of christ’s entitlement in doing so.”31 therefore, as primarily sinful, humans need to direct their hopefulness in the sole redeemer, christ. once attained, this soteriological faith “does everything,” from positing an adequate rapport with the transcendent to moving mountains.32 the second major theme in Kierkegaard’s interaction with chrysostom’s theology is the relation between divine authority (mediated apostolically) and ecclesiology. the bishop of constantinople, Kierkegaard argues, realized that the apostles could impose the unique teaching of christianity solely on the basis of divine support.33 It is only in Christianity that humans have “to worship a crucified man, born as god [and] out of a woman from Judea.” the persuasion of people would have been impossible without “the godly power” in the apostolic pronouncements. Faith in christ’s resurrection can be instilled only by dint of god’s holy authority, given that no one, except the apostles, witnessed the utterly preposterous event of Jesus being revived and properly taken up to heaven after crucifixion.34 27 SKS 24, 167, nB22:123 / JP 4, 4466. all translations from Kierkegaard’s journal entries on chrysostom are mine. when available, i shall refer the reader to previous translations in the english edition of Journals and Papers. 28 SKS 24, 230, nB23:47 / JP 1, 577. 29 chrysostom writes: “heavens do not utter words in praise of god, but they drive [people] to do it by being merely seen: this is how those who lead a truly christian life praise, though they remain silent as they prompt others to exalt the lord; for the sight of heaven does not succeed in filling the mind with worship as much as the encounter with a pure life.” quoted in SKS 24, 173, nB22:137. 30 Mt 21:19–21. 31 SKS 24, 295, nB23:187. 32 SKS 24, 176, nB22:142 / JP 1, 576. here, Kierkegaard also gives the negative example of Peter whose lack of faith makes him fear an everyday girl and deny Jesus. 33 apostles are simultaneously exemplary regarding the existential worship of god touched upon above. chrysostom unambiguously declares that “it is the apostles’ life, not their miracles, that converted the world.” quoted in SKS 24, 333, nB24:27. 34 SKS 24, 174, nB22:139.

Chrysostom: Between the Hermitage and the City

55

We have already alluded to the fact that Chrysostom had a specific apologetic agenda, which additionally envisioned clear ecclesiastical goals. constitutive of it was a decisive attack against classical education,35 though, as we remember, he himself benefited from an exquisite tutoring in his youth. It is interesting to note here that Kierkegaard does not dwell for a second on the apostolic call and function of the church as passionately advocated by the bishop. however, he is truly impressed with chrysostom’s offensive against the equation of the sermon with a rhetorically alluring, but spiritually devoid, speech. Kierkegaard remarks that, notwithstanding that he was a skillful speaker, John “opposed those who took pastors for mere rhetoricians, [and] the inhabitants of great cities educated in a greek spirit, who viewed spiritual discourses almost from the same perspective as the magnificent speeches of sophists.”36 More exactly, John deplores that this urban, refined audience attends sermons as if they watch a competition with gambling possibilities: “we see how the throng is divided in parties, each one siding with a pastor or another, and how everyone listens [to the speaker] in different moods that accord with one’s predilection for that specific pastor.”37 Kierkegaard finds a significant application of this judgment to his contemporary ecclesia.38 he almost instinctively compares the fourth-century bishop of constantinople with the nineteenth-century bishop of copenhagen, namely Jakob Peter Mynster, who is found guilty of having “turned the idea of a religious speaker into artistic performance, so that he can diligently manage to keep his personal life out of it.” we have seen that the most adequate way to worship god is to lead a life in full agreement with his commandments and redemptive acts. Worship is, first and foremost, existential. For the development of chrysostom’s take on christian education, Kelly, pp. 51–4; p. 86. compare with Kierkegaard’s understanding of the proper education of children in a christian spirit, SKS 7, 330–36; 535–48 / CUP1, 363–8; 589–603. SKS 9, 191–2; 236–9; 343–6 / WL, 189–90; 235–6; 349–52. SKS 17, 120–21, BB:29–31 / JP 1, 782–4. SKS 18, 310, JJ:509 / JP 1, 785. SKS 20, 97–8, nB2:143–4 / JP 1, 786–7. SKS 22, 200, nB12:104 / JP 1, 788. SKS 23, 82f., nB15:117 / JP 1, 789. SKS 17, 122, BB:37 / JP 1, 265. SKS 17, 46, aa:30 / JP 1, 266. SKS 18, 161–2, JJ:71 / JP 1, 267. SKS 18, 230, JJ:197 / JP 1, 268. SKS 18, 263, JJ:372 / JP 1, 269. SKS 21, 154, nB8:20 / JP 1, 270. SKS 22, 290, nB13:28 / JP 1, 271. SKS 22, 417–18, nB14:142 / JP 1, 272. 36 SKS 24, 170, nB22:129 / JP 3, 3161. 37 chrysostom as quoted by Kierkegaard in SKS 24, 170, nB22:129 / JP 3, 3161. 38 Kierkegaard and chrysostom acutely perceived the enormous dignity and terrifying responsibility of priests or bishops. in a certain period of his life, Kierkegaard himself contemplated the possibility of ordination but soon renounced it, because he saw his mission as “corrective” more appropriate. This decision might have been influenced by a drastic awareness of the spiritual authority implied in the pastoral work. SKS 22, 265, nB12:196 / JP 6, 6501. SKS 22, 285, nB13:21 / JP 6, 6505. SKS 22, 296, nB13:35 / PV, 211–12. Pap. viii-2 B 12, pp. 58–9 / BA, 169. SV1 Xii, 404–7 / JFY, 125–8. however, what separates the two religious authors is that, whereas John cultivated and championed a ceaseless and active devotion to the service of the church, Kierkegaard was rather critical of the spiritually mediating role of the ecclesiastical institution. contrast chrysostom’s crucial work on the pastoral function, On the Priesthood, with Kierkegaard’s The Moment. see also Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, p. 84. 35

56

Leo Stan

in stark opposition to Mynster, chrysostom, albeit truly eloquent, “gesticulates with his entire existence.” More specifically, “he initiates an action in the public realm” and only afterwards “gives a sermon on it.” and Kierkegaard continues: “he uses the pulpit for action; [chrysostom’s] speaking is not an aesthetic performance theatrically removed from life’s actuality; no, it is an act which intervenes right in the middle of the actual life.”39 apparently, this was never the case with Mynster. we concluded the biographical sketch of chrysostom by stating that he valued the most complete dedication to God, Christ, and their salvific relation to humans as depicted in the Bible. For the bishop, the model of christian life was truly embodied in the ascetic existence. contrastingly, Kierkegaard distinguished himself as being a reckless critic of the dedication found in all monastic movements of christianity. For him, the greatest error monastics made consisted of the externalization of religious demeanor which should be tied instead to inwardness and invisibility. in monasticism, Kierkegaard holds, the external takes primacy over the internal, and the recognition or judgment of others becomes more important than the awe-inspiring, subjective, face-to-face encounter with the saving creator. Yet, Kierkegaard was never uncompromisingly opposed to asceticism. in times of spiritual degradation or destruction, when religion is turned into commodity in line with democratic capitalist ideals, the commitment of monks achieves a certain respectable value in his eyes. But still, as to hermitic convictions, i suggest that chrysostom seems rather irreconcilable with his danish fellow. let us see how exactly Kierkegaard interacts with the former’s pro monastic views. asceticism is acknowledged for the existential seriousness it implies. Kierkegaard takes note of the pertinence with which chrysostom has retorted to the possibility that earnestness (for both authors always religious) be equated with the generalization of monasticism. to the constantinopolitan bishop, being serious meant “rather the lack of that seriousness which has destroyed everything.”40 this is a paradoxical way of expressing what Kierkegaard would have called the qualitative difference between religiosity and its requirements, on the one hand, and corruptible worldliness, on the other. due to spiritual degradation and its ubiquity, what holds as positive and recommendable for immanence counts as negative and destructive from a transcendent perspective. in another journal entry, surprisingly enough, Kierkegaard seems to agree with chrysostom on the universality of duty to pay an unconditional respect to the letter and spirit of the Bible. Moreover, this task is to be observed incessantly. Kierkegaard is highly enthused by the idea, but in his published authorship he is rather oblivious to the fact that this represents an exceptionally monastic ideal. we read: when laymen raised the objection that they did not have enough time to read the Bible and were too preoccupied with their worldly enterprises, while reading the Bible was something exclusively for monks and ascetics, chrysostom answered: no, on the contrary, precisely because you interact so much with worldliness, you need to read the Bible even more than monks and hermits.41 39 40 41

all the quotations from this paragraph are from SKS 24, 187, nB22:155 / JP 6, 6716. SKS 24, 171, nB22:130 / JP 3, 2757. SKS 24, 172, nB22:133 / JP 1, 574.

Chrysostom: Between the Hermitage and the City

57

in other words, we cannot talk about a hierarchy of responsibilities in soteriological matters. every single individual is exposed to the same religious imperatives, regardless of their onerousness. we have to add also that though he never stopped believing in the exceptionalism of monastic life, chrysostom realized that the precept of total dedication to god, irrespective of its praiseworthiness, is not necessarily universalizable. contrastingly, Kierkegaard remains highly suspicious of monasticism per se. strictly related to the topic of this study, Kierkegaard’s most telling interpretation of the cloister phenomenon is contained in the following entry which deserves to be quoted in full: the immured monks as i see (in neander’s Chrysostom, 2nd part p. 230), there existed monks who went so far in their zeal that they immured themselves, leaving just one tiny hole [in the wall] through which they received food. the exiled chrysostom met such a monachus monachorum (…an immured monk) in nicaea and convinced him that it was god-pleasing to make himself useful [to the world]; soon afterwards, [the monk] became a missionary. we cannot stop smiling at the thought that an immured monk resembles to a great measure an apple dumpling. and, yet, how marvelous to have his [spiritual] powers!42

this entry can be taken as the gist of Kierkegaard’s ambiguous relation to the monastic tradition of christianity, in general. For him, the complete abandonment of this world is not necessarily the most recommendable religious attitude as it focuses too much on external determinations and ignores the subjective, invisible components of faith and imitation of christ. here, notwithstanding that he never spoke well of missionizing conduct, Kierkegaard finds praiseworthy the monk’s return into the world to assist others to attain a proper relationship to the divine. an “apple dumpling” is a culinary metaphor for self-enclosure or complete separation from the surrounding environment. it is meant to further stress the importance of pursuing godly precepts from within the world. at the same time, however, Kierkegaard admits of the high spiritual powers of immured monks, almost like the young and excessive John Chrysostom. That he did not offer any ground for his final exclamation might be a proof of Kierkegaard’s rather vague interest in monasticism. even so, this brief sentence exudes a certain nostalgia for a more originary devotion, especially in times when the religious hypocrisy of christendom reigns free. the fourth chrysostomian topic that draws Kierkegaard’s attention is the singular relation between christianity and gnoseology, taken in the widest sense. in the Kierkegaardian philosophy of religion, human reason appears essentially and eternally incapable of accounting for the three chief events of christianity: incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection. For this reason quite a few scholars indicted Kierkegaard for his indulgence in irrationalism, a critique that has been efficiently counteracted. to return to our subject, chrysostom, according to Kierkegaard, can be deemed a precursor to the anti-rationalism of christianity.

42

SKS 24, 207, nB23:4 / JP 3, 2758.

58

Leo Stan

in a relatively early journal entry, wherein he merely summarizes h.n. clausen’s lectures on dogmatics delivered during the 1833–4 academic year, Kierkegaard notes that “christianity is not communicated to us in the form of a system or a doctrine.”43 immediately after, he delves into the complex issue of accommodation about which he admits that Jesus and the apostles took into consideration with wisdom and solicitude “the various needs of their contemporaries, partly by passing over in silence (in a negative fashion) what would have been unintelligible anyhow; partly by choosing the form of speech and argumentation, partly by using ordinary language.”44 It is here that Chrysostom figures among several Church Fathers who have “tackled accommodation in an arbitrary fashion,” though this is most probably clausen’s thesis and Kierkegaard simply reproduced it. However, it is highly significant that from an early stage in his intellectual development, Kierkegaard is sensitive to the limits that christianity imposes on reason, and especially, systematic speculation. Much later in 1851, he copied in a journal entry a quotation wherein, besides deploring that “some want, out of conceit, presumption or vanity, to fathom things whose cognition is impossible,” chrysostom further remarks that there are fewer believers than “those who speculate over issues which no one could possibly grasp, and this while fully knowing that such speculative disposition would draw god’s wrath upon us.”45 in a similar vein, the bishop is of interest to Kierkegaard when pondering that “[perhaps] what i am saying now seems obscure; and if i state it more clearly, those to whom it had seemed obscure will find it incredible.”46 the unreasonable proclamations of christianity, we have said, need god’s authoritative assistance in order to become credible through faith, albeit never reasonable. in his own authorship, Kierkegaard will add that those who consider the christian truth implausible are merely offended, and therefore in despair.47 But the chrysostomian thesis that sounds most appealing to Kierkegaard’s ears is the impenetrably paradoxical core of the christian religion: once [chrysostom] heard a christian arguing with a heathen who was proud of pagan science and art; the christian intended to prove that Paul surpassed Plato both in eloquence and learning. Chrysostom reproached the Christian fellow that he was fighting against the most advantageous element to his cause. the mere fact that the apostles were neither learned nor well-spoken constituted sufficient proof that Christianity was not human wisdom but a godly reality….how accurate is chrysostom in understanding the problem. But what else is the entire modernity than the mere confusion that this christian fellow displayed. we lay christianity out in straightforward categories: by far deeper, more profound, more exalted etc. than Plato etc. instead of [grasping that] christianity is to reason mere folly, absurdity.48

43 44 45 46 47 48

SKS 19, 12, not1:2. ibid., my italics. SKS 24, 170, nB22:129 / JP 3, 3161. SKS 24, 169, nB22:127. see in this sense, SKS 11, 196–201; 236–42 / SUD, 83–7; 125–31. SKS 24, 174, nB22:138 / JP 1, 575.

Chrysostom: Between the Hermitage and the City

59

From here, Kierkegaard implies in the next entry that the error of modern apologetics is that it conceives everything in terms of immediacy and probability, whereas ancient apologetics “meticulously showed how little christianity had anything to do with the probable and turned this into a criterion for the godly.”49 whereas in Practice in Christianity, he contends that historical achievements could prove anything apropos the spiritual validity of christianity; here Kierkegaard seems to appreciate that the latter’s victory, whilst highly improbable, confirmed its divine character. There is nothing less probable than the fact that a religion based on primordially absurd beliefs acquire many adherents and surpass, if not vanquish, other religious traditions (whether monotheistic or pagan). For chrysostom, this victory can be convincingly illustrated by christianity’s relation to Judaism. Before analyzing the Kierkegaardian notes on this matter, we should take into account that Chrysostom’s own views are part and parcel of the first century anti-Judaic polemic whereby the Christian Church justified its separation from the synagogue. the dogmatic war was waged against the fascination that Jewish rituals and lifestyle exercised over potential christians. regrettably enough, John chrysostom proved to be the originator of unscrupulously coarse invectives against hebrews. the peak is reached in his Adversus Iudaeos,50 where Judaism is drawn in repulsive colors. the bishop bases his vituperative judgments on old testament passages to which he grants a general relevance by crass decontextualization. we are warned against the bestial gluttony and drunkenness of Jews, their satanism, their shameless sensuality and corrupting potential, their improper public behavior, and the unholiness of their synagogue. all of these things make them no less dangerous than the plague itself. Finding support in ezekiel 23:5–9, chrysostom labels hebrews perpetual sinners and blasphemers who have shed the Messiah’s blood and consequently, deprived themselves of any hope in absolution. John’s verdict is that first, to participate in Jewish sacraments or to share their grounding beliefs is sheer folly and pure apostasy.51 secondly, christianity surpasses Judaism because of the ontological condition of christ, his earthly destiny, and redemptive mission.52 Christian superiority is obliquely affirmed in an 1851 entry, where Kierkegaard quotes chrysostom declaring that resurrection from the dead is not such a powerful or convincing tool for “the conversion of a pagan as for a human being whose life is full of christian wisdom.”53 one of John’s remarks on Jews appears in an early entry dated January 12, 1839, in which the magister candidate ponders upon Matthew SKS 24, 174, nB22:138. Patrologia Graeca 48.843–942. an english translation of two of these homilies can be found in wayne a. Meeks and robert l. wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era, Missoula, Montana: scholars Press for the society of Biblical literature 1978. For additional background, see robert l. wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century, Berkeley: university of california Press 1983. 51 cf. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, pp. 63–6. 52 Adversus Iudaeos 5.11–12, Patrologia Graeca 48.900–904; cf. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, p. 65. 53 SKS 24, 173, nB22:136. 49 50

60

Leo Stan

11:19. Kierkegaard begins by noticing the variety of interpretations pertaining to this peculiar verse, and continues thus: when i realize that chrysostom and theophylactus54 have already opined that τεκνα αὑτῆς55 must be understood vis-à-vis the Jews …, it occurs to me that, were one to adopt such assumption, the following interpretation can be proposed: “Wisdom was justified” in being taken away from its “children” (ἀπὸ,56 in this sense, 2 tes. 1:9). Just as wisdom was done injustice to, in a sense, in not being recognized by those to whom it was initially offered, namely the Jews, so now justice is done by depriving them of it. this seems also to explicate christ’s insistence on those cities wherein, despite the many miracles he has performed, he still faced the ingratitude of the Jews.57 without this interpretation, i cannot conceive of a natural transition to the 20th verse against which verses 20–24 become, under this assumption, a more earnest completion of what christ has said: that they were like children.58

In Matthew 11:16–19, Jesus finds unacceptable that “this generation” rejected John the Baptist for being possessed by a demon, though everyone saw that he came “neither eating nor drinking.” Moreover, before the son of Man, they begrudgingly exclaim, “here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.” to which Jesus obscurely adds: “But wisdom is proved right by her actions.” the words τεκνα αὑτῆς, which are the focus of Kierkegaard’s entry quoted above, have been traditionally interpreted as wisdom’s revenge against the unfaithful. god’s wisdom—which in the old testament is preeminently concerned with right living— has been vindicated by the lifestyles of both John the Baptist and Jesus, which are now acknowledged on the condition that the latter be equated with the ultimate wisdom. the focus is changed from the law to existence. rightfulness is overcome (or revenged or confirmed) by the incarnate truth. To live rightly now means to believe in christ and to exist accordingly. as to Kierkegaard’s own hermeneutic, we observe the same reprobation of the lack of spiritual vigilance and an interesting concern for the inner coherence of the sacred text (“natural transition”). it is for the sake of this very coherence that he agrees with chrysostom: by “this generation” and “children” Jesus meant the Jews. Moreover, Kierkegaard’s own input seems to be the emphasis on the inextricable link between wisdom and justice. He deems justified the Savior’s condemnation of Korazin, Bethsaida, capernaum (Mt 11:21–4), where the citizens of these places did not discern in him the divine sophia, even when miracles were performed in support. christ is the son whose deeds restore god’s wisdom in a just manner. Because these go unrecognized, the gift is taken away in a fashion that goes against the “old law” (apparent gluttony, drunkenness, and bad association). only a divine being could restore wisdom to its rights by such actions. theophylactus of achrida (in contemporary Bulgaria), eleventh-century Byzantine theologian and biblical commentator. 55 greek, “her actions or deeds.” 56 greek, “away from, against.” 57 Mt 11:20ff. 58 SKS 18, 119, gg:2. “Being like children” most probably refers to Mt 11:16. contrast this with Mt 11:25, 18:3. 54

Chrysostom: Between the Hermitage and the City

61

V. Closing Remarks Kierkegaard could have found further inspiration in chrysostom’s authorship, at least concerning the relation between politics and religiosity,59 the soteriological role of poverty,60 and the status of marriage in christianity.61 Yet, on my reading, Far from being a bishop with clear political interests, John consistently refused to support any state faction and emphasized instead the ecclesiastical tasks incumbent to the promotion and defense of orthodoxy. his unconditional zeal, as we said, led to persecution and exile, a fact which should have aroused Kierkegaard’s admiration. interestingly enough, the danish author makes no reference to this genuine martyrdom suffered by chrysostom. still, as to the contrast between religion and politics, Kierkegaard shares with the bishop more convictions than he was aware of. see, for instance, SKS 8, 58–106 / TA, 60–112. SKS 11, 67–8 / WA, 61–2. SKS 9, 96–136 / WL, 91–134. Pap. iX B 24 / BA, 318. SV1 Xiv, 70–71; 273 / M, 60; 259. Pap. Xi–2 a 413 / M, 536–41. For chrysostom’s understanding of politics, see Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, pp. 161ff. 60 as any authentic defender of monasticism, chrysostom publicly and scripturally declares that human dignity lies in contempt for any kind of riches. From a religious standpoint, poverty and communing with the destitute is a means of getting closer to god. on the other side, the lord never judges in pecuniary or material terms; everyone is invited to his spiritual banquet. at the same time, John is appalled by the gigantic gap between the very affluent and the miserably poor. He even qualified as purely criminal the behavior of the rich who store while letting others starve and shiver of cold, and constantly condemned the vulgar display of wealth. though he advised the wealthy to help, feed, and give shelter to the poor, he always envisioned a voluntary type of charity and never thought of secular government as the mediator in the redistribution of wealth. Puzzlingly enough, chrysostom was much less critical of slavery as a providential institution than of opulence and the exploitation of the poor. cf. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, p. 86; pp. 97ff; pp. 135–7. see also Mt 25:31–46, 1 cor 7:20–1; eph 6:5; rom 13:1. For Kierkegaard’s interpretation of poverty in a soteriological perspective, the reader can consult SKS 9, 80–83; 175–7; 312–26 / WL, 74–7; 175–6; 315–30. 61 Kierkegaard’s views of marriage are too complex to be dealt with in a footnote. summarily, we can say that they varied from an almost idealist and idyllic defense (pseudonymously expressed) to direct attack. see in this sense, SKS 3, 13–151 / EO2 5–154. SKS 6, 85–171 / SLW, 87–184. SKS 5, 419–41 / TD, 41–68. SV1 Xiv 259–62 / M, 245–8. to chrysostom’s mind, marriage has never been part of divine plans. as utterly nonexistent in paradise, sexuality came into being after the Fall, an idea that Kierkegaard dialectically developed in SKS 4, 354; 357; 371; 382 / CA, 48; 52; 67; 79. For Kierkegaard’s take on sexuality, see also Pap. v B 53:29 / CA, 190–93. Pap. v B 53:32 / CA, 193–4. Pap. v B 53:38 / JP 4, 3964. Marriage, chrysostom argues, became a divine commandment only in view of the continuation of race and as a hindrance to incontinence. cf. De virginitate 14–15, in Patrologia Graeca 48.533–96. For the French translation, see Saint Jean Chrysostome: Les Cohabitations Suspectes et Comment Observer la Virginité, trans. by Jean dumortier, Paris: Budé 1955. On Virginity. Against Remarriage, trans. by sally rieger shore with an introduction by elizabeth a. clark, lewiston, n.Y.: edward Mellen Press 1983. however, the bishop was unequivocal in holding that those able to control their sensuality by spiritual discipline should not marry at all. in this sense, we can also recall John’s conception on the glory of widowhood, his condemnation of second marriage, or his eulogy of virginity as purification of soul necessary to the undivided consecration to Christ. See Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, pp. 45ff. 59

62

Leo Stan

the selective way in which Kierkegaard related to one of the greatest dogmatic and ecclesiastical founders of christianity is by far more suggestive. i shall try to illustrate this thesis by a concise topical survey. regarding our interaction with the Bible, chrysostom proposes a verbatim understanding of the sacred text with a view to moral and religious edification. Kierkegaard would not necessarily disagree, especially concerning the task of total commitment to the gospel as the unique telos of life. nevertheless, whereas for chrysostom this hermeneutic literalism must happen only within the boundaries of the church, Kierkegaard, by virtue of his Protestant formation, advocates a more intimate and individualistic appropriation of the biblical message. the way to christianity is always indirect, i.e. to be transposed in the single individual’s inward existence. this difference can also be seen from their different relation to ecclesiology. though he values chrysostom’s dismissal of the spiritually void eloquence and aestheticism when applied to sermonizing (and Mynster is a peremptory example in this respect), Kierkegaard would be rather chary of John’s outlook on the mystical and liturgical function of the ecclesia while stressing the frightening and solitary encounter with god. From an anthropological standpoint, John thinks that christian soteriology is meant to incite humans to repent, and that this is the royal path to moral development. indeed, Kierkegaard, as we have seen, unconditionally sides with the bishop regarding the pivotal importance of faith, the seriousness implied in the pursuit of salvation, and the fact that the greatest threats come always from within. where the two part, however, is in their peculiar interpretation of sinfulness. once attained, Chrysostom argues, faith brings along an undisturbed confidence in the power of contrition. For Kierkegaard, however, such an idea goes against the infinite qualitative gap separating humanity from its redeeming deity, the absoluteness of the divine, and the perpetual corruption in which the creature deliberately dwells. Before god and christ, the sinner is always unwholesome. Faith is at best an ideal continually undermined by sin, though to be pursued ceaselessly and combatively. it is my hypothesis that Kierkegaard might simply have projected onto chrysostom his idiosyncratic take on the essential corruption of humankind, but that he could never theologically substantiate it in John’s works. within a christological horizon, both chrysostom and Kierkegaard deemphasize christ’s creationist contribution and superhuman powers. though the focus falls on the particularities of the savior’s earthly existence and on the ontological condition of his dual nature, what they stress substantially differs. Moreover, the constantinopolitan Father, while deeply concerned with the relation between god and christ as part of christian trinitarian theology, prioritizes the divinity of christ. By way of contrast, Kierkegaard never denies this truth, but he insists on Jesus’ abasement as part of a mimetic soteriology. indeed, for the danish thinker, christ remains the Father’s only Son sent to redeem the world and sacrificially purge it of sinfulness. Nevertheless, the savior’s embodiment, sufferings, and death constitute the exemplariness all genuine christians have to freely and joyfully follow. to be sure, the existence of a triune deity and the transcendent roots of the saving teacher are the cornerstone of christian faith, but the existential imitation of the suffering christ remains more imperative than any reflection on the divine nature and its inner dynamism.

Chrysostom: Between the Hermitage and the City

63

A sharper contrast between the two figures analyzed here can be detected with respect to the theme of monasticism. i have already suggested that a possible explanation may lie in the dissimilar hermeneutic of sin that Kierkegaard and chrysostom each put forth. Being himself a practitioner of asceticism, the eastern bishop acknowledges the prospect of human perfection which can be attained in this life by means of the utmost renunciation found in monastic existence. Moreover, precisely because they are continually on this perfecting path, monks come to represent the pattern of christian life. a substantialist understanding of human corruption, however, forestalls the very possibility of such human exemplariness. that is one of the reasons why Kierkegaard directly opposed the Weltanschauung of monasticism, although he never equated it with a spiritual fiasco. I have hinted above at Kierkegaard’s ambiguous relation to christian asceticism, as illustrated in two journal entries wherein extreme renunciants are envied for their spiritual might and chrysostom is praised for prompting monks to return into world when need be. still, given his views on the qualitative gap separating the immanent and the transcendent, Kierkegaard would never fully admit to chrysostom’s ideal monasticism. his uncompromising interpretation of christianity as offensive to traditional humanism compels him to emphasize the imperfection or deterioration of all humans and martyrs, with apostles included. another common point detected throughout this study regards the status of knowledge in christianity. Both thinkers criticized the imperialistic incentives of human reason and philosophical speculation, while underlining the paradoxicality of christian religion. this theological position implied a certain anti-Judaic posture, however, with different aims. chrysostom’s attacks against Jewish practical religiosity was apologetic and axiological in nature, though at times haunted by fundamentalist undertones. Kierkegaard’s judgments of Judaism are censorious enough, but only from a soteriological vantage point. that is to say, whereas John is visibly and unjustly dismissing the Judaic praxis of his times as a menace to the institutional identity formation of christianity, Kierkegaard reveals the offensive idea, from a Judaic standpoint, of god embodied in a unique historical individual for the sake of redemption. hence, one can see the tremendous importance of invisibility, subjectivity, existential mimesis, faith, and repentance, although, in direct opposition to chrysostomian anthropology, we are all always in the wrong before our loving redeemer.

Bibliography I. Chrysostom’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Des Heiligen Kirchenlehrers Johannes Chrysostomus Predigten und kleine Schriften, from greek trans. and ed. by Johann andreas cramer, vols. 1–10, leipzig: verlegts Johann gottfried dyck 1748–51 (ASKB 212–221). II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Chrysostom Baur, Ferdinand christian, Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1838, p. 103; p. 300 (ASKB 423). clausen, henrik nicolai, Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 158 (ASKB 468). engelhardt, Johann georg veit, Literarischer Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen über die Patristik, erlangen: bei ioh. iac. Palm und ernst enke 1823, pp. 54–68 (ASKB 477). Flögel, carl Friedrich, Geschichte der komischen Litteratur, vols. 1–4, liegnitz and leipzig: david giegert 1784–7, vol. 1, p. 18 (ASKB 1396–1399). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 221; p. 228; p. 231; p. 244; p. 291; p. 320; p. 368; p. 475 (ASKB 158–159). hahn, august (ed.) Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 198; p. 494 (ASKB 535). [hamann, Johann georg], Hamann’s Schriften, vols. 1–8, ed. by Friedrich roth, Berlin: g. reimer 1821–43, vol. 1, pp. 500–502; vol. 3, p. 3 (ASKB 536–544). hansen, M. Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, pp. 38–9 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 125 (ASKB 160–166). lentz, carl georg heinrich, Geschichte der christlichen Dogmen in pragmatischer Entwickelung, vol. 1, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1834 [vol. 2, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1835] (ASKB 621).

Chrysostom: Between the Hermitage and the City

65

Marheineke, Philipp, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens und Lebens für denkende Christen und zum Gebrauch in den oberen Klassen an den Gymnasien, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: in der nicolai’schen Buchhandlung 1836, p. 27 (ASKB 257). Meiners, christoph, Historische Vergleichung der Sitten und Verfassungen, der Gesetze und Gewerbe, des Handels und der Religion, der Wissenschaften und Lehranstalten des Mittelalters, vols. 1–3, hannover: im verlage der helwingischen hofbuchhandlung 1793–4, vol. 3, p. 50 (ASKB 672–674). [Montaigne, Michael], Michael Montaigne’s Gedanken und Meinungen über allerley Gegenstände, ins Deutsche übersetzt, vols. 1–7, Berlin: F.t. lagarde 1793–9, vol. 2, p. 405 (ASKB 681–687). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets–Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, pp. 99–100; p. 107 (ASKB 168). Mynster, Jakob Peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1852–3 [vols. 4–6, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1855–7], vol. 1, p. 243 (ASKB 358–363). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Om det borgerlige Ægteskab. Bidrag til en alsidig, upartisk Bedømmelse af denne Institution, nærmest fra Kirkens Standpunkt, copenhagen: otto schwartz 1851, p. 18n (ASKB 752). —— Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.g. iversen 1854, p. 2; p. 40 [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). [scriver, christian], M. Christian Scrivers...Seelen-Schatz: Darinnen Von der menschlichen Seelen hohen Würde, tieffen und kläglichen Sünden-Fall, Busse und Erneuerung durch Christum, göttlichen heiligen Leben..., vols. 1–5, Magdeburg and leipzig: christian seidel 1723 (ASKB 261–263). vinet, alexander, Pastoraltheologie eller Theorie af det evangeliske Præsteembede, trans. by c.a. ravn, copenhagen: andreas Frederik høst 1854, pp. 347–8 (ASKB 875). wette, wilhelm Martin leberecht de, Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi, 2nd revised ed., leipzig: weidmann 1838 [1836] p. 121 (ASKB 109). zimmermann, Johann georg, Ueber die Einsamkeit, vols. 1–4, leipzig: bey weidmanns erben und reich 1784–5, vol. 1, p. 384 (ASKB 917–920). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Chrysostom none.

cyprian of carthage: Kierkegaard, cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”1 Jack Mulder, Jr.

st. cyprian of carthage and søren Kierkegaard both saw themselves as providing for the christianity of their respective cultural contexts something that was sorely needed. curiously, their solutions were similar, since both found themselves, in crucial ways, insisting on the rigorous nature of the christian life.2 however, the cultural predicaments in which they wrote were quite different. to put the matter altogether too bluntly, for cyprian, the rigor of the christian life needed to be insisted upon because christianity was being persecuted. For Kierkegaard, however, the rigor of the christian life needed to be insisted upon because christianity was not being persecuted. the paradox can be mitigated somewhat by the realization that Kierkegaard often looks backward to this phrase comes from letter 55.7.2 in The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, vols. 1–4, trans. and ed. by g.w. clarke, new York: newman Press 1984–9 (Ancient Christian Writers, vols. 43, 44, 46, and 47), vol. 3, 1986, p. 36. there, cyprian writes: “i yielded to the urgent needs of the times and considered that we ought to make provisions that would bring salvation to the many.” This reflects a tension in many of Cyprian’s decisions between upholding the rigor of the christian life while at the same time being compassionate and responsive to the unique ecclesiastical challenges that the church faced after the decian persecution. 2 while the effect of their writings at various crucial points was to insist on the rigor involved in the christian life, neither of these thinkers championed rigorism per se, but rather both urged a moderate approach that they thought, owing to the necessity of their respective times, issued in a renewed emphasis on the difficulty and discipline necessary for the truly Christian life. For example, Kierkegaard forcefully writes: “i am neither leniency nor stringency—i am a human honesty” (SV1 Xiv, 52 / M, 46). in cyprian’s case, he receives praise in correspondence from the roman clergy for not relaxing his standards. we read: “there can be nothing more fitting during time of peace, nothing more essential during the hostilities of persecution than adherence to the just severity of the gospel discipline” (letter 30.2.1 in The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, vol. 2, 1984, p. 26). nonetheless, it is also clear that cyprian prizes moderation, as from when he praises the actions of the african council of 251 by saying, “eventually we arrived at a balanced and moderate decision, striking a healthy mean” (letter 55.6.1 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, p. 36). it is important historically to remember that cyprian championed the middle course in response to the crisis over the lapsed, over against the laxist and rigorist heretical churches. on this latter point, see J. Patout Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, london and new York: routledge 2002, pp. 25–50. 1

68

Jack Mulder, Jr.

pre-constantinian christianity and the martyrdom that often took place within it with a kind of longing.3 For instance, Kierkegaard writes: what the age needs is not a genius—it surely has had geniuses enough—but a martyr, one who in order to teach men to obey would himself become obedient unto death, one whom men put to death; but, see, just because of that they would lose, for simply by killing him, by being victorious in this way, they would become afraid for themselves. this is the awakening which the age needs.4

in this way, Kierkegaard often laments the fact that the christianity of his day is so drained of passion that christianity as such ultimately cannot be said to exist at all.5 in cyprian’s case, people were deserting the ecclesiastical unity of the church (communion with which was a sine qua non of christian faith, for cyprian) in favor of rigorist and laxist communities, the latter of which was a special threat to the continuing life of the christian church in north africa, precisely because many were unwilling to undertake the penitential disciplines being imposed by the likes of cyprian. in what follows here i want to begin by giving a basic introduction to prominent aspects of cyprian’s life and work, and then, with some of the background in hand, go on to detail and assess Kierkegaard’s reception of cyprian. I. An Account of Cyprian’s Contribution it would be too much to say that cyprian was Kierkegaard’s favorite church Father, for that honor might need to be reserved for someone like tertullian, whom Kierkegaard thought of as “the unconditionally most consistent and most christianly two-edged of all the church fathers,”6 but both Kierkegaard and cyprian appear to share a great deal of respect for tertullian, the church Father whom cyprian simply called, “my master.”7 nonetheless, Kierkegaard appears to see some real virtues in see SKS 24, 513f., nB25:100 / JP 3, 2760, where Kierkegaard writes: “christianity received its first blow when the emperor became a Christian.” See also Joakim Garff, “‘You await a tyrant whereas i await a Martyr’: one Aporia and its Biographical implications in A Literary Review,” Kierkegaard Studies. Yearbook, 1999, pp. 130–48. 4 SKS 20, 254, nB3:19 / JP 3, 2636. this, in some ways, suggests the old dictum according to which the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church, a paraphrasing of tertullian’s Apology, 50 (english translation alongside the latin by t.r. glover, cambridge: harvard university Press 1960), pp. 226–7. interestingly, we have a quite critical note on this very dictum from Kierkegaard at Pap. Xi–2 a 47 / JP 1, 559, on which see below. 5 SV1 Xiv, 45–6 / M, 39–40. 6 Pap. X–5 a 98 / JP 1, 542. see also SKS 21, 326, nB10:136 / JP 1, 497, where we read, “there is only one consistent conception of christianity, and that is to be slain for the truth, to become a martyr, naturally not helter-skelter, the sooner the better, but with the most thorough-going reflection as an aid. Suicide, occasioned by not being able to endure the tedious preparatory work of a martyr, is a misinterpretation of this only true and consistent conception of christianity (every other view is secular, temporal, earthly, cowardly, or stupid delay).” 7 this text is to be found in st. Jerome’s On Illustrious Men, trans. by thomas P. halton, washington, d.c.: catholic university of america Press 1999 (Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 100), 53.3, p. 74, which reads, “at concordia, a town in italy, i saw 3

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

69

the martyr-bishop himself, and in this section i will give an account of cyprian’s contribution to the christian church, beginning with his life, and proceeding to some of his more important works, in order better to understand Kierkegaard’s reception of the saint and his legacy. we do not know for certain when thascius caecilius cyprianus8 was born, but it is commonly estimated at around the year 200. we can reasonably surmise that he was born to a family of local prominence in carthage, which, at the time, was one of a very few great cities in the roman world. clarke notes a few factors that aid us in making the determination of cyprian’s noble origins. he writes: cyprian’s trial and martyr’s death followed, accordingly, the course proper for an honestior, a man of the upper-classes (note the house arrest, despite the extreme gravity of the charge, and the method of execution); and his style at the very end—twenty-five gold coins…to be presented to his executioner—continued to be in the manner of handsome public benefaction and patronage traditional in (and expected of) such a level of society. cyprian was a man with a sense of his position, conscious of his role as a persona insignis, a figure of prominence.9

cyprian was a man not only of societal prominence, but also of means, and his deacon Pontius, author of the first Christian biography, the Vita Cypriani, notes that an old man named Paul, who said that, when he was still a very young man, he had seen in rome a very old man who had been secretary of blessed cyprian and had reported to him that cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading tertullian and would frequently say to him, ‘hand me my master,’ meaning, of course, tertullian.” see also timothy david Barnes, Tertullian, oxford: oxford university Press 1971, p. 3, on this passage and its relation to tertullian. it would be interesting to inquire into the relation between cyprian’s debt to tertullian and Kierkegaard’s debt to luther, since Kierkegaard called the latter, “the master of us all” (SKS 20, 357, nB4:153 / JP 1, 2465). i have argued elsewhere that Kierkegaard resolves what he perceives to be an ambiguity in luther’s thought in the direction of rigorism (see Jack Mulder, Jr., “the catholic Moment? on the apostle in Kierkegaard’s ‘the difference between a genius and an apostle,’” in Without Authority, ed. by robert l. Perkins, Macon, georgia: Mercer university Press 2006 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 18), pp. 203–34, see especially pp. 212–16). By contrast, cyprian is somewhat moderate, compared with the extreme (and ultimately heretical) rigorousness of tertullian. 8 this name is usually constructed out of a number of sources. there are, for instance, three ancient texts that purport to give some account of the life and/or passion of cyprian, the account of which gives some external confirmation for each name. These are Pontius’ Vita Cypriani (which title i will use to avoid confusion with other works. i will use the translation in Early Christian Biographies, ed. by roy J. deferrari, washington, d.c.: catholic university of america Press 1952 (Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 15)), the Acta Proconsularia Sancti Cypriani (in Acts of the Christian Martyrs, trans. and ed. by herbert Musurillo, oxford: oxford university Press, 1972, pp. 169–75), and “the donatist Passion of cyprian” (in Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in Conflict in Roman North Africa, trans. and ed. by Maureen a. tilley, liverpool: liverpool university Press 1996, pp. 1–5). in addition, letter 66.4.1 (in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, pp. 116–18), as well as the greeting of the letter, forms the basis for this reading of cyprian’s name (which is sometimes also rendered as thascius caecilianus cyprianus). Michael sage, along with g.w. clarke, gives the name as caecilius cyprianus qui et thascius. see sage, Cyprian, cambridge, Massachusetts: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation 1975, p. 98, and clarke’s introduction to The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, p. 14. 9 see clarke’s introduction to The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, p. 14.

70

Jack Mulder, Jr.

he distributed money quite liberally to the poor of carthage immediately upon his conversion to christianity.10 we know that he was also trained in the liberal arts, and, given that he distinguished himself for his rhetorical skills in a carthage hardly at a loss for individuals of such talents, it is usually surmised that he made his profession as an orator, or teacher of rhetoric.11 Beyond this we know very little for certain about cyprian’s life prior to his conversion, which is usually dated between 245 and 246.12 upon this conversion, as we have already begun to note, cyprian is said to have made stark changes in his life. he was not married, but he seems to have dedicated himself to celibacy upon his conversion, and put away his pagan training in rhetoric in exchange for the scriptures and early christian writers of tertullian’s stamp.13 he was entrusted with the family of the dying presbyter, Caecilian, in light of whose influence Cyprian was converted, but shortly after cyprian’s conversion, he was, in addition, to be entrusted with the duties of bishop of the highly influential see of Carthage. unsurprisingly, the information after and surrounding cyprian’s appointment to this weighty sacerdotal office is much easier to come by than information regarding cyprian’s life before it. the appointment probably occurred in 248, to the loud acclaim of the carthaginian laity, but to the discontent of not a few carthaginian clerics, who had trouble abiding the ordination of such a neophyte as bishop. even cyprian’s own deacon, Pontius (who might not quite escape the charge of a certain amount of hero-worship), had to admit that there was indeed opposition. he writes: i speak unwillingly, but speak i must. some there were who resisted him in his efforts. these, however, he kindly indulged with tender patience, and to the astonishment of many he later counted them among his closest and most intimate friends. indeed, to whom would the forgetfulness of such a receptive mind be anything but a miracle?14

Vita Cypriani, 2, p. 7. we also learn that cyprian’s estate included gardens, a fact which is seen as a sign of wealth. see Vita Cypriani, 15, p. 20. 11 For this claim, we have the testimony of both Jerome (On Illustrious Men, 67.1, p. 95) and st. augustine, though their testimonies are not always accepted uncritically. augustine contrasts cyprian’s distinction as an orator with the humble station of the apostles in sermon 341.4. augustine writes: “so if we see the art of medicine curing a patient by the application of contraries, it’s not surprising if we who were sick with human pride are cured by the humility of God. And so it was safer and sounder for the Lord to gain an orator through a fisherman than a fisherman through an orator. You see, the martyr Cyprian was an orator, but before him the apostle was a fisherman. Emperors later on became Christians, but first of all fishermen preached christ.” see The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, vols. 1–24, ed. by John e. rotelle, hyde Park, nY: new city Press 1990–, vol. 11 (1997), p. 286. 12 see g.s.M. walker, The Churchmanship of St. Cyprian, london: lutterworth Press 1968, p. 9. For the dating of cyprian’s life and works, such as we know it, the reader is referred to edward white Benson, Cyprian: His Life, His Times, His Work, london: Macmillan 1897 (which contains a useful table on pp. xxii–xxiii); appendix iii of sage, Cyprian, pp. 377–83; and clarke’s introduction to The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, especially pp. 45–6. 13 see walker, The Churchmanship of St. Cyprian, p. 9. 14 Vita Cypriani, 5, p. 10. 10

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

71

Quickly upon Cyprian’s ordination as bishop, perhaps the most historically significant event of his life was to occur, the advent of the decian persecution of christianity. the decian persecution began in december of 249, as the emperor decius wished to obtain the aid of the gods for his reign. the command was made that each person should appear before a commission appointed for the purpose and make a sacrifice to the Roman gods in the commission’s presence.15 At that point, a certificate would be obtained to show that the sacrifice had indeed been performed. Copies of such certificates, from various regions, are extant. the important portion of them typically reads as follows: I have always and without interruption, sacrificed and poured libations and manifested piety toward the gods, and now in your presence in accordance with the edict’s decree, i have made sacrifice and poured a libation and partaken of the sacred victims. I request you to certify this below. Farewell.16

it is interesting to note how the decian edict was actually executed. as clarke notes: Jews would be exempted from any such imperial orders on religious matters; that was, by now, the official and traditional attitude towards their bizarre but ancient rituals. Christians, however, were notorious for absenting themselves from the public ceremonials by which the pax deorum was attained, and they had neither the antiquity nor the racial integrity that romans understood and appreciated to exempt them.17

thus, the christians were somewhat singled out, not simply for the relative novelty of their religion, but also because of its religious exclusivism. note well that there is no evidence in the certificate or elsewhere that citizens were disallowed from simply engaging in worship of other gods or in other religious services, only that they must also sacrifice to the Roman gods.18 torture was soon introduced for those who refused to comply with the edict. Measures included deprivation of food, water, fresh air, and light. some died as martyrs under such conditions.19 leaders of the christian community were, for obvious reasons, especially singled out in the persecution. Pope Fabian of rome was martyred shortly after the issue of the edict, on January 20, 250, the first known martyr of the Decian persecution.20 there was no delay in clamoring for cyprian, the bishop of carthage. see Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 1. This is slightly adapted from John R. Knipfing, “The Libelli of the Decian Persecution,” The Harvard Theological Review, no. 16, 1923, pp. 345–90; p. 347. as Burns notes, “even an apostate christian would have committed perjury by swearing the required statement” (Cyprian the Bishop, p. 178, n4). 17 see clarke’s introduction to The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, p. 24. 18 see Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 1, where it is noted that, “while decius required participation in the roman communities, he did not specify the renunciation of other religious practices or loyalties. Both continuing christian practice and the clergy’s access to the imprisoned recusants were apparently tolerated.” 19 see Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 2. Pontius also relates that cyprian was often “demanded for the lion,” which suggests that the tortures may have been more active than Burns makes explicit. see Vita Cypriani, 7, p. 11. 20 clarke, introduction to The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, p. 25. 15 16

72

Jack Mulder, Jr.

Yet, in a decision which would be controversial, but whose importance is difficult to overestimate for the future of the christian church, cyprian went into exile.21 Pontius, in relating the reasons for cyprian’s exile, writes: imagine him taken away at that time by the honor of martyrdom! who would have shown the advantage of grace advancing through faith? who would have held virgins to a becoming life of chastity and habit worthy of holiness, as though with a bridle of the lord’s choosing? who would have taught repentance to the lapsed, truth to the heretics, unity to schismatics, peace and the law of evangelical prayer to the children of god?….where would we have learned mercy and patience as we did? who would have restrained the malice arising from envy’s envenomed viciousness by the sweetness of the remedy of salvation? who would have raised up such great martyrs by the exhortation of divine words?22

It can hardly be ignored here that Pontius’ lengthy description of the benefits of Cyprian’s exile match up rather neatly with the list of Cyprian’s treatises. Among them, we find The Dress of Virgins, The Lapsed, The Unity of the Catholic Church, The Lord’s Prayer, The Good of Patience, Jealousy and Envy, and Exhortation to Martyrdom, to Fortunatus.23 the roman clergy wrote their own letter approving (at least in word) of cyprian’s decision to go into exile. see letter 8 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, pp. 67–70. it is also important to keep in mind that exile entailed the loss of immoveable property and so is not without the loss of some kind, on which, see Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 18. It is also not difficult to imagine that cyprian has himself partly in mind when he writes: “if the primary claim to victory is that, having fallen into the hand of the pagans, a man should confess our lord, the next title to glory is that he should have gone underground and preserved himself for god’s service….the former, when his hour came, was found to be ripe for it; the hour of the other may only have been postponed since, when he left his estate and went into hiding, he had no intention of denying his faith; he would undoubtedly have confessed his faith, had he been taken too.” see The Lapsed, in The Lapsed and On the Unity of the Catholic Church (both works in one volume), trans. and ed. by Maurice Bévenot, new York: newman Press 1956 (Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 25), 3, p. 15. the reader will also recall that even Kierkegaard does not commend “helter-skelter” martyrdom (SKS 21, 326, nB10:136 / JP 1, 497). also, see hugo Montgomery, “the Bishop who Fled: responsibility and honour in saint cyprian,” Studia Patristica, no. 21, 1989, pp. 264–7. 22 Vita Cypriani, 7, pp. 11–12. 23 nearly all references to cyprian’s treatises will be taken from Saint Cyprian: Treatises, trans. by roy J. deferrari, new York: Fathers of the church 1958 (Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 36). the exceptions will be in the cases of The Lapsed and The Unity of the Catholic Church, since both are included in a volume simply entitled with the names of these two treatises as volume 25 of the Ancient Christian Writers series and i will opt for this translation in these two cases. For the sake of brevity, i have not included To Donatus (usually thought to be the first treatise), To Demetrian (usually dated after The Lord’s Prayer), Mortality (after To Demetrian), and Works and Almsgiving (after Mortality). there are also two works by cyprian, including one treatise, That Idols Are Not Gods, which Deferrari confidently includes in the works (Saint Cyprian: Treatises, p. 347), but which sage, Cyprian, p. 383, omits entirely from his list. another work, Ad Quirinum, is acknowledged to be cyprian’s, but it is not so much a treatise as a compilation of scripture passages. in english it is usually entitled, Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, ed. by alexander roberts and James donaldson, grand rapids, Michigan: eerdmans 1995, pp. 507–57. charles Bobertz, “‘For the vineyards of the lord of hosts was the house of 21

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

73

Thus, it can be maintained that among the salient benefits of Cyprian’s exile are the works he produced during and after that very exile.24 however, to state the matter as baldly as all that ignores the fact that, perhaps remarkably for a man of cyprian’s talents, in the main, ronald e. heine is right when he notes, “[t]here is no speculative theology in cyprian’s works.”25 rather, the point of the treatises is not to divulge esoteric divine secrets which would not have come forth in the event of cyprian’s earlier martyrdom, but to instruct the Carthaginian faithful (and indeed the entire Christian flock, owing to the esteem in which he was held and the prominence of his see) as to what to do in the veritable chaos that ensued after the initial stages of the decian persecution. cyprian, as clarke notes, is a pastoralist, not a theologian,26 and his works are efforts not so much in ecclesiology as in the kind of concrete problem-solving that helped to make later ecclesiology possible. to show cyprian’s challenge in this regard, i beg the reader’s patience for the following list, by no means exhaustive, which will hopefully give a rough idea of the ecclesiastical difficulties that beset the Christian Church during and after the persecution.27 each of the following represents a penitent group of people, the christian credentials of whom were in dispute after 249: 1. Sacrificers who hurried to the sacrifice at the very first notice.28 2. Sacrificers who sacrificed under various sorts of pressure (not least torture).29 3. Sacrificers who sacrificed in an effort to protect the faith of their families and other dependents.30

israel’ cyprian of carthage and the Jews,” Jewish Quarterly Review, no. 82, 1991, pp. 1–15, argues that this text is not evidence of hostility toward Jews in cyprian’s writings. 24 the most obvious exception to this claim is the The Dress of Virgins, which is usually dated prior to cyprian’s exile, but we need not read too much into Pontius’ work in this respect. 25 see ronald e. heine, “cyprian and novatian,” in The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, ed. by Frances Young, lewis ayres, and andrew louth, cambridge: cambridge university Press 2004, pp. 152–60; p. 156. 26 clarke, introduction to The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, p. 19. 27 Burns’ Cyprian the Bishop, is indispensable in understanding the complexity of this situation, and was a primary source in compiling this list. with regard to the list, it is also assumed that the people it indicates are penitents seeking readmission to communion, since cyprian had a rather summary way of dealing with those who vainly (as he thought) tried to establish their own communion, or departed the church entirely. 28 see The Lapsed, 7–8, pp. 17–19. 29 The Lapsed, 13, pp. 23–4. For the poor in particular, failure to comply might result in enslavement. see Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 18. 30 cyprian is especially helpful on this in letter 55.13.2 (as he is in this letter generally about the diversity of circumstances). there he writes: “equally different is the man who thrust forward his entire family as well as himself, and another who alone confronted the test on behalf of everyone else, thereby protecting his wife, his children, and his entire household at the cost of endangering himself.” see The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, p. 41.

74

Jack Mulder, Jr.

4. Sacrificers who only offered incense as opposed to eating meat sacrificed to idols (some thought the latter a more serious sin on the basis of the apostolic prohibition in acts 15:29).31 5. Sacrificers who were members of entire communities led to offer incense or sacrifice by their own bishop.32 6. Clergy who sacrificed out of any of the above motives.33 7. Those who had obtained certificates in the belief that this was little more than a notification that they were Christians (which came with what they would regard as a fine or bribe, which only the wealthy could pay) and thus were not going to be offering the requisite sacrifice. In some cases, ranking clergy may have advised them that it would be permissible to do so.34 8. Those who had obtained certificates under no illusion about their contents, but who did so in an effort to protect the faith of their families and other dependents.35 9. those who, perhaps out of a desire to avoid penance for having committed any of the crimes detailed in 1–8, joined the schismatic laxist community only to seek readmission to the catholic community later.36 10. those (in some cases, confessors, on whom see below)37 who, out of a concern for the severity of the christian gospel, insisted that there could be no readmission to communion after the sin of idolatry, and formed a schismatic rigorist sect, only to

see Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 66; p. 74. “some” here refers especially to the rigorist heretic novatian, who singled out eating food offered to idols as an especially heinous crime. see “Jewish Foods,” chapter 7, in Novatian the Presbyter, trans. russell J. desimone, washington, d.c.: catholic university of america Press 1972 (Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 67), pp. 155–6. 32 see letter 55.11.1–3 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, pp. 39–40. whether the congregation of Trofimus actually sacrificed is somewhat unclear. Clarke records that Trofimus and his flock were convicted of error, which clarke indicates has something to do with a lapse in the face of persecution (see Clarke’s note 50 in the above volume, p. 183). At any rate, Trofimus led his congregation into this error and sought reconciliation for himself and for his congregation. 33 those who were part of the clergy in some cases form subclasses of the aforementioned groups, since some were inclined to allow the clergy to be immediately readmitted to communion as laypersons, depending on the gravity of the offense. Trofimus, formerly a bishop, was readmitted to communion as a layperson (see letter 55.11.3 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, p. 40). 34 The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, 14.1, p. 41. 35 The African Council of 251 would make a distinction between sacrificers and the certified, arguing that the latter but not the former could be, depending on the evaluation of individual cases, readmitted to communion immediately, while the former could not (see Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 39). this forced cyprian to rethink The Lapsed, 27, pp. 34–5, which made only a nominal distinction between these two groups. 36 see letter 59.15.1–4 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, pp. 82–4. also helpful is geoffrey d. dunn, “heresy and schism according to cyprian of carthage,” Journal of Theological Studies, no. 55, 2004, pp. 551–74. 37 on special regard paid to confessors, see allen Brent, “cyprian and the question of ordinatio per confessionem,” Studia Patristica, no. 36, 2001, pp. 323–37. 31

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

75

abandon their schism and seek readmission to the catholic community.38 11. Those sacrificers or certified lapsed who sought out the prayers of the confessors (soon to be martyrs) and obtained letters testifying that the newly crowned martyrs would intercede for them to win forgiveness for their sin.39 12. those lapsed who had prematurely been readmitted to communion by presbyters whose laxities were repudiated.40 13. those penitents who, after having once been in any of the above positions, were seeking readmission to communion at the point when rumors of a new persecution (and thus a second opportunity for confession and martyrdom) were on the rise.41 14. those who escaped the persecution itself, but insisted (in some cases, perhaps out of compassion for those who had sacrificed to save others from having to do so) that they would have sacrificed if they had been found and had been demanded to do so.42 15. Penitents who recanted their apostasy before the imperial commission, and went into exile, or suffered torture or martyrdom.43 this was the ecclesiastical muddle into which cyprian was thrust. what the christian church in north africa would have been without its most prominent bishop as a point of unity is left to the melancholic imagination of the reader.44 the divisions, simply among the penitent, in light of the decian persecution, threatened to tear apart the Church. In particular, while Cyprian spent the first three chapters of The Lapsed lauding the confessors of the church (those who had been tortured for their faith, but had not—at least not yet—died for it), a group of confessors who were to become martyrs gave rise to one of his most difficult struggles. on the strength of verses like Matthew 10:32, where Jesus says, “everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, i also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven…,” the confessors began to arrogate to themselves the ability to give de facto reconciliation to the penitent lapsed of the church. the grounds for such claims were that, since the heavenly beatitude of the confessors was assured (or at any rate, would be if they were to die as martyrs, which some of them knew full well they would do), they could, upon entry into heavenly bliss, powerfully intercede for the penitent lapsed. while some confessors, notably one inexperienced see letter 51 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 2, 1984, pp. 80–82. see, for example, letter 27 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, pp. 112–14. 40 see letter 16 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, pp. 93–6. also, the case of victor the presbyter, prematurely reconciled in cyprian’s judgment, is relevant here, on which see letter 64.1.1, p. 109, in the same volume. 41 see letter 57 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, pp. 55–9. 42 see The Lapsed, 28, pp. 35–6. Burns notes that it is likely that many of the poor formed part of this group, since their lack of socio-economic standing might have made it easier to pass by the persecutors unnoticed. see Cyprian the Bishop, p. 18. 43 see letter 24 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, p. 109. see also Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 3. 44 one also has to remember that, upon the martyrdom of Fabian, the roman clergy decided to wait out the persecution before electing a successor. Thus, Cyprian’s influence as seated bishop of carthage extended far beyond his province. 38 39

76

Jack Mulder, Jr.

lucianus, may have been possessed of a sincere christian faith, they nonetheless began dispensing letters from the martyrs in which such peace was granted.45 in fact, lucianus had been charged by the martyr Paulus (when the latter was still alive), “lucianus, before christ i say to you that should anyone seek peace from you after i have been called away, grant it in my name.”46 in this way, confessors began usurping authority to reconcile penitents after the most serious sins without their undertaking penance of any kind. cyprian would not allow this to stand. while he recognized that the intercession of martyrs could be powerful, he refused to recognize the martyrs’ authority to simply grant letters of peace to the lapsed, insisting that the latter do penance. cyprian promised them the peace of the Church in the event of impending death, but not, at first, readmission to communion (or at least not without a long period of penitence). there were a few factors, however, that made this situation especially ripe for a contest.47 First, cyprian had withdrawn into exile, and many of the carthaginian clergy were not at all pleased by his exit. second, upon the death of Fabian in rome, the roman clergy had decided not to elect a successor to Fabian until after the persecution had subsided, leaving the presbyters (with one novatian among them) to handle matters in lieu of a bishop. third, notwithstanding Pontius’ overly laudatory Vita Cypriani, a number of clergy were still bitter over the ordination of cyprian to the bishop’s chair. thus, cyprian’s protests were sometimes ignored, and even contravened. while the strongest immediate challenge to the church in north africa would come from those who would eventually constitute their own laxist communion,48 where the martyr’s intercessory power began to erode behavioral standards, another group began to focus not so much on Matthew 10:32 as on Matthew 10:33, where Jesus gives the corollary to the former, to wit, “but whoever denies me before others, i also will deny before my Father in heaven.” as Burns notes, there was a real question in the church of this time as to what the status of the confessors and of the lapsed really entailed.49 was idolatry, a sin committed directly against god, really the sort of thing that could be forgiven, no matter how sincere the penance that might be made? the roman clergy, with novatian the presbyter among them, would support cyprian’s resolution not to credit the martyrs’ letters of peace, but the time would come when a faction of their own would lead a schism in the rigorist direction. cyprian’s own exegesis of Matthew 10:32–3 is striking. he writes: if he is not to deny the man who denies him, neither will he confess him who confesses him; the gospel cannot in part stand and in part fail: either both parts must hold, or both must lose their authority. if those who deny him are not to be held guilty of a crime, neither shall those who confess him receive the reward of virtue. But if the victory of faith cyprian writes: “our brother lucianus is himself one of the confessors; his faith, to be sure, is ardent, his courage stout, but being very ill-grounded in reading the lord’s scriptures he has ventured upon some very foolish activities” (letter 27.1.1 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, p. 112). 46 letter 22.2.1 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 1, 1984, p. 107. 47 see Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 21. 48 their leader seems to have been Privatus of lambaesis, a lapsed bishop. see letter 59.10.1–2 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, p. 77. 49 Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 19. 45

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

77

receives its crown, the defeat of faithlessness must receive its punishment. therefore, either the martyrs avail nothing, if the gospel fails; or, if the gospel cannot fail, then those whom the gospel enables to become martyrs cannot act in opposition to the gospel.50

cyprian himself was trying to wade through Jesus’ enigmatic lines in a way that would preserve the fundamental unity of the church. the rigorists, who would side with cyprian on the serious business of penance, but refused to readmit the lapsed to communion, or even recognize them as penitent members of its schismatic community,51 were championed by novatian the presbyter, who, after cornelius was elected bishop of rome, evidently began styling himself bishop of rome and, indeed, set up his own communion along such lines. in contrast, cyprian’s exegesis of Matthew 10:32–3 indicates the middle path he strove after in trying to counter both the laxist and rigorist schisms, both of which tried to usurp control of the universal church.52 it is a matter of dispute whether cyprian’s most famous treatise, The Unity of the Catholic Church, was written in response to only one (and if so which) schism or simply in response to both.53 in any case, its relevance to both is clear. in it, cyprian writes: …the enemy, seeing his idols abandoned and his temples and haunts deserted by the ever growing numbers of the faithful, devised a fresh deceit, using the christian name itself to mislead the unwary. he invented heresies and schisms so as to undermine the faith, to corrupt the truth, to sunder our unity.54

cyprian argues further in this text that the unity of the church is built around the unity of her bishops. in fact, in the earlier version of the text (which had been written in at least two versions),55 cyprian writes: “if a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? if he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”56 The Lapsed, 20, pp. 29–30. see Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 28. 52 Felicissimus the deacon was sent to rome in the hopes of gaining recognition from the roman church of the laxist communion as being the authentic north african communion, meanwhile the laxist communion had ordained Fortunatus as bishop of carthage (as a supposed replacement for cyprian), on which see letter 59.9.1 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, pp. 75–6. novatian had sent envoys to carthage in the hopes of gaining recognition from cyprian of his being the rightful bishop of rome. novatian was, of course, angered when the result of the discernment process in carthage recognized cornelius, but cornelius was angered that there needed to be any process of discernment in the first place (see Letters 44–5 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 2, 1984, pp. 67–72, as well as clarke’s commentary on them in pp. 223–45). 53 it is usually dated in 251 after The Lapsed. 54 The Unity of the Catholic Church, 3, p. 45. compare Kierkegaard, who takes it one step further, “…the orthodox church is far more dangerous to christianity than any heresy or schism” (Pap. Xi–1 a 70 / JP 1, 546). 55 Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 95, argues for the existence of three versions rather than simply the standard two. 56 The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4, pp. 46–7. this text was once claimed to be a spurious addition by roman catholic partisans, but it has since been shown that the text actually existed in at least two versions, the second version running a bit more lightly over the 50 51

78

Jack Mulder, Jr.

since the “chair of Peter” language signals primarily the authority of the episcopate, to desert the bishop was to desert the church. as cyprian notes further: “You cannot have god for your Father if you have not the church for your mother.”57 thus, to stay in communion with the bishop was necessary if one was to stand in the right sort of relationship to god. this is, of course, a personal assertion of episcopal authority on the part of cyprian, but the point is hardly moot. one’s devotion to christ was the sort of thing one was charged to suffer and die for, and it was a worthy question as to whether martyrdom, suffered while a member of a rival schism, was availing for salvation. cyprian answered that it was not.58 it is important to remember that cyprian’s concern for the exclusivity of the church around its bishop as a point of unity is not simply a power play. as Burns notes, “By simultaneously affirming the definition of its boundary and asserting an internal differentiation of roles, Cyprian’s church maintained the significance of its behavioral code and the efficacy of its rituals.”59 cyprian was trying to sort out the seriousness of the crimes of the lapsed over against the mercy of christ and his community. this required some innovations in regarding some of the suitably grave offenses to require serious (and, in some cases, lifelong) penance, but to nonetheless concede that they might be pardonable. Wishing to be sufficiently rigorous but also merciful, cyprian had to come up with an innovative way to interpret Matthew 10 so that it might allow reconciliation after sins of idolatry. Burns writes: …by admitting the fallen to communion without requiring penance, the laxist clergy were assuring the damnation of the lapsed by convincing them that serious penance was unnecessary. Those who had been seriously wounded by their first failure were being killed by being convinced not to undertake that serious penance. the laxists were actually continuing the work which the devil had begun during the persecution.60

this was the step cyprian needed for his analysis of the situation. cyprian began to interpret the laxist communion’s offer of easy reconciliation as another persecution, and thus another opportunity for confession.61 while cyprian remained reticent, for a time, about the possibility of the lapsed being readmitted to communion, he was “chair of Peter” language, since by that time Pope st. stephen had been claiming this primacy for the papacy in rome, and cyprian was in a dispute with stephen. this text was, for many years, the subject of much controversy. Bévenot articulates the current prevailing view well when he writes: “in speaking of the ‘primacy of Peter’ or of ‘the chair of Peter,’ cyprian was not thinking specifically of Rome, but literally of Peter and of the unity which christ intended for his church when he founded it on Peter, and which novatian was destroying. that unity, in his theory, was constituted simply by the union of bishops among themselves. actually, cyprian recognized the Bishop of rome’s special position in the church in many practical ways. But he never formulated this to himself as implying a real authority over the whole church.” see the introduction to The Lapsed/The Unity of the Catholic Church, pp. 6–7. 57 The Unity of the Catholic Church, 6, pp. 48–9. 58 The Unity of the Catholic Church, 14, p. 57. 59 Cyprian the Bishop, p. 29. 60 J. Patout Burns, “confessing the church: cyprian on Penance,” Studia Patristica, no. 36, 2001, pp. 338–48; p. 342. 61 see letter 43.3.1 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 2, 1984, pp. 62–3.

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

79

willing to give them the peace of the church (which guaranteed the church’s prayers for them but not necessarily their salvation) on their deathbeds. soon enough, however, some were to recover from such illnesses, and would be revived in the communion of the church. this generated controversy but eventually necessitated some openness about readmitting the lapsed to communion after penance, though it also entailed the somewhat novel proposition that communion with the church was necessary but not sufficient for salvation. Eventually, after a suitable period of penance, the lapsed were readmitted to communion in preparation for a new roman persecution.62 this was, in effect, a response to the rigorist challenges that reconciliation could not occur when the offense was committed before god. the rigorists had compromised the unity of the church by substituting a rival bishop, and the laxists were threatening the faith and salvation of the faithful. the laxists were the most powerful schism in north africa, and it should come as little surprise in this environment that cyprian would insist, along with his african colleagues, that their sacrament of baptism (and indeed any schismatic or heretical sacrament) was not a true sacrament.63 indeed, cyprian openly insisted that cornelius’ successor, stephen of rome, was mistaken in accepting schismatics back into the church without rebaptism.64 this controversy between the two prominent bishops, to be revisited in a different guise in the donatist controversy years later,65 would be cut short by their martyrdoms, with cyprian’s taking place in 258 under the valerian persecution. having now given a brief account of the events, primarily of cyprian’s episcopate, so very central to his theological legacy, i will, in the next section, begin to unravel the way in which Kierkegaard receives Cyprian’s legacy. In the final section, I will try to discuss other potential points of contact that this explicit relationship may help to reveal. II. Kierkegaard’s Reception of Cyprian not only was religious exclusivism a reason for the decian persecution’s targeting of christianity, it was also a point of unity, not only in cyprian’s work, but for the church of his time. christians were a minority in a hostile world, and their faith was not met with indifference or a polite smile, but persecution. in addition, it must be see letter 57 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, pp. 55–9. see letter 73 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 4, 1989, pp. 54–69. 64 see letter 74 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 4, 1989, pp. 69–78. see also, Francine cardman, “cyprian and rome: the controversy over Baptism,” in The Right to Dissent, ed. by hans Küng and Jürgen Moltmann, new York: seabury Press 1982 (Concilium, vol. 158), pp. 33–9. 65 although cyprian’s position on rebaptism associates him with the donatists, cyprian’s situation and augustine’s situation are relevantly different. the donatists did later take cyprian as one of their own (see “the donatist Passion of cyprian,”), but augustine insisted that cyprian would never have gone along with their schism. see augustine’s On Baptism: Against the Donatists (this work is not included in the most recent translation of augustine’s works, but can be found in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. by Philip scharff, series 1, vols. 1–10, new York: the christian literature company 1887, vol. 4, 1887, pp. 411–514). 62 63

80

Jack Mulder, Jr.

remembered, that the church of cyprian’s time bears little resemblance to that of our own, where a large number of denominations carry the name christian, many with little contest from others, each of which nonetheless claims the lion’s share of the truth. instead, the source of division in cyprian’s case was either the conviction that repentance could be had on the cheap (the laxist schism), or the conviction, perhaps sometimes tainted with self-satisfied pride, that it would be impermissible to even countenance the possibility of eventual communion with one’s sinful but penitent christian brothers and sisters (the rigorist schism).66 cyprian actually believed that love was a prominent reason for the church’s exclusivist stance. it was this situation that gave rise to the often repeated patristic dictum, “outside the church there is no salvation,” which in fact is derived from cyprian’s work. in his important letter to iubaianus, cyprian writes: can the power of baptism, i ask, be greater or stronger than the confession of and suffering of a man who confesses christ before men and is baptized in his own blood? Yet, not even this sort of baptism can benefit the heretic who, though he has confessed Christ, is put to death outside the church. otherwise one would have to suppose that the supporters and spokesmen of the heretics successfully proclaim them martyrs when they are killed for a confession of christ that is false, and that they assign to them the crown and glory for a martyr’s sufferings despite the explicit testimony of the apostle that even if they are burnt and put to death it will profit them nothing. If, then, not even the baptism of blood and public confession will profit the heretic for salvation—for there is no salvation outside the Church—how much more must this be so if in some lair, in some den of thieves, a man is bathed in polluted and spurious water, and so far from putting off his old sins, he loads himself with yet more fresh and graver ones.67

notice here that there is an allusion to 1 corinthians 13:3, “if i hand over my body68 so that i may boast, but do not have love, i gain nothing,” which shows cyprian’s belief that the law of love demands the kind of exclusivism that he advocates. Kierkegaard once, in his early writings, notices the cyprianic dictum here under discussion, only to pass over it just as quickly. he writes, of thomasine gyllembourgehrensvärd’s work: “drawing the readers’ attention in as few words as possible to the cycle of short stories owed to the author of En Hverdags-Historie, we must remind readers that this is not done…in order to fix in them an absolute catholicity outside which there is no salvation….”69 this is obviously a very brief reference, yet, the implications of the dictum, only barely noticed here, are hardly irrelevant to Kierkegaard’s larger corpus. compare, for instance, the catholic church’s admission that its own partisans were not without fault with regard to the split caused by the reformation. see The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., washington, d.c.: united states catholic conference 1994, 817, where we read, “But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the catholic church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame” (italics mine). 67 letter 73.21.1–2 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 4, 1989, p. 66, italics mine. 68 the new revised standard version records that other ancient manuscripts offer, “if i hand over my body to be burned…” which resonates ever better with cyprian’s context here. 69 SKS 1, 20–21 / EPW, 65. 66

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

81

in Johannes climacus’ work, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, climacus distinguishes the ethical-religious pathos that one has in religiousness a with the additional “pathos of separation” that a christian, one in the dialectical stage of religiousness B, has.70 climacus notes that this pathos of separation seems to include the sense that, since one’s salvation has a historical point of departure (the god in time in Jesus of nazareth), and not everyone knows of this historical point of departure (or approaches it in the requisite way), it is as if our member of the elect is being given preferential treatment. climacus writes: the happy person cannot essentially sympathize with others who do not have or are unable to have preferential treatment. therefore, the happy person either must continue to be ignorant that others exist or himself become unhappy because of this awareness. having his eternal happiness based on something historical means that the christian’s good fortune is distinguished by suffering…the elect is not the unhappy person; but neither is he, directly understood, the happy person—no, this is so difficult to understand that for anyone else but the elect it must be something to despair over.71

This is a kind of Climacan exclusivism, and it is difficult to swallow, since it “excludes all who are outside the condition, and among those are the countless ones who are excluded through no fault of their own but by the accidental circumstance that christianity has not yet been proclaimed to them.”72 climacus is even more emphatic in this regard (and undoubtedly aware of the cyprianic dictum under discussion). he writes: For the believer it holds true that outside this condition there is no eternal happiness, and for him it holds true, or it can come to hold true for him, that he must hate father and mother. is it not the same as hating them if his eternal happiness is bound to a condition that he knows they do not accept?73

SKS 7, 530 / CUP1, 582. SKS 7, 531 / CUP1, 582. this is highly relevant to the debate concerning whether the salvation of anyone is possible given the damnation of anyone (since the blessed in heaven are enjoined to love all as they love their own selves, and yet their happiness cannot but be diminished, it is said, by the suffering of loved ones in hell). on this debate, see eric reitan, “eternal damnation and blessed ignorance: is the damnation of some incompatible with the salvation of any?” Religious Studies, no. 38, 2002, pp. 429–50, and thomas talbott, “the doctrine of everlasting Punishment,” Faith and Philosophy, no. 7, 1990, pp. 19–42. i try to give a broadly Kierkegaardian response in Jack Mulder, Jr., “Must all be saved? a Kierkegaardian response to theological universalism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, no. 59, 2006. 72 SKS 7, 531 / CUP1, 582–3. one might contrast this to the post-vatican ii catholic church, which explicitly recognizes the possibility of salvation for such people. see Lumen Gentium, 16 (english translation by austin Flannery, Vatican II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, northport, nY: costello Publishing 1996, p. 22). For more on cyprian’s divergences from vatican ii on related issues, see geoffrey d. dunn, “validity of Baptism and ordination in the african response to the ‘rebaptism’ crisis: cyprian of carthage’s synod of spring 256,” Theological Studies, no. 67, 2006, pp. 257–74. 73 SKS 7, 533 / CUP1, 586, italics mine. 70 71

82

Jack Mulder, Jr.

thankfully, Kierkegaard departs considerably from climacus (at least with respect to what we might call his attitude toward those who do not accept the “condition”) on this point. Works of Love details both the self-denial involved in christian love, along with the presuppositions it makes in favor of others. Kierkegaard writes: “love is to presuppose love; to have love is to presuppose that others are loving.”74 now love, as we learn in that text, is “the highest good and the greatest blessedness,”75 and so to presuppose that love is present is to presuppose that, at minimum, a person has the capacity to enjoy the highest blessedness, which is communion with god, who just is love. indeed, Kierkegaard gets himself into considerable trouble by going so far as to say that we ought to presuppose that what others are doing is loving.76 Kierkegaard’s perspective seems to be different from climacus’ in this respect, since Kierkegaard appears not to want us to believe any to be among the lost. he writes: “Blessed is the one who loves—he hopes all things. Even in the final moment he hopes for the possibility of the good for the worst reprobate!”77 this is consonant with a task to which Kierkegaard would set himself in 1847, when he writes: “Most men are subjective toward themselves and objective toward all others, frightfully objective sometimes—but the task is precisely to be objective toward oneself and subjective toward all others.”78 Kierkegaard himself, in an important 1854 journal entry, narrates where he has, through some personal struggle, come down on the issue of the salvation of other people. he writes: the more exactly the terms of salvation are stipulated, the fewer there always are who one can believe will be saved. But sympathy finds it tormenting to be saved in contradistinction to others. so i have interpreted it as follows: the terms of salvation differ for every individual, for every single solitary human being. there is a universal proclamation of christianity, but with respect to the conditions of salvation every single individual must relate to god as a single individual. this is undeniably a sympathetic relief….Yet this sympathetic relief…has a sad note to it—namely, that one person cannot help another at all, cannot reassure him in a more profound sense or himself gain reassurance from another person.79

SKS 9, 225 / WL, 223. SKS 9, 241 / WL, 239. 76 SKS 9, 230 / WL, 228. Kierkegaard is simply radical on this point. anthony rudd, “‘Believing all things’: Kierkegaard on Knowledge, doubt, and love,” in Works of Love, ed. by robert l. Perkins, Macon, georgia: Mercer university Press 1999 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 16), pp. 121–36 is the best attempt i know of to try to untangle Kierkegaard from some related theoretical knots (should i really presuppose love in hitler and stalin?), though i remain unsure of whether Kierkegaard can be so easily untangled. see Jack Mulder, Jr., Mystical and Buddhist Elements in Kierkegaard’s Religious Thought, lewiston: nY: edwin Mellen Press 2005, pp. 183–91 for some worries related to this. in any case, the fact that Kierkegaard needs to be untangled at all from these knots indicates that his perspective is different from climacus’. 77 SKS 9, 260 / WL, 260. 78 SKS 20, 164, nB2:57 / JP 4, 4542. 79 Pap. Xi–1 a 296 / JP 4, 4922. 74 75

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

83

while this appears to be fairly representative of Kierkegaard’s considered view, he is interestingly sensitive to the fact that, the further he gets away from clear conditions for salvation, the less able he is to do anything concrete for others to aid in their attaining salvation. cyprian, as we have seen, appears to have gone in rather the other direction, while nonetheless aware of some similar principles. in order to defend the efficacy of the Church’s rituals, he needed to formulate some clear principles about their salvific import.80 The Christian Church has not finished its struggle with this tension, and i, for one, suspect that it never shall. of course, as we saw earlier, while cyprian typically regarded membership in the Church as a necessary condition, it was not a sufficient condition for salvation. Kierkegaard notices something similar at one point in an entry entitled, “an earlier christianity, contemporary christianity, the achievement of an inversion,” he writes: if i were to sketch the difference with one single parallel, this alone is enough: early christendom postponed baptism as long as possible; contemporary christendom introduces it as early as possible. and why? Because early christendom regarded baptism primarily as commitment, responsibility (baptism also atoned only for the past; later sins had to be atoned for by good works; “good works were supplemental to the sacraments” —cyprian); contemporary christendom regards baptism only as a prize which one should get one’s hand on, the sooner the better. there is much truth and pertinence in what Pascal says, that later christianity with the help of some sacraments excuses itself from loving god.81

Kierkegaard here extols “an earlier christianity” for regarding baptism primarily as commitment. it is unclear why postponing it is, for that reason, a good thing in Kierkegaard’s view, unless he simply means to commend the fact that waiting to commit often means that one is serious when one finally undertakes the commitment. it is not clear that cyprian waited a long while to be baptized after he began to be attracted to christianity,82 but it is clear that he certainly regarded his baptism as a sign of commitment. in fact, cyprian struggled considerably with the question of whether the sort of radical conversion he saw in baptism was even possible. In his first treatise, which is actually a letter to a christian friend named donatus, he writes: I thought it indeed difficult and hard (to believe) according to the character of mine at the time that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind.83

see Burns, “confessing the church: cyprian on Penance,” p. 344. Pap. X–5 a 144 / JP 1, 543. 82 see, for instance, thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, revised edition, new York: image 1990, pp. 44–5, which explicitly contrasts the demanding approach cyprian took on the matter of penance for sin with those who postponed baptism (since baptism washes away prior sin, but serious post-baptismal sin required serious—perhaps lifelong—penance). 83 To Donatus, in Saint Cyprian: Treatises, 3, pp. 8–9. 80 81

84

Jack Mulder, Jr.

nonetheless, neither cyprian nor Kierkegaard ever rejected infant baptism,84 thus, cyprian cannot be regarded as representative of a view according to which baptism should, in principle, be postponed as long as possible. Kierkegaard appears to think that there is good and bad in postponing baptism, and one suspects that cyprian would agree with him. Kierkegaard notes that, with postponing baptism, “acceptance of grace is deferred until it [striving] is past—then one receives grace.”85 Kierkegaard notes that there could be something profound about this view, but, at the same time, it smacks of “secular shrewd-mindedness.”86 Kierkegaard also writes of christians in this time, “they supposed that baptism atoned only for the past, that later sins had to be atoned by good deeds, that martyrdom ensured the forgiveness of sin better than baptism.”87 while cyprian does recommend good works and acknowledges that they have a function with regard to purging sins,88 none of this would make sense for him without the overarching grace of christ’s church, as we have seen. in addition, cyprian recommends, with very strong language, what is commonly known as the baptism of blood, or a martyr’s death. he writes: Let us only, who with the Lord’s permission gave the first baptism to believers, prepare each one for another baptism also, urging and teaching that this baptism is greater in grace, more sublime in power, more precious in honor, a baptism in which the angels baptize, a baptism in which god and his christ exult, a baptism after which no one sins again, a baptism which brings to completion the increases of our faith, a baptism which immediately joins us with god as we withdraw from the world. in the baptism of water is received the remission of sins; in that of blood the crown of virtues. this thing is to be embraced and longed for and sought after with all entreaties of our prayers, so that we who were servants of god may also be his friends.89

one of the salient features of the baptism of blood is that no one sins after it, for the very good reason that one’s life is at an end because of it. thus, baptism of blood and baptism proper differ because one is an initiation into a holy earthly life (along with cleansing for past sins), and the other is the crowning of that holy life at its end. notwithstanding the above memorable exhortation, even the baptism of blood, for cyprian, must be prepared for by means of christ’s church and her sacraments, notably, holy communion.90 84 see cyprian’s letter 64 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, pp. 109–12. see also Kierkegaard’s claim that, “Infant baptism can very well stand, but confirmation ought to be postponed until the twenty-fifth year” (SKS 21, 181, nB8:86 / JP 1, 494). 85 SKS 23, 81, nB15:114.a. / JP 2, 1655. 86 SKS 23, 81, nB15:114.a. / JP 2, 1655. 87 Pap. X–5 a 103 / JP 2, 1494. 88 For some evidence of the role works play in cyprian, see The Lapsed, 35, p. 41 and Works and Almsgiving, in Saint Cyprian: Treatises, 5, pp. 231–2. 89 Exhortation to Martyrdom, to Fortunatus, in Saint Cyprian: Treatises, 4, pp. 315–16. 90 see letter 57.4.1–2 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, pp. 57–8, where we read: “it is not right for anyone to argue: he who takes up martyrdom is baptized in his own blood. he has no need to receive, then, peace from his bishop, for he is about to have the peace which is won by his own glory and to receive a far richer reward from the lord’s bounty. to

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

85

this was the context for another of Kierkegaard’s approving discussions of cyprian. Kierkegaard writes: how shocking, then, to think of the colossal nonsense of millions and millions of Christians and the prolonged scholarly conflict about the sacrament sub utraque specie— and through the centuries the covenant has more and more been forgotten. how simply Cyprian solved the whole difficulty involved in the question as to whether or not the cup should be withheld from the laity by answering: if they are required to shed their blood for christ’s sake, we dare not deny them christ’s blood.91

Kierkegaard’s source for this entry would have been Friedrich Böhringer’s Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen.92 there are two passages that are especially important in this context. The first I will consider is from letter 63 in cyprian’s correspondence, and the second is from letter 57. in letter 63, cyprian discusses whether or not wine mixed with water should be used for the sacrament, or simply water (this is known as “aquarianism”). this was important because one could smell of wine and be called before the persecuting authorities on suspicion of being a christian. thus, cyprian defended the inclusion of wine in part, because to do otherwise would have been, quite literally, watering down the faith.93 in this letter, cyprian is not primarily concerned with whether or not the sacrament should be distributed under both (utraque) species, that is to say, whether communicants should be given what the celebrant is claiming to be the body and the blood of Christ. rather, cyprian is arguing that, in order for the sacrament—in particular the blood of christ—to be what it truly is (and, in this way, for communicants to be offered the eucharist under both species instead of being offered the body and a false cup) the cup must include wine and not simply water. the relevant portion of letter 57, which may be more important for Kierkegaard’s purposes, reads: this our immediate reply is that a man cannot be fit for martyrdom if he is not armed for battle by the Church; his heart fails if it is not fired and fortified by receiving the Eucharist.” The contemporary Catholic Church recognizes that baptism of blood is efficacious in the same way that baptism is, even without the martyr’s having been baptized in the proper sacramental context (see The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1258). 91 Pap. Xi–1 a 4 / JP 2, 1924. also, see Pap. Xi–2 a 368 / JP 3, 3596, where we read: “in the early church, when martyrs still shed blood, when to be a christian was, if not personally becoming a martyr, at least like living next to a place that is on fire, so near that one can tell where the fire is, as they say, by feeling the wall—in the early Church the question whether the laity ought to be forbidden the blood in the lord’s supper once came up. a bishop, who himself became a martyr, answered: if the christian is asked to shed his blood for the lord, how could he be forbidden the lord’s blood!” 92 Friedrich Böhringer, “cyprian,” in his Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 1, abtheilung 1, pp. 375–435; Kierkegaard appears to be referring to material from p. 424 (ASKB 173–177). 93 see especially letter 63.15.2 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, pp. 106–7. raymond Johanny’s chapter, “cyprian of carthage,” in The Eucharist of the Early Christians, trans. by Matthew J. o’connell, new York: Pueblo 1978, pp. 156–82 is very helpful on this point.

86

Jack Mulder, Jr. those whom we stir and rouse to battle we must not leave all naked and unarmed; we must fortify and protect them with the body and blood of christ. since the eucharist has been appointed for this purpose, to be a safeguard to those who receive it, those whom we would have safe against the enemy we must now arm with the protection of the lord’s banquet. how, i ask, are we to teach and incite them to shed their own blood by confessing the name of christ, if we deny them on the eve of going into battle the blood of christ?94

the context for cyprian’s discussion in letter 57 is a bit different than it was in letter 63 and a bit further from the question of the species of the eucharist. cyprian is arguing that the lapsed who have undergone continual penance since the time of their failing should now be readmitted to communion, because by partaking of christ’s body and blood they will be strengthened for a new confession.95 thus, this letter has to do, not with the manner of the sacrament, but with who should be admitted to it. this also represents an evolution in cyprian’s treatment of the lapsed, since he earlier granted peace and readmission to communion because some of the lapsed had recanted their apostasy precisely by confessing their faith to the imperial authorities.96 Kierkegaard himself seems to laud the practice now often known as “viaticum,” or giving communion to the dying, and also seems to regard communion as an excellent way to reassure such souls, or perhaps, to “fortify” them, as does cyprian.97 nonetheless, the way in which cyprian sometimes yields to what he understands to be pastoral necessity in the face of persecution gives Kierkegaard pause at a couple of turns. in an entry entitled, “how christianity is slackened,” Kierkegaard writes: First there is christ…who comes—in order to suffer and die. then come the apostles, who are unconditionally willing to die—longing for martyrdom. then come the martyrs. But the dialectic has already begun—whether it is unconditionally required of the christian to suffer martyrdom, whether it is not just as truly christian to want to live….98

in the margin of this last part, Kierkegaard writes: as early as the time of cyprian, to be a christian in a stricter sense became representative (which cyprian did not sanction): the blood witnesses issued receipts which freed others from risking their lives and permitted them to make sacrifices and in this way to avoid persecution.99

letter 57.2.2 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, p. 56. clarke comments: “it is nothing short of astonishing that this present argument can be stated without any apparent embarrassment, even though it was granted no validity earlier while the persecution of decius continued” (The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 3, 1986, p. 219). it may be astonishing that it is stated without embarrassment, but, from an administrative standpoint, it is not quite as surprising that it is stated, since by this time, some of the penitent lapsed had been granted communion on their deathbeds and some had recovered, as noted earlier. thus, some of the penitent lapsed were already being readmitted. see also Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 40. 96 see letters 24 and 25 in The Letters of St. Cyprian, vol. 2, 1984, pp. 109–10. 97 see SKS 18, 66–7, ee:192 / JP 1, 450. see also Michael Plekon, “Kierkegaard and the eucharist,” Studia Liturgica, no. 22, 1992, pp. 214–36. 98 SKS 24, 258–9, nB23:106 / JP 3, 2662. 99 SKS 24, 259, nB23:106.a. / JP 3, 2663. 94 95

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

87

we have already seen that this is not exactly accurate with respect to what happened in cyprian’s time. the martyrs hastily granted peace to the lapsed, in light of the former’s presumed intercessory power, but the martyrs were not in the business of granting certificates that would free others from having to risk their lives. Kierkegaard appears to be blurring the distinction between the two classes of the lapsed, namely, those who sacrificed, and those who obtained certificates that would free them from having to sacrifice. Thus, there are two corrections that need to be made to this entry. First, the certificates did not permit Christians to make sacrifices; rather, the certificates could be bought so that the lapsed did not have to sacrifice. But this brings us to the second confusion here: even if someone were (contrary to fact) issuing certificates that would allow those in possession of them to sacrifice, such things could presumably only come from the clergy (or presumptuous laity in their stead), but because the certificates were rather to exempt people from having to sacrifice in the first place, they were granted by the only authorities politically capable of granting such a thing, namely, the imperial authorities.100 although not explicitly linked with cyprian, another passage could be subject to a similar confusion. Kierkegaard writes: it is curious to see how quickly christianity is slackened with respect to the existential. already in the third century there is a substantial easing up on the requirement for being a christian: one can very well be a christian and yet avoid the danger of confession, yes, be a Christian—and sacrifice [to the public gods to avoid persecution].101

now, this entry could be referring to the kinds of questions tertullian considers in his work (which belongs to his heretical Montanist period), Flight in Time of Persecution, where he considers the various kinds of evasions christian citizens would attempt in the face of persecution. tertullian, for instance, mocks the christian who bribes an official to avoid the persecution. He writes: “Oh yes, perhaps you have admitted you are a christian to some individual, but, in refusing to do so before many, you have denied him.”102 with this kind of statement, we can well imagine both Kierkegaard and cyprian sympathizing. Yet, the situation was not always so simple, in tertullian’s or cyprian’s time. as Burns notes, in some cases, one had to construct elaborate subterfuges (sometimes with ecclesiastical backing) even in the case of business contracts, which they swore “before the roman deities, though they avoided actually pronouncing the oaths.”103 cyprian is characteristically more moderate than tertullian, whose late period has him categorically forbidding escape from persecution. Cyprian, of course, did see fit to withdraw from the Decian persecution, even citing christ as an example (though, of course, neither christ

see Böhringer, “cyprian,” p. 387, which does not appear to fall prey to such confusions. 101 SKS 24, 277, nB23:144 / JP 2, 1895. 102 Flight in Time of Persecution, 12.5, in Tertullian: Disciplinary, Moral and Ascetical Works, trans. by rudolph arbesmann, sister emily Joseph daly, and edwin a. quain, new York: Fathers of the church 1959 (Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 40), p. 301. 103 Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, p. 182, n58. 100

88

Jack Mulder, Jr.

nor cyprian ever intended to be permanently on the run from persecution).104 thus, cyprian would hardly agree that one could be a christian in good standing and be insulated from the danger of confession. at the same time, it is not always clear how far Kierkegaard’s and cyprian’s understandings of compromise with secular governments agree. in part, this is because we have limited knowledge of cyprian’s own policies. we also have limited knowledge of Kierkegaard’s views on cyprian. did Kierkegaard think of cyprian’s exile as a wise plan over against a reckless and helter-skelter martyrdom, or did Kierkegaard think of it (as some of cyprian’s clergy no doubt did) as cowardice? in this section, i have tried to explain those passages in Kierkegaard’s work where his attitude to cyprian shines through. in the main, i think Kierkegaard regards cyprian in a quite positive light. he was, after all, a part of the pre-constantinian church for which Kierkegaard had a certain amount of fondness. in addition, he was a martyr of the church and insisted on the rigor of the christian life at a time when he thought this was an urgent necessity. cyprian was not opposed to a merciful compromise, however, and there are times when one suspects that Kierkegaard’s fondness might be more for the severity of tertullian than for the moderation of cyprian, even though both, significantly, retain strong admiration for Tertullian. In the following brief section, I will conclude by reflecting on two more isolated issues of enduring theological importance to which Kierkegaard and cyprian can both contribute. III. Cyprian’s and Kierkegaard’s Theological Legacies we have already seen that cyprian’s contribution is not in speculative theology, and so much of his genius and enduring contribution will have been glimpsed (if all too briefly) in the foregoing. cyprian and Kierkegaard are, therefore, of a piece in this respect, that each is, in Michael Plekon’s sense, a “theologian of the church.”105 despite this fact, i want to close by examining two issues whose philosophical and theological interest, though embedded in christian thought, have implications beyond it. The first of these is the transformation of the person in conversion. As noted before, Cyprian puzzled over this conversion in his own case, but his reflections (had Kierkegaard read them—it is difficult to determine for certain) are the sorts of things Kierkegaard might well have found inspirational for his own work. cyprian writes: “how,” i said, “is such a conversion possible, that the innate which has grown hard in the corruption of natural material or when acquired has become inveterate by the affliction of old age should suddenly and swiftly be put aside? these things, deep and profound, have been thoroughly rooted within us.”106

see The Lapsed, p. 10; p. 21. see Michael Plekon, “Kierkegaard the theologian: the roots of his theology in Works of Love,” in Foundations of Kierkegaard’s Vision of Community: Religion, Ethics and Politics, ed. by george B. connell and c. stephen evans, atlantic highlands, nJ: humanities Press 1992, p. 14. 106 To Donatus, in Saint Cyprian: Treatises, 3, p. 9. 104 105

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

89

cyprian is struggling with the possibility of making a radical transformation “in soul and mind” and how strange this is in comparison with the obvious fact that any such person remains in the very same body. he goes on to discuss how his faults, prior to his “second birth” which made him “a new man” had been “clinging vices, and in my despair of better things i indulged my sins as if now proper and belonging to me.”107 these brief excerpts relate to ideas from Kierkegaard’s own work that he himself develops to a much greater extent. the fact that cyprian struggles with this radical possibility of conversion at all suggests that he glimpses some of the reasons why Kierkegaard calls this possibility “absurd.” Kierkegaard himself seems to have struggled with the possibility of forgiveness, noting, “i must continually come closer and closer to the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins.”108 one of the reasons why Kierkegaard thinks that the forgiveness of sins is so difficult to comprehend might be the fact that he insists that when god forgives sins, he actually “uncreates” them.109 “Uncreation” perhaps finds its place in part because, as Climacus tells us, the sinful self is, in a real sense, someone other than the changed, forgiven self in climacus’ religiousness B. climacus notes, “the consciousness of sin, however, is a change of the subject himself, which shows that outside the individual there must be the power that makes clear to him that he has become a person other than he was by coming into existence, that he has become a sinner.”110 thus, the struggle of conversion is ultimately the struggle of the self with itself, or perhaps, the struggle of a first self with a deeper self.111 this struggle is at its most intense when the self is no longer under any illusions about its sinful state, but defies God and all existence by refusing the offer of help. anti-climacus, in The Sickness Unto Death, writes: “hope in the possibility of help, especially by virtue of the absurd, that for god everything is possible—no, that he does not want.”112 it is also in that work by anti-climacus that it is made clear that sin has its own “essential interior consistency.”113 that is, particular sins are not the problem, but rather the very state of sin in which the person finds herself which becomes more and more identified with whom she is. In this light it is interesting to hear Cyprian talk about his life prior to his conversion as one characterized by “clinging vices.” he also, as we saw, “despair[s] of better things” preferring the sin that he regarded as more natural to himself. one wonders whether cyprian’s characterization of his own sinful life could be linked more closely with one of the more immediate forms of despair, in which the self thinks only of particular sins, or with one of the more intense forms of despair, in which the self knows and prefers the continuance of sin. of the latter, anti-climacus writes:

To Donatus, in Saint Cyprian: Treatises, 4, pp. 9–10. SKS 20, 360, nB4:157 / JP 2, 1214. 109 Pap. Xi–2 a 3 / JP 2, 1224. 110 SKS 7, 532 / CUP1, 584. 111 these are other terms that Kierkegaard uses, notably in “to need god is a human Being’s highest Perfection.” see especially SKS 5, 306–16 / EUD, 314–26. 112 SKS 11, 185 / SUD, 71. 113 SKS 11, 219 / SUD, 107. 107 108

90

Jack Mulder, Jr. only in the continuance of sin is he himself, only in that does he live and have an impression of himself. But what does this mean? it means that the state of sin is what holds him together deep down where he has sunk, profanely strengthening him with its consistency.114

one suspects that cyprian himself would point to the latter as representative of his state prior to conversion, though again, we know very little independent information about his life prior to his christian faith.115 Yet, cyprian’s hindsight in identifying his former life as one of sin may be in accordance with the way that anti-climacus would have us believe a christian, newly conscious before god, might think. we read: that is what the ancient church Fathers meant when they said that the virtues of the pagans were glittering vices: they meant that the heart of paganism was despair, that paganism was not conscious before god as spirit.116

that is, since anti-climacus has it that there are “only two rubrics,” namely, faith or sin,117 and despair is ultimately traceable to defiance,118 cyprian’s recollection of his pagan past, as one riddled with sin, may not be the way a pagan would perceive the situation while in it, but it may be precisely the way anti-climacus would have us think such a person would perceive the situation after having taken leave of it. Finally, I want to consider briefly what implications the ecclesiological divergence between Kierkegaard and cyprian has for their respective christian anthropologies. what is most widely known about cyprian tends to be the patristic dictum, derived from his works, which we have examined in the foregoing, namely, “outside the church there is no salvation.”119 against this background, climacus’ turn of phrase is striking and revealing. he writes, as we saw: “outside this condition there is no eternal happiness.”120 the condition, of course, is “the relation to something historical,” which is the individual’s relationship to the god in time, Jesus. in climacus’ earlier effort, Philosophical Fragments, we are told: “even if the contemporary generation had not left anything behind except these words, ‘we have believed that in such and such a year the god appeared in the humble form of a servant, lived and taught among us, and then died’—this is more than enough.”121 in this sense, climacan redemption appears quite possible independently of any ecclesiastical body.

SKS 11, 220 / SUD, 108. one suspects that cyprian’s own narrative is a little overdone in some respects, much in the way one suspects this of st. Paul’s claim to be the foremost of sinners (see 1 timothy 1:15). 116 SKS 11, 161 / SUD, 46. 117 SKS 11, 217 / SUD, 105. 118 SKS 11, 130 / SUD, 14. 119 the ways in which the contemporary catholic church have reformulated this cyprianic assertion, without spurning it entirely, are interesting in relation to the divergence between cyprian and Kierkegaard on this point. see The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846–8. 120 SKS 7, 533 / CUP1, 586. 121 SKS 4, 301 / PF, 104. 114 115

Cyprian of Carthage: Kierkegaard, Cyprian, and the “urgent needs of the times”

91

in a later work by anti-climacus,122 we find the insistence that the only true church be the church Militant, and that this latter church is made up of individuals.123 Kierkegaard means here to repudiate (as he does elsewhere more strongly) the identification of the Church with the State. The Church simply cannot be an established, finished, triumphant Church, for Kierkegaard. It must, instead, be a struggling church. one can imagine cyprian sympathizing with this view, since he mockingly writes of those who rushed to sacrifice in the face of persecution: was it something unheard-of that had happened, something beyond expectation, that made men recklessly break their oath to christ, as if a situation had arisen which they had not bargained for? was it not foretold by the prophets before he came, and by his apostles since? were they not inspired by the holy spirit to predict that the just would always be oppressed and ill-treated by the gentiles?124

one simply does not know how cyprian would have reacted to the institution of christianity as an established religion in the post-constantinian world, because one strongly suspects that he, at least in his writings, simply never saw it coming. at the same time, cyprian understands that out-and-out persecutions of christianity ebb and flow with the rise and fall of secular governments and edicts, which the later Kierkegaard seems reluctant to recognize.125 Kierkegaard once notes that, when the idea of there being no salvation outside the church became established within the church, the church itself became, to some extent, established as its own, almost nationalistic, society.126 cyprian often fondly cites the church as Mother, and Kierkegaard agrees, calling her, “the true mother.” But, for Kierkegaard, the true mother, as it turns out, in connection with the episode with King solomon in 1 Kings 16–28, “would rather let go of the individual…than have half of him.”127 while in that same entry, Kierkegaard acknowledges that it is impossible to spiritually halve a person, cyprian prefers to think of the church as the ark of Noah, outside of which one is drowned in the flood.128 to follow up on the analogy, supposing we can grasp the individual’s arm, the rest might come eventually. 122 anti-climacus is a higher pseudonym than climacus (SKS 22, 169, nB12:53 / JP 6, 6462), and Kierkegaard later insists that, were Practice in Christianity to have been published later, he would have been listed as the author (SV1 Xiv, 80 / M, 69). 123 see SV1 Xii, 192–3 / PC, 209. see also Bruce h. Kirmmse, “the thunderstorm: Kierkegaard’s ecclesiology,” Faith and Philosophy, no. 17, 2000, pp. 87–102; p. 93, to which i owe much in this section. an alternate perspective to Kirmmse’s can be found in Michael Plekton’s “Kierkegaard at the end: his ‘last’ sermon, eschatology and the attack on the church,” Faith and Philosophy, no. 17, 2000, pp. 68–86. 124 The Lapsed, 7, p. 18. 125 see SV1 Xii, 417 / JFY, 141, where Kierkegaard writes of christianity, “if it did exist in its truth, persecution would instantly follow upon this treason against what it is to be human.” compare this to cyprian, The Lapsed, 1, p. 13, where cyprian writes, at the close of the Decian persecution: “Joy fills our hearts once more and, with the storm-clouds of persecution swept away, the sunshine of calm and tranquility has returned.” 126 Pap. X–5 a 102 / JP 3, 2729. 127 SKS 23, 259–60, nB18:11 / JP 1, 596. 128 The Unity of the Catholic Church, 6, p. 49.

92

Jack Mulder, Jr.

cyprian exhorted his church to martyrdom and became a martyr himself. in his work, he recognizes the spiritual encouragement that comes from martyrdom and would no doubt approve of his master tertullian’s famous claim to the effect that the blood of the martyrs is seed of the church.129 while Kierkegaard, through h.h., notes that martyrs can serve as awakening examples,130 his conception of the individual militates against his approval of the tertullianic dictum on this point. of it, Kierkegaard writes: if this means that for every blood-witness more and more are added—who will not lay down their lives—then the statement is actually false from a christian point of view. the martyrs are the true church; the others become the envelope. But then the church does not grow, but the envelope.131

there is much that Kierkegaard and cyprian share in common, not least their concern for the rigor of the christian life. however, cyprian is a pastor and a bishop. he believes he has authority in virtue of his office, and he is not afraid to use it for the benefit of those Christians who are under his rule. Kierkegaard notoriously claims for himself no such authority, and has deep worries, related to his conception of the individual, about how much the church can constitute itself as a society, even if it should be persecuted, and especially if it should be declared as the only vessel of salvation. thus, the tension between Kierkegaard and cyprian is related to the tension in Kierkegaard’s works between his insistence upon individual christian commitment and the loss of that commitment in a society where all are christians.

tertullian, Apology, 50, pp. 226–7. see also The Lapsed, 2, p. 14 for a list of the benefits to the Church by way of the confessors. 130 SKS 11, 76–7 / WA, 72–3. notice also that h.h. rules out martyrdom when the assailants are themselves christians (SKS 11, 90 / WA, 86), a difficulty that Kierkegaard often notices in the Journals. 131 Pap. Xi–2 a 47 / JP 1, 559. 129

Bibliography I. Cyprian’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Th.C. Cypriani opera genuina. Ad optimorum librorum fidem expressa brevique adnotatione instructa curante D.I.H. Goldhorn, Parts 1–2, ed. by david Johann heinrich goldhorn, leipzig: Bernh. tauchnitz jun. 1838–9 (vols. 2–3, in Bibliotheca patrum ecclesiasticorum latinorum selecta. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edita curante E.G. Gersdorf, vols. 1–13, ed. by e.g. gersdorf, leipzig: Bernh. tauchnitz jun. 1838–47) (ASKB 139–140). II.Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Cyprian Böhringer, Friedrich, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheiling 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 1, abtheilung 1, pp. 375–435 (ASKB 173–177). clausen, henrik nicolai, Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 212 (ASKB 468). engelhardt, Johann georg veit, Literarischer Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen über die Patristik, erlangen: bei ioh. iac. Palm und ernst enke 1823, pp. 83–5 (ASKB 477). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, pp. 87–8; pp. 107–8; pp. 111–12; p. 125; p. 184; p. 320; p. 475 (ASKB 158–159). hahn, august (ed.), Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 361; p. 368; p. 458 (ASKB 535). hansen, M. Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, p. 32 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, pp. 78ff. (ASKB 160–166). lind, Peter engel, De coelibatu Christianorum per tria priora secula, havniæ [copenhagen]: Bianco luno 1839, p. 34; p. 54; p. 61 (ASKB 181). Meiners, christoph, Historische Vergleichung der Sitten und Verfassungen, der Gesetze und Gewerbe, des Handels und der Religion, der Wissenschaften und Lehranstalten des Mittelalters, vols. 1–3, hannover: im verlage der helwingischen hofbuchhandlung 1793–4, vol. 2, p. 215 (ASKB 672–674). Müller, carl ludvig, De resurrectione Jesu Christi, vita eam excipiente et ascensu in coelum, hauniæ [copenhagen]: J.d. qvist 1836 (ASKB 688).

94

Jack Mulder, Jr.

[Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirke-historie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Frederik Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 62; p. 67 (ASKB 168). nielsen, Frederik, De vi et effectibus, baptismo ab ecclesiæ patribus tributis, commentationis particula prior, sententias patrum: ante a. CCLVII viventium, continens, havniæ [copenhagen]: J.d. quist 1836, pp. 109–47 (ASKB 696). nielsen, rasmus, De speculativa historiæ sacræ tractandæ methodo commentatio, havniæ [copenhagen]: tengnagel 1840, p. 22; p. 51n (ASKB 697). —— Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 6 (ASKB 698). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Christelig Biographie, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, pp. 209–84 (ASKB 1958) [only one volume was published]. wette, wilhelm Martin leberecht de, Christliche Sittenlehre, vols. 1–3, Berlin: bei g. reimer 1819–23, vol. 2.1, pp. 251–2 (ASKB u 110; see also ASKB 871 and ASKB a i 30–33). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Cyprian none.

gregory of nyssa: locating the cappadocian Fathers in Kierkegaard’s church-historical narrative Joseph Ballan

Fourth-century cappadocia, a region located to the northeast of modern turkey, produced some of the most prolific and influential theologians of late antique Christianity. The three collectively known as the cappadocian Fathers are Basil of caesarea, gregory of nazianzus and gregory of nyssa. Basil (ca. 330–79) and gregory of nyssa (ca. 335–94) were brothers, born into a propertied family whose christian roots predated the conversion of constantine to christianity. Basil studied philosophy and rhetoric in constantinople and athens, where he befriended gregory of nazianzus. he then embarked upon a yearlong monastic journey through syria and egypt, eventually committing himself to the ascetic life at annesis in Pontus, a roman province just north of cappadocia. he tried to convince his younger brother to join him there, but to no avail: gregory had married and become a teacher of rhetoric, apparently expressing no desire to forsake his way of life. while gregory did not have the extensive formal education of his brother, Basil conveyed something of his knowledge to him, which gregory supplemented with personal study of individual works. ironically, gregory came to view the pagan philosophers (above all, Plato) with a great deal less suspicion than did Basil. though his relationship to Plato, for instance, is by no means straightforward, gregory’s On the Soul and Resurrection is patterned on the Phaedo and his On Virginity and Commentary on the Song of Songs owe much to the Symposium.1 gregory made his initial entrance into the world of the church and of theology through no desire of his own. the arian emperor valens had split the province of cappadocia into two regions whose capitals were to be caesarea and tyana. Prior to this division, Basil was well-established as bishop of caesarea, working tirelessly to promote the cause of nicene orthodoxy to the disdain of valens and other arian detractors. in an attempt to combat the arian threat and to extend his control over the area, Basil created two new dioceses, installing his brother as bishop of nyssa and his friend gregory as bishop of sasima. gregory of nyssa did not possess the administrative or political talents of his brother and did not come into his own as a theologian and writer until after Basil’s death. Many of the writings of the last approximately fifteen years of his life are occasional in nature (letters, homilies, doctrinal treatises, etc.) and therefore cannot be said to compose a totally coherent 1

anthony Meredith, Gregory of Nyssa, new York: routledge 1999, pp. 1–10; p. 129.

96

Joseph Ballan

theological system. in many respects, they extend in new and innovative ways the work of his brother. gregory defends, for example, the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of god against eunomius and the deity of the holy spirit against the followers of Macedonius. He also appears to have played a significant role in the defense of nicene orthodoxy at the second ecumenical council at constantinople (381). in the history of spirituality, he is most well known for his On the Life of Moses, where he develops an apophatic theology based on an allegorical interpretation of the scriptural account of the hebrew patriarch. here he draws out the implications for spirituality of the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of god, which he defended in Contra Eunomius. in the words of andrew louth, “the doctrine of god’s unknowability means that the soul’s ascent to god is an ascent into the divine darkness.”2 The Life of Moses is generally considered to be a later work of gregory’s, along with his other influential work of allegory, the Commentary on the Song of Songs. I. Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocian Fathers in Kierkegaard’s Journals Perhaps as a result of the paucity of patristic study in the standard danish theological curriculum during Kierkegaard’s student years,3 the few references in his writings to gregory of nyssa and the other cappadocian Fathers appear relatively late in his life. the only explicit reference to gregory may be found in an entry in the journal nB16, composed between February 14 and March 6 of 1850. the latter portion of this set of papers contains many references to church history, the source for which is often august neander’s (1789–1850) relatively minor work, Denkwürdigkeiten aus der Geschichte des Christenthums und des christlichen Lebens. neander, born david Mendel, converted from Judaism to christianity later in life. along with theologian Friedrich august tholuck (1799–1877), he advocated what came to be known as Vermittlungstheorie, an approach to theology which attempted to reconcile the claims of nineteenth-century german biblical scholarship with traditional calvinist doctrine. Most of neander’s published work, however, deals with church history. Kierkegaard would later use neander’s work on John chrysostom for his interpretation of this contemporary of gregory of nyssa4 but it would be the Denkwürdigkeiten that would serve as Kierkegaard’s primary source for his first sustained investigation of the theologians and church leaders of late antiquity. in a section devoted, not to gregory of nyssa, but to the development of the growing “slavery” of christians to “outward, earthly things,” neander cites gregory’s response to a friend’s question regarding the spiritual value of pilgrimages to the holy land.5 in this response, gregory holds that “change of place does not effect any andrew louth, “the cappadocians,” in The Study of Spirituality, ed. by cheslyn Jones, geoffrey wainwright and edward Yarnold, new York: oxford university Press 1986, p. 167. 3 Marie Mikulová thulstrup, “the role of asceticism,” in The Sources and Depths of Faith in Kierkegaard, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1978 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 2), p. 154. 4 august neander, Denkwürdigkeiten aus der Geschichte des Christenthums und des christlichen Lebens, vols. 1–3, Berlin: Ferdinand dümmler 1823–4 (ASKB 179–180). 5 ibid., p. 254. 2

Gregory of Nyssa: Locating the Cappadocian Fathers

97

drawing nearer unto god,”6 that the grace of god is not present in greater abundance in Jerusalem than in cappadocia (in fact, gregory’s letter can be read as part of a larger effort to establish Cappadocia’s significance as a center of Christianity).7 Kierkegaard quotes from this letter and adds to it his approval, with the remark that it is “only by changing oneself” that one draws closer to god. it was during the period of this journal entry that he began his self-directed study of the church Fathers of late antiquity. earlier in nB16,8 Kierkegaard cites Basil of caesarea’s criticism of the allegorical interpretation of scripture as reported in h.n. clausen’s Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik.9 Several entries later, one finds Kierkegaard’s attack on contemporary allegorical interpretations which, though perhaps less fanciful than those which appeared in the early centuries of the christian era, still commit the same fundamental error. “At first the apostle’s ‘letters in haste’ were imaginatively changed into god knows what. now they are evaporated into teachings, doctrine.”10 Perhaps the discovery of a shared perspective on this hermeneutical issue led Kierkegaard to look more closely at Basil and his contemporaries. additionally, several criticisms of Martin luther immediately precede the entry discussing gregory of nyssa,11 suggesting that Kierkegaard’s study of the theologians of late antiquity was motivated in part by a dissatisfaction with reformation christianity and the accompanying desire for a theology that remained true to the experience of the early church. as will be seen, however, he did not idealize the church leaders of this time period any more than he idealized luther. For instance, he criticizes ambrose of Milan, a fourth-century bishop like gregory, for sowing the seeds for the alliance of church and state.12 his enthusiasm for some of the statements of Gregory and Basil is tempered by the recognition of the significance of constantine’s conversion to christianity (312) and of the deleterious outcomes of this event for church life and theology. one obvious effect of the constantinian shift was that christians no longer encountered the persecutions experienced by the church in preceding centuries. Kierkegaard accused the theologians of constantine’s time (e.g., gregory, Basil, ambrose) of complicity in this shift. he thought that they had replaced earlier admonitions to willingly accept persecution and martyrdom with a call to the ascetic life. Basil comes under attack several times as an instrumental figure in this development.13 Kierkegaard was developing an interpretation of church history which he would deploy see “on Pilgrimages,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd series, vols. 1–14, ed. by Philip schaff and henry wace, oxford: Parker & co. and new York: christian literature co. 1890–1900, (vol. 5 (1892)) p. 383. 7 raymond van dam, Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia, Philadelphia: university of Pennsylvania Press 2003, p. 75. 8 SKS 23, 149–50, nB16:82. 9 h.n. clausen, Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 156 (ASKB 468). 10 SKS 23, 148, nB16:78 / JP 4, 4781. 11 SKS 23, 173–4, nB17:15 / JP 3, 2513; Pap. X–2 a 559 / JP 3, 2514. 12 SKS 23, 156. nB16:94 / JP 3, 2609. 13 Pap. Xi–2 a 68 / JP 3, 2667. Pap. Xi–2 a 120. Pap. Xi–2 a 428. 6

98

Joseph Ballan

at several points in his journals and then later in Judge for Yourself! according to Kierkegaard, the christians of the new testament hold that “martyrdom has worth in and for itself.” the history of christianity in succeeding centuries becomes little more than the mitigation of the call to martyrdom: “we [later christians] do not want our christianity to be too rigorous and exacting, so we make more and more concessions.”14 these criticisms (and others like them) come at least one year after Kierkegaard’s initial investigation of the church fathers through the work of neander. his new source, from which he quotes more than he had from neander, is the work of Friedrich Böhringer (1812–79), a less prominent church historian, in particular his Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen. Böhringer includes long chapters on both Basil and gregory of nyssa. From the chapter on Basil, Kierkegaard seems to have been struck by one statement in particular: “we are pressured by tribulations, yet nowhere is martyrdom to be found, because our enemies bear the same name as us [viz., the name of christ].”15 Böhringer cites this in his account of Basil’s struggle to uphold nicene orthodoxy in the face of pressure from valens and other arian factions. Kierkegaard quotes this report twice, once in 185116 and again in 1854,17 though in the second instance he cannot remember whether Böhringer attributes these words to Basil, gregory of nazianzus or gregory of nyssa. this suggests that he had also read the chapter on gregory. a second effect of constantine’s conversion which Kierkegaard detects is an evolution in the administration of the sacrament of baptism. he attempts to demonstrate, using this concrete example, the decline of christianity throughout its history. while the christians of the apostolic age “postponed baptism as long as possible; contemporary christianity introduces it as early as possible.”18 he connects this with what he deems a parallel “inversion,” namely that christmas has usurped the place of easter (the greatest festival for the early church) in the practice of contemporary christians.19 it is significant that Kierkegaard associates Basil with the shift toward infant baptism: “as early as Basil, for example, early baptism is encouraged, the sooner the better.”20 while he does not attribute to Basil any direct role in this change, the references he makes to the bishop of caesarea in 1851 and again in 1854 indicate that Kierkegaard clearly locates two unmistakable signs of christianity’s decline in the fourth century, signs particularly apparent in fourth-century cappadocia.

Pap. Xi–1 a 462 / JP 3, 2665. Friedrich Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 1, abtheilung 2, p. 190 (ASKB 173–177). 16 SKS 24, 276, nB23:143 / JP 1, 399. 17 Pap. Xi–2 a 68 / JP 3, 2667. 18 Pap. X–5 a 144 / JP 1, 543. 19 Pap. X–5 a 145 / JP 1, 544. 20 Pap. X–5 a 144 / JP 1, 543. 14 15

Gregory of Nyssa: Locating the Cappadocian Fathers

99

II. The Place of Gregory of Nyssa in Kierkegaard’s Reading of Church History though it does not mention gregory of nyssa or Basil of caesarea directly, the work in which Kierkegaard’s 1851 evaluation of these and other ecclesiastical figures comes to the surface most clearly is the unpublished text of that same year, Judge for Yourself! here Kierkegaard offers two accounts of the devolution of christianity from the apostolic period to modern times. In the first reading, he suggests that the sufferings of the apostles and other early christians accumulated a kind of capital on which later christians would live. willingness to undergo persecution was no longer necessary for contemporary christians because such a cost had already been exacted on their spiritual forebears. Significantly, Kierkegaard repeatedly avers that this accumulation of “capital” took place during the first three hundred years of christianity’s existence: the church “was served in that way for some three hundred years; in that way christianity became the power in the world.”21 in other words, Kierkegaard places the mitigation of the call to self-denial and readiness to suffer at some point during or around the fourth century, the century during which constantine made a profession of faith and during which gregory and Basil held bishoprics in cappadocia. his second historical account22 focuses more on the misinterpretation of luther by his avowed followers, passing over the centuries between the time of christ and the “Middle ages.” Kierkegaard probably did not have the cappadocian Fathers in mind when writing about this latter period, which he praised for its existential orientation but criticized for its emphasis on externality. as seen above, however, Kierkegaard traced the emergence of this emphasis in its monastic expression to the work of Basil and gregory, among others. regrettably, Kierkegaard did not own, nor does he appear to have used, the primary texts of gregory or Basil. the secondary sources which he did use, though somewhat useful for the understanding of ecclesiastical history, tend to focus (often uncritically) on the role of gregory and Basil in the upholding of orthodox doctrine in opposition to heretical groups, neglecting their contributions to philosophy and spirituality. while Kierkegaard takes Basil to task for his role in the development of the monastic movement, nowhere does he engage the actual content of Basil’s monastic teachings. similarly, neither neander nor Böhringer include a treatment of gregory’s provocative and original works of spirituality. Böhringer, for example, in a gross misinterpretation, reduces gregory’s entire “spiritual standpoint” to the word “dualism,” by which he means the freedom of the soul from the materiality of the body.23 had he the opportunity to read The Life of Moses, for example, or at least a summary thereof, Kierkegaard would likely have disputed gregory’s use of allegory, but may have found much to admire in the latter’s consistent emphasis on the absolute transcendence of god, as well as in his sophisticated account of human becoming and growth.24 taking his cue from Plotinus, gregory describes the ascent to god as an SV1 Xii, 407 / JFY, 129. SV1 Xii, 459–62 / JFY, 191–5. 23 Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi, vol. 2, p. 285. 24 the outlines of this theory are also present in gregory’s commentary on the song of songs and in his sermons on the Beatitudes. 21 22

100

Joseph Ballan

ascent propelled by infinite desire and thus never satiated. The positive correlate of the doctrine of human finiteness is a spirituality that demands a “perpetual surpassing of the self...since the object is infinite, the journey toward it is also infinite.”25 as noted above, gregory’s account represents an attempt to work out the implications of his defense of the incomprehensibility of god against eunomius and others, a defense of which Böhringer gives a report.26 Kierkegaard defends a similar approach to spirituality in, among other places, Judge for Yourself!, where he describes the attitude of those who have made a great deal of progress in the spiritual life: Before god, at the moment when humanly speaking i have come the furthest, i have not come one inch, not one millionth of an inch, closer to god than the person who strove with all his might for the opposite. how exhausting, how debilitating it is to be involved with the infinite, the unconditioned!27

Kierkegaard was occupied with very similar issues when he first consulted Neander’s work on church history. For instance, in the journal entry immediately preceding his 1850 quotation from gregory of nyssa, Kierkegaard offers an almost monastic statement: “every striving which does not apply one-fourth, one-third, two-thirds, etc. of its power to systematically working against itself is essentially secular striving.28 he then quotes gregory as urging that one must begin with oneself in order to make progress in the spiritual life. at this stage in his writing, Kierkegaard shares with gregory the idea that virtue in the christian life takes the form of a kind of restlessness, a dissatisfaction with oneself in one’s present state and a concomitant passion for progress. according to gregory, “the true vision of god consists in this, in never reaching satiety of desire? let there be no limit to curtail our growth in our journey upwards to god.”29 similarly, in For Self-Examination, Kierkegaard describes faith as “a restless thing” and his authorial work as having as its aim the development of “restlessness oriented toward inward deepening” in his readers.30 it appears that, though Kierkegaard was occupied with what we might call gregorian themes during the years 1850 and 1851, his suspicion that gregory and Basil played a role in the falling away of christianity from its original ideal (and his lack of access to primary sources) prevented him from situating his own work as an author in relation to theirs and from engaging their work in a more fruitful way.

25 hans urs von Balthasar, Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa, trans. by Mark sebanc, san Francisco: ignatius Press 1996 [1988], p. 45. see pp. 37–46; pp. 97–108 for a masterful treatment of these themes in gregory’s work. 26 Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi, vol. 2, pp. 347–50. 27 SV1 Xii, 426–7 / JFY, 152. 28 SKS 23, 153–4, nB16:88 / JP 6, 6593. 29 the translation (from The Life of Moses) is anthony Meredith’s in Gregory of Nyssa, pp. 107–8. 30 SV1 Xii, 309–12 / FSE, 18–21.

Bibliography I. Gregory of Nyssa’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library none. II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Gregory of Nyssa adler, adolph Peter, Populaire Foredrag over Hegels objective Logik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1842, p. 51 (ASKB 383). [arnold, gottfried], Gottfried Arnolds Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, Vom Anfang des Neuen Testaments Biß auf das Jahr Christi 1688, Parts 1–4 in vols. 1–2, Frankfurt am Main: thomas Fritsch 1699–1700 (ASKB 154–155). Baur, Ferdinand christian, Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1838, p. 70; pp. 73–4; p. 81; p. 85; p. 113; p. 277 (ASKB 423). Böhringer, Friedrich, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 1, abtheilung 2, pp. 275–356; vol. 1, abtheilung 4, pp. 1–160 (ASKB 173–177). clausen, henrik nicolai, Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 156 (ASKB 468). engelhardt, Johann georg veit, Literarischer Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen über die Patristik, erlangen: bei ioh. iac. Palm und ernst enke 1823, pp. 48–53 (ASKB 477). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 231; pp. 280–81; p. 286; p. 344; p. 475 (ASKB 158–159). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 120 (ASKB 160–166). helfferich, adolph, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung und in ihren Denkmalen, vols. 1–2, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, p. 190 (ASKB 571–572). Müller, carl ludvig, De resurrectione Jesu Christi, vita eam excipiente et ascensu in coelum, hauniæ [copenhagen]: J.d. qvist 1836 (ASKB 688). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 91; p. 105; p. 107 (ASKB 168).

102

Joseph Ballan

neander, august, Denkwürdigkeiten aus der Geschichte des Christenthums und des christlichen Lebens, vols. 1–3, Berlin: Ferdinand dümmler 1823–4 (ASKB 179–180). nielsen, rasmus, De speculativa historiæ sacræ tractandæ methodo commentatio, havniæ [copenhagen]: tengnagel 1840, p. 22 (ASKB 697). —— Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 14 (ASKB 698). rudelbach, andreas g., Om det borgerlige Ægteskab. Bidrag til en alsidig, upartisk Bedømmelse af denne Institution, nærmest fra Kirkens Standpunkt, copenhagen: otto schwartz 1851, p. 18n (ASKB 752). —— Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.g. iversen 1854, p. 2; p. 48; p. 58 [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Gregory of Nyssa law, david r. Kierkegaard as Negative Theologian, new York: oxford university Press 1993. pp. 29–30. thulstrup, Marie Mikulová, “studies of Pietists, Mystics, and church Fathers,” in Kierkegaard’s View of Christianity, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1978 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 1), pp. 70–80. —— “the role of asceticism,” in The Sources and Depths of Faith in Kierkegaard, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1978 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 2), pp. 154–61.

irenaeus: on law, gospel and the grace of death Paul Martens

one pervasive theme in søren Kierkegaard’s thought is the gripping conviction that nineteenth-century danish christendom was but a mere shadow of “true christianity.” to explicate this conviction, his primary rhetorical technique was to juxtapose the earnestness of new testament christianity against his contemporaries’ “playing at christianity,” against the “christianity of the majority.”1 Yet, there are a few moments when Kierkegaard also appeals to the early church to highlight the sharp decline that occurred over the centuries. although Kierkegaard rarely read the theologians of the early church, their occasional addition to the conversation helps us to discern—although by no means exhaustively or uniformly—how Kierkegaard perceived his own task in relation to the long and winding history of christianity. One of the earliest post-New Testament figures that Kierkegaard refers to is irenaeus of lyons. his appearances are exceedingly few, yet the subjects that he is implicated in, namely law, gospel, and death, are exceptionally important to Kierkegaard and the history of christianity. I. A Brief Introduction to Irenaeus of Lyons irenaeus was certainly not important in his lineage or in his birth, for it is nearly impossible to discern the year of his birth. in all likelihood, he was born in smyrna (now, izmir, turkey) somewhere between 126 and 136. not much is known of his early years except for the autobiographical comments, made in Against Heresies and also quoted in eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, that he remembers the discussions of Polycarp, an early christian bishop and martyr in smyrna who knew many of those who had known the historical Jesus, including the apostles. Polycarp, therefore, stood—literally—as the mediating and guiding link between irenaeus and christ’s apostles. later in life, irenaeus traveled to gaul as a missionary and settled in lyons, eventually becoming the city’s bishop in 177–8. like his birth, the date of his death is not known (ca. 202), and it is probable that his life did not end in martyrdom. i would like to thank my colleague damon Mcgraw for encouraging me to continue thinking about the relationship between Kierkegaard and the early church, and for his thoughtful contributions to my understanding of Kierkegaard’s relation to irenaeus. 1 see, for example, Pap. Xi–2 a 102 / JP 1, 561 and Pap. Xi–1 a 124 / JP 1, 549.

104

Paul Martens

as is commonly known, gnosticism was growing rapidly alongside the spread of christianity in the second century. and, much of irenaeus’ time and energy was devoted to this heated relationship. his most famous text, and the only complete surviving text known in the nineteenth century (although it did not survive in the original greek), is essentially a carefully articulated reiteration and refutation of valentinian gnosticism, aptly named On the Detection and Overthrow of the False Knowledge and commonly known as Against Heresies.2 But, it is more than this; it is also the first relatively complete and systematic treatise on theology in the history of christianity, thereby establishing Irenaeus’ place as the first great theologian of the Catholic Church’s emerging orthodox consensus. in 1904, an armenian edition of a second complete manuscript was discovered—Proof of the Apostolic Preaching—and its catechetical concern, too, is to demonstrate the accuracy and continuity of the church’s theological teachings. in brief, irenaeus challenged the gnostic accounts of the cosmos by offering a countering comprehensive rendition of christian belief in a universal providential economy. this was a watershed in the history of christian thought because it provided a coherent rationale for the unity of the old and new testaments as one christian text: the god of the old testament is also the god of the new testament, and this one god is the maker of both heaven and earth. against the gnostic emphasis on dissonance, irenaeus understood the signs of development in god’s revelation to israel as indicative of a progressive pedagogical plan designed to lead humanity harmoniously to full maturity. this plan is recapitulated (anakephalaiosis) in Jesus christ, who is the incarnation of god’s word and whose resurrection is the perfection of the spirit’s work. christ recapitulates god’s loving intentions in creating the world, revealing its destiny by providing its “first fruits”; Christ recapitulates the entire cosmos, liberating humanity from sin and death and restoring its divine vocation. of course, one mode of engaging the gnostics which irenaeus frequently employed was to contest their scriptural exegesis. But, the appeal to apostolic authority as a means to validate his exegesis was also necessary. Significantly developing Ignatius of Antioch’s notions of a monarchical episcopate, he amplified the bishop’s identity as standing in a direct line of didactic succession from the apostles, embodying the convictions of the apostles in his person and teaching the continuing tradition of the original apostolic faith. and, irenaeus conveniently contrasts this orderliness with the gnostics, who contradicted the received tradition and frequently disagreed with one another. irenaeus provides a most succinct summary of the unity of his concerns in Against Heresies: this is true gnosis: the teaching of the apostles, and the ancient institution of the church, spread throughout the entire world, and the distinctive mark of the body of christ in accordance with the succession of bishops, to whom the apostles entrusted each local For a complete, although somewhat archaic, english translation, see The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenæus, pp. 309–567 (vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vols. 1–10, ed. by alexander roberts and James donaldson, revised by charles thomas cruttwell (american reprint of Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vols. 1–24, ed. by alexander roberts and James donaldson, edinburgh: t. & t. clark 1868–73), grand rapids, Michigan: eerdmans 1965–70). 2

Irenaeus: On Law, Gospel and the Grace of Death

105

church, and the unfeigned preservation, coming down to us, of the scriptures, with a complete collection allowing for neither addition nor subtraction.3

II. Kierkegaard’s Appropriation of Irenaeus in the critique of his contemporary age, Kierkegaard virtually passes over the themes of gnosticism and apostolic succession in silence.4 the “apostle” is a crucial category for Kierkegaard already in 1847,5 but the notion of authority passing directly from an apostle to another person in terms of right teaching would strike Kierkegaard as something “which has subsequently become secularized and identified with the other distinctions of the world.”6 the unity of the scriptural narrative, to which we will return shortly, is something that frequently exercised Kierkegaard, and it is one locus where he also engaged irenaeus. to say that Kierkegaard really engaged irenaeus, however, may be a bit of a stretch. according to the list of books sold after his death (The Auction Catalogue), Kierkegaard did not own any texts written by irenaeus. Further, irenaeus does not appear in any of Kierkegaard’s published texts, and he appears only six times in Kierkegaard’s journals and papers. in the only substantial paper written on the theological relationship between irenaeus and Kierkegaard, niels Jørgen cappelørn claims that Kierkegaard probably did not read irenaeus, but understood irenaeus’ theology as it is mediated in Johannes adam Möhler’s Athanasius der Große und die Kirche seiner Zeit.7 of the six appearances in his journals and papers, four are found in lecture or book notes that provide a very narrow window into Kierkegaard’s knowledge of irenaeus. and, the other two references are directly tied to Friedrich Böhringer’s Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien.8 in what appears to be the earliest mention of irenaeus (1831–4), Kierkegaard includes him in notes taken on J.c. lindberg’s Historiske Oplysninger om den 3 irenaeus, Against Heresies, iv.33.8. the translation cited here is from robert M. grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, london: routledge 1997, p. 161. 4 Kierkegaard’s relation to gnosticism, however, deserves considerably more attention if one places gnosticism within the larger umbrella of abstraction (always an ugly term for Kierkegaard), which categorically differentiates it from christianity. his conclusion is that gnosticism is abstraction to a high degree, for which reason Gnostics “could not really arrive at a time-and-space-filling creation but actually had to assume creation as identical with the fall.” SKS 17, 257, dd:122 / JP 2, 1309. 5 see “the difference between a genius and the apostle.” SKS 11, 51–11 / WA, 91–108. 6 SKS 23 284, nB18:50 / JP 1, 106. 7 cappelørn’s “gudbilledlighed og syndefald” considers the various accounts of the image of god and human sinfulness provided by grundtvig and Kierkegaard against the foil of irenaeus’ theological anthropology. as such, it is not so much a genealogical account of the relationship between irenaeus and Kierkegaard, but a conceptual comparison. see niels Jørgen cappelørn, “gudbilledlighed og syndefald: aspekter af grundtvigs of Kierkegaards menneskesyn på baggrund af irenæus,” Grundtvig-Studier, 2004, pp. 134–78, see p. 135. 8 Friedrich Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8].

106

Paul Martens

danske Kirkes symbolske Bøger, specifically locating Irenaeus in the discussion of apostolic “symbolism.”9 the second appearance occurs under the “christian anthropology” section of the lecture notes of henrik nikolai clausen’s “dogmatic lectures” (1834–5), where he is designated as one who believes in a material soul (along with Justin, tertullian, and lactantius).10 The final two appearances emerge in Kierkegaard’s notes on Martensen’s “speculative dogmatics” lectures (1838–9), both concerned with leadership of the church after christ’s death.11 Surprisingly, the final two comments made in Kierkegaard’s papers—over a decade later in 1851—have no obvious relation to these early notes. rather, they place irenaeus in the context of Kierkegaard’s later interests, and in so doing, we return to one of irenaeus’ central concerns, the unity of the scriptural narrative. or, through the Kierkegaardian lens, to the unity of the scriptures in terms of law and gospel. although the lutheran Kierkegaard is prone to sharply contrast law and gospel, his commentary on irenaeus (mediated through Böhringer) is somewhat moderated. noting that the relationship between the two is reciprocal, he notes three ways in which law and gospel are alike: with respect to (1) authorship—they originate in god, (2) aim—the upbringing of humans, and (3) their essential content—to obey god. he then outlines six ways they are different: with respect to (1) range of content—ceremonial versus abrogation and extension, (2) proclaimer—prophets versus christ, (3) who should have upbringing—slaves versus free, (4) methods of upbringing—external versus internal, (5) ethical requirement—greater obedience required by the gospel, and (6) inclusiveness—a single people versus everyone.12 in reading this list, it is striking that there are twice as many differences as similarities. But, this is a quantitative observation that may not be qualitatively accurate. And yet, all of the similarities are subsequently modified by the differences. in irenaeus, these differences denote a progression towards a further revelation, and the earlier always prefigure the latter. For Kierkegaard, however, it is unclear how these are organically related. Yes, Kierkegaard occasionally uses the comparative imagery of children and adults, yet a notion of infinite difference frequently interposes itself (i.e., the gospel requirement is infinite).13 and, as law and gospel are one means

Pap. i c 2, p. 18. see Jacob christian lindberg, Historiske Oplysninger om den danske Kirkes symbolske Bøger, copenhagen: schubothe 1830. By symbolism, we can probably assume a definition like that offered by J. A. Möhler: “the scientific exposition of the doctrinal differences among the various religious parties opposed to each other,” or in short, creedal statements. see Johann adam Möhler, Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as Evidenced by their Symbolical Writings, trans. by James Burton robertson, new York: crossroad Publishing 1997, p. 1. (originally as Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensätze Katholiken und Protestanten nach ihren öffentlichen Bekenntnisschriften, Mainz: Kupferberg 1832. (Modern edition by Josef rupert geiselmann, vols. 1–2, cologne: Jakob hegner 1958–61.) 10 SKS 19, 24, not1:6. 11 Pap. ii c 26–27, p. 26; p. 38. 12 SKS 24, 269–70, nB23:130 / JP 2, 1483. see Böhringer, Die Kirche und ihre Zeugen, op. cit., pp. 239–40. 13 Pap. X–5 a 64 / JP 2, 1492. 9

Irenaeus: On Law, Gospel and the Grace of Death

107

of mapping the relationship between Judaism and christianity for Kierkegaard, the relationship becomes even more problematic. For example: it cannot be made clear enough or be repeated often enough that christianity certainly is related to Judaism, but in such a way, please note, that Judaism serves christianity by helping it become negatively recognizable, is the repulsion of offense, yet they belong together for the very reason that this repulsion is an essential part, for otherwise christianity would lose its dialectical elevation.14

very quickly, one gets the sense that Kierkegaard is not exactly saying the same thing as irenaeus who, wrestling with the Marcionites, emphatically asserts that the new testament contains no contradiction or abolition of previous things, and who is willing to assert that the intention of the “saving hook of the decalogue” was to hold the israelites so that they would learn to love god with their whole heart.15 Finally, the last reference to Irenaeus introduces a specific act of grace, God’s gift of death to humanity. again drawing from Böhringer,16 Kierkegaard notes that irenaeus acknowledges that death is the punishment of sin, but it is also an expression of god’s grace and mercy.17 in short, god puts an end to sin through death, since a dead person can no longer sin. death, therefore, prevents the devil from ruling sinful humanity eternally. it is worth remembering, however, that irenaeus’ comments appear in an anti-gnostic text, and therefore he is also quick to assure his reader of the value of their fleshly bodies by pointing to the Incarnation and to a corporeal resurrection.18 late in his life, something similar to irenaeus’ comments appears in Kierkegaard’s journals and papers. already in For Self-Examination (1851), Kierkegaard claimed that Christianity introduced death as the Christian qualification, the middle term.19 But, this death is not a physical death but a willful state of “dying to” the world, a selfconscious attempt to live as if dead. this “dying to” entails a state of suffering, and physical death is, then, a release from temporal suffering. and, vaguely reminiscent of Irenaeus, Kierkegaard will say that God “is love, infinite love (but he can love you only if you are a dying one); and this nevertheless is grace, infinite grace, infinite grace, to get eternal suffering transformed into temporal suffering.”20 it is certainly possible that irenaeus contributed to Kierkegaard’s late emphasis on dying to the world as the above might indicate. But, if so, a differentiating qualification is in order. Although Irenaeus is clear that one’s fleshly body sins, to put off the “old self” (col 3:9) is not to a call to annihilate one’s physicality. rather, it is a call to living a full life, to living a life where life in the flesh is a “fruitful labor” (Phil 1:22), to make the flesh mature and receptive of imperishability.21 this is certainly not the impression provided by the late Kierkegaard, who goes as far 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Pap. Xi–1 a 151 / JP 2, 2225. irenaeus, Against Heresies, iv.15.2. Böhringer, Die Kirche und ihre Zeugen, op. cit., pp. 237–8. Irenaeus’ specific comments can be found in Against Heresies, iii.23.6. see irenaeus, Against Heresies, v.1.1; v.2.2; and v.14.1. SV1 Xii, 360 / FSE, 76. Pap. Xi–2 a 422 / JP 1, 731. see also SKS 10, 109 / CD, 97. see irenaeus, Against Heresies, v.12.3–4.

108

Paul Martens

as describing the world as a prison,22 who declares that to love god is impossible without hating what is human.23 and further, in a moment of desperation: So it says in an old hymn. Close the cover, that is, of the coffin, close it tight, really tight, so that i can really be at peace, well hidden, like a child who is so exceedingly happy when he has found a good hiding place. Close the cover, close it tight—for I am not lying in the coffin, no, what lies there is not i but what i so very much desire to be rid of, this body of sin, the whole apparatus of the prison i have had to bear.24

In the struggle to find his theological place in Christianity while also challenging his contemporary Christendom, Kierkegaard appears ready to end up sacrificing his hated temporal body and the world it inhabits for an escape from earthly suffering, an escape to eternity. Kierkegaard does not begin his theological development here, and the progression to this point in his thinking is complex and convoluted,25 and irenaeus would probably consider this trajectory ultimately problematic. Yet, it is possible to begin to see how this progression proceeds by attending to Kierkegaard’s use of irenaeus: (1) in his idiosyncratic appropriation of the distinctions between law and gospel that point towards an internalized account of heightened obedience; and (2) in his idiosyncratic appropriation of death as an expression of god’s grace.

Pap. Xi–1 a 286 / JP 4, 5027. Pap. Xi–1 a 445 / JP 6, 6902. 24 Pap. Xi–1 a 423 / JP 6, 6898. 25 see, for example the difference between Kierkegaard’s description of faith as the ability to receive the world back in Fear and Trembling, and the late claim concerning Fear and Trembling in the late purportedly christian view that one can only be truly united with another in eternity: “this is the relationship between Judaism and christianity. in the Christian view Isaac actually is sacrificed—but then eternity. In Judaism it is only an ordeal and abraham keeps isaac, but then the whole episode still remains essentially within this life.” In this mode of reading the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham goes too far and actually kills Isaac, to which god responds “yet i am making it even better than if you had not gone too far.” see Pap. X-5 a 132 / JP 2, 2223. 22 23

Bibliography I. Irenaeus’ Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library none. II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Irenaeus Baader, Franz, Ueber den Paulinischen Begriff des Versehenseyns des Menschen im Namen Jesu vor der Welt Schöpfung. Sendeschreiben an den Herrn Professor Molitor in Frankfurt, vols. 1–3, würzburg: in commission der stahel’schen Buchhandlung 1837, vol. 1, p. 9 (vols. 1–2, ASKB 409–410) (vol. 3, ASKB 413). Baur, Ferdinand christian, Die christliche Gnosis oder die christliche ReligionsPhilosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1835, p. 125; p. 176; pp. 460–61; pp. 540–41 (ASKB 421). —— “irenäus,” in his Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: osiander 1838, pp. 30–43, see also p. 64; pp. 67–8; p. 297 (ASKB 423). Böhringer, Friedrich, “irenaeus,” in his Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 1, abtheilung 1 (Die Alte Kirche), pp. 204–69 (ASKB 173–177). clausen, henrik nicolai, Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 145; p. 205 (ASKB 468). engelhardt, Johann georg veit, Literarischer Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen über die Patristik, erlangen: ioh. iac. Palm und ernst enke 1823, p. 22 (ASKB 477). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 71; p. 74; p. 122; pp. 168–9; p. 181; p. 264; p. 475 (ASKB 158–159). hansen, M. Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, pp. 30–31 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 94 (ASKB 160–166). —— Hutterus redivivus oder Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. Ein dogmatisches Repertorium für Studirende, 4th revised ed., leipzig: Breitkopf und härtel 1839, p. 13; p. 30 (ASKB 581). helfferich, adolph, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung und in ihren Denkmalen, vols. 1–2, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, p. 138 (ASKB 571–572). lentz, carl georg heinrich, Geschichte der christlichen Dogmen in pragmatischer Entwickelung, vol. 1, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1834 [vol. 2, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1835] (ASKB 621).

110

Paul Martens

Marheineke, Philipp, Die Grundlehren der christlichen Dogmatik als Wissenschaft, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1827, p. 372 (ASKB 644). —— Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens und Lebens für denkende Christen und zum Gebrauch in den oberen Klassen an den Gymnasien, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: in der nicolai’schen Buchhandlung 1836, p. 21 (ASKB 257). Martensen, hans lassen, Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849, pp. 36–7; p. 79; p. 310 (ASKB 653). Möhler, Johann adam, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit, besonders im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus, vols. 1–2, Mainz: Florian Kupferberg 1827 (ASKB 635–636). Müller, carolus ludovicus [carl ludvig], De resurrectione Jesu Christi, vita eam excipiente et ascensu in coelum, hauniæ [copenhagen]: J.d. qvist 1836 (ASKB 688). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 58; p. 61; p. 66 (ASKB 168). nielsen, Frederik, De vi et effectibus, baptismo ab ecclesiæ patribus tributis, commentationis particula prior, sententias patrum: ante a. CCLVII viventium, continens, havniæ [copenhagen]: J.d. quist 1836, pp. 42–7 (ASKB 696). nielsen, rasmus, De speculativa historiæ sacræ tractandæ methodo commentatio, havniæ [copenhagen]: tengnagel 1840, p. 22 (ASKB 697). Petersen, Frederik christian, Haandbog i den græske Litteraturhistorie, copenhagen: Fr. Brummers Forlag 1830, p. 383 (ASKB 1037). rördam, hans christian, De fide patrum ecclesiæ christianæ antiquissimæ in iis, quæ de origine evangeliorum canonicorum, maxime Matthæi, tradiderunt, hauniæ [copenhagen]: tengnagel 1839 (ASKB 182). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Om det borgerlige Ægteskab. Bidrag til en alsidig, upartisk Bedømmelse af denne Institution, nærmest fra Kirkens Standpunkt, copenhagen: otto schwartz 1851, p. 10n (ASKB 752). wette, wilhelm Martin leberecht de, Christliche Sittenlehre, vols. 1–3, Berlin: g. reimer 1819–23, vol. 2.1 (ASKB u 110; see also ASKB 871; a i 30–33). zeuthen, ludvig, Om den christelige Tro i dens Betydning for Verdenshistorien. Et Forsøg, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag 1838, p. 33n (ASKB 259). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Irenaeus cappelørn, niels Jørgen, “gudbilledlighed og syndefald: aspekter af grundtvigs og Kierkegaards menneskesyn på baggrund af irenæus,” Grundtvig-Studier, 2004, pp. 134–78. (in german as “gottebenbildlichkeit und sündenfall. aspekte der anthropologie grundtvigs und Kierkegaards vor dem hintergrund des irenäus,” in Theologie zwischen Pragmatismus und Existenzdenken. Festschrift für Hermann Deuser zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by gesche, linde, richard Purkarthofer, heiko schulz and Peter steinacker, Marburg: elwert 2006 (Marburger theologische Studien, vol. 90), pp. 429–68).

origen: Kierkegaard’s equivocal appropriation of origen of alexandria Paul Martens

Origen of Alexandria is one of the most influential Christian theologians in history. Yet, his appearances in Kierkegaard’s writings are infrequent and of secondary interest. the fact of the matter, however, is that origen does emerge in a variety of Kierkegaard’s writings, and examining his scant attention to origen tends to reveal a surprising amount of information about several of the issues and themes that are most important to both origen and Kierkegaard. I. A Brief Introduction to Origen origen was born in 185–6, probably in alexandria, and he died in 254–5. his life spanned a time of tremendous tension and transition in the roman empire and in the history of christianity, including destabilizing barbarian invasions across europe and the periodic persecution of christians. he was born into a devoutly christian family, and his father––who later died as a martyr––ensured that origen was educated in both biblical studies and greek philosophy. Bridging these two bodies of knowledge proved to be his life’s work, and it began already in his teens while, on the one hand, he studied for some time under amonnius saccas, and on the other, he was appointed the head of the catechetical school by demetrius, the bishop of alexandria. as he matured intellectually, origen began to explicate the possible unity between what he understood to be the highest aims of greek philosophy and the mysterious plan of god’s wisdom, the logos. For origen, this divine plan is revealed in the scriptures, which narrates literally and symbolically the rapprochement between the human quest for enlightenment and the divine gift of revelation which comes to a climax in the incarnation of the logos in Jesus christ. therefore, origen is comfortable with a wide variety of literary endeavors, from compiling a careful analytic comparison of old testament texts to composing extended scriptural commentaries that explicated the multiple layers of meaning—historical, moral, and mystical––veiled in the text to constructing philosophical treatises. his purpose, however, was not merely to illustrate resonance in a benign fashion, but to critically and systematically engage the insights of Middle Platonism and valentinian gnosticism in order to bring their respective advocates into the christian fold.

112

Paul Martens

origen’s creative articulation of christianity, as one might imagine, caused bishop demetrius some concern. in 215, origen visited caesarea and Jerusalem, but demetrius demanded his return shortly thereafter. during the next twelve to fifteen years, Origen worked tirelessly, producing many writings, including On First Principles. increasingly at odds with demetrius, origen was essentially forced out of alexandria by a synod of egyptian bishops, and, in 231, origen settled for good in caesarea, where he wrote numerous homilies, commentaries (including the Commentary on Romans), devotionals, and apologetic works (most notably contra Celsum). turbulence would follow origen to caesarea, however, and he was eventually singled out for torture during the persecution of the roman emperor decius (250–51). in the end, origen outlasted his persecutors, but he spent the last years of his life crippled and dying in the care of the church. history, too, has not been very sympathetic to origen or the subsequent school of thought that came to be known as Origenism. His influence was felt early and strongly by eusebius of caesarea (ca. 260–339), evagrius Ponticus (ca. 345–400) and gregory of nyssa (d. 386), and reverberations can be felt less explicitly in Pseudo-dionysius the Areopagite (fifth or sixth century) and Maximus the Confessor (ca. 580–662). But, when resistance to origen’s thought––begun already by his contemporary demetrius— culminated in Justinian arranging for the condemnation of his writings in 543, much of his corpus was burned or lost. needless to say, origen was not at the center of the theological conversations in denmark in the early nineteenth century.1 II. Kierkegaard’s Appropriation of Origen in the list of Kierkegaard’s books that were auctioned off after his death (recorded in the Auction Catalogue), there are no primary texts written by origen. and, the textual citations that do appear in his writings concerning origen are usually derived from the first volume of Friedrich Böhringer’s Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien.2 therefore, it is probable that what Kierkegaard read of origen was edited and selected by secondary authorities and interpreters. it is not surprising, then, that Kierkegaard appears to have paid very little explicit attention to origen. in fact, in his entire published corpus, origen is referred to only once; in his other notebooks and papers, he is mentioned ten times, and of these, six occur in various lecture notes that resist revealing his own point of view.

1 For further biographical details, one would be served well by beginning with eusebius’ The Ecclesiastical History ii (Book vi), trans. by J.e.l. oulton, cambridge, Massachusetts: harvard university Press 1972 (Loeb Classical Library); the more contemporary Westminster Handbook to Origen, ed. by John anthony Mcguckin, louisville, Kentucky: westminster John Knox Press 2004, and henri couzel, Origen, trans. by a.s. worrall, edinburgh: t. & t. clark 1999. 2 Friedrich Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8] (ASKB 173–177).

Origen: Kierkegaard’s Equivocal Appropriation of Origen of Alexandria

113

A. Published Writings Before digging into the details of the origins of Kierkegaard’s acquaintance with Origen, attention should be given first to his idiosyncratic appearance in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript. well into the section entitled “Possible and actual theses by lessing,” in Part two of the Postscript, Kierkegaard enlists lessing’s “on the Proof of the spirit and of Power” to contest the transition from historical reliability to an eternal decision. the particular argument of lessing that Kierkegaard articulates states that nothing follows concerning the contemporary world from the historical reports of miracles. lessing, in famously claiming that “accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason”3 protests loudly against the “half-deceptive quotation from origen” that has been used to demonstrate the truth of christianity.4 The specific quotation of Origen, not included in Postscript, but cited directly by lessing, is likely “the proof of power is so called because of the astonishing miracles which have happened to confirm the teaching of Christ.”5 and so, in utilizing his temporary ally lessing, Kierkegaard draws origen tangentially into the argument. in short, Kierkegaard rejects origen’s assertion that miracles demonstrate the “truth of christianity.”6 But, he goes further. the epigram for “on the Proof of the spirit and of Power” is a citation from origen’s Against Celsus: “because of the prodigious miracles which may be proved to have happened by this argument among many others, that traces of them still remain among those who live according to the will of the logos.”7 in addressing this quotation, Kierkegaard quietly distances himself from lessing, too, by acknowledging lessing’s confession that he “would have been helped if he had been contemporary with the miracles and prophesies,” and then inserting a footnote referring to the argument in Philosophical Fragments on the impossibility of becoming contemporary (in an immediate sense) with a paradox, thereby erasing the distinction between the contemporary and the later follower.8 in sum, it is clear that Kierkegaard sharply disagrees with origen on this particular issue, namely, the usefulness of historical events (i.e., miracles) in demonstrating the [gotthold ephraim lessing], “Über den Beweis des geistes und der Kraft,” in Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s sämmtliche Schriften, vols. 1–32, vols. 1–28, Berlin: vossische Buchhandlung 1825–7; vols. 29–32 Berlin and stettin: nicolaische Buchhandlung 1828, vol. 5, pp. 75–85, see p. 80 (ASKB 1747–1762). (english translation: gotthold lessing, Lessing’s Theological Writings, trans. by henry chadwick, stanford: stanford university Press 1967, p. 53.) 4 SKS 7, 95 / CUP1, 96. 5 lessing, “Über den Beweis des geistes und der Kraft,” p. 78. (Theological Writings, p. 52.) 6 SKS 7, 95 / CUP1, 96. 7 lessing, “Über den Beweis des geistes und der Kraft,” p. 78. (Theological Writings, p. 51.) see also origen, Contra Celsum, trans. by henry chadwick, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1953, p. 8. 8 SKS 4, 258–71 / PF, 55–71. For a good introduction to the issues relevant to Kierkegaard’s appropriation of lessing against the use of history, see M. Jamie Ferreira, “Faith and the Kierkegaardian leap,” in The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, ed. by alastair hannay and gordon Marino, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1998, pp. 207–34. 3

114

Paul Martens

truth of christianity. But, that is not to say Kierkegaard is in general disagreement with origen. 9 rather, in a manner that is replicated in all his engagements with origen, an isolated facet of origen’s thought is drawn into an ongoing conversation or argument, sometimes turning against Origen (as in the case above), and sometimes affirming him. B. Notebooks and Papers texts containing references to origen in Kierkegaard’s notebooks and papers can be broken down into two main categories: (1) reflections directly pertaining to Origen; and (2) appearances in lecture notes. a closer analysis, however, reveals that these two categories significantly overlap in terms of content, and all ten entries can be grouped loosely around three central themes: (a) Pharaoh and predestination; (b) the imitation of Christ; and (c) the conflict between philosophy and Christianity. interestingly, the earliest mention of origen emerges in the context of a discussion of predestination.10 the issue in this context is whether predestination, if explained solely as grounded in foreknowledge, assumes that humans deserve grace. referring to origen’s Commentary on Romans,11 Kierkegaard claims that origen believes the basis of predetermination lies in our own free will, which is to say that one is destined for grace because one is worthy of it, by reason of his God-foreseen actions. At first glance, this entry is rather cryptic. But, a second entry in the middle of Kierkegaard’s notes on Friedrich august gotttreu tholuck’s (1799–1877) Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Römer, one can begin to see deeper into the issue and understand how the person of Pharaoh stands at its center.12 in this second entry, Kierkegaard notes origen’s development in the exegesis of the person of Pharaoh in romans 9:17. in this biblical passage, the following address to Pharaoh is attributed to god: “i have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” The difficulty here, at least as it pertains to predestination, is whether Pharaoh’s fate is already determined prior to his actions, or whether his fate is determined by his free will, thereby limiting god’s involvement to mere foreknowledge. origen’s “development” is to place hebrews 6:7–8 alongside this passage from romans, which reads: “ground that drinks up the rain falling on it repeatedly, and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is cultivated, receives a blessing from god. But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless and on the verge of being cursed; its end is to be burned over.” it appears that Kierkegaard is not very familiar with this last origen quotation in its context, for Kierkegaard could also appeal, at least in a limited fashion, to origen as an ally against “greek proofs based on dialectical argument,” which is precisely the reason origen appeals to miracles at this point. see origen, Contra Celsum, p. 8. 10 Pap. i a 43 / JP 3, 3546. 11 see origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, books 6–10, trans. by thomas P. scheck, washington, d.c.: catholic university Press of america 2002. 12 SKS 18, 363, KK:7. see Friedrich august gotttreu tholuck, Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Römer nebst Auszügen aus den exegetischen Schriften der Kirchenväter und Reformatoren, 3rd revised ed., Berlin: Ferdinand dümmler 1831, pp. 397–8 (ASKB 102). 9

Origen: Kierkegaard’s Equivocal Appropriation of Origen of Alexandria

115

clearly, the above passage from hebrews indicates that god’s blessing or cursing is, in some way, related to merit, the position attributed by Kierkegaard to origen as well. neither of these two journal entries, however, indicates whether Kierkegaard agrees or disagrees with origen, and one gets the impression that during these early years Kierkegaard comes across origen while still seeking to soak up as much knowledge as possible. By 1851, however, much of Kierkegaard’s mind had been made up, and the time for polemical appropriation was in full swing. the last mention of origen and Pharaoh occurs in 1851, and although the focus has shifted, the question of the relationship between merit and grace remains. in terms evoking his late authorship’s challenge to danish christendom, Kierkegaard here reiterates origen’s warning against clergy who receive earthly wages and become Pharaoh’s priests instead of god’s. this much goes well beyond the early entries. the central thought is stated succinctly: “But what commands does christ give to his own? he who does not give up everything he possesses cannot be my disciple.”13 Kierkegaard is quoting origen through Böhringer,14 but he is no longer idly wondering about predestination. rather, he is plagued by the demand to choose christ over Pharaoh, to choose giving up the world over receiving earthly wages, to following his conscience over hiding what is written in the new testament. and, in a rather cryptic way, he resolves the question of predestination as he previously outlined it by cutting off the possibility of deserving grace. he ends the entry in confession, confessing that he himself has not fulfilled what the gospel requires. Therefore, at the end of the day, it appears that an ambivalent Kierkegaard emerges. grace has disappeared from the conversation, and in choosing the anti-Pharaoh origen of this third entry, it remains unclear whether he has chosen for or against origen on predestination. in a very similar vein (and perhaps one could consider this part of the previous group), another late entry utilizes origen in service of christian subjectivity, in service of the imitation of christ.15 expressing his concern that people turn too quickly from Christ’s crucifixion to his ascension,16 Kierkegaard again cites origen from Böhringer: even (in glory) he weeps over our sins, cannot rejoice as long as we continue in our wrongdoing. How can he who sacrificed himself on the altar atone for our sins, how can he be joyful when the lamentation of our sins ascends to him! he does not want to drink the wine of gladness in the kingdom of god alone; he is waiting for us. But when, you ask, will his joy, his work be perfected? when he has made me, the last and most wretched of all sinners, perfect and whole.17

he then continues in his own voice: “this last sentence is an excellent turn, especially when regarded as a blank in which each can write his own name.” the key is turning the matter back to the single individual, me. SKS 24, 263, nB23:117 / JP 3, 3162. Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, vol. 1, abtheilung 1, p. 109. 15 SKS 24, 267–8, nB23:127 / JP 2, 1894. 16 see also SV1 Xii 341–54 / FSE, 53–70. 17 SKS 24, 267–8, nB23:127 / JP 2, 1894. Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, vol. 1, abtheilung 1, pp. 189–90. 13 14

116

Paul Martens

And, here again the issue of grace emerges beneath the affirmation of Origen. in drawing attention to me, how much of god’s action is actually dependent on me? is god’s happiness dependent on me? and, if god is waiting for me, how does it make sense to talk of god making me perfect and whole? and, in raising these questions, it becomes clear that the four texts mentioning origen addressed above serve as a microcosm of Kierkegaard’s ambivalent conclusions on this very complex theological issue.18 if the relationship between the christian demand to imitate christ and grace remains tenuously unresolved in Kierkegaard’s appropriation of origen (and in his corpus, for that matter), it is comforting to find a clear and polemical point of view which encapsulates most of the remaining texts. For Kierkegaard, almost nothing is more important than the imitation of christ, and one of the primary means in establishing and clarifying the imitation of christ is scripture. or, to restate, “the holy scriptures are the highway signs: christ is the way.”19 therefore, when the place of scripture is challenged, Kierkegaard rises to the challenge. and, at least when referring to On First Principles, origen is perceived as a challenger.20 Returning to the early Kierkegaard of the late 1830s, we find latent hints of the mature, anti-hegelian Kierkegaard, the Kierkegaard who resisted philosophical and speculative dogmatics as the foundation of christianity. he states: in origen’s [On First Principles] the question of Holy Scripture is first treated in Book 4, which clearly shows that the whole systematic development was linked essentially to a common consciousness of the faith or something of that order. since it more or less has been pushed out of the systematic structure, it could just as well be absent from the system without any loss.21

it is true that Book 4 of On First Principles addresses the inspiration and appropriate mode of interpreting scripture. But, it is obvious that his target here is schleiermacher and not origen, as the entry itself suggests.22 and, Kierkegaard’s unfamiliarity with see, for example, Pap. Xi–2 a 284 / JP 2, 1497: “But if someone does not have a true conception of the magnitude of the requirement, he cannot have a true conception of the magnitude of grace––he really takes grace in vain. is he, then, saved by grace? or must there not always remain one faithful exception, although the sentence reads “all are saved by faith”––the exception of the person who takes grace in vain. if we say that a rich man fed all his people, did he also feed the man who left the food untouched and did not eat?” 19 SKS 20, 105, nB:161 / JP 1, 208. 20 origen, On First Principles, trans. by g.w. Butterworth, gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter smith 1973. 21 SKS 17, 258, dd:125 / JP 4, 3851. 22 see schleiermacher’s The Christian Faith, which begins the First Part of the system of doctrine with the introductory claim that: “the immediate feeling of absolute dependence is presupposed and actually contained in every religious and christian self-consciousness as the only way in which, in general, our own being and the infinite Being of God can be one in self-consciousness.” Friedrich schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, edinburgh: t. & t. clark 1928, p. 131. (originally as Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsä[t]zen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt, vols. 1–2, 3rd ed., Berlin: g. reimer 1835–6 (vols. 3–4, in Friedrich Schleiermacher’s sämmtliche Werke, erste abtheilung. Zur 18

Origen: Kierkegaard’s Equivocal Appropriation of Origen of Alexandria

117

origen is obvious, too, since origen begins On First Principles as follows: “all who believe and are convinced that grace and truth came by Jesus christ and that christ is the truth…derive the knowledge which calls men to lead a good and blessed life from no other source but the very words and teaching of christ.”23 will Kierkegaard disagree with portions of On First Principles? undoubtedly. is his assertion that origen begins with “a common consciousness of the faith or something of that order” true? Probably not. of course, if by “common consciousness of the faith” Kierkegaard is referring to the unbroken succession of handing down the teaching of the church from the apostles to origen’s time which was not two hundred years later (as origen also claims), Kierkegaard’s criticism may have some traction. But, since origen’s point is that these teachings need to be articulated because they are not common, the force of Kierkegaard’s allegation in this vein would be blunted. so, where did Kierkegaard get his initial understanding of On First Principles? an exhaustive answer lies beyond the limits of this context, but the few clues provided in Kierkegaard’s lecture notes may point one in the right direction. The first four of the remaining references to origen are found in notes concerning the “dogmatic lectures” of henrik nicolai clausen (1793–1877), which occurred in 1833–4. in these entries, origen appears in several lists, and placing him in these various contexts reveals a significant amount about both how Clausen thought about theology, and how Kierkegaard was predisposed to view origen’s theological lineage. The first such list occurs almost immediately in the chapter dedicated to the relationship between scripture and reason. here, origen appears in a list of thinkers who believe that scripture is a paternal accommodation or condescension to humanity with tertullian, clement of alexandria, chrysostum, and Jerome.24 the second list, falling in the discussion of christian anthropology and outlining who believed that the soul is immaterial, is much shorter and limited to the alexandrians clement and origen.25 the third list contains the early thinkers who taught the resurrection of the dead, heightened by the inclusion of a cross and the date of their deaths: athenagoras, tertullian, Justin Martyr, origen, and clement of alexandria.26 the link between the last three is indicated to be stronger by clausen by including the details that athenagoras was not a christian, and tertullian proclaimed a “carnal resurrection.” The final list, again made up of only Clement and Origen, contains those who do not believe in a material hell.27 again, it is helpful to remember that (1) these lectures are early in Kierkegaard’s theological development, (2) these lecture notes do not contain further commentary, and (3) these particular notions ascribed to origen are neither new nor controversial. Therefore, it is difficult to make any gestures beyond what we are given. But, what we are given is the groundwork for piecing together a foundation of origen’s theological Theologie, Berlin: g. reimer 1834–64 (some of the volumes were published in Berlin: august herbig)), vol. 1, p. 167 (ASKB 258). 23 origen, On First Principles, p. 1. 24 SKS 19, 11, not1:2. 25 SKS 19, 24, not1:6. 26 SKS 19, 29, not1:6. 27 SKS 19, 31, not1:6.

118

Paul Martens

framework, and upon further review, it is a foundation deeply indebted to Platonic influences.28 and, more directly, we are also alerted to the fact that Kierkegaard is aware that origen’s problematic doctrine of the creation and fall of eternal souls that will eventually lead to a final apocatastasis (universal restoration) had been vigorously challenged by epiphanius (d. 403).29 therefore, we should probably not be surprised when we find Kierkegaard initially suspicious of Origen’s attempt to synthesize christianity and the insights of Platonism in On First Principles, even if his stated criticism is misdirected. But, if Kierkegaard is seriously suspicious of origen’s christian Platonism, why is there no gesture in origen’s direction in Philosophical Fragments? Yes, Fragments and origen are linked proximately through a footnote in Postscript, and perhaps this is the only gesture needed. But, the opportunity afforded Kierkegaard to critically engage origen is essentially passed over for reasons we can only speculate about. in a different vein, however, perhaps one might speculate that even with his limited knowledge of him, Kierkegaard recognizes a little of himself in origen. like origen, Kierkegaard was well educated in both greek philosophy and biblical studies; like origen, he utilized the insights of Platonism (usually in the form of socrates) to attempt to bring people into an appropriate understanding of christianity; like origen, he went through a phase later in his life when he devoted his time and energy to christianity with the result of turning against greek wisdom. whether Kierkegaard recognized these similarities or not, it is clear that Kierkegaard generally agrees with the young origen’s enthusiasm concerning the potential unities between pagan greek philosophy and christianity. it is just as clear, however, that he generally stands with the later origen’s emphasis on the importance of christian ethical action. or, for better or worse, it is clear that in his scant later appearances, origen has come to look very much like Kierkegaard.

For a critical appraisal of this relationship, see Mark J. edwards, Origen Against Plato, aldershot: ashgate 2002. 29 SKS 19, 255, Not9:1. This final note concerning Origen is found in the notes on Marheineke’s lectures in Berlin in 1841–2. 28

Bibliography I. Origen’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library none. II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Origen ast, Friedrich, Grundriss einer Geschichte der Philosophie, landshut: Joseph thomann 1807, p. 184 (ASKB 385). Baur, Ferdinand christian, “die weltanschauung des origenes,” in his Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: osiander 1838, pp. 43–6, see also p. 66; p. 75; p. 144; p. 554; p. 711 (ASKB 423). —— Die christliche Gnosis oder die christliche Religions-Philosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1835, p. 115; p. 191; p. 454; p. 540; p. 707 (ASKB 421). Böhringer, Friedrich, “origin,” in Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 1, abtheilung 1, pp. 104–203 (ASKB 173–177). Bruch, Johann Friedrich, Die Lehre von den göttlichen Eigenschaften, hamburg: Friedrich Perthes 1842, p. 150 (ASKB 439). Buhle, Johann gottlieb, Geschichte der neuern Philosophie seit der Epoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, vols. 1–6 (in 10 parts), vols. 1–2, göttingen: Johann georg rosenbusch’s wittwe 1800; vols. 3–6, göttingen: Johann Friedrich röwer 1802–5 (abtheilung 6 in Geschichte der Künste und Wissenschaften seit der Wiederherstellung derselben bis an das Ende des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. Von einer Gesellschaft gelehrter Männer ausgearbeitet, abtheilungen 1–11, göttingen: röwer and göttingen: rosenbusch 1796–1820), vol. 1, pp. 661ff. (ASKB 440–445). clausen, henrik nicolai, Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 113; p. 201 (ASKB 468). dionysius longinus, Dionysius Longin vom Erhabenen Griechisch und Teutsch, Nebst dessen Leben, einer Nachricht von seinen Schriften, und einer Untersuchung, was Longin durch das Erhabene verstehe, trans. and ed. by carl heinrich heineken, leipzig and hamburg: conrad König 1738, p. vii; p. lvii (ASKB 1129).

120

Paul Martens

engelhardt, Johann georg veit, Literarischer Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen über die Patristik, erlangen: bei ioh. iac. Palm und ernst enke 1823, pp. 24–7 (ASKB 477). erdmann, Johann eduard, Vorlesungen über Glauben und Wissen als Einleitung in die Dogmatik und Religionsphilosophie, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1837, p. 113 (ASKB 479). Fichte, immanuel hermann, Sätze zur Vorschule der Theologie, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’sche Buchhandlung 1826, p. 102n; p. 225n (ASKB 501). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 98; p. 125; p. 169; p. 171; p. 187; pp. 190ff.; p. 264; pp. 286ff.; p. 296; p. 475; vol. 2, p. 1025 (ASKB 158–159). hahn, august (ed.), Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 149; p. 186; p. 288; p. 361; p. 266; pp. 456–60 passim; p. 493; p. 642 (ASKB 535). [hamann, Johann georg], Hamann’s Schriften, vols. 1–8, ed. by Friedrich roth, Berlin: g. reimer 1821–43, vol. 2, p. 286; pp. 263–4 (ASKB 536–544). hansen, M. Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, pp. 33–4 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 62; pp. 95–6; p. 124; p. 156 (ASKB 160–166). —— Hutterus redivivus oder Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. Ein dogmatisches Repertorium für Studirende, 4th revised ed., leipzig: Breitkopf und härtel 1839, p. 31; p. 110; p. 336; pp. 342–3 (ASKB 581). lentz, carl georg heinrich, Geschichte der christlichen Dogmen in pragmatischer Entwickelung, vol. 1, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1834 [vol. 2, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1835] (ASKB 621). [lessing, gotthold ephraim], “Über den Beweis des geistes und der Kraft,” in Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s sämmtliche Schriften, vols. 1–32, vols. 1–28, Berlin: vossische Buchhandlung 1825–7; vols. 29–32 Berlin and stettin: nicolaische Buchhandlung 1828, vol. 5, pp. 75–85 (ASKB 1747–1762). lind, Peter engel, De coelibatu Christianorum per tria priora secula, havniæ [copenhagen]: Bianco luno 1839, p. 18; p. 34; p. 37; p. 42; pp. 50–57 passim; p. 61; p. 64 (ASKB 181). Marheineke, Philipp, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens und Lebens für denkende Christen und zum Gebrauch in den oberen Klassen an den Gymnasien, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: in der nicolai’schen Buchhandlung 1836, p. 21 (ASKB 257). Martensen, hans lassen, Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849, p. 208 (ASKB 653). [Montaigne, Michael], Michael Montaigne’s Gedanken und Meinungen über allerley Gegenstände, ins Deutsche übersetzt, vols. 1–7, Berlin: F.t. lagarde 1793–9, vol. 3, p. 546; vol. 5, p. 153 (ASKB 681–687). Müller, carl ludvig, De resurrectione Jesu Christi, vita eam excipiente et ascensu in coelum, hauniæ [copenhagen]: J.d. qvist 1836 (ASKB 688).

Origen: Kierkegaard’s Equivocal Appropriation of Origen of Alexandria

121

Müller, Julius, Die christliche Lehre von der Sünde, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., Breslau: Josef Max und Komp. 1849, vol. 1, pp. 434–59; vol. 2, pp. 100–107 (ASKB 689–690). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 60 (ASKB 168). Mynster, Jakob Peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1852–3 [vols. 4–6, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1855–7], vol. 1, p. 125; p. 251 (ASKB 358–363). nielsen, Frederik, De vi et effectibus, baptismo ab ecclesiæ patribus tributis, commentationis particula prior, sententias patrum: ante a. CCLVII viventium, continens, havniæ [copenhagen]: J.d. quist 1836, pp. 91–109 (ASKB 696). nielsen, rasmus, Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 6 (ASKB 698). Petersen, Frederik christian, Haandbog i den græske Litteraturhistorie, copenhagen: Fr. Brummers Forlag 1830, p. 375 (ASKB 1037). rördam, hans christian, De fide patrum ecclesiæ christianæ antiquissimæ in iis, quæ de origine evangeliorum canonicorum, maxime Matthæi, tradiderunt, hauniæ [copenhagen]: tengnagel 1839 (ASKB 182). tholuck, Friedrich august gotttreu, Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Römer nebst Auszügen aus den exegetischen Schriften der Kirchenväter und Reformatoren, 3rd revised ed., Berlin: Ferdinand dümmler 1831, pp. 397–8 (ASKB 102). tiedemann, dietrich, Geist der spekulativen Philosophie von Thales bis Sokrates, vols. 1– 6, Marburg: in der neuen akademischen Buchhandlung 1791–7, vol. 3, pp. 260ff. (ASKB 836–841). wette, wilhelm Martin leberecht de, Christliche Sittenlehre, vols. 1–3, Berlin: bei g. reimer 1819–23, vol. 2.1 (ASKB u 110; see also ASKB 871; a i 30–33). weiße, christian hermann, Die Idee der Gottheit. Eine philosophische Abhandlung. Als wissenschaftliche Grundlegung zur Philosophie der Religion, dresden: ch.F. grimmer’sche Buchhandlung 1833, p. 110; p. 266n; p. 299n; p. 331n (ASKB 866). zimmermann, Johann georg, Ueber die Einsamkeit, vols. 1–4, leipzig: bey weidmanns erben und reich 1784–5, vol. 2, pp. 383ff. (ASKB 917–920). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Origin none.

Pelagius: Kierkegaard’s use of Pelagius and Pelagianism robert Puchniak

Pelagius (active ca. 400), a monk, teacher, and spiritual advisor to members of the Roman aristocracy, is a figure known largely for his role as an antagonist to theological positions forwarded by his famous contemporary, augustine of hippo (354–430). his teachings on nature, grace, and sin were radically opposed to those of augustine. the focus of his thought, what garnered him much criticism but also considerable support (especially among his fellow monastics), was upon human freedom and personal responsibility. he taught that each human person was unconditionally free, unencumbered by a natural predisposition to sin, and was thus fully responsible for all actions. the human person was not intrinsically crippled by the fall of adam; original sin was not, he argued, passed on seminally from adam. he considered it unjust that any newly created soul should bear the weight of a sin committed by another. Pelagius further disputed the doctrine that every person was solely dependent upon divine grace for making sound moral decisions or advancing toward spiritual perfection. teachings on predestination he likewise denounced. the idea that an elect few alone would receive the grace of salvation, apart from their own merits, was abhorrent to him. Pelagius was a staunch opponent of any sort of theological determinism that saw the human person compelled by necessity (irresistible grace) to obey the divine will. he considered predestination to be nothing more than divine foreknowledge. according to Pelagius, the human condition was not, however, entirely devoid of divine grace. what graces were communicated to humanity included the following: endowment with a rational soul, the revelation of god’s law and will, redemption through christ’s example and teachings. For the rest of a person’s spiritual development, any advancement in holiness rested upon the individual and his or her will. Faith itself he thought an act of free choice, not something implanted in the will by god’s grace. Pelagius also contended that a state of spiritual and moral perfection, to be entirely without sin, was possible for the human person; this he considered a natural capacity (though an extreme rarity in actuality). His positions brought him into conflict with, among others, Jerome (ca. 345–420) and augustine. to augustine, Pelagius was “the enemy of the grace of god” who denied original sin as a consequence of the fall. augustine was alarmed that Pelagius could teach that anyone might advance towards perfection through the exercise of their own free will, while denying or minimizing the necessity of grace to do so. augustine would argue that sinful humanity was only capable, without grace,

Robert Puchniak

124

of vice because human nature was aboriginally tainted. augustine would devote several writings to respond to Pelagian doctrines, among them On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, On the Spirit and the Letter, and On Nature and Grace. the last of which was prompted when augustine had learned that Pelagius cited augustine’s own work (On Free Will, a much earlier writing) in support of his views. augustine, in response, sought to articulate his understanding of how sin was transmitted after the fall from parent to child, how baptism was necessary to prevent the condemnation of infants and others who remained without the sacrament, and how a life without sin is impossible, given the fallen nature of humanity. at the beckoning of a synod of north african bishops in 417, Pope innocent i (died in 417) rebuked Pelagius and his disciple, caelestius. after an appeal from caelestius, the successor to innocent i, zozimus, deemed that the two men had not definitively swerved from the Catholic faith, and that further investigation was needed. the african bishops begged zozimus not to rescind the pronouncement of Innocent I. In 418, the Council of Carthage finally branded Pelagianism as heresy. in related doctrinal controversy, debate over degrees of “semi-pelagianism” developed in the christian traditions of late antiquity. Monastic authors such as John cassian (ca. 360–ca. 435) sought to distance themselves from the augustinian teachings of predestination and irresistible grace and re-emphasize the need to discipline one’s own will in order to make morally sound decisions in the spiritual life. cassian thus found himself subject to suspicions of unorthodox thought. Pelagius was a marginal figure in the writings of Kierkegaard, but the issues of nature, grace, freedom, and sin which occupied much of Kierkegaard’s life are the very same problems that Pelagius and augustine engaged. I. Pelagius in Kierkegaard’s Published Works The problem of Pelagianism garners specific mention in at least four of Kierkegaard’s works, namely The Concept of Irony (1841), Either/Or, Part 1 (1843), The Concept of Anxiety (1844), and The Sickness Unto Death (1849). in The Concept of Irony, Kierkegaard discusses what he calls the “greek mentality” and characterizes it as “a careless Pelagianism,” which sees sin as ignorance, as a matter of (mis)understanding, and not as a matter of pride and defiance, as it should be, as a question of the will.1 Kierkegaard further contrasts the concept of “dying to” in christian and greek views by identifying this action or movement as a moral one in christianity (e.g., dying to the body of sin in order to receive the spirit of god) and as merely an intellectual one in “paganism’s carefree Pelagianism.”2 Kierkegaard argues that “dying to” in a simply intellectual sense is dying to something indifferent or abstract (as in Platonism’s dying to sensate knowing to achieve immortality). what socrates aims at, for example, is the demonstration of the immortality of the soul in order that he might be convinced it is so. in this passage, reference to “Pelagianism” seems to be

1 2

SKS 1, 121 / CI, 61. SKS 1, 135 / CI, 76.

Pelagius: Kierkegaard’s Use of Pelagius and Pelagianism

125

used as an implicit foil to an “augustinianism” rooted in Pauline thought, which emphasizes the will as the cause of sin, and not ignorance, as socrates did. in Either/Or, Part I, within the essay “The Tragic in Ancient Drama Reflected in the tragic in Modern drama,” a difference between the two is delineated along the line of “the different nature of tragic guilt.” the author, “a,” writes, “the more the subjectivity is reflective, the more Pelagianly one sees the individual thrown solely upon himself, the more ethical guilt becomes.”3 “The tragic” is defined as lying between two extremes: one the one hand, the individual must have some guilt, be to some degree in error; but, if, on the other hand, the individual has “absolute guilt,” then “he no longer interests us tragically.”4 “a” complains that the modern sense of tragedy makes the individual accountable for everything, that is, makes him in a way too guilty to be tragic, and thus “in doing so we transform his aesthetic guilt into ethical guilt,” and this is “misguided.” here, “Pelagianism” seems synonymous with an understanding of the self as entirely sovereign and alone in the world. the term is used as a descriptor, but the problem at hand is not really “Pelagianism” as a theological dilemma. in The Concept of Anxiety, vigilius haufniensis expresses dissatisfaction with the traditional augustinian account of original sin, that human nature itself was corrupted in adam’s sin and that the result of the fall is inherited by all of adam’s progeny innately, and further, that such guilt is deserving of punishment. the pseudonym contends that each individual is “simultaneously himself and the whole race” and that it would be a “Pelagian” mistake to forget that each person is connected to the race (that is, it would be wrong to say that anyone could be without sin). vigilius haufniensis desires to emphasize that “sin came into the world by a sin,” by “the qualitative leap” of the individual, and that “every individual begins anew.”5 he does not openly side with Pelagianism, “which permits every individual to play his little history in his own private theater unconcerned about the race.”6 as adam lost his innocence by guilt, so too does every person lose his innocence in the same way: “innocence is lost only by guilt.” while wanting to distance himself from the doctrine of inherited guilt, vigilius haufniensis seems to come close to agreement with Pelagius, namely that the guilt lies firstly with the individual and his or her choices, which lead to a loss of innocence and thus bring the attendant guilt. what joins the individuals as a group in “the race” is the fact that all lose their guilt in the same manner as adam, through their misuse of freedom. in the Sickness Unto Death, Anti-Climacus chastizes the “superficial Pelagian understanding” of “the pagan,” who unwisely thinks himself capable of saving himself and fails to understand that his self stands before god, and in sin.7 the sin of the pagan is a different sin: it is a “despairing ignorance of god, the despairing ignorance of being before god; it is to be ‘without god in the world.’ ”8 here,

3 4 5 6 7 8

SKS 2, 143 / EO1, 144. ibid. SKS 4, 340 / CA, 34. ibid. SKS 11, 195 / SUD, 81. ibid.

126

Robert Puchniak

Kierkegaard’s pseudonym appears clearly on the side of an augustinian conception of the need for grace, without which one cannot expect salvation. II. Pelagius in Kierkegaard’s Journals and Papers Kierkegaard clearly understood “Pelagianism” as the antithesis of “augustinianism” and saw between them “a contrast of primary significance.”9 in one remark, he suggests that “life is a constant pendulum-movement between them,” in a sort of hegelian dialectic.10 Kierkegaard also comments, at the time of writing The Concept of Anxiety, that Pelagianism is “soft-headedness, which does not have the power to spin the individuals into the web of the race but lets each individual stick out like the loose end of a thread.”11 the commitment of faith must require, he insisted, some free human choice: “But am i unable to do something myself with regard to becoming a believer? either we must answer this with an unconditioned ‘no,’ and then we have fatalistic election by grace, or we must make a little concession.”12 if subjectivity is excluded, then one is left with the unwanted ‘fatalistic election by grace.’ Kierkegaard, though, was acutely conscious of the need for divine grace in his own life. he prayed for grace, and resolved: “i must steer into the open sea, live in grace and out of grace, utterly in god’s power.”13 Each sinner “must flee to grace every moment,” because of an infinite need for mercy.14 “one thing remains—we are still all saved by grace.”15 it was not infrequently that Kierkegaard sought to “resort to grace” to endure his sufferings. in this, he sounds much like Paul, augustine, and luther. Yet Kierkegaard, in his notes on Julius Müller’s Die christliche Lehre von der Sünde,16 writes that Muller “properly formulates the problem of original sin (peccatum originale) and guilt”—that is, “guilt and sin are correlatives; now it is impossible to think of my sin in relation to something i have not myself committed—ergo, there is no original sin .…”17 Kierkegaard, it appears, did have serious reservations about the traditional augustinian doctrines of original sin and predestination, but his approximation of Pelagianism which results from these criticisms remains to be debated. III. Scholarly Discussion of Kierkegaard and Pelagianism Kierkegaard’s desire to affirm the place of human freedom in “becoming a self” and his forthright condemnation of predestination have led some commentators to SKS 17, 32–3, aa:14.2 / JP 1, 29. Pap. i a 225 / JP 2, 1565. 11 Pap. v B 53:15 / JP 1, 51. 12 SKS 22, 415, nB14:123 / JP 4, 4551. 13 SKS 20, 84, nB14:108 / JP 5, 5962. 14 cf. SKS 21, 52f., nB6:70 / JP 6, 6235. 15 SKS 22, 332, nB13:88. 16 Julius Müller, Die christliche Lehre von der Sünde, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., Breslau: Josef Max und Komp. 1849 (ASKB 689–690). 17 SKS 23, 100, nB16:5 / JP 4, 4034. 9

10

Pelagius: Kierkegaard’s Use of Pelagius and Pelagianism

127

question where Kierkegaard stands in relation to that “dialectic” between augustine and Pelagius. as early as 1834, Kierkegaard records his intense mistrust of the idea of predestination, which he labels “a thoroughgoing abortion” that originated to relate freedom and god’s omnipotence, but “it solves the riddle by denying one of the concepts and consequently explains nothing.”18 he elsewhere describes predestination as “christianity turned soft” and “the dogma of sedentary piety,” which makes the christian wonder how it is a person can be saved.19 Kierkegaard has here run into the perennial difficulty of marrying the concepts of human freedom (which allows one to advance in moral goodness and holiness) and the power of divine governance (which determines personal and historical outcomes). But, by denying the doctrine of predestination, has Kierkegaard implicated himself as a Pelagian, or at least a semi-Pelagian? Philip quinn has examined the “serious challenge” Kierkegaard makes to the augustinian legacy.20 Pointing to The Concept of Anxiety, quinn sees Kierkegaard’s dissatisfaction with the doctrine of original sin, citing vigilius haufniensis’ assertion that there cannot be any anxiety if sin came into the world by “an act of an abstract liberum arbitrium.”21 the generic inheritance of adam’s fault would not be enough to provoke the anxiety in question. haufniensis wants to demonstrate that each person becomes guilty only through making “the qualitative leap” and thus becoming responsible for one’s sin (a teaching that sounds remarkably like Pelagian thought). timothy P. Jackson, too, understands that Kierkegaard desires to preserve some meaningful freedom for the individual, so Jackson argues that what Kierkegaard and his pseudonyms demonstrate is an “arminian” viewpoint, in opposition to both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism.22 this alternative to augustinianism states that “on our own we can make no move whatsoever toward god. god must turn us and draw us. the arminian addendum, however, is that we can say ‘Yes’ or ‘no.’ ”23 in this framework, the human role in faith is “voluntary but exclusively receptive,” 24 thereby navigating around the charge of Pelagianism, but also steering cleer of the dreaded “fatalism” or “determinism.” Poul lübcke, in direct contrast, has argued that Kierkegaard presents a semiPelagian view of sin and a synergistic interpretation of faith.25 lübcke sees Kierkegaard as more a “libertarian” than a “determinist” in three of his works, Philosophical Fragments, The Sickness unto Death, and The Concept of Anxiety. anti-climacus, for example, contends that the determinist, the fatalist, is in despair Pap. i a 5 / JP 2, 1230. SKS 289–90, nB23:175 / JP 3, 3550. 20 Philip quinn, “does anxiety explain original sin?” Nous, vol. 22, no. 2, 1990, pp. 227–44. 21 e.g., SKS 4, 355, 414 / CA, 49, 112. 22 Timothy P. Jackson, “Arminian Edification: Kierkegaard on Grace and Free Will,” in The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, ed. by alastair hannay and gordon d. Marino, cambridge and new York: cambridge university Press 1998, pp. 235–56. 23 ibid., pp. 236–7. 24 ibid., p. 237. 25 Poul lübcke, “Freedom and Modality,” in Kierkegaard and Freedom, ed. by James giles, london: Palgrave 2000, pp. 93–104. 18 19

Robert Puchniak

128

precisely because “everything has become necessity,”26 and in order to avoid despair, one must reject determinism, and choose what lübcke calls “relative possibility.” the choice rests with the individual and cannot be determined for the individual; if the self is a synthesis of possibility and necessity, then some element of the future must remain unfixed and open to choosing. Lübcke detects similar views in the pseudonyms of Johannes climacus and vigilius haufniensis. Kierkegaard’s apparent desire to modify a strict augustinian account of original sin, his clear rejection of doctrines of predestination, and his wanting to place moral responsibility on the individual and not on “nature” or “fatalism,” all suggest that he verges on, if not appropriates, a Pelagian understanding of elements of human existence. Yet, he just as clearly distances himself from any Pelagian confidence in the individual to save himself or herself. in the end, he does not neglect attention to what he calls a human person’s highest perfection, to need god.

26

SKS 11, 155 / SUD, 40.

Bibliography I. Pelagius’ Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library none. II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Pelagius [augustine], Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi Operum, vols. 1–18, 3rd ed., Bassani: ex typographia remondiniana 1797–1807 (ASKB 117–134). Baader, Franz von, Vorlesungen, gehalten an der Königlich-Bayerischen LudwigMaximilians-Hochschule über religiöse Philosophie im Gegensatze der irreligiösen, älterer und neuer Zeit, vol. 1, Munich: giel 1827, p. 46 (ASKB 395). Böhringer, Friedrich, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8] (ASKB 173–177). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 320; pp. 327ff. (ASKB 158–159). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 128 (ASKB 160–166). Marheineke, Philipp, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens und Lebens für denkende Christen und zum Gebrauch in den oberen Klassen an den Gymnasien, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: in der nicolai’schen Buchhandlung 1836, p. 28 (ASKB 257). —— Die Grundlehren der christlichen Dogmatik als Wissenschaft, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1827, p. 306; p. 309 (ASKB 644). Martensen, hans lassen, Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849, p. 362; pp. 424–8 passim; pp. 470–71 (ASKB 653). Müller, Julius, Die christliche Lehre von der Sünde, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., Breslau: Josef Max und Komp. 1849, vol. 1, pp. 427–34; vol. 2, pp. 45–8 (ASKB 689–690). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 97 (ASKB 168). lentz, carl georg heinrich, Geschichte der christlichen Dogmen in pragmatischer Entwickelung, vol. 1, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1834 [vol. 2, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1835] (ASKB 621).

130

Robert Puchniak

nielsen, rasmus, De speculativa historiæ sacræ tractandæ methodo commentatio, havniæ [copenhagen]: tengnagel 1840, p. pp. 45–6 (ASKB 697). ——Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 16 (ASKB 698). schopenhauer, arthur, Parerga und Paralipomena: kleine philosophische Schriften, vols. 1–2, Berlin: druck und verlag von a.w. hayn 1851, vol. 1, p. 320 (ASKB 774–775). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Pelagius vergote, henri-Bernard, “augustine et Pélage: sporadique et paradigmatique,” in his Sens et répétition. Essai sur l’ironie kierkegaardienne, vols. 1–2, Paris: cerf/ orante 1982, vol. 2, pp. 237–43.

tertullian: the teacher of the credo quia absurdum Pierre Bühler

quintus septimius Florens tertullian(us) (ca. 160–ca. 230) cannot be considered as one of Kierkegaard’s main sources of inspiration. allusions to him and quotations of his works in Kierkegaard’s published texts are, compared to other sources, quite rare and probably not based on a very intensive study of his thought. nevertheless there are several references to tertullian in his unpublished journals and notebooks. it is also interesting that Kierkegaard had two editions of tertullian’s works in his library, one in latin and another in german.1 as his journals show, he also heard about tertullian in lectures he attended, especially those given by henrik nicolai clausen (1793–1877), hans lassen Martensen (1808–84) and Philipp Konrad Marheineke (1780–1846).2 he also deals with tertullian in some reading notes about secondary literature on this author.3 the central tertullian inheritance that Kierkegaard claims is clearly the formula credo quia absurdum. Before we focus on this main principle, we shall have a look at the other, less important aspects of Kierkegaard’s relationship to tertullian, and at some passages where Kierkegaard lays claim to tertullian as an ally and compares himself with him. But first of all, we will briefly present the life of Tertullian and give some information about his main works. I. A Short Life of Tertullian we do not know exactly when tertullian was born: as mentioned above, it was around AD 160. But we know that he was born in carthage, north africa, as a Roman officer’s son. He probably received an education in literature, law and rhetoric. he converted to the christian faith sometime between 190 and 195. his see the bibliography at the end of this article. For references to tertullian in clausen’s lectures: SKS 19, 7–85, not1:1–9; in Martensen’s lectures: SKS 18, 374–86, KK:11; in Marheineke’s lectures: SKS 19, 7, not9:1. 3 especially georg Friedrich Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8] (ASKB 173–177). Johann adam Möhler, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit (vols. 1–2, Mainz: Florian Kupferberg 1827; ASKB 635–636): SKS 18, 353–9, KK:5 / JP 5, 5357; Johann eduard erdmann, Vorlesungen über Glauben und Wissen (Berlin: duncker und humblot 1837; ASKB 479): SKS 19, 145–62, not4:13–40 / JP 2, 1972 and JP 5, 5271–3 and 5278. 1 2

132

Pierre Bühler

rigorous way of thinking led him more and more away from the mainstream church. without breaking with it completely, he joined the Montanist movement in the year 207–8. Founded by Montanus in Phrygia in the second half of the second century, Montanism can be characterized as a christian movement of radicalization, with prophetical and apocalyptical roots, demanding from the believers, and especially from the ministers, that their lives conform to strict moral principles and severe ascetic rules. tertullian broke with the church around 210–12 and probably founded his own religious movement, the tertullianists (so mentioned by augustine). he died sometime after 220, perhaps around 230. Beside Minucius Felix, tertullian has become the most pregnant author of the Latin Church in the first centuries. Important categories of Christian thought, especially in the doctrine of the trinity and the theology of grace, have been inspired and developed by him. unfortunately, all his greek writings and some of his latin writings are lost. the thirty-one preserved writings are transmitted in relatively poor condition. in his work, we can distinguish the following categories: apologetical writings (mainly in the 190s), which fight against the legitimacy of persecutions (for example, Apologeticum); catechetical writings, which have a strong focus on morality and asceticism (De patientia, De exhortatione castitatis, De pudicitia, De poenitentia, etc.), and the prohibition of mundane pleasures (De spectaculis, De idolatria, etc.); doctrinal writings, which mainly fight against heretical, primarily gnostic, Marcionist ideas (De praescriptione haereticorum, De carne Christi, Adversus marcionem, De resurrectione mortuorum, De anima, etc.). as we will see, Kierkegaard quotes from some of these writings, often also indirectly, from the secondary literature about tertullian. But for his reception of tertullian, one work is particularly important, De carne Christi, because this work contains the sentence leading to the famous credo quia absurdum. the book De carne Christi is a defense of the incarnation, against gnostic and Marcionist docetism. working with passages from the apostle Paul, especially his “word of the cross” in 1 corinthians 18–25, tertullian emphasizes, contrary to Marcion’s gnostic “wisdom,” the necessary foolishness of christ’s incarnation, in his birth, in his life, and above all in his death and resurrection. and so tertullian, with rhetorical dexterity, can write: “God’s Son has been crucified? I am not ashamed because one has to be ashamed. and god’s son is dead? it is credible because it is inept. and the buried rose from the dead? it is certain because it is impossible.”4

My (literal) translation. cf. Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation, i.e., Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani De carne Christi (trans. and ed. by ernest ewans, london: sPcK 1956), v 4, 18–19: Crucifixus est dei filius; non pudet quia pudendum est. Et mortuus est dei filius; credibile est quia ineptum est. Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est quia impossibile. “the son of god was crucified: I am not ashamed—because it is shameful. The Son of God died: it is immediately credible—because it is silly. he was buried, and rose again: it is certain because it is impossible.” 4

Tertullian: The Teacher of the credo quia absurdum

133

II. Kierkegaard’s Reading of Tertullian A. References to Various Aspects of Tertullian’s Thought the following elements can be distinguished among Kierkegaard’s minor, less important references to tertullian. in The Concept of Irony, in the context of an analysis of irony in Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, he opposes the greek and the christian attitude concerning death. there, he quotes, as a beautiful thought of the old church, that death is at the same time also birth.5 this idea can be found in Martyrium Polycarpi,6 but also in tertullian’s De corona, iii. when speaking of historical allusions to the concept of original sin, in The Concept of Anxiety Kierkegaard quotes tertullian’s notion of “vitium originis” (vice of the origin) in order to underline that it is difficult to conceptualize hereditary sin because of its historical dimension: “Vitium originis is indeed a concept; nevertheless, its linguistic form allows for the conception of the historical as the predominant factor.”7 the formula “vitium originis” can be found in tertullian’s De anima, 41,8 but Kierkegaard does not mention the reference. later, in chapter iv of the same book, when speaking about the tendency of the demonic to be cruel with itself, Kierkegaard refers to augustine as an example of someone who recommended physical punishment against heretical people.9 as mentioned in the commentary in SKS 4, it is possible that Kierkegaard confused augustine and tertullian, who clearly made such a recommendation in Contra gnosticos scorpiace, 2.10 in the third article of The Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an Actress, in an ironical passage on “chief court chaplain theremin” in Berlin and his success in the crowd, Kierkegaard quotes a famous sentence of tertullian: “Sanguis martyrum est semen ecclesiae” (the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church), emphasizing that truth has nowadays been replaced by mundane curiosity, where one looks at “the coming in and the going out of the venerable chief court chaplain.”11 the sentence about the blood of the martyrs as the seed of the church can also be found in Kierkegaard’s journals, where he uses it to underline the earnestness of christian faith.12 in the same way, thinking about the transmission of sound through the medium of the crowd, Kierkegaard stresses that “here there occurs what is otherwise unheard of, that sound transmits itself in such a way that when one says one thing it becomes, in transmission, something entirely different.”13 he adds: “a fantastic description of rumor (there is undoubtedly a passage in tertullian and cyprian that could be cited.)”14 SKS 1, 135 / CI, 76–7. see SKS K1, 218. 7 SKS 4, 333 / CA, 27. 8 For further information, see SKS K4, 384. 9 SKS 4, 423 / CA, 121. 10 see SKS K4, 490. 11 SV1, 10, 336 / C, 317. the quotation is to be found in tertullian’s Apologeticum 50 (ASKB 147–150; vol. 1, p. 128). 12 Pap. Xi–2 a 47 / JP 1, 559. 13 Pap. vi B 223 / P, supplement, p. 138. 14 ibid. 5 6

134

Pierre Bühler

in a note with the headline “tertullian,” referring to christian Friederich rössler’s Bibliothek der Kirchen-Väter, Kierkegaard quotes a passage out of tertullian’s De poenitentia,15 stressing that repentance pleases god, but not the devil. in a similar way, referring to ignaz heinrich von wessenberg’s Die grossen Kirchenversammlungen des 15ten und 16ten Jahrhunderts, Kierkegaard quotes without a commentary from tertullian’s De praescriptione haereticorum a passage about cheating with the truth by lying about the verisimilitude.16 B. Tertullian as an Ally? quite often, in the last years of his life, Kierkegaard refers to tertullian as an ally in his fight against Denmark’s “Church establishment,” for example, in a very important series journal of entries from 1851.17 The first entry, entitled “Christianity— tertullian,” sets the tone for the whole series. the crucial question is to decide whether christianity is presented in man’s interest or god’s interest. only in the second way it is the true christianity: hardly any church Father has presented christianity in god’s interest so powerfully as tertullian has. here christianity is not a bit of morality and a few propositions of faith; here christianity is an accounting between god—and the world. this is why tertullian takes such a decisive look at its opposite—idolatry.18

comparing his own task with tertullian’s effort, Kierkegaard adds, “My very subordinate task is continually to make aware. i make the admission: i do not dare risk more—but yet i am like a shout of alarm.”19 earlier (1849), quoting a passage at the beginning of tertullian’s book, De patientia, Kierkegaard compares his own situation with that of tertullian. tertullian writes, i acknowledge before the lord god that in a somewhat rash and perhaps even shameless way i have presumed to write about patience—i, who myself am so very deficient.”20 and Kierkegaard comments, “this reminds me of my own collision: to what extent should a person dare present the ideal of the christian although he himself is so far from it?21 the same quotation from tertullian reappears in a draft SKS 24, 351, nB24:53. SKS 24, 417, nB24:149 / JP 4, 4772 (dum verisimilia mentiuntur, veritatem frustrantur). 17 SKS 24, 272–276, nB23:133–144 / JP 2, 1196 and JP 4, 4764–71. in this series, Kierkegaard refers constantly to g.F. Böhringer’s Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen. we focus on the points that Kierkegaard underlines as being important for himself and for tertullian. there are some secondary aspects, for example the unity of inferior externality and interior divine power (SKS 24, 273, nB23:135 / JP 4, 4766), the obedience to god’s commandments (SKS 24, 274, nB23:137 / JP 4, 4768), the lord’s Prayer (SKS 24, 275, nB23:139 / JP 4, 4770), christ’s star and christ’s suffering (SKS 24, 275, nB23:140 / JP 4, 4771) and the interdiction against going to war (SKS 24, 276, nB23:141 / JP 2, 1196). 18 see SKS 24, 272, nB23:133 / JP 4, 4764. 19 ibid. 20 in Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vols. 1–20, ed. by Jens Møller, copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1821–32, vol. 16, 1830, p. 64 (ASKB 336–345). 21 SKS 22, 122, nB11:196 / JP 1, 817. 15 16

Tertullian: The Teacher of the credo quia absurdum

135

to The Sickness Unto Death, and Kierkegaard’s commentary tries a shy comparison with himself: “so also with this interpretation of ideality’s demands with respect to being christian. to my regret, i must stop there; i cannot continue and say, ‘so also with me’—for what similarity is there between me and tertullian! how really audacious, virtually shameless, then, that someone ventures to interpret ideality’s demands, someone who himself falls furthest short!”22 What are the main points of Tertullian’s and Kierkegaard’s common fight? At the beginning of the second journal entry in the series of 1851, Kierkegaard quotes a sentence of tertullian: “he who has known the truth cannot do otherwise, he must cling to it.”23 this sentence allows him to create a link to socrates: “here we must again credit old Father socrates a little, for he advances a similar meaning of ‘to understand,’ maintains that the person who has truly understood something also does it, that to do the truth is the criterion for having understood it.”24 in other words, tertullian as well as socrates are allies in the fundamental perspective of existential appropriation. as a result, Kierkegaard stresses in a later note that tertullian has, like himself, a clear conception of faith, in contrast to non-christian wisdom: the latter has no boundary and goes on into the infinite. By contrast, faith, or Christianity, has a definite goal and therefore does not need to speculate further. “Since we believe, we do not need to go further than to believe, for above all we believe that there is nothing more that we have to believe.”25 like Kierkegaard, tertullian, as we have seen, insists on the earnestness of christianity. this is also relevant for the sacraments, for example, for the baptism: even if it has to do with grace, the question, “when do i dare say that now i am worthy to accept baptism?” should not be taken lightly. Kierkegaard adds, “this is why in earlier times they postponed baptism as long as possible. tertullian advises against hastening baptism. But as early as Basil, for example, early baptism is encouraged, the sooner the better.”26 in connection with a new book on lessing as a theologian, Kierkegaard writes an entry about christianity and fanaticism. the modern tendency is to condemn fanaticism, but to express the highest respect for christianity because it has nothing to do with this fanaticism. Kierkegaard speaks of a “hidden attack upon christianity,” because “what actually constitutes fanaticism is exclusiveness, that there is one specific condition for blessedness.”27 “But if this is so, christ is really the greatest fanatic of all.” that is why the real defense of christianity would be: “no, thank you, christianity is fanaticism. tertullian would have done it. But nowadays it seems far too lofty and audacious.”28 Finally, in another entry from 1854, Kierkegaard compares christendom nowadays, where we are all christians without opposition, and new testament 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pap. X–5 B 16 / SDP, 157–8. SKS 24, 272–3, nB23:134 / JP 4, 4765. ibid. SKS 24, 275, nB23:136 / JP 4, 4767. Pap. X–5 a 103 / JP 2, 1494. Pap. Xi–2 a 39 / JP 3, 2379. ibid.

136

Pierre Bühler

christianity, where one can only be christian and confess christ in opposition, in danger. he adds in parenthesis, “tertullian also says very correctly: confession takes place only where there is persecution.”29 But there are also limits in this important alliance with tertullian: in a note from 1853, Kierkegaard observes that “even the unconditionally most consistent and most christianly two-edged of all the church fathers, tertullian” has considered christianity as historically perfectible, that means: as a simply human reality that can be improved by discipline and morals.30 C. Credo quia absurdum: the Main Inheritance as we already mentioned above, the main idea that Kierkegaard inherits from the church Father is what has been called “tertullian’s paradox.” therefore, we will now concentrate our attention on this topic. in his reading notes from autumn 1837, on erdmann’s book,31 in the summary of the seventh lecture, Kierkegaard quotes tertullian’s original sentence, yet in a very approximate version32: Credibile est quia ineptum, verum, quia impossibile est. this is the only occurrence of this in his whole work. a little bit later, in other reading notes from summer 1838, Kierkegaard simply writes: “tertullian; Credo quia absurdum.”33 and in all his later works, tertullian’s paradox will always be quoted in this stereotyped version, that was already well known from the tradition.34 at the beginning, Kierkegaard interprets tertullian’s principle in a negative way. as Kierkegaard says in an entry from July 3, 1839, it expresses the contempt of every moment of knowing in its purely human constitution.35 the perspective has radically changed when tertullian’s principle reappears in 1841 on the last page of Kierkegaard’s dissertation where it is used to express the difference between irony and humor: humor has a far more profound skepticism than irony, because here the focus is on sinfulness, not on finitude. The skepticism of humor is related to the skepticism of irony as ignorance is related to the old thesis: credo quia absurdum, but it also has a far deeper positivity, since it moves not in human but in theanthropological categories; it finds rest not by making man but by making man god-man.36

in a complementary way, an entry underlines this link between tertullian’s paradox and humor: “we recognize humor immediately only in such a reply as credo quia absurdum.”37 Pap. Xi–2 a 341 / JP 1, 616. here also Kierkegaard refers to Böhringer. Pap. X–5 a 98 / JP 1, 542. Kierkegaard seems to refer to tertullian’s Montanist period. 31 see erdmann, Vorlesungen über Glauben und Wissen. 32 cf. above, n4. 33 reading notes about Julius schaller’s Der historische Christus und die Philosophie. Kritik der Grundidee des Werks das Leben Jesu von Dr. D. F. Strauss (leipzig: verlag von otto wigand 1838; ASKB 759): Pap. ii c 54, in Pap. Xiii, p. 159. 34 this stereotyped version seems to be known since the Middle ages already. 35 SKS 18, ee:103 / JP 4, 4095. 36 SKS 1, 357 / CI, 329. 37 Pap. iii B 24 / JP 2, 1735. 29 30

Tertullian: The Teacher of the credo quia absurdum

137

at the end of his dissertation, Kierkegaard announces already his later conception of humor as a transitional zone between normal human existence and religious existence, in front of god, referred to here by the “theanthropological categories.” tertullian’s paradox intervenes to mark this moment of disruption: religious existence starts with a leap getting away from human capacities. only humor can outline its possibility through comic contradictions. the second occurrence of tertullian’s paradox in the published works is to be found in the Philosophical Fragments. against all attempts of speculative philosophy to integrate faith as a finite moment in a global system, Johannes climacus points out that faith evades every speculative system due to its irreducible paradox. Faith is based on an absolute paradox and therefore awakens a scandal or offense in human reason. in the appendix “offense at the Paradox (an acoustical illusion),” Kierkegaard underlines this tension between faith and reason by quoting tertullian’s credo quia absurdum along with passages from Johann georg hamann, lactantius, william shakespeare, and Martin luther: “the offense remains outside the paradox, and the basis for that is: quia absurdum.”38 In a journal entry from 1849, Kierkegaard applies this reflection to his epoch: “it is frequently said that if christ came to the world now he would once again be crucified.”39 For Kierkegaard, “this is not entirely true,” because the world has changed: “it is now immersed in ‘understanding.’ therefore christ would be ridiculed, treated as a mad man, but a mad man at whom one laughs.”40 nevertheless, this situation gives to the credo quia absurdum a higher accentuation: in relation to the most caustic mockery of intellectuality it says: well now, seen from your point of view it is ridiculous, extremely ridiculous, the most ridiculous of all—but you shall believe; it is a matter of heaven or hell, you shall. this is a frightful shall precisely because it makes such a great concession to the opposition.41

as we see in this quotation, the main interest of Kierkegaard applies to the possibility of faith (“you shall believe”). against the philosophical systems that do not worry about faith, leaving it behind themselves, Kierkegaard emphasizes te idea that faith is the main goal of a life, so that we can never go further than faith. this is what he tries to show with the character of abraham in Fear and Trembling: even though tertullian’s formula does not appear in this book, it informs implicitly the whole purpose. abraham’s faith is “by the virtue of its absurd”42 and therefore it places abraham apart, tears him out of the generally human perspective, puts him in an absolute relationship to the absolute. only from there will it be possible for him to live his life, coming back from the extreme trial and rediscovering everything in a new light. throughout his whole work, Kierkegaard constantly stressed this SKS 4, 256–7 / PF, 52–4. SKS 21, 312–13, nB10:109 / JP 6, 6373. 40 ibid. 41 ibid. 42 SKS 4, 140–45 and 188–93 / FT, 46–51 and 98–104. under the pseudonym of theophilus nicolaus, Magnus eiríksson has written a critical review of Fear and Trembling, mentioning the relationship to tertullian (see the bibliography). Kierkegaard has planned an answer (see Pap. X–6 B 68 / JP 6, 6598; FT, 259–65). 38 39

138

Pierre Bühler

connection between faith and the absurd.43 therefore, even if tertullian’s formula does not appear everywhere in Kierkegaard’s writings, it refers to a central aspect of his understanding of christianity. if the absurd is so important, what does it mean for the relationship between faith and reason? shall faith ask for a sacrificium intellectus? does the credo quia absurdum lead to an anti-rationalism? the relationship between absurdity, faith and understanding is much more dynamic. the absurd does not constrain the believer to give up his understanding. on the contrary, as Kierkegaard explains at the end of his Concluding Unscientific Postscript in an interesting passage: consequently the believing christian both has and uses his understanding, respects the universally human, does not explain someone’s not becoming a christian as a lack of understanding, but believes christianity against the understanding and here uses the understanding—in order to see to it that he believes against the understanding. therefore he cannot believe nonsense against the understanding, which one might fear, because the understanding will penetratingly perceive that it is nonsense and hinder him in believing it, but he uses the understanding so much that through it he becomes aware of the incomprehensible, and now, believing, he relates himself to it against the understanding.44

could this text be an answer to the objection of anti-rationalism, which tertullian is often reproached of? if we answer with yes, we recognize Kierkegaard as a worthy heir of tertullian, or tertullian as a venerable ancestor of Kierkegaard. But then Kierkegaard would respectfully ask: “what similarity is there between me and tertullian?”45

43 Beside Fear and Trembling, this is especially the case in Repetition and the Concluding Unscientific Postscript. But also in the journals and notebooks, the topic of absurdity and the absurd is often dealt with (see JP 1, 5–12). 44 SKS 7, 516 / CUP1, 568. 45 Pap. X–5 B 16 / SDP, 157–8.

Bibliography I. Tertullian’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Qu. Sept. Flor. Tertulliani opera. Ad optimorum librorum fidem expressa curante E.F. Leopold, vols. 1–4, ed. by ernst Friedrich leopold, leipzig: Bernh. tauchnitz jun. 1839–41 (vols. 4–7, in Bibliotheca patrum ecclesiasticorum latinorum selecta. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edita curante E.G. Gersdorf, vols. 1–13, ed. by e.g. gersdorf, leipzig: Bernh. tauchnitz jun. 1838–47) (ASKB 147–150). Q. Sept. Flor. Tertullian’s sämmtliche Schriften, vols. 1–2, trans. and ed. by Franz anton von Besnard, augsburg: verlg der Karl Kollmann’schen Buchhandlung 1837–8 (ASKB 151). De patientia, in Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vols. 1–20, ed. by Jens Møller, copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1821–32, vol. 16 (1830) (ASKB 336–345). II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Tertullian adler, adolph Peter, To Afhandlinger, copenhagen: i commission hos c.a. reitzels Bo og arvinger. Forfatterens Forlag 1855, p. 70 (ASKB 382). Baur, Ferdinand christian, Die christliche Gnosis oder die christliche ReligionsPhilosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1835, p. 125; p. 460; p. 471; p. 472; p. 487; p. 540; p. 542 (ASKB 421). Böhringer, Friedrich, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 1, abtheilung 1, pp. 270–374 (ASKB 173–177). Brøchner, hans, Nogle Bemærkninger om Daaben, foranledigede ved Professor Martensens Skrift: “Den christelige Daab,” copenhagen: P.g. Philipsen 1843, p. 10 (ASKB u 27). clausen, henrik nicolai, Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 147; p. 206 (ASKB 468). eiríksson, Magnus [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? : et Spørgsmaal foranlediget ved “Frygt og Bæven, af Johannes de silentio,” besvaret ved Hjelp af en Troes-Ridders fortrolige Meddelelser, til fælles Opbyggelse for Jøder, Christne og Muhamedanere, af bemeldte Troes-Ridders Broder, copenhagen: chr. steen & søn 1850 (ASKB 831). (Partial german translation: “ist der glaube ein Paradox oder ‘in kraft des absurden,’ ” in Materialien zur Philosophie Søren Kierkegaards, ed. by Michael theunissen and wilfried greve, Frankfurt am Main: suhrkamp 1979, pp. 147–67.)

140

Pierre Bühler

engelhardt, Johann georg veit, Literarischer Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen über die Patristik, erlangen: bei ioh. iac. Palm und ernst enke 1823, pp. 81–2 (ASKB 477). erdmann, Johann eduard, Vorlesungen über Glauben und Wissen als Einleitung in die Dogmatik und Religionsphilosophie, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1837, p. 64 (ASKB 479). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 72; p. 84; p. 98; p. 114; p. 117; p. 158; p. 166; pp. 168–9; p. 171; p. 183; p. 264; p. 287; p. 296; p. 320; p. 475 (ASKB 158–159). hagen, Johan Frederik, Ægteskabet. Betragtet fra et ethisk-historiskt Standpunct, copenhagen: wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1845, pp. 22–3 (ASKB 534). hahn, august (ed.), Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 186; p. 242; p. 361; p. 367; p. 406 (ASKB 535). hansen, Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, p. 31 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 62; p. 74; p. 94 (ASKB 160–166). —— Hutterus redivivus oder Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. Ein dogmatisches Repertorium für Studirende, 4th revised ed., leipzig: Breitkopf und härtel 1839, p. 64; p. 165; p. 197; p. 201; p. 245; p. 298 (ASKB 581). lentz, carl georg heinrich, Geschichte der christlichen Dogmen in pragmatischer Entwickelung, vol. 1, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1834 [vol. 2, helmstedt: verlag der c.g. Fleckeisenschen Buchhandlung 1835] (ASKB 621). lind, Peter engel, De coelibatu Christianorum per tria priora secula, havniæ [copenhagen]: Bianco luno 1839, p. 22; p. 34; pp. 51–58 passim; pp. 62–8 passim (ASKB 181). Marheineke, Philipp, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens und Lebens für denkende Christen und zum Gebrauch in den oberen Klassen an den Gymnasien, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: in der nicolai’schen Buchhandlung 1836, p. 21 (ASKB 257). Martensen, hans, Dogmatiske Oplysninger. Et Leilighedsskrift, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1850, pp. 23–4 (ASKB 654). Müller, carl ludvig, De resurrectione Jesu Christi, vita eam excipiente et ascensu in coelum, hauniæ [copenhagen]: J.d. qvist 1836 (ASKB 688). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 58; p. 61; p. 67 (ASKB 168). Mynster, Jakob Peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1852–3 [vols. 4–6, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1855–7], vol. 2, p. 40 (ASKB 358–363). nielsen, Frederik, De vi et effectibus, baptismo ab ecclesiæ patribus tributis, commentationis particula prior, sententias patrum: ante a. CCLVII viventium, continens, havniæ [copenhagen]: J.d. quist 1836, pp. 65–90 (ASKB 696). nielsen, rasmus, Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 6; p. 10 (ASKB 698).

Tertullian: The Teacher of the credo quia absurdum

141

rördam, hans christian, De fide patrum ecclesiæ christianæ antiquissimæ in iis, quæ de origine evangeliorum canonicorum, maxime Matthæi, tradiderunt, hauniæ [copenhagen]: tengnagel 1839 (ASKB 182). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Reformation, Lutherthum und Union. Eine historischdogmatische Apologie der Lutherischen Kirche und ihres Lehrbegriffs, leipzig: druck und verlag von Bernh. tauchnitz jun. 1839, pp. 645–64 (ASKB 751). —— Om det borgerlige Ægteskab. Bidrag til en alsidig, upartisk Bedømmelse af denne Institution, nærmest fra Kirkens Standpunkt, copenhagen: otto schwartz 1851, pp. 13–17 (ASKB 752). —— Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Under søgelser, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.g. iversen 1854, pp. 32ff.; p. 46; p. 60 [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). schaller, Julius, Der historische Christus und die Philosophie. Kritik der Grundidee des Werks das Leben Jesu von Dr. D. F. Strauss, leipzig: verlag von otto wigand 1838 (ASKB 759). schopenhauer, arthur, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, vols. 1–2, 2nd revised and enlarged ed., leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1844 [1819], vol. 2, pp. 166–7 (ASKB 773–773a). stäudlin, carl Fridrich, Geschichte und Geist des Skepticismus vorzüglich in Rücksicht auf Moral und Religion, vols. 1–2, leipzig: bey siegfried lebrecht crusius 1794, vol. 1, pp. 529–31 (ASKB 791). steffens, henrich, Caricaturen des Heiligsten. In zwei Theilen, vols. 1–2, leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1819–21, p. v (ASKB 793–794). tennemann, wilhelm gottlieb, Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1819, vol. 7, pp. 87–336 (ASKB 815–826). wette, wilhelm Martin leberecht de, Christliche Sittenlehre, vols. 1–3, Berlin: bei g. reimer 1819–23, vol. 2.1 (ASKB u 110; see also ASKB 871; a i 30–33). zeuthen, ludvig, Humanitet betragtet fra et christeligt Standpunkt, med stadigt Hensyn til den nærværende Tid, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandling 1846, p. 23 (ASKB 915). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Tertullian Bühler, Pierre, “credo quia absurdum. la réception du ‘paradoxe de tertullien’ chez Kierkegaard,” in Nomen latinum: mélanges de langue, de littérature et de civilisation latines; offerts au professeur André Schneider à l’occasion de son départ à la retraite, ed. by Denis Knoepfler and Michel Boillat, Neuchâtel: Faculté de lettres 1997, pp. 453–61. Fredouille, Jean-claude, Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique, Paris: Études augustiniennes 1972, see pp. 326–37. garelick, herbert, “gegenvernunft und Übervernunft in Kierkegaards Paradox,” in Materialien zur Philosophie Søren Kierkegaards, ed. by Michael theunissen and wilfried greve, Frankfurt am Main: suhrkamp 1979, pp. 369–84.

142

Pierre Bühler

hagen, Johan Frederik [anonymous], “Frygt og Bæven. Dialektisk Lyrik af Johannes de silentio. (Kbhavn. vii og 135 s. reitzel. Priis 1 rbd.),” Theologisk Tidsskrift, Ny Række, vol. 8, February 2, 1844, pp. 191–9. (german translation: “Furcht und zittern,” in Materialien zur Philosophie Søren Kierkegaards, ed. by Michael theunissen and wilfried greve, Frankfurt am Main: suhrkamp 1979, pp. 123–5.) Kofoed-hansen, h. P., Nyt Gammelt. Breve over Tertullian fra xu til ux, haderslev: Godske Nielsens Officin 1859, pp. 23–7. Mumbauer, Johannes, “die neuen tertulliane. søren Kierkegaard und theodor haecker,” Literarischer Handweiser, vol. 58, no. 12, 1922, pp. 545–50. rose, tim, Kierkegaard’s Christocentric Theology, aldershot: ashgate 2001, p. 49; p. 50; p. 56; pp. 66–70; p. 76; p. 77. thomas, John heywood, Subjectivity and Paradox, new York: Macmillan 1957, pp. 103–33. smith, c.v., “credo quia absurdum! en lægemands-Betragtning,” Theologisk Tidsskrift, 1872, pp. 273–98.

Part ii the Medieval tradition

abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy love of a scholastic dialectician István Czakó

the French philosopher and theologian Peter abelard (Petrus abaelardus)1 belongs undoubtedly to the best-known figures of the Middle Ages. The reason for this is only partly his original manner of dialectical thinking and intellectual ability; to the general reading public he is famed first of all for his exceptional life and love story with the young and—as villon says—“very sage” (très sage) heloise (1101–64).2 as a matter of fact, the image of abelard which became widely known is generally more influenced by his life than his work. Although there are relatively few passages in Kierkegaard’s oeuvre which explicitly refer to the celebrated dialectician, a closer analysis of the texts shows that Kierkegaard, the dialectician of existence, was really interested both in abelard’s thinking—in some respects—and in his dramatic form of existence. therefore, the task of the following investigation is, on the one hand, to reconstruct the topics in abelard’s thinking which attracted Kierkegaard’s attention and, on the other hand, to reflect on the biographical moments which played a specific role in Kierkegaard’s interpretation of abelard’s existence. I. The Fate of a Knight of Dialectic: Short Overview of Abelard’s Life and Thought Peter Abelard played a significant role in the development of Scholasticism in the first half of the twelfth century. His works on logic, ethics and theology established him securely in the history of philosophy and christian theology. he was born in le Pallet (Palet or Palais) near nantes in 1079, from where his name of Peripateticus Palatinus is derived. the main events of his life up to the 1130s and his relation to heloise are recounted in his well-known autobiographical letter entitled Historia

1 as erwin waldschütz remarks, 37 (!) ways of writing of this proper name are to be found. see erwin waldschütz, “Peter abaelard,” in Grosses Werklexikon der Philosophie, ed. by Franco volpi, stuttgart: alfred Kröner 1999, vol. 1, p. 1. in Kierkegaard’s oeuvre this name appears mainly as “abælard,” but there is a passage where the form “abelard” is used, cf. Pap. v B 148.2. 2 François villon, “Ballade des dames du temps jadis,” in François villon, Œuvres poétiques, ed. by andré Mary, Paris: garnier-Flammarion 1965, p. 59.

146

István Czakó

calamitatum,3 which can be also seen as a kind of apologia pro vita sua.4 he was the first-born of a cultured knight named Berengar,5 who took care not only of the military but also of the intellectual education of his children. as abelard remarks, he had more sympathy for Minerva than for Mars, and thus he finally chose the armament of logical arguments instead of knightly accoutrements, the intellectual dispute instead of military battles,6 and he soon became a known knight of dialectic. His first teacher in philosophy was the famous scholastic Roscelin of Compiegne (ca. 1045– ca. 1120), who ran a school in lokmenach, near vannes, in Brittany. then abelard studied logic and dialectic in Paris under another scholastic celebrity, william of champeaux (ca. 1070–1122), after which he opened a school of his own, first at Melun, then at Corbeil and subsequently at Paris, where he conducted a dispute with his former master, william. as is known, one of the main discussions in early scholasticism was the controversy concerning the nature of universals. the oldest attempt in this period to solve the problem was that of roscelin. according to contemporary testimonies, he taught that general concepts were voces, that is to say, words. this is what most historicians refer to as his “nominalism.” Yet he does not seem to have said that concepts are “names” (nomina) but words. By “word” (vox), roscelin meant a flatus vocis, that is, an emission of a sound, or, in other words, the very noise uttered by a person when he speaks. the contrary position abélard, Historia Calamitatum, ed. by J. Monfrin, 2nd ed., Paris: vrin 1962 (Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques). english translation: Joseph t. Muckle, The Story of Abelard’s Adversities, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 1954 (a translation with notes of the Historia calamitatum). For abelard’s relation to heloise see also The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, trans. by Betty radice, harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1974. however, it should be noted that the authenticity both of abelard’s History of My Troubles and of the correspondence between abelard and heloise has been and continues to be questioned. see John F. Benton, “Fraud, Fiction and Borrowing in the correspondence of abelard and heloise,” in Pierre Abélard—Pierre le Vénérable. Les courants philosophiques, littéraires et artistiques en Occident au milieu du XIIe silèce, ed. by rené louis, Paris: c.n.r.s. 1975, pp. 409–25; John F. Benton and Fiorella Prosperetti ercoli, “the style of the Historia calamitatum: a Preliminary test of the authenticity of the correspondence attributed to abelard and heloise,” Viator, no. 6, 1975, pp. 59–86. 4 For an overview of abelard’s biography and thought see geffrey garrett sikes, Peter Abelard, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1932 (republished, new York: russell and russell 1965); Michael t. clanchy, Abelard. A Medieval Life, oxford: Blackwell 1997; John Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1999. For a chronological listing of abelard’s works see also the english introduction in Petri Abaelardi opera theologica, vol. 1, Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Apologia contra Bernardum, ed. by eligius Buytaert, turnholt: Brepols 1969 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, vol. 11). 5 see abélard, Historia Calamitatum, p. 67.157. 6 “Ego vero quanto amplius et facilius in studio litterarum profeci tanto ardentius eis inhesi, et in tanto earum amore illectus sum ut militaris gloriae pompam cum hereditate et prerogativa primogenitorum meorum fratribus derelinquens, Martis curie penitus abdicarem ut Minerve gremio educarer; et quoniam dialecticarum rationum armaturam omnibus philosophie documentis pretuli, his armis alia commutavi et tropheis bellorum conflictus pretuli disputationum.” abélard, Historia Calamitatum, pp. 63.19–64.28. 3

Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician 147

ascribed to genera and species a reality of their own. We find this view defended by william of champeaux. according to him, a species was something, that was simultaneously present in all its individuals, totally present in each of them, and yet essentially common to all. in short, the essence of a species was the same in all its individuals, whose differentiation william explained by the variety of their accidents. attacked on this point by his student abelard, william gave up his former tenet, that a species was “essentially” the same in all its individuals. instead, he taught that species were there in a state of “undifferentiation” (indifferenter). this was another classical expression usually applied to the condition of the three persons with respect to the unity of divine essence. Yet abelard objected that this second position was merely a restatement of the first one, couched in different words. We lack the original texts which would help us to understand william correctly. From what we do know, he seems to have maintained that each individual man was man through his own “manness,” or humanitas, and yet the essence “man” was to be found in each individual, although in a state of indetermination with respect to individuality. Peter abelard became by far the most famous among the masters of the early scholasticism.7 his brillant and aggressive personality would have been enough to make him conspicuous in his own century. at any rate, his writings on logic exhibit the exceptional gifts of clarity and vigor which made his teaching so successful. like all his contemporaries, abelard came up against pure philosophy in connection with the problem of universals and, like all of them, he got into trouble on account of its theological implications. the original question raised by the neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry (232/34– ca. 304) in his Isagoge was—to put it simply— whether universals exist in reality or only in thought? the common source of many difficulties was the opinion that universals are real things, if not in themselves, at least in individuals. abelard did not deny the reality of Plato’s ideas, but the reality of the genus in its species or that of the species in its individuals. his reason for denying this was simple: by definition, a universal is what can be predicated of several things. however, a thing cannot be predicated of other things; each thing is only itself and is only what it is. hence abelard’s decisive conclusion: since universality cannot be attributed to things, it can only be ascribed to words alone. universality is only the logical function of certain words. abelard’s treatment of the problem of universals was decisive in the sense that it gave the death-blow to the ultra-realism of william of champeaux by showing how one could deny his doctrine without at the same time being obliged to deny all objectivity to genera and species. when abelard says that the universal is a name (nomen) or speech (sermo), what he means is that the logical unity of the universal concepts affects only the predicate, that is to say, it is a nomen and not an individual thing (res).

the most important philosophical work, which includes abelard’s contribution to the debate on the universals is his Dialectica (1117–21), edited by lambert M. rijk. this is the first complete edition of the so-called Parisian manuscript; 2nd revised ed., assen: van gorcum 1970. this text made abelard’s name famous; it is a standard work of the logic of Middle ages. Petrus lombard (ca. 1100–60) was one of abelard’s students as well, and he used the master’s logical writings extensively in his famous Sententiae libri quattuor. 7

148

István Czakó

after having these vehement and successful disputes in Paris with his master, william, abelard turned his attention to questions of theology. thus he went to laon to attend the theological lectures of anselm of laon (ca. 1050–1117), the aged master of william of champeaux. as he became displeased with the lectures of anselm, he returned to Paris and started teaching theology in 1113. here he fell in love with his private pupil heloise, a young and erudite niece of a canon named Fulbert. after the relation became public, abelard abducted his lover, who gave birth to their son, astralabius. abelard tried to obtain a reconciliation with Fulbert, who gave his assent and was witness to their secret marriage. subsequently, however, Fulbert began to spread a report of the marriage which was harmful for abelard’s career, and when heloise protested against the rumor, Fulbert manhandled his niece. Fearing for her safety, abelard brought his wife to the cloister of argenteuil. since Fulbert thought that abelard meant to abandon heloise in this way, he took his revenge by coming one night with some of his servants and castrating the scholastic master. thereafter both of the lovers took a vow: abelard became a monk in the monastery of saintdenis, and heloise a nun in the nunnery of argenteuil. after a little while abelard left sant-denis and turned back to his activity of teaching. his important contribution to the ethics of early scholaticism is his work entitled Scito teipsum (Know Thyself).8 here abelard deals with the central problem of the foundation of morality. his starting point is the distinction between vice and sin. vice is not a sin but an inclination to sin, against which we can struggle, and which is thus an occasion for merit for us. sin consists in not abstaining from what should not be done, that is, in consenting to it. to consent to evil is to despise god, and the intention (animi intentio) to do so is the very essence of sin. For good as for evil, the morality of the act is identical with the morality of the intention. this subjectivistic ethical conception has important theological consequences, some of which were explicated by abelard: for instance christ’s persecutors did an evil deed in putting him to death, but if they believed themselves bound by conscience to do it, they would have sinned more grievously by sparing him. Abelard’s theological activity produced even more conflicts than his philosophical polemic. Although he had a great reputation among his students in this field as well, his intention to ground the mysteries of the christian faith through dialectic and rational arguments9 came up against insoluble difficulties from the official representatives of the church. in 1121 his book De Unitate et Trinitate divina was condemned at the Synod of Soissons, and he was obliged to throw his own work into the fire. Abelard, however, can hardly be considered a rationalist, so far as intentions are concerned, since he never meant to deny revelation or explain away mystery, but in his application see david e. luscombe, Peter Abaelard’s Ethics. an edition with introduction, english translation and notes, oxford: oxford university Press 1971. (original title: Ethica seu liber dictus scito te ipsum (1135–9).) 9 For the use of the dialectical method in the solution of theological problems see his best-known work in Peter Abelard. Sic et Non. A Critical Edition, ed. by Blanche B. Boyer and richard McKeon, chicago: chicago university Press 1976–7. through the methodology of Sic et non (1121–40) abelard effectively contributed to the development of the philosophical form of the Quaestio in high scholasticism. in this work he broke with the objectivistic conceptions of faith of his time and opened a new way for the subjective-personal approaches to it. 8

Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician 149

of dialectic to theology, he does seem to have offended theological orthodoxy. after a detention in the cloister saint-Médard, he founded the school of le Paraclet near nogent-sur-seine, which he abandoned in 1125, in order to become abbot of st. gildas in Brittany, though he left the monastery in 1129. From 1136 he lectured at ste. geneviève at Paris, where John of salisbury (ca. 1115–80) was one of his pupils. The final and perhaps most dramatic confrontation of his life was surely with the cistercian abbot st. Bernard of clairvaux (1090–1153) which came to a climax at the synod of sens in June 1140 when several propositions, allegedly taken from abelard’s works, first of all from his Introductio ad theologiam,10 were condemned. Before the actual condemnation abelard appealed to the Pope and set out for rome to plead his case in person at the papal court. while at the monastery of cluny in southern France, however, abelard received word that Pope innocent ii had condemned him as a heretic along with his works and had forbidden him to teach. disheartened, abelard remained at cluny whose famous abbot, Peter the venerable (1092/94–1156), gave him refuge and arranged for a meeting of reconciliation between him and Bernard. Peter the venerable seems to have effected a reconciliation between abelard and the Pope as well. abelard spent his last years apparently in peace at cluny and the sister house of saint Marcel where he died in 1142. heloise, who stayed all the while in a close intellectual contact with him, and was since 1129 abbess of the the cloister le Paraclet, buried him in le Paraclet, and she also ordered that her own body be placed beside that of her spouse. their ashes were brought to Paris in 1828 and were buried in Père-lachaise cemetery. II. Abelard in Kierkegaard’s Readings according to The Auction Catalogue of søren Kierkegaard’s library, the danish thinker owned only one book by Abelard, namely his late, unfinished work entitled Dialogus inter philosophum, judaeum et christianum, written probably during the final stay of the scholastic master in cluny before his death.11 Kierkegaard bought the book on october 28, 1843, some days after the publication of Three Upbuilding Discourses, Fear and Trembling and Repetition, that is, at a very eventful time in his literary activity. concerning the main structure of the text, the english translator, Pierre J. Payer remarks that abelard and his contemporaries were familiar with the division of history into three great periods, which reflect the interventions of God in time.12 hugh of st. victor (1096–1141), the famous philosopher, theologian and mystical writer, for instance, says: see Petri Abaelardi opera theologica, vol. 2, Theologia christiana. Theologia ‘Scholarium’ (Recensiones breviores). Capitula haeresum Petri Abaelardi, ed. by eligius Buytaert, turnholt: Brepols 1969 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, vol. 12). 11 Petri abaelardi, Dialogus inter philosophum, judaeum et christianum, ed. by Friedrich heinrich rheinwald, Berolini [Berlin]: chr. Fr. enslin 1831 (ASKB 380). (english translation: Peter abelard, A Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew, and a Christian, trans. by Pierre J. Payer, Toronto: Pontificial Institute of Mediaeval Studies 1979.) For a discussion of the problems of dating this work, see the introduction by Payer, in ibid., pp. 6–8. 12 ibid. pp. 1–2. 10

150

István Czakó For there are three periods of time through which the space of this world runs. The first is the period of the natural law, the second the period of the written law, the third the period of grace. The first is from Adam even unto Moses, the second from Moses even unto christ, the third from christ even unto the end of the world.13

hugh adds, there are three kinds of men corresponding to these periods: pagans, Jews, and christians. abelard presents representatives of these three kinds of people in his Dialogue. his pagan philosopher is a man of the natural law who directs his life by natural reason, and while he is prepared to defend this way of life, he says that he is particularly interested in gaining salvation for his soul. therefore, he participates in a discussion with a Jew and a christian in order to test their credal positions against the rule of reason. in hugh’s opinion, the men of natural law direct their lives by natural reason alone, and they live in concupiscence and are openly evil, whereas in abelard’s work there is no suggestion that the pagan philosopher lives in concupiscence or is openly evil. it would almost seem that abelard wants to right the balance which was destroyed by hugh’s rather negative account of the men of natural law and of natural reason. abelard, the author-narrator of the Dialogue recounts a dream of his in which a philosopher, a Jew, and a christian come to solicit his help in order to adjudicate the merits of their respective positions. After he agrees to be their judge, the first dialogue between the philosopher and the Jew begins, comprising about a third of the whole. the second dialogue between the philosopher and the christian begins after the judge is reported to say that he would rather hear the rest of the debate before passing judgment; but unfortunately the work ends before the promised judgment is rendered. as a matter of fact, in Kierkegaard’s oeuvre there are no quotations from this book or references or—as far as I can see—identifiable allusions to this text; that is to say, we do not have any philological arguments to prove that Kierkegaard has actually read this work. therefore, the question obviously arises why precisely this fragmentary work aroused Kierkegaard’s interest so much that he bought it. it is clear that the relation between philosophy and christianity, which is an important topic in abelard’s Dialogue, was a central issue in Kierkegaard’s thought from the beginning,14 especially in his climacus writings, which were published between 1844 and 1846. it is also evident, however, that the main characteristics of the dialectic of abelard and climacus are essentially different. whereas, namely, abelard stands for a dialectic which aims at the rational foundation of the christian faith, Kierkegaard’s climacus, as is well-known, tries to show the fundamental undemonstrability of faith through the accurate elaboration of the existential category of paradox. climacus’ principle of the negative dialectic, namely the understanding of the impossibility of understanding,15

hugh of st. victor, On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith, trans. by roy J. deferrari, cambridge, Massachusetts: Mediaeval academy of america 1951, p. 149. 14 see, for example, Kierkegaard’s early note: “Philosophy and christianity can never be united.” SKS 17, 30, aa:13 / KJN 1, 25. 15 “Suppose that [Christianity] does not want to be understood and that the maximum of any eventual understanding is to understand that it cannot be understood.” SKS 7, 196 / CUP1, 214. 13

Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician 151

is basically foreign to the intellectual optimism of abelard.16 it is clear, of course, that the concrete philosophical contexts of Kierkegaard’s and abelard’s thought are rather different: whereas in the period of early scholasticism the question was the rule of reason in faith and theology, in the hegelian system speculative philosophy expressly becomes the truth of religion.17 in spite of this difference of contexts, however, the disparity between the dialectic of the two thinkers is evident.18 the only distant, but remarkable, parallel appears in the existential interest of abelard’s philosopher and the young dubitans climacus; the philosopher in the Dialogue is namely sincerely “seeking the salvation of [his] soul,”19 and the point of departure of the dialectical train of thoughts in the Postscript is similarly the question: “how can i, Johannes climacus, share in the happiness that christianity promises?”20 regarding the relevant secondary literature in Kierkegaard’s library, we can state that the only book which has abelard’s name in its title is an early work of the german post-hegelian philosopher, ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72), entitled Abälard und Héloise,21 which was bought together with abelard’s Dialogue on october 28, 1843. however, this book is by no means a monograph on the medieval pair in question, but—as the subtitle says—a series of humoristic-philosophical aphorisms on various topics, which have contact with them only in a wider, literary sense, and therefore this book can in no way count as a source of Kierkegaard’s knowledge of abelard. his conception of the objective truth of faith contrasts clearly with the subjectivisticexistential conception of Kierkegaard’s climacus. the fundamental difference between the two conceptions appears clearly from the following statements: “let an idolater say of stone or wood or any creature, ‘here is the true god, creator of heaven and earth,’ or let him preach any clear abomination; who would be able to refute him, if there is to be no rational discussion of the faith?” see Peter abelard, A Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew, and a Christian, p. 81. “if someone who lives in the midst of christianity enters, with knowledge of the true god, and prays, but prays in untruth, and if someone lives in an idolatrous land but prays with all the passion of infinity, although his eyes are more resting upon the image of an idol—where, then, is there more truth? there one prays in truth to god although he is worshiping an idol; the other prays in untruth to the true god and is therefore in truth worshiping an idol.” SKS 7, 184 / CUP1, 201. 17 g.w.F. hegel, Jub., vol. 5, p. 328 / Hegel’s Science of Logic, trans. by a.v. Miller, atlantic highlands: humanities Press international 1989, p. 824: “Philosophy has the same content and the same end as art and religion; but it is the highest mode of apprehending the absolute idea, because its mode is the highest mode, the notion.” (Jub. = Sämtliche Werke. Jubiläumsausgabe in 20 Bänden, ed. by hermann glockner, stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann verlag 1928–41.) 18 concerning the question of faith and reason as the main characteristic of the dialectic of abelard in the Dialogue see rudolf thomas, “die meditative dialektik im ‘dialogus inter philosophum, iudaeum et christianum,’ ” in Peter Abelard. Proceedings of the International Conference Louvan May 10–12, 1971, ed. by eligius M. Buytaert, leuven: leuven university Press and the hague: Martinus nijhoff 1974, pp. 99–115 (Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, series i, studia ii). thomas argues convincingly that abelard’s dialectic in this work is not a one-sided rationalistic effort but much rather a “dialectica meditativa sub Deo abscondito.” ibid., p. 115. 19 Peter abelard, A Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew, and a Christian, p. 28. see also ibid., p. 84. 20 SKS 7, 26 / CUP1, 17. 21 ludwig Feuerbach, Abälard und Héloise oder Der Schriftsteller und der Mensch. Eine Reihe humoristisch-philosophischer Aphorismen, ansbach: Brügel 1834 (ASKB 1637). 16

152

István Czakó

the year before Kierkegaard earned the doctoral degree in philosophy, Johan alfred Bornemann (1813–60), who was a theologian and, moreover, became Martensen’s successor as theology Professor at the university of copenhagen, defended his dissertation entitled Anselmus et Abelardus sive initia scholasticismi. although there are no references in Kierkegaard’s writings to this dissertation, due to the temporal proximity of the two dissertation defenses, we may assume that Kierkegaard, although he was not systematically interested either in anselm or in Abelard, knew this text to some degree. In the first part of the dissertation Bornemann deals with the principle of knowledge (principium cognoscendi) of the two thinkers, and then in the second part compares their conceptions of the reconciliation.22 the dissertation emphasizes the main differences between the two thinkers and criticizes abelard for his “abstract logical dialectic” and “subjective rationalism.”23 Bornemann (on p. 70. of his work) also refers to Johann andreas cramer’s (1723–88) interpretation of abelard in Jacob Benignus Bossuet’s (1627–1704) comprehensive Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion,24 which was not only owned but also consulted by Kierkegaard in the course of his reflections on the medieval thinker.25 the most important standard work for the study of the history of philosophy in Kierkegaard’s library was certainly wilhelm gottlieb tennemann’s (1761–1819) elevenvolume Geschichte der Philosophie,26 which was one of the most important sources for Kierkegaard regarding the overall questions of the history of philosophy. the chapter entitled “abälard”27 was surely consulted by him as is seen from a notebook entry from 1842 to 1843,28 which contains an explicit reference to this part of the work. as mentioned above, Johann andreas cramer’s interpretation of abelard in Bossuet’s Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion was also an important source for Kierkegaard’s knowledge of the scholastic master. this impressive survey of world history from the point of view of the eighteenth century deals mainly with the historical changes of religion and conceptions of state, with a special interest in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. thus, it is no accident that in the work a quite long chapter is dedicated to abelard, which deals with his life history and thought in detail, and analyzes in particular his important theological works, Introductio ad theologiam

see Johannes alfred Bornemann, Anselmus et Abaelardus sive initia scholasticismi, copenhagen: schultz 1840, pp. 44–140. (§§ 8–9, 10–15.) 23 ibid., p. 129. 24 Jacob Benignus Bossuet, Einleitung in die allgemeine Geschichte der Welt bis auf Kaiser Carl der Grossen für den ehemaligen Dauphin von Frankreich abgefasst, uebersetzt und mit einem Anlage historisch-critischer Abhandlungen vermehrt von Johann Andreas Cramer, vols. 1–7, leipzig: J.g.i. Breitkopf 1748–86 (vols. 2–7 constitute the part, in which J.a. cramer continues Bossuet’s work: these volumes are entitled Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion, fortgesetzt von d. Johann andreas cramer) (ASKB 1984–1990). 25 see SKS 18, 154, JJ:42 and SKS 18, 198, JJ:180. 26 wilhelm gottlieb tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1819 (ASKB 815–826). 27 ibid., vol. 8.1, pp. 170–204. 28 see SKS 19, 394, not13:26. 22

Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician 153

and Theologia christiana.29 the presentation of the scholastic master is here highly positive: according to cramer, “abelard stopped barbarism from repressing human reason entirely.”30 as it appears from Kierkegaard’s journals, he read this extensive introduction to abelard’s thinking between the years 1842 and 1844.31 although august neander’s (1789–1850) comprehensive monography on st. Bernard entitled Der heilige Bernhard und sein Zeitalter does not appear in The Auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s library, in a late note,32 Kierkegaard explicitly refers to the part of the work where abelard’s conception of miracles is interpreted.33 Neander gives here full details of St. Bernard’s conflict with Abelard and Arnold of Brescia.34 his presentation of abelard’s theological conception is based on an extensive analysis of abelard’s theological writings; moreover, he also discusses abelard’s ethical work, Scito teipsum.35 as a characterization of abelard’s rationalistic thought neander mentions that for him the christians should be the true logicians, since their doctrine has its origin in the divine logos.36 Precisely this rationalistic effort is the main target of Bernard’s criticism of abelard.37 Kierkegaard owned heinrich ernst Ferdinand guerike’s (1803–78) handbook on church history as well, which discusses among others abelard’s thought, and although Kierkegaard does not refer to guerike’s work explicitly in this context, it is quite possible that a note from 184438 may be interpreted as a distant reminiscence of his statement on abelard’s use of reason in the explication of the divine revelation.39 “ueber Peter abaelards versuche, den lehrbegrif der religion seiner zeit dialektisch zu erklären und beweisen,” in Bossuet, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion, vol. 6, pp. 309–441. 30 “Wie traurig indeß auch diese Zeiten für die wahre Cultur der Menschheit waren, so war es doch immer ein Glück, daß noch Gelehrte empor kamen, welche, wie Abaelard, Barbarey derselben hinderten, den menschlichen Verstand ganz zu unterdrücken.” ibid., p. 440. 31 see the journal entries JJ:42 and JJ:180, in SKS 18, p. 154 and p. 198. 32 SKS 24, 91–92, nB21:149 / JP 3, 2722. 33 august neander, Der heilige Bernhard und sein Zeitalter, 2nd ed., hamburg-gotha: Friedrich und andreas Perthes 1848, pp. 246–7. 34 ibid., pp. 133–318 (“Bernhards Kampf mit Peter abälard und arnold von Brescia”). 35 neander, Der heilige Bernhard und sein Zeitalter, pp. 213ff. 36 “Die Christen sollen nach Abälard, da ihre Lehre von dem göttlichen Logos ausging, die wahren Logiker sein.” see neander, Der heilige Bernhard und sein Zeitalter, p. 200. 37 “Dum paratus est de omnibus reddere rationem, etiam quae sunt supra rationem, et contra rationem praesumit, et contra fidem. Quid enim magis contra rationem, quam ratione rationem conari transscendere?” Bernhard of clairvaux, Tractatus de erroribus Abaelardi, quoted in neander, Der heilige Bernhard und sein Zeitalter, p. 264. 38 “The conflicts of his [sc. Abelard’s] soul must not be between the authority of the Pope and church and what he himself knows, but between his own sympathies, which are inclined to uphold the established—and then heloise.” SKS 18, 198, JJ:180 / JP 5, 5703. 39 “Zwar wollte auch er seine Dialektik und Speculation nicht zur Bekämpfung, sondern zur Erörterung und Vertheidigung der kirchlichen Glaubenslehre gebrauchen; aber er verfuhr dabei zügelloser und kühner, als andere seiner Zeitgenossen, in seinem früheren Leben bis zur Frivolität, und manche seiner Principien waren so sehr nur auf seine subjective Vernünftigkeit basirt, daß ihre seichten Ergebnisse mit der historischen Objectivität der göttlichen Offenbarungslehre, die er allein aus inneren Gründen deduciren mochte, nur zuvor Eingesehenes 29

154

István Czakó

during his years spent at university Kierkegaard bought steen steensen Blicher’s (1782–1848) collected novels, the fifth volume of which contains a detailed overview of abelard’s tragic life and his love story with heloise, mainly on the basis of the Historia calamitatum, which is followed by a translation of a letter of heloise to abelard and another from abelard to heloise.40 we do not have any clear evidence about whether Kierkegaard actually read this text; however, it is interesting, that Blicher describes abelard’s punishment by Fulbert as the “most monstrous act of cruelty” (afsyeligste Grusomhed),41 and Frater taciturnus in the Stages also explains this act as a kind of “cruelty” (Grusomhed).42 a theological monograph by Ferdinand christian Baur (1792–1860), also present in Kierkegaard’s library, discusses the christian doctrine of reconciliation in a historical perspective. in this book Baur compares the conception of reconciliation of anselm of canterbury with that of abelard. his conclusion is that the two theories are totally contrasting since whereas anselm interprets this theological problem in a judicial manner with the principles of justice, necessity, and satisfaction, abelard emphasizes the subjective elements of love, grace, and repentance.43 Bornemann deals with Baur’s important work in his dissertation and even criticizes Baur’s conception in some points.44 a short survey of abelard’s path of life can also be found in gotthard oswald Marbach’s (1810–90) history of the philosophy of the Middle ages, in which both rheinwald’s edition of the Dialogue and Feuerbach’s Abälard und Heloise are mentioned.45 of course, it is not only Kierkegaard’s own library which may count as a possible source for his knowledge of abelard since it is well-known that he used also several libraries of copenhagen. a careful investigation of the library records at the royal library has recently proved that Kierkegaard did not borrow any books by abelard from this library.46 in a note from 1852 Kierkegaard reports on his inquiry at the university library about a monograph of abelard, after which he received the list of

glaubend, in entscheidenem Conflict standen.” see heinrich ernst Ferdinand guerike, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838 [1833], vol. 1, p. 557 (ASKB 158–159). see also SKS K18, 313. 40 steen steensen Blicher, Samlede Noveller, vols. 1–5, 2nd ed., copenhagen: c. steens Forlag 1833–6, vol. 5, pp. 1–42 (ASKB 1521–1523). 41 Blicher, Samlede Noveller, vol. 5, p. 8. 42 SKS 6, 378 / SLW, 407. also cramer uses the expression “cruelty” (Grausamkeit) while characterizing Fulbert’s reprisal against abelard. see Bossuet, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion, vol. 6, p. 316. 43 see Ferdinand christian Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: osiander 1938, p. 195 (ASKB 423). 44 see Bornemann, Anselmus et Abelardus sive initia scholasticismi, p. 112. 45 gotthard oswald Marbach, Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters. Mit Angabe der Literatur nach den Quellen, leipzig: otto wigand 1841, pp. 268–9 (ASKB 643). 46 the research was made by Benjamín olivares Bøgeskov. i am indebted to him for this important information.

Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician 155

works which were present there.47 unfortunately, however, the records of the university library do not survive, and therefore we cannot verify whether Kierkegaard actually borrowed any of them. the only fact we can establish here is that after this period neither abelard’s name nor the works mentioned in the note appear in his oeuvre. III. Kierkegaard’s References to Abelard if we now turn to the texts of Kierkegaard to examine how much abelard’s thought actually influenced him, we get a picture which is at first glance rather disillusioning: abelard’s name is only sporadically mentioned in Kierkegaard’s oeuvre, between the years 1842–52, and there are de facto no direct quotations from his works.48 we find only reflections on his life and on some passages of the secondary literature, along with an inexact reference to a work of abelard treated by tennemann.49 this does not mean, however, that Kierkegaard was not interested in the scholastic master. although he found scholastic thinking problematic in many respects, and considered monastic life as a kind of objective religiosity quite contrary to authentic christianity, he always treated abelard, as we will see, with respect and sympathy. he not only wrote in 1844 that he “must use abelard sometime,”50 and he actually did so. in the oeuvre there are altogether eight passages where his name explicitly appears. In the first period of his reflections, that is from 1842–3 up to Stages on Life’s Way, he focuses mainly on abelard’s existence with a special interest in his relation to heloise, whereas in the second period, which ends in 1852, Kierkegaard’s interest is directed to a certain theoretical problem in abelard’s thought, namely, to his conception of the possibility of miracles, which was not only shared to a certain extent by Kierkegaard, but also inserted in the context of his critical diagnosis of age.51 The first passage where Abelard’s name is mentioned is a note from 1842–3 where Kierkegaard says: “abelard has written a work [entitled] De praedicamentis. see tennemann, viii, pt. 1, p. 186.”52 This short note belongs to the first part of the Notebook 13, entitled “Philosophical topics” (Philosophica).53 this part of the Pap. X–6 c 7.1: “I Anledning af en Forespørgsel paa Universitets–Bibliotheket, om det havde en Monographie af Abælard svaredes: / Bibliotheket har kun: Frerichs de Petri Abælardi doctrina dogmatica et morali Jena 1826. Qto; og Rheinwald P. Abæl. epitome theol. christ.; foruden Ouvrages inédits d’ Abæl. P. Cousin Paris 1836 4to; og Petri Abæl. Opera ed. Cousin. T. 1. Paris 1849 Qto.” 48 the only place in Kierkegaard’s journals, which is apparently a direct quotation from abelard is a sentence about his conception of miracles; however, the source of this sentence is not a primary text of the scholastic master, but an indirect, german quotation in neander’s monography on st. Bernard. Moreover, although Kierkegaard uses quotation marks here, his danish sentence is more a paraphrase than a translation of neander’s text. see SKS 24, 91–92, nB21:149 and august neander, Der heilige Bernhard und sein Zeitalter, p. 247. 49 SKS 19, 394, not13:26. 50 SKS 18, 198, JJ:180 / JP 5, 5703. 51 see SKS 24, 91–92, nB21:149. 52 SKS 19, 394, not13:26 / JP 5, 5596: “abælard har skrevet et værk de prædicamentis cfr. tennemann 8 B. 1ste af. p. 186.” 53 SKS 19, 383, not13:1. 47

156

István Czakó

notebook includes various excerpts from different philosophical writers as well as remarks on them, and in entries 25–34 a number of reflections appear on several volumes of tennemann’s monumental history of philosophy. the title referred to in Kierkegaard’s note is indicated by tennemann in german54 and probably refers to abelard’s early logical work, Glossae in categorias; however, we do not have any more reflections on this text in the later part of the oeuvre. the reason for this apparently isolated note is probably the fact that in Notebook 13 the problem of the categories is repeatedly treated: in entry 4, for instance, the Pythagorian categories are listed, and then in entry 41 Kierkegaard discusses this question in detail with respect to aristotle and hegel. the second passage in the Journal JJ was written in the same period, i.e., 1842–3, and focuses on abelard’s dramatic life and relation to heloise in the light of Bossuet’s and cramer’s impressive historical monograph: abelard lends himself superbly to dramatic treatment. in Bossuet’s Geschichte, vi, pp. 315ff., i have underlined several hints concerning his life. the situations would be extremely interesting; heloise not only had fallen in love with abelard but was philosophically infatuated with him, proud of his renown, jealous of his philosophical distinctions.55

Bossuet’s passage, which is referred to by Kierkegaard here, can be found in the chapter entitled, “on Peter abelard’s effort to explain and to Prove dialectically the religious doctrine of his age,”56 where also abelard’s biography is treated in detail.57 From the note it appears that Kierkegaard studied this text extensively; unfortunately, however, his own copy of Bossuet’s work is not known, and therefore we cannot identify which “hints” were actually “underlined” by him. it is clear that the work mainly reproduces the narrative of abelard’s autobiographical letter Historia calamitatum, and in this context it emphasizes: “also heloise was happy to become a pupil of a master, whose youth and engaging character attracted her in the same manner as the fascinating charm of his lecture.”58 that is to say that heloise’s relation to abelard was not at all a purely erotic one, but was followed by a philosophical admiration as well. we cannot clearly decide whether this sentence, which begins “Durch eine Menge seiner Unterscheidungen, derentwegen er auf seinen tractat von den Prädicamenten verweist, gelingt es ihm, mehr den Forderungen der Philosophie, als der Theologie genüge zu leisten.” see tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. 8.1 (1810), p. 186. 55 SKS 18, 154, JJ:42 / JP 5, 5609. “Abælard lod sig ypperlig behandle dramatisk. I Bossuets Geschichte, 6te Bind p. 315 o: fl., har jeg understreget enkelte Vink hans Liv betræffende. Situationerne vilde blive yderst interessante; Heloise har ikke blot været forelsket i Abælard, men philosophisk forgabet i ham, stolt af hans Navnkundighed, iversyg paa hans philosophiske Ære.” 56 “ueber Peter abélards versuche, den lehrbegriff der religion seiner zeit dialektisch zu erklären un zu beweisen.” cf. Bossuet, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion, vol. 6, pp. 309–411. 57 Bossuet, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion, vol. 6, pp. 310–37. 58 “Auch Heloise freudete sich, die Schülerin eines Lehrers zu werden, dessen Jugend und angenehme Gestalt ihr eben so sehr gefiel, als die reizende Anmuth seines Vortrages.” Bossuet, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion, vol. 6, pp. 314–15. see also abélard, Historia Calamitatum, pp. 71–2. 54

Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician 157

on p. 314 and only partly extends over to p. 315, was de facto the starting point for Kierkegaard’s reflections on Abelard’s dramatic form of existence.59 in any case the main point here is that it is in this note that Kierkegaard’s deep interest in abelard’s dramatic life story and his relation to Heloise appears for the first time; it will be treated in the Stages as an authentic form of unhappy love. the third note can also be found in the Journal JJ and was written in 1844. Kierkegaard treats abelard here from an explicitly dramatic point of view again, namely, with regard on his internal conflicts: “I must use Abelard sometime. He must be completely modernized. The conflicts in his soul must not be between the authority of the Pope and church and what he himself knows, but between his own sympathies, which are inclined to uphold the established—and then heloise.”60 as mentioned above, it is possible that this note contains a distant reminiscence of h.e.F. guerike’s statement on abelard’s use of reason in the explication of the divine revelation. Yet we must remark that whereas for Guerike the main conflict in Abelard was between his subjective rationality (subjective Vernünftigkeit) and the doctrine of objective, divine revelation (göttliche Offenbarungslehre),61 in Kierkegaard’s interpretation his true conflicts concerned his own existential subjectivity. Bossuet’s historical monograph, which was extensively consulted by Kierkegaard, also seems to be relevant in this respect, because it throws light on the fact that, according to the contemporary doctrine of the church, it was not allowed to continue a marriage after one was castrated, which surely produced the deepest conflict between Abelard’s sympathies for established custom and for his wife.62 The fourth and the fifth notes were also written in 1844, namely, during the time of the preparations for Stages on Life’s Way. Both of them belong clearly to Kierkegaard’s drafts of this important work. From the notes it appears that Kierkegaard had from the very beginning the intention of discussing the figure of Abelard in the context of Frater taciturnus’ “letter to the reader” in the second part entitled “guilty?”/“not guilty?.” the one entry contains a list of some short remarks, the elaboration of which was planned in this part of the Stages. in this context abelard’s name appears together with a reference to two different passages of the journals, namely, to JJ:42 another possible source for Kierkegaard’s remark might be Bossuet’s account about heloise’s effort to retain abelard’s literary distinction (litterarische Ehre) even in their secret marriage: “Sie wurden auch, aller Einwendungen ungeachtet, die sie aus einer fast mehr als romanhaften zärtlichen Besorgniß fuer die litterarische Ehre ihres Abaelards dawider machte, in Fulberts und einiger Zeugen Gegenwart zu Paris in aller Stille mit einander getrauet.” see Bossuet, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion, vol. 6, p. 316. 60 SKS 18, 198, JJ:180 / JP 5, 5703. “Abælard maa jeg dog engang bruge. Han maa aldeles moderniseres. Conflicterne i hans Sjæl maa ikke være mellem Pavens og Kirkens Auctoritet, og hans Viden, men mellem Sympathien i ham, der gjerne vil holde det Bestaaende oppe. – Og saa Heloise – / cfr. p. 13 i denne Bog.” 61 see guerike, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1, p. 557. 62 “[M]ißhandelten ihn an seinem Leibe mit einer Grausamkeit, wodurch die weitere Fortsetzung seiner Ehe unmoeglich ward, sie nun wider ihre Neigung voellig eine Nonne werden, er aber auch, nach dem damaligen Aberglauben, der Welt entsagen und in den Moenchstand zu treten, sich entschließen mußte.” see Bossuet, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion, vol. 6, pp. 316–17. 59

158

István Czakó

and to JJ:180, where, as we have seen, his tragic life as well as his relation to heloise is treated.63 in the other entry abelard is mentioned among some distinctive characters of the most famous unhappy love stories, Petrarch, romeo, and axel, and the question at hand is what significance they can have for aesthetics.64 Kierkegaard indicates here a construction as well, which is specific for these stories, but the overall explication of this statement occurs only in the text of the Stages.65 “what is unhappy love, and what is the variant in the imaginary construction?” this is the question treated in § 1 of Frater taciturnus’ “letter to the reader,” which constitutes the sixth passage regarding abelard in the oeuvre. according to taciturnus, “unhappy love implies that love is assumed and that there is a power that prevents it from expressing itself happily in the lovers’ union.”66 this power, however, in the unhappy love’s case may be only an external one, that is, an obstacle, which cannot be removed. this means that the unhappy love has its dialectic and contradiction always outside itself, not in itself.67 as an authentic passion, unhappy love in itself is by nature immediate. if love becomes internally dialectical, in other words, if it assumes in itself the moment of reflection, then it loses its original pathos and immediacy. in taciturnus’ critical diagnosis of age this is exactly the case with the present generation. “the time of immediacy is over,”68 he says, because reflection destroys every passion, and the immediacy of love disappears in the same way as the infinite passion of politics.69 This is the context in which Abelard’s figure as an unhappy lover is treated in the Stages:

“Efterskrift af Frater Taciturnus / De smaae Opsatser som skal lægges ind i „Skyldig? – Ikke-Skyldig?.” / 1) Fader-Bekymring. Cfr. Journalen p. 25 og 26 ø. Cfr. p. 77 ø. / 2) En spedalsk Selvbetragtning cfr. Journalen p. 55. / 3) cfr. Journalen p. 57. smgln. P. 75 n: og 76 ø. / 4) Erindringer af mit Liv af Nebucadnezar cfr. Journalen p. 59. / 5) Abælard. Cfr. Journalen p. 96 nederst og p. 13 øverst. / 6) Den stille Fortvivlelse. Cfr. Journalen p. 121. / 7). cfr. Fenelon Lebensbeschreibungen und Lehrsätze der alten Weltweisen…Perianders Liv. Bemærket i mit Exemplar / fra p. 79 o: fl.” Pap. v B 124. 64 “Efterskrift af Frater Taciturnus. / Bogen skal ende med nogle: Tillægsbemærkninger, hvor der udvikles, at denne Construktion er specifique fra enhver tidligere af de navnkundigere ulykkelige Kjærlighedshistorier. / Petrarca. / Abelard. / Romeo. / Axel. / der vises hvilken Betydning dette kunde have for Æsthetiken. – Lidt Hensyn til Heibergs Taabeligheder om det Drama, som Tiden nu fordrer : som Martensen og andre Cavalerer applaudere.” Pap. v B 148.1–2. 65 SKS 6, 378 / SLW, 407. 66 SKS 6, 375 / SLW, 405. 67 SKS 6, 377 / SLW, 406. 68 SKS 6, 384 / SLW, 415. 69 cf. SKS 6, 380 / SLW, 410. this is one of the most important issues of Kierkegaard’s lenghty review on thomasine gyllemburg’s novel Two Ages. For an account of the interpretation of Kierkegaard’s dialectical use of the categories “immediacy” and “reflection” in this work see Merold westphal, Kierkegaard’s Criticism of Reason and Society, Pennsylvania: the Pennsylvania state university Press, 1991, pp. 43–59; and Katalin nun, “thomasine gyllembourg’s Two Ages and her Portrayal of everyday life,” in Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries. The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, Berlin and new York: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 290–97. For an account of the general use of this categories in Kierkegaard’s though see 63

Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician 159 Petrarch sees laura joined to another. abelard does not feel separated from héloise by his holy orders (for love is the absolute passion)—he is separated by Fulbert’s wrath and, alas, by his cruelty. romeo does not feel the family hatred as that which separates, because it also moves in him through filial piety towards his father; it is the family feud that actually separates him from Juliet; axel has no conscientious scruples about the close relationship, and valborg understands only that they love each other; it is the church with its external power that separates them. take the obstacles away, and those unhappy people are the happiest of lovers.70

thus to be an unhappy lover does not at all mean for Kierkegaard to have an affective eruption, but to exist in an authentic manner, because of the presence of the absolute passion of love. therefore, abelard’s dramatic relation to heloise caught his attention in the second quarter of the 1840s primarily not as an extraordinary love story, but as a possibility of existence realized in actual life. Between 1845 and 1850 there is a long hiatus in the series of Kierkegaard’s reflections on Abelard. In this period the name of the famous dialectician does not appear in Kierkegaard’s writings at all. the seventh passage of the oeuvre, which deals again with the scholastic master was written only in 1850, i.e., five years after the Stages was published. the reason for this interval is perhaps the turn which took place in Kierkegaard’s thought from 1846, namely, in the period after the publication of the monumental and in many senses “concluding” Postscript. although the existential problems remained an important issue for Kierkegaard at this time, there were two topics which came with even more intensity into the limelight of his thought, namely, the diagnosis of the age and the criticism of established christianity (Christenhed). Both of them were of course always present in his writings, but from this time they definitely played a central role: the first one was closely connected with contemporary political events whereas the second one developed in connection with Kierkegaard’s tragic conflict with the representatives of the official Church. the title of this note is “an observation by abelard” and the text reads as follows: in neander’s biography of Bernard (2 ed., pp. 246 and 247) abelard’s view of miracles is presented, including his interpretation of the later absence of miracles as a proof of the decline of faith and the secularization of christianity. “and,” he adds, “right now miracles are needed more than when the teaching came into the world, now when a dead faith prevails.” here neander cannot refrain from pointing out that apparently abelard is merely looking for arguments against his opponents, since the need for miracles when the teaching came into the world was an entirely different matter and since, in addition, a dead faith most readily clings to miracles. alas, no, abelard is right. is is absolutely true that more miracles, if possible, are needed when it is a matter of tearing people out of the illusion that they are believers, for the battle conditions and the task are far more difficult than when Christianity had to deal with pagans. as for the point that a dead faith greatly prefers to cling to miracles, this

Immediacy and Reflection in Kierkegaard’s Thought, ed. by Paul cruysberghs et al., leuven: louvain university Press 2003 (Louvain Philosophical Studies). 70 SKS 6, 378 / SLW, 407.

160

István Czakó holds only in relation to miracles at a historical distance. dead faith cannot get involved contemporaneously with miracles.71

In this relatively long passage we find an approach to Abelard which clearly differs from that of the former notes. the main point here is namely not his tragic existence any more but his theoretical standpoint in a theological question. as we have seen, this is the only passage in the oeuvre which contains an apparently direct quotation from the scholastic master. if we compare, however, the text of neander’s monograph with that of Kierkegaard we find that although Kierkegaard uses quotation marks here, his danish sentence is more a paraphrase than a translation of neander’s sentence, which in itself seems to be a paraphrase and not a direct quotation.72 as we have seen, neander in the chapter entitled “the struggle of Bernhard with abelard and arnolf of Brescia”73 deals with the scholastic master extensively, and he also discusses abelard’s peculiar conception of miracles.74 in his Introductio in theologiam, Abelard defines “miracle” as a fact, “for which the original causalities in the nature would not be sufficient, if God had not added a new power to the things.”75 neander emphasizes that abelard did not want to deny the possibility of miracles at all, and he interpeted the contemporary lack of miracles as a consequence of the lack of faith and the secularization of christianity.76 as a matter of fact this is precisely the main point of abelard’s conception which was in perfect harmony with Kierkegaard’s argumentation against the established church. as is well-known, the punctum saliens of his criticism from the late 1840s was of exactly the presentation of the enormous illusion which determined the whole age and the situation of the contemporary, secularized christendom (Christenhed), because its existence was the greatest obstacle and enemy of the genuine, authentic christianity (Christendom). therefore, it is not surprising that he takes the side of abelard against neander,77 by arguing dialectically for the necessity of miracles SKS 24, 91–92, nB21:149 / JP 3, 2722. the quotation by Kierkegaard reads as follows: “‘Og’ tilføier han ‘just nu vare dog Under mere nødvendige end ved Lærens Indkomst, nu da en død Tro er det Herskende.’” SKS 24, 91–92, nB21:149 / JP 3, 2722. In Neander, however, we find the following statement: “Da doch der Glaube ohne Worte (sic!) ein todter sei, und wer den Willen des Herrn kenne und nicht thue, desto mehr schuldig sei, so schienen die wunder in dieser zeit besonders nothwendig, nicht minder um die Werke, als um den Glauben hervorzurufen.” (My emphasis). see neander, Der heilige Bernhard und sein Zeitalter, p. 247. 73 ibid., pp. 133–318. 74 ibid., pp. 243–47. 75 “Er bezeichnet als Wunder ‘das, wozu die ursprünglichen Kausalitäten in der Natur nicht hinreichen würden, wenn nicht Gott zu dem Gewöhnlichen eine neue Kraft hinzufügte.’” ibid., p. 245. 76 “Wie er geneigt war, das Verderben der Kirche seiner Zeit anzuklagen, und ihren Gegensatz mit dem ihm vorschwebenden Ideal nachzuweisen, so rechnete er zu diesem Gegensatz, wenn er seine Zeit mit der apostolischen verglich, gern auch den Mangel der Wunder. Er sah auch darin einen Beweis davon, daß es an der rechten Glaubenskraft in seiner Zeit fehle, ein Merkmal der Verweltlichung des religiösen Geistes.” ibid., p. 246. 77 neander’s critical comment on abelard’s conception, which was nearly word for word translated by Kierkegaard, reads as follows: “Wir sehn hier, wie Abälard nur Gründe 71 72

Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician 161

in the alienated christendom (Christenhed). it is characteristic for Kierkegaard that the position which he assigns to abelard here is in fact his own since, as we have seen, in the original german sentence quoted by Kierkegaard it is only said that miracles in the present age are “particularly needed” (besonders nothwendig), whereas Kierkegaard uses the formula “more miracles are needed” (behøvedes der mere Under),78 which implies a direct comparison between the original, authentic situation of christianity and the contemporary, alienated one. Maybe also abelard would agree with this dialectical expansion of his original conception, but it is also clear that his position as reconstructed by neander was not exactly the same as the one which was attributed to him here by Kierkegaard. the last entry in which abelard’s name appears was written two years later, in 1852. Kierkegaard reports here on his inquiry by the university library about a monograph by abelard and on the list of works which were present there: on occasion of an inquiry at the university library about whether they had a monograph by abelard, the answer was that the library has only Frerich’s de Petri Abælardi doctrina dogmatica et morali Jena 1826. qto; and rheinwald P. abæl. epitome theol. christ.; in addition Ouvrages inédits d’ Abæl. P. cousin Paris 1836 4to; and Petri abæl. Opera ed. cousin. t. 1. Paris 1849 qto.79

as mentioned above, because of the lack of records of the university library it is not possible to verify whether Kierkegaard really borrowed one or more of these four books. it is clear, however, that his interest in the scholastic master during this late period was directed more to his thought than to his actual existence. IV. Encounters with Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Image of the Knight of Dialectic as we have seen, from a purely theoretical point of view the positions of Kierkegaard and abelard are rather different: whereas abelard’s dialectic, despite its scintillating originality, is basically integrated into the context of the objective thinking of early scholasticism, Kierkegaard’s negative dialectic begins with a biting criticism of objective speculation and aims to explore the main structures of existing subjectivity in an entirely new way. From this, the fundamental difference between their conceptions of faith can also be derived: whereas abelard tries to adduce subtle arguments in favor of faith, Kierkegaard strictly limits the rule of reason concerning faith to the understanding of the impossibility of understanding,80 that is, for him reason is a conditio sine qua non for faith only in a purely negative sense. sucht für seine Behauptung und zur Widerlegung seiner Widersacher. Es ließ sich doch leicht einsehen, daß Wunder, die zuerst dazu dienen sollten, die Aufmerksamkeit einer göttlichen Thatsache zuzuwenden und zum Glauben anzuregen, am wenigsten dazu geeignet seien, den todten Glauben in einem lebendigen umzuschaffen; da ja grade dem Wunder am leichtesten auch der todte Glaube sich anschließen kann.” ibid., p. 247. 78 ibid., p. 247. 79 Pap. X–6 c 7.1. 80 see, for example, Johannes climacus’ aforementioned formula in the Postscript: SKS 7, 196 / CUP1, 24.

162

István Czakó

Therefore, at first sight it may seem quite surprising that this essential difference between the two conceptions does not appear at all in Kierkegaard’s reflections on the scholastic master. in fact, there are no critical remarks concerning abelard in the oeuvre. since we can scarcely presume that Kierkegaard was not aware of this fundamental disagreement, we can conclude that in this case the lack of critical comments has in itself an implicit meaning. if we survey Kierkegaard’s texts from a chronological point of view, we find that six of the altogether eight passages regarding Abelard were written between 1842–3 and 1845, i.e., in a relatively short period of his literary activity.81 as we have seen, at this time Kierkegaard was interested basically in the tragic life and in the exceptional existence of the scholastic dialectician. Apart from the first note from 1842–382 Kierkegaard’s approach to abelard was explicitly dominated by a deep existential interest in this dramatic figure, and although at this time he undoubtedly read works which discuss Abelard’s thought in detail, his reflections focused exclusively on the tragic relation between him and heloise. the unhappy love of the scholastic dialectician became, for Kierkegaard, a form of authentic existence and, as such, played an important role in the second part of Stages on Life’s Way. thus if we try to reconstruct Kierkegaard’s image of Abelard, we should take into account in the first place the genuine existential meaning of the dramatic turns of his life. Probably it is not pure chance that in this period in the passages where abelard is more or less copiously treated, he is always explicitly connected to his beloved heloise. that is, the main characteristics of Kierkegaard’s early picture of abelard are essentially dominated by the existential interpretation of the fate of the scholastic master. as we have seen, Kierkegaard returned to abelard in 1850, after an interval of five years. From a thematic point of view, we can state an unambiguous shift in this period since, instead of the existential problems, a theoretical question comes to the fore, namely, abelard’s conception of miracles.83 in spite of the clear difference between the thought of the two thinkers, however, Kierkegaard not only accepts Abelard’s—in some degree modified—standpoint with an open agreement here, but also revises neander’s criticism of the scholastic master. an obvious sign of his later interest in abelard is his last entry which also shows that Kierkegaard was during this period theoretically interested in the famous scholastic.84 after all, Kierkegaard’s image of abelard during this period was no less positive than it was in the second quarter of the 1840s. Perhaps these facts can be interpreted as a kind of sympathy cherished by Kierkegaard for the famous dialectican. although we have only sporadic and relatively few reflections on the scholastic master in the oeuvre, we can clearly see that Kierkegaard understood his exceptional life and his genuine thought in a profoundly emphatical way. the reason for this is probably not only the fact that abelard himself apparently broke with the objectivistic attitude of his age in some of his writings, and tried to elaborate, among other things, a subjective ethical SKS 19, 394, not13:26 / JP 5, 5596. SKS 18, 154, JJ:42 / JP 5, 5609. SKS 18, 198, JJ:180 / JP 5, 5703. Pap. v B 124. Pap. v B 148,1–2. SKS 6, 378 / SLW, 407. 82 SKS 19, 394, not13:26 / JP 5, 5596. 83 SKS 24, 91–92, nB21:149 / JP 3, 2722. 84 Pap. X–6 c 7.1. 81

Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician 163

conception and a new interpretation of faith. we may much rather assume that the intellectual encounters of the two dialecticians had ab ovo a deeper meaning for Kierkegaard in the sense that abelard’s par excellence passionate life and dramatic existence represented for him, as it were, a model for his own.

Bibliography I. Abelard’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Dialogus inter philosophum, judaeum et christianum, ed. by Friedrich henrich rheinwald, Berlin: enslin 1831 (vol. 1 in Anecdota ad historiam ecclesiasticam pertinentia, vols. 1–2, ed. by Friedrich henrich rheinwald, Berlin: enslin 1831–5) (ASKB 380). II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Abelard ast, Friedrich, Grundriss einer Geschichte der Philosophie, landshut: Joseph thomann 1807, pp. 219–21 (ASKB 385). Baur, Ferdinand christian, Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1838, p. 150; pp. 190–91; p. 195; p. 199; p. 201; p. 205 (ASKB 423). Bossuet, Jacob Benignus, Einleitung in die allgemeine Geschichte der Welt bis auf Kaiser Carl der Grossen für den ehemaligen Dauphin von Frankreich abgefasst, uebersetzt und mit einem Anhange historisch-critischer Abhandlungen vermehrt von Johann Andreas Cramer, vols. 1–7 leipzig: J.g.i. Breitkopf 1748–86 (vols. 2–7. constitute the part in which J.a. cramer continues Bossuet’s work: this volumes are entitled Einleitung in die Geschichte der Welt und der Religion, fortgesetzt von D. Johann Andreas Cramer) (ASKB 1984–1990). Buhle, Johann gottlieb, Geschichte der neuern Philosophie seit der Epoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, vols. 1–6 (in 10 parts), vols. 1–2, göttingen: Johann georg rosenbusch’s wittwe 1800; vols. 3–6, göttingen: Johann Friedrich röwer 1802–5, vol. 1, pp. 836ff. (ASKB 440–445). hahn, august (ed.), Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 4; p. 91; p. 249 (ASKB 535). hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich “abälard,” in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–3, ed. by carl ludwig Michelet, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1833–6 (vols. 13–15 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 3, pp. 170–71 (ASKB 557–559). helfferich, adolph, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung und in ihren Denkmalen, vols. 1–2, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, pp. 269–70; pp. 284ff.; p. 288; p. 325; p. 347; p. 351; p. 358; p. 389; p. 428 (ASKB 571–572).

Abelard: Kierkegaard’s Reflections on the Unhappy Love of a Scholastic Dialectician 165

[leibniz, gottfried wilhelm], God. Guil. Leibnitii Opera philosophica, quæ exstant latina gallica germanica omnia, vols. 1–2, ed. by Johann eduard erdmann, Berlin: eichler 1839–40, p. 654 (ASKB 620). Martensen, hans lassen, Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849, p. 362 (ASKB 653). Mynster, Jakob Peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1852–3 [vols. 4–6, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1855–7], vol. 1, p. 258 (ASKB 358–363). nielsen, rasmus, Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 43 (ASKB 698). —— Den propædeutiske Logik, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsen 1845, p. 33 (ASKB 699). tennemann, wilhelm gottlieb, “abälard,” in his Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1819, vol. 8.1, pp. 170–204 (ASKB 815–826). trendelenburg, adolf, Logische Untersuchungen, vols. 1–2, Berlin: g. Bethge 1840, vol. 2, p. 279n (ASKB 843). zimmermann, Johann georg, Ueber die Einsamkeit, vols. 1–4, leipzig: bey weidmanns erben und reich 1784–5, vol. 2, pp. 256ff. (ASKB 917–920). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Abelard none.

anselm of canterbury: the ambivalent legacy of Faith seeking understanding lee c. Barrett

I. Short Overview of Anselm’s Life and Thought the writings of anselm of canterbury have been celebrated as a primary stimulus to the emergence of scholastic theology in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. anselm was born in aosta, in the Piedmont region of italy, around 1033.1 Being of noble birth, he enjoyed sufficient resources to study in France and eventually joined lanfranc of Pavia’s monastery at Bec in normandy, a center of learning that was already becoming renowned for its theological studies. while at Bec he became a popular teacher, an effective administrator, and a promising theological author. typical of his generation of theologians, he did not develop any comprehensive system of theology nor did he produce the sort of summa that would become popular in the next century. rather, during his time at Bec he composed a series of monographs on specific topics, including the Monologion, the Proslogion, On the Grammarian, and Epistle on the Incarnation of the Word. having attracted the attention of both ecclesiastic and secular lords, anselm was elected abbot of Bec in 1078 and, after serving ably in that role, was consecrated as archbishop of canterbury in 1093. anselm was a staunch supporter of the ecclesial reforms of Pope gregory vii that sought to secure the independence of the church from the secular nobility and feudal monarchs. he quickly became embroiled in disputes with King william rufus of england and later with william’s successor King henry i over the issues of the exercise of lay authority in appointments to ecclesial positions and the extent of the church’s obligation under the traditions of feudalism to provide funds and troops for the king’s wars. Beginning in 1097, his efforts to assert church control over ecclesial appointments and to resist royal demands for more funds precipitated a series of exiles and reconciliations with the successive kings. during this tumultuous period Anselm wrote his influential Why God Became Human, as well as On Virginal Conception and Original Sin, On the Procession of the Holy

see r.w. southern, Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1990; eadmer, Vita Anselmi, ed. by r.w. southern, oxford: oxford university Press 1962.

1

168

Lee C. Barrett

Spirit, and On the Agreement of Foreknowledge, Predestination, Grace and Free Will. anselm died in 1109, exhausted from his struggles against lay investiture. anselm’s approach to theology is evident in the celebrated programmatic statement that introduces the ontological proof for god in the Proslogion: “For i do not seek to understand so that i may believe, but i believe so that i may understand.”2 this motto locates anselm squarely in the somewhat neoplatonic theological tradition of augustine. Faith in the teachings of the church is the indispensable foundation that leads through prayer and the use of reason to greater spiritual insight.3 this quest for illumination, sustained by God’s grace, leads ultimately to the beatific vision, the cognition of god.4 certain doctrinal beliefs must be presupposed in order to attain a true and adequate understanding of god, the cosmos, humanity, and their inter-relationships. if faith is presupposed, human reason, the intellectual capacities possessed even by heretics and infidels, could then be employed to demonstrate the truth of orthodox doctrines. For anselm, theology was more than the collation of the opinions of recognized church authorities, which is what it had been for his immediate predecessors. But in spite of his increased confidence in rational powers (rooted, of course, in faith), anselm did not attempt to lead individuals to faith through the use of reason. he merely hoped to demonstrate the reasonableness of beliefs already held. in fact, paraphrasing isaiah 7:9 he insisted that “unless i believe i shall not understand.”5 this effort to exhibit the plausibility and ratio of doctrinal convictions was important to anselm and his contemporaries for the apologetic purposes of refuting heretics and deepening the faith of believers. Joy should increase as believers slowly perceive the appropriateness and even the beauty of god’s actions in creation and redemption.6 anselm aspired to demonstrate not only the reasonableness of belief in the existence of god but also in such revealed doctrines as the atonement, the incarnation, and the trinity. By so doing, anselm reinforced and extended the trajectory in christian thought of regarding reason as being supportive of faith, while not being its foundation. although anselm’s rhetorically structured monographs did not exactly suit the more logical tastes of the next generation of theologians who wanted succinct, sequential points appropriate for lectures, his attitude toward the theological task prepared the ground for the flourishing of the scholastic impulse in the twelfth century. in the Monologion, which was intended to be a meditation on the divine essence, anselm argued in a rather Platonic fashion that being, value, and goodness must exist in themselves prior to their instantiation in particular finite phenomena, and that being itself, which must be construed as a supreme being, must exist.7 not content with this traditional argument, anselm proceeded in the Proslogion to develop what became widely known as the ontological argument for the existence anselm of canterbury, The Major Works, ed. by Brian davies and g.r. evans, oxford: oxford university Press 1998, p. 87. 3 see g.r. evans, Anselm, wilton, connecticut: Morehouse-Barlow 1989, pp. 37–48. 4 see david hogg, Anselm of Canterbury: The Beauty of Theology, aldershot: ashgate 2004, pp. 19–53. 5 anselm of canterbury, Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, p. 87. 6 see hogg, Anselm of Canterbury: The Beauty of Theology, pp. 175–88. 7 anselm of canterbury, Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, pp. 5–81. 2

Anselm of Canterbury: The Ambivalent Legacy of Faith Seeking Understanding

169

of god.8 according to anselm, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (id, quod maius cogitari nequit) must necessarily exist. existence is a perfection; consequently, that which is most perfect must possess it. Put simply, god cannot be thought of as not existing. immediately critics such as gaunilo of Marmoutiers raised the objection that one cannot deduce the existence of a being from the mere concept of that being, not even from the concept of a perfect exemplar of that being.9 this objection initiated a centuries-long debate concerning whether existence is a predicate, and whether existence is a quality that can admit of degrees of perfection. Even more fundamentally, Anselm’s argument triggered reflection on the question of whether the structure of thought must correspond to the structure of reality. By the beginning of the modern period the argument that he advanced would be regarded as a type of a priori proof of the existence of god, based on the analysis of the concept god. immanuel Kant would christen this the “ontological argument” for god’s existence and initiate the tendency to associate it with the somewhat different arguments of descartes and spinoza. On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, written in response to the council of Bari of 1098 which had debated the trinitarian controversies that had contributed to the schism of the eastern and western churches in 1054, was one of anselm’s more politically important treatises.10 having been urged by the Pope to defend the western view at the council, anselm argued that the holy spirit proceeds from both the Father and the son (the doctrine known as the “Filioque”), thereby countering the eastern church’s view that the spirit proceeds from the Father alone. in the course of this essay anselm also argued against the notion that the persons of the trinity possess their own individual substances, a view that he feared would imply tritheism. in the context of the ecclesial politics of his era, this was a crucial task because the influential theologian Roscelin of Compiègne (1050–1120), who seems to have entertained the proto-nominalist opinion that only individual existants are real, had been maintaining that Father, son, and holy spirit must possess different substances if they are to be in any way distinguished from one another. roscelin’s language of three substances contradicted the latin church’s way of phrasing the doctrine of the trinity and appeared to support the eastern church’s tendency to emphasize the distinctions of the trinitarian persons. in developing his argument, anselm contended that universals enjoy a real existence. thus anselm helped perpetuate and refine a platonizing tendency in theology. Although his work on the Trinity was influential in Anselm’s own context, this aspect of his thought was not well remembered in the nineteenth century, and was eclipsed by the celebrity of his ontological argument for god’s existence. anselm’s contributions to the development of the doctrine of the atonement rival the influence of his proof for the existence of God. In Why God Became Man (Cur Deus Homo) anselm sought to demonstrate the reasonableness of the incarnation of god in christ, a task that required a fresh analysis of christ’s atoning work.11 anselm 8 9 10 11

ibid., pp. 82–104. ibid., pp. 105–22. ibid., pp. 390–434. ibid., pp. 261–356.

170

Lee C. Barrett

argued that the incarnation could be understood to be necessary, given an acceptance of certain other doctrinal themes such as God’s beneficent purpose in the creation of humanity, god’s commitment to an orderly universe that honors god’s justice, and the tragic reality of original sin. according to anselm, the purpose of christ’s mission was not to defeat the devil or to ransom humanity from enslavement to evil powers, as his predecessors had proposed. anselm rejected the widely held theory that the devil possessed a legitimate claim upon the souls of sinners, a claim that god had to settle in order to rescue humanity from the devil’s clutches. instead of focusing on the need to defeat demonic powers, anselm explained the purpose for the incarnation in terms of the necessity to satisfy god’s “honor.”12 according to anselm, god must uphold the order of the cosmos, an order that is based upon the honoring of god’s benevolent purposes by all creatures. For the sake of the good of the created order, God cannot simply forgive an offense to God’s honor. Sin, the flagrant violation of God’s purposes, is an infinite offense to God’s honor that, if ignored, would throw the universe into spiraling disorder. therefore, humanity must “satisfy” god’s honor in order to restore the harmony, structure, and beauty of the cosmos. But, of course, not even the reformation and future perfect obedience of all humans would make the necessary reparation, for all such obedience is owed to god anyway and would not possess the extra value needed to counterbalance the enormity of humanity’s sin. in short, humanity cannot possibly offer satisfaction to god, even though it is only humanity that must offer satisfaction. if god wishes to save humanity (which god does wish to do in order to fulfill God’s benevolent intentions for the created order), god must design a way for some representative of humanity to offer a satisfaction of infinite value. Consequently, a “God/man” must offer the necessary satisfaction. The one who offers the satisfaction must be God because only God possesses infinite value and only god has the power to do so. But the one who offers the satisfaction must also be a human being because humanity is the party that owes the debt. this “satisfaction” view of the atonement became enormously influential in the Middle Ages, for it was congruent with the development of the liturgy of the Mass and the church’s penitential system, both of which employed “satisfaction” terminology and imagery. anselm’s satisfaction theory of the atonement would be bequeathed to Protestants and would figure prominently, along with other theories of the atonement, in Lutheran theology. II. Kierkegaard’s Familiarity with Anselm It is unlikely that Kierkegaard had extensive first-hand familiarity with Anselm’s own texts. no books by anselm are listed in the sale’s record of Kierkegaard’s library.13 Moreover, Kierkegaard never directly cites any passage from anselm’s corpus. although, as we shall see, he does use phrases associated with anselm, these terms were in general circulation in the cultural world of nineteenth-century denmark and could have been appropriated without any direct engagement with anselm’s works. see John Mcintyre, St. Anselm and his Critics: A Re-Interpretation of the “Cur Deus Homo,” edinburgh: oliver and Boyd 1954, pp. 76–114. 13 see The Auctioneer’s Sales Record of the Library of Søren Kierkegaard, ed. by h.P. rhode, copenhagen: the royal library 1967. 12

Anselm of Canterbury: The Ambivalent Legacy of Faith Seeking Understanding

171

however, Kierkegaard could have become conversant with anselm’s basic themes from a variety of secondary sources. Kierkegaard had attended henrik nicolai clausen’s (1793–1877) lectures on the history of theology, and he had been tutored by hans lassen Martensen (1808–84).14 he owned and frequently used Karl gottlieb Bretschneider’s (1776–1848) somewhat Kantian exposition of christian doctrine with its detailed historical documentation,15 Karl hase’s (1800–90) more orthodox presentation of lutheran doctrine with historical references,16 and august hahn’s (1792–1863) irenic, mediating theological textbook,17 also saturated with historical antecedents. in all of these works anselm received detailed attention. hase dealt with both the ontological argument and the satisfaction theory of the atonement.18 Bretschneider discussed the necessity for the incarnation, the need to satisfy the damage of sin, and the satisfaction theory of the atonement.19 Much later in his life, starting in 1851, Kierkegaard began a careful reading of georg Friedrich Böhringer’s (1812–79) Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder Kirchengeschichte,20 which contained a biography of anselm and an exposition of his thought. Kierkegaard frequently referred to this analysis of anselm in his journal entries of 1851. III. Kierkegaard’s Use of Anselm Kierkegaard did critically consider and evaluate anselm’s approach to theology that has been summarized as “faith seeking understanding.” this phrase, “credo ut intelligam,” was circulating widely in the theological culture of nineteenth-century denmark. the celebrated theologian Friedrich schleiermacher, whom Kierkegaard studied with Martensen, had used this quotation from anselm as a motto to introduce his magnum opus, The Christian Faith.21 schleiermacher interpreted the phrase to 14 see Joakim garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce h. Kirmmse, Princeton: Princeton university Press 2005, pp. 30–31; pp. 147–8; Between Hegel and Kierkegaard: Hans L. Martensen’s Philosophy of Religion, trans. by curtis l. thompson and david Kangas, introduction by curtis thompson, atlanta, georgia: scholars Press 1997, pp. 40–46. 15 Karl gottlieb Bretschneider, Handbuch der Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, vols. 1–2, 3rd ed., leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1828 [1814] (ASKB a i 25-26); Bretschneider, Handbuch der Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, vols. 1–2, 4th ed., leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1838 (ASKB 437–438). 16 Karl hase, Hutterus redivivus oder Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 4th ed., leipzig: Breitkopf und härtel 1839 (ASKB 581). 17 august hahn, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828 (ASKB 535). 18 hase, Hutterus redivivus, p. 131; p. 255. 19 Bretschneider, Handbuch der Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 4th ed., vol. 2, p. 206; p. 251; p. 337. 20 Friedrich Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8] (ASKB 173–177) vol. 2, abtheilung 1, pp. 350–429. 21 Friedrich schleiermacher, Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsä[t]zen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt, vols. 1–2, 3rd ed., Berlin: g. reimer 1835–6 (vols. 3–4, in Friedrich Schleiermacher’s sämmtliche Werke, erste abtheilung. Zur

172

Lee C. Barrett

mean that faith as the christian mode of self-consciousness inevitably seeks to express itself in the form of thought, and therefore regarded anselm’s dictum as a precursor of his own theological method.22 similarly, Martensen cited and paraphrased it in support of his conviction that the immediacy of faith should give rise to cognition. in his “review of the Introductory Lecture to the Logic Course” by J.l. heiberg, Martensen contrasted anselm’s “credam ut intelligam” as the motto of medieval philosophy with the cartesian slogan “cogito ergo sum,” concluding that the foundation of modern philosophical reflection in doubt and autonomous reason cannot adequately account for the free self-revelation of god.23 By the time that he wrote Christian Dogmatics, Martensen was hailing “credo ut intelligam” as an ideal expression for the fact that christian knowledge must presuppose faith as immediate perception of and contact with faith’s object, while striving for a deeper grasp of that object through the speculative exploration of the inner connections among faith’s contents.24 Martensen, of course, differentiated himself from schleiermacher’s appropriation of the phrase, for he feared that schleiermacher reduced christian understanding to the analysis of the faithful christian’s subjective states.25 For both these authors anselm’s articulation of his theological method served as an alternative to rationalism and empiricism by positing faith as a foundation for knowledge, while it also functioned as an antidote to bare confessionalism by insisting that faith should give rise to some sort of reflection. Kierkegaard was aware of anselm’s “credo ut intelligam,” and quoted the slogan in 1837.26 at that time Kierkegaard interpreted it as a restatement of the venerable epistemological maxim that there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses, and took it to be pointing to the primacy of experience. Kierkegaard quoted the phrase again in 1844, citing it as one of three positions in which knowledge in some manner comes only after faith.27 in his journal entries of 1842–3, Kierkegaard denied that knowledge is higher than faith.28 Kierkegaard focused on the phrase’s apparent implication that understanding should be the fulfillment or telos of faith, and therefore condemned it as precursor of speculative idealism’s sublation of faith. Kierkegaard became suspicious of any language suggesting that religious pathos should be transmuted into a science. By 1849 Kierkegaard was explicitly rejecting the notion that believing involves a drive toward comprehension and dismissed the putative ability to comprehend faith’s objects as a vain imagination.29 instead Theologie, Berlin: g. reimer 1834–64 (some of the volumes were published in Berlin: august herbig)) (ASKB 258), vol. 1, p. i. 22 ibid., vol. 1, pp. 3–6; pp. 99–120. 23 hans lassen Martensen, “review of the Introductory Lecture to the Logic Course,” in Heiberg’s Introductory Lecture to the Logic Course and Other Texts, ed. and trans. by Jon stewart, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 2007, pp. 76–7. 24 hans lassen Martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849 (ASKB 653), §§ 1–3; §§ 30–35. 25 see hans lassen Martensen, Den menneskelige Selvbevidstheds Autonomie, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1841, §§ 25 (ASKB 651). 26 SKS 19, dd:82 / JP 2, 1098. 27 SKS 18, JJ:196 / JP 2, 1111. 28 Pap. iv c 99 / JP 2, 2283. 29 SKS 22, 43, nB11:70 / JP 2, 1130.

Anselm of Canterbury: The Ambivalent Legacy of Faith Seeking Understanding

173

of comprehension, faith involves will and obedience. in his later journal entries Kierkegaard defined faith in the New Testament sense as being something ethical rather than intellectual, involving obedience to god.30 Faith does not involve any sort of seeing, but operates against reason (what Kierkegaard meant by this remains hotly debated in the secondary literature). he accused the alexandrian theologians and Augustine of developing the definition of faith in an unfortunate Platonic direction by associating it with intellectual insight. to summarize, Kierkegaard’s attitude toward anselm’s theological method was mixed. on the one hand, the fact that anselm regarded faith as foundational made him preferable to all subsequent rationalisms. on the other hand, the implication that faith should eventuate in a higher knowledge rendered him a suspicious precursor of “speculation.” anselm’s development of what Kant had termed the ontological argument also figured prominently in Kierkegaard’s intellectual environment.31 the argument was much discussed in the second third of the nineteenth century because of the attention that hegel and others had given it, particularly in hegel’s lectures on the philosophy of religion delivered in Berlin in 1821, 1824, 1827, and 1831. Philipp Marheineke’s twovolume edition of hegel’s lectures, based on student notes, appeared in 1832, while a second edition was published in 1840, prepared largely by Bruno Bauer. in denmark, Johan ludvig heiberg (1791–1860) published On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age in 1833 largely to acquaint the danish cultural elite with hegel’s philosophy of religion.32 consequently, hegel’s discussion of the ontological argument would not have been unknown in danish theological circles. hegel had rejected Kant’s objection that the argument fails because existence can never function as a predicate.33 according to hegel, the inability of existence to function as a predicate is only true in regard to contingent beings. But, he contends, if a concept possesses the modality of necessity, then existence could be implied by the concept itself. the existence of an infinite and necessary being is part of the concept of such a being, and consequently its existence is implied. however, hegel did not believe that anselm had achieved all that he hoped to accomplish through the deployment of his argument. the argument does not prove that the infinite necessary being is the God of faith. According to Hegel, the argument is wanting in two respects. First, the ideality of the concept of absolute being is divorced from the concept’s instances; the concept fails to address lived experience. secondly, the argument needs to incorporate the sense of god as an immediate object Pap. Xi–2 a 380 / JP 2, 1154. see immanuel Kant, Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, 4th ed. riga: Johann Friedrich hartknoch 1794 (ASKB 595). 32 see Jon stewart, “introduction,” in J.l. heiberg, Heiberg’s On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age and Other Texts, ed. and trans. by Jon stewart, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 2005, pp. 16–26; Johan ludvig heiberg, Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1833 (ASKB 568). 33 see daniel e. shannon, “hegel Facing anselm: god, evil, and truth,” in Saint Anselm: His Origins and Influence, ed. by John r. Fortin, lewiston, new York: edward Mellen Press 2001, pp. 161–83; Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, vols. 1–2, ed. by Philipp Marheineke, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1840 (vols. 11–12 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), part iii, section B (ASKB 564–565). 30 31

174

Lee C. Barrett

of faith; anselm did not include in his argument the drive of the religious life toward fulfillment in self-consciousness. Objective knowledge and subjective yearning are divorced. in any subjective drive there remains a separation between desire and formal knowledge, in this case knowledge of god. But, for hegel, if immediacy is included in this mediated form of knowledge, the argument can be salvaged. Kierkegaard could have been aware of the discussion of anselm’s ontological argument from any one of a number of sources. as we have seen, it was addressed in his theological textbooks. he probably encountered it in his conversation with Martensen about schleiermacher’s theology. he may have read the accounts of it in hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion or in heiberg’s On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age, both of which he owned.34 Moreover, Kierkegaard certainly heard an analysis of anselm’s argument from Friedrich schelling. Following the public defense of his dissertation, Kierkegaard attended schelling’s lectures in Berlin in 1841–2. his notes show that schelling gave the ontological argument, including anselm’s version of it, considerable attention.35 according to Kierkegaard’s notes, schelling regarded anselm’s argument as an expression of negative philosophy, which deals not with existence but with essences, the possibility of existence. according to schelling, negative philosophy restricts itself to the question of “what” something is and cannot deal with the question “that” something is. all anselm’s argument demonstrates is that the highest being, or the highest potency, can only exist necessarily and not accidentally, if it exists. But knowledge of an a priori concept, or potency, cannot yield a posteriori knowledge of an actuality.36 in this context Kierkegaard applauded schelling’s interest in the positive, in actuality, even though he became progressively disappointed as the lectures proceeded. The ontological argument figures most significantly in Kierkegaard’s published works in Philosophical Fragments, at least as a background theme.37 climacus, Kierkgaard’s pseudonymous author, does not single out anselm as the main exemplar of the argument, and devotes much more attention to descartes’ and spinoza’s variants. however, in a draft Kierkegaard lumped the arguments together as the “anselmiancartesian ideal” and criticized them for deceptively shifting from a factual line of demonstration to an ideal one.38 in Philosophical Fragments Kierkegaard’s attitude toward the argument is decidedly negative. climacus remarks, “if, namely, the god does not exist, then of course it is impossible to demonstrate it. But if he does exist, then it is foolishness to want to demonstrate it.…”39 according to climacus, who seems to have descartes’ version of the argument in mind, anyone who is attempting to prove that “the unknown” is God, is merely developing the definition of a concept, and not demonstrating existence. concerning alleged proofs of existence, climacus Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion; heiberg, Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid. 35 SKS 19, not 11:20–21 / SBL, 368–72. 36 SKS 19, not 11:20 / SBL, 368. 37 SKS 4, 245–50 / PF, 39–43. 38 Pap. v B 5:5, 60. 39 SKS 4, 245 / PF, 39. 34

Anselm of Canterbury: The Ambivalent Legacy of Faith Seeking Understanding

175

objects that one never actually reasons to existence, but rather presupposes it. spinoza’s contention that the more perfect a thing is by its own nature, the more necessary must be its existence is nothing more than a tautology, an elucidation of a concept, because perfection is already defined as reality or being. For Climacus, to speak of more or less being is misleading. his sweeping indictment is that putative demonstrations of existence fail to distinguish factual and ideal being. if someone speaks ideally about being, that person is not really speaking of being at all but is only prattling about essence. the movement from ideality to existence always requires a leap that logical arguments cannot capture.40 in these passages anselm, the implied progenitor of the ontological argument, is guilty of initiating a dangerous confusion of possibility and actuality. Climacus’ affinities with the critiques of the argument by Kant and schelling are evident. climacus also alludes to the ontological argument in Concluding Unscientific Postscript.41 although he mentions hegel’s critique of descartes in a footnote, the form of the argument that he analyzes more closely corresponds to that of anselm. in a manner reminiscent of Philosophical Fragments, climacus describes the argument as a hypothesis that could take two different forms, depending on whether the supreme being’s existence is presupposed or not. one way of developing the argument would be: a supreme being who is assumed to not exist must be in possession of all perfections; consequently, because being is a perfection, the supreme being who does not exist must also exist. this combination of words is, of course, nonsense. the alternative way of developing the argument would be: if a supreme being is assumed to be, this being must be assumed to possess all perfections; consequently, because being is a perfection, this supreme being must be (if it exists). unfortunately, as climacus notes, the alleged conclusion is nothing more than a “fraudulent paraphrase of a presupposition.”42 as such, it is an example of the confusion of thought with actuality, and, as such, deals only with possibility. Because of its form of “abstract thinking,” the argument represents a vice which he also associates with speculative idealism. again, anselm’s legacy is presented in an exceedingly unfavorable light. later Kierkegaard may have developed a more nuanced assessment of anselm as the originator of the ontological argument. in his journals of 1851 Kierkegaard commented on Friedrich Böhringer’s account of the life and thought of anselm.43 in many respects, his negative assessment of anselm does continue. Kierkegaard observes that anselm, in developing the ontological argument, has contributed to the growth of free thought and the glorification of autonomous reason. Kierkegaard continues to object that anselm failed to appreciate the force of gaunilo’s objection that “that which greater nothing can be conceived” is a mere thought, and that the existence of such a being is the very thing that must be proved. nevertheless, Kierkegaard begins to commend aspects of anselm’s piety, even though anselm himself failed to grasp the true significance of his own religious pathos. Kierkegaard SKS 4, 249 / PF, 43. SKS 7, 305–8 / CUP1, 333–5. 42 SKS 7, 306 / CUP1, 334. 43 SKS 24, 301–2, nB23:203 / JP 3, 3615; see Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi, vol. 2, abtheilung 1, p. 350. 40 41

176

Lee C. Barrett

draws attention to Böhringer’s observation that anselm in the Proslogion insisted that the proof was a product of prayer and supplication. Kierkegaard comments that the fact that one has to pray makes the existence of god more certain than the proof, for the existence of god would be less certain if one could prove god’s existence without god’s help. Kierkegaard continues to describe the modern speculation that attempts to demonstrate the existence of god as a kind of anselmianism, but he differentiates this endeavor from anselm himself who prayed for the proof. even so, he chides anselm for failing to recognize that his expression of thanksgiving at having seemingly succeeded in proving God’s existence was infinitely more proof of god’s existence than the proof itself.44 But having rebuked anselm, Kierkegaard proceeds to applaud the fact that he also recognized the ascetic factor in being a thinker.45 unlike contemporary practitioners of speculation, anselm did preserve the passional roots of the christian faith. Kierkegaard’s growing but rather qualified endorsement of Anselm’s piety is also evident in his remarks about anselm’s political career. his reading of Böhringer inspired Kierkegaard to juxtapose anselm’s trust in god alone during his altercation with King william to the danish bishops’ willingness to reach an accommodation with the King, and thereby reject the prospect of clinging to god alone.46 Kierkegaard used this episode as a metaphor for the failure of the danish bishops to cling to god alone on Monday, even though they have extolled such trust in god in their hymnody on sunday. anselm’s refusal to amalgamate christianity and the state began to serve as a model for the desired independence of the contemporary church from cultural and political captivity. Kierkegaard did not explicitly devote much attention to an analysis or critique of anselm’s theory of the atonement. Kierkegaard himself often employed “satisfaction” language and imagery to describe the atoning work of christ, but such language, common in hymns and prayers, need not suggest any engagement with anselm’s particular theory. His overt reflections on Anselm’s theory of the atonement are found in his journal entries occasioned by his reading of Böhringer’s biographical account of anselm.47 in 1851 Kierkegaard took issue with Böhringer’s criticism that anselm’s theory of satisfaction was developed in terms of the restitution of god’s honor and did not sufficiently attend to human salvation as the purpose of Christ’s redemptive work, which, according to Bøhringer, is only mentioned at the end of anselm’s exposition. in opposition to Böhringer, Kierkegaard praised anselm and the ancients for realizing that christianity was not humanity’s invention, but rather exists for god’s “interest.” according to Kierkegaard, we human beings should be pained, as anselm was, to realize that sin against god is something frightful. god’s intention and purpose in creating human nature must be honored, and god’s standard for humanity must be applied. aligning with anselm, Kierkegaard defends the propriety of the rigor and height of god’s standard for human being. even though god’s standard is ultimately intended for our own good and is motivated 44 45 46 47

p. 429.

Pap. X-5 a 120 / JP 1, 20. SKS 24, 301–2, nB23:203 / JP 3, 3615. Pap. Xi-2 a 302 / JP 1, 21; Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi, vol. 2, abtheilung 1, p. 295. SKS 24, 302–3, nB23:205 / JP 1, 532; Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi, vol. 2, abtheilung 1,

Anselm of Canterbury: The Ambivalent Legacy of Faith Seeking Understanding

177

by god’s love for us, it is so daunting and lofty that we never would have chosen such a norm. Consequently, its requirements often feel like an affliction. According to Kierkegaard, anselm realized that god’s concern for god’s standard and god’s desire for reconciliation with sinful humans who have fallen short of the standard generates “a conflict of divine passion with itself.”48 anselm’s theory of the atonement recognizes this conflict between God’s desire for moral order and God’s mercy. To ignore the issue of god’s honor and the upholding of god’s standard would be to conceive god misleadingly as a lenient grandparent. essentially, Kierkegaard was applauding the theocentric character of anselm’s soteriology, and its resistance to the reduction of religiosity to egocentric ends. Kierkegaard found an additional value in anselm’s satisfaction theory, a value that he also recognized through his reading of Böhringer.49 Besides accentuating the centrality and intrinsic value of god’s purposes, anselm also shows that satisfaction is necessary for our spiritual well-being. according to Kierkegaard, without the conviction that god, through the work of christ, has made satisfaction for us, any bliss that we might enjoy would be precarious. without faith in christ’s act of satisfaction, we would be haunted either by the suspicion that god did not care about satisfaction, or that satisfaction really had not been made. in the one case god’s intentions and purposes for human nature would be trivialized, and in the other our confidence in reconciliation would be undermined. throughout these remarks Kierkegaard exhibits an ambivalence toward anselm. on the one hand, anselm is a progenitor of the mistaken notion that faith must be perfected in some sort of cognitive grasp of god. the ontological argument functions for Kierkegaard as a prototype of speculation’s unfortunate displacement of faith into the realm of ideality and possibility. on the other hand, anselm is also an apologist of genuine religious pathos, who rightly presupposed faith and regarded it as foundational for reflection. Moreover, Anselm lived out that trust in God through his defiance of the King. The satisfaction theory of the atonement, with its foregrounding of god’s honor, highlights the theocentric character of faith and serves as an antidote to efforts to reduce christianity to self-serving human purposes. For Kierkegaard, anselm was an ambiguous combination of the speculative derailment of christian passion and a living exemplar of that passion.

48 49

SKS 24, 302–3, nB23:205 / JP 1, 532. see Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi, vol. 2, abtheilung 1, p. 406.

Bibliography I. Anselm’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library none. II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Anselm ast, Friedrich, Grundriss einer Geschichte der Philosophie, landshut: Joseph thomann 1807, pp. 216–18 (ASKB 385). Baur, Ferdinand christian, Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: c.F. osiander 1838, p. 12; pp. 142–3; p. 158; p. 183; p. 195; p. 218; p. 253; p. 260; p. 291; p. 296; p. 322; p. 370; p. 510; p. 541; p. 545; p. 672; p. 674; p. 680 (ASKB 423). [Becker, Karl Friedrich], Karl Friedrich Beckers Verdenshistorie, omarbeidet af Johan Gottfried Woltmann, vols. 1–12, trans. by J. riise, copenhagen: Fr. Brummers Forlag 1822–1829, vol. 4, p. 540: vol. 5, p. 79 (ASKB 1972–1983). [Billroth, Johann gustav Friedrich], Vorlesungen über Religionsphilosophie gehalten von Dr. Joh. Gust. Friedr. Billroth, ed. by Johann eduard erdmann, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1837, pp. 27–8 (ASKB 428). Böhringer, Friedrich, “anselm von Kanterbury,” in his Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 2, abtheilung 1, pp. 253–429 (ASKB 173–177). Bretschneider, Karl gottlieb, Handbuch der Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche oder Versuch einer beurtheilenden Darstellung der Grudsätze, welche diese Kirche in ihren symbolischen Schriften über die christliche Glaubenslehre ausgesprochen hat, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1828, (ASKB a i 25–26). —— Handbuch der Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche oder Versuch einer beurtheilenden Darstellung der Grudsätze, welche diese Kirche in ihren symbolischen Schriften über die christliche Glaubenslehre ausgesprochen hat, mit Vergleichung der Glaubenslehre in den Bekenntnißschriften der reformirten Kirche, vols. 1–2, 4th revised and enlarged ed., leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1838, vol. 1, p. 30; vol. 2, p. 206; p. 251; p. 337 (ASKB 437–438).

Anselm of Canterbury: The Ambivalent Legacy of Faith Seeking Understanding

179

Buhle, Johann gottlieb, Geschichte der neuern Philosophie seit der Epoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, vols. 1–6 (in 10 parts), vols. 1–2, göttingen: Johann georg rosenbusch’s wittwe 1800; vols. 3–6, göttingen: Johann Friedrich röwer 1802–5 (abtheilung 6 in Geschichte der Künste und Wissenschaften seit der Wiederherstellung derselben bis an das Ende des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. Von einer Gesellschaft gelehrter Männer ausgearbeitet, abtheilungen 1–11, göttingen: röwer and göttingen: rosenbusch 1796–1820), vol. 1, pp. 828ff. (ASKB 440–445). [daub, carl], D. Carl Daub’s philosophische und theologische Vorlesungen, vols. 1–7, ed. by Philipp Marheineke and theophor wilhelm dittenberger, Berlin: dunker und humblot 1838–44, vol. 2, Prolegomena zur Dogmatik und Kritik der Beweise für das Dasein Gottes, pp. 417ff. (ASKB 472–472g). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 545; p. 549; p. 555; p. 568; vol. 2, p. 712; p. 717 (ASKB 158–159). günther, anton, Süd- und Nordlichter am Horizonte spekulativer Theologie, vienna: Mechitaristen 1832, p. 126 (ASKB 520). hahn, august (ed.), Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 162; p. 193; p. 274; p. 362; p. 382; p. 494 (ASKB 535). hansen, Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, pp. 142–3 (ASKB 167). [hase, Karl], Hutterus redivivus oder Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. Ein dogmatisches Repertorium für Studirende, 4th revised ed., leipzig: Breitkopf und härtel 1839, § 56; § 101 (ASKB 581). hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, vols. 1–2, ed. by Philipp Marheineke, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1840 (vols. 11–12 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 1, p. 23; vol. 2, pp. 214–18 (ASKB 564–565). —— “anselm,” in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–3, ed. by carl ludwig Michelet, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1833–6 (vols. 13–15 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 3, pp. 162–9 (ASKB 557–559). heiberg, Johan ludvig, Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid. Et Indbydelses-Skrift til en Række af philosophiske Forelæsninger, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1833, pp. 18–20 (ASKB 568). helfferich, adolph, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung und in ihren Denkmalen, vols. 1–2, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, p. 358; p. 389 (ASKB 571–572). Marheineke, Philipp, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens und Lebens für denkende Christen und zum Gebrauch in den oberen Klassen an den Gymnasien, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: in der nicolai’schen Buchhandlung 1836, pp. 32–3 (ASKB 257). Martensen, hans lassen, De Autonomia conscientiæ sui humanæ in theologiam dogmaticam nostri temporis introducta, copenhagen: i.d. quist 1837, p. 6; p. 87; pp. 97–99 (ASKB 648).

180

Lee C. Barrett

—— Den menneskelige Selvbevidstheds Autonomie i vor Tids dogmatiske Theologie, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1841, p. 5; p. 71; pp. 79–80 (ASKB 651). —— Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849, p. 363 (ASKB 653). Meiners, christoph, Historische Vergleichung der Sitten und Verfassungen, der Gesetze und Gewerbe, des Handels und der Religion, der Wissenschaften und Lehranstalten des Mittelalters, vols. 1–3, hannover: im verlage der helwingischen hofbuchhandlung 1793–4, vol. 2, pp. 392–6 passim; p. 489 (ASKB 672–674). Michelet, carl ludwig, Vorlesungen über die Persönlichkeit Gottes und Unsterblichkeit der Seele oder die ewige Persönlichkeit des Geistes, Berlin: verlag von Ferdinand dümmler 1841, p. 276 (ASKB 680). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, pp. 191–2 (ASKB 168). Mynster, Jakob Peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1852–3 [vols. 4–6, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1855–7], vol. 1, p. 24; vol. 2, p. 241 (ASKB 358–363). rothe, Petrus conradus, De vita et gestis Anselmi, archiepiscopi cantuareiensis, ratione habita status prioris ecclesiæ anglicæ, hauniæ [copenhagen]: Berling 1840 (ASKB 1956). [schlegel, Friedrich], Friedrich Schlegel’s Philosophische Vorlesungen aus den Jahren 1804 bis 1806. Nebst Fragmenten vorzüglich philosophisch-theologischen Inhalts. Aus dem Nachlaß des Verewigten, ed. by c.h.J. windischmann, vols. 1–2, Bonn: bei eduard weber 1836–7, vol. 1, pp. 409–10 (asKB 768–768a). schleiermacher, Friedrich, Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsä[t]zen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt, vols. 1–2, 3rd ed., Berlin: g. reimer 1835–6 (vols. 3–4, in Friedrich Schleiermacher’s sämmtliche Werke, Erste Abtheilung. Zur Theologie, Berlin: g. reimer 1834–64; some of the volumes were published in Berlin: august herbig), pp. 99–120; pp. 196–202 (ASKB 258). schopenhauer, arthur, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, vols. 1–2, 2nd revised and enlarged ed., leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1844 [1819], vol. 1, pp. 570–71 (ASKB 773–773a). stilling, Peter Michael, Om den indbildte Forsoning af Tro og—Viden med særligt Hensyn til Prof. Martensens “christelige Dogmatik.” Kritisk-polemisk Afhandling, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 802). tennemann, wilhelm gottlieb, “anselm,” in his Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1819, vol. 8.1, 114–53 (ASKB 815–826). tiedemann, dietrich, Geist der spekulativen Philosophie von Thales bis Sokrates, vols. 1– 6, Marburg: in der neuen akademischen Buchhandlung 1791–7, vol. 4, pp. 251ff. (ASKB 836–841). weiße, christian hermann, Die Idee der Gottheit. Eine philosophische Abhandlung. Als wissenschaftliche Grundlegung zur Philosophie der Religion, dresden: ch.F. grimmer’sche Buchhandlung 1833, pp. 17–32; p. 142 (ASKB 866).

Anselm of Canterbury: The Ambivalent Legacy of Faith Seeking Understanding

181

III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Anselm glenn, John d., Jr., “Kierkegaard and anselm,” in Philosophical Fragments and Johannes Climacus, ed. by robert l. Perkins, Macon, georgia: Mercer university Press, 1994 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 7), pp. 223–44.

thomas aquinas: Kierkegaard’s view Based on scattered and uncertain sources Benjamín olivares Bøgeskov

in this article we intend to determine what Kierkegaard knew about thomas aquinas. But we must warn that if by “knowing” we understand having adequate objective information about an author, then this would be a very short article indeed since in this sense Kierkegaard did not “know” very much about thomas aquinas. Kierkegaard did not own any of aquinas’ books, most certainly he did not read any of them, and it is quite possible that he did not know what one of them looked like. But the fact that Kierkegaard did not read thomas is no accident but rather a result of what Kierkegaard thought he knew about aquinas. through his teachers and readings, Kierkegaard received an image of aquinas that was, among other things, one reason for his lack of interest in reading aquinas. our objective is then to determine the sources that could have helped to forge the image that Kierkegaard had of aquinas, and try to determine the main elements of this image. consequently, we will neither try to establish any agreements or disagreements between aquinas and Kierkegaard, nor try to defend one point of view or the other.1 this is a historical article more than a philosophical one; and only in specific instances will we attempt to show if the image that Kierkegaard received in fact corresponded to what aquinas was actually saying in order to make clear what difference it would have made if Kierkegaard had actually read aquinas. one might object that it is unnecessary, or at least arbitrary, to write about an author whom Kierkegaard did not really know. and in fact it would require endless work to write about all the authors that Kierkegaard ignored. But in the case of thomas aquinas, there is a difference: aquinas was not an author who was simply forgotten or omitted in Kierkegaard’s education. although he was not properly read, his shadow was present during Kierkegaard’s time as a negative moment in a dialectical process. a catholic scholastic monk represented, at Kierkegaard’s time, everything that christianity should not be, and that is why this scholastic monk suffered a particular destiny in the denmark of the nineteenth century, namely, to be criticized more than read. aquinas was not just forgotten as happened to many other thinkers; on It is possible to find these kinds of works especially in those authors who had previously done work on aquinas. one of the most eminent of these is cornelio Fabro, but one should also mention george l. stengren, ralph Mcinery, leonardo castellani, and heinrich roos. 1

184

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

the contrary, he was remembered, but mainly as a representative figure of a period of time that was regarded as overcome. in many senses, Kierkegaard considered the Middle ages and aquinas’ thought as a spiritual and intellectual project that have been surpassed, and that is why it is important to establish what image Kierkegaard had of this medieval thinker in order to determine the source of such a historical judgment. Kierkegaard’s knowledge of aquinas can be also relevant in the context of the polemic of the contemporary criticism of metaphysics since Kierkegaard can be regarded as providing the basis for rejecting any kind of metaphysical system.2 it might seem that Kierkegaard’s criticisms of hegel were equally valid as criticisms of aquinas. in Kierkegaard’s eyes, hegel and aquinas looked dangerously similar, and this is why it is important to establish if Kierkegaard had the knowledge to distinguish between these two thinkers. I. Reading Aquinas in Kierkegaard’s Copenhagen The first step in establishing the knowledge that Kierkegaard could had have about Thomas, is to establish the possibilities that he and his contemporaries had of reading him. aquinas’ books in Kierkegaard’s copenhagen were rare. none of his works was ever printed in Denmark, and it was difficult to get them as a private reader. The easiest way was to find them in the Royal Library or the University Library. The other possible source would have been the library of the athenaeum, a reading society to which Kierkegaard belonged. But unfortunately none of these institutions provided a large number of aquinas’ texts. the athenaeum did not have any of thomas’ books, and the two main libraries could only offer a few titles: the most common were Summa Theologiae, Summa Contra Gentiles, and different editions of the De regimine Principium. It was also possible to find two of Aquinas’ commentaries on Aristotle’s works, the commentary on De Interpretatione3 and the commentary on the Metaphysics,4 but these were very old; one edition was from 1594 and the other from 1588. in fact, all the available books were very old; except for one edition of the Summa Theologiae, at the royal library, that was printed in the beginning of the eighteenth century, all the other books come from around the seventeenth century or earlier.5 apart from this, one can find in the Royal Library’s catalogue an edition of De Veritate, published in Paris in 1853, but it is not possible to determine when the royal library acquired it, and there is only one volume of the two of which the edition originally consisted. it must be said that other authors like, for example, cornelio Fabro, considered that Kierkegaard was completely compatible with a metaphysical way of thinking like that of aquinas. 3 [thomas aquinas], S. Thomae Aquinatis Praeclarissima commentaria in libros Aristotelis peri hermenias et posteriorum analyticorum: Cum antiqua textus translatione, atque etiam noua Ioannis Argyropyli itemqve Thomae Caietani Cardinalis Supplementum Commentariorum in reliquum secundi Libri Peri hermenias, venice: apud hieronymum scotum 1594. 4 [thomas aquinas], S. Thomae Aquinatis In duodecim Metaphysicorum libros Aristotelis, commentaria celeberrima: Cum duplici textus tralatione antiqua & noua Bessarionis Cardinalis, venice: apud haeredem hieronymi scotti 1588. 5 i do not consider it necessary to register the title, edition and year of every single available book of aquinas, but the information can be easily found in the catalogue of the royal library. 2

Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources

185

so if someone wanted to read aquinas at Kierkegaard’s time, he would have had access to a very limited selection of texts in very old editions. of course, the fact that editions are old does not make it impossible to read them, but this shows that a more complete and recent collection of aquinas’ works was not considered necessary at that time. But apart from the amount of books that the library could offer, the question that must be raised is whether anybody actually read them. the best way to answer this question is to examine the lending records of the royal library during Kierkegaard’s time. after a careful study of these records covering Kierkegaard’s lifetime, from 1813 to 1855, I was able to find that in those forty-two years only four people borrowed a book written by thomas aquinas, two of them were possibly andreas gottlob rudelbach and Frederik christian Bornemann, important figures in Kierkegaard’s time. The lending records only provide us the surname of the borrower, and so there is room for a degree of uncertainty. But when one considers the limited public that would be interested in aquinas, it is quite possible that the surnames that we have correspond to the persons that we believe they were. With very little doubt, we can maintain that the first borrower was Andreas gottlob rudelbach (1792–1863). rudelbach was a recognized scholar, possibly the most well-read man of copenhagen at that time, and the owner of a fantastic library. despite his knowledge, he had problems obtaining a teaching position at the university since his tendencies to reform the danish lutheran church did not meet with the sympathy of the more conservative sectors. rudelbach shared the same concerns that Kierkegaard had about the danish church, and he attacked what he called “habitual christianity.” despite this, Kierkegaard distanced himself from him since rudelbach, contrary to Kierkegaard, believed that the reformation should take place by means of political and structural reforms. on two occasions, rudelbach borrowed one of aquinas’ books from the library, the first time on March 9, 1822, and the second on January 15, 1823. The lending registration does not specify which book did he took, but it tells us that on the first occasion he took the volume X and in the second the volumes IX and X. It is possible that he was reading the Summa Theologiae, and if that is the case, then he was reading the second part of the second part of it, i.e., “secunda secundae.” this interest in aquinas seems to be part of a general concern with the Middle ages since a few months later he would make a journey to germany, switzerland, and France, where he spent time studying medieval authors, among others, abelard. Kierkegaard had some books by Rudelbach, but in these books we find only brief references to aquinas. in one of them rudelbach limits himself to presenting aquinas’ opinion about the number of the articles of faith; he notes little more than that, despite the decadence the medieval church, it still managed to produce great intellects such as aquinas and Bonaventura.6 there is also a more anecdotal comment about aquinas taken from one of savonarola’s sermons, which are presented

andreas gottlob rudelbach, Reformation, Lutherthum und Union: Eine historischdogmatische Apologie der lutherischen Kirche und ihres Lehrbegriffes, leipzig: tauchnitz 1839, pp. 591–3. 6

186

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

to illustrate the decadence of the church at aquinas’ time.7 But on the whole the references to aquinas are rather brief. the second person who borrowed some of aquinas’ books had the surname “Bornemann.” Unfortunately, it is difficult to know the exact identity of this person since this was a common name. nevertheless the most famous person of this name was Frederik christian Bornemann (1810–61), an important lawyer and professor of law, who became rector of the university of copenhagen. he was a personal friend of Martensen (to whom we will refer later) and shared with him his hegelian tendencies. Frederick christian had brothers who could also have taken one aquinas’ texts, but of them the one who most probably would have been interested in aquinas was Johan alfred Bornemann (1813–60) who was a theologian and Martensen’s successor as theology Professor at the university of copenhagen. Johan alfred, who shared common intellectual positions with Martensen in relation with idealism, wrote his final exam at the university on Abelard and Anselm. With such this interest, it is natural to assume that he was also interested in aquinas. it is possible that it was he, who, while still a student, on May 1, 1836 borrowed a book by aquinas. the lending record indicates that it was “secunda secundae.” ten years later someone called Bornemann, doubtless one of the mentioned brothers came back on november 4, 1846 to borrow the Summa Theologiae, volume iv, and a couple of months later on January 11, 1847 to borrow the volumes i to iii. Kierkegaard had a book by Johan alfred Bornemann,8 in which we have not been able to find any significant reference to Aquinas. on March 9, 1822, six months before rudelbach borrowed the Summa Contra Gentiles, someone named hjort borrowed one of aquinas’ books. again we cannot be completely sure about the identity of this person, but in all probability it was Peder hjort (1793–1871), a multifaceted littérateur and teacher who wrote about the most diverse subjects from grammar and textbooks for children’s education to theological essays. it is possible that hjort was interested in aquinas during that time since in 1823 he published a book about Scotus Erigena, presenting him as the first philosopher of the Middle ages who created a philosophical-historical system.9 Kierkegaard owned two of his books, both very different in their content: one was a prayer book, Old and New Psalms,10 and the other an educational textbook, The Danish Nursery Story.11 But none of these books contains any reference to aquinas. the last person to borrow one of thomas’ books had the surname adler. according to the registration, on February 21, 1854, adler borrowed one of aquinas’ andreas gottlob rudelbach, Den evangeliske Kirkeforfatnings Oprindelse og Princip, dens Udartning og dens mulige Gjenreisning fornemmelig i Danmark, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsen 1849, p. 244. 8 Johan alfred Bornemann, Om den protestantiske Theologies Betydning, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849 (ASKB u 24). 9 Peder hjort, Johan Scotus Erigena oder von dem Ursprung einer christlichen Philosophie und ihrem heiligen Beruf, copenhagen: gyldendal 1823. 10 [Peder hjort], Gamle og Nye Psalmer udvalgte og lempede efter vor Tids Tarv til Brug saavel ved Underviisning som ved huuslig Andagt af Peder Hjort, 2nd enlarged ed., copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1840 (ASKB 202, see also ASKB a i 96). 11 [Peder hjort], Den danske Børneven: en Læsebog for Borger- og Almue-Skoler, 6th printing, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandling 1852 (ASKB a ii 196). 7

Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources

187

“Summa,” without specifying which one. Considering the date, we were able to find only two persons who could have borrowed such a book. one of them was a business man (david Baruch adler 1826–78), who most probably was not really interested in aquinas. the other person was adolph Peter adler, the person who motivated Kierkegaard’s text, The Book on Adler, or A Cycle of Ethical-Religious Essays, that was written between 1846 and 1847, and published posthumously. as is commonly known, adler was a priest on the island of Bornholm, who had hegelian tendencies, until he claimed in 1841 to have had a “vision of light.” Based on this vision he burned all his previous works and started to write in accordance with this personal revelation. Kierkegaard had a considerable number of his books, but none of them offer to us any reference to aquinas. the records of the library make clear that very few persons actually read aquinas during Kierkegaard’s time. Four persons over a period of forty-two years is a remarkably low number. if we compare it, for example, with aristotle, who did not attract the greatest interest at Kierkegaard’s time, we find that he was at least read once or twice a year, sometimes even more frequently. this is even more striking when we consider that it was more likely that people owned some of aristotle’s books, which was probably not case with aquinas. if men like Johan alfred Bornemann and rudelbach went to the library to read aquinas, this meant that they did not have his books, and if they did not have them, who else could have had them? there were no catholic institutions in copenhagen at the time which might have had his volumes and a catholic doctrine could not be taught publicly.12 aquinas remained mostly unread in denmark, at least until 1937 when we find the first theological thesis written about him.13 Kierkegaard did not read aquinas, according to the library records.14 this, combined with the fact that Kierkegaard did not have any of thomas’ works, allows us to think that Kierkegaard never had the opportunity to have in his hands one of aquinas’ texts in order to give it even a summary look. given this, the image which Kierkegaard had about aquinas must have come from his classes at the university and from the secondary literature. regarding his secondary reading, it seems that Kierkegaard was not especially interested in getting an accurate picture of thomas’ thought; and this seems to have been Kierkegaard’s relation with most other authors as well.15 Kierkegaard would not have read him, moved only by a historical curiosity; as long as he could not see aquinas’ thought having direct relevance for his own polemical interests, he would not have spent much time reading about him. so even if Kierkegaard had in his library reliable literature for establishing a more accurate picture of him, there is no proof that he paid attention to these sources. this is the case especially with tennemann’s

Freedom of religion was not adopted until 1848. Kristen ejner skydsgaard, Metafysik og Tro: En dogmatisk Studie i nyere Thomisme, copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag, arnold Busck 1937. 14 Kierkegaard’s name appears very few times in the library records. i was not able to find it more than 6 times, and it is difficult to know if it could have referred to his brother. 15 Johannes sløk, “Kierkegaard og luther,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 2, 1957, pp. 7–24. 12 13

188

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

history of philosophy.16 tennemann’s book was largely used in Kierkegaard’s time, and indeed hegel himself used it as a main source for his interpretation of the history of philosophy. in any case, it is only possible to prove that Kierkegaard read the parts concerning ancient and modern philosophy. II. Aquinas Presented by Luther The attempt to find every single text that Kierkegaard could have read about Aquinas would not only consume a lot of energy but quite probably would be useless for getting a more reliable picture about Kierkegaard’s image of aquinas. it is possible to think that the authors who helped to build Kierkegaard’s image of aquinas are those who instead of providing Kierkegaard with correct information, presented to him an already predetermined image of this scholastic thinker. one of the authors who without a doubt presented an influential judgment on Aquinas was Luther. Luther’s conception of Aquinas is relevant not only because he might have influenced Kierkegaard directly, but also because he without a doubt influenced most of the theologians at Kierkegaard’s time. luther’s comments about aquinas are not limited to an academic discussion that can provide us with information about different aspects of thomas’ doctrine, but rather he also presents a historical and personal judgment about aquinas. and when luther refers to him, he uses rather harsh language, calling him a “sophist,”17 a “heretic,”18 a “blind cow,”19 and a “beggarly paunch,”20 maintaining that aquinas is “not worth a louse,”21 and also questioning his sanctity.22 according to luther, thomas is “the source and foundation of all heresy, error and obliteration of the gospel.”23 without a doubt all these comments affected the general conception of aquinas in a lutheran country like denmark, and Kierkegaard received some of this critical spirit even though we cannot be sure if he directly read any of these texts. in fact, it is generally accepted that Kierkegaard did not have a detailed knowledge of luther’s texts; without doubt he knew about him through his theological education, but his 16 wilhelm gottlieb tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1819, vol. 8.2, pp. 551–677 (ASKB 815–826). 17 D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimarer Ausgabe, weimar: Böhlau 1883ff. vol. 10.i, p. 115, lines 7ff. (1522). (the Weimarer Ausgabe reprinted as Martin Luther Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Sonderedition in 120 Bänden, abteilungen 1–4, vols. 1–120, stuttgart: J.B. Metzler verlag 2000–2007.) 18 ibid. vol. 12, p. 625, lines 14ff. (1523). 19 ibid. vol. 40.i, p. 671, lines 14ff. (1531). 20 ibid. vol. 46, p. 768, lines 12ff (1537–8). 21 D. Martin Luthers Werke. Tischreden, vols. 1–2, weimar: Böhlau 1912–21, vol. 2, p. 193, line 3 (1532). 22 D. Martin Luthers Werke (1883), vol. 7, p. 149, lines 35ff. cf. denis r. Janz, Luther on Thomas Aquinas, wiesbaden and stuttgart: Franz steiner verlag 1989, pp. 4ff. 23 “…Thomas von Aquin, der born und grundsuppe aller ketzerei, iirthum und vertilgung des Evangelii…,” in “widder den newen abgott (1524).” see D. Martin Luthers Werke, vol. 15, p. 184, lines 32ff. quoted from denis r. Janz: Luther and the Medieval Thomism, ontario: wilfrid laurier university Press 1983, p. 3.

Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources

189

readings24 were concentrated basically on a danish translation and compilation of two of luther’s books Kirchepostille and Hauspostille called in danish En christelig Postille.25 Kierkegaard also read some of luther’s “table talk” and a sermon call “against the divine Prophets.” Kierkegaard owned a large collection of luther’s works, which he must have read sporadically, but there is no evidence that he read them carefully. it is quite possible that he did not pay much attention to the more polemical texts where luther argues in detail against thomas (or the thomists), but even if we consider only those texts that we know that Kierkegaard read, we get a very critical image of aquinas. In “Table Talk” we find an attitude of disdain toward Aquinas, with Luther calling thomas’ Summa Contra Gentiles “a ridiculous book,”26 and adding “when the papacy was flourishing Scotus, Bonaventura, Gabriel and Thomas had to embroider their thoughts with fantasies because they had no serious tasks to perform.”27 But beyond luther’s personal comments, what might have left a more solid impression on Kierkegaard’s mind is luther’s criticism of aquinas’ method and his relation to aristotle and the Bible. also in “table talk” luther writes: when i was a young theologian and was required to prepare nine corollaries from one question, i took these two words: “god created.” thomas gave me about a hundred questions on them. this is the procedure of thomas: First he takes statements from Paul, Peter, John, isaiah, etc. afterward he concludes that aristotle says so and so, and he interprets the scripture according to aristotle.28

a constant element in luther’s criticism of aquinas and the scholastics is that for them the scriptures and the revelation were subordinated to aristotle. in Kierkegaard’s eyes this might have seemed very similar to a rationalist attempt to subordinate the revelation to philosophy. another point that could have made some impression on Kierkegaard might have been in the field of theology. It is a fact that Luther includes Aquinas in the category of the scholastics, who were bitterly criticized by the reformer. luther normally refers to the scholastics as “sophists.”29 with regard to the theological conception of the grace,

regin Prenter, “luther and lutheranism,” in Kierkegaard and Great Traditions, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 6), pp. 121–72, see pp. 124–5. Kierkegaard’s relation to luther has been a subject of a very early debate; already in 1858 we find a text that discusses the issue, J.C.M. Ørum, Om Forholdet imellem Søren Kierkegaard og Luther, copenhagen: F.B. eibes 1858. For more information, consult viggo Mortensen, “luther og Kierkegaard,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9, 1974, p. 163. 25 Morten luther, En christelig Postille, vols. 1–2, copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandling 1828. 26 Luther’s Works. American Edition, vols. 1–55, ed. by Jaroslaw Pelikan, h.c. oswald, h.J. grimm et al., st. louis: concordia (vols. 34–54, Philadelphia: Fortress Press) 1955–76, vol. 54, p. 39. the comment is under the number 280. 27 ibid., vol. 54, p. 264. 28 ibid., vol. 54, p. 39. 29 ibid., vol. 54, p. 63; p. 249, p. 290; p. 344. 24

190

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

luther regarded the scholastics as “worse than Pelagians.”30 this criticism seemed to be quite accepted in Kierkegaard’s time; in fact, in a short note made by Kierkegaard in 1837 from a book of georg Friedrich heinrich rheinwald (1802–49),31 he states that “the scholastics were semipelagians.”32 It is difficult to know if he considered Aquinas a Pelagian or semipelagian; however, we must stress that also in 1837 Kierkegaard read an exposition of the Catholic doctrine of justification explained by the Catholic theologian Johann adam Möhler (1796–1838), which made him write that if that was the situation “they cannot be accused of Pelagianism.”33 But even though in the same text Kierkegaard speaks about the possibility of a better understanding between catholics and Protestants, he does not take the initiative in this dialogue and certainly did not set about reading the scholastics’ texts more carefully. III. Kierkegaard’s References to Aquinas in all of Kierkegaard’s works and papers there are only six direct references to aquinas.34 none of them is to be found in the published works, and most of them do not express what Kierkegaard himself thought about aquinas but rather what someone else was saying about him. nevertheless according to our intention, the interest of these texts lies not so much in the direct information that is given of aquinas’ thought but in the context in which this information is presented since, given the lack of objective information that Kierkegaard had about thomas, the context becomes the most influential factor in determining Kierkegaard’s picture of the medieval theologian. A. The First Reference “thomas aquinas’ Summa contained 15,000 arguments, i.e., questions are drawn up and answered with great skill.”35 this is a note made by Kierkegaard around 1831–4, and it is a quotation from a book written by the theology professor stener Johannes stenersen (1789–1835), called Outlook over the Lutheran Reformation.36 stenersen was professor of new testament ethics and church history since 1818 and a priest in Frelsers Kirke in Christiania; he was a relatively important figure among those ibid., vol. 2, p. 394. quoted by Janz, Luther and the Medieval Thomism, p. 32. one cannot straightforwardly identify the scholastics with thomas; if luther did, it seems to be a matter of long discussions, but in the passage that we are recalling luther includes under scholastics “scotists and thomists.” 31 g.F.h. rheinwald (ed.), Allgemeines Repertorium für die theologische Litteratur und kirchliche Statistik, vols. 1–19, Berlin: herbig 1833–7 [vols. 20–47, 1838–44; neue Folge, vols. 1 [48]–64[111], 1845–60] (ASKB 36–66). SKS K19, 178. 32 SKS 19, 125, not4:1. 33 Pap. i a 37 / JP 2, 1463. 34 a very good analysis of these passages can be found in george l. stengren, “thomism,” in Kierkegaard and Great Traditions, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 6), pp. 98–120. 35 Pap. i c 3 in Pap. Xii, p. 21. 36 stener Johannes stenersen, Udsigt over den lutherske Reformation, vols. 1–2, christiania: chr. grøndahl 1818–19, vol. 1, p. 151. 30

Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources

191

who opposed grundvig and had many followers.37 the book that Kierkegaard was reading was a defence of lutheran reform, in which stenersen presented a very negative image of aquinas. in the course of 400 pages stenersen presents with passion an image of the dreadful state of christianity before the reformation. the passage that Kierkegaard quotes is included in a consideration about the conditions of the theological education in the church prior to the reformation. the simple explanation of the educational conditions in the Middle ages, according to stenersen, is in itself “a testimony of the church’s unchristian state.”38 stenersen presents his critical vision of the scholastic method, attending especially to the lack of biblical knowledge, the excessive importance that is given to “the sentences of Peter lombard,” and the insufficiency of the theological method of the Questiones disputatae. this method consisted in conducting theological discussion by presenting a clear question that should be answered with yes or no, followed by a justification of one’s own position and the refutation of all the arguments presented against this position. even though in reality this method was an example of intellectual discipline and order, stenersen maintains “the more the studies continued in that way, theology would necessarily become more and more a simple chaos, and that is what happened in reality.”39 it is just after saying this, that stenersen refers to aquinas, giving him as an example of this decadent process of chaos. stenersen not only presents aquinas as the culmination of this chaos, but also concludes that the 15,000 arguments of aquinas are “in their greater part unnecessary…and many were already in Bonaventura.”40 it is important to remark that aquinas and Bonaventura had important intellectual and methodical differences that stenersen does not seem to recognize, especially if we consider that Bonaventura’s most famous work, Itinerarium Mentem ad Deum, could not be more different from aquinas’ books: a short and passionate text that explains everything by referring to allegories of the holy scriptures, giving complete priority to faith and scriptures at the expense of philosophical and especially aristotelian thought. this has very little in common with aquinas and is much closer to augustine. it is quite certain that stenersen did not read aquinas directly but used as source a book by christoph Meiners (1747–1810).41 in fact, every time that stenersen makes a comment about aquinas, he refers to Meiners.42 (Kierkegaard had some books by Meiners, but as george l. stengren shows,43 Meiners did not read aquinas

It is possible to find brief notes of his biography in Kirke-Leksikon for Norden, vols. 1–4, ed. by Fredrik nielsen and J. oskar andersen, Århus and copenhagen: h. hagerups Forlag 1900–29, vol. 4, p. 348. 38 stenersen, Udsigt over den lutherske Reformation, p. 136. 39 ibid. p. 141. 40 ibid. 41 christoph Meiners, Historische Vergleichung der Sitten und Verfassungen, der Gesetze und Gewerbe, des Handels und der Religion, der Wissenschaften und Lehranstalten des Mittelalters mit denen unseres Jahrhundert, vols. 1–3, hannover: helwing 1793–4. 42 even when stenersen writes a simple comment like “his [aquinas’] Summa includes all the aristotelian philosophy,” he refers to Meiners: stenersen, Udsigt over den lutherske Reformation, p. 145. 43 stengren, “thomism,” in Kierkegaard and Great Traditions, p. 104. 37

192

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

either.) speaking about aquinas’ 15,000 arguments, stenersen also refers to Meiners, but it is not Meiners who thinks that aquinas’ arguments are unnecessary. it is not clear if Kierkegaard read all of stenersen’s book since he does not make many more notes to it, except for registering the names and the dates of death of some important persons in stenersen’s historical exposition.44 considering this, it is quite possible that Kierkegaard read some brief pages where stenersen speaks about these persons.45 if that is the case, Kierkegaard must have read a critic of aquinas that stenersen presents when he speaks about Johann Pupper (1410–75): he [sc. Johan Pupper] speaks specially against the vows of the monks and says of the doctrine that thomas aquinas introduced that the freedom of the spirit or the inner movement of the faith was not enough to complete the evangelical teachings about the perfect deeds, but furthermore through these vows he transforms all the evangelical freedom in a kind of demanding slavery, that was not far from the Pharisees’ superstition, and closely related to the Pelagian heresy.…46

these are not just Pupper’s opinions since stenersen rushes to approve them by ensuring that Pupper’s teaching must have been fruitful for many people “because what he [Pupper] proclaimed was god’s word, and this never comes back empty.”47 B. The Second Reference “thomas aquinas distinguishes between: pura naturalia [justitia] (reason and will), and the genuine justitia originalis, i.e., donum divinitus datum supranaturale et admirabile (immortalitas, impassibilitas, justitia originalis).”48 this second reference is a note made by Kierkegaard during a class on dogmatics given by an important and influental teacher, Henrik Nicolai Clausen (1793–1877). Clausen was a politician and theologian. he taught for several years at the theological Faculty in Copenhagen, which makes it difficult to establish the exact date of Kierkegaard’s note; the most plausible dates are 1833–4 or 1839–40,49 but in any case it corresponds to Kierkegaard’s student period. what clausen was saying in this passage about aquinas is generally correct. even though he does not mention the source, we can suppose that clausen refers to a text in Summa Theologiae i, q. 94–5, where aquinas stresses that the natural perfection of the first man’s capacities (intellect and will) is not identical with the

44 “Johan Tauler Dominicaner †1361 i Kølln. Henrich Suso. Johan Ruysbrock. Gerhard Groot født i Debenter 1340. †1384. Thomas a Kempis født 1380 †1471. Johan Wessel (Gansfoet) 1489.” Pap. i c 3, in Pap. Xii, p. 22. 45 stenersen, Udsigt over den lutherske Reformation, chapter 14, pp. 193–217. 46 ibid., pp. 215–16. 47 stenersen, Udsigt over den lutherske Reformation, p. 216. 48 SKS 19, 81, not1:9. “thomas aquinas distinguishes between purely natural justice (reason and will) and the genuine original justice, i.e., a gift given divinely, supernaturally, and admirably (immortality, impassibility, original justice).” 49 SKS K19, 8–10.

Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources

193

perfection that was received by grace. nevertheless the exact latin quotation is not to be found in aquinas in the form clausen presents it. the context of this text is a discussion about man’s original perfection prior to the original sin. clausen starts by distinguishing the Protestant and the catholic position in relation to the state of original justice, stressing that “the Protestants placed the ‘image of god’ in the justitia originalis, while for the catholics this is just an accessorium.”50 aquinas is presented as an example of the catholic doctrine together with a quotation of the Cathecismus Romanus (1566).51 it is clear that clausen read the Cathecismus Romanus carefully and knew the catholic doctrine since he wrote a large treatise comparing Protestantism and catholicism, which abounds in quotations from this catechism.52 it is quite possible that for him, at least in this point, aquinas and catholicism are identical concepts. considered just as a piece of information, clausen’s statement is not so relevant for the reconstruction of the image that Kierkegaard had about aquinas. what can be more interesting is a short text presented some lines below, where Kierkegaard summarizes clausen’s critical approach to the entire problem saying: “clausen thinks that there is confusion between humankind’s ideal state and man’s first state, that is described in genesis, and which must not [according to clausen] be understood historically.”53 clausen introduced the idea that what had been said about this matter is obsolete, and on this point he seems to have influenced his young student. In fact, we can find a reference to this same problem in The Concept of Anxiety where the catholic approach to original sin is referred to by Kierkegaard as “dialectical-fantastic”54 due to the historicity that is given to the event of adam’s sin. there Kierkegaard quotes the exact latin words that, though they cannot be found in aquinas, clausen attributes to him.55 how much of aquinas clausen read is not easy to establish. his most important works contain only a few references to Aquinas (it is easier to find references to scotus).56 But it is interesting that in one of them aquinas is in fact quoting augustine, and clausen does not seem to notice it;57 in the other quotation clausen merely makes a historical observation presenting aquinas’ opinion in the discussion about the

SKS 19, 81, not1:9. ibid. 52 henrik nicolai clausen, Catholicismens og Protestantismens Kirkeforfatning, Lære og Ritus, copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1825 (ASKB a i 42). 53 SKS 19, 81, not1:9. 54 SKS 4, 332 / CA, 25. “in a double sense, adam was held fantastically outside. the presupposition was dialectical-fantastic, especially in catholicism (adam lost donum divinitus datum supranaturale et admirable).…” 55 ibid. For more discussion of the origin of this quotation, see SKS K4, 381. 56 henrik nicolai clausen, Udvikling af de christelige Hovedlærdomme, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1844 (ASKB 253, cf. ASKB a i 38); henrik nicolai clausen, Christelig Troeslære, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1853 (ASKB 256); clausen, Catholicismens og Protestantismens Kirkeforfatning, Lære og Ritus; clausen, Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 227; p. 237 (ASKB 468). 57 clausen, Christelig Troeslære, p. 119 (Summa Theologica, i, question 12, article 7). 50 51

194

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

possibility of the incarnation of christ even if adam had not sinned.58 clausen makes a little mistake in the quotation, writing “s.th. iii, q. 1, a. 2” which should be article 3 and not article 2. at the same moment clausen remarks that aquinas’ opinion was contrary to the scotists, but he does not give any references, and is not clear how the scotists were opposed to him. clausen does not give any more detailed treatment of this issue, but it has some importance for us since we find the same reference to Aquinas as opposed to the scotists in a book of another important person in Kierkegaard’s life, hans lassen Martensen (1808–74), about whom we will speak in detail. this absence of references to aquinas’ books, combined with these little mistakes, suggest that clausen did not have any serious contact with aquinas’ writings. his opinion must have come from a work of secondary literature that we are not able to identify. C. The Third Reference others had objections against the death of christ since god could very well have forgiven Men without his son dying, but here god is considered only as an abstract subjectivity but not as the real substantial one. one must presume that it is part of god’s nature to give the reconciliation real reality, so that it will not only be thought. this consideration appeared in the Middle ages between the scotists and thomists, who declared that christ’s death of reconciliation did not have objective validity but that god only had taken on the reconciliation per acceptilationem. the good was only good because god wanted it, the evil only evil because god did not want it; in this way god’s will becomes pure arbitrary. god’s incarnation is considered by thomas to be a metaphysical necessity.59

this passage portrays the opinion of another of Kierkegaard’s most important teachers and his later enemy, Martensen. the text is dated around 1838–9 and is taken from Martensen’s lecture on speculative dogmatics. if we consider just the information that Martensen gives about aquinas, we must say he is gravely in error since aquinas expressly considers the incarnation of christ as a consequence of god’s free will, and no metaphysical argument can prove the necessity of it.60 it could also be said that what Martensen ascribes to the scotist, corresponds better to ockham’s opinion. such a mistake was not an isolated error due to the imprecision of the oral exposition in the class or a defect in Kierkegaard’s notes since Martensen speaks about a similar problem in his book, Christian Ethics,61 and there he also contrasts, on the one hand, what he considers a “scotist’s” opinion (that the good is good only because god freely decided it), and, on the other, aquinas’ conception of the good as metaphysically dependent of god’s own goodness. in this same place, it is clear that Martensen is relating the necessity of this metaphysical goodness to the necessity of the incarnation of christ which ibid., p. 233. Pap. ii c 28, in Pap. Xiii, p. 61. 60 Summa Theologica, iii, question, 1, article 3. 61 hans lassen Martensen, Den christelige Ethik, vols. 1–3, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel 1871–8, vol. 1 (Den almindelig Deel). (english translation, Christian Ethics, vols. 1–3, edinburgh: t. & t. clark 1888–92, vol. 1, General Part, trans. from danish by c. spence.) 58 59

Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources

195

(according to the misconception of Martensen) aquinas also maintained. after pointing this out, Martensen concludes: “with each of these theories great errors have been associated, and the right answer can only be educed from the concept of personality itself.”62 he adds, aquinas’ opinion of god’s necessary metaphysical goodness (“the substantially good will”) “lacks the moment of subjective free will, and with this perfect spirituality.”63 in short, Martensen presents aquinas’ conception of the good (in which the good is necessarily dependent on god’s own goodness) in opposition to god’s subjective freedom; therefore it made sense in Martensen’s eyes that aquinas defended the view that the incarnation of christ was also a necessary metaphysical consequence of god’s goodness.64 since Martensen presents a criticism of aquinas, we can ask ourselves how much he actually knew about thomas. and we can also ask how much his comment influenced Kierkegaard’s opinion. Both questions can be answered together if we pay attention to another of Martensen’s books that was carefully read by Kierkegaard, where aquinas is mentioned many times: we are speaking about De autonomia conscientiae sui humanae,65 published later in danish.66 this book was Martensen’s university dissertation, and his respondent was Johan alfred Bornemann. this book was very influential in Kierkegaard’s time, and considering Kierkegaard’s interest in it, we can certainly regard this text as a fundamental source in Kierkegaard’s image of aquinas’ thought. in this short book of not much more than a hundred pages, Martensen refers to Aquinas five times. This could make us think that Martensen might have been familiar with the medieval thinker, but as it turns out two of the quotations are not from aquinas at all, and one is decidedly wrong. in fact, twice Martensen attributes to aquinas sentences that, even though they are presented in brackets, cannot be found in aquinas’ texts. Martensen does not give any references for them, and so it is not possible to find a related text or determine where Martensen took these references from. one of these “references” is especially problematic since it attributes to aquinas the following: “Deus non creditur, sed scitur” (god is not believed, but known).67 Martensen is speaking about a certain natural knowledge of god that everyone should have, and he maintains that this is the position of aquinas. this is a problematic statement since Martensen, Den christelige Ethik, vol. 1, p. 82 (Christian Ethics, p. 62). ibid., p. 84. (Christian Ethics, p. 63.) 64 ibid. 65 hans lassen Martensen, De Autonomia conscientiae sui humanæ in theologiam dogmaticam nostri temporis introducta, copenhagen: i.d. quist 1837 (ASKB 648). 66 hans lassen Martensen, Den menneskelige Selvbevidstheds Autonomie i vor Tids dogmatiske Theologie, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1841 (ASKB 651; translation of ASKB 648; cf. ASKB a i 41). (english translation, The Autonomy of Human Self-Consciousness in Modern Dogmatic Theology, trans. by curtis l. thompson, in Between Hegel and Kierkegaard. Hans L. Martensen’s Philosophy of Religion, trans. by curtis l. thompson and david J. Kangas, atlanta, georgia: scholars Press 1997 (American Academy of Religion. Texts and Translation Series, vol. 17), pp. 73–147.) 67 Martensen, De Autonomia conscientiae, p. 66. (The Autonomy of Human SelfConsciousness in Modern Dogmatic Theology, p. 109.) 62 63

196

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

aquinas denies any possibility of considering that god is self-evident for men,68 and so, according to thomas, men should arrive at their concept of god by abstraction and reflection. This is the reason that God’s existence can be doubted, and his nature can be confused, since aquinas argues, alluding to anselm, that not all men, when they hear the name “god,” understand that higher than which nothing can be thought since many men think that rocks, animals, trees or the stars can be gods.69 the next “quotation” that Martensen gives reads as follows: “nullum principium cogitatione anterius inveniri postes”70 (no principle of knowledge is able to be found prior to cognition). this statement is made in reference to the principle of noncontradiction. Martensen here seems to agree with this claim. the sentence cannot be found in aquinas’ works, but it is possible to imagine that aquinas would agree with this under certain conditions, that is, that under no circumstances can this principle be presented as an absolute starting point for human knowledge. it is important to remember that aquinas recognizes the priority of the senses as a starting point of human knowledge. this is not the moment to explain how thomas integrates these two principles, but it is important to remark that Martensen presents these quotations to validate a strongly idealistic interpretation of aquinas’ theory of knowledge, and so it is necessary to keep in mind aquinas’ nuances. From those quotations that can really be found in aquinas, there is one that includes a profound mistake; unfortunately it is the most important quotation since Martensen refers to it twice. in relation to this quotation, Martensen makes the worst mistake that someone can make in reading aquinas, that is, confusing thomas’ opinion with one of his objections. as is commonly known, thomas normally presents the objections against his thesis, and then he responds generally, and afterwards he refutes each of the objections individually. Martensen took one of the objections (Summa Theologica, iii, question 1, article 3, argument 2) and presented it as thomas’ opinion. Martensen reproduces the whole text in a footnote,71 giving only a vague reference (Summa Theologica, iii question 1). interestingly enough, Summa Theologica, i, question ii, article 1. Summa Contra Gentiles, Book i, articles 11–12. Summa Theologica, i, question ii, article 1, ad 2. 70 Martensen, De Autonomia conscientiae, p. 55. (The Autonomy of Human SelfConsciousness in Modern Dogmatic Theology, p. 103.) 71 Martensen, De Autonomia conscientiae, p. 47 (The Autonomy of Human SelfConsciousness in Modern Dogmatic Theology, p. 99n): “this view we share with several christian theologians in the modern as well as in the classical period. thus thomas aquinas ‘Ad omnipotentiam divina pertinet ut opera sua perficiat et se manifestet per aliquem infinitum actum: sed nulla pura creatura potest dici infinitus effectus, quum sit finita per suam essentiam. In solo autem opere incarnationis videtur praecipue manifestari infinitus effectus divinae potentiae, per quam in infinitum distantia coniunguntur, in quantum factum es, quod homo esset deus; in quo etiam opera maxime videtur perfici Universum per hoc, quod ultima creatura sive homo primo principio coniungitur, scilicet deo. Ergo etiamsi homo non peccasset, deus incarnatus esset.’ ” aquinas’ answer to this objection is brief: “Ad secundum dicendum quod in ipso modo productionis rerum ex nihilo divina virtus infinita ostenditur. Ad perfectionem etiam universi sufficit quod naturali modo creatura ordinetur sic in Deum sicut in finem. Hoc autem excedit limites perfectionis naturae, ut creatura uniatur Deo in persona.” Summa Theologica, iii, question 1, article 3, ad 2. 68

69

Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources

197

the quoted text is precisely the article where aquinas investigates if christ would have been incarnated even if man had not sinned. this mistaken quotation compared with Kierkegaard’s reference to Martensen’s class makes it clear that we are dealing with a recurrent misconception and not an isolated mistake. it is important to say that Aquinas would resolve this matter carefully since he first rejects Christ’s incarnation independently of the original sin, following augustine’s authority. But he cautiously points out that since the incarnation depends on god’s will, we cannot know what god would have done. to aquinas the only possibility of knowing something like god’s inner will in a hypothetical case like this would be by revelation, but the holy scriptures tell us only that christ incarnate is a remedy to the sin.72 all these mistakes, the false quotations and the erroneous textual interpretation, lead one to think that Martensen never really read any of aquinas’ books, and if he did, he was not able to distinguish between aquinas’ objections and his opinions. Martensen does not have a negative attitude towards the medieval thinker, as stenersen does. But it seems that he was concerned more about giving to aquinas a place in his modern system than trying to understand what aquinas really said. Martensen even calls aquinas’ teachings “doctissime”73 and concedes some relevance to an important principle in thomas’ theory of knowledge, i.e., “Quidquid cognoscitur cognoscitur per modum cognoscentis” [whatever is known is known through a mode of knowing]. Martensen quotes this in his book74 and in classes with Kierkegaard.75 Kierkegaard must have heard it and read it since he himself uses it in the Postscript;76 there he gives to it a degree of importance in relation to the possibility of understanding the message of christianity according to the existential condition of the subject. Summa Theologica, iii, question 1, article 3. “Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de verbis dom., exponens illud quod habetur luc. 19, venit Filius hominis quaerere et salvum facere quod perierat: si homo non peccasset, Filius hominis non venisset. Et I ad tim. I, super illud verbum, christus venit in hunc mundum ut peccatores salvos faceret, dicit Glossa: nulla causa veniendi fuit christo domino, nisi peccatores salvos facere. tolle morbos, tolle vulnera, et nulla medicinae est causa. Respondeo dicendum quod aliqui circa hoc diversimode opinantur. Quidam enim dicunt quod, etiam si homo non peccasset, Dei Filius fuisset incarnatus. Alii vero contrarium asserunt. Quorum assertioni magis assentiendum videtur. Ea enim quae ex sola Dei voluntate proveniunt, supra omne debitum creaturae, nobis innotescere non possunt nisi quatenus in sacra Scriptura traduntur, per quam divina voluntas innotescit. Unde, cum in sacra Scriptura ubique incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi hominis assignetur, convenientius dicitur incarnationis opus ordinatum esse a Deo in remedium peccati, ita quod, peccato non existente, incarnatio non fuisset. Quamvis potentia Dei ad hoc non limitetur, potuisset enim, etiam peccato non existente, Deus incarnari.” (all quotations from Summa Theologica are taken from the edition by Pasquale gianolio, turin: editiones Paulinae 1988.) 73 Martensen, De autonomia conscientiae sui humanae, p. 6 (The Autonomy of Human Self-Consciousness in Modern Dogmatic Theology, p. 78): “on this one also hears much in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, for example, his learned treatise on the identity of the subject of knowledge.” after this Martensen quotes vaguely “quomodo deus per essentiam videatur,” which appears in Summa Contra Gentiles, iii, 51. 74 Martensen, De autonomia conscientiae sui humanae, p. 18 (The Autonomy of Human Self-Consciousness in Modern Dogmatic Theology, p. 85.) 75 SKS 19, 129, not4:5. 76 SKS 7, 57 / CUP1, 52. 72

198

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

unfortunately, on this point Martensen does not directly quote aquinas but the german catholic theologian Franz von Baader (1765–1841),77 who knew aquinas’ works. Even though in Martensen we can find a relatively friendly position in relation to aquinas, this friendliness is conditioned by the fact that Martensen makes aquinas into a kind of hegelian, to whom the incarnation of christ was necessary. such an association must have made the consequences worse in the eyes of Kierkegaard, to whom being a friend of hegel and Martensen was by no means a good recommendation. D. The Fourth Reference this is now also as far as the present philosophy goes. the metaphysics of past times also went this far, which especially could be seen in the ontological proof which was proposed by anselm, but rejected by thomas aquinas and the thomists. it is interesting that Kant did not present its defects better. the proof runs something like this, the highest being (this is nothing else than the highest potential) cannot exist accidentally, so it exists with necessity—this is to say when it exists.78

this text comes from Kierkegaard’s notes to schelling’s lectures in Berlin (1841–2) on the philosophy of revelation. it does not give us much information. it only notes that thomas and thomists reject anselm’s “ontological” proof of god’s existence, but they do not seem to be concerned with the arguments that aquinas gives in this respect; instead they skip directly to Kant. as is known, in the Philosophical Fragments Kierkegaard (climacus) rejects the so-called ontological proof as well as the proofs a posteriori (which are accepted by aquinas). Kierkegaard did not read aquinas’ expositions of these proofs, but he seems to have approached this issue by considering Kant’s exposition,79 which basically dismisses the ontological proof by saying that this kind of argument is a tautology. he then refutes the proofs a posteriori, arguing that these are just sophisticated forms of ontological proofs. it is interesting to note that Martensen accepted both proofs,80 which might have influenced Kierkegaard, reinforcing the idea that both kinds of proofs are basically the same, and that is why one either accepts or rejects both. this is not the place to explain in detail thomas’ theory in relation to the proofs of god’s existence, but it is interesting to point out that aquinas presents some nuances that Kierkegaard did not perceive since, for Kierkegaard, the proofs of god’s existence could only be either socratic (starting from nature) or hegelian (ontological). Both kinds are incompatible with faith. surprisingly enough, thomas 77 Franz Baader, Vorlesungen über speculative Dogmatik, vol. 1, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’sche Buchhandlung 1828 (vols. 2-5, Münster: theissing 1830–38), vol. 2, p. 40 (ASKB 396). 78 SKS 19, 331, not11:20 / SBL, 368. Translation modified. 79 cornelio Fabro, “le prove dell’esistenza di dio in Kierkegaard,” Humanitas, vol. 17, 1962, p. 106. 80 hans lassen Martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849 (ASKB 653), §§ 37ff. (english translation, Christian Dogmatics. A Compedium of the Doctrines of Christianity, trans. from german by william urwick, edinburgh: t. & t. clark 1898.)

Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources

199

would accept a proof a posteriori and reject a proof a priori, but at the same time he would defend the absolute superiority of faith in relation to our knowledge of god. how can faith and proof be compatible? the key to answering this is to distinguish aquinas’ understanding of the absolute limitation of our rational thought in order to apprehend god’s actuality. in this respect, for example, in a more hegelian approach to our knowledge of god, it could be said that since god’s essence and existence are the same, once we have a proof of god’s existence, we will also know his essence; but aquinas would never accept this. our knowledge of god’s existence in aquinas does not mean knowing god’s actuality or what aquinas will call his “actus essendi.” according to aquinas, a demonstration of god’s existence cannot be a demonstration of god’s “actus essendi,” and under no conditions can it be presented as a starting point to defend a knowledge of god’s perfect actuality. But the only thing that is possible, according to aquinas, is to prove that this proposition, “god exists,” is true.81 thomas’ metaphysical ambition was much more humble than hegel’s, since for thomas, we cannot know god’s true actuality, but we can know that the proposition “god exists” is true. the knowledge of a proposition’s truth is not enough, according to aquinas, to fulfil men’s relation with the absolute since men desire to know God’s essence or, what is the same, his actus essendi. god’s individual actuality cannot be reached by our own intellectual means, and any notice of it that could existentially affect the subject, depends on god’s actual revelation. and this revelation can only be reached by faith. once this is said, it is easier to see that a deeper reading of aquinas could have given Kierkegaard another perspective of a metaphysical system and its relation to faith since aquinas’ relation to the demonstration of god’s existence was not purely socratic and was certainly not hegelian. E. The Fifth Reference “werder is a virtuoso; that is all one can say about him….he is a scholastic in the old sense; as they did in thomas aquinas, so he has found in hegel not only the summa and the summa summae but the summa summarum.”82 this passage is an extract from a letter that Kierkegaard wrote from Berlin to his teacher Frederik christian sibbern (1785–1872), signed december 15, 1841. in the text Kierkegaard speaks about Karl werder (1806–93) one of the instructors whose class he was attending in Berlin. werder was a hegelian and a recognized virtuoso in his area; answering an objection that maintains that god’s essence cannot be equal to his existence because if that were the case when we demonstrate his existence, then we would also know his essence (the exact opposite of an ontological proof), aquinas writes: “regarding the second we must say that to be (esse) can be said in two ways; in one way it means the act of being (actum essendi); in the other way it means the composition of the proposition at which the soul arrives by uniting the subject and the predicate. In the first way of understanding the act of being, it is not possible for us to know god’s existence (esse), and according to this, we do not come to know his essence. But it is possible to know that this proposition that we make about god, when we say god exists, is true.” Summa Theologica, i, question 3, article 4 ad 2. (My translation.) 82 B&A, vol. 1, pp. 83–5 / LD, 55, letter 55. 81

200

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

and one of his books can be found in Kierkegaard’s library (but it does not include any reference to aquinas).83 the passage does not give us much information about aquinas, but it allows us to think that in Kierkegaard’s mind thomas’ scholastic method was similar to the hegelian systematic virtuosity. it is quite possible that Kierkegaard was not able to discern the radical difference in the ambitions between the thomistic Summa and the hegelian system. thomas was not aiming to write a rational system of universal history that could explain even the ideas that were in the mind of god before the creation of the world. aquinas was writing, as he explains in the prologue of the Summa theologiae, in order to help the novices in their theological studies since the disorder, the multiplication of questions and the constant repetitions generated boredom and confusion (“fastidium et confusionem”),84 and so, “confident in the divine help,”85 he started his methodical exposition of theological issues. we can distinguish aquinas from hegel by saying that thomas had a method, but he did not build a system; but this difference does not seem to be clear for Kierkegaard. F. The Sixth Reference “what was it with which the greatest thinker in the Middle ages, thomas aquinas, used to defend ‘indulgence’? it was the doctrine of the church as a mystical body in which we all, as in a parlor game, participate in the church’s fideicommissum.”86 this text was written in a journal in 1851. it is quite relevant since it is the only text that we have where we can discern Kierkegaard’s own opinion about aquinas. even though Kierkegaard calls aquinas “the greatest thinker of the Middle ages,” he nonetheless presents a criticism of him. this text is included in a passage where Kierkegaard is defending the concept of the imitation of christ; the emphasis on the objective practices and the collective entities (race, church, community) contradicts, according to Kierkegaard, the idea of imitation. aquinas’ theory of the Mystical Body, just like the practice of indulgences, represented, for Kierkegaard, a departure from the concept of imitation. if indulgences were a kind of “collective meritoriousness” from which everyone can profit without a real individual conversion, then they would obviously be contrary to the imitation of christ. on this point Kierkegaard is a child of his time since he inherited a critique of thomas in relation to the problem of indulgences. even though it is quite possible that Kierkegaard never read directly what aquinas says about indulgences, we cannot maintain that he simply did not know aquinas’ position about this matter.87 it is practically impossible to think that a well-educated theologian at Kierkegaard’s time was unaware of what 83 Karl werder, Logik. Als Commentar und Ergänzung zu Hegels Wissenschaft der Logik, Erste Abtheilung, Berlin: veit und comp. 1841 (ASKB 867). 84 Summa Theologica, i, Prologus. 85 ibid. “…partim quidem quia eorundem frequens repetitio et fastidium et confusionem generabat in animis auditorum. Haec igitur et alia huiusmodi evitare studentes, tentabimus, cum confidentia divini auxilii, ea quae ad sacram doctrinam pertinent, breviter, ac dilucide prosequi, secundum quod materia patietur.” 86 SKS 24, 395, nB24:118 / JP 2, 1970. 87 aquinas speak about this in Summa Theologica, supplement, question 25, article 1.

Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources

201

aquinas said about indulgences. so it would be a mistake to suppose that if he would have read him, his opinion would have been substantially different. nevertheless, what can be a matter of discussion is if Kierkegaard was familiar with what aquinas understood by “Mystical Body.” this can also be combined with a better explanation of Kierkegaard’s criticism of the concept of community since, for the danish thinker, the community cannot simply be excluded from christianity, and that is why in the same text he says, “christ relates to this collective, but not in the way to separate the single individual….”88 somebody who knows aquinas can claim that the best way of relating to the collective without separating the individual or overwhelming him by the weight of the institution will be to relate to each other as christ’s Mystical Body. But since Kierkegaard did not have an eye for these nuances, he identifies the Mystical Body and the institutional collective. IV. Principal Elements in Kierkegaard’s Image of Aquinas considering the sources that we have studied, we can attempt a brief reconstruction of the main points that must have constituted Kierkegaard’s image of thomas, and with this, we can try to understand what must have been the main elements that provoked his lack of interest in reading aquinas. we can do this by attending to three main points: a general vision of the Middle ages, the consideration of aquinas as a theologian and, finally, Aquinas as a philosopher. With respect to the first point, we could say that Kierkegaard did not pay much attention to some current criticisms of the Middle ages as barbaric and uncivilized times. these kinds of criticisms cannot be considered the main cause of Kierkegaard’s lack of interest in aquinas because Kierkegaard’s judgment about a period of time was mainly related with the development of its spirit, which is especially dependent on the development of christianity and has very little to do with technological or political advances. in relation to spirit Kierkegaard recognized an important advantage of the Middle ages in comparison to his own time, i.e., that the Middle ages had passion in its relation to the absolute. And this passion was reflected, among other things, in the radical choice of the spiritual life that was the monastery. 89 in this sense, Kierkegaard might not have completely accepted the critical vision presented by stenersen since he recognized the passion for the infinite of the monastery, but in any case some of this criticism remained since Kierkegaard still believed that the monastery failed in the attempt to establish a perfect unity between interiority and exteriority.90 such a criticism could have been milder if Kierkegaard would have had some contact with the original texts of aquinas, whose defence of the contemplative life did not include an identity of the subjectivity of faith and the exterior act of renunciation of earthly SKS 24, 395, nB24:118 / JP 2, 1970. climacus expresses very well what can be regarded as a general Kierkegaardian conception of the Middle ages: “the Middle ages has a certain similarity to greece and had what the greeks had, passion. thus the monastic movement is a passionate decision, as is appropriate with respect to the absolute τελος, and to that extent is far preferable in its nobility to the wretched broken-age wisdom of mediation.” SKS 7, 366 / CUP1, 402. 90 ibid. 88 89

202

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

goods. another element that could be added is the fact that even though Kierkegaard respected the passion of the Middle ages, he did not consider aquinas’ intellectual discipline and enterprise an expression of this passion. In relation to Aquinas’ theology, Kierkegaard apparently identified Aquinas with catholicism in a way that once the catholic doctrine is known, it is assumed that this is also aquinas’ position. thus, there was no further reason to read aquinas himself in order to learn about his theology and his way of arguing. and as long as Kierkegaard did not get into polemics about particular and detailed theological discussions, he did not need to get a more detailed picture of the individual characteristics of aquinas’ theology. Kierkegaard, like many of his contemporaries, must have known whether or not aquinas approved of a concrete intellectual position (for example, the ontological proof of god), but he was not interested in aquinas’ argument, and so he was not familiar with his categories. it is comprehensible that a lutheran theologian did not feel any special inclination to read in detail about aquinas’ theology, but this does not explain the fact that Kierkegaard did not pay any attention to aquinas’ philosophy. and this introduces us to our third point: what was Kierkegaard’s view of aquinas’ philosophy. of all the different sources that served to form Kierkegaard’s image of aquinas, the most influential one must have been Martensen’s exposition, in which Aquinas is presented as a kind of hegelian, who gives a predominant role to reason above faith and for whom incarnation is a metaphysical necessity. this image must have been reinforced by aquinas’ method, and the fact that he wrote the Summa, which in Kierkegaard’s eyes must have seemed quite similar to the hegelian system. also aquinas’ acceptance of a rational proof of god’s existence undermined the priority of faith and must have looked like the pretensions of the objective thinker. it seems that if we have a proof, we do not need faith; but aquinas would not agree with this since, while he accepted a rational proof of god’s existence, he still defended the absolute superiority of faith in relation to the extremely limited knowledge that our intellect could grasp in relation to god. Just as for Kierkegaard, for aquinas, a proof of god’s existence will never be existentially satisfying for the subject. this image of thomas as a kind of objective thinker must have been the greatest negative factor for Kierkegaard’s interest in him. thomas could have remained interesting for Kierkegaard despite the attacks of luther or the criticism of stenersen, despite his catholicism and his relations to sacraments and indulgences, maybe even despite his unappealing methodological approach; but what seems to have been too much for Kierkegaard was that the only people who in his time seemed to sympathize with aquinas were also hegel’s friends.

Bibliography I. Aquinas’ Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library none. II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Aquinas ast, Friedrich, Grundriss einer Geschichte der Philosophie, landshut: Joseph thomann 1807, pp. 242–5 (ASKB 385). Baader, Franz, Vorlesungen, gehalten an der Königlich-Bayerischen LudwigMaximilians-Hochschule über religiöse Philosophie im Gegensatze der irreligiösen, älterer und neuer Zeit, vol. 1, Munich: giel 1827, p. 7; p. 26; p. 30n; p. 32; p. 41; pp. 43–4; pp. 44–5; p. 61; p. 64n; p. 67; pp. 70–78 passim; p. 84 (ASKB 395). —— Philosophische Schriften und Aufsätze, vols. 1–2, Münster: theissing 1831–2, vol. 2, p. 377; p. 379 (ASKB 400–401). —— Ueber das dermalige Missverhältniss der Vermögenslosen oder Proletairs zu den Vermögen besitzenden Klassen der Societät in Betreff ihres Auskommens, sowohl in materieller als intellektueller Hinsicht aus dem Standpunkte des Rechts betrachtet, Munich: bei georg Franz 1835, p. 17 (ASKB 404). —— Ueber den Paulinischen Begriff des Versehenseyns des Menschen im Namen Jesu vor der Welt Schöpfung. Sendeschreiben an den Herrn Professor Molitor in Frankfurt, vols. 1–3, würzburg: in commission der stahel’schen Buchhandlung 1837, vol. 1, p. 10 (vols. 1–2, ASKB 409–410) (vol. 3, ASKB 413). Baur, Ferdinand christian, Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, tübingen: osiander 1838, p. 217; pp. 230–31; p. 235; p. 246; p. 260; p. 264; p. 327 (ASKB 423). Buhle, Johann gottlieb, Geschichte der neuern Philosophie seit der Epoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, vols. 1–6 (in 10 parts), vols. 1–2, göttingen: Johann georg rosenbusch’s wittwe 1800; vols. 3–6, göttingen: Johann Friedrich röwer 1802–5, vol. 1, pp. 859ff. (ASKB 440–445). clausen, henrik nicolai, Christelig Troeslære, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1853 (ASKB 256). —— Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, copenhagen: Jens hostrup schultz 1840, p. 227; p. 237 (ASKB 468). Fischer, Friedrich, Die Metaphysik, von empirischem Standpunkte aus dargestellt. Zur Verwirklichung der Aristotelischen Metaphysik, Basel: schweighauser’sche Buchhandlung 1847, p. 16 (ASKB 513).

204

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 534; p. 540; pp. 546–7; p. 565; p. 568; p. 580 (ASKB 158–159). günther, anton, Süd- und Nordlichter am Horizonte spekulativer Theologie, vienna: Mechitaristen 1832, p. 127; p. 139 (ASKB 520). günther, anton and Johann heinrich Pabst, Janusköpfe. Zur Philosophie und Theologie, vienna: wallishausser 1834, pp. 238ff.; pp. 245ff.; p. 251; pp. 265ff.; p. 272; pp. 284–5; p. 300; pp. 305ff.; p. 314 (ASKB 524). hahn, august (ed.), Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 23; p. 82; p. 92; p. 362; p. 382; p. 424; p. 495 (ASKB 535). hansen, Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, pp. 144–5 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 362; p. 377; p. 379 (ASKB 160–166). —— Hutterus redivivus oder Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. Ein dogmatisches Repertorium für Studirende, 4th revised ed., leipzig: Breitkopf und härtel 1839, p. 34; p. 158 (ASKB 581). hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich, “thomas von aquino,” in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–3, ed. by carl ludwig Michelet, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1833–1836 (vols. 13–15 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 3, pp. 173–4 (ASKB 557–559). helfferich, adolph, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung und in ihren Denkmalen, vols. 1–2, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, p. 92 (ASKB 571–572). Martensen, hans lassen, De Autonomia conscientiæ sui humanæ in theologiam dogmaticam nostri temporis introducta, copenhagen: i.d. quist 1837, p. 6; p. 47n; p. 55; p. 128 (ASKB 648). —— Den menneskelige Selvbevidstheds Autonomie i vor Tids dogmatiske Theologie, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1841, p. 5; p. 39n; p. 46; p. 103 (ASKB 651, translation of ASKB 648, cf. also ASKB a i 41). —— Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849, p. 581 (ASKB 653). Meiners, christopher, Historische Vergleichung der Sitten und Verfassungen, der Gesetze und Gewerbe, des Handels und der Religion, der Wissenschaften und Lehranstalten des Mittelalters, vols. 1–3, hannover: im verlage der helwingischen hofbuchhandlung 1793–4, vol. 2, pp. 609–10; p. 618; p. 672; p. 674; p. 705; pp. 710–11; pp. 719–20; vol. 3, p. 2; p. 19; pp. 21–30 passim; pp. 54–6; p. 86; pp. 223–31 passim (ASKB 672–674). Michelet, carl ludwig, Vorlesungen über die Persönlichkeit Gottes und Unsterblichkeit der Seele oder die ewige Persönlichkeit des Geistes, Berlin: verlag von Ferdinand dümmler 1841, p. 291 (ASKB 680). [Montaigne, Michael], Michael Montaigne’s Gedanken und Meinungen über allerley Gegenstände, ins Deutsche übersetzt, vols. 1–7, Berlin: F.t. lagarde 1793–9, vol. 2, p. 84; vol. 3, p. 259 (ASKB 681–687).

Thomas Aquinas: Kierkegaard’s View Based on Scattered and Uncertain Sources

205

Müller, Julius, Die christliche Lehre von der Sünde, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., Breslau: Josef Max und Komp. 1849, vol. 1, pp. 65–75 (ASKB 689–690). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 190; p. 196 (ASKB 168). nielsen, rasmus, Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 43 (ASKB 698). rudelbach, andreas g., Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historiskkritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.g. iversen 1854, p. 20; p. 96; p. 405 [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). schopenhauer, arthur, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, vols. 1–2, 2nd revised and enlarged ed., leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1844 [1819], vol. 2, p. 43 (ASKB 773–773a). tennemann, wilhelm gottlieb, “thomas von aquino,” in his Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1819, vol. 8.2, pp. 551–677 (ASKB 815–826). tiedemann, dietrich, Geist der spekulativen Philosophie von Thales bis Sokrates, vols. 1–6, Marburg: in der neuen akademischen Buchhandlung 1791–7, vol. 4, pp. 474–550 (ASKB 836–841). weiße, christian hermann, Die Idee der Gottheit. Eine philosophische Abhandlung. Als wissenschaftliche Grundlegung zur Philosophie der Religion, dresden: ch.F. grimmer’sche Buchhandlung 1833, p. 142 (ASKB 866). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Aquinas Brien, abbé, “de l’univers de s. thomas à l’univers de Kierkegaard,” Travaux et Documents, vol. 6, 1946, pp. 47–8. castellani, l., De Kierkegaard a Thomás de Aquino, Buenos aires: editorial guadalupe 1973. charleswoth, Max, “st. thomas aquinas and the decline of the KantianKierkegaardian Philosophy of religion,” in Tommaso d’Aquino nel sur VII Centenario Congresso Internazionale, Roma-Napoli, 17–24 Aprile 1974, naples: edizioni domenicane italiane 1977, pp. 50–60. de nys, Martin J., “aquinas and Kierkegaard on the relation between god and creatures,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 75, 2001, pp. 389–407. dijnes, torben, “den katolske tanke hos thomas aquinas og søren Kierkegaard. nogle betragtninger i anledning af encyklika’en ‘humani generis,’ ” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift, vol. 15, no. 1, 1952, pp. 1–18. Fabro, cornelio, “Kierkegaard e s. tommaso,” Sapienza, vol. 9, nos. 4–5, 1959, pp. 292–308. —— “le prove dell’esistenza di dio in Kierkegaard,” Humanitas, vol. 17, 1962, pp. 97–110. —— “Kierkegaard e s. tommaso,” Mater Ecclesiae, vol. 3, 1967, pp. 152–60. goulet, denis a., “Kierkegaard, aquinas, and the dilemma of abraham,” Thought, vol. 32, 1957, pp. 165–88.

206

Benjamín Olivares Bøgeskov

hannay, alastair, “Kierkegaardian despair and the irascible soul,” Kierkegaard Studies. Yearbook, 1997, pp. 50–69. Malantschuk, gregor, “søren Kierkegaards teori om springet og hans virke lighedsbegreb,” Kierkegardiana, vol. 1, 1955, pp. 7–15. Mcinery, ralph, “connection seen in ethics of Kierkegaard and aquinas,” Christian Messenger, vol. 82, 1964, p. 4. Milano, andrea, “il ’divenire di dio’ in hegel, Kierkegaard e san tommaso d’aquino,” Studi Tomistici, iii: San Tommaso e il pensiero moderno Saggi, città nuova: Pontificia Accademia Romana di S. Tommaso d’Aquino 1974, pp. 284–94. roos, heinrich, Søren Kierkegaard and Catholicism, westminster: newman Press 1954. sen, Krishna, “a comparative study of the concept of Faith of stace, dewey, Kierkegaard, and st. thomas aquinas,” Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 29, 1956–7, pp. 69–74. stengren, george l., “connatural Knowledge in aquinas and Kierkegaardian subjectivity,” Kierkgaardiana, vol. 10, 1977, pp. 182–9. —— “thomism,” in Kierkegaard and Great Traditions, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 6), pp. 89–120. stiltner, Brian, “who can understand abraham? the relation of god and Morality in Kierkegaard and aquinas,” Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 21, 1993, pp. 221–45. thulstrup, niels, “Kierkegaard i thomistisk belysning,” in his Akcept og protest. Artikler i udvalg, vols. 1–2, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981, vol. 1, pp. 301–6. torralba, Francesc, “santo tomas y Kierkegaard ante el dilemma abrahamico” [saint thomas and Kierkegaard before abraham’s dilemma], Pensamiento, vol. 196, no. 50, 1994, pp. 75–94. vanderheyden, Monique Michelle, A Comparative Study of the Dominant Themes in the Works of Soren Kierkegaard and St. Thomas Aquinas, M.a. thesis, university of guelph, ontario 1992. white, willie, Faith and Existence: A Study in Aquinas and Kierkegaard, Ph.d. thesis, university of chicago 1966. williams, cornelius, “the hedonism of aquinas,” The Thomist, vol. 38, 1974, pp. 257–90, see especially pp. 272–5. zwick, elisabeth, Der Mensch als personale Existenz. Entwürfe existentialer Anthropologie und ihre pädagogischen Implikationen bei Sören Kierkegaard und Thomas von Aquin. Eine Studie über die Konstitution der Geschichtlichkeit anhand von Grundfragen zur Möglichkeit eines Dialoges zwischen Sören Kierkegaard und Thomas von Aquin, st. ottilien: eos verlag 1992.

Boethius: Kierkegaard and The Consolation Joseph westfall

anicius Manlius torquatus severinus Boethius (ca. 480–ca. 524), roman consul under the reign of theodoric the ostrogoth, was a christian neoplatonist philosopher and theologian credited with ensuring the transmission of aristotle and aristotelian terms and concepts to the later medieval scholastics.1 Boethius set before himself the goal of translating into latin all of the works of Plato and aristotle accessible to him in rome, and, although he did not accomplish this task, he did translate Porphyry’s Isagoge and the entirety of aristotle’s Organon (the Categories, On Interpretation, the Prior Analytics, the Posterior Analytics, the Topics, and On Sophistical Refutations).2 Boethius is considered by many the last roman in ancient times capable of reading and translating the works of greek philosophy into the latin language. in addition to his translations, however, Boethius wrote commentaries on aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation, cicero’s Topica, and a double commentary on the Isagoge, and was the author of a number of works of mathematics, astronomy, logic, music theory (his De institutione musica was the standard text on the subject well into modernity), theology, and philosophy. Brought to prominence in rome by theodoric on account of his philosophical and technical brilliance, Boethius was also to be condemned by theodoric for treason. after an unknown period of imprisonment in Pavia, outside rome, Boethius was tortured and executed on theodoric’s order sometime between 524 and 526.3 although theodoric’s edmund reiss writes: “Before the mid-twelfth century, Boethius was the sole transmitter of aristotle to the west…. and even after the mid-twelfth century, when knowledge of aristotle began to pour into the west from the arab world, and when new latin translations were made, Boethius still provided the way for those making their first acquaintance with aristotle, and his commentaries were the basis of all subsequent interpretations.” edmund reiss, Boethius, Boston: twayne Publishers 1982, p. 159. 2 there is some debate as to whether Boethius actually translated the Posterior Analytics, although henry chadwick seems to argue in its favor, on the evidence not only of Boethius’ declared intention to translate that work, but also (and more persuasively) with regard to a mid-twelfthcentury reference to “Boethius’ translation of the Posterior Analytics,” although by that time, the translation (if such existed) was already lost. henry chadwick, Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Philosophy, oxford: clarendon Press 1981, pp. 137–8. 3 see chadwick, Boethius, pp. 54–5. see also h.F. stewart and e.K. rand, “life of Boethius,” in Boethius: The Theological Tractates and Consolation of Philosophy, cambridge, Massachusetts: harvard university Press 1973, pp. xi–xv. 1

208

Joseph Westfall

motives do not appear to have been religious, he was an arian, and Boethius came to be understood as a Catholic martyr. He was officially recognized as St. Severinus by Pope leo Xiii in 1883.4 while in prison, Boethius wrote what was to become his most widely read and influential work, The Consolation of Philosophy.5 The Consolation combines poetry and prose in the form of a dialogue between the imprisoned Boethius and Philosophy, who appears to Boethius in his cell in the form of a woman. Philosophy is dressed in a gown of her own making, bearing the Greek letters Θ and Π (significant of philosophy in both its theoretical and practical aspects), and is of variable height— sometimes only as tall as an ordinary human, sometimes so tall as to pierce the heavens. When Philosophy first appears to Boethius, he is in the company of the Muses of poetry, and he does not recognize her. Her first act is to banish poetry from Boethius’ prison cell, putting an end to his poetical lamentations. over the course of the dialogue, Philosophy helps Boethius to see not only that his condition does not justify such lamentation, but also that, with the aid of philosophy, it is possible to uncover the truth concerning god’s relation to the world. of particular interest to Boethius in The Consolation is the question of divine providence and the actuality of evil, a question that dominates the second half of the book. At the center of Philosophy’s argument is her assertion of the significance of the difference in perspective between human beings and god. it is, in fact, in terms of perspective—and the different experiences of time proper to the different perspectives—that Philosophy resolves the apparent contradiction of divine foreknowledge with human freedom. while, for human beings, events transpire in chronological sequence, for god, all moments are eternally present in simultaneity. thus, it is only from our limited human perspective, conditioned by time that it seems as if god knows what we will choose before we have chosen it. From the divine perspective of eternity, there is no chronology or sequence, no “before” or “after.” In this, Boethius relies much upon the thought of Plato (specifically, the Timaeus) and the neoplatonists, perhaps especially augustine in his discussion of the nature of time in Book Xi of the Confessions. the question will be taken up again with specific reference to Boethius by such thinkers as Lorenzo Valla and gottfried wilhelm leibniz. Kierkegaard seems to owe much of his understanding of the importance of Boethius’ thought to his reading of the latter’s Theodicy.6 chadwick, Boethius, p. 68. The Consolation’s many editions and translations include those of King alfred into old english and geoffrey chaucer into Middle english, and an english translation by queen elizabeth i. Moreover, The Consolation was a significant and discernible philosophical influence on the works of both Chaucer and Dante. 6 [leibnitz, gottfried wilhelm], Herrn Gottfried Wilhelms, Freyherrn von Leibnitz, Theodicee, das ist, Versuch von der Güte Gottes, Freyheit des Menschen, und vom Ursprunge des Bösen, 5th revised ed., ed. by Johann christoph gottscheden, hannover and leipzig: im verlage der Försterischen erben 1763. Kierkegaard owned a copy of the work (ASKB 619). of particular interest to students of Boethius and Kierkegaard both is leibniz’s summary of a dialogue of lorenzo (laurentius) valla in opposition to Boethius (see pp. 623–2). (Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil, trans. by e.M. huggard, la salle, illinois: open court 1985, pp. 365–73.) although there is some reference 4 5

Boethius: Kierkegaard and the consolation

209

nevertheless, Kierkegaard’s use of Boethius is concerned less with eternality and perspective (the central Boethian concerns) than it is with necessity and the nature of knowledge (somewhat more tangential matters for Boethius). The Consolation was the only work of Boethius of which Kierkegaard owned a copy, in the agriæ (sc. the city of eger in hungary) edition of 1758,7 and the only work of Boethius that Kierkegaard leaves evidence of having read. the copy was sold at auction after Kierkegaard’s death to Professor henrik Krøyer; upon Krøyer’s death, his copy of the 1758 edition of The Consolation was bequeathed to the danish royal library. although there was some early speculation that the Krøyer eger 1758 was a replacement purchased by Krøyer after losing the copy he acquired from Kierkegaard’s library, arild christensen has argued persuasively to the contrary.8 in addition, christensen provides us with a catalogue of the relatively few markings Kierkegaard made in his copy of The Consolation, all in the nature of the underscoring or crossing out of very specific words, phrases, or sentences.9 Kierkegaard refers to Boethius a total of only six times in either the journals and notebooks or the published writings (primarily in the years 1842–3), with an additional, seventh reference in The Book on Adler that touches upon Boethius and The Consolation only indirectly,10 and another, eighth possible reference (although this only very indirectly) in Notebook 4.11 of the direct references, three are from the Notebooks;12 one from notes on Philosophical Fragments in the journals;13 one from the published version of Philosophical Fragments;14 and one from Stages on Life’s Way.15 these divide neatly into two groups: passages in which Kierkegaard or a pseudonym makes reference to Boethius with regard to the classical (Platonic philosophical) opposition of philosophy to poetry; and passages in which Boethius is referenced in light of a discussion of the compatibility of freedom and divine foreknowledge (the possible reference from Notebook 4 is of this second sort). the Book on Adler reference is the only one that does not fit into either of these categories, concerned as it is with the nature of authorship.

to Boethius in wilhelm gottlieb tennemann’s Geschichte der Philosophie, which Kierkegaard owned and with which he was familiar, it is relatively brief and treats of Boethius only as a translator and preserver of aristotle. see wilhelm gottlieb tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Bei Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1817 (ASKB 815–826). references to Boethius are in vol. 7. 7 De consolatione philosophiæ Severini Boethii libri quinque, agriæ [eger]: typis Francisci antonii royer episcopalis typographi 1758 (ASKB 431). 8 arild christensen, “om Kierkegaards læsning af Boethius,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 4, 1962, pp. 70–74. 9 ibid., pp. 71–3. 10 Pap. vii-2 B 235 / BA, 8. 11 SKS 19, 128–9, not4:5, 4:5a, 4:5b. 12 SKS 19, 376, not12:9a / JP 4, 4833. SKS 19, 393–4, not13:23 / JP 3, 3549. SKS 19, 405, not13:40 / JP 2, 1245. 13 Pap. v B 15, 8. 14 SKS 4, 279 / PF, 80. 15 SKS 6, 408 / SLW, 442.

210

Joseph Westfall

the rest of the present article, then, will be divided into three sections, concerned with: (i) Kierkegaard’s and Frater taciturnus’ use of the beginning of The Consolation as demonstrative of the Platonic and neoplatonic understanding of philosophy as superior to poetry; (ii) Kierkegaard’s and Johannes climacus’ references to Boethius’ argument reconciling divine foreknowledge with human freedom, as well as the appearance of this issue in the possible reference in Notebook 4; and (iii) some consideration of the indirect reference in The Book on Adler, followed by some concluding comments on the nature of Kierkegaard’s relation to Boethius in general, the latter the former’s forebear as religious philosopher-poet par excellence. I. Notebook 12, labeled “Æsthetica” and dated november 20, 1842, includes a number of comments on ancient poetry and drama, with particular and repeated reference to the Poetics of aristotle. in one of these entries in Notebook 12, Kierkegaard offers his interpretation of a controversial line from the Poetics, regarding tragedy’s relief of pity and fear in the spectators. Kierkegaard writes: the effect is that ελεος [pity] and φοβος [fear] become purely sympathetic, that I forget myself in aesthetic, purely sympathetic ελεος και φοβος [pity and fear]. Generally speaking, this is the calming effect produced by the aesthetic, not through the thought that others suffer more but through the loss of oneself in contemplation of the aesthetic itself, of the aesthetic suffering.16

Tragedy is thus identified, on Kierkegaard’s reading of Aristotle, as an occasion for self-loss—and for the “purification” of pity and fear by “ennobling these sympathies.”17 a reconciliation within the self is achieved thereby, inasmuch as tragedy allows for relief from the pity and fear in the minds of the spectators by means of the pity and fear experienced externally and exclusively in the aesthetic realm. there is no comparison between the suffering of the poetical characters in the tragedy and one’s own actual (or potential) suffering, nor is relief found in the fact that the characters in the tragedy suffer more than do any of the spectators. instead, in contemplation of the suffering depicted poetically, one loses sight of oneself and one’s own suffering—and thus loses any basis for comparison. in a marginal note on this entry in Notebook 12, Kierkegaard adds, “the aesthetic reconciles the imagination.” and, then: Boethius minimizes the reconciliation of poetry for this reason (see bk. i, p. 9): “quis, inquit, has scenicas meretriculas ad hunc ægrum permisit accedere? quæ dolores ejus non modo nullis foverent remediis, verum dulcibus insuper alerent venenis? Hæ sunt enim

16 17

SKS 19, 376, not12:9 / JP 4, 4826. ibid.

Boethius: Kierkegaard and the consolation

211

quæ infructuosis affectuum spinis uberem18 rationis segetem necant, hominumque mentes assuefaciunt morbo, non liberant.”19

For aristotle, according to Kierkegaard in the passage, the reconciliation effected by the aesthetic in tragedy is beneficial to the spectator, a relief of pity and fear in the ennobling of the sympathies. Boethius, however, rejects this reconciliation. in light of Kierkegaard’s reading of the Poetics, whereupon the catharsis of tragedy consists in the loss of the self in contemplation of the aesthetic, the grounds for Boethius’ minimization of the reconciliation are clear. For Boethius in The Consolation, to lose oneself in poetry (as Boethius has done at the beginning of the dialogue, and which prompts Philosophy’s harsh words for the Muses in Boethius’ cell) is to settle for a consolation that will not ultimately console. only philosophy, and the ascent to god made possible thereby, can offer true consolation. aesthetic catharsis is not enough. although it can be a useful introduction to philosophy (usually via cicero, as it was for augustine), poetry has merely instrumental value. in itself, poetry is just a distraction. the contrast Kierkegaard draws here, between aristotle’s aesthetic reconciliation or redemption (Forsoning) of the self in tragedy and Boethius’ philosophical—and therefore, neoplatonically speaking, religious—reconciliation in knowledge, is continued by Frater taciturnus in his “letter to the reader” in Stages on Life’s Way. there, taciturnus draws the distinction between the aesthetic and the ethical or the religious (or ethical-religious): “Poetry consists in the commensuration of the outer and the inner, and it therefore shows a visible result.…the religious lies in the internal. here the result cannot be shown in the external.”20 although taciturnus does not mention aristotle by name, in his depiction of the kind of demands an ethically-minded spectator or critic might make of poetry, the vision of tragedy set forth in the Poetics cannot be far from his mind. he writes: For example, if i exclude every other thought and think only of the ethical, i demand with ethical sanction to see the good triumph with a boundless speed, to see the evil punished with boundless speed. Now, this cannot be depicted, least of all in five acts, and therefore the aesthetic and the ethical have been combined. the total thought of the ethical has been retained and the boundless speed has been slowed down by aesthetic categories (fate, chance), and now at the end one sees in the total thought of the ethical a world order, a governance, providence. this result is aesthetic-ethical and therefore can be shown in the external to a certain degree. But there is a dubiousness about this result, for the ethical cannot regard the aesthetic in any other way than to regard a direct union with it as a Kierkegaard here omits the word “fructibus” (“fruits”) in his transcription of Boethius’ latin. see SKS K19, 523. 19 SKS 19, 376, not12:9a / JP 4, 4833. the quotation reads: “who let these theatrical tarts in with this sick man? not only have they no cures for his pain, but with their sweet poison they make it worse. these are they who choke the rich harvest of [the fruits of] reason with the barren thorns of passion.” Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, trans. by s.J. tester, cambridge, Massachusetts: harvard university Press 1973, p. 135 (abbreviated hereafter as Consolation). although there is a difference in sense caused by Kierkegaard’s omission of the word “fructibus,” it is rather slight and does not unduly change the significance of the passage in The Consolation (or Kierkegaard’s use thereof). 20 SKS 6, 408 / SLW, 441. 18

212

Joseph Westfall misalliance. (no doubt this is why Boethius is so indignant about poet productions, i, p. 9; no doubt this is why solon forbade plays as deception; no doubt this is why Plato wanted to ban poets from his state.)21

here, then, we see the aristotelian understanding of greek tragedy as aestheticethical—that is, as an ethical world order made visible in aesthetic form—undermined by the ethical as such. standing against aristotle on taciturnus’ reading are solon, Plato, and Boethius, all of whom reject poetry on ethical or ethical-religious grounds. taciturnus’ reading may not be the best or most nuanced reading, however, especially in the cases of Plato and Boethius—both of whom cast their rejections of poetry in indirect and literary forms (Plato has socrates ban the poets in his dialogue, Republic; Boethius has Philosophy send the Muses away). in fact, the history of western thought offers few philosophers more rightly called poets than Plato and Boethius. thus, the indignation taciturnus ascribes to Boethius with regard to “poet productions” is something of an exaggeration: although Philosophy does banish poetry from Boethius’ cell at Consolation i, 1 (the passage that appears on page 9 of the eger 1758 edition, referenced by Kierkegaard and taciturnus both), Consolation I, 2 is the first of Philosophy’s many poems.22 although Kierkegaard puts aristotle and Boethius into opposition at Notebook 12.9 and 12.9a, taciturnus begins to show us that Boethius’ apparent rejection of poetry is, in fact, but a rejection of poetry-forpoetry’s-sake, a subtler reading not out of accord with Kierkegaard in the Notebook. in this regard, as we see in the passage from Stages, Boethius and aristotle—indeed, Plato and aristotle—are very much in agreement as to the merely instrumental value of the aesthetic vis-à-vis ethical and religious life. II. in Notebook 13, labeled “Philosophica,” in a passage isolated on a page of its own in the middle of the Notebook, and under the heading “Problemata,” Kierkegaard writes: is the past more necessary than the future? This can be significant with respect to the solution of the problem of possibility—how does hegel answer it? in logic, in the doctrine of essence. here we get the explanation that the possible is the actual, the actual is the possible. it is simple enough in a science, at the conclusion of which one has arrived at possibility. it is then a tautology. this is important in connection with the doctrine of the relation between the future and god’s foreknowledge. the old thesis that knowledge neither takes away anything nor adds. see Boethius, pp. 126–127, later used by leibniz.23

SKS 6, 408 / SLW, 441–2. Consolation i, 1, pp. 133–7; the banishment of the Muses is on p. 135. Consolation i, 2, pp. 137–9. 23 SKS 19, 405, not13:40 / JP 2, 1245. 21 22

Boethius: Kierkegaard and the consolation

213

Here, then, we find the explicit association of Hegel, Leibniz, and Boethius in Kierkegaard’s thought, with particular reference to one of the questions central to at least one of the published works of the authorship. Johannes climacus devotes a considerable portion of Philosophical Fragments—what he calls the “interlude,” between the fourth and fifth chapters of the book—to the question set before the text of the “interlude” as its title: “is the Past more necessary than the Future? or: has the Possible, by having Become actual, Become More necessary than it was?”24 In the fourth section of that “Interlude,” in fact, we find another of the references to Boethius in the Kierkegaardian authorship. there, climacus, in a discussion of “the apprehension of the past,” writes: if what is apprehended is changed in the apprehension, then the apprehension is changed into a misunderstanding. Knowledge of the present does not confer necessity upon it; foreknowledge of the future does not confer necessity upon it (Boethius); knowledge of the past does not confer necessity upon it—for all apprehension, like all knowing, has nothing from which to give.25

thereafter, climacus goes on to make reference to a number of philosophers and theologians, one of whom, again, is leibniz. in the two passages concerning Boethius’ argument about foreknowledge cited so far, then, we see a conjunction in the texts (if not in the author’s mind) between Boethius and a corresponding question in the Theodicy of leibniz—a work that, not incidentally, itself refers directly to this argument in The Consolation. thus, it should come as no surprise that the only other direct reference to Boethius in Kierkegaard’s discussions of the relation between freedom and divine foreknowledge in the journals and notebooks should be likewise concerned with leibniz. at Notebook 13.23, in extensive notes on the Theodicy, Kierkegaard writes: Para. 406 and following there is a dialogue which l. valla26 has composed in order to penetrate Boethius. The difficulty is supposed to be to unite God’s foreknowledge with freedom. he shows that knowledge neither adds to nor detracts from my action; consequently foreknowledge does not either. he explains all problems with respect to apollo (the foreknower) but lets the matter run aground on Jupiter (on providence) and concludes with an admonition. thereupon l.27 develops the matter further with the aid of his theory about infinite possible worlds.28

SKS 4, 272 / PF, 72. SKS 4, 279 / PF, 79–80. 26 “l. valla”: lorenzo valla. leibniz latinizes his given name as “laurentius.” 27 “l.”: gottfried wilhelm leibniz. 28 SKS 19, 393–4, not13:23 / JP 3, 3549. not13:23 is a long entry on various aspects of leibniz’ Theodicy; JP 3, 3549 is a translation of only a brief portion from the end of the Notebook entry (the only portion that fits very well with the subject heading under which JP 3, 3549 appears, “Predestination”). 24 25

214

Joseph Westfall

the regular conjunction of Boethius with leibniz in the passages from Philosophical Fragments and Notebook 13 incline one to believe that Kierkegaard did not conceive of the Boethian argument for the compatibility of freedom and foreknowledge without reference to the criticism and perpetuation of that argument in the Theodicy; that Kierkegaard’s references to leibniz greatly outnumber and almost entirely encompass his references to Boethius adds to the impression that, for Kierkegaard, the Boethian argument is something of an historical footnote to the leibnizian. regardless of Kierkegaard’s thoughts on the relative value or merits of Boethius and leibniz, however, the fact remains that the two are constantly conjoined in considerations of divine foreknowledge in the Kierkegaardian authorship. in an early draft of Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard/climacus includes a quotation from The Consolation that speaks more fully to the problem of god’s foreknowledge. there, he writes: “But the apprehension is not able either; nam sicut scientia præsentium nihil his quæ fiunt, ita præscientia futurorum nihil his, quæ ventura sunt, necessitatis importat. (Boethius liber v.).”29 although the published version of Fragments ultimately only preserves reference to Boethius by name, the quotation from The Consolation underlying this earlier draft reference has everything to do with the central (and titular) question of climacus’ “interlude.” the Notebook 13.23 and Papirer entries thus circle around the relations of necessity, possibility, and actuality in Fragments. Boethius’ role in all of this, it seems, is to return attention to the ramifications of any resolution of the question for our understanding of human freedom in its relation to the divine. although the argument in The Consolation tends toward emphasizing the eternality of god, however, climacus and Kierkegaard focus upon another of Boethius’ claims, that, just as knowledge confers no necessity upon events that transpire in the present or the past, so foreknowledge confers no such necessity upon future events. Boethius has Philosophy compare foreknowledge of future events to the more ordinary knowledge of present events. he writes: therefore things which, while they are happening, lack any necessity of being so, these same things, before they happen, are future without any necessity. and therefore there are some things going to happen the occurrence of which is free from all necessity. For i do not think that any man would say this, that those things which are happening now were not “going to happen” before they happened; therefore of these, even foreknown, the occurrence is free.30

Boethius wants here to draw a distinction between things that happen necessarily, and things that are merely “going to happen,” or what come to be called “absolute necessity” and “conditional necessity”—a distinction that is, perhaps, difficult for

Pap. v B 8. the quotation reads, “For just as knowledge of present things introduces no necessity into those things which are happening, so the foreknowledge of future things introduces none into those things which are to come.” Boethius, Consolation, p. 409. this line from The Consolation is underlined in the Kierkegaard-Krøyer copy of the eger 1758 edition of the work. see christensen, “om Kierkegaards læsning af Boethius,” p. 73. 30 Consolation, p. 409. 29

Boethius: Kierkegaard and the consolation

215

contemporary readers to accept, but one which nevertheless has its roots in aristotle.31 henry chadwick explains: we think of the future as consisting of uncertain, contingent events: contingent in the sense that there are a number of possibilities, and for us they are open; it is not the case that any of them can be seen to be necessary. and “necessary” itself is a slippery word; for some necessities are absolute, whereas others are conditional. that a man will die is absolutely necessary because man is a mortal animal. if you know someone is walking, then, if your belief is correct, it is necessary that he is walking; and if he is walking, he is going. here necessity is conditional. we see how for Boethius necessity is being contrasted with voluntary action and with the contingent event which happens but does not have to happen.32

Thus, we find in Boethius an anticipation of the distinction Johannes Climacus will famously make in the “interlude” to Philosophical Fragments, between necessity and actuality. Boethius’ “conditional necessity” is climacus’ “actuality”; Boethius’ “absolute necessity” is, on the other hand, what climacus calls “necessity.”33 the Boethian distinction goes back to aristotle’s Physics and is taken up without significant modification by the Scholastics after Boethius. Climacus’ “Interlude” thus has, in at least one sense, a decidedly medieval flavor.34 the resolution of the question of necessity, however, although a resolution for climacus and Kierkegaard of their question (whether the past is more necessary than the future), does not resolve Boethius’ question about god’s foreknowledge. although it is important in The Consolation to note that foreknown events are no more necessary than known ones, this is so only because of the difference between god and human beings as knowers: But if those things which are of uncertain outcome are foreseen as if they were certain, that is really the obscurity of opinion, not the truth of knowledge; for you believe thinking things to be other than as they are to be alien to the integrity of knowledge. the cause of this mistake is that each thinks that all that he knows is known simply by the power and nature of those things that are known. which is altogether otherwise: for everything which is known is grasped not according to its own power but rather according to the capability of those who know it.35

thus, it is simply mistaken to presume that god’s foreknowledge knows future events in the same manner in which a human knower might know such events— specifically, that is, in terms of time and sequence. God knows what God knows according to the “capability” of god to know it, a capability that does not suffer the condition of temporality essential to human knowledge. according to Boethius, god’s

chadwick, Boethius, p. 162. ibid., p. 245. 33 climacus’ argument is concerned with the question of the necessity of the past, rather than the question of the necessity of a foreknown future. 34 this, i think, despite the fact that climacus shares much of his aristotelian-scholastic terminology with both leibniz and hegel. 35 Consolation, pp. 409–11. 31 32

216

Joseph Westfall

foreknowledge is not properly speaking foreknowledge at all; for god, all moments and all events are eternally present, and thus all are known while nothing is foreknown. although, as has been noted, both Kierkegaard and climacus forego any serious consideration of the role the eternality of god plays for Boethius in The Consolation, there is some indication that, in a reference in Notebook 4 (as well as an unascribed latin quotation in Concluding Unscientific Postscript), Kierkegaard is aware of and uses the notion that knowledge is a function of the mode of the knower, rather than of the object known. although the notion appears elsewhere—most notably, perhaps, in the Summa theologiae of thomas aquinas—Kierkegaard does seem to have known that the idea appears also (and earlier) in Boethius’ Consolation. in his notes on hans lassen Martensen’s (1808–74) lectures on speculative dogmatics, in a long entry dated november 22, 1837 with the heading, “3rd lecture,” Kierkegaard quotes a sentence in latin: “Quicquid cognoscitur cognoscitur per modum cognoscentis.”36 in the margin of the entry, Kierkegaard writes, in parentheses, “Baader.”37 the line is a common scholastic expression, one which Martensen had been quoting in his philosophical lectures in copenhagen,38 and one Kierkegaard finds in Franz von Baader’s Vorlesungen über speculative Dogmatik.39 the line appears much later in the Kierkegaardian authorship, as well, in the second chapter of the first part of Climacus’ Postscript, in the context of the discussion there of objective knowledge.40 neither Martensen nor Baader pretends to have invented the expression, however, and its presence in scholastic texts is typically traced back to the Summa theologiae 1, 12, 4, where thomas writes, “Cognitum autem est in cognoscente secundum modum cognoscentis.”41 thomas was an avid reader of Boethius, however, and the notion that knowledge is conditioned by the mode of the knower is more easily ascribed to Boethius than to a thinker as late as thomas.42 Moreover, as christensen notes, Kierkegaard underscored the relevant line in his copy of The Consolation, “omne, quod scitur, non ex sua, sed ex comprehendentium

SKS 19, 129, not4:5. latin: “whatever is known is known in the mode of the knower.” SKS 19, 129, not4:5.a. 38 SKS K7, 133. 39 SKS K19, 190. Kierkegaard owned a copy of the book (Franz Baader, Vorlesungen über speculative Dogmatik, vol. 1, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’sche Buchhandlung 1828 [vols. 2–5, Münster: theissing 1830–38], vol. 2, p. 40, ASKB 396). 40 SKS 7, 57 / CUP1, 52. howard and edna hong, in the note to the line in their translation of Postscript, indicate that the source of the quotation “has not been located,” CUP2, 193. Notebook 4.5a identifies the immediate source as Baader, however. 41 thomas aquinas, Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, ed. by anton c. Pegis, new York: random house, 1945. “For knowledge takes place according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower,” p. 97. see SKS K7, 133. 42 s.J. tester notes, however, in a footnote to his edition and translation of The Consolation, “this principle…is virtually to be found—though not in this formulation—in the commentary of ammonius on aristotle’s De Interpretatione…to which Boethius owes a good deal in this part of his work.” Consolation, p. 410. ammonius appears to have been entirely unknown to Kierkegaard. 36

37

Boethius: Kierkegaard and the consolation

217

natura cognoscitur.”43 thus, although the quotation inscribed into Notebook 4.5 and the Postscript is not original to Boethius, it seems reasonable to believe that Kierkegaard was well aware of the origin of the idea, not in Martensen, Baader, or thomas, but in Boethius’ Consolation.44 III. in Book ii of the Consolation, Philosophy criticizes Boethius for his vanity and desire to be spoken of highly by other men. as a part of the reprimand, Philosophy tells Boethius a story: hear now how one man joked about the triviality of this kind of arrogance. he had insultingly attacked a man who had falsely assumed the title of philosopher, not for the practice of true virtue but simply from vanity, to increase his own glory; and he added that he would know he was really a philosopher if he bore all the injuries heaped upon him calmly and patiently. the other adopted a patient manner for a time and bore the insults, and then said tauntingly: “now do you recognize that i am a philosopher?” to which the first very cuttingly replied: “I should have, had you kept silent.”45

although the association of wisdom with silence has a more ancient origin,46 the cutting reply—in Boethius’ latin, “Intellexeram, inquit, si tacuisses”47—became a latin proverb commonly ascribed to Boethius: “si tacuisset, philosophus mansisset,” or, “if he had kept silent, he would have remained a philosopher.” in his discussion of authorship in the “introduction” to the unpublished Book on Adler, Petrus Minor criticizes most contemporary writers for being incapable of becoming authors, properly speaking. Although they can write the “first and second parts,” they cannot write the third—a reference to the notion, in much of the Kierkegaardian literary christensen, “om Kierkegaards læsning af Boethius,” p. 73. latin: “everything which is known is known not according to its own nature but according to the nature of those comprehending it.” Boethius, Consolation, p. 423. christensen also makes the connection between the “quicquid cognoscitur” quotation and Kierkegaard’s reading of Boethius, directing the reader from this passage in The Consolation to Pap. ii c 14 (not4:5), and the Postscript. 44 Umberto Eco likewise finds the origin of this Scholastic precept in Boethius, although he locates it in the Boethian aesthetic and theory of music (dependent as it is upon proportion), rather than in The Consolation or a religious epistemological context. eco writes, “aquinas refers also to a psychological type of proportion, the suitability of a thing for being experienced by a subject. this conception, which derived from augustine and Boethius, has to do with the relation between the knower and the known. When we reflect upon the objective and rulegoverned character of perceived phenomena, we discover our own connaturality with their proportions, that there are proportions also in ourselves.” eco, Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages, trans. by hugh Bredin, new haven: Yale university Press 1986, p. 77. 45 Consolation, p. 221. 46 Plutarch ascribes to euripides the notion that “silence is an answer to the wise.” Plutarch, “on compliancy” in Moralia, trans. by Phillip h. de lacy and Benedict einarson, cambridge, Massachusetts: harvard university Press 1984, p. 532. cf. v.e. watts’ editorial footnote at Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, trans. by watts, new York: Penguin Books 1986, p. 75. 47 Consolation, p. 220. 43

218

Joseph Westfall

criticism, that to be an author is essentially to have, and to instill in one’s works, a life-view. thus, Petrus concludes, “to be an author is certainly something one makes oneself by writing, but for that very reason it is also something one, strangely enough, can renounce simply by writing. if he had been really aware of the dubiousness of the third part—well, si tacuisset, philosophus mansisset.”48 the discussion of authorship in the “introduction” to The Book on Adler presents an interesting take on the proverb, but Petrus’ use of the line (never written by but traditionally attributed to Boethius) is certainly more abuse than anything else. Petrus’ meaning is far closer to that of the Bible, in the Book of Proverbs, which reads, “even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.”49 Boethius’ story in The Consolation recommends silence to and as the mark of the genuine philosopher; Proverbs 17:28 claims only that those who remain silent, perhaps even especially the foolish, will appear to be wise. thus, it seems best to read Kierkegaard’s reference to “the proverb” in Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits—“even a fool would be a wise man if he could keep silent”50—against the editors of the first edition of the Samlede Værker, who, in a footnote from the line in the text, write, “the latin proverb ‘tu si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses,’ see Boethius, Consolatio philos. ii, 17.”51 rather than distinguishing between the senses of the latin and biblical proverbs, Kierkegaard seems to have elided the meaning of the former in both instances in favor of the latter. in any event, there is something quite Boethian about the restraint Petrus counsels in The Book on Adler, coming into control of one’s temptations toward aesthetic selfindulgence. Petrus, like Kierkegaard and the Kierkegaardian literary critics, evaluates literature from a decidedly ethical perspective—and, from that perspective, demands of authors and works of literature alike the maturity and consistency of a life-view, in life as well as art. only from within the literary habitation of a work instilled with a lifeview can an author adequately address the religious and matters of religious import, Petrus argues, echoing Kierkegaard in both From the Papers of One Still Living and A Literary Review. Likewise, in the (fictional) moment of his (actual) greatest suffering, Philosophy comes to Boethius and, banishing poetry and the Muses, admonishes him against any aesthetic resolution of his difficulties. There are, perhaps, few more influential examples of what will come in Kierkegaard to be called the ethicalreligious than Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, which recommends philosophy in the face of suffering—philosophy, which has the power to console the sufferer in theodicy. Boethius, like Kierkegaard—and, indeed, Judge william of Either/Or and Petrus Minor of The Book on Adler—sees the central importance of a coherent lifeview in the project of coming to terms with life’s vicissitudes. of course, Boethius’ roman neoplatonist life-view is not Kierkegaard’s danish lutheran life-view. But the

Pap. vii-2 B 235, p. 6 / BA, 8. Prov 17:28. in the footnote in which howard and edna hong ascribe the latin proverb to Boethius in The Consolation, they add, “see also Proverbs 17:28.” BA, 353. 50 SKS 8, 233 / UD, 135. 51 SV1 8, 226. in this, i follow the commentators at SKS K8, 259, as well as the hongs at UD, 411. 48 49

Boethius: Kierkegaard and the consolation

219

stability in life and maturity of outlook afforded on the former does seem very much at the heart of the latter, especially as it is described in Either/Or, Part 2. More than this, however, there is a definite consonance in the styles of the two authors, Kierkegaard and Boethius, both of whom manage to relativize (if not condemn) poetry and the aesthetic from within the context of an extraordinarily poetical literary-philosophical production. while each had his own prosaic religious authorship, as well (Kierkegaard’s upbuilding discourses; Boethius’ Theological Tractates or Opuscula sacra), neither seems to have privileged prose over poetry— or the direct over the indirect—in the manner of either medieval scholasticism or modern philosophy. in both authors’ authorships, poetry and the aesthetic seem to have a maieutic function for readers, moving them to the truths of philosophy and christianity. thus, although his use of Boethius and The Consolation is rather inconsiderable when compared to the roles played by innumerable other thinkers and works in the Kierkegaardian authorship, Kierkegaard’s kinship with Boethius as a philosopher and an author is particularly profound. Few other thinkers and writers attempt the difficult task of mastering the aesthetic without losing themselves to it, harnessing poetry and converting it to philosophical or religious service. in this, although neither a neoplatonist nor a scholastic, Kierkegaard shares a common, Platonic heritage with Boethius—as an author.

Bibliography I. Boethius’ Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library De consolatione philosophiæ Severini Boethii libri quinque, agriæ [eger]: typis Francisci antonii royer episcopalis 1758 (ASKB 431). II. Works in The Auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Boethius [Becker, Karl Friedrich], Karl Friedrich Beckers Verdenshistorie, omarbeidet af Johan Gottfried Woltmann, vols. 1–12, trans. by J. riise, copenhagen: Fr. Brummers Forlag 1822–9, vol. 4, p. 15 (ASKB 1972–1983). Buhle, Johann gottlieb, Geschichte der neuern Philosophie seit der Epoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, vols. 1–6 (in 10 parts), vols. 1–2, göttingen: Johann georg rosenbusch’s wittwe 1800; vols. 3–6, göttingen: Johann Friedrich röwer 1802–5 (abtheilung 6 in Geschichte der Künste und Wissenschaften seit der Wiederherstellung derselben bis an das Ende des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. Von einer Gesellschaft gelehrter Männer ausgearbeitet, abtheilungen 1–11, göttingen: röwer and göttingen: rosenbusch 1796–1820), vol. 1, pp. 807ff. (ASKB 440–445). engelhardt, Johann georg veit, Literarischer Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen über die Patristik, erlangen: bei ioh. iac. Palm und ernst enke 1823, pp. 138–9 (ASKB 477). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 312; p. 564 (ASKB 158–159). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 160 (ASKB 160–166). helfferich, adolph, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung und in ihren Denkmalen, vols. 1–2, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, p. 203 (ASKB 571–572). [leibniz, gottfried wihelm], Herrn Gottfried Wilhelms, Freyherrn von Leibnitz, Theodicee, das ist, Versuch von der Güte Gottes, Freyheit des Menschen, und vom Ursprunge des Bösen, 5th revised ed., ed. by Johann christoph gottscheden, hannover and leipzig: im verlage der Försterischen erben 1763 (ASKB 619). Meiners, christoph, Historische Vergleichung der Sitten und Verfassungen, der Gesetze und Gewerbe, des Handels und der Religion, der Wissenschaften und Lehranstalten des Mittelalters, vols. 1–3, hannover: im verlage der helwingischen hofbuchhandlung 1793–4, vol. 2, p. 675 (ASKB 672–674).

Boethius: Kierkegaard and the consolation

221

[Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 106 (ASKB 168). Petersen, Frederik christian, Haandbog i den græske Litteraturhistorie, copenhagen: Fr. Brummers Forlag 1830, pp. 333–4 (ASKB 1037). tiedemann, dietrich, Geist der spekulativen Philosophie von Thales bis Sokrates, vols. 1–6, Marburg: in der neuen akademischen Buchhandlung 1791–7, vol. 3, pp. 551ff. (ASKB 836–841). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Boethius christensen, arild, “om Kierkegaards læsning af Boethius,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 4, 1962, pp. 70–74.

dante: tours of hell: Mapping the landscape of sin and despair thomas Miles

whatever knowledge søren Kierkegaard might have had of the italian poet dante alighieri or his works, we know that he conceived of dante as a “brooding genius,” a thinker who “contemplated the mysteries of eternal life” and a poet whose imaginative poetry did not “suspend the effect of the ethical verdict.”1 it might be said that these words also apply to Kierkegaard himself; especially if we consider that for Kierkegaard “eternal life” is to be found within lived experience, we might say that Kierkegaard is a “peculiar kind of poet or thinker” in precisely these ways. We find in Dante, as in Kierkegaard, a devout but fiercely critical religious thinker and a poet who is both richly imaginative and ethically insightful. Born in his beloved city of Florence in 1265, dante served as one of the city’s six priors, the highest political office in the city, during a time of great political conflict. in 1302 dante’s political faction lost power to a rival faction supported by Pope Boniface viii and the French king. dante was sentenced on charges of corruption and opposition to the church, and was exiled from Florence on pain of execution by burning if he ever returned. thereafter, dante lived a mostly itinerant life in northern italy and devoted himself to his literary pursuits. dante is most famous for his magnum opus, later known as The Divine Comedy, begun in about 1306 and completed just before his death in 1321. But dante also authored several other works. The first of these was The New Life, a series of lyric poems about his love for a young Florentine woman named Beatrice, who had died in 1290 at the age of twenty-five. Little is known about Beatrice, but if she was real person, she was almost certainly married to someone else, as was dante. For dante, Beatrice came to be identified with the Trinity and the life of Christ, and it is Beatrice who leads Dante through Paradise in Paradiso. dante also wrote a political work, De Monarchia, a work arguing for the eloquence of the vernacular, De vulgari eloquentia, and a work of moral philosophy Convivio, in the form of a commentary on his own odes.2

SKS 4, 452 / CA, 153. For a more detailed discussion of dante’s life and works, see robert hollander’s introduction to his translation of Inferno. dante alighieri, Inferno, new York: doubleday 2000, pp. xvii–xx. 1 2

224

Thomas Miles

despite great differences in the historical circumstances of their lives, there are also interesting biographical parallels between dante and Kierkegaard. in the history of romantic love, they seem destined to be paired together as poets inspired by unhappy love. there is an interesting parallel between Kierkegaard’s ill-fated but poetically immortalized love for regine olsen and dante’s ill-fated but poetically immortalized love for Beatrice. Both poets develop peculiarly religious conceptions of their lost loves, conceptions that are at the same time boldly individual and broadly iconic. an exploration of the poetic treatment of these women has already been the subject of more than one scholarly effort.3 ebbe reich also explores other biographical parallels between dante and Kierkegaard, such as the reformist critique each had for his society and its practice of religion. in reich’s comparison dante, like Kierkegaard, strove to bring to light the corruption within the religious and social life of his society, thereby incurring the wrath and ostracism of its citizens. of course it is doubtful whether any of these comparisons occurred to Kierkegaard himself. Kierkegaard was certainly familiar with dante to some extent. he owned a german translation of The Divine Comedy, although it is unclear whether or to what extent he actually read it.4 Dante was a central figure in aesthetic discussions of Kierkegaard’s day, especially among influential Hegelians of his time such as Johan ludvig heiberg (1791–1860) and hans lassen Martensen (1808–84). dante is discussed in georg wilhelm Friedrich hegel’s Lectures on the History of Philosophy, and Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, both of which Kierkegaard owned.5 heiberg discusses dante at length in his 1833 On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age,6 and he parodies dante’s Divine Comedy in his own 1841 poem “a soul after death, an apocalyptic comedy.” 7 Martensen takes up this discussion of ebbe Kløvedal reich, “Kierkegaard og dante,” in Kierkegaard inspiration, ed. by Birgit Bertung, Paul Müller, Fritz norman, and Julia watkin, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1991 (Søren Kierkegaard Selskabets Populære Skrifter, vol. 20), pp. 9–17; Maria delia contri, Angoscia, Milan: Sic Edizioni 2005 (an elaboration of the Conference: Il Dio fissato e la donna pedagoga, la donna fissata di Kierkegaard, IV Lezione, Corso Annuale dello Studium cartello, Milan, February 23, 2002). 4 [alighieri dante], Dante Alighieri’s Göttliche Komödie, trans. and ed. by Karl streckfuss, 3rd ed., halle: c.a. schwetschke und sohn 1840 (ASKB 1929). 5 [hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich], Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–3, ed. by carl ludwig Michelet, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1833–6 (vols. 13–15 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 3, p. 210; p. 218 (ASKB 557–559) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Encyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse, vols. 1–3, ed. by leopold von henning, carl ludwig Michelet and ludwig Boumann, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1840–45 (vols. 6–7.1, 7.2, in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 1, p. XXX; vol. 3, p. 290n (ASKB 561–563). 6 Johan ludvig heiberg, Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1833 (ASKB 568). (english translation, Heiberg’s On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age and Other Texts, trans. and ed. by Jon stewart, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 2005 (Texts from Golden Age Denmark, vol. 1), pp. 83–119.) 7 Johan ludvig heiberg, “en sjæl efter døden,” in his Nye Digte, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1841, pp. 29–158 (ASKB 1562). (english translation, A Soul After Death, trans. by henry Meyer, seattle: Mermaid Press 1991.) 3

Dante: Tours of Hell: Mapping the Landscape of Sin and Despair

225

dante in reviewing heiberg’s poems8 and in his earlier essay on nicolaus lenau’s (1802–50), Faust.9 Kierkegaard owned and presumably read these works. in addition, dante is discussed in the notes to hans lassen Martensen’s 1838–9 “lectures on speculative dogmatics,” which Kierkegaard attended.10 it is in response to discussions of dante in the work of heiberg and Martensen that Kierkegaard’s only references to dante appear. these were prompted by an admiring review Martensen wrote of heiberg’s “a soul after death” in which Martensen called the work “a Divine Comedy in miniature.”11 it should not be surprising that Kierkegaard’s remarks on dante are responses to heiberg and Martensen, since these two men had helped to establish Dante as a central figure in discussions of aesthetics in Kierkegaard’s day. heiberg’s On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age groups dante with goethe as examples of “speculative poets” who present philosophy in the medium of poetry: “what distinguishes goethe from all contemporary poets is the same thing that distinguishes Dante and Calderón from their contemporaries: namely that they present their age’s philosophy insofar as poetry can do so without forsaking its own characteristic nature.”12 heiberg sees the speculative poet’s “didactic poetry” as engaged in the same task as hegel’s philosophy: “it reconciles the ideal with actuality.”13 he uses dante’s Divine Comedy as a primary example: “dante’s famous poem is a didactic poem in the true, speculative meaning of the word; its purpose is to present consciously what other poetry unconsciously portrays: the sublation of everything finite in the infinite.”14 in other words, heiberg sees speculative poetry as attempting to express all the finite facts of actuality in an all-encompassing conceptual presentation. in attempting to cast dante as a speculative poet, heiberg critiques what he calls the “limited moral conceptions” of dante’s ideas. For example, heiberg interprets the three levels traversed in the Divine Comedy (hell, purgatory, and heaven) as poetic presentations of hegelian philosophical concepts rather than levels of moral reward or punishment: in the three parts of which it consists, hell, purgatory and paradise—which in no way correspond to the limited moral conceptions which people otherwise usually associate with these words—

8 hans lassen Martensen, “Nye Digte af J.l. heiberg. (1841. 8. 249 s. reitzel),” Fædrelandet, no. 398, January 10, 1841, columns 3205–12; no. 399, January 11, 1841, columns 3213–20; no. 400, January 12, 1841, columns 3221–4. 9 Johannes M.......n, Ueber Lenau’s Faust, stuttgart: verlag der J.g. cotta’schen Buchhandlung 1836. Martensen later revised this original german text and published it in danish as an article in heiberg’s journal Perseus: “Betragtninger over idéen af Faust med hensyn paa lenaus Faust,” Perseus, Journal for den speculative Idee, no. 1, 1837, pp. 91–164 (ASKB 569). 10 Martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849, p. 192; p. 554 (ASKB 653). cf. Pap. ii c 28 in Pap. Xiii, pp. 44–116. 11 Martensen, “Nye Digte af J.l. heiberg. (1841. 8. 249 s. reitzel),” Fædrelandet, no. 398, January 10, 1841, column 3207. 12 Heiberg’s On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age and Other Texts, p. 108. 13 ibid. p. 113. 14 ibid. p. 110.

226

Thomas Miles he portrays the world of thought, nature and spirit, or to express it with terms from logic, the world of immediacy, reflection and the Concept, in their difference and unity.15

Martensen later refined Heiberg’s classification of Dante, arguing that within the genre of “speculative poetry” there is a more specific sub-genre of “apocalyptic poetry.” Martensen scholar robert leslie horn explains that for Martensen “apocalyptic poetry” is the highest form of speculative poetry: “apocalyptic poetry differs from speculative poetry only in being concerned specifically with the disclosure of the end of time in the beginning of history. But it is, accordingly, the acme of speculative poetry.”16 Martensen thinks that apocalyptic poetry develops in three stages, and he understands dante’s Divine Comedy as exemplifying the second stage of this development, between the biblical Book of revelation (“the apocalypse of John”) and nicolaus lenau’s Faust. Martensen thinks dante marks a development over the biblical “apocalyptic poetry” in which “poetic forms are in the service of religion, and one cannot speak of an independent art.” with dante, religion “has become an object of contemplation, and an artistic self-consciousness can arise.”17 although Martensen credits dante with creating apocalyptic poetry as an “independent art,” he critiques dante for having “failed to abandon the manifest external, historical phenomena” in his speculative poetry.18 dante’s references to concrete historical figures and events are not abstract enough to qualify as Martensen’s ideal form of apocalyptic poetry. Dante fails to attain the final stage of development of this genre, represented by lenau’s Faust, in which “the image world of poetry turns from the external to the internal, from history to thought. the thinking spirit per se becomes the subject of the final apocalyptic poetry.”19 in heiberg’s apocalyptic poem, the clever and lighthearted “a soul after death,” the soul of a deceased resident of Copenhagen tries to find a final resting place in the afterlife. the soul expects to enter heaven on the merits of his inoffensive bourgeois life, but st. Peter requires a “test” of a pilgrimage to Palestine to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. the soul counters by asking for st. Peter to “settle for a little less,” suggesting instead a trip to america, a place the soul has long wanted to visit. st. Peter rejects the offer, and the soul moves on to seek refuge in elysium, where the souls of “good and pious pagans who lived before christ” dwell.20 heiberg’s depiction of this region alludes to Dante’s first circle of hell, where the virtuous pagans and unbaptized infants dwell in relative comfort, plagued only by a sense of regret and a longing for god “without hope.”21 the soul in heiberg’s poem does not gain entry into this realm either. unable to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of

ibid., p. 110. robert leslie horn, Positivity and Dialectic: A Study of the Theological Method of Hans Lassen Martensen, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 2007 (Danish Golden Age Studies, vol. 2), p. 131. 17 ibid., p. 132. 18 ibid., p. 132. 19 ibid., p. 132. 20 heiberg, A Soul After Death, p.14. 21 dante alighieri, Inferno, trans. by robert hollander, canto iv, line 42. 15 16

Dante: Tours of Hell: Mapping the Landscape of Sin and Despair

227

antiquity, and unknowingly insulting the guardian of this realm, the greek playwright aristophanes, the soul is once again sent away. The soul finally finds a resting place in a region guarded by Mephistopheles and identified as “Tedium,” “boredom’s domain.”22 The soul is at first dismayed to learn that this is a region of hell. But it is later delighted to learn that in this region of hell, souls continue the mediocre, repetitive existence to which they had become accustomed in life, playing card games, reading newspapers, and following the stock market: “the same old ways and the same ambition.”23 as Mephistopheles explains, the reason why there is so much continuity between this form of eternal existence and the life in copenhagen to which the soul is accustomed is that “you, my friend, and all your kind, / while still alive, were already in hell.”24 the only hardship of this existence is that the souls are required to labor endlessly trying to fill the “Danaid’s washtub” to the brim with water, despite the holes in the bottom of the tub that make this task eternally futile.25 heiberg’s depiction of this region bears an obvious debt to Dante’s description of the region preceding the first circle of hell, a region inhabited by the so-called “neutrals,” those who lived “without disgrace yet without praise.”26 like the soul in heiberg’s poem, these souls are rejected from both the heights of paradise and the depths of hell, condemned to a kind of in-between existence that parodies their neutrality and indecision in life: “heaven cast them out / and depth of hell does not receive them.”27 Kierkegaard might have appreciated the biting critique heiberg aims at his contemporaries by humorously depicting modern life in copenhagen as one of infernal boredom. certainly heiberg’s critique of his contemporaries as dwelling in mediocrity, pettiness, and boredom mirrors some of Kierkegaard’s own critiques, especially his depiction of modern life in his review of Two Ages. what turned Kierkegaard’s ire against heiberg’s poem seems to have been Martensen’s review of it in Fædrelandet, in which Martensen interprets heiberg’s light-hearted comedy as surpassing dante’s work in its “metaphysical importance.”28 Martensen reads heiberg’s poem through the lens of hegelian philosophy, arguing that the soul is excluded from a place in heaven because it is “unspeculative”: the soul’s view of life is too concrete to accept the abstract view of life taken by hegelian idealism.29 here Martensen echoes heiberg’s earlier critique of dante that although he is a speculative poet, he is not speculative enough since his reliance on concrete images and references precludes a more comprehensive conceptual presentation. Martensen also follows heiberg in downplaying the moral and religious aspects of dante’s work. while heiberg slighted the “limited moral conceptions” readers may have of dante’s ideas, Martensen goes further by blaming dante himself for his 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

heiberg, A Soul After Death, p. 46. ibid., p. 50. ibid., p. 50. ibid., p. 53. dante alighieri, Inferno, trans. by robert hollander, canto iii, line 36. ibid., canto iii, lines 40–41. horn, Positivity and Dialectic, p. 174. ibid., p. 172.

228

Thomas Miles

dependence upon religious and moral categories.30 in contrast, Martensen admires the fact that in heiberg’s poem the soul is not condemned to hell as a sinner but rather because of the “triviality” of his life. Martensen equates the trivial (det Slette) with “the bad” but he understands both terms not morally but philosophically, as referring to “the absolutely undialectical, the tautological, that which is only itself but which has lost transition to its other.”31 in other words, according to Martensen’s interpretation, heiberg’s critique of his contemporaries is that they are too unhegelian. Martensen thinks dante also falls short of this hegelian ideal precisely because of his overemphasis on morality and religion: “Dante’s failure to find a distinctive way of treating [triviality and ‘the bad’] rests on his sole use of religious and moral categories in his work.”32 Martensen even goes so far as to suggest that god’s judgment should be understood in dialectical rather than narrowly moral terms. in a successful divine comedy, Martensen suggests, “god will not be solely righteous judge but also absolute spirit, viewing man not through ethical categories but also through metaphysical categories.”33 Martensen locates the source of god’s mercy not in divine goodness or love but in god’s dialectical astuteness in looking beyond the apparent opposition between good and evil: god will see the same principle of sinfulness in the good and pious as in the evil, the same stamp of finitude upon the great and the insignificant. And God will finally give grace to all, since they are “not merely sinful, but finite, not merely evil, but bad, not only damnable but laughable, not only failed but belonging to a fallen world.”34

in reacting to this review, Kierkegaard initially objects to the audacity of comparing heiberg to dante and to the suggestion that the aesthetician heiberg’s lighthearted comedy held some deeper theological wisdom. later Kierkegaard also takes issue with the way heiberg and Martensen downplay the moral aspects of dante’s work. responding to Martensen’s review in a journal entry, Kierkegaard remarks dryly on the transition in which heiberg “ceased being the witty, joking, lighthearted creator of vaudevilles” and “trend-setting aesthetician” and “became the danish dante, the brooding genius, who in his apocalyptic poem contemplated the mysteries of eternal life, [and] became an obedient son of the church.”35 a similar journal entry was later reworked and published in Prefaces. here Kierkegaard’s pseudonym nicolaus notabene confesses that when “an obliging review and also an officious opinion baldly gave us to understand that Prof. heiberg had now become dante, i secretly began to be afraid.”36 notabene can accept heiberg’s role as a philosopher, but he

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

ibid., p. 174. ibid., p. 173. ibid., p. 174. ibid., p. 176. ibid., p. 176. Pap. iv B 46. SKS 4, 488 / P, 25 (with draft in Pap. iv B 119).

Dante: Tours of Hell: Mapping the Landscape of Sin and Despair

229

fears that heiberg “might suddenly undergo a new metamorphosis and step forth as the one who had come to the world in order to solve the riddles of theology.”37 these passages do not reveal any great familiarity with dante on Kierkegaard’s behalf. given dante’s bold anti-clericalism (several popes are portrayed among the sinners in hell), and his punishment for opposing the church, we might question the validity of calling dante “an obedient son of the church.” in addition, dante scholars might question whether dante is really trying to “solve the riddles of theology,” if this is indeed something Kierkegaard attributes to him. it is also worth noting that while Kierkegaard seems disturbed by the audacity of comparing heiberg to dante, he does not necessarily show great sympathy for dante in these passages. this seems to no longer be the case, however, when Kierkegaard repeats this line of criticism in The Concept of Anxiety. here Kierkegaard seems to implicitly ally himself with dante in contrast to the purely aesthetic poets such as heiberg (whom he no longer mentions by name). in a section exploring the meaning of eternity, Kierkegaard’s pseudonym vigilius haufniensis writes that some poets “envision eternity apocalyptically, pretend to be dante, while dante, no matter how much he conceded to the view of imagination, did not suspend the effect of ethical judgment.”38 the draft for this passage includes a note written vertically in the margin expressing the same idea: “the apocalyptic, in which, not as in dante, judgment ethically conceived is suspended. in every case merely a fantasy-view.”39 in Kierkegaard’s thinking, dante was a poet who went beyond the “fantasyviews” of purely aesthetic poets by maintaining “the effect of ethical judgment.” in other words, Kierkegaard praises the moral vision of dante’s work, precisely what heiberg and Martensen had rejected. given dante’s manifest interest in the forms of human sin and their consequences, and given the highly interpretive reading of dante as illustrating purely conceptual categories, it might seem that Kierkegaard clearly has the more plausible reading of dante. But Kierkegaard’s reading of dante is not unassailable. commenting on Kierkegaard’s remarks about dante, the scholar alessandro cortese accuses Kierkegaard of a “serious misunderstanding” in advocating the “so to speak modern view of dante as judge.”40 this is a view of dante that cortese traces to hegel, who often depicts dante as trying to make himself a “world-judge” (Weltrichter) over all humankind.41 cortese explains the error of this view in declaring that “dante as judge is a banality or triviality which, in view of the meaning to which the poet refers, merely indicates a false conception ibid. SKS 4, 452 / CA, 153. 39 Pap. v B 60. 40 alessandro cortese, “dante,” in Kierkegard Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9), pp. 150–53, see p. 150; p. 152. 41 [g.w.F. hegel], Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik, vols. 1–3, ed. by heinrich gustav hotho, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1835–8 (vols. 10.1–10.3 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke, Vollständige Ausgabe, vols. 1–18, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 2, p. 181; p. 211. (Jub. vol. 13, p. 181; p. 211). 37 38

230

Thomas Miles

of his work, and with regard to the documentary evidence gives an artificially distorted picture of the Middle ages.”42 as applied to hegel, this criticism seems entirely correct; the subject of dante’s work is god’s judgment, not his own, and it is indeed reductive to think of dante’s poetry as simply illustrating his own judgments and prejudices. Yet it is not at all clear that this criticism applies to Kierkegaard. cortese claims that “terminologically the idea of dante as aesthetic and ethical judge” is clear in the passage from The Concept of Anxiety and even clearer in the draft.43 But this claim seems to be false. there is no discussion whatsoever of dante as aesthetic judge, and nothing in what Kierkegaard says in either passage indicates that he thinks the “ethical judgment” that dante leaves unsuspended is dante’s own ethical judgment. To the contrary, the terminology of both passages specifically avoids such a suggestion, referring instead to “the ethical judgment’s effect” (den ethiske Domsakts Virkning) in the text and “the judgment, ethically considered” (Dommen, ethisk tænkt) in the draft.44 what Kierkegaard seems to mean in saying that dante does not suspend the effect of ethical judgment is that dante is a poet whose imaginative creations take seriously the issue of human sin. understood in this way, Kierkegaard and dante have very much in common. this commonality is nowhere more apparent than in a comparison of dante’s Inferno with Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death. in these works, readers are presented with a vividly imaginative typology of different ways of going astray ethically and the consequences of doing so. Both authors write from a devoutly religious stance, but both also avail themselves of much humor and irony in portraying these forms of sin. it may also be fair to say that neither writer is above settling personal vendettas in absentia within these works, e.g., against the clergy. dante’s hierarchy of sinners in hell ranges from those who are ignorant or indifferent to the demands of faith to those who are most directly and treacherously defiant of God. Likewise, Kierkegaard’s hierarchy of despair (which for him is the same as sin) ranges from naïve ignorance to outright defiance. Like Dante, Kierkegaard faces the problem of how to judge the greek and roman pagans, especially the “virtuous pagans,” in relation to the christian notion of sin. this is a delicate question because of the love and respect these writers have for their heroes of antiquity, and because many of these heroes predated the historical figure of Jesus and thus had no possibility of living the life of christian faith. Just as dante reserves a place for the virtuous pagans in the first and most benign level of hell, Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Anti-Climacus reserves the first and most benign level of despair for what he calls the “spiritlessness” of paganism.45 cortese, “dante,” p. 153. ibid., p. 152. 44 SKS 4, 452 / CA, 153: “Apokalyptisk skuer man Evigheden, agerer Dante, medens dog Dante, hvormeget han end indrømmede Phantasie-Askuelsen, ikke suspenderede den ethiske Domsakts Virkning.” Pap. v B 60, p. 137: “Det Apocalyptiske, hvor man, ikke som Dante, suspenderer Dommen, ethisk tænkt.” 45 SKS 11, 160 / SUD, 45. these passages seem to imply that all “pagans” suffered this form of despair, yet it is unclear how socrates, who is referred to positively in this same 42 43

Dante: Tours of Hell: Mapping the Landscape of Sin and Despair

231

dante and Kierkegaard are both interested in the dialectical relation between a person’s sin and the consequences of this sin. the punishments dante depicts for each type of sinner in hell matches the sin being punished according to what dante calls contrapasso (“fit punishment”).46 Contrapasso is the system of equivalent punishments, the justice of the lex talionis (“an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”) in which the punishment is a grotesque exaggeration or inversion of the corresponding sin. thus, for example, the lustful are punished by being blown about in all directions by a unceasing wind. those who were hypocrites must wear heavy cloaks which are brightly gilded on the outside but dull grey lead on the inside. likewise, those who sowed divisive advice in life are punished by being hewn apart in hell. on one hand, these punishments may seem to represent precisely the criticism Kierkegaard often gives of the Middle ages: that it loses sight of inwardness by trying to manifest it outwardly. But what dante gives his readers in the Inferno is not an outward expression of something that should be inward, but a poetic expression which, among other things, constitutes a meditation on the inner nature of human sin. thus, one of the things that makes dante’s poetic portrayals of these punishments so interesting is what they say about the sins being punished. Specifically, we can learn something about how dante conceives of a sinner as misrelating to himself, to others, or to god through this sin. here we see dante and Kierkegaard pursuing very similar projects. For Kierkegaard, sin is always a misrelation of this kind; his challenge is to express this inward misrelation in words, which he often does through poetic imagery. one obvious difference between these writers is that for dante these punishments take place only after one’s life has ended. By contrast, Kierkegaard shows the spiritlessness, torment, or stumbling block within the lived experience of the sinner. another difference is that for Kierkegaard this stumbling block or torment is not really the punishment for the deeper sin of despair; rather it a symptom of this despair, its outward eruption which is brought about by the underlying sickness of despair. unlike the relation between dante’s sins and their punishment, there is no external form of justice or “fit punishment” at work here: the punishment, if there is one, is simply to be in despair, to have a despairing misrelation to god and oneself. For Kierkegaard, despair is an organic failure, a misrelation within the organism of the self in which a fundamental sickness manifests itself in experienced difficulties and problems in life. despair is a form of hell within the person who despairs; it is quite literally a “living hell” for the one who despairs. Yet there is neither divine justice nor “poetic justice” at work behind the presence of the stumbling block in one’s life; it follows from despair as a symptom follows from a disease. despite this difference, dante and Kierkegaard seem to share at least one central aim in their writings. the goal for both writers is to lead their readers upward toward faith. The Divine Comedy does not end with the Inferno, after all, but continues as dante ascends through purgatory and upward into Paradise. Just as dante must section, might fit into this category. Moreover, Kierkegaard associates the Stoics with a later form of despair. 46 dante alighieri, Inferno, trans. by robert hollander, canto XXviii, line142. this is a concept dante derives from aquinas and aristotle. For a useful discussion of the concept of contrapasso, see hollander’s commentary, especially pp. 55–6 and p. 486.

232

Thomas Miles

descend through hell in order to emerge on the other side, so also for Kierkegaard one must descend into despair in order to find faith. Thus, while it seems wrong to say that Kierkegaard accepts the “modern” view of dante as judge, it seems fair to say that what Kierkegaard attempts in works like The Sickness Unto Death is something like a modern Divine Comedy.

Bibliography I. Dante’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Dante Alighieri’s Göttliche Komödie, trans. and ed. by Karl streckfuss, 3rd ed., halle: c.a. schwetschke und sohn 1840 (ASKB 1929). II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Dante adler, adolph Peter, Populaire Foredrag over Hegels objective Logik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1842, p. 28n; p. 48n (ASKB 383). [Becker, Karl Friedrich], Karl Friedrich Beckers Verdenshistorie, omarbeidet af Johan Gottfried Woltmann, vols. 1–12, trans. by J. riise, copenhagen: Fr. Brummers Forlag 1822–9, vol. 5, p. 447; vol. 10, p. 526 (ASKB 1972–1983). Buhle, Johann gottlieb, Geschichte der neuern Philosophie seit der Epoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, vols. 1–6 (in 10 parts), vols. 1–2, göttingen: Johann georg rosenbusch’s wittwe 1800; vols. 3–6, göttingen: Johann Friedrich röwer 1802–1805, vol. 2, pp. 34ff. (ASKB 440–445). Flögel, carl Friedrich, Geschichte der komischen Litteratur, vols. 1–4, liegnitz and leipzig: david giegert 1784–7, vol. 2, pp. 57–67 (ASKB 1396–1399). [goethe, Johann wolfgang von], “dante,” in Goethe’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe letzter Hand, vols. 1–40, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’sche Buchhandlung 1827–1830; Goethe’s nachgelassene Werke, vols. 41–55, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’sche Buchhandlung 1832–3, vol. 46 (vol. 6 in goethe’s Nachlaß, 1833), pp. 279–83 (ASKB 1641–1668). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 601 (ASKB 158–159). hansen, M. Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, p. 150 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 369 (ASKB 160–166). [hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich], Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–3, ed. by carl ludwig Michelet, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1833–6 (vols. 13–15 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 3, p. 210; p. 218 (ASKB 557–559).

234

Thomas Miles

—— Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Encyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse, vols. 1–3, ed. by leopold von henning, carl ludwig Michelet and ludwig Boumann, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1840–45 (vols. 6–7.1, 7.2, in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 1, p. XXX; vol. 3, p. 290n (ASKB 561–563). —— Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik, vols. 1–3, ed. by von heinrich gustav hotho, Berlin: verlag von duncker und humblot 1835–8 (vols. 10.1–10.3 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, vols. 1–18, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: verlag von duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 1, p. 518; vol. 2, p. 18; p. 181; p. 211; p. 214; vol. 3, p. 107; p. 286; p. 315; p. 346; p. 351; p. 360; p. 373; p. 387; pp. 409–10; p. 416 (ASKB 1384–1386). heiberg, Johan ludvig, Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid. Et Indbydelses-Skrift til en Række af philosophiske Forelæsninger, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1833, p. 38; p. 41; p. 45; p. 48 (ASKB 568). Martensen, hans lassen, “Betragtninger over ideen af Faust. Med hensyn paa lenaus Faust,” in Perseus, vols. 1–2, ed. by Johan ludvig heiberg, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837–8, vol. 1, pp. 91–164, see p. 101 (ASKB 569). —— Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849, p. 192; p. 554 (ASKB 653). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 187 (ASKB 168). Mynster, Jakob Peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1852–3 (vols. 4–6, copenhagen: den gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1855–7), vol. 3, p. 47 (ASKB 358–363). nielsen, rasmus, Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 50 (ASKB 698). [richter, Johann Paul Friedrich], Jean Paul, Vorschule der Aesthetik nebst einigen Vorlesungen in Leipzig über die Parteien der Zeit, vols. 1–3, 2nd revised ed., stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’sche Buchhandlung 1813, vol. 1, p. 7 (ASKB 1381–1383). rosenkranz, Karl, Psychologie oder die Wissenschaft vom subjectiven Geist, Königsberg: Bornträger 1837, p. 255; p. 273 (ASKB 744). —— Schelling. Vorlesungen, gehalten im Sommer 1842 an der Universität zu Königsberg, danzig: Fr. sam. gerhard 1843, p. 150; p. 186; p. 188 (ASKB 766). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.g. iversen 1854, p. 85; p. 97 [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). schopenhauer, arthur, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, vols. 1–2, 2nd revised and enlarged ed., leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1844 [1819], vol. 1, p. 367 (ASKB 773–773a). —— Parerga und Paralipomena: kleine philosophische Schriften, vols. 1–2, Berlin: druck und verlag von a.w. hayn 1851, vol. 1, pp. 367–9 (ASKB 774–775).

Dante: Tours of Hell: Mapping the Landscape of Sin and Despair

235

[solger, Karl wilhelm Ferdinand], K.W.F. Solger’s Vorlesungen über Aesthetik, ed. by K.w.l. heyse, leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1829, p. 196; p. 198; p. 201; p. 235 (ASKB 1387). sulzer, Johann georg, Allgemeine Theorie der Schönen Künste, in einzeln, nach alphabetischer Ordnung der Kunstwörter auf einander folgenden, Artikeln abgehandelt, vols. 1–4 and a register volume, 2nd revised ed., leipzig: in der weidmannschen Buchhandlung 1792–9, vol. 1, pp. 592ff.; p. 661; vol. 2, p. 528 (ASKB 1365–1369). thiersch, Friedrich, Allgemeine Aesthetik in akademischen Lehrvorträgen, Berlin: g. reimer 1846, p. 93; pp. 182–3; p. 439 (ASKB 1378). thomsen, grimur, Om den nyfranske Poesi, et Forsøg til Besvarelse af Universitetets æsthetiske Priisspørgsmaal for 1841: “Har Smag og Sands for Poesi gjort Frem- eller Tilbageskridt i Frankrig i de sidste Tider og hvilken er Aarsagen?,” copenhagen: Paa den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1843, p. 5; p. 87; p. 90; p. 112; pp. 119–20; p. 129; p. 146; p. 152 (ASKB 1390). weiße, christian hermann, Die Idee der Gottheit. Eine philosophische Abhandlung. Als wissenschaftliche Grundlegung zur Philosophie der Religion, dresden: ch.F. grimmer’sche Buchhandlung 1833, p. 116 (ASKB 866). zeuthen, ludvig, Om Ydmyghed. En Afhandling, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel 1852, p. 8 (ASKB 916). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Dante contri, Maria delia, Angoscia, Milan: sic edizioni 2005. cortese, alessandro, “dante,” in Kierkegard Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9), pp. 150–53. Furtak, rick anthony, Wisdom in Love: Kierkegaard and the Ancient Quest for Emotional Integrity, notre dame: university of notre dame Press 2005, p. 66; p. 121. Kløvedal reich, ebbe, “Kierkegaard og dante,” in Kierkegaard inspiration. En antologi, ed. by Birgit Bertung, Paul Müller, Fritz norman, and Julia watkin, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1991 (Søren Kierkegaard Selskabets Populære Skrifter, vol. 20), pp. 9–17. thust, Martin, “die innerlichkeit des gerichts, der schrecken des verzugs: die vergeistigung dantes,” in his Sören Kierkegaard. Der Dichter des Religiösen. Grundlagen eines Systems der Subjektivität, Munich: c.h. Beck’sche verlags buchhandlung 1931, pp. 434–78.

Meister eckhart: the Patriarch of german speculation who was a Lebemeister: Meister eckhart’s silent way into Kierkegaard’s corpus Peter šajda

The revival of philosophical interest in Meister Eckhart in the first half of the nineteenth century is connected to a series of personalities that were of considerable importance for the development of søren Kierkegaard’s thinking. Franz von Baader, georg wilhelm Friedrich hegel, and hans lassen Martensen were among those philosophers who drew the attention of their contemporaries to the heritage of the german mystic and triggered a wide public discussion that led to an ever more complete picture of Meister eckhart. although Kierkegaard did not take an active part in this discussion, he was a first-hand witness to the “arrival” of Meister Eckhart to denmark in the form of Martensen’s lectures and dissertation. since Kierkegaard’s interest in the Middle ages concerned also medieval mysticism, it is important to examine how the rediscovery of eckhart affected his views.1 I. Brief Overview of Meister Eckhart’s Life and Literary Legacy eckhart of hochheim was born about 1260 to a family belonging to the thuringian gentry. after joining the dominican order, he received his initial education at the priory of erfurt followed by further studies, probably at the dominican studium generale in cologne and possibly even in Paris, where he lectured on Peter lombard’s Sentences in 1293–4. after his return to the province of teutonia, he became the prior of the important erfurt priory and the vicar of thuringia. the dominican province of teutonia was in the years 1293–6 administered by yet another important philosophical figure—Dietrich of Freiberg—who preceded Eckhart as a professor at the university of Paris. eckhart’s early german text, Counsels on Discernment, stems from his tenure as the prior of erfurt and vicar of thuringia. eckhart’s successful academic and “political” career continued with his stay in Paris in 1302 as professor the title “patriarch of german speculation” [den tydske Speculations Patriark] appears in hans l. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1840, p. 3 (ASKB 649). the term “Lebemeister” relates to the mastery of life and to practical doctrine. 1

238

Peter Šajda

and his appointment as the first provincial of the newly founded province of Saxonia in 1303. in the ensuing eight years eckhart traveled extensively on foot throughout europe, taking part both in provincial and general chapters, as well as visiting the monasteries and nunneries of his province. in 1307 he was additionally charged with the office of vicar general of the province of Bohemia. The general chapter of naples in 1311 turned down his election as the provincial of teutonia and instead required his presence at the university of Paris, where he returned as professor for the academic years 1311–13. From 1314 onward, eckhart was assigned to the priory of strassburg, probably charged with the office of vicar general of the Master of the Dominican order. During his sojourn in strassburg a part of his agenda was cura monialium—spiritual care of nunneries—which is also reflected in reports written by nuns that mention Eckhart as spiritual advisor and preacher. these provide evidence for eckhart’s contact with the spirituality and mysticism practiced in german contemplative convents. in 1323 or 1324 eckhart began lecturing at the dominican studium generale in cologne, whereby his sermons suggest that at this time he also preached in a number of cologne nunneries. during the papal visitation to the teutonia province that began on august 1, 1325, the first charges against Eckhart were made. These led in 1326 to accusations of heresy presented to the archbishop of cologne, heinrich of virneburg, who initiated an inquisitorial process that after lengthy proceedings ultimately led to the papal bull, In agro dominico, promulgated on March 27, 1329. the bull enlisted eckhart’s erroneous and suspicious teachings and was published after his death. Meister eckhart protested without success both against the formal course of the trial and the misinterpretation of his doctrine.2 he died before the verdict, most probably in 1328 at avignon. the currently known body of eckhart’s works is composed of a german oeuvre and a latin one.3 the former comprises eckhart’s german sermons, the Counsels on Discernment and the Book of Divine Consolation.4 eckhart’s latin oeuvre comprises the Quaestiones Parisienses, Latin sermons, parts of his unfinished large-scale work eckhart protested against the misinterpretation of his doctrine both during the proceedings of the trial and in front of the general public. on February 13, 1327, in the dominican church of cologne, he read his protestatio both in the latin and german language. cf. Kurt ruh, Meister Eckhart, Munich: verlag c.h. Beck 1985, pp. 181–2. 3 the critical edition of both eckhart’s german and latin works has been appearing since 1936 in Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke, stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1936ff. For a bilingual edition of eckhart’s german works and a selection of latin works, see Meister eckhart, Werke, ed. by niklaus largier, Frankfurt am Main: deutscher Klassiker verlag 1993. For an english translation, see Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, ed. by Maurice o’connell walshe, longmead: element Books 1987; Meister Eckhart, The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises and Defense, ed. by Bernard Mcginn and edmund colledge, new York: Paulist Press 1981; Master Eckhart: Parisian Questions and Prologues, ed. by Armand Maurer, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies 1974. 4 the sermon, Of the Nobleman, is to be seen as belonging to the Book of Divine Consolation. eckhartian mystical heritage survived also in a number of tractates that continued eckhart’s thought. cf. Kurt ruh, “die Mystik des deutschen Predigerordens und ihre grundlegung durch die hochscholastik,” in Geschichte der abendländischen Mystik, Munich: verlag c.h. Beck 1996, vol. 3, pp. 355–70. 2

Meister Eckhart: The Patriarch of German Speculation who was a lebemeister

239

Opus Tripartitum, as well as other minor pieces. although eckhart’s works were never completely forgotten, they did not survive in compact collections, as in the case of tauler. Most of the later medieval sources quoted eckhart only implicitly, which together with the fragmentary textual basis contributed to the fact that eckhart necessarily appeared to the thinkers of the early nineteenth century as a mysterious or even mythic figure. II. The Rediscovery of Meister Eckhart by Franz von Baader and its Consequences Franz von Baader,5 whom Kierkegaard read in two stages in the 1830s and 1840s, became acquainted with Meister eckhart in the context of his studies of French and german mysticism. he expressed his high respect and appreciation for eckhart in a number of instances, both in his published oeuvre and in his Nachlaß. he realized Eckhart’s constitutive influence on his more popular successors Tauler and Suso, declaring eckhart “the most enlightened of all the medieval theologians”6 and the “central spirit of medieval mysticism.”7 he repeatedly opposed the en vogue accusation of pantheism8 directed at eckhart and claimed that the chief reason why eckhart was necessarily misunderstood by his wider audience was the problematic nature of his courageous but “imprudent” paradoxical language.9 on the other hand, he noted that if the german mystic had lived at the time of Jacob Böhme, he would have accomplished even greater things than Böhme himself.10 eckhart’s value for the development of speculative thinking was, according to Baader’s assessment, in no way limited solely to the Middle ages. on the contrary, he argued that if the modern discourse on speculation in germany had focused on eckhart and other medieval theologians, rather than on spinoza, contemporary religious philosophy would have been in better condition.11 similarly to his contemporaries, Baader had only a fragmentary knowledge of eckhart. secondary sources were scarce and of dubious value, and the only primary sources available were the different mutations of the appendix found in the 1521 Basel edition of tauler’s sermons, which included 55 sermons predominantly by eckhart, as well as four other minor pieces.12 in these circumstances Baader realized the need Baader’s works that were in Kierkegaard’s possession can be found in ASKB 391–418. For Kierkegaard’s reading of Baader and his reception of Baader’s individual works, see Marie Mikulová thulstrup, “Kierkegaards møde med mystik gennem den spekulative idealisme,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 10, 1977, see pp. 15–19; pp. 56–7; Marie Mikulová thulstrup, “Baader,” in Kierkegaard’s Teachers, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1982 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 10), pp. 170–76. 6 Franz von Baader, Sämtliche Werke, vols. 1–16, ed. by Franz hoffmann, aalen: scientia verlag 1962–3 [reprint of 1851–60], vol. 14, p. 93. 7 ibid., vol. 15, p. 457. 8 ibid., vol. 1, p. 208; vol. 15, p. 457; p. 484. 9 ibid., vol. 2, p. 523; vol. 15, p. 159. 10 ibid., vol. 15, p. 159. 11 ibid., vol. 5, p. 263. 12 cf. louise gnädinger, Johannes Tauler. Lebenswelt und mystische Lehre, Munich: c.h. Beck 1993, pp. 413–17. eckhart’s latin works were completely unknown to Kierkegaard’s contemporaries and were rediscovered and partly published by the dominican historian, heinrich 5

240

Peter Šajda

for a critical edition of eckhart’s writings on the basis of manuscript comparison. he urged his son-in-law ernst von lasaulx to undertake a wide-ranging search for manuscripts containing eckhart’s works.13 this search was later continued by Franz Pfeiffer, a friend of Baader’s disciple Magg, whose research led to the epoch-making edition of eckhart’s german works published two years after Kierkegaard’s death.14 according to Baader’s report on his eight-month stay in Berlin in 1823–4, during one of his frequent meetings with hegel he introduced the latter to eckhart and was witness to an enthusiastic reception on hegel’s part.15 the 1804 report of Karl rosenkranz (1805–79) dates the original interest of hegel in eckhart to the last years of hegel’s stay in switzerland and asserts that he excerpted quotations of eckhart and tauler from literary journals.16 among the excerpted theological materials collected in the earlier writings of hegel there are also abstracts from the papal bull, In agro dominico, that enlisted eckhart’s erroneous and dubious statements.17 the material basis for hegel’s excerpts from the bull was Johann lorentz von Mosheim’s work on church history, Institutiones historiae ecclesiasticae, which together with his work on the Beghard and Beguine movement, De Beghardis et Beguinabus commentarius, exerted a decisive influence on the sources that later mediated eckhart to Kierkegaard as a member or even the head of an ecclesial dissent movement.18 Seuse Denifle, in “Meister Eckeharts lateinische Schriften und die Grundanschauung seiner lehre,” Archiv für Literatur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, vol. 2, 1886, pp. 533–687. 13 david Baumgardt, Franz von Baader und die philosophische Romantik, halle: Max niemeyer 1927, pp. 33–5; david Baumgardt, Mystik und Wissenschaft, witten: luther verlag 1963, p. 86. 14 Pfeiffer’s edition of eckhart appeared in 1857, sixteen years after the death of Baader and two years after the death of Kierkegaard, but the latter was not necessarily unaware of it. Pfeiffer’s research of manuscripts containing eckhart’s literary legacy is mentioned at least in two works that Kierkegaard read: Moriz carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’scher verlag 1847, p. 210 (ASKB 458); and Friedrich Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 2, abtheilung 3, pp. iX–Xii (ASKB 173–177). 15 Baader, Sämtliche Werke, vol. 15, p. 159. 16 cf. Karl rosenkranz, “hegels ursprüngliches system. 1798 bis 1806,” in Literar historisches Taschenbuch, ed. by r.e. Prutz, series 2, 1844, p. 161. 17 hermann nohl, Hegels theologische Jugendschriften, Frankfurt am Main: Minerva 1966 [reprint of the original 1907 edition], p. 367. 18 cf. carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, p. 152; Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, p. 294; carl ullmann, Reformatoren vor der Reformation, vornehmlich in Deutschland und den Niederlanden, hamburg: verlag von Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 2, pp. 18–35. This view was also mediated by the influential pioneer monograph on eckhart by carl schmidt, “Meister eckhart, ein Beitrag zur geschichte der theologie und Philosophie des Mittelalters,” in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, vol. 12, 1839, p. 667. Martensen, however, opposed the opinion that eckhart could be considered a dissenter in any way and criticized both schmidt, as well as gieseler, Karl hase (Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837 (ASKB 160–166)) and Münscher (Dr. William Münschers Lærebog i den

Meister Eckhart: The Patriarch of German Speculation who was a lebemeister

241

in hegel’s published works eckhart appears explicitly only once; but given the context of the compound quotation, it was a provocation and an attack all at once. namely, he is presented as an “older theologian” who is contrasted to the contemporary Protestant theologians who have put aside all philosophy and science. their factographic approach to theology prevents them from an in-depth understanding of the divine, and they even air their incapability of grasping profundity by accusing those who strive for it of pantheism.19 the connection between Meister eckhart and hegel was certainly known to Kierkegaard, as it was repeatedly mentioned in the works dealing with medieval mysticism that Kierkegaard read. Martensen quotes right at the beginning of his dissertation on Meister eckhart both hegel’s and rosenkranz’s appreciative statements about the impact of eckhart and medieval german mysticism on the development of philosophy20; Moriz carriere (1817–95) compares hegel’s concept of deus ludens, as described in the Phenomenology of Spirit, to god’s “purposeless” play in eckhart21 and Friedrich Böhringer (1812–79) even likens the posthumous fate of eckhart to that of hegel, as the disciples of both split into the factions of left and right.22 the reaction of the theological circles to the hegelian depreciation of the contemporary non-speculative Protestantism came in the form of carl schmidt’s monograph on Meister eckhart in 1839.23 this study became an indispensible body of reference material for the ensuing decades and is reflected in all the works treating eckhart that were at Kierkegaard’s disposal. it also stabilized the popular conviction that hegel and eckhart should be perceived as spiritual relatives. Hans Lassen Martensen became familiar with Meister Eckhart first through the quotations in Baader and hegel; later during his study stay in germany in the christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Møller, copenhagen: F. Brummers Forlag 1831 (ASKB 168)). cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, pp. 12–13. 19 [hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich], Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, vols. 1–2, ed. by Philipp Marheineke, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1840 (vols. 11–12 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 1, p. 212 (ASKB 564–5). the same quotation from eckhart appears in Baader’s Bemerkungen über einige antireligiöse Philosopheme unserer Zeit, in his Sämtliche Werke, vol. 2, p. 455. the initial part of the quotation is also found in folio 313 of the eckhart appendix cited in Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 36 and in carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, p. 154. 20 cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, pp. 3, 5. eckhart is also said to “remind one of hegel.” ibid., p. 50. 21 cf. carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, p. 158. see also Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 91. 22 Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, p. 294. 23 carl schmidt, “Meister eckhart. ein Beitrag zur geschichte der theologie und Philosophie des Mittelalters,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken. Beiträge zur Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, vol. 12, 1839, pp. 663–744 (the periodical Theologische Studien und Kritiken appeared between 1828 and 1947, at the beginning in hamburg: Perthes, later in lepzig: hinrichs). For more detail on carl schmidt’s eckhart polemics, see ingeborg degenhardt, Studien zum Wandel des Eckhartbildes, leiden: e.J. Brill 1967, pp. 117–24.

242

Peter Šajda

years 1834–6, he found in heidelberg a copy of tauler’s sermons with an eckhart appendix that he excerpted.24 he wrote his treatise on Meister eckhart originally as a theological dissertation, but the university of Kiel awarded him an honorary doctorate for his treatise, On Autonomy, so he dedicated his study on Meister eckhart to the theological Faculty in Kiel.25 Martensen’s dissertation was written in danish, which required royal permission,26 and was published in 1840. two years later it was published in Martensen’s own german translation in hamburg.27 Martensen summarized the main points of his dissertation28 in his letter of october 1, 1840, addressed to professor isaak august dorner (1809–84).29 he explains that the principal point of analysis in Mester Eckart is the interplay of mystery and revelation in mysticism. Mysticism remains unable to integrate the two and creates a vicious circle by searching for truth behind revelation, where it encounters only pure mystery, the unknowable Nothing, in which it finds no peace and thus begins to desire a positive content again. in this process mysticism looks for the godhead outside god and the esoteric outside the exoteric. this leads Martensen to apply the labels “atheism” and “acosmism,” since both god and world are negated and even the bond between them is broken.30 thus the mystical consciousness permanently oscillates between the revealed god and the deus absconditus. this trap is also manifested in mysticism’s ambiguous approach to pantheism, which it alternately rejects and embraces.31 still another vicious circle that it cannot escape concerns the alternating desire for the incarnate historical christ and the esoteric and acosmic christ of the unio mystica.32 in his dissertation Martensen mentions that the royal library in copenhagen also had a copy of the 1521 Basel edition of tauler with the eckhart appendix. cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 149. 25 Martensen, Af mit Levned, vols. 1–3, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag 1882–3, vol. 2, pp. 10–11. 26 when Kierkegaard sought the same dispensation from christian viii on June 2, 1841, he mentioned the permissions given to Martin hammerich and adolph Peter adler, but not the one given to Martensen. For more detail, see Joakim garff, SAK, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, En biografi, copenhagen: gads Forlag 2002, pp. 168–9. 27 Martensen’s book was reviewed in germany by Baumgarten in Jenaer Literaturzeitung, vol. 30, 1843, p. 123; Baur, Theologisches Jahrbuch, series 2, 1843, pp. 146–53; staudenmaier, Zeitschrift für Theologie, vol. 9, 1843, pp. 287–303 and thomsen, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, vol. 18, 1845, pp. 721ff. and pp. 895ff. cf. niklaus largier, Bibliographie zu Meister Eckhart, Freiburg: universitätsverlag 1989, p. 113. 28 For an english translation of Martensen’s monograph on eckhart, see “Meister eckhart: a study in speculative theology,” in Between Hegel and Kierkegaard: Hans L. Martensen’s Philosophy of Religion, ed. by curtis l. thompson and david J. Kangas, atlanta: scholars Press 1997, pp. 148–243. 29 Briefwechsel zwischen H L. Martensen und I.A. Dorner 1839–1881, vols. 1–2, Berlin: h. reuther’s verlagsbuchhandlung 1888, vol. 1, pp. 10–17. 30 cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, pp. 38–41; p. 49; p. 52; Briefwechsel zwischen H.L. Martensen und I.A. Dorner 1839–1881, p. 11. 31 Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 51; p. 77; Briefwechsel zwischen H.L. Martensen und I.A. Dorner 1839–1881, p. 12. 32 cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, pp. 98–101; pp. 117–18; Briefwechsel zwischen H.L. Martensen und I.A. Dorner 1839–1881, p. 12. 24

Meister Eckhart: The Patriarch of German Speculation who was a lebemeister

243

In ethics a parallel conflict exists between the one pure virtue rooted in mystery and the many concrete virtues of revelation.33 as a consequence, the speculative drive of mysticism is not primarily based on the conflict between reason and faith, but rather between revelation and mystery. the motive power of the aforementioned vicious circles of mysticism is the self-perpetuating mechanism of its via negationis, which according to Martensen does not lead to higher integrity but to further fragmentation and an endless series of negations. although Martensen’s dissertation did not focus exclusively on eckhart, he was chosen as “the patriarch of german speculation”34 and a paramount example of the potential and limits of mysticism. Martensen’s treatise on eckhart was the most extensive account of the german mystic that Kierkegaard ever came in touch with. Kierkegaard had, however, been made familiar with Martensen’s interest in the german mysticism already in 1838–9 through Martensen’s lectures on speculative dogmatics, from which stems the only explicit mention of eckhart in Kierkegaard’s papers.35 the transcript of the lecture links the idea of pantheism to eckhart’s concept of unio mystica.36 the issue of eckhart’s “mono-substantialist” concept of god was later treated in detail in the aforementioned dissertation. the second most comprehensive account of eckhart’s doctrine is found in Moriz carriere, whom Kierkegaard excerpted in 1847, and from whom he copied quotations from tauler and Theologia deutsch.37 carriere depends heavily on carl schmidt and employs his theory of Scotus Eriugena and Amalrich of Bena as decisive influences on eckhart’s thinking, as well as Franz Pfeiffer’s designation of eckhart as “the progenitor of german philosophy.”38 carriere also anticipates arthur schopenhauer by linking eckhart’s thought to non-christian mysticism, the Bhagavad-gita, and rumi.39 he sees in him a precursor of hegel, whereby he clearly points out the superiority of the latter. Kierkegaard also owned Melchior diepenbrock’s edition of heinrich suso published in 1837, which contained Joseph görres’ (1776–1848) preface with the poetic and influential depiction of Eckhart as “a grandiose, almost-mythic

cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 125; Briefwechsel zwischen H.L. Martensen und I.A. Dorner 1839–1881, p. 14. 34 Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 3. Under Martensen’s influence, Böhringer also gave Eckhart the title of “patriarch of German mysticism,” Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, p. 293. 35 Kierkegaard’s increasingly critical perception of Martensen had an impact also on his judgment of Martensen’s profile as a philosopher. In 1849 Kierkegaard characterized both Martensen’s philosophy and christianity as resting on “rhetorical categories.” cf. SKS 22, 155, nB12:18 / JP 1, 508. 36 Pap. ii c 28, in Pap. Xiii, p. 67. 37 SKS 20, 111, nB:180 / JP 3, 3012. SKS 20, 142, nB2:10 / JP 4, 4598. 38 carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, p. 152. 39 ibid., pp. 156–8. Kierkegaard’s edition of arthur schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, vols. 1–2, leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus, vol. 2, p. 611 (ASKB 773–773a) includes only the mentions of tauler and Theologia deutsch. Eckhart was added first in the 1859 edition, as schopenhauer read in the meantime Pfeiffer’s edition of eckhart’s works. 33

244

Peter Šajda

Christian figure partly shrouded in fog.”40 this description was subsequently quoted by Martensen, carriere, and helfferich.41 adolph helfferich (1813–94), whose Christian Mysticism Kierkegaard read in 1850, even compared the mysteriousness of eckhart— “a dominican, whose colossal spirit inaugurates german mysticism”—to that of Pseudo-dionysius the areopagite.42 in 1851 Kierkegaard mentioned in his journals carl ullmann’s (1796–1865) book on the forerunners of the reformation in connection with ruysbroeck’s ironic critique of the corruption of monasticism.43 ullmann’s presentation of eckhart immediately precedes that of ruysbroeck and is disconnected from the chapter on tauler, suso and Theologia deutsch. Under Mosheim’s influence, Eckhart is treated together with the medieval lay spiritual movements. in ullmann, eckhart’s mysticism based on pantheist speculation is contrasted to that of Tauler, who did not aspire to immediate identification of humanity with god, but subjugated humanity to god in a “devoted childlike piety.”44 Kierkegaard commented on Böhringer’s large work, The Church of Christ and its Witnesses, in his journals throughout the 1850s. Böhringer’s account of german mysticism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries contains the most voluminous presentation of tauler that Kierkegaard owned. however, Kierkegaard read Böhringer in the last years of his life and focused mostly on the quotations from earlier authors.45 in Böhringer, eckhart enjoys high appreciation, and the author claims that both the riches of his sermons and his level of speculation surpass tauler.46 all the speculative elements in tauler have their “prototype” [Urtypus] in eckhart, who as a man of extremes “inebriated with speculation” absorbed both official church doctrine and heretical free-spiritist elements.47 otherwise, Böhringer’s account of eckhart is brief, since he was aware of the soon-to-appear critical edition of his works by Pfeiffer. Pietist sources that played a vital role in mediating tauler and Theologia deutsch to Kierkegaard treated eckhart either only marginally or merged him with tauler.48 as [suso, heinrich], Suso’s H., genannt Amandus, Leben und Schriften, ed. by M. diepenbrock, regensburg 1837, p. XXXiv (ASKB 809). görres actually differentiates between two preachers of the same name: “Meister Eckard der Prediger, eine wunderbare, halb in Nebel gehüllte, beinahe christlich mythische Gestalt, sammt dem ihm gleichnamigen jüngeren Eckard.” p. XXXiv. 41 cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 6; carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, p. 152; adolph helfferich, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwicklung und Denkmalen, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, p. 129 (ASKB 571–572). 42 helfferich, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwicklung und Denkmalen, p. 129. 43 SKS 24, 398, nB24:122 / JP 3, 2759. 44 ullmann, Reformatoren vor der Reformation, vornehmlich in Deutschland und den Niederlanden, pp. 223–224. 45 cf. Marie Mikulová thulstrup, “Præsentation af kristne mystikere i faglitteraturen, Kierkegaard kendte,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 11, 1980, p. 81. 46 cf. Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, p. 279; p. 294. 47 ibid., pp. 293–4: “Eckhart...trunken von den Spekulationen...alle Elemente seiner Zeit, die kirchlichen wie die häretisch-freigeisterischen, in sich aufgenommen hat, um sie mit dem Samen seines Geistes zu befruchten.” 48 cf. [gottfried arnold], Gottfried Arnolds Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, Vom Anfang des Neuen Testaments Biß auf das Jahr Christi 1688, Parts 1–4 in vols. 1–2, Frankfurt am Main: thomas Fritsch 1699–1700 (ASKB 154–5), vol. 1, p. 391. 40

Meister Eckhart: The Patriarch of German Speculation who was a lebemeister

245

winfried zeller pointed out, already the Basel tauler Print entertained the ambition of presenting eckhart and tauler as a “spiritual unit.”49 this approach was continued by Pietist authors like Johann arndt, who paid more attention to the common ideological legacy of the mystical doctrina practica than to the authorship of individual texts. nonetheless, as i will argue later, certain concepts that were discussed at length in eckhart’s sermons and tractates found their way to Kierkegaard in the form of tacit quotations appearing both in medieval works and Pietist writings. III. Eckhart’s Role in Kierkegaard’s Critique of Mystical Acosmism Martensen’s dissertation identified a number of problems inherent in mysticism and located the cause of its vicious circles in the mechanism of its via negationis. Martensen chose the dominican rhine mysticism for the illustration of the mystical paradigm and depicted its founder, Meister eckhart, as a mystic par excellence. although Martensen’s exposition of eckhart is from today’s perspective rather outdated, at its time it was a pioneer work in Denmark that configured the form in which Kierkegaard encountered the german mystic. therefore it is not much of an exaggeration to say that Martensen’s eckhart is in a great measure also Kierkegaard’s eckhart. as i will argue later, it is probable that Kierkegaard viewed eckhart through a different prism than the other mystics of the Middle ages. this may have been one of the reasons why he decided to make use of Martensen’s critique of eckhart in his depiction of the antagonism between the ethical paradigm of a husband and the aesthetic-metaphysical paradigm of a mystic.50 in spite of the fact that neither eckhart nor Martensen are mentioned in Either/Or by name, it can be argued that Kierkegaard’s depiction uses a number of Martensen’s arguments and expressions. Kierkegaard identified the primary discrepancy between the two paradigms cited in their translation of love of god into action. since for the mystic “the whole world is dead and done away with,”51 his “action is inner action. the mystic chooses himself in his complete isolation.”52 a basic expression of the mystic’s acosmism is winfried zeller, “eckhartiana v., Meister eckhart bei valentin weigel,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, vol. 57, 1938, p. 312. 50 it seems that the “aesthetic” character of mysticism was communicated to Kierkegaard mainly by Joseph görres, whereas the “metaphysical” and more abstract depiction of mysticism he found in Martensen’s Mester Eckart. when the ethicist of Either/Or describes the erotic character of the mystic’s communication with god, his key expression is “a soft whisper” [en sagte Hvisken], which görres employs [ein leises Flüstern] in a similar context in his introduction to mysticism. cf. Suso’s H., genannt Amandus, Leben und Schriften, p. lii. SKS 3, 232 / EOP, 537. 51 SKS 3, 230 / EOP, 535. cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 40. 52 SKS 3, 230 / EOP, 535. “Men denne intellectuelle Kjærlighed til Gud kan ikke realiseres ved nogen empirisk Handlen i det virkelige Liv, der altid har Dette eller Hiint til Formaal; den realiseres kun som uendelig Beskuelse og salig Nydelse i Evighedens stille Rige.” Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 47. however, both Kierkegaard’s literary persona and Martensen agree that the mystic chooses and acts in an absolute way. cf. SKS 3, 230 / EOP, 535. Martensen, Mester Eckart, p. 48. 49

246

Peter Šajda

the fact that he teaches that all temporal reality is “vanity” (Forfængelighed).53 an inevitable consequence of perceiving the world as mere vanity is the withdrawal of the mystic from all interpersonal relationships into his own hermetical ἄδυτον.54 Kierkegaard’s ethicist, however, differentiates between the natural and moderate ἄδυτον of a family and the isolationist αδυτον of the mystic. Like Martensen’s theory of mysticism oscillating in vicious circles, Kierkegaard’s literary persona arrives at the conviction that in the case of the mystic, “movement” [Bevægelse] does not lead to development and continuity.55 Both critiques of mysticism see the vicious circle of extreme inwardness also manifested in the area of virtue, which the mystic connects in the first place to contemplation, thus acquiring an utterly acosmic and abstract understanding of virtue.56 in general both Martensen and the ethicist of Either/Or agree that the excessive abstraction of the mystic’s ἄδυτον prevents him from living a truly ethical life that would enable him to take seriously his temporal surroundings. Martensen claims that the mystic aims to become “a moral abstractum,” as he is imitating an imagined christian reincarnation of the stoic sage who has exchanged his toga for a monastic habit. this abstraction is among the mystics, according to Martensen, most pregnantly manifested in Meister eckhart.57 Martensen’s characterization of eckhart as the most abstract of the mystics and a figure “shrouded in fog…whose real story is hid in darkness” at the same time is an interesting parallel to Kierkegaard’s statement that the mystic “chooses himself

53 this is a term used by both Kierkegaard and Martensen. cf. SKS 3, 237 / EOP, 541. the recognition of the fact that everything is vanity leads the mystic, according to Martensen, to realize that only the One is truly real. such a view of reality prompts him to negate the world. this via negationis and its inherent acosmism is most tangibly represented in eckhart and his spiritual heirs. cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 41; p. 46. 54 Both Kierkegaard and Martensen use the expression ἄδυτον as a synonym for the negative separation of the mystic from the world. Kierkegaard had known the expression already before reading Martensen’s dissertation, as he had used it in his work, From the Papers of One Still Living. cf. SKS 1, 10 / EPW, 56. Martensen sees ἄδυτον as a natural consequence of the practical acosmism of mysticism: “Det fuldbyrder en practisk Akosmisme, paalægger sig selv Fattigdom, Lydighed og Kydskhed, og trækker sig tilbage i sit eget Adyton for der at finde det Evige og Hellige, som det forgjæves søgte i Verden.” Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 46. cf. SKS 3, 233 / EOP, 538. 55 cf. SKS 3, 238 / EOP, 541–2. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 51. 56 SKS 3, 231–2 / EOP, 536–7: “his inner action consists not, then, in the acquisition of the personal virtues but in the development of the religious or contemplative virtues. Yet even this is too ethical an expression for his life.” according to Martensen, the focus of the mystic on the one virtue leads him from active life to contemplation: “Den ene Dyd skal gribes udenfor de mange…den væsentlige Dyd er ikke afhængig af Objecterne...For at Mennesket nu kan komme til den væsentlige Dyd fører Naaden ham fra det virksomme Liv til det skuende. Men Dydens Væsen er dog kun i det skuende Liv.” Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 125; pp. 127–8. 57 cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 129.

Meister Eckhart: The Patriarch of German Speculation who was a lebemeister

247

abstractly and therefore lacks transparency.”58 Both of the authors also agree that the abstract seizure of god in mysticism needs to happen in a special atmosphere, namely in the setting of “the evening twilight.”59 the complete absence of the element of edification in Kierkegaard’s presentation of mysticism is another fact suggesting that, when conceptualizing the ethical critique of mystical abstraction and acosmism, he had in his mind an “eckhartian” type of a mystic, rather than a more “praxis-oriented” one, such as tauler. such a view of mysticism was in line with Martensen’s separation of eckhart from “the great multitude of edifying literature.”60 IV. The Impact of Johann Arndt’s Reception of Eckhartian Concepts on Kierkegaard The formative influence of Johann Arndt (1555–1621) on Kierkegaard’s concept of “dying to” (Afdøen) has been examined by Marie Mikulová thulstrup in several instances.61 she argued that in Kierkegaard’s case the term “points back to Johann arndt and to the translation [of arndt’s works] that Kierkegaard read: ‘dying to’ is Johann arndt’s expression.”62 it is probable that other quasi-synonyms of “dying to” used by Kierkegaard in his papers have a connection to arndt too. arndt’s negationoriented concepts on the other hand follow in several important aspects the line of medieval German mysticism. Despite the fact that it is at times difficult to distinguish eckhart’s impact on arndt’s True Christianity63 from other medieval influences, it can be maintained that arndt’s exposition of the christian via purgativa—which was of vital importance to Kierkegaard—utilizes several concepts and formulations

SKS 3, 236 / EOP, 540. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 6: “Gørres kalder Eckart en taageindhyllet, næsten christelig-mythisk Skikkelse, og ikke med Urette. Thi det er kun hans indre Liv, der kjendes, medens hans virkelige Historie er indhyllet i Mørke.” Kierkegaard’s literary persona explains that “the abstract is the opaque, the indistinct [det Taagede].” SKS 3, 236 / EOP, 540. 59 SKS 3, 236 / EOP, 540. cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 117. 60 cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 38. eckhart must have appeared to Kierkegaard as the most abstract and speculative mystic not only because of Martensen’s (and hegel’s) presentation of his thought. Kierkegaard found the edifying and practical character of tauler and Theologia deutsch confirmed in Luther, arndt and those who quoted their witness. nor was suso generally considered a prototype of speculation, as eckhart was. 61 Marie Mikulová thulstrup, Kierkegaard i kristenlivets historie, copenhagen: c.a. Reitzel 1991, pp. 177–83; Marie Mikulová Thulstrup, “The Significance of Mortification and dying away (to),” in The Sources and Depths of Faith in Kierkegaard, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1978 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 2), pp. 160–66. 62 Mikulová thulstrup, Kierkegaard i kristenlivets historie, p. 180. 63 Kierkegaard owned at least two editions of arndt’s True Christianity. cf. ASKB 276–277. 58

248

Peter Šajda

derived either directly from Meister eckhart or from later authors, whose ideas show conceptual and terminological indebtedness to eckhart.64 in Book iii of True Christianity, arndt repeatedly thematizes eckhart’s teaching that the aim of the soul’s purgation is to “suffer god” [Gott leiden].65 this goal requires a total emptying-out of the soul, including both the inferior and the superior “powers of the soul” [Kräfte der Seele].66 arndt explains, together with eckhart and tauler, that the superior powers of the soul are not the soul’s supreme organ and speaks of a “ground”67 of the soul that is completely inaccesible to created things and from which god illuminates the powers of the soul.68 For this reason the soul has to acquire a state of utterly receptive emptiness that enables the human to suffer god’s work.69 arndt paraphrases eckhart’s concept of “rest” [Ruhe] in which the subtle divine wisdom works in the soul without being observed by created things.70 arndt was familiar with the eckhart appendix of the 1521 Basel edition of tauler’s works which appeared also in the 1621 edition to which arndt wrote the preface. he also encountered eckhart’s conceptual and terminological legacy in tauler, Pseudo-tauleriana and Theologia deutsch. see also wilhelm Koepp, Johann Arndt. Eine Untersuchung über die Mystik im Luthertum, Berlin: trowitzsch & sohn 1912, p. 39; pp. 54–5. 65 “Darum, soll Gott eigentlich und edel in dir wirken, so ist vonnöthen, daß du ihm Statt und Raum gebest, und daß deine Affecte ruhen und du Gott leidest. Soll Gott reden, so müssen alle Dinge in dir schweigen.” Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, ed. by Johann Friedrich von Meyer, 3rd revised ed., Frankfurt am Main: verlag von heinrich ludwig Brönner 1844, p. 349 (cap. 16). “Gott soll wirken, die Seele aber soll erleiden...und so, in dieser Weise mußt du dich aller deiner Betätigungen entschlagen und alle deine Kräfte zum Schweigen bringen.” Meister eckehart, Deutsche Predigten und Traktate, ed. by Josef quint, zurich: diogenes 1979, p. 431. 66 “Also auch die Seele und ihre Kräfte, Verstand, Wille, Gedächtniß, Begierde, können Gott nicht fassen, wenn sie voll sind der Welt und der irdischen Dinge...deine Seele muß leer seyn von der Welt.” Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, p. 325 (cap. 2). eckhart used in his sermons the german equivalents of the classical terminology of the theory of soul. “superior powers of the soul” [potentiae animae superiores] are commonly intellect, will and memory. 67 arndt also uses the eckhartian term “town” [Stadt], which he identifies with the “ground.” cf. Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, p. 355 (cap. 21). 68 “Auf daß der Mensch von innen erleuchtet werde, daß seine Sinne, Vernunft, Verstand, Wille und Gedächtniß von innen aus dem Grunde der Seele erleuchtet werden.” Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, p. 341 (cap. 11). “Denn, sobald Gott den Grund innen mit der Wahrheit berührt, wirft sich das Licht in die Kräfte.” Meister eckehart, Deutsche Predigten und Traktate, p. 427. 69 “Ach fände Gott ein so leeres Herz, er gösse den heiligen Geist mit allen seinen Gaben hinein.” Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, p. 348 (cap. 16). “Denn, findet Gott den Menschen so arm, so wirkt Gott sein eigenes Werk und der Mensch erleidet Gott so in sich.” Meister eckhart, Werke, vol. 1, p. 559. 70 “Gott bedarf nicht mehr zu seinem Werk, denn daß man ihm ein demüthig und ruhig Herz gebe....Die ewige Weisheit ist so zart in ihrem Werk, daß sie nicht leiden mag, daß da Creatur zusehe.” Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, p. 325 (cap. 2). “Gott bedarf nichts weiter, als daß man ihm ein ruhiges Herz schenke...die 64

Meister Eckhart: The Patriarch of German Speculation who was a lebemeister

249

he also uses eckhart’s metaphor of the eye, which in order to see things needs to be absolutely empty. analogical to the eye, the soul also must be sheer receptiveness.71 Together with Eckhart, Arndt affirms that “if God shall come in, the created things must go out.”72 Both eckhart and arndt complain, however, that only few theologians know about the nobility of the soul.73 Kierkegaard was made familiar with arndt’s True Christianity probably already in his youth and consulted it repeatedly throughout the years. in 1844 he included in his Upbuilding Discourses a taulerian parable from Book iii of True Christianity74 and in the late 1840s and in the 1850s mentioned arndt in his journals and papers in connection with different aspects of true christian witness. although Kierkegaard encountered the metaphorics of “dying to” also in tauler, Theologia Deutsch, and other works, it is highly likely that arndt’s influence was the most formative. Kierkegaard’s progressive intensification and interiorization of his concept of “dying to” prompted him to focus in his entries from 1854–5 on the notion of the annihilation of human will.75 already in the early 1850s, Kierkegaard formulated the radical requirement of unconditionally breaking with everything,76 which he linked to arndt in a journal entry from 1852.77 in Kierkegaard’s elaborations on the term, one can sense a gradual shift from dying to immediacy towards an increasingly spiritualized understanding of the term focusing on god’s work inside the human, as a result of which the human will needs to cede its activity to god. in a journal entry from 1854 Kierkegaard discusses the operation aimed at the purification of one’s own subjectivity through the dethronization and annihilation of will.78 the entry contains a reference to “old devotional literature.”

ewige Weisheit ist von so feiner Zartheit...darum kann die ewige Weisheit nicht dulden, daß dort irgendwelche Kreatur zusehe.” Meister eckhart, Werke, vol. 1, p. 639–41. 71 “Wenn dein Auge sehen soll, und ein Bild empfangen, so muß es blos und ledig seyn aller Bilder und Formen...Also auch die Seele.” Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, p. 325 (cap. 2). “So wie das Auge bloß ist an Farbe und empfänglich für alle Farben, so ist der, der arm im Geiste ist, empfänglich für allen Geist, und aller Geister Geist ist Gott.” Meister eckhart, Werke, vol. 2, p. 263. 72 “Denn soll Gott hinein, so muß die Creatur heraus.” Johann arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, p. 337 (cap. 9); p. 348 (cap. 16). “Soll Gott eingehen, so muß zugleich die Kreatur hinausgehen.” Meister eckhart, Deutsche Predigten und Traktate, p. 426. 73 “Von diesem Adel der Seele wissen nicht viele Leute, auch die Weisen und Klugen dieser Welt nicht.” Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, p. 333 (cap. 6). “Manche Pfaffen aber verstehen das nicht, daß es etwas geben soll, was Gott so verwandt ist und so eins ist.” Meister eckhart, Werke, vol. 1, p. 335. 74 cf. SKS 5, 332 / EUD, 344. see also Pap. v B 212, 5. Pap. v B 214, 2. 75 Pap. Xi–2 a 132 / JP 4, 4384. Pap. Xi–2 a 239 / JP 4, 5038. Pap. Xi–2 a 436 / JP 6, 6966. 76 SKS 24, 21–22, nB21:18. SKS 24, 25–7, nB21:29 / JP 4, 4933. SKS 24, 26–27, nB21:29.a / JP 4, 4934. 77 Pap. X–5 a 53 / JP 3, 3771. 78 Pap. Xi–2 a 132 / JP 4, 4384.

250

Peter Šajda

Kierkegaard realized that the growth in similarity to god presupposes the constant spiritualization of humanity79 and acceptance of the fact that the distinctive sign of letting god work is suffering.80 there is no doubt that in developing an everdeeper understanding of this concept, Kierkegaard came in touch with the eckhartian ideological heritage through his readings of arndt and Pseudo-tauleriana.81 Meister eckhart’s concept of a human not as an architect of his own soul’s reconstruction, but as a receptive “sufferer of god’s work,”82 played a vital role in arndt’s radical and recurrent requirement of complete self-emptying of the soul by means of dying to the created things inside oneself. arndt’s explicit adoption of the eckhartian discourse on the illumination of the superior powers of the soul in the atmosphere of receptive “rest” naturally continued as well the theme of the purgation of will. although arndt’s emphasis on the “ground of the soul” was probably not of much interest to Kierkegaard, his spiritual methodology and call for sacrifice of one’s own will certainly was.83 therefore it can be argued that arndt’s presentation of the metanoia of the powers of the soul, and thus also of human will, mediated to Kierkegaard insights from the arena of the medieval discussions on the topic, and also as their integral part, the concepts of Meister eckhart. V. The Cosmic Presence of the Individual the fact that in spite of Martensen’s misinterpretation of the mystical via negationis, Kierkegaard was able to find inspiration in the Eckhartian paradoxical depiction of negation, is exemplified by the implicit quotation from the Eckhartian tractate, On Detachment,84 appearing in Kierkegaard’s journal in 1848. it stems from the Pseudotaulerian treatise, The Imitation of the Poor Life of Christ, which Kierkegaard read 79 SKS 24, 21–22, nB21:18. SKS 24, 467–468, nB25:47 / JP 2, 1943. Pap. X–4 a 588 / JP 2, 1661. Pap. X–5 a 53 / JP 3, 3771. Pap. Xi–1 a 558 / JP 4, 4354. 80 Pap. X–4 a 588 / JP 2, 1661. 81 the term “dying to” [Absterben] appears frequently in Kierkegaard’s edition of the Pseudo-taulerian book The Imitation of the Poor Life of Christ, which he read in 1848. For more detail see my article on tauler in the present volume. For eckhart’s presence in this Pseudo-Taulerian work see Heinrich Seuse Denifle, Das Buch von geistlicher Armuth, bisher bekannt als Johann Taulers Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Jesu, Munich: literarisches institut von dr. Max huttler 1877, pp. Xlv–Xlviii; p. lii; niklaus largier, Das Buch von der geistigen Armut, zurich and Munich: artemis 1989, p. 238; p. 243; pp. 253–7; pp. 262–4; pp. 267–8; pp. 272–3. 82 “Der Mensch folge nur und widerstehe nicht, er erleide und lasse Gott wirken.” Meister eckhart, Werke, vol. 2, p. 99. 83 “So mußt du ihm, weil du nun ein Christ geworden bist, dein ganzes Herz geben und ihm deinen Willen aufopfern; alsdann geschieht sein Wille in dir.” Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, p. 323 (cap. 1).“Wer immer seinen Willen gänzlich aufgibt, dem gibt Gott hinwieder seinen Willen so gänzlich und so im eigentlichen Sinne, daß Gottes Wille dem Menschen zu eigen wird.” Meister eckhart, Werke, vol. 1, p. 287. 84 according to Kurt ruh, the tractate is a Pseudo-eckhartian work that is closely related to eckhart’s own thought. cf. ruh, “die Mystik des deutschen Predigerordens und ihre grundlegung durch die hochscholastik,” vol. 3, pp. 349–51; pp. 356–8.

Meister Eckhart: The Patriarch of German Speculation who was a lebemeister

251

for edification in 1848.85 on the other hand, it is rather obvious that Kierkegaard’s late interest in medieval asceticism and monasticism was disconnected from mysticism.86 This missing link would first and foremost concern Eckhart, as he was, among Kierkegaard’s sources, conceived of as the most “abstract” and “speculative” mystic, whereas tauler or Theologia Deutsch were considered by Kierkegaard part of edifying literature depicting practical imitatio Christi continued by the Pietists. therefore Mikulová thulstrup’s statement that Kierkegaard viewed the mystics mainly through the prism of their cordial reception in Pietism, although true in general, does not pertain to Meister eckhart.87 eckhart’s importance for the study of Kierkegaard’s sources relates primarily to Eckhart’s influence on the Taulerian tradition, Arndt and Martensen. From this perspective the german mystic’s fate in a way copied Kierkegaard’s interest in the aforementioned authors. it is obvious that in Kierkegaard’s later years Martensen’s dissertation on eckhart was at best a casual point of reference,88 whereas tauler and especially arndt were for the danish philosopher sources of living christian witness. it is thus the implicit presence of eckhart in tauler and arndt that mediated to Kierkegaard eckhart’s legacy of a Lebemeister. it is rather ironic that Kierkegaard’s critique of mystical acosmism in Either/Or returned to him in the form of Martin Buber’s study on the concept of the individual,89 where Kierkegaard’s own acosmism is discussed. nonetheless, from a historical perspective both eckhart’s and Kierkegaard’s spiritual heritage proved to be quite effective in making a lasting impact on the cosmos.

SKS 20, 331, nB4:91. cf. [Johann tauler], Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, new ed. by nikolaus casseder, Frankfurt am Main: verlag der hermannschen Buchhandlung 1821, p. 121 (ASKB 282). cf. Meister eckhart, Werke, vol. 2, p. 454, 9. Denifle located similar phrasing also in Pseudo-eckhart. cf. “Meister eckhart,” in Deutsche Mystiker des 14. Jahrhunderts, ed. by Franz Pfeiffer, aalen: scientia verlag 1962 [reprint of 1857], vol. 2, p. 504; p. 509. 86 Kierkegaard’s quotation of tersteegen’s laudatory comment on the mystical writers from 1849 is a good example of what he valued in mysticism. the entry is aimed against speculation and highlights the aspects of mortification and denial. Cf. SKS 22, 161–2, nB12:31 / JP 4, 4754. 87 cf. Marie Mikulová thulstrup, “studies of Pietists, Mystics, and church Fathers,” in Kierkegaard’s View of Christianity, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1978 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 1), pp. 66–7. Mikulová thulstrup thematized this fact too. see also her analysis of Martensen’s study on eckhart: Mikulová thulstrup, “Præsentation af kristne mystikere i faglitteraturen, Kierkegaard kendte,” pp. 75–8. 88 a possible reference to Martensen’s Mester Eckart is Kierkegaard’s mention of the “brothers and sisters of free spirit” in his unpublished Book on Adler. cf. Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 66 / BA, 253. cf. Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 12. 89 Martin Buber, Die Frage an den Einzelnen, Berlin: schocken 1936. 85

Bibliography I. Meister Eckhart’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library none. II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Meister Eckhart Baader, Franz, Vorlesungen, gehalten an der Königlich-Bayerischen LudwigMaximilians-Hochschule über religiöse Philosophie im Gegensatze der irreligiösen, älterer und neuer Zeit, vol. 1, Munich: giel 1827, p. 25; p. 29n; p. 36; p. 38n; p. 74n; p. 81n (ASKB 395). —— Revision der Philosopheme der Hegel’schen Schule bezüglich auf das Christenthum. Nebst zehn Thesen aus einer religiösen Philosophie, stuttgart: s.g. liesching 1839, p. 160; p. 185 (ASKB 416). Böhringer, Friedrich, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 2, abtheilung 3, pp. iX–Xii; pp. 11–12; pp. 57–9; pp. 65–7; p. 279; pp. 291–4 (ASKB 173–177). carriere, Moriz, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’scher verlag 1847, pp. 152–9; pp. 162–3; pp. 210–11 (ASKB 458). [hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich], Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, vols. 1–2, ed. by Philipp Marheineke, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1840 (vols. 11–12 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 1, p. 212 (ASKB 564–565). helfferich, adolph, Die christliche Mystik in ihrer Entwicklung und Denkmalen, gotha: Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 1, p. 129; p. 346 (ASKB 571–572). Martensen, hans lassen, De Autonomia conscientiæ sui humanæ in theologiam dogmaticam nostri temporis introducta, copenhagen: i.d. quist 1837, p. 14; p. 16 (ASKB 648). —— Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, copenhagen: reitzels Forlag 1840 (ASKB 649). —— Den menneskelige Selvbevidstheds Autonomie i vor Tids dogmatiske Theologie, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1841, p. 5; pp. 12–13; p. 71; pp. 79–80 (ASKB 651, translation of ASKB 648, cf. also ASKB a i 41).

Meister Eckhart: The Patriarch of German Speculation who was a lebemeister

253

[suso, heinrich], Suso’s H., genannt Amandus, Leben und Schriften, ed. by M. diepenbrock, regensburg 1837, p. XXXiv (ASKB 809). zeuthen, ludvig, Om Ydmyghed. En Afhandling, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel 1852, p. 77 (ASKB 916). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Meister Eckhart Florin, Frits, Geloven als noodweer, Kampen: agora, 2002. —— “was Kierkegaard inspired by Medieval Mysticism?” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 22, 2002, pp. 172–90. Kangas, david, “like for like,” in Ethik der Liebe, Studien zu Kierkegaards “Taten der Liebe,” ed. by ingolf u. dalferth, tübingen: Mohr siebeck 2002, pp. 123–38. law, david r., Kierkegaard as Negative Theologian, oxford: clarendon Press 1993. šajda, Peter, Koncept lásky v diele Majstra Eckharta a Sørena Kierkegaarda, Ph.d. thesis, comenius university, Bratislava 2007. scholtens, wim r., Kijk, hier barst de taal. Mystiek bij Kierkegaard, Kampen: J.h. Kok 1991. thulstrup, Marie Mikulová, “Kierkegaards møde med mystik gennem den spekulative idealisme,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 10, 1977, pp. 7–69. —— “studies of Pietists, Mystics, and church Fathers,” in Kierkegaard’s View of Christianity, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1978 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 1), pp. 60–80. —— “Præsentation af kristne mystikere i faglitteraturen, Kierkegaard kendte,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 11, 1980, pp. 55–92. —— “Kierkegaard’s encounter with Mysticism through speculative idealism,” Liber Academiae Kierkegaardiensis, no. 5, 1984, pp. 31–91.

Petrarch: Kierkegaard’s Few and one-sided references to a like-Minded thinker Karl verstrynge

giving an account of Kierkegaard’s relation to the famous humanist writer and philosopher Franscesco Petrarch (Petrarca) merely with regard to the references the former makes to the latter, appears to be a rather limited business. one can only find a handful of places where the father of existentialism refers to the father of humanism, and in many of those references his name is merely mentioned along with other writers or figures. Of all Kierkegaard’s main writings, Stages on Life’s Way is the primary, not to say the sole, important location where the poet’s name is mentioned. in the last part of Father taciturnus’ psychological experiment “guilty/ not-guilty” some allusions to Petrarch and his writings come to the fore and even one of his poems is partly quoted. while the connection of these references to the Quidam figure may not be accidental, still they seem to appear only in the margin. even though the explicit remarks on Petrarch are, generally speaking, few and far between, I’ll argue that there are affinities between both writers that underlie the rather superficial references from the Dane to the Italian. If Kierkegaard had known Petrarch’s works better, these affinities would no doubt have been developed more intensively. since they mainly remained of a biographical nature, a short overview of Petrarch’s life and thinking is imperative as a starting point for our exploration. I. Francesco Petrarch: Life and Work in intellectual and literary history, Petrarch is generally known as the founding father of humanism. as writer and thinker, he called a halt to an epoch he himself considered as the “dark ages.” this movement was accompanied by his passionate interest in the classics, thereby putting man in the center of the universe. with the characterization of his time as the “dark ages,” Petrarch criticized the ignorance of the late latin era, an expression that was later adopted, extended and spread by subsequent writers to—one-sidedly— depict all of the Middle ages as a time of ignorance, backwardness, and stagnation. the artistic and moral outlook characterizing the new age of the renaissance can be traced directly to the mind and work of Petrarch, and also later forms of humanism (religious and areligious) bear references to the italian poet and prose writer.

256

Karl Verstrynge

Petrarch was born in arezzo, July 20, 1304, as the son of a notary, and lived during his early childhood close to Florence. his father had been exiled from Florence and moved with the family to avignon, following Pope clement v (1264–1314) who there established the avignon Papacy. hence, Francesco Petrarch was educated in the neighbouring city Montpellier where he started law studies at the insistence of his father to continue them later in Bologna. however, it soon became obvious that the main interest of the gifted young man was not law but literature, especially the classics. his father’s death in 1326 enabled him to return to avignon only to apply himself to the study of classical authors and meet his “unquenchable thirst for literature.” he there took minor ecclesiastical orders, and his work in several clerical offices gave him the opportunity to devote himself to his writing. Petrarch’s literary efforts did not pass unnoticed. Already his first large scale work Africa—a latin epic about the roman general scipio africanus (235–183 BC)—earned him general recognition in europe. especially his attempts to revive an interest in classical verse were acknowledged, even by the highest religious powers. in 1341, Pope Benedict Xii (ca. 1280–1342) awarded the poet a laurel crown at the capitoline Hill in Rome and gave him the title “poet laureate,” the first man since antiquity to be given this honor. in line with his broad cultural interest, Petrarch kept intense contact with the surrounding world. he travelled widely through europe and is known as a productive writer of (fictitious and real) letters, amongst others to Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–75) whom he held as a personal friend. above all, his efforts to revive classical authors of rome and greece were of invaluable importance. he discovered on his travels an unknown collection of cicero’s letters, and together with Boccacio he commissioned the very first translation of Homer into Latin. a central event in Petrarch’s life was no doubt his climbing to the top of Mont ventoux, together with his younger brother gherardo (b. 1307), on april 26, 1336. the event was unprecedented since the climbing of mountains for the experience of climbing itself was unusual if not non-existent at the time. For this reason Petrarch’s undertaking is considered the birth of alpinism. But more importantly, Petrarch’s adventure gave rise to a manuscript that he sent later as a letter to his friend and confession father Francesco dionigi. the letter is often judged as the earliest writing that deals with the contemplation of the beauty of nature. in it one also remarks an incipient struggle and evolution in Petrarch’s thinking, leading him to moderate his admiration for antiquity and secular authors in order to admit other authoritative voices. although he was known as a man who enjoyed the bodily pleasures of life, Petrarch gradually detached himself from his love for this world, moving in the direction of a strict religious attitude to life. a couple of years later, toward the end of 1345, he returned to the vaucluse in order to revise his earlier The Life of Solitude.1 he also worked on a new manuscript entitled On Religious Leisure,2 a book on Francesco Petrarch, De vita solitaria (1346); in english as The Life of Solitude, trans. and ed. by Jacob zeitlin, urbana: university of illinois Press 1924 (reprinted, westport, connecticut: hyperion Press 1978). 2 Petrarch, De otio religioso (1347). (english translation, On Religious Leisure, trans. by susan s. shearer, new York: italica Press 2002.) 1

Petrarch: Kierkegaard’s Few and One-Sided References to a Like-Minded Thinker

257

the theme of sloth in a specifically monastic context. His spiritual turn was equally announced in his Secretum meum [My secret], an autobiographical treatise from 1342 consisting of three dialogues with st. augustine (354–430). there he explicitly repents of his worldly life, but in a typical humanistic spirit he is convinced that even though man is engrossed in worldly pleasures and sensual preoccupations, he still might find a way to the divine reality and serve God. So in spite of his brother, who solved his interior problems by entering a carthusian monastery in 1342, Petrarch chose to maintain a relation to the world. at the end of his life, he settled in italy again, moving between Milan, venice, Padua, and arquà where he died in 1374 while working in his study the night of July 18–19. what has been left unnoticed so far, but has had considerable importance for Petrarch’s life, his fame and also for Kierkegaard’s relation to him, is his lasting love and passion for a woman known as “Laura.” He first saw her at the St. Claire church in avignon on april 6, 1327 and fell in love immediately. there is little clear and definite information on Laura in Petrarch’s own writings, and it has been suggested in secondary literature during his life and later that she was an idealized or pseudonymous character, something Petrarch himself firmly denied. Other scholars found out throughout the centuries that she was probably born in 1311, in a little town near avignon. in any case, she is presented as an unattainable ideal, and, according to Petrarch’s claim in his Secretum, she was married to another man, the reason for the fact that they had little or no personal contact. From his unrelenting love for her sprang the work that no doubt earned Petrarch most of his celebrity in history, i.e., the Rime sparse [scattered rimes].3 But the theme for this Canzoniere [songbook],4 as this collection of 366 poems in the vulgar tongue was called by later renaissance poets, also goes beyond laura. all in all the poetical work gives insight on Petrarch’s spiritual development and gave rise to a new form and a new language for poetry all over europe: a new form in that it introduced the hitherto unknown sonnet form later taken over by countless poets, and a new language in that it focused on the passionate expression of love and grief in man. in his poetic achievements, too, Petrarch highlights man and man’s condition, launching the age of humanism and the many ways in which it has set man in the center of the universe. II. Kierkegaard’s Few References to Petrarch as stated at the outset, Kierkegaard’s references to or quotations of Petrarch are rather limited. and not only the number of mentions, but also the locations where the poet’s name slips out are restricted. especially Stages on Life’s Way is crucial for references to the italian poet and provides the main occasion to bring him up. it is thereby striking that Petrarch is mostly mentioned in relation to “unhappy love.” so english translation, Petrarch’s Lyric Poems: The Rime Sparse and Other Lyrics, trans. and ed. by robert M. durling, cambridge, Massachusetts: harvard university Press 1976. 4 english translation, Petrarch, Canzoniere. Selected Poems, trans. by anthony Mortimer, harmondsworth: Penguin 2002. 3

258

Karl Verstrynge

in Stages his name pops up in the last part of the book, i.e., taciturnus’ “guilty/not guilty” and his “letter to the reader,” both pieces bearing the theme in their very heart. quidam as well as taciturnus appear to be acquainted with Petrarch’s writings, or at least mention his name in relation to the psychological experiment that is at stake. Occasionally one also finds Petrarch’s name in the journals and papers, but all in all they do not give much more new information to reflect upon. let us have a look at Stages on Life’s Way first. In a nocturnal diary entry, dated May 8, quidam praises a certain stillness of the night that gives man’s thinking the prospect of “infinite content.”5 It is this “infinity of thinking and of the thoughts”6 that reminds him of a poem of Petrarch that he partially quotes: “the sea has not as many creatures in its waves, night has never seen as many stars in the vault of heaven, there are not as many birds in the forest or as many blades of grass in the field and the meadow as my heart has thoughts every evening!”7 Kierkegaard, alias Quidam, is here citing the first stanza of poem 237 of the Rime sparse.8 he owned a german translation of Petrarch’s collected poems, but translates the stanza into danish himself.9 with these lines, referring to Petrarch’s awareness and accentuation of the infinity of thinking, Quidam points—voluntarily or not—to one of the italian’s abiding achievements: putting man and his capacity to think at the very center of the universe. If one reads poem 237 in its entirety, one finds out that this autobiographical love poem gives vent to feelings that are in some respect appropriate to quidam’s emotional state. so the poet’s restless heart equally suffers from the impossibility of SKS 6, 310 / SLW, 333: “Yes, when stillness is an infinite nothing and for that very reason possibility’s capacious form for an infinite content—well, then I love it, for then it is the spirit’s element and more copious than successions to thrones and world events.” 6 ibid. 7 ibid. 8 the full stanza goes as follows: “Non à tanti animali il mar fra l’onde / né lassù sopra ’l cerchio de la luna / vide mai tante stelle alcuna notte / né tanti augelli albergan per li boschi / né tant’erbe ebbe mai il campo né piaggia / quant’à ’l io mio cor pensier’ciascuna sera.” [the sea has not so many creatures among its waves / nor up there beyond the circle of the moon / were so many stars ever seen by any night / nor do so many birds dwell in the woods / nor did any field ever have so much grass, or any meadow / as I have thoughts in my heart every evening.] Petrarch’s Lyric Poems, the Rime sparse and Other Lyrics, trans. and ed. by robert M. durling, cambridge, Massachusetts: harvard university Press 1976, p. 237; p. 394 (translation slightly modified). Cf. SLW, notes, p. 723. 9 Kierkegaard owned Petrarch’s Francesco Petrarca’s sämmtliche italienische Gedichte, new trans. by Friedrich wilhelm Brückbräu, vols. 1–5, Munich: Joseph lindauer’sche Buchhandlung 1827 (ASKB 1932–1933). Brückbräu translated this as follows: “Nicht hat so viele Thiere das Meer in seinen Fluthen, nie sah da oben über dem Kreise des Mondes jemals eine Nacht so viele Sterne, so viele Vögel wohnen nicht in den Wäldern, so viele Halme hatten Felder nie und Hügel, als mein Herz Gedanken jeden Abend.” (ibid., vol. 5, p. 40). at the time, the stanza was also translated by Peter Ludvig Møller, first entitled as “Prøver på en oversættelse af Petrarcas digte,” in Nordisk Ugeskrift, udgivet af Selskabet for en forbedret Retskrivnings Udbredelse 1837–1838 (copenhagen: i.g. salomon), no. 33 (august 15, 1837), see pp. 289–90; later edited, in Billeder og Sange (copenhagen: c.g. iversen 1847). From the text however, it is clear that Kierkegaard did not use the existing danish translation. 5

Petrarch: Kierkegaard’s Few and One-Sided References to a Like-Minded Thinker

259

the lovers’ union, complaining that “no one has ever suffered under the moon, such troubles as [i have],”10 thereby even expressing a subtle longing for death. But in spite of this obvious link, there are important differences between quidam’s and Petrarch’s love. the latter’s poem reveals that the author’s thoughts are merely inspired by a love that he is not able to attain. in quidam’s case the lovers’ happy union is hindered by a more complex impossibility. With him the infinite reflection of a higher passion is at stake since taciturnus used the erotic relationship in his experiment explicitly for “an orientation in the religious.”11 this religious perspective is certainly not present in Petrarch’s poem, even though the Rime in its totality clearly betrays religious motives, dissolving Petrarch’s worldly love in his final trust in a higher authority. in his explanatory notes for the reader, Frater taciturnus drops the name of Petrarch again, but now with a more explicit biographical undertone. in explaining the nature of “unhappy love,” he brings forward some impossible love affairs that became classic examples in world literature. he mentions abelard and héloise, romeo and Juliet, Axel and Valborg and among them the Italian poet is listed as a first illustration of an unhappy love affair: “Petrarch sees laura joined to another…[but] take the obstacle[s] away, and those unhappy people are the happiest of lovers.”12 of course, Petrarch’s unhappiness in love can be considered as ready knowledge at the time. But that Kierkegaard was informed about Petrarch’s biography is especially clear from remarks he makes in his journals and papers. in a preparatory text for Stages on Life’s Way he shows himself tuned in to Petrarch’s private life and personal thoughts: “it was sad for Petrarch that laura belonged to another, but he nevertheless dared to think of her. he had no other reproach than the fact that the pain became more bitter the more he dreamed, but no higher power forbade him that.”13 and in a later diary entry of 1850 he explicitly states having read about the poet’s life. He there cites a French line of which he admits not having read first hand, but only in quotation: “Les desires innocens, et les chastes attraits. Passant dans l’Elysée, et ne meurent jamais” [innocent desire and chaste allurement. Passing into elysium and never dying], i have read the passage quoted but not the source; it is quoted in Fernow, Petrarchs Leben.14

this book, published in 1818, deals largely with Petrarch and provides the reader with a detailed survey of the poet’s life and works.15 according to the The Auction Catalogue Petrarch’s Lyric Poems. SKS 6, 370 / SLW, 399. 12 SKS 6, 378 / SLW, 407. 13 Pap. v B 116:3 / JP 3, 3240. 14 SKS 24, 140, nB22:68 / JP 3, 3242. 15 the actual title of the book is Francesco Petrarch (c.l. Fernow, Francesco Petrarch, altenburg und leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1818). the passage Kierkegaard refers to is on p. 52, and is part of a large chapter “ueber die liebe Petrarch’s,” where the author comments on Petrarch’s passionate love for laura. he thereby especially praises laura’s courage and strength to remain faithful to her husband in spite of her indisputable attraction to the poet. Fernow makes mention of “einer reinen, von allem Irdischen gelauterten Liebe” (ibid.), and then quotes the passage Kierkegaard refers to (without making explicit its source). 10 11

260

Karl Verstrynge

Kierkegaard did not possess the book himself and hence must have read the manuscript elsewhere. But that he was informed about Petrarch’s biography is beyond dispute. in the same biography, he also found inspiration for another, now ironic and direct identification with the Italian poet. In a rather long entry from 1846, which he wanted “not to be printed but completed in optima forma as a study,”16 Kierkegaard writes: now it is true that once upon a time i thought i would be able to do a little bit for a single human being through my literary efforts. Illusion, vanity! The medium of being beneficial has been discovered; i carry it around with me all the time: it is my trousers. not even the biggest book has created such a big sensation. it almost makes one think that what the times demand is my trousers….Petrarch believed that his latin writings would make him immortal, and his erotic poetry did just that.17

Besides his reference to the Rime sparse in Stages, Kierkegaard also explicitly refers to another poem of Petrarch, i.e. his Trionfi [The Triumph of Love]. In this allegorical poem of six chapters, written in prose and of a moral nature, the human soul is described on its way from earthly love to its perfection and fulfilment in God: successively, love is conquered by chastity, chastity by death, death by fame, fame by time, and time finally by eternity. In a diary-reference of 1843, Kierkegaard only alludes to the very first chapter of the poem, divided in four canto’s and dealing with earthly love: in Petrarch’s poem The Triumph of Love there are many small incidents of which much could be made in an erotic sense, but it would be too bad to charge Petrarch with being a past master of eroticism. For him it is something historical, something external, which he notices, not the beating heart of the idea, and while observing it he does not have the concupiscence of the idea or the voluptuous exhilarated shiver of the moment of conception.18

In this reference, in fact one of the first in Kierkegaard’s works to mention Petrarch,19 Kierkegaard already related the italian poet to the theme of (erotic) love. of course at the time of this entry, at the time of the publication of Either/Or, he was preoccupied Pap. vii–1 B 55 / COR, 178–94. Ibid. With Fernow’s study in mind, one finds out that Kierkegaard bases his assertion on the first chapter of the book (pp. 1–13). The German biographer states on p. 5 that “[Petrarch] expected his true glory from his latin writings” and claims on p. 9 that it was especially his latin manuscript Africa “from which Petrarch expected his immortality.” Fernow elaborates on his comments and bases them on various excerpts from the poet’s writings. 18 SKS 18, 173, JJ:105. 19 This reference is situated in 1843, without specific date, and is the second passage to mention Petrarch’s name. The very first time Petrarch pops up in Kierkegaard’s writings goes back to 1836. in a journal entry of april 22 (SKS 17, 62–75, BB:2), he summarizes and partly translates Friedrich christian diez’s (1794–1876) book Die Poesie der Troubadours (zwickau: schumann 1826). on p. 89 diez mentions Petrarch’s Canzoniere as an example of poetry where the form of stanzas is strictly required in contrast to other forms of “Kunstpoesie.” Kierkegaard summarizes and translates this hegelian inspired author without further commenting upon the text (cf. SKS 17, 67, BB:2). as such, this fragment does not really give us new content for Kierkegaard’s relation to the italian poet, except that he must have been informed about Petrarch and his famous collection of poems early on in his authorship, and that he was mainly interested in the italian for aesthetic reasons. 16 17

Petrarch: Kierkegaard’s Few and One-Sided References to a Like-Minded Thinker

261

with sensual, erotic, or aesthetic love and its relation to a higher, ethical view of life. But it seems like this first reference also set the tone for the later entries on the Italian poet sketched above. in line with the passages in Stages on Life’s Way, one reads in Kierkegaard’s little comment upon The Triumph of Love that there is quite some food for thought in Petrarch, but that he was not dialectical enough to deal with it in an interesting and ingenious way. it was also taciturnus’ conviction that even though Petrarch experienced and aired the tribulations of his personal love life, he somehow lacked the capacity to transcend the particularity of his situation and grasp the very idea of it. albeit not directly addressed to Petrarch, taciturnus discusses the nature of the passion of poetry as an immediate passion. as such, a poetic passion only deals with a contradiction that comes from the outside, and hence “in poetry…love does not relate to itself but it relates to the world.”20 we have already mentioned that within the theme of unhappy love, Petrarch is situated on the side of the poet and the aesthetic hero, whose obstacles and oppositions have an exogenous character. Poets cannot think a duplexity since they lack a higher passion. if taciturnus’ imaginary psychological construction was precisely meant to deal with a situation in which “the difficulties do not arise because love collides with the world but because love must reflect itself in the individuality,”21 then Petrarch’s writings are indeed of a different, i.e., lower level. in Kierkegaard’s eyes the poems contain only “relative reflection”22 since in them passion’s opposition is situated outside itself. III. Conclusion: Approval and Disapproval, but a One-sided Conception above All Judging from the few references Kierkegaard makes to Petrarch, two main estimations come to the fore. on the one hand, Kierkegaard clearly shows approval for the italian poet, when it comes to style and his way of formulating things,23 and no doubt he also felt empathy for the events in his personal life. as mentioned before, it is quite certain that he read a biography of Petrarch, and from his own amorous vicissitudes Kierkegaard must have detected similar emotions and viewpoints. on the other hand, he also distances himself from the italian since he was of the opinion that the latter stuck to a mere poetic level of experience and representation. Kierkegaard makes it clear by way of Frater taciturnus that Petrarch missed out on ideality and lacks dialectical skills when dealing with the theme of erotic love. having read and interpreted Kierkegaard’s references to Petrarch, one has the impression that Kierkegaard had a rather one-sided image of the italian thinker. the majority of mentions concerns biographical elements, and one wonders whether SKS 6, 377 / SLW, 406. SKS 6, 383 / SLW, 413. 22 SKS 6, 382 / SLW, 412. 23 one reference not mentioned so far is a brief sentence in his notebooks from 1850: “Petrarch says it beautifully: anger is a brief rage, and if one does not constrain it—a long rage, which ends in disaster” (SKS 23, 54, nB15:79). the sentence is derived from the second terza rima of sonnet 232, entitled “vincitore alexandro l’ira vines” [anger conquered alexander the conqueror], also from the Rime sparse, which Kierkegaard owned in Bruckbräu’s translation (cf. Francesco Petrarca’s Sämmtliche italienische Gedichte, vol. 4, p. 21). 20 21

262

Karl Verstrynge

Kierkegaard really knew other (more important) works of Petrarch’s than the ones he owned or refered to. so one could ask how the dane would have related to such works as Secretum meum, The Life of Solitude, On Religious Leisure and the famous letter on the climbing of Mont ventoux, when their content was brought to his attention. in those works he no doubt would have been introduced to a writer with a much broader horizon than the one he is referring to, and one who has many more affinities with his own thinking than he would have expected at first sight. let me, by way of conclusion, give one example of the underlying kinship between both thinkers. in the works mentioned (especially his letter on the climbing of the ventoux and his Secretum) Petrarch alludes, explicitly or implicitly and often in opposition to his brother gherardo, to his decision not to look for a solution to his religious questions and inclinations within the enclosing walls of a monastery.24 although he was fascinated by ascesis and contemplation, there remained in him a lasting attachment to the world, for a universal humanistic mind cannot be reconciled with the isolating attitude of an unworldly monk. it is known that Kierkegaard equally rejected monastery life as the expression of a genuine religious attitude to life. in no uncertain terms climacus rejects the medieval monastic movement, judging it to be an “enormous abstraction.”25 since the religious-existential task is to relate “absolutely to his absolute telos and relatively to the relative,”26 man must not become indifferent to the finite. The latter is what actually happened with the monastic movement and is the very reason why climacus speaks of “the exaggeration of the Middle ages.”27 It is known that also other pseudonymous works circle around the idea that to fulfil one’s existential task means to balance between one’s (religious) ideality and the real situation of one’s givenness.28 hence, both Kierkegaard and Petrarch seem to be in agreement when it comes to their basic views on the relation between the absolute and the relative. But it remains equally clear that Kierkegaard did not have knowledge of those writings of Petrarch that concurred most with his own thoughts. we can only speculate how differently he would have judged the italian writer if he did.

It has been argued that Petrarch’s letter on the climbing of Mont Ventoux reflects the process of his religious awakening. So the climbing itself represents the gradual and difficult renunciation of the world, followed by a period of contemplation at the top and the inevitable and necessary descent after which he clearly saw the relativity of all earthly occupations. see chris tazelaar’s essay accompanying the dutch translation of the letter: De top van de Ventoux; Het geheim; Godgewijde ledigheid, Baarn: ambo 1990, pp. 19–27. 25 SKS 7, 365 / CUP, 401. 26 SKS 7, 371 / CUP, 407. 27 SKS 7, 376 / CUP, 413. 28 see, for example, The Concept of Anxiety and The Sickness unto Death, in which Kierkegaard’s basic anthropological scheme lies developed, clearly pointing in this direction. 24

Bibliography I. Petrarch’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Francesco Petrarca’s sämmtliche italienische Gedichte, new trans. by Friedrich wilhelm Brückbräu, vols. 1–5, Munich: Joseph lindauer’sche Buchhandlung 1827 (ASKB 1932–1933). II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Petrarch [Becker, Karl Friedrich], Karl Friedrich Beckers Verdenshistorie, omarbeidet af Johan Gottfried Woltmann, vols. 1–12, trans. by J. riise, copenhagen: Fr. Brummers Forlag 1822–9, vol. 5, p. 398; p. 429; p. 437; p. 447; vol. 10, p. 526 (ASKB 1972–1983). Buhle, Johann gottlieb, Geschichte der neuern Philosophie seit der Epoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, vols. 1–6 (in 10 parts), vols. 1–2, göttingen: Johann georg rosenbusch’s wittwe 1800; vols. 3–6, göttingen: Johann Friedrich röwer 1802–5 (abtheilung 6 in Geschichte der Künste und Wissenschaften seit der Wiederherstellung derselben bis an das Ende des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. Von einer Gesellschaft gelehrter Männer ausgearbeitet, abtheilungen 1–11, göttingen: röwer and göttingen: rosenbusch 1796–1820), vol. 2, pp. 35ff. (ASKB 440–445). döring, heinrich, Joh. Gottfr. von Herder’s Leben, 2nd enlarged and revised ed., weimar: wilhelm hoffmann 1829, p. 126 (ASKB a i 134). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 607 (ASKB 158–159). hansen, M. Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, p. 150 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 369 (ASKB 160–166). [hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich], Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik, vols. 1–3, ed. by von heinrich gustav hotho, Berlin: verlag von duncker und humblot 1835–8 (vols. 10.1–10.3 in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe, vols. 1–18, ed. by Philipp Marheineke et al., Berlin: verlag von duncker und humblot 1832–45), vol. 1, p. 355; vol. 2, p. 181; p. 214; p. 239; vol. 3, p. 107 (ASKB 1384–1386). [herder, Johann gottfried von], Johann Gottfried von Herder’s sämmtliche Werke. Zur Philosophie und Geschichte, vols. 1–22, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’sche Buchhandlung 1827–30, vol. 13, pp. 211–37 (ASKB 1695–1705; see also ASKB a i 114–124).

264

Karl Verstrynge

Meiners, christoph, Historische Vergleichung der Sitten und Verfassungen, der Gesetze und Gewerbe, des Handels und der Religion, der Wissenschaften und Lehranstalten des Mittelalters, vols. 1–3, hannover: im verlage der helwingischen hofbuchhandlung 1793–4, vol. 2, pp. 646–7; p. 688; p. 727; p. 754; vol. 3, p. 89; pp. 95–6; pp. 100–110 passim; pp. 118–20; p. 123; pp. 126–31; pp. 134–50; p. 153; p. 164; p. 250; p. 252; p. 504 (ASKB 672–674). —— Lebensbeschreibungen berühmter Männer aus den Zeiten der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, vols. 1–3, zürich: orell, getzner, Füßli und compagnie 1795–7, vol. 1, pp. 5–43 (ASKB 1951–1951b). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 186 (ASKB 168). [richter, Johann Paul Friedrich], Jean Paul, Vorschule der Aesthetik nebst einigen Vorlesungen in Leipzig über die Parteien der Zeit, vols. 1–3, 2nd revised ed., stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’sche Buchhandlung 1813, p. 140 (ASKB 1381–1383). schlegel, Friedrich, Sämmtliche Werke, vols. 1–10, vienna: Jakob Mayer and company 1822–5, vol. 2, 1822, pp. 7–37 (ASKB 1816–1825). schopenhauer, arthur, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, vols. 1–2, 2nd revised and enlarged ed., leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1844 [1819], vol. 2, p. 554; p. 560 (ASKB 773–773a). —— Parerga und Paralipomena: kleine philosophische Schriften, vols. 1–2, Berlin: druck und verlag von a.w. hayn 1851, vol. 1, p. 405; vol. 2, pp. 369–70; p. 398; p. 515 (ASKB 774–775). [solger, Karl wilhelm Ferdinand], K.W.F. Solger’s Vorlesungen über Aesthetik, ed. by K.w.l. heyse, leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1829, p. 229 (ASKB 1387). sulzer, Johann georg, Allgemeine Theorie der Schönen Künste, in einzeln, nach alphabetischer Ordnung der Kunstwörter auf einander folgenden, Artikeln abgehandelt, vols. 1–4 and a register volume, 2nd revised ed., leipzig: in der weidmannschen Buchhandlung 1792–9, vol. 1, pp. 83–4; p. 530; vol. 2, p. 527; p. 592; vol. 3, p. 262; vol. 4, p. 428 (ASKB 1365–1369). thiersch, Friedrich, Allgemeine Aesthetik in akademischen Lehrvorträgen, Berlin: g. reimer 1846, p. 183 (ASKB 1378). zimmermann, Johann georg, Ueber die Einsamkeit, vols. 1–4, leipzig: bey weidmanns erben und reich 1784–5, vol. 2, pp. 269ff. (ASKB 917–920). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Petrarch none.

tauler: a teacher in spiritual dietethics: Kierkegaard’s reception of Johannes tauler Peter šajda

Johannes tauler’s works have been a source of inspiration for both catholic and Protestant theologians, edifying authors and church historians throughout centuries, and have ensured him a lasting popularity. thanks to the interest of romanticism and german idealism in medieval mysticism, the nineteenth century was in this respect no exception. Kierkegaard’s interest in the historical sources of living christianity led him to study tauler as well, most of whose works were at his disposal in his personal library. tauler is in Kierkegaard’s case part of a broader spiritual tradition of medieval mysticism, but it is certainly of interest to see from a closer perspective where he fits in the line of edifying authors studied by the Danish philosopher.1 I. Tauler’s Life and Literary Legacy Johannes tauler was born around 1300 in strassburg to a family of means; he grew up in the dynamic spiritual environment of a medieval municipality full of monasteries, nunneries, and lay communities. around the age of 14 he joined the dominican order, which had a strong position in his hometown and had been expanding rapidly across europe. tauler was most probably educated at the dominican priory of strassburg and, unlike Eckhart, never had a first-hand experience of university life in Paris. strassburg was, however, an important intellectual center of the dominican province of teutonia—further evidence of which is the fact that the strassburg priory was the domicile of such thinkers as Johannes of sterngassen and Meister eckhart. as Kurt ruh pointed out in his study on medieval mysticism in the dominican order, “the most important factor in tauler’s education is his relationship to Meister eckhart.”2 the professor of the university of Paris, whose stay in strassburg was probably Kierkegaard used the term “dietethics of the spirit” (Aands-Diætetik) in 1851 when characterizing the essence of asceticism. cf. SKS 24, 278, nB23:146 / JP 1, 175 (translated here as “a dialectic of the spirit”). the role of tauler in shaping Kierkegaard’s view of medieval asceticism is one of the points to be examined in this article. 2 Kurt ruh, “die Mystik des deutschen Predigerordens und ihre grundlegung durch die hochscholastik,” in Geschichte der abendländischen Mystik, Munich: verlag c.h. Beck 1996, vol. 3, p. 479. 1

266

Peter Šajda

linked to his office as the vicar of the Master of the Dominican order, was undoubtedly a decisive influence on the young Dominican. Tauler’s respect for Eckhart was not diminished by the negative outcome of the trial against his teacher, and in his sermon Clarifica me, pater, apud temetipsum he complained to his audience that they were unable to understand eckhart because he spoke from eternity, but they received him in temporality.3 As a result of political conflicts, the Dominican priory of Strassburg was in 1339 exiled to Basel as it observed the papal disciplinary sanctions against the town.4 tauler’s stay in Basel furthered his friendship with heinrich of nördlingen, who was an ardent student of the mysticism practiced in german nunneries and whose letters are one of the few sources of biographical data on tauler. in the early 1340s the friars returned to strassburg, which experienced in the ensuing years a series of natural disasters and public unrest. The bitterness of those turbulent times is reflected in tauler’s sermons as well. as a result of his pastoral duties tauler travelled extensively, and around 1350 he possibly paid a visit to the dutch mystic ruysbroeck in groenendal. there are no certain biographical data providing evidence for the last years of tauler’s life. according to the inscription on his tombstone, tauler died on June 16, 1361, and soon became the object of legends originating from the fraternity around rulman Merswin, who had chosen tauler as a spiritual advisor after his conversion. tauler’s sermons were preserved in collections that were as a rule subject to authorization by the preacher himself and were intended to mediate in written form the authentic experience of a sermon. Formally they were composed as expositions of the Biblical texts used in liturgy. From among the many works attributed to tauler throughout the centuries, what remains today as his authentic oeuvre are approximately eighty german sermons.5 II. The Issue of Tauleriana, Pseudo-Tauleriana, and theologia deutsch neither Kierkegaard himself nor his sources differentiated between tauler’s original works and Pseudo-tauleriana. the number of tauler’s sermons was eventually doubled through a number of additions, as already in 1521 the influential Basel Tauler Print added 40 new sermons and tractates to the 84 sermons of the leipzig tauler Print from 1498.6 It is also noteworthy that even the first prints contained sermons Johannes tauler, Predigten, ed. by georg hofmann, einsiedeln: Johannes verlag 1987, vol. 2, p. 103. 4 the town of strassburg was under papal interdict in the years 1329–53. the attitudes of the strassburg clergy towards the interdict varied, and, although the dominicans remained loyal to the Pope, Tauler became a central figure in a historical legend of fervent defense of the people against merciless ecclesial authority. 5 For an english edition of tauler’s sermons, see Johannes Tauler, Sermons, ed. by Maria shrady, new York: Paulist Press 1985. 6 For more detail on the editions of tauler’s sermons see georg hofmann, “literaturgeschichtliche grundlagen zur tauler-Forschung,” in Johannes Tauler, ein deutscher Mystiker: Gedenkschrift zum 600. Geburtstag, ed. by ephrem Filthaut, essen: hans driewer verlag 1961, pp. 474–9. 3

Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics

267

that were later qualified as stemming from Meister Eckhart.7 they also contained the apocryphal Historia―the story of Tauler’s conversion―that became the standard for tauler’s biographical data. From the Basel edition onward, the Historia was normally included at the beginning of sermon collections to introduce tauler to the reader. this was the case also with Kierkegaard’s tauler edition, published in 1841.8 Another influential apocryph that was in the nineteenth century still considered a vital compendium of tauler’s doctrine is the anonymous tractate on detachment, The Imitation of the Poor Life of Jesus (abbreviated hereafter as The Imitation),9 which appeared in latin in the 1548 surius edition of tauler’s works and received its title from daniel sudermann in 1621. Kierkegaard owned an 1821 new high german translation of this medieval tractate;10 he also became familiar with it through a number of references and quotations in the books dealing with medieval mysticism that he read. Both of the aforementioned works were proved to be apocryphal by the Dominican historian Heinrich Seuse Denifle in 187711 and 1879,12 whereby in the latter study he also gave proof for the historical inauthenticity of daniel specklin’s report of tauler’s protest against the papal interdict on strassburg.13 Kierkegaard was familiar with specklin’s account of tauler’s opposition to the Pope, since it was popular with Protestant authors of his time and appeared repeatedly in the works he read. Kierkegaard’s copy of The Imitation included also Pseudo-taulerian songs and a reference to Pseudo-taulerian epistles.14 Most of Kierkegaard’s sources did not attribute the mystagogic tractate Theologia Deutsch to tauler,15 but they naturally linked the anonymous work to tauler’s spiritual tradition and treated it together with the works of the mystic. this connection, which cf. louise gnädinger, Johannes Tauler. Lebenswelt und mystische Lehre, Munich: c.h. Beck 1993, pp. 413–17. 8 “lebenshistorie des berühmten, ehrwürdigen und hocherleuchteten doctors Johann tauler, worin gar viele gute lehren und Predigten enthalten sind,” in Johann Tauler’s Predigten auf alle Sonn- und Festtage im Jahr. Zur Beförderung eines christlichen Sinnes und gottseligen Wandels, vols. 1–3, new ed. by ed. Kuntze and J.h.r. viesenthal, Berlin: august hirschwald 1841–2, vol. 1, pp. Xiiiff. (ASKB 245–246; cf. ASKB 247.) 9 this book is currently normally referred to as Das Buch von geistiger Armut, whereby the present name is based on Denifle’s critical study of 1877. For more detail see Niklaus Largier, Das Buch von der geistigen Armut, zurich and Munich: artemis 1989, pp. 237–60; Kurt ruh, “die Mystik des deutschen Predigerordens und ihre grundlegung durch die hochscholastik,” vol. 3, pp. 517–25; louise gnädinger, Johannes Tauler. Lebenswelt und mystische Lehre, pp. 421–6. 10 Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, new ed. by nikolaus casseder, Frankfurt am Main: verlag der hermannschen Buchhandlung 1821 (ASKB 282). 11 Heinrich Seuse Denifle, Das Buch von geistlicher Armuth, bisher bekannt als Johann Taulers Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Jesu, Munich: literarisches institut von dr. Max huttler 1877. 12 Heinreich Seuse Denifle, Taulers Bekehrung kritisch untersucht, strassburg: Karl J. trübner 1879. this book is in german currently referred to as Das Meisterbuch. 13 Cf. Denifle, Taulers Bekehrung kritisch untersucht, pp. 54–5. 14 cf. Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, p. v; pp. 245–5. 15 textual analysis and historical review of the early editions of Theologia Deutsch can be found in alois M. haas, “die ‘theologia deutsch,’ ” in Das “Einig Ein,” ed. by alois 7

268

Peter Šajda

in Protestantism originates from luther himself, was emphasized also by the editorial activity of some prominent figures of German Pietism, who jointly published and commented on both tauler’s sermons and Theologia Deutsch.16 since all the works mentioned were considered a compact spiritual unit by the sources that were at Kierkegaard’s disposal, they will be analyzed jointly, in order to observe the spirit of their reception by Kierkegaard.17 III. The Reception of Tauler in Luther, Pietism and Protestant Church History the popularity of the dominican preacher Johannes tauler in Protestantism dates back to Martin luther, whose laudatory statements about tauler and Theologia Deutsch were included in basically all the Protestant works that treated tauler at some length. already the norwegian theologian stener stenersen (1789–1835), whose account of the reformation Kierkegaard excerpted in the early 1830s,18 paraphrased luther’s preface to Theologia Deutsch as evidence of the fact that the theology luther taught at wittenberg was no historical novelty.19 the most quoted appreciative statements of luther about tauler and Theologia Deutsch that were certainly known to Kierkegaard were collected by Johann arndt (1555–1621) in his preface to the 1621 edition of tauler’s sermons and later copied by heinrich varenius (d. 1635), Philipp Jakob spener (1635–1705)20 along with the prefaces to tauler’s sermons published by Protestant editors. Kierkegaard’s edition of tauler’s sermons is also part of this tradition; it quotes luther’s epistles Xvii and XXiii to spalatin, as well as his Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute.21 similarly Kierkegaard’s edition of Theologia Deutsch contains luther’s M. haas and heinrich stirnimann, Freiburg: universitätsverlag 1980, pp. 369–415; wolfgang von hinten, ‘Der Franckforter’(Theologia Deutsch), Munich: artemis verlag 1982. 16 Postella Johannis Tauleri with Johann arndt’s preface published in 1621 also contained the tractate Theologia Deutsch. Philipp Jacob spener followed arndt’s example in 1681. 17 The fact that Kierkegaard was influenced primarily by Pseudo-Tauleriana was suggested briefly already by Marie Mikulová Thulstrup. Cf. Marie Mikulová Thulstrup, “studies of Pietists, Mystics, and church Fathers,” in Kierkegaard’s View of Christianity, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1978 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 1), p. 67. 18 cf. Pap. i c 3, in Pap. Xii, pp. 21–2. 19 stener J. stenersen, Udsigt over den Lutherske Reformation, med en Indledning om Kirkens Tilstand før samme, christiania: chr. grøndahl 1818, vol. 1, p. 206: “Af samme Classe er ogsaa den saakaldte tydske Theologie, hvis Forfatter er ikke ganske vis, men som maa være skreven efter Taulers Tid, da Forfatteren beraaber sig paa ham, og om hvilken Luther dømte saa fordeelagtig, at han 1516 udgav den som et Beviis paa, at den Theologie, som de lærte i Wittemberg, ikke var, som nogle havde sagt, aldeles ny.” 20 cf. Johannes wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, tübingen: J.c.B. Mohr (Paul siebeck) 1986, pp. 257–8. 21 cf. Johann Tauler’s Predigten auf alle Sonn- und Festtage im Jahr, pp. v–vi: “So du Lust hast die alte reine Theologie in deutscher Sprache zu lesen, so kannst du dir die Predigten Johannis Tauleri, des Prediger Mönchs schaffen. Denn ich weder in lateinischer noch deutscher Sprache die Theologie reiner und heilsamer gefunden, und die also mit dem

Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics

269

preface to the 1518 edition, where he ranks the importance of Theologia Deutsch for his spiritual development next to the Bible and st. augustine.22 the testimony of young luther was important to all the Protestant spiritual writers, who needed to legitimize their inspiration from pre-reformation mysticism against lutheran or reformed orthodoxy. in Kierkegaard’s case this concerned principally Pietist authors, some of whom he knew already in his youth.23 Kierkegaard was well acquainted with the prominent figure of German edifying literature, Johann Arndt, who is considered the father or forefather of Pietism. Kierkegaard owned two or possibly even three editions of arndt’s main work True Christianity24 and mentioned him repeatedly both in his published oeuvre and in his journals. the controversial lüneburg superintendent was, according to hilding Pleijel, “not the beginning… but the climax of the syncretism of medieval and lutheran piety”25; wilhelm Koepp even maintains that arndt was “the greatest of those striving for a reverse inner anti-reformation in lutheranism.”26 Christian Braw identified five main sources of arndt’s own testimony on his relationship to mysticism, whereby all of these pertain also to tauler and Theologia Deutsch.27 For Kierkegaard the main sources of arndt’s Evangelio übereinstimmt.” (epistle XXiii); “Ich bitte dich noch ein Mal, glaub mir doch in dem Fall und folge mir, und kauf dir das Buch Tauleri, dazu ich dich auch zuvor vermahnt habe ...Denn das ist ein Buch, darinnen du finden wirst solche Kunst der reinen heilsamen Lehre, dagegen jetzt alle Kunst eisern und irdisch ist, es sey gleich in griechischer, oder lateinischer, oder hebräischer Sprache.” (epistle Xvii); “Was den Lehrer Taulerum anbelangt, ob er gleich den Theologis in Schulen unbekannt und deshalb bei ihnen verachtet ist: so weiß ich doch, daß ich mehr der reinen göttlichen Lehr darinnen gefunden, denn in allen Büchern der Scholastiker auf allen Universitäten ich gefunden habe, oder darin gefunden werden mag.” (resolutiones) 22 Die Deutsche Theologie, eine sehr alte, für jeden Christen äußerst wichtige Schrift, mit einer Vorrede von Dr. Martin Luther und dem gewesenen Generalsuperintendenten Johan Arnd, new ed. by Friedrich conrad Krüger, lemgo: Meyersche hof-Buchhandlung 1822, p. 4 (ASKB 634): “Und daß ich mich nach meinem alten Narren rühme, ist mir nechst der Biblia und S. Augustin nicht vorkommen ein Buch, daraus ich mehr erlernet haben will, was Gott, Christus, Mensch und alle Dinge seyn.” 23 cf. Mikulová thulstrup, “Pietism,” in Kierkegaard and Great Traditions, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 6), p. 178; Mikulová thulstrup, Kierkegaard og Pietismen, copenhagen: Munksgaard 1967, p. 11. 24 cf. ASKB 276–277. 25 hilding Pleijel, “die Bedeutung Johann arndts für das schwedische Frömmigkeits leben,” in Der Pietismus in Gestalten und Wirkungen, ed. by heinrich Bornkamm, Friedrich heyer, alfred schindler, Bielefeld: luther-verlag 1975, p. 387. arndt diligently quoted older abridged Protestant editions of tauler, e.g. neander’s Theologia Bernhardi et Tauleri, published in 1584, or glaser’s Tauleri geistreiche Lehre von den fürnehmsten Hauptstücken der heiligen Schrift, published in 1583. 26 wilhelm Koepp, Johann Arndt, Eine Untersuchung über die Mystik im Luthertum, Berlin: trowitsch & sohn 1912, p. 285. 27 these are arndt’s prefaces to Theologia Deutsch from 1597 and 1605, his preface to the tauler edition of 1621, his letter to herzog august of Braunschweig of april 1621 and the quotations of mystics in True Christianity. cf. christian Braw, Bücher im Staube, leiden: e.J. Brill 1986, p. 43.

270

Peter Šajda

reception of tauler and Theologia Deutsch were arndt’s preface to Theologia Deutsch in the Krüger edition, two treatises on Theologia Deutsch in Book vi of True Christianity,28 and the tauler-based Book iii of True Christianity. arndt’s preface to Kierkegaard’s edition of Theologia Deutsch highlights the definite connection between self-denial and active faith and explains to the reader that “many such little old books that give instruction on holy life lie hidden in dust, like Joseph in prison, because surely in bygone ages there were people too who felt hunger and thirst after christ.”29 Most importantly, however, arndt presents his True Christianity and Paradise Garden as a continuation of the expositions introduced in Theologia Deutsch.30 Already in the first chapter of Book III of True Christianity, arndt announces that in the following chapters he will introduce the theology of tauler, “whose words in this book i have preserved as much as the context and our current german language permitted,” and reminds the reader that “the whole theology or doctrine of tauler pertains to the inner human and to the inner ground of the heart or the soul.”31 as a rule the numerous quotations from tauler in the ensuing chapters appear in the form of citacio tacita, either as short direct quotations or as sermon summaries,32 whereby the final chapter contains two longer parables directly taken over from tauler.33 one of these parables Kierkegaard excerpted in the second discourse of his Four Upbuilding Discourses in 1844 and attributed it to “an old, time-honored, and trustworthy devotional book.”34 as evidence of the central position of Book iii in True Christianity, Koepp quotes arndt’s Epistola dedicatoria to Johann gerhard from 1608.35 when, two years after arndt’s death, lukas osiander (1534–1604) published his Theological Reflection, in which he ironically presented arndt’s True Christianity

the second treatise on Theologia Deutsch in the third part of Book vi on True Christianity is identical with the preface in the Krüger edition that Kierkegaard owned. 29 Die deutsche Theologie, p. 13. 30 ibid., p. 15. 31 Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, ed. by Johann Friedrich von Meyer, Frankfurt am Main: verlag von heinrich ludwig Brönner 1844, p. 322. tauler’s name appears also in chapter Xv of Book iii, as well as in other books of True Christianity. 32 cf. Koepp, Johann Arndt, Eine Untersuchung über die Mystik im Luthertum, p. 54. Koepp’s list of arndt’s quotations from tauler, Pseudo-tauler and eckhart is found in ibid., pp. 54–5. 33 chapter XXiii of arndt’s True Christianity contains a long quotation composed of the “deer parable” and the “wine parable” copied from tauler’s sermon Si quis sitit, veniat et bibat (v 11). cf. tauler, Predigten, 78–9. 34 SKS 5, 332 / EUD, 344. see also Pap. v B 212, 5. Pap. v B 214, 2. 35 Koepp, Johann Arndt, Eine Untersuchung über die Mystik im Luthertum, p. 63: “Deutlich erscheint die Inwendigkeit der Mystik des dritten Buches als der eigentliche Höheund Zielpunkt.” 28

Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics

271

as “true taulerdom,”36 a wide public discussion was triggered that eventually linked arndt to tauler even more closely.37 Kierkegaard was informed about the life and theological program of the central figure of Pietism, Philipp Jakob Spener, through a number of sources,38 most extensively, however, through spener’s biography by wilhelm hossbach.39 spener’s knowledge of tauler was direct, but not particularly analytical. although he continued the tradition initiated by arndt and published both tauler’s works and Theologia Deutsch in a voluminous edition of 1681,40 he was primarily affected by the religious experiences of his acquaintances who drew practical spiritual inspiration from tauler. important for spener’s perception of tauler as a recommendable spiritual authority was undoubtedly the conversion of Johann Jakob schütz on the basis of tauler.41 hossbach’s biography presents spener’s reception of tauler as a direct continuation of the line of praxis-oriented spirituality inaugurated by luther and expanded by arndt, both of whom saw in tauler and Theologia Deutsch relevant sources of living christianity.42 when outlining spener’s reform program of christian life, hossbach notes his idea of the return of theology to “apostolic simplicity,” as it can be found in tauler and Theologia Deutsch.43 he points out, however, that spener’s cordial recommendation of tauler, Theologia Deutsch, and arndt provoked negative sentiments on the part of lutheran orthodoxy.44 spener’s testimony on the importance of tauler and Theologia Deutsch for luther, as formulated in his Pia desideria, is also quoted in carl ullmann’s (1796–1865)45 cf. Johannes wallmann, “der Pietismus,” in Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte, göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht 1990, vol. 4, pp. 123–4. 37 osiander’s critique of arndt provoked the defense of arndt’s orthodoxy by heinrich varenius, whom spener excerpted in his commented edition of arndt in 1674. 38 Mikulová thulstrup, “Pietism,” pp. 188–92. 39 cf. SKS 24, 140, nB22:67 / JP 3, 3320. wilhelm hossbach, Philipp Jakob Spener und seine Zeit, Berlin: Ferd. dümmlers verlagsbuchhandlung 1828. Kierkegaard owned Philipp Jakob Spener’s deutsche und lateinische theologische Bedenken. In einer zeitgemäßen Auswahl, ed. by F.a.e. hennicke, halle: gebauersche Buchhandlung 1838 (ASKB 268). 40 Both the edition of tauler’s sermons and the edition of Theologia Deutsch that Kierkegaard owned have the spenerian tauler edition as their basis. cf. hofmann, Literaturgeschichtliche Grundlagen zur Tauler-Forschung, pp. 474–6; Die deutsche Theologie, p. 17. Krüger, whose edition of Theologia Deutsch Kierkegaard owned, found the work in the fourth reprint of spener’s tauler edition (1720). 41 schütz, who was originally in doubt about the view of lutheran orthodoxy on tauler, consulted spener, who quoted to him luther’s witness and lent him varenius’ defense of arndt. schütz experienced through tauler a religious awakening, which to a considerable extent helped to inspire spener’s idea of a major edition of tauler (1681), as well as the recommendation of tauler in his Pia desideria. cf. wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, pp. 301–5. 42 cf. wilhelm hossbach, Philipp Jakob Spener und seine Zeit, Berlin: Ferd. dümmlers verlagsbuchhandlung 1853 [1828], vol. 1, p. Xlii; pp. 44–5; pp. 223–5. 43 ibid., pp. 99–100. 44 ibid., p. 120. 45 carl ullmann, Reformatoren vor der Reformation, vornehmlich in Deutschland und den Niederlanden, hamburg: verlag von Friedrich Perthes 1842, vol. 2, p. 233. 36

272

Peter Šajda

and Moritz carriere’s (1817–95) 46 works on the reformation, which Kierkegaard commented on in his journals. the foreword to Kierkegaard’s tauler edition states simply, “how dear the sermons of tauler were to Philipp Jacob spener one can see from the prefaces to the different editions of tauler’s works published by him.”47 according to erich seeberg, gottfried arnold (1666–1714), through his characterization of young luther as a disciple of tauler and Theologia Deutsch, fortified the already existing perception of the mystics of the late Middle Ages as the “praecessores of luther.”48 Kierkegaard owned arnold’s peculiar account of church history49 that viewed tauler through this prism and emphasized the fact that the mystic found recognition in the reformer Martin luther50 rather than in the catholic apologist Johann eck (1486–1543). the Pietist church historian sees in eckhart and dietrich of Freiberg the teachers of tauler and takes a partial stance by calling tauler “a wonderful preacher.”51 however, arnold’s detailed account of the Protestant reception of tauler in his Mystical Theology was most probably not known to Kierkegaard.52 also other Pietist authors, whose works Kierkegaard owned and read, contain references and quotations from tauler. Kierkegaard owned both the latin and the danish edition of Johann gerhard’s (1582–1637) early work Meditationes sacrae, originally published in 1606–7,53 which he commented on in his journal in 1847. The closest friend and disciple of Johann Arndt, he wrote his fifty-one meditations drawing on the sources recommended by his teacher: augustine, Bernard, anselm, and tauler, whom he mentions in his preface.54 Both implicit and explicit references

Moriz carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit in ihren Beziehungen zur Gegenwart, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’scher verlag 1847, p. 211 (ASKB 458). 47 Johann Tauler’s Predigten auf alle Sonn- und Festtage im Jahr, p. vii. 48 erich seeberg, Gottfried Arnold, Die Wissenschaft und die Mystik seiner Zeit, darmstadt: wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1964, p. 107. 49 [gottfried arnold], Gottfried Arnolds Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, Vom Anfang des Neuen Testaments Biß auf das Jahr Christi 1688, Parts 1–4 in vols. 1–2, Frankfurt am Main: thomas Fritsch 1699–1700 (ASKB 154–155). 50 according to arnold, luther “states that from no-one else he has learnt more.” ibid., vol. 1, p. 394. 51 ibid., vol. 1, p. 391; p. 394. 52 gottfried arnold, Historie und Beschreibung der mystischen Theologie, Frankfurt am Main: thomas Fritschen 1703, pp. 404–12. 53 cf. Dr. Johann Gerhards Opbyggelige Betragtninger, trans. by J.M.h.F. stilling, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1848 (ASKB 275) and Joannis gerhardi [Johan gerhard], Meditationes sacrae ad veram pietatem ex citandam et interioris hominis profectum promovendum accommodatae, ed. by s. guenther, londini [london]: a. asher et comp. 1842 (ASKB 518). 54 Johann gerhard, Meditationes sacrae, ed. by Johann anselm steiger, stuttgart-Bad canstatt: Friedrich Frommann verlag 2000 [reprint of 1606], vol. 1, pp. 22–3. 46

Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics

273

to tauler appear also in Kierkegaard’s beloved gerhard tersteegen (1697–1769)55 and in christian scriver (1629–93),56 whom he read in the early 1850s. Kierkegaard’s excerpt from stenersen’s historical Outline of the Lutheran Reformation explicitly mentions tauler, as well as other medieval mystics.57 stenersen’s knowledge of tauler and medieval mysticism is clearly indirect and largely derived from schröckh’s History of the Christian Church.58 the author adopts a critical stance against both individual mystical experience and basic concepts of mysticism, such as unio mystica. tauler, however, belongs to those progressive mystics who “became aware of the fact that salvation can only be obtained by faith” and is therefore classified as “a precursor to the Reformation.”59 tauler’s impact on luther is mentioned together with the fact that the mystic preached in his native tongue in such a powerful way that some of his listeners fell dead to the ground.60 Kierkegaard read de wette’s (1780–1849) compact book on the history of christian morality61 in the summer of 1839 and commented repeatedly on the quotations from medieval authors appearing in the book.62 although he did not refer to tauler explicitly, in some of his journal entries he dealt with the issue of mysticism.63 the book contains several longer quotations from the Pseudo-taulerian The Imitation and uses as a reference the modern german translation by nikolaus casseder, which Kierkegaard owned.64 the author also recommends spener’s 1681 tersteegen’s last work Kleine Perlen-Schnur, published in 1767, was composed of pieces of mystical literature, in which tauler was also included. a Pseudo-taulerian song Von der Entwerdung was later copied by casseder in his edition of The Imitation, which Kierkegaard owned. Kierkegaard owned tersteegen’s complete works as well as an account of his life by georg rapp, see Auswahl aus Gerhard Tersteegen’s Schriften, nebst dem Leben desselben, ed. by georg rapp, essen: g.d. Bädeker 1841 (ASKB 729); and [gerhard tersteegen], Des gottseligen Arbeiters im Weinberge des Herrn: Gerhard Tersteegen’s… gesammelte Schriften, vols. 1–4, vol. 1, stuttgart: l.F. rieger’sche Buchhandlung, vols. 2–4, stuttgart: Becher und Müller 1844–5 (ASKB 827–830). 56 scriver even applies to tauler the attribute “saintly” [gottselig]. cf. christian scriver, Seelenschatz, leipzig: Johann & Friedrich lüderwald 1682, p. 1074. Kierkegaard owned a later edition from 1723, see [scriver, christian], M. Christian Scrivers...Seelen-Schatz: Darinnen Von der menschlichen Seelen hohen Würde, tieffen und kläglichen Sünden-Fall, Busse und Erneuerung durch Christum, göttlichen heiligen Leben..., vols. 1–5, Magdeburg and leipzig: in verlegung christoph seidels 1723 (ASKB 261–263). 57 Pap. i c 3, in Pap. Xii, p. 22. 58 cf. Johann Matthias schröckh, Christliche Kirchengeschichte seit der Reformation, Frankfurt: dodsley and leipzig: schwickert 1762–1812, vols. XXXiii–XXXiv. 59 stenersen, Udsigt over den Lutherske Reformation, med en Indledning om Kirkens Tilstand før samme, p. 202; p. 206. 60 ibid., p. 206. 61 wilhelm Martin leberecht de wette, Lærebog i den christelige Sædelære og sammes Historie, trans. by c.e. scharling, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1835 (ASKB 871; cf. ASKB a i 30–33; and ASKB u 110). 62 see also Mikulová thulstrup, “Præsentation af kristne mystikere i faglitteraturen, Kierkegaard kendte,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 11, 1980, pp. 60–61. 63 SKS 18, 44, ee:117 / JP 1, 739. SKS 18, 49, ee:142 / JP 3, 3275. 64 cf. de wette, Lærebog i den christelige Sædelære og sammes Historie, pp. 159–60. 55

274

Peter Šajda

edition of tauler’s sermons and adds a few quotations from the Pseudo-taulerian Medulla animae. similar to other Protestant authors, de wette emphasizes tauler’s concept of active christian life based on self-denial. in carl ullmann’s account of mystics as forerunners of the reformation, it was the role of ruysbroeck that caught Kierkegaard’s eye,65 whereby the dutch mystic is analyzed jointly with eckhart and tauler. tauler is presented in this book as a disciple of ruysbroeck, to whom he travels for advice after his “conversion to mysticism.”66 ullmann recommends de wette’s succinct presentation of tauler’s doctrine and in his own exposition focuses on the notion of poverty of the spirit, as described in the Pseudo-taulerian The Imitation, as well as on specklin’s spurious report of tauler’s conflict with the Pope.67 in general, ullmann’s presentation of tauler’s life and doctrine is an excellent example of how much the apocrypha shaped the picture of tauler at Kierkegaard’s time. the testimony of luther and Melanchthon is given as proof of tauler’s progressive theology in opposition to the sophistry of the scholastics. it is obvious from the excerpts in Kierkegaard’s journals that he read attentively Moriz carriere’s work The World-View of the Reformation Period, and paid close attention to the mystics quoted in the book.68 his excerpts are from 1847 and include quotations from Theologia Deutsch, 69 tauler,70 as well as from two other controversial dominicans—tomaso campanella71 and giordano Bruno.72 it is possible that carriere’s book inspired Kierkegaard to a re-reading of the Pseudotaulerian The Imitation shortly after he finished Carriere. In Carriere’s book Tauler is said to represent “the ethical side of mysticism”73 and is characterized as “a forerunner of luther, as he courageously, even in opposition to the church, situated all conversion in the inside of a human.”74 Theologia Deutsch is presented as “a marvellous little book” that overcomes both deism and pantheism and preserves the original ideas of Christianity, which enabled Luther to find in it his own best ideas.75 carriere thematizes several topics of tauler’s doctrina practica and adverts

SKS 24, 398, nB24:122 / JP 3, 2759. ullmann, Reformatoren vor der Reformation, vornehmlich in Deutschland und den Niederlanden, p. 226. ullmann’s report of tauler’s life draws inspiration, for example, from the apocryphal Historia, schröckh, and arnold, from whose edition of ruysbroeck’s works stems the quotation about tauler’s pilgrimage to ruysbroeck. 67 ibid., p. 223; pp. 230–32. 68 carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit. 69 SKS 20, 111, nB2:180 / JP 3, 3012. 70 SKS 20, 142, nB2:10 / JP 4, 4598. 71 SKS 20, 164, nB2:58 / JP 3, 3312. SKS 20, 165, nB2:59. 72 SKS 20, 142, nB2:11 / JP 3, 3048. 73 carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, p. 167. 74 ibid., p. 166. 75 ibid., p. 183: “Wohl mochte darum Doctor Luther...im Inhalt mit Freuden sein eignes bestes Denken wiederfinden.” 65 66

Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics

275

the modern reception of tauler, whereby he points out spiritual relatedness between tauler and Fichte76 and criticizes herder’s depreciation of tauler’s sermons.77 georg Friedrich Böhringer’s (1812–79) large-scale work The Church of Christ and its Witnesses, which Kierkegaard frequently commented on in his journals in the 1850s, contains an extensive account of tauler’s life and works. the volume on late medieval mysticism was, however, published too late to be reflected in Kierkegaard’s journals and although the presentation of tauler is voluminous, it does not add much new information to what Kierkegaard was able to find in his previous sources. tauler’s biography still follows the historically inauthentic Historia, as well as specklin’s report, which enables Böhringer to assert tauler’s profound social empathy.78 For Böhringer the two main works of tauler are the Pseudo-taulerian The Imitation and the sermons, whose number he reduces to eighty-four, since he is conscious of later additions stemming from eckhart and other authors.79 in wilhelm gottlieb tennemann’s (1761–1819) History of Philosophy, mysticism is seen as an antipode to the scholastics, whose sterile speculation led to its counterextreme, mysticism, which “did not enlighten the reason, but warmed the heart,”80 and therefore medieval mystics are seen as innovators of ethics rather than philosophy. along these lines tennemann explains that Johannes tauler, thomas à Kempis, and ruysbroeck presented in their works “excellent moral guidelines, insisted on active christianity, virtuous life above erudition and inner life above outer works.”81 also of importance for Kierkegaard’s picture of tauler is his edition of Heinrich Suso’s (1295–1366) life and works, as it contains an influential preface on mysticism by Joseph Görres (1776–1848), who was a well-known figure to the danish philosopher.82 görres’ preface was later widely quoted in connection with his characterizations of both Meister eckhart and Johannes tauler. tauler is presented as a disciple of ruysbroeck,83 and the central theme of his doctrine is detachment, to which he urged his listeners “in all his speeches.”84 Most importantly, however, görres quotes long passages from specklin’s report of tauler’s opposition against ibid., p. 165: “Von neuern Schriften steht seinen Predigten nach Form und Inhalt Fichte’s Anweisung zum seligen Leben am nächsten, ausgezeichnet durch dieselbe Hoheit der Gesinnung und Innigkeit des Gemüths.” 77 ibid., p. 211: “Man hat es Herdern nachgesprochen: Wer eine seiner Predigten gelesen, habe alle gelesen; das ist nicht wahr.” 78 Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, vol. 2, abtheilung 3, pp. 38–46. 79 ibid., pp. 55–7. 80 wilhelm gottlieb tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1819, vol. 8, Part 2, p. 954 (ASKB 815–826). 81 ibid., p. 955. 82 Heinrich Suso’s genannt Amandus, Leben und Schriften. Nach den ältesten Handschriften und Drucken mit unverändertem Texte in jetziger Schriftsprache herausgegeben [ed. by] Melchior Diepenbrock. Mit einer Einleitung von [introduced by] J. Görres, 2nd ed., regensburg: Friedrich Pustet 1837, pp. XXv–cXXXvi (ASKB 809). 83 ibid., p. XXXiv. 84 “So war eben jener milde liebreiche Tauler, der in allen seinen Vorträgen überall auf Gelassenheit, Abgeschiedenheit, Gefangennehmen aller Kräfte und Entsagung alles Eigenwerkes dringt.” ibid., p. XXXv. 76

276

Peter Šajda

the papal interdict, which allegedly provoked the Pope to command the bishop of strassburg to burn his books.85 Philipp wackernagel’s (1800–77) historical study of german church songs may have been of interest to Kierkegaard for several reasons. he referred, namely, several times to medieval lyricism in his journal entries, and in wackernagel’s foreword he could find an analysis of the origin and nature of medieval songs, as well as comments on the relation between melodicity and mysticism.86 wackernagel’s collection of songs contains a number of medieval songs, including six popular Pseudo-taulerian songs,87 and links this tradition to the lutheran ecclesial chant. even though hans lassen Martensen’s dissertation focused primarily on Meister eckhart, it contained numerous references to tauler and Theologia Deutsch, as well as quotations from them,88 and is therefore an obvious source of Kierkegaard’s contact with tauler in the early 1840s. IV. Kierkegaard’s Reflections on Tauler it is not possible to limit Kierkegaard’s interest in tauler to a certain phase of his life. the references to tauler in his published works and his journals and papers stretch from the early 1830s to the late 1840s. apart from this fact, it is also necessary to consider that tauler naturally shaped three concepts that Kierkegaard repeatedly commented on in his journals, namely the concepts of “mysticism” (Mystik), “the Middle ages” (Middelalderen) and “monastery” (Kloster).89 also it needs to be considered that both tauler and Pietist authors placed a great emphasis on imitatio Christi, which was a key concept for Kierkegaard in the last years of his life. the Pietist depiction of the via negativa leading to imitation was often terminologically and conceptually derived from medieval mystical literature, as in the case of the concept of “dying to” (Afdøen) that played a crucial role in Kierkegaard’s late ibid., pp. XXXv–XXXiX. K.e. Philipp wackernagel, Das deutsche Kirchenlied, stuttgart: verlag von s.g. liesching 1841, pp. Xiii–Xvii; XXiX (ASKB 209). 87 cf. ibid., p. 84; pp. 610–13. 88 cf. hans lassen Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1840, p. 3; p. 8; p. 13; pp. 16–17; p. 41; p. 44; p. 47; p. 72; p. 74; pp. 80–81; pp. 86–90; p. 99; pp. 101–2; pp. 106–7; pp. 109–15; pp. 125–9; p. 135; p. 147 (ASKB 649). 89 Kierkegaard’s view on monasticism and asceticism was intrinsically linked to the Middle ages and thus affected by his reading of medieval authors. his early opinion on monasticism was necessarily shaped by the Protestant sources that he read during his theological studies and was therefore critical and rather schematic. although he remained critical towards the defects of institutional monasticism in his latest journal entries, his awareness of the presence of passion for the imitation of Christ in monasticism intensified with the years. It is, however, obvious that he saw the primary expression of this passion in the radicality of the monastic praxis, rather than in the “abstract” and “secluded” inwardness of mysticism. it was certainly the monastic praxis-oriented methodology aimed at the metanoia of the individual that convinced Kierkegaard about the earnestness of medieval monastic asceticism. naturally, tauler had his share in the evolution of Kierkegaard’s views in this area. 85 86

Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics

277

understanding of christian discipleship. i will argue that Kierkegaard’s most intensive and most direct preoccupation with the ideological legacy of tauler is to be located in the late 1840s following his reading of The Imitation in 1848, as in this time he thematized the imitation of christ’s poverty as part of radical discipleship. subsequently, i will examine Kierkegaard’s concept of “dying to” (Afdøen) as he conceived it in the 1850s and make a connection to the medieval concept of detachment found in tauler. Chronologically the first mention of Tauler in Kierkegaard’s journals and papers is from the early 1830s90 and stems from stenersen’s Outline of the Lutheran Reformation. Kierkegaard puts down tauler’s name together with the information that he died in 1361 in cologne and notes that tauler was a dominican.91 this excerpt originates from the time of Kierkegaard’s university studies and is evidence of the fact that already at this time he was aware of luther’s recommendation of tauler and Theologia Deutsch. tauler appears also in an abstract from Martensen’s lectures on speculative dogmatics from the years 1838–9 that preceded Martensen’s dissertation on Meister eckhart in 1840.92 in the abstract tauler is coupled with eckhart and Jacob Böhme in a paragraph on the danger of pantheism in a misconstrued unio mystica. From this time also stems Kierkegaard’s purchase of Theologia Deutsch,93 which he quotes in a journal entry in 1843 when reflecting on despair.94 in 1838 Kierkegaard notes from Karl heinrich sack’s Christian Polemics95 that “the two main forms of [ecclesial] separatism are mysticism and pietism,”96 which is an idea that he encountered recurrently in the biographies of Pietist authors inspired by tauler and Theologia Deutsch. in 1839 Kierkegaard excerpts de wette’s exposition of medieval mysticism and formulates humoristically the opposition of mysticism to strict categorical systems.97 the only explicit quotation from tauler in Kierkegaard’s published works appears in 1841 in his dissertation The Concept of Irony, in the chapter on irony after Fichte.98 the quotation is slightly inaccurate and originates from a Pseudo-taulerian song found in the appendix to Kierkegaard’s edition of The Imitation.99 it is used by Kierkegaard to illustrate the paradoxical nature of the Pap. i c 3, in Pap. Xii, pp. 21–2. this excerpt from stenersen appears without date and originates from the years 1831–4. 91 Kierkegaard’s note on tauler is a quotation from the paragraph in which stenersen explains that tauler was one of those who understood that salvation is only obtained by faith. “Til disse kunne regnes den berømte Johannes Tauler, en Dominicanermunk, der døde i Kølln 1361.” stenersen, Udsigt over den Lutherske Reformation, med en Indledning om Kirkens Tilstand før samme, p. 202. 92 Pap. ii c 28, in Pap. Xiii, p. 67. 93 Kierkegaard bought his copy of Theologia Deutsch on april 8, 1839. 94 SKS 18, 194, JJ:168 / JP 1, 744. 95 Karl heinrich sack, Christliche Polemik, hamburg: Perthes 1838 (ASKB 756). 96 SKS 18, 341–2, KK:3 / JP 5, 5350. 97 SKS 18, 49, ee:142 / JP 3, 3275. 98 “Doch dies Verlieren, dies Entschwinden ist eben das echte und rechte Finden.” SKS 1, 310 / CIC, 291. cf. Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, p. 254. 99 The quotation is from the last of the five Pseudo-Taulerian songs Von der Seligkeit des Seyns in Gott that casseder translated into german on the basis of the latin surius edition of tauler. 90

278

Peter Šajda

christian via negativa. it is also interesting that this quotation appears together with the analysis of the concept of irony in Friedrich schlegel and ludwig tieck, whose interest in medieval mysticism and tauler must have been known to Kierkegaard at least to some extent.100 an implicit quotation from tauler appears in the Four Upbuilding Discourses published in 1844, in the form of the “deer parable” from tauler’s sermon Si quis sitit, veniat et bibat, which Kierkegaard found in Book iii of arndt’s True Christianity.101 the concept of monastery appears repeatedly in Kierkegaard’s writings in the 1840s. in 1843 Kierkegaard notes the antagonism between the religiousness of a parish community and an autonomous religious individual, whom he links to the monastic ideal, but with clear formal reservations.102 in 1845 he remarks that “it is ridiculous to hear pastors in our time warn against asceticism (monks and nuns and the like),”103 which is a critique that also appears in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, where Kierkegaard expresses both his acknowledgement and reservations as regards institutionalized monasticism. the antagonism between the reality of a lutheran parish community led by a state-paid pastor, on the one hand, and the monastic ideal, on the other, is intensified in the journal entries from the second half of 1847 and early 1848. this is the time when Kierkegaard excerpts tauler from carriere, abraham of santa clara,104 and The Imitation, and writes his Christian Discourses. he inaugurates his excerpts from carriere with a quotation from Theologia Deutsch that calls for radical detachment from one’s own will.105 his nota bene quotation of a taulerian verse on the balance of spirit in the midst of suffering106 is linked to “detachment” (Gelassenheit) by carriere himself.107 shortly after this excerpt Kierkegaard reflects on the concept of monastery as a “category of an older version of this song is found in another book that Kierkegaard owned: wackernagel, Das deutsche Kirchenlied, p. 611, under the title Von eyn bloß entsincken inn der gotheit. 100 tieck’s short story Schutzgeist was published in 1839; the account of tauler’s conversion lies at its heart and is retold at length and in great detail. tieck’s Schutzgeist is also mentioned and briefly analyzed in Martensen’s dissertation Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 3; pp. 135–6; Kierkegaard noted already in the years 1836–7 the conversions of prominent romanticist writers to catholicism and linked this phenomenon to their interest in the Middle ages. Pap. i a 134 / JP 3, 3799. SKS 17, 227, dd:24 / JP 2, 1698. SKS K17, 401–2. see also emmerich Buritsch, Christentum und katholische Kirche bei Ludwig Tieck, Ph.d. thesis, university of vienna 1939, pp. 100–102; pp. 111–12; pp. 166–8; p. 177. For Franz von Baader’s influence on Tieck and Schlegel in the area of mysticism see david Baumgardt, Franz von Baader und die philosophische Romantik, halle: Max niemeyer 1927, p. 38; p. 224. 101 SKS 5, 332 / EUD, 344. 102 SKS 18, 170, JJ:96 / JP 2, 2111. 103 SKS 18, 242, JJ:324 / JP 1, 172. 104 Kierkegaard marked a story about tauler in abraham of st. clara’s Collected Works. cf. Pap. viii–2 c 2, p. 55. 105 SKS 20, 111, nB2:180 / JP 3, 3012. carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, p. 181. in Kierkegaard’s edition of Theologia Deutsch this quotation is found in Die deutsche Theologie, p. 129. 106 SKS 20, 142, nB2:10 / JP 4, 4598. 107 carriere, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, p. 621.

Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics

279

individuality” (Enkelthedens Categorie).108 in late 1847 he writes down a longer journal entry that drastically contrasts the contemporary reality of the danish state-controlled lutheran pastorhood to the monastic ideal desired by people “overwhelmed by the religious” whose few current analogues are “sent to a lunatic asylum.”109 in early 1848 Kierkegaard reads for his personal edification the Pseudo-Taulerian The Imitation and his first excerpt represents a Pseudo-Taulerian citacio tacita from the eckhartian tractate On Detachment.110 Kierkegaard may have noted this line because of its similarity to his concept of christian detachment from the love for one’s own family and nation, as expounded in Christian Discourses.111 in his second mention of the Pseudo-taulerian The Imitation, Kierkegaard notes “a striking similarity” between the teaching of The Imitation and the second discourse of Part iii of Christian Discourses, focusing on tauler’s presentation of the voluntary embracing of renunciation upon christ’s wish (et Ønske af Christus).112 there is little doubt that the radical Pseudo-taulerian work had its share in the ever-deeper antagonism between strict medieval asceticism and softened danish lutheranism in Kierkegaard’s journals.113 it is, however, more than just the explicit quotations that point to Kierkegaard’s reflections on the Pseudo-Taulerian treatise on poverty.114 the topic of christian poverty with which Christian Discourses, published in april 1848, begins, is the actual central theme of The Imitation and may have been the chief incentive for Kierkegaard to read tauler at this very point in time. Both of the books examine the paradoxical nature of christian poverty, whereby the argumentation of The Imitation draws heavily on the preceding medieval discussions on this topic.115 the radical requirement of both spiritual and material poverty as a prerequisite for christian SKS 20, 148, nB2:19 / JP 2, 1999. SKS 20, 247, nB3:4 / JP 3, 2750. 110 SKS 20, 331, nB4:91. cf. Meister Eckhart. Werke, ed. by niklaus largier, Frankfurt am Main: deutscher Klassiker verlag 1993, vol. 2, p. 454; p. 9. 111 SKS 10, 193–4 / CD, 183–4. 112 SKS 20, 335, nB4:102 / JP 2, 1844. 113 Kierkegaard approached medieval asceticism critically, but pointed out that the mistake was not asceticism as such. he blamed lutheranism for eliminating asceticism and monasticism altogether without providing an alternative. since The Imitation insisted on material poverty for the followers of christ, it may have helped with regard to Kierkegaard’s claim that the good news for the poor should be preached by poor preachers. cf. Pap. Xi–1 a 532 / JP 3, 3182. Pap. X–5 a 164 / JP 3, 3139. Pap. X–4 a 649 / JP 3, 3766. 114 during his reading of The Imitation in early 1848, Kierkegaard notes in a journal entry the paradoxical nature of the personal impersonality contained in medieval lyricism that may be connected to his re-reading of the mystical songs found in the book. Kierkegaard came in touch with Pseudo-taulerian mystical songs several times. he read them apparently already in/before 1841, when he inserted a quotation from one of them into his dissertation; he re-read them in 1848 while reading The Imitation for edification, and he possessed Wackernagel’s collection of ecclesial songs that included Pseudo-taulerian songs too. they appeared also in tersteegen’s Kleine Perlenschnur and Böhringer’s Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen. cf. SKS 20, 329, nB4:84 / JP 2, 2005. 115 The Imitation presents material poverty as a necessary consequence of poverty in spirit [i.e., detachment], which is its basic reaction to the medieval discourse on the relation between the two. cf. largier, Das Buch von der geistigen Armut, pp. 251–4. 108 109

280

Peter Šajda

freedom for god, as presented in the medieval treatise, must have been an interesting challenge for Kierkegaard. shortly after his explicit comparison of The Imitation and Christian Discourses, he reflects in his journal on his own concept of the Christian homo pauper. At first he ironically depicts a journalist who makes his living writing about pauperism116 and subsequently polemicizes against the radicality of the medieval approach to poverty―along the lines of The Imitation―and suggests instead his own more activist concept of the christian ideal of poverty.117 interestingly enough, he even recognizes the lack of material poverty in his own life as an apparent disproportion between his oeuvre and his real conditions.118 it is obvious that The Imitation had by then already become a serious discussion partner for Kierkegaard, as it with all earnestness postulated the imitation of christ’s physical poverty as a necessary characteristic of a true disciple. in 1849 Kierkegaard applied the same requirement in his characterization of a true ascetic.119 in his analysis of conceptual and lexical similarities between The Imitation and Kierkegaard’s Practice of Christianity, published in 1850, richard Purkarthofer identified in Kierkegaard’s work a number of passages that show similarity to the reflections found in the medieval tractate.120 the radical christian anti-climacus thematizes the notion of the poor Christ, together with other concepts dear to The Imitation.121 i will limit my comments to note vi of Practice of Christianity, as this short treatise represents “an exegesis” of the title under which Kierkegaard knew The Imitation―“Imitation of the Poor Life of Christ.” anti-climacus states clearly that christ “never says that he asks for admirers, adoring admirers, adherents,” but only uses the synonyms “followers” (Disciple) and “imitators” (Efterfølgere), who are not “adherents of a teaching but imitators of a life.” the author also makes clear that “it is the abased christ who is speaking,”122 whose loftiness is “the very negation of worldly and earthly loftiness.”123 christ let himself “be born in lowliness and thereupon lived poor,”124 so if anyone decides to admire something in christ, he necessarily faces the paradox of admiring “poverty, misery, contempt, etc.”125 anti-climacus claims SKS 20, 336, nB4:104 / JP 5, 6120. SKS 20, 336, nB4:106 / JP 5, 6122. 118 SKS 20, 387–389, nB5:41 / JP 6, 6153. 119 The Imitation presents as the ideal of material poverty the “necessary material minimum” [Nothdurft]: “Du bist augenblicklich der Gabe dürftig, nimm sie hin, und was über die beschwichtigte Nothdurft ist, das vertheile an Andere.” Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, p. 8. Kierkegaard used the same concept in his determination of a true ascetic: “the true concept of asceticism is to reduce the requirements of life to a minimum.” SKS 22, 320, nB13:77 / JP 1, 676. 120 richard Purkarthofer, Wider das unlebbare Leben. Studien zur Kommunikation in den “erbaulichen Reden” Sören Kierkegaards, Ph.d. thesis, university of vienna 2000, pp. 73–9. 121 ibid., p. 77. Purkarthofer highlights the concepts of discipleship, inner/outer human, similarity to god, the concept of god-human, rejection of the disciple by the world, as well as some similarities in formulations. 122 SV1 Xii, 217 / PC, 237. 123 SV1 Xii, 218 / PC, 238. 124 SV1 Xii, 218 / PC, 238. 125 SV1 Xii, 220 / PC, 240. 116 117

Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics

281

unisono with The Imitation that the imitation of christ involves “denying oneself and renouncing the things of this world in earnest”; it prompts the christian “to die to the world” and “to surrender the earthly.”126 an imitator of christ accepts these challenges, because he “aspires to be what is admired”127 and “the one who here on earth lived in poverty and lowliness…did not live this way accidentally.”128 as a logical consequence of these considerations, concludes anti-climacus, “only the imitator is the true christian.”129 the full earnestness of following christ is expressed in both works as following “the footprints” of the historical poor christ,130 since the imitator is driven by the desire “to be what he admires.”131 V. The Influence of the Taulerian via negativa on Kierkegaard in her studies on Kierkegaard’s relation to asceticism, Marie Mikulová thulstrup pointed out the crucial importance of the concept of “dying to” (Afdøen)132 that Kierkegaard increasingly appropriated as a central christian concept.133 she noted that in Kierkegaard’s danish Bible this term occurred only very rarely and therefore he must have been made familiar with it primarily through devotional literature. Mikulová thulstrup therefore established the connection to Pietist literature, claiming that Kierkegaard’s use of this term “both linguistically and as regards content is no doubt influenced by Arndt.”134 this conclusion is certainly correct, but it is necessary to point out that Kierkegaard read a number of sources that gave evidence for the fact that arndt had inherited the concept from tauler and other medieval mystics. it should also be considered that in most cases the danish term “Afdøen” was a mirror translation of the german term “Absterben,” which Kierkegaard encountered in most

SV1 Xii, 230–31 / PC, 252–3. SV1 Xii, 230 / PC, 252. 128 SV1 Xii, 233 / PC, 255. 129 SV1 Xii, 234 / PC, 256. 130 Kierkegaard maintains that christ left for his imitators in this world his “footprints” [Fodspor]. cf. SV1 Xii, 218 / PC, 238. similarly The Imitation claims that the imitation of christ means stepping into the “footprints” [Fußstapfen] of the historical christ. cf. Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, pp. 148–50. 131 SV1 Xii, 220 / PC, 241. 132 Marie Mikulová thulstrup, Kierkegaard i kristenlivets historie, copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel 1991, pp. 177–83; Marie Mikulová Thulstrup, “The Significance of Mortification and dying away (to),” in The Sources and Depths of Faith in Kierkegaard, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1978 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 2), pp. 160–66. 133 in the 1850s Kierkegaard repeatedly explains in his journals and papers that the decision to love god is necessarily linked to “dying to”: “in christianity it is not even the law which orders you to die to the world; it is love which says: do you not love me then? and if the answer is: Yes, then it follows as a matter of course that you must die to the world.” Pap. X–4 a 624 / JP 1, 538. see also Pap. X–4 a 620 / JP 4, 4690. Pap. Xi–2 a 421 / JP 3, 2454. 134 Mikulová Thulstrup, “The Significance of Mortification and Dying away (to),” p. 161; cf. Mikulová thulstrup, Kierkegaard i kristenlivets historie, p. 180. 126 127

282

Peter Šajda

of his primary and secondary sources treating tauler135 and which arndt himself uses in his characterizations of tauler and Theologia Deutsch. Johann arndt, in his preface to Kierkegaard’s edition of Theologia Deutsch, sums up the doctrine of the book, claiming that it teaches “contempt for the world, sacrifice of one’s own will, crucifixion of the flesh.…In sum, how you should die to (absterben) yourself and the world and live to christ.”136 the anonymous author of Theologia Deutsch uses the same term in his concluding summary of the tractate.137 arndt mentions the term as an imperative of tauler’s theology also in his True Christianity138 and his testimony is quoted in the preface to Kierkegaard’s edition of tauler.139 Most importantly, however, the term appears frequently in The Imitation, where it is linked to the concept of discipleship, as Kierkegaard himself conceived of it in his journals.140 The Imitation uses a variety of terms in describing the process of detachment from created realities,141 but it contains numerous passages where it avails itself of the metaphorics of “dying to”142 that Kierkegaard utilized in his journals to describe the via negativa of voluntarily embraced christian discipleship. importantly, both Kierkegaard and The Imitation emphasize the fact that humankind needs to die to all created realities.143 inwardly this requires the constant process of dying to one’s own will.144 the death of one’s own will is in both a synonym for the union of human 135 also the danish terms “Afdøen” and “Afdødelse” are used in connection with rhine mysticism in Kierkegaard’s secondary sources. cf. stenersen, Udsigt over den Lutherske Reformation, med en Indledning om Kirkens Tilstand før samme, p. 202; Martensen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, p. 113. 136 Die deutsche Theologie, p. 7. in his journal Kierkegaard uses a similar phrase when he characterizes dying to as “renouncing the world, crucifying the flesh.” Pap. Xi–1 a 218. 137 Die deutsche Theologie, p. 147: “Daß wir nun von uns selbst ausgehen und unserm eigenen Willen absterben und allein Gott und seinem Willen leben.” 138 Johann Arnd’s Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christethum nebst dessen Paradiesgärtlein, p. 111. 139 Johann Tauler’s Predigten auf alle Sonn- und Festtage im Jahr, p. vii. 140 Pap. X–5 a 44 / JP 2, 1919. SKS 24, 383–384, nB24:103 / JP 2, 1903. cf. Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, p. 14; pp. 125–32. 141 Medieval german mysticism disposed of a rich vocabulary for the term “detachment.” The Imitation draws on this tradition and uses in casseder’s translation principally the following expressions: Geistesarmuth, Gelassenheit, Abgeschiedenheit, Entwerden, Entsagen, Ablegen, Verlassen, Abstoßen, Abgeben, Verlieren, Entledigung, Läuterung, Entblößung. Most of them appear both in noun and verbal form. 142 the metaphorics of spiritual dying to created realities is, in Kierkegaard’s edition of The Imitation, expressed mainly with the terms Sterben, Absterben, Ersterben. they occur both in noun and verbal form. 143 Kierkegaard repeatedly stresses that one needs to “break with everything unconditionally” (ubetinget at bryde med Alt). SKS 24, 21–22, nB21:18. he also repeats arndt’s warning against making exceptions. Pap. X–5 a 53 / JP 3, 3771. The Imitation―a vital source for Arndt―states that humankind has to die to “all earthly and created realities” (abgestorben allem Irdischen und jeder Kreatur). Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, p. 7. 144 Both tauler’s and arndt’s depictions of dying to one’s own will are indebted to eckhart’s expositions of detachment from the will as one of the three superior “powers of the soul” (potentiae animae). cf. my article on Meister eckhart in the present volume.

Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics

283

and Divine will by means of the transformation of human will. The unification of one’s own will with that of god is the key to the highest possible similarity to christ and the peak of earnest discipleship. it is obvious from Kierkegaard’s journals and papers that he studied how the transformation of will was conceived of in medieval asceticism145 and in “old devotional literature.”146 since the process of dying to one’s own will is necessarily connected to a god-controlled lifelong suffering147 and humans are not entitled to terminate it out of their own will, both The Imitation and Kierkegaard strictly differentiate between christian and non-christian “dying to,” as the latter lacks an explicit bond to Christ’s historical sacrifice of his own will.148 in a journal entry from 1854, Kierkegaard presents the transformation of will as the “fundamental idea” [Grund-Tanke] of christianity and ennumerates the concentric concepts of his via negativa149 that are to be used as instruments facilitating the metanoia of the individual’s will. VI. Tauler’s Contribution to Kierkegaard’s Appreciation of Medieval Asceticism one way of looking at tauler from the perspective of the analysis of Kierkegaard’s sources is that of Kierkegaard’s quest for imitatio Christi in the history of christianity, thus interpreting tauler as a connecting element between Protestant discipleship-oriented piety and the asceticism-minded piety of the catholic Middle ages. in this sense tauler needs to be seen in a broader perspective together with thomas à Kempis, Bernard of clairvaux, and other mystics of the latin tradition that appeared frequently in Protestant devotional literature. Because of luther’s, arndt’s, gerhard’s, and spener’s recommendations, however, tauler certainly belongs—from Kierkegaard’s perspective—among the most prominent and earliest links between medieval and lutheran doctrina practica. another way of looking at tauler is that of a pre-reformer and rebel against oppressive ecclesial power structures, which has a solid basis in the sources available to Kierkegaard, but lacks grounds in his own writings. although the story of tauler’s zeal for individual piety and his courage to resist the pressure of the catholic church hierarchy must have appealed to Kierkegaard, at the time of his own rebellion against the ecclesial establishment, the reformation was no longer his primary source of inspiration for non-conformity.150 Pap. Xi–2 a 436 / JP 6, 6966. Pap. Xi–2 a 132 / JP 4, 4384. this is probably an allusion to arndt’s True Christianity. 147 Pap. Xi–1 a 558 / JP 4, 4354. Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, p. 219. 148 Pap. X–5 a 63 / JP 4, 4518. Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, p. 77. 149 Pap. Xi–2 a 86 / JP 4, 4953. in this entry Kierkegaard explains that the concepts of “rejecting the world” [forsage Verden], “self-denial” [fornegte sig selv], “dying to” [afdøe] and “hating oneself” [hade sig selv] are all aimed at the transformation of will. 150 Kierkegaard’s late journal entries blame luther for “mediocrity” for concealing the supreme character of martyrdom. luther’s own efforts to escape martyrdom and to live in 145 146

284

Peter Šajda

a third way is that of perceiving tauler as a homo religiosus and a religious edifier. His sermons, tractates, and poems conveyed to Kierkegaard the passionate concern of a preacher, poet, and monk for committed and radical religiousness. as demonstrated, conceptually tauler was of interest to Kierkegaard particularly through his praxis-bound concepts of via purgativa.151 the expositions of the Pseudotaulerian tractate, The Imitation, on poverty and “dying to” provided vital material for Kierkegaard, who had reflected on these concepts before and gained through his reading of The Imitation a number of new impetuses.152 it needs to be emphasized, however, that a substantial number of taulerian and Pseudo-taulerian terms and concepts reached to Kierkegaard’s hands independently of his reading of tauler, filtered through Johann Arndt and the Pietists, at times in relatively intact form. the present considerations are in accord with david law’s statement that “Kierkegaard does not make the transition to the via mystica but stops at the via negativa.”153 this also explains why Kierkegaard’s later journal entries do not connect medieval asceticism to mysticism any more. Kierkegaard’s calls for a return to the monastic ideal from 1854 are rather connected to the importance of ascetic practice of continuous “dying to” that is aimed at creating ground for true discipleship.154 although tauler was certainly not the only one who shaped Kierkegaard’s view on the usefulness of systematic asceticism practiced within or outside the framework of medieval monasticism, the earnestness and radicality of his life and works necessarily contributed to Kierkegaard’s appreciation of the medieval concepts of the practical via negativa as a prerequisite for comitted christian discipleship. and as Kierkegaard noted in his journals, both he and tauler realized that abstention from created realities needs to transcend the law and happen out of love.155 also for this reason it is possible to find similarities between the spiritual dietethics of søren Kierkegaard and Johannes tauler.

admiration were for Kierkegaard a reason to call luther “a patient,” rather than “a doctor.” cf. Pap. Xi–1 a 62 / JP 3, 3560. Pap. Xi–1 a 193 / JP 3, 2550. it is obvious that tauler as a “precursor” of luther was from Kierkegaard’s perspective no match for the early christian martyrs in this period of his strife. 151 Kierkegaard could read about the three basic stages of perfection (purgatio, illuminatio, unio) also in Theologia Deutsch: “Zur Vollkommenheit führen drei Wege—die aus dem rechten, lebendigen Glauben hervorgehen—1) Reinigung, 2) Erleuchtung, 3) Vereinigung.” Die deutsche Theologie, p. 46. 152 although Kierkegaard did not perceive material poverty as his personal calling; he recognized it as a legitimate expression of imitatio Christi in the case of those who felt the vocation to practice it. he also ironically depicted pastorhood disconnected from material poverty. 153 david r. law, Kierkegaard as Negative Theologian, oxford: clarendon Press 1993, p. 217. 154 cf. Pap. Xi–1 a 134 / JP 3, 2762. Pap. Xi–1 a 198 / JP 3, 2763. 155 SKS 20, 335, nB4:102 / JP 2, 1844.

Bibliography I. Tauler’s Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Johann Tauler’s Predigten auf alle Sonn- und Festtage im Jahr. Zur Beförderung eines christlichen Sinnes und gottseligen Wandels, vols. 1–3, new ed. by ed. Kuntze and J.h.r. viesenthal, Berlin: august hirschwald 1841–2 (ASKB 245–246; cf. ASKB 247). Johann Tauler’s Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, new ed. by nikolaus casseder, Frankfurt am Main: verlag der hermannschen Buchhandlung 1821 (ASKB 282). Die Deutsche Theologie, eine sehr alte, für jeden Christen äußerst wichtige Schrift, mit einer Vorrede von Dr. Martin Luther und dem gewesenen Generalsuperintendenten Johan Arnd, new ed. by Friedrich conrad Krüger, lemgo: Meyersche hofBuchhandlung 1822 (ASKB 634). II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Tauler [arnold, gottfried], Gottfried Arnolds Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, Vom Anfang des Neuen Testaments Biß auf das Jahr Christi 1688, Parts 1–4 in vols. 1–2, Frankfurt am Main: thomas Fritsch 1699–1700, vol. 1, pp. 391–4 (ASKB 154–155). ast, Friedrich, Grundriss einer Geschichte der Philosophie, landshut: Joseph thomann 1807, pp. 29–296 (ASKB 385). Baader, Franz, Vorlesungen, gehalten an der Königlich-Bayerischen LudwigMaximilians-Hochschule über religiöse Philosophie im Gegensatze der irreligiösen, älterer und neuer Zeit, vol. 1, Munich: giel 1827, p. 49; p. 93n; p. 109 (ASKB 395). —— Revision der Philosopheme der Hegel’schen Schule bezüglich auf das Christenthum. Nebst zehn Thesen aus einer religiösen Philosophie, stuttgart: s.g. liesching 1839, p. 84 (ASKB 416). Böhringer, Friedrich, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], vol. 2, abtheilung 3, pp. iX–X; pp. 1–296 (ASKB 173–177). carriere, Moriz, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’scher verlag 1847, pp. 165–84; pp. 210–11 (ASKB 458). erdmann, Johann eduard, Vorlesungen über Glauben und Wissen als Einleitung in die Dogmatik und Religionsphilosophie, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1837, p. 114 (ASKB 479).

286

Peter Šajda

hahn, august (ed.), Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 92 (ASKB 535). hansen, Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, p. 146 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 365 (ASKB 160–166). Martensen, hans lassen, Mester Eckart, Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, copenhagen: reitzels Forlag 1840, p. 3; p. 8; p. 13; pp. 16–17; p. 41; p. 44; p. 47; p. 72; p. 74; pp. 80–81; pp. 86–90; p. 99; pp. 101–2; pp. 106–7; pp. 109–15; pp. 125–9; p. 135; p. 147 (ASKB 649). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 195 (ASKB 168). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Christelig Biographie, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, pp. 1–54 (ASKB 1958) [there was published only one volume]. —— Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Under søgelser, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.g. iversen 1854, pp. 101–2 [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). schopenhauer, arthur, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, vols. 1–2, 2nd revised and enlarged ed., leipzig: F.a. Brockhaus 1844 [1819], vol. 1, p. 437 (ASKB 773–773a). [suso, heinrich], Suso’s H., genannt Amandus, Leben und Schriften, ed. by M. diepenbrock, regensburg 1837, pp. iii–iv; pp. Xv–Xvi; pp. XXXiv–XXXviii (ASKB 809). tennemann, wilhelm gottlieb, Geschichte der Philosophie, vols. 1–11, leipzig: Johann ambrosius Barth 1798–1819, vol. 8, Part 2, pp. 954–5 (ASKB 815–826). wackernagel, K.e. Philipp, Das Deutsche Kirchenlied von Martin Luther bis auf Nicolaus Herman und Ambroisus Blaurer, stuttgart: verlag von s.g. liesching 1841, pp. Xiii–Xvii; p. XXiX; p. 84; pp. 610–13 (ASKB 209). wette, wilhelm Martin leberecht de, Lærebog i den christelige Sædelære og sammes Historie, copenhagen: reitzel 1835, pp. 159–61 (ASKB 871). wolff, oskar ludwig Bernhard, Handbuch deutscher Beredsamkeit enthaltend eine Uebersicht der Geschichte und Theorie der Redekunst, zugleich mit einer vollständigen Sammlung deutscher Reden jedes Zeitalters und jeder Gattung, vols. 1–2, leipzig: carl B. lorck 1845–6, vol. 1, pp. 43–8 (ASKB 250–251). zeuthen, ludvig, Om Ydmyghed. En Afhandling, copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel 1852, p. 80n (ASKB 916). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Tauler Florin, Frits, Geloven als noodweer, Kampen: agora 2002. Purkarthofer, richard, Wider das unlebbare Leben. Studien zur Kommunikation in den “erbaulichen Reden” Sören Kierkegaards, Ph.d. thesis, university of vienna 2000, see pp. 73–9.

Tauler: A Teacher in Spiritual Dietethics

287

scholtens, wim r., Kijk, hier barst de taal. Mystiek bij Kierkegaard, Kampen: J.h. Kok 1991. thulstrup, Marie Mikulová, “Kierkegaards møde med mystik gennem den spekulative idealisme,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 10, 1977, pp. 7–69. —— “studies of Pietists, Mystics, and church Fathers,” in Kierkegaard’s View of Christianity, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1978 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 1), pp. 60–80. —— “Præsentation af kristne mystikere i faglitteraturen, Kierkegaard kendte,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 11, 1980, pp. 55–92. —— “Pietism,” in Kierkegaard and Great Traditions, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 6), pp. 173–222. —— “Kierkegaard’s encounter with Mysticism through speculative idealism,” Liber Academiae Kierkegaardiensis, no. 5, 1984, pp. 31–91.

thomas à Kempis: Devotio Moderna and Kierkegaard’s critique of “Bourgeois-Philistinism” Joel d.s. rasmussen

in the prayer that opens the penultimate chapter of Practice in Christianity, Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous author anti-climacus begins: lord Jesus christ, you did not come to the world to be served and thus not to be admired either, or in that sense worshipped. You yourself were the way and the life—and you have asked only for imitators [Efterfølgere]. if we have dozed off into this infatuation, wake us up, rescue us from this error of wanting to admire or adoringly admire you instead of wanting to follow you and be like [ligne] you.1

in its simplest formulation, the “requirement of ideality” that Practice in Christianity presents is the life of christ as the “prototype” and “criterion” for christian imitation. christ’s “life and works on earth are what he left for imitation,” anti-climacus insists.2 this imitatio Christi theme—notably absent from Kierkegaard’s earlier writings, but for a few isolated asides—became increasingly prominent in Kierkegaard’s writings beginning in 1848. the fact that this is the same year in which a new danish edition of thomas à Kempis’ The Imitation of Christ became available suggests that this work may have been influential in Kierkegaard’s decision to emphasize this theme. Many scholars have detailed the respects in which Kierkegaard develops this emphasis upon personal imitation in order to critique the ascendant form of Protestant christianity he derides as “the established order” or as “christendom.”3 this essay explores the much more narrow and frequently overlooked question regarding the extent to which Kierkegaard’s reception of thomas à Kempis’ devotional teachings should be read as a source for this emphasis.

SV1 Xii, 213 / PC, 233. SV1 Xii, 236–7 / PC, 259. 3 see, for example, louis dupré, Kierkegaard as Theologian: The Dialectic of Christian Existence, new York: sheed and ward 1963; vernard eller, Kierkegaard and Radical Discipleship: A New Perspective, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1968; Johannes sløk, Da Kierkegaard tav: Fra forfatterskab til kirkestorm, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1980; david gouwens, Kierkegaard as Religious Thinker, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1996. 1 2

290

Joel D.S. Rasmussen

I. Short Introduction to Thomas à Kempis and the imitation of christ thomas à Kempis was born in 1379 or 1380, the second son of Johann hemerken and gertrud Kuyt of Kempen. his father was a metal worker (hence the paternal surname “little hammer”), and his mother ran the school for children that thomas attended until the age of twelve. in 1392, the young german boy journeyed from his native Kempen to the town of deventer, in the netherlands. he was following in the footsteps of his older brother Johann, who had made the journey to deventer a decade earlier in order to attend the schools run by a community known as the “Brethren of the common life.” this community characterized their teachings as devotio moderna—“modern devotion”—by which term they wished to distinguish their form of christian piety both from high scholasticism and from what they took to be more esoteric forms of mysticism.4 Members of this community were not expected to take vows, but simply sought to emulate the lives and devotion of the earliest christians. as the movement expanded, however, it came to include a growing number of associates who wished to take vows, and so, in order to accommodate these individuals, a branch of the canonical order was founded and a priory established at windesheim that was to maintain a close relationship with the larger community. upon completion of his humanities, thomas à Kempis was admitted to this monastic congregation (the canons regular of windesheim at Mount st. agnes) where he received priest’s orders in 1413, became the subprior in 1429, and lived until his death in 1471. Thomas à Kempis was a skilled copyist and a prolific writer of letters, sermons, biographies, and devotional works, but by far the work for which he became most well known is The Imitation of Christ. composed in his capacity of subprior as a book of instruction in the devotio moderna, it was this vastly popular work that gave the phrase “the imitation of christ” its greatest circulation.5 a compilation of four separate treatises, The Imitation of Christ opens with the assertion that “if we desire to have a true understanding of his [viz. christ’s] gospels, we must study to conform our life as nearly as we can to his,”6 and continues the first book with chapters on the theme of contempt for worldly vanities and a host of medieval virtues. the second book advocates an inner devotional life “of a pure mind and a simple intention,” the third depicts prayer as “the inward speaking of christ to a faithful soul,” and the fourth is devoted in its entirety to the sacrament of the eucharist. taken as a whole, The Imitation of Christ displays, in anthony levi’s words, “virtually no theology, no anthony levi, Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual Genesis, new haven: Yale university Press 2002, pp. 144ff. see also gisbert Kranz, Thomas von Kempen: der stille Reformer von Niederrhein, Moers: Brendow 1993. 5 De Imitatione Christi was first printed in type in 1472 (although more than 700 earlier manuscript copies are known to exist), and by 1779 no fewer than 1,800 editions and translations could be counted. see harold c. gardiner’s editor’s “introduction” to thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, trans. by richard whitford, ed. harold c. gardiner, s.J., new York: doubleday 1955, p. 10. as gardiner also mentions in this introduction, the long dispute over whether The Imitation of Christ was rightly attributed to thomas à Kempis was settled in the affirmative toward the end of the nineteenth century. 6 thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, trans. by richard whitford, p. 31. 4

Thomas à Kempis: devotio Moderna

291

interest in the interplay or clash between nature and grace, or of self-determination and the gratuity of the supernatural.”7 despite that fact—or perhaps in great part because of it—the devotio moderna contributed significantly “to the renewal of the Christian spiritual life in the fifteenth century.”8 II. Kierkegaard and the imitation of christ Kierkegaard owned two editions of The Imitation of Christ. The first was a 1702 edition in latin9 and the second was a danish translation published in 1848.10 while Kierkegaard made no mention of thomas à Kempis or his famous work in any of his published writings, he did comment upon him approvingly in several journal entries in 1849, and always in reference to his recently-acquired danish edition. Moreover, the fact that the theme of christian imitation (along with the associated notion of notion of christ as the “prototype”) became increasingly important in a number of Kierkegaard’s works after 1849 makes it difficult to resist the suspicion that Kierkegaard’s reading of The Imitation of Christ lead him to reconsider it as a neglected criterion for authentic christian discipleship.11 Kierkegaard never acknowledged this influence explicitly, however, and none of the eight journal entries in which Kierkegaard referred to thomas à Kempis addresses the theme of imitation directly.12 instead, all of these entries treat somewhat peripheral matters, and several are rather epigrammatic.13 of the journal entries that are somewhat more developed, however, two in particular are potentially disclosive of the way Kierkegaard understands thomas à Kempis’ work relative to his own view of life. the following interpretative remarks relate these entries to passages on christian levi, Renaissance and Reformation, p. 145. ibid., p. 146. 9 thomas à Kempis, De imitatione Christi, Paris: apud Fredericum leonard, typographum regium 1702 (ASKB 272). 10 thomas à Kempis, Om Christi Efterfølgelse, trans. by Jens albrecht leonhard holm, with an introduction by andreas gottlob rudelbach, 3rd ed., copenhagen: wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1848 [1826] (ASKB 273). the danish at efterfølge (literally, “to follow after”) means both “to follow” and “to imitate.” 11 see, for example, Practice in Christianity (1850), For Self-Examination (1851), Judge for Yourself! (composed in 1852–3 but published posthumously in 1876), and The Moment (1855). 12 the journal entries are: (1) SKS 21, 369, nB10:205 / JP 2, 2016. (2) SKS 22, 57, nB11:101 / JP 3, 2691. (3) SKS 22, 152, nB12:11 / JP 4, 4783. (4) SKS 22, 246, nB12:172 / JP 4, 4784. (5) SKS 22, 288, nB13:24 / JP 4, 4785. (6) SKS 22, 308, nB 13:53 / JP 4, 4786. (7) SKS 22, 406, nB14:104 / JP 4, 4787. (8) SKS 22, 343, nB14:4 / JP 6, 6524. 13 For example, “thomas à Kempis expresses it very well. adversities do not make men weak, but they do reveal what strength he has. Book i, chapter 16” (SKS 22, 152, nB12:11 / JP 4, 4783). and, “thomas à Kempis says: Practice [of evil] is overcome by practice [of good]” (SKS 22, 308, nB13:53 / JP 4, 4786). Kierkegaard supplemented holm’s translation with the parenthetical qualifiers. Richard Whitford’s English translation of The Imitation of Christ reads, “Fight strongly, therefore, against all sin, and fear not too much even though you are encumbered by a bad habit, for that bad habit can be overcome by a good habit” (The Imitation of Christ, p. 59). 7 8

292

Joel D.S. Rasmussen

imitation in Kierkegaard’s Judge for Yourself! in order to show that Kierkegaard’s explicit remarks about thomas à Kempis are best elucidated within the context of their substantive agreement on the importance of the imitation of christ. In the first notable entry Kierkegaard reflects upon the devotio moderna discipline of submitting to a spiritual advisor and the applicability of the practice for his own time and place. “thomas à Kempis says: ‘Be desirous, my son, to do the will of another rather than thine own.’ this struck me,” Kierkegaard writes. “But the question is, where does one find clergymen such as these nowadays. If I were to submit myself to any clergyman, i am sure he would secularize my whole endeavor by promptly getting me into the establishment, into the moment, into an office, into a title, etc.”14 clearly, the discipline of submitting oneself to a spiritual guide holds some allure for Kierkegaard, for he is “struck” by the idea that one could learn to imitate christ by following the guidance of another who is more advanced in Christian discipleship. The heading of the first chapter of The Imitation of Christ reads “of the imitation or Following of christ and the despising of all vanities of the world,” and the title of the danish translation (Om Christi Efterfølgelse) evokes the importance of “following” quite literally. Yet, when Kierkegaard imaginatively transposes to his own context this paradigm of following the direction of a spiritual guide, its feasibility fails for him. the infeasibility of the discipline for Kierkegaard stems from the fact that he considers his contemporaries in positions of christian leadership poor models of discipleship. Far from “despising all vanities of the world,” from Kierkegaard’s point of view the contemporary clergy indulge in the pursuit of these vanities. consequently, Kierkegaard thinks that if an individual were to submit to following the direction of “any clergyman,” then that individual would not receive spiritual direction in authentic christian discipleship, but rather could expect counsel regarding the importance of securing professional esteem and currying favor among the cultural tastemakers. Kierkegaard sometimes calls this tendency to scale christianity to the ascendant culture “bourgeois-philistinism.” For example, in Judge for Yourself! he writes of bourgeois-philistinism as a sort of smug self-satisfaction with which one accommodates “oneself to presumed christianity in such a way that one is really abolishing christianity.”15 the thinly-veiled satire there on the burghers of copenhagen and their Bishop Jakob Peter Mynster helpfully illustrates why, from Kierkegaard’s perspective, finding an authentic spiritual advisor among the clergy would be so unlikely. here Kierkegaard sketches what he takes to be the distance between the bourgeois-philistinism of christendom and the imitation of christ of authentic christianity: let us imagine a christian city. christianly speaking, the criterion is the disciple, the imitator. But in that place there is, to be sure, no one who can stand up under the criterion. there is, however, Pastor Jensen, for example. he is a gifted, a sagacious man, and there is much good to be said of him....and what does Mr. Jensen think? he thinks...that he can appropriately provide the criterion and model [Mynster], that these exaggerated requirements are fantasies. and so the game of christianity is played in that city: Pastor Jensen, a gregarious man about town, almost as if created for this social game, becomes 14 15

SKS 22, 57, nB11:101 / JP 3, 2691. SV1 Xii, 476 / JFY, 200.

Thomas à Kempis: devotio Moderna

293

the true christian in the game, even an apostle, is lauded as an apostle in the newspapers. in the character of an apostle—superb!—he is overwhelmed with all of life’s amenities, which he—in the character of an apostle?—also knows how to appreciate.16

over against “Pastor Jensen” and his followers Kierkegaard here sets “the disciple, the imitator.” the former seek “life’s amenities” and the status in the “social game” that attends “good taste and culture,”17 whereas the latter—Kierkegaard’s ideal of the latter at any rate—would seek to live a life modeled after the life of christ, “the prototype.”18 But this ideal is almost never seen, according to Kierkegaard. and he shares this conviction with thomas à Kempis who observes, “Jesus has many lovers of his kingdom of heaven, but he has few bearers of his cross. Many desire his consolation, but few desire his tribulation....all men would joy with christ, but few will suffer anything for christ. Many follow him to the breaking of his bread, for their bodily refreshment, but few will follow him to drink a draft of the chalice of his Passion.”19 or as Kierkegaard writes, seeming to echo thomas à Kempis, “Imitation, the imitation of Christ, is really the point from which the human race shrinks.”20 clearly, therefore, while the explicit concern of Kierkegaard’s journal remark cited above has to do with the possibility of authentic spiritual direction in his time, it is necessary to interpret the comment against the backdrop of Kierkegaard’s substantive agreement with thomas à Kempis regarding both the importance of christian imitation, as well as the rarity with which such imitation is earnestly attempted. this criterion of christian imitation is also an important interpretive backdrop for elucidating Kierkegaard’s second important journal entry discussing thomas à Kempis. In this entry, Kierkegaard affirms and elaborates upon something Thomas à Kempis writes regarding the relationship between one’s knowledge and one’s actions: how true what thomas à Kempis says (in The Imitation of Christ, bk. i, ch. 2): “therefore be not lifted up on account of any skill or knowledge, but rather fear on account of the knowledge that is given you. For the more you know and the better you understand it, the more rigorously you will be judged if you have not lived more holily.” see, this is another story. one seeks after knowledge, stretches all his thoughts, achieves it—and, see, he has captured himself. it must, however, be kept in mind that this holds true only of ethical and ethical-religious knowing.21

while somewhat more cryptic than the previous remarks, what Kierkegaard apparently takes from these lines of The Imitation of Christ is that—with respect to “ethical and ethical-religious knowing,” that is, with respect to the kind of knowing wherein what one knows has to do with how one should exist in the world— SV1 Xii, 467 / JFY, 200. SV1 Xii, 457 / JFY, 189. 18 SV1 Xii, 468 / JFY, 201. 19 thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, p. 92. 20 SV1 Xii, 456 / JFY, 188. the emphasis is in the original. 21 SKS 22, 288, nB13:24 / JP 4, 4785. Kierkegaard has reversed the order of the two sentences as they appear in the holm translation, and has added thi (for) at the beginning of the second sentence. 16 17

Joel D.S. Rasmussen

294

knowledge of the ideal “captures” an individual in his or her duplicity. when one “knows” an ethical ideal, a stricter accounting is required if and when he or she practices something other than that ideal. intellectual pride in ethical and spiritual matters, therefore, is always suspect, and the more one professes to know about matters of the spirit the greater the risk one runs of being judged “more rigorously.” with respect to christianity, Kierkegaard frequently speaks of this danger in terms of the modern “confusion” of conceiving christian faith in terms of an objective doctrine to be known through scholarship, rather than as a communication from god about how to live more “holily.” objective scholarship is said to make “ethicalreligious knowing” into an academic matter: “the christianity of today could be called professorial-scholarly christianity,”22 again to relate Kierkegaard’s journals to what he writes in Judge for Yourself! and the bourgeois-philistinism that was mentioned above is again none too far in the background (only here, instead of Mynster, Kierkegaard’s scorn is first and foremost for the systematic philosopher hans lassen Martensen (1808–84), professor at copenhagen university and Mynster’s eventual successor to the copenhagen bishopric). More than any other, Kierkegaard seems to think, it is the academic professor of christianity who has “captured himself” in ethical-religious knowledge. drawing the analogy between the professor and King Belshazzar, Kierkegaard writes, “Just as the king blanched when an invisible hand wrote upon the wall, ‘You have been weighed and found wanting,’ so the professor blanches before imitation—it, too, expresses: you, with the weight of all your objective scholarship, your folios and systems, have been weighed and found wanting.”23 what Kierkegaard wishes to illustrate here is that, when somebody makes objective knowledge about ethical-religious matters an end in itself, his or her life pales before the criterion of “imitation.” it would be too much to assert evidence of a strong debt of influence here, but the passage in Judge for Yourself! clearly amplifies Kierkegaard’s appreciative reference to thomas à Kempis in his journal regarding the relationship between knowing and acting. while Kierkegaard’s language distinguishing between objective scholarship and ethical-religious subjectivity is his own intellectual stock-in-trade, he here conjoins this distinction with a recapitulation of what he approves in The Imitation of Christ, complete with an invocation of the criterion of “imitation.” it should be noted, however, that while Kierkegaard and thomas à Kempis are in full agreement about the importance of the imitation of christ, they differ somewhat regarding the precise character of authentic christian imitation. indeed, while Kierkegaard’s explicit references to thomas à Kempis and The Imitation of Christ are only ever positive, he nonetheless makes a general criticism of medieval conceptions of imitation, and thomas à Kempis would to some degree be included in this criticism. while it is clear from his post-1848 writings that Kierkegaard sought to retrieve elements from the older imitatio Christi tradition, he nonetheless indicated certain respects in which that tradition also “misunderstands” its relation to christ. For example, in Judge For Yourself! Kierkegaard calls it “strange” that medieval christians “could think that in itself fasting was christianity, that entering 22 23

SV1 Xii, 462 / JFY, 195. SV1 Xii, 464 / JFY, 196.

Thomas à Kempis: devotio Moderna

295

the monastery, giving everything to the poor, not to mention what we can scarcely mention without smiling—scourging oneself, crawling on one’s knees, standing on one leg, etc.—that this was supposed to be imitation. this was an error,” Kierkegaard says.24 however, despite the fact that this error led to worse errors (namely, “the idea of meritoriousness,” the notion that one could earn credit before god through “good works,” and ultimately the transferable merit of indulgences), Kierkegaard nonetheless maintains that this earlier understanding of imitation had a “decisive advantage” over the cheap grace of “bourgeois-philistinism” because it cast christianity “along the lines of action, life, existence-transformation.”25 For Kierkegaard, the merit of the imitatio Christi tradition in general, and presumably of thomas à Kempis in particular, is the emphasis placed on the dimension of “action, life, existence-transformation” that he thinks the christians of his era neglect. in his ideal conception of christianity, however, Kierkegaard envisions a dynamic relationship between imitation and grace that neither transforms imitation into merit (as he thinks the imitatio tradition does) nor empties grace of its meaningfulness (as he accuses “bourgeois-philistinism” of doing). For Kierkegaard, therefore, when the recognition of one’s need for grace derives from striving to imitate christ and falling short of the ideal, then one is all the more appreciative of god’s forgiveness; whereas “as soon as imitation is completely omitted, grace is taken in vain.”26 the relationship between ethical rigorousness and saving grace, on this view, is a dialectical process oscillating between the demand for imitation and the forgiveness of sins, such that when active imitation is counterbalanced by the doctrine of grace, the tension between the attempt to imitate christ and one’s inability to imitate christ preserves the doctrine of grace from being cheapened. “every step forward toward the ideal is a backward step,” Kierkegaard writes, “for the progress consists precisely in my discovering increasingly the perfection of the ideal—and consequently my greater distance from it.”27 Progress toward becoming a christian, therefore, is not for Kierkegaard a process of “going on to perfection,” as wesleyans put it, but rather one of deepening recognition of one’s distance from the ideal, and a more profound gratitude for the grace extended by god in christ. in certain respects, to claim that Kierkegaard’s reading of The Imitation of Christ proved influential for his development of this dialectical conception of the relationship between imitation and grace appears non-controversial. the journal entries of 1849 make clear that he purchased and read the 1848 danish edition of The Imitation of Christ, and the fact that all of his subsequent comments are positive, although peripheral to the central theme of imitation, indicates a deep appreciation for that work. in order to discover how generative a reading the texts could support, therefore, this article has explored the possibility of a strong influence by interpreting two of Kierkegaard’s eight journal references to thomas à Kempis in the light of conceivably associated passages concerning christian imitation in Judge for Yourself! ultimately, 24 25 26 27

SV1 Xii, 460 / JFY, 192. see also SKS 21, 284–5, nB10:54 / JP 1, 693. SV1 Xii, 460 / JFY, 192. SKS 23, 471, nB20:150 / JP 2, 1878. SKS 24, 47, nB21:67 / JP 2, 1789.

296

Joel D.S. Rasmussen

however, despite the fact that this generative reading proves suggestive, the evidence of strong influence is nonetheless circumstantial. Consequently, the extent to which thomas à Kempis’ teachings should be read as a source for Kierkegaard’s late emphasis on the imitation of christ remains hypothetical.

Bibliography I. Thomas à Kempis’ Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library De imitatione Christi, Paris: apud Fredericum leonard, typographum regium 1702 (ASKB 272). Om Christi Efterfølgelse, fire Bøger, trans. and ed. by J.a.l. holm, introduced by andreas gottlob rudelbach, 3rd ed., copenhagen: wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1848 (ASKB 273). Rosengaarden og Liljehaven, gudelige Overvejelser, trans. by Marie Bojesen, copenhagen: chr. steen & søns Forlag 1849 (ASKB 274). II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Thomas à Kempis Böhringer, Friedrich, Die Deutschen Mystiker des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts: Johannes Tauler, Heinrich Suso, Johannes Rusbroek, Gerhard Groot, Florentius Radewynzoon, Thomas von Kempen, vol. 2, abtheilung 3 (1855), in Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen, vols. 1–2 (vol. 1, abtheilung 1–4 and vol. 2, abtheilung 1–3), zürich: Meyer & zeller 1842–55 [vol. 2, abtheilung 4, 1856–8], see pp. 677–811 (ASKB 173–177). carriere, Moriz, Die philosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit in ihren Beziehungen zur Gegenwart, stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. cotta’scher verlag 1847, pp. 161–2 (ASKB 458). erdmann, Johann eduard, Vorlesungen über Glauben und Wissen als Einleitung in die Dogmatik und Religionsphilosophie, Berlin: duncker und humblot 1837, p. 114 (ASKB 479). guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vols. 1–2, 3rd revised and enlarged ed., halle: in der gebauerschen Buchhandlung 1838, vol. 1, p. 638; pp. 653–4 (ASKB 158–159). hahn, august (ed.), Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, leipzig: Friedrich christian wilhelm vogel 1828, p. 93 (ASKB 535). hansen, Mørk, Populær Fremstilling af Kirkens Historie for tænkende Christne, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1848, p. 148 (ASKB 167). hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, trans. by c. winther and t. schorn, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1837, p. 366 (ASKB 160–166). Marheineke, Philipp, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens und Lebens für denkende Christen und zum Gebrauch in den oberen Klassen an den Gymnasien, 2nd revised ed., Berlin: in der nicolai’schen Buchhandlung 1836, p. 36 (ASKB 257).

298

Joel D.S. Rasmussen

Martensen, hans lassen, Den christelige Dogmatik, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1849, p. 347n (ASKB 653). [Münscher, wilhelm], Dr. Wilhelm Münschers Lærebog i den christelige Kirkehistorie, til Brug ved Forelæsninger, trans. by Fred. Münter, revised and ed. by Jens Möller, copenhagen: trykt paa universitets-Boghandler F. Brummers Forlag 1831, p. 195 (ASKB 168). nielsen, rasmus, Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, copenhagen: P.g. Philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 58 (ASKB 698). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, copenhagen: c.g. iversen 1854, p. 104 [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). thisted, Jørgen (ed.), For Christne. Et Tidsskrift, vols. 1–6, copenhagen: J.c. elmquist’sche Bogtrykkeri 1823–5, vol. 1, pp. 71–7 (ASKB 364–369). zimmermann, Johann georg, Ueber die Einsamkeit, vols. 1–4, leipzig: bey weidmanns erben und reich 1784–5, vol. 2, p. 145 (ASKB 917–920). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Thomas à Kempis dewey, Bradley, The New Obedience: Kierkegaard on Imitating Christ, washington: corpus Books 1968, p. 70; pp. 111–12; p. 126; p. 128; pp. 212–13; pp. 221–2.

troubadour Poetry: the Young Kierkegaard’s study on troubadours—“with respect to the concept of the romantic” tonny aagaard olesen

Kierkegaard was a troubadour and a Platonist, and he was both these things romantically and sentimentally.1

certainly every more experienced reader of Kierkegaard’s works will admit that this ingenious author’s intellectual horizon was very broad. and certainly every reader of Kierkegaard’s journals and notebooks has had the sense that the fireworks of his immediate genius are founded on continual reading which constantly appropriates new material. Kierkegaard was certainly a well-read man. also, even if in the course of his life he seems more and more to emphasize the idea, “to will only one thing,” his wide reading and often surprising book purchases testify to an enduring interest in the most diverse literature. even so, most people will still probably be surprised that Kierkegaard also made a detailed study of something as exotic as the troubadour poetry of provençal France. to be sure, georg lukács found a striking similarity between Kierkegaard and the troubadours, which we will return to, but already the grandiose perspective in lukács, where the courtly knight, so to speak, moves into the heart of Kierkegaard’s production, testifies that he did not have in mind the young Kierkegaard’s troubadour excerpt. With this excerpt, we find ourselves, at least at our point of departure, at the periphery of Kierkegaard’s youthful studies, or to begin the matter as prosaically as possible: the troubadour excerpt could be a pure and simple writing exercise motivated by the old, well-known school rule qui scribit, bis legit, that is, he who copies something by writing it down, profits from it just as much as someone who reads the text twice. I. The Edition History of the Troubadour Excerpt among the young Kierkegaard’s journal entries, there is an excerpt from Friedrich diez’s classic work, Die Poesie der Troubadour (1826). This entry was first 1 georg lukàcs, “the Foundering of Form against life. sören Kierkegaard and regina olsen,” in Soul and Form, trans. by anna Bostock, cambridge, Mass.: Mit Press 1974, p. 35.

300

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

accessible to the general public in 1869, when the editor h.P. Barfod paraphrased it in his edition, Af Søren Kierkegaards Efterladte Papirer. he notes that after the title, there appear a number of book titles “concerning this literature,” which are “books which have been Kierkegaard’s goal to go through more carefully.”2 as is more than implied, the excerpt also testifies to a serious research project, although Barfod forgets to inform the reader that the book titles in fact come from diez himself, that is, they are a part of the excerpt itself. Barfod notes laconically that a series of longer quotations are copied in german and that Kierkegaard treats the matter “sometimes with the word of the book, and sometimes somewhat more freely,”3 a statement which presumably evoked more than satisfied the reader’s curiosity. He fails to inform the reader that Kierkegaard read diez’s entire book, which is not evident from the quite incomplete and sketchy overview of the contexts that he gives. Further, Barfod does not compare the excerpt with the original, and for this reason one is not really oriented when he introduces one of Kierkegaard’s quite “independent” remarks: “in this entire section there are not found any particularly grand remarks, but a number of comparisons in the formal respect.”4 Barfod ought to have informed the reader that Kierkegaard here only refers to the book’s fifth section, in which the troubadour poetry of the provençe is put into perspective in relation to contemporary european literature. without further information, Kierkegaard’s statement appears incomprehensible and misleading. Forty years passed before the readers could look into the matter for themselves. This was finally possible with the publication of Søren Kierkegaards Papirer, the first volume of which contains a large snippet of the troubadour excerpt.5 the part that was left out was later printed in the supplement volume, which niels thulstrup published in 1969,6 that is, 100 years after Barfod’s paraphrase. The excerpt finally appeared in its complete form in the year 2000 as entry BB:2 in Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter, where it was also accompanied by extensive commentaries.7 this entry has only recently been translated in the new english edition Kierkegaard’s Journals and Notebooks,8 and for the most part it has not been treated in the secondary literature. in his study of Kierkegaard’s early papers, gregor Malantschuk merely noted that

see h.P. Barfod (ed.), Af Søren Kierkegaards Efterladte Papirer, vols. 1–9, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1869–81, vol. 1, p. 175. 3 ibid. 4 ibid. 5 Søren Kierkegaards Papirer, vol. 1, pp. 245–56, under i c 89–91. 6 niels thulstrup’s supplement to Søren Kierkegaards Papirer, vol. Xii, pp. 224–8. 7 cf. SKS 17, 62–75, BB:2 and the explanatory notes by tonny aagaard olesen in SKS K17, 147–74. 8 Kierkegaard’s Journals and Notebooks, vol. 1, Journals AA–DD, ed. by Bruce h. Kirmmse, niels Jørgen cappelørn et al., Princeton and oxford: Princeton university Press 2007, pp. 56–68. see also JP 5, 5137, which only contains the title of diez’s work, while it suffices the commentator to write: “This is one of many instances of extended reading in books not included in the ASKB listing,” p. 478. 2

Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours

301

the troubadour excerpt testifies to the interest with which Kierkegaard studied Diez’s book.9 one must admit that he is right on that point! II. The Foundation of then Recent Troubadour Research german romanticism’s fascination with the Middle ages is well known. not only the medieval interest in the period’s belles lettres, or the blooming interest in folk poetry (fairy tales, sagas, folk songs, proverbs, etc.), but also the scholarly collecting of, research into and publication of medieval literature is characteristic of romanticism. ludwig uhland’s (1787–1862) epoch-making treatise, Ueber das altfranzösische Epos (1812), directed serious attention to the heroic poem, which was created in the earliest romance literature.10 a few years later François Juste Marie raynouard (1761–1836) published his weighty six-volume work, Choix des poésies originales des Troubadours (1816–21), which contained a large collection of text-critically edited works (with an accompanying French translation) of provençal poetry; this “anthology” soon became the preferred reference work of the age. it also contained an extensive grammar of the provençal language and a linguistichistorical overview. concerning the latter, raynouard set forth the well-known thesis, which soon met with spirited opposition, that between latin and the various romance languages there existed a widespread “ur-romance” language, for which evidence was found especially in occitanic, “the language of the troubadours.”11 the romantic drive to try to get behind the latin culture to get back to the earliest folk culture of the national language found a welcome interest in troubadour poetry. raynouard’s work, which can be regarded as a culmination point in the research,12 set a new standard for this quickly growing field. In 1819 Henri-Pascal Rochegude (1741–1834) added two larger works to the research,13 and a.w. schlegel (1767– 1845) had, on occasion of raynouard’s work, immediately traveled to Paris from germany in order to study the old manuscripts, which resulted in, among other things, the treatise, Observations sur la langue et la littérature provençales (1818),14 while another german professor, Johann valentin adrian (1793–1864) published in see gregor Malantschuk, Kierkegaard’s Thought, trans. by howard v. hong and edna hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1971, p. 38. (originally as gregor Malantschuk, Dialektik og eksistens hos Søren Kierkegaard, copenhagen: hans reitzel 1968, p. 42.) 10 the treatise was printed in Die Musen. Eine norddeutsche Zeitschrift, ed. by Friedrich Baron de la Motte Fouqué and wilhelm neumann, no. 3 (Berlin) 1812 (photomechanical reproduction, nendeln: Kraus 1971), pp. 59–109, and pp. 101–55. 11 wolfgang rettig, “raynourd, diez und die romanische ursprache,” in Akten des Kolloquiums zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Romanistik, ed. by h.-J. niederehe, h. haarmann and l. rouday, amsterdam: John Benjamins B.v. 1976, pp. 247–71. 12 a somewhat earlier work which focused more on the epic poem was Le Troubadour, poésies occitaniques du XIIIeme siecle; traduites et publiées par Fabre-D’ Olivet, vols. 1–2, Paris: henrichs 1803. 13 see henri-Pascal rochegude, Le Parnasse occitanien, ou choix de poésies originales des Troubadours tirées des manuscrits nationaux, vols. 1–2, toulouse: Benichet cadet 1819; henri-Pascal rochegude, Essai d’un glossaire occitanien, toulouse: Benichet cadet 1819. 14 Photomechanical reproduction, tübingen: narr 1971. 9

302

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

1825 a provençal grammar.15 in a quite short period of time the budding troubadour research thus established a solid foundation for the work which, in its captivating presentation and methodical certainty, almost came to overshadow them all. when Friedrich (christian) diez (1794–1876), the founder of romance philology,16 met goethe in Jena in the spring of 1818, his lifeplan was as yet undetermined. goethe, who with great interest had studied the first volumes of Raynouard’s great work, encouraged the young man to research the richness which lay in the provençal literature, and so it happened.17 seven years later diez published a short cultural-historical work, Beiträge zur Kenntniß der romantischen Poesie,18 in which a series of themes in provençal poetry, for example, love, are examined. a year later appeared his now classic work, Die Poesie der Troubadour,19 in which he, in 360 pages, treats troubadour literature, especially lyric, from a historical, sociological, and aesthetic point of view, along with giving a brief presentation of the provençal language and printing a series of poems in the original language. this work was followed up in 1829 by yet another large work, namely, Leben und Werke der Trobadours,20 in which he gives an extensive presentation of the lives of more than sixty troubadour poets along with a register of more than 364 troubadours. with these two works, troubadour research not only received a clear and systematic presentation, but they meant that there was an interest in troubadour poetry far and wide; indeed, it even reached copenhagen. III. The Study of the Troubadours in Copenhagen it is not known how Kierkegaard came across diez’s work. there had hardly been any particularly great interest in old French literature in copenhagen. in the period from 1816 to 1818 the professor of philology and archeology Peter oluf Brøndsted (1780–1842) had studied robert wace’s rhymed chronicle about rollo and the dukes of normandy. using as his textual basis the unpublished handwritings, he see Johann valentin adrian (ed.), Grundzüge zu einer Provenzalischen Grammatik, nebst Chrestomathie, Frankfurt am Main: sauerländer 1825. 16 see, for example, K. sachs, Friedrich Diez und die romanische Philologie, Berlin: langenscheidt’sche verlag 1878, and wolfgang rettig, “raynouard, diez und die romanische ursprache,” pp. 247–71. 17 this “sehr alte und verbreitete” anecdote, however, does not, according to iorgu iordan, hold water. cf. his Einführung in die Geschichte und Methoden der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin: akademie-verlag 1962, p. 19. 18 Friedrich diez, Beiträge zur Kenntniß der romantischen Poesie. Erster Heft, Berlin: g. reimer 1825. 19 diez, Die Poesie der Troubadour. Nach gedruckten und handschriftlichen Werken derselben dargestellt, zwickau: verlage der gebrüder schumann 1826; 2nd enlarged ed. by Karl Bartsch, leipzig: verlag von Johann ambrosius Barth 1883 (photomechanical reproduction, hildesheim: olms 1966). (French translation, Paris: J. labitte 1845 (photomechanical reproduction, geneve: slatkine reprints 1975).) 20 cf. diez, Leben und Werke der Troubadours. Ein Beitrag zur nähern Kenntniß des Mittelalters von Friedrich Diez, zwickau: gebrüder schumann 1829. only in more recent times has this work found a successor in F.r.P. akehurst and Judith M. davis (eds.), A Handbook of the Troubadours, Berkeley, los angeles and london: university of california Press 1995. 15

Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours

303

published an excerpt, which was praised by raynouard himself.21 nicolai christian levin abrahams (1798–1870), who became lecturer in 1829, and three years later professor of French, returned to denmark in 1828 from an extended journey abroad. right away he defended his master’s thesis on robert wace’s Roman de Brut, which was also based on unpublished handwritten material.22 abrahams’ treatise was also lauded by raynouard in the Journal des savants, and in general people abroad were astonished that there were danish scholars who were studing the language and literature of medieval France.23 however, it should be noted that there were not many such danish scholars. in his memoirs abrahams writes: “i did not know that any of my countrymen, with the exception of Brøndsted, had made a study of the language and literature of France in the Middle ages”;24 this field of study was “still in its infancy and lay almost wholly fallow.”25 even if Brøndsted and abrahams had thus made a first-hand study of the old French saga cycles, which the troubadours were intimately familiar with, nonetheless it does not seem that they or anyone else in denmark explored troubadour poetry in provençal dress. according to all indications, when, some years later, Kierkegaard drew attention to the troubadours, it was not the result of any local interest, which then, so to speak, carried him along with the tide. IV. The Dating of and Possible Motivations for the Excerpt Kierkegaard’s troubadour excerpt ends with the date april 22, 1836. the extensive excerpt, which covers 13 pages in Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter, and which is composed carefully with a neat handwriting,26 was certainly not written in a single day. we do not know how much time Kierkegaard used for this study, or whether he excerpted from the book in one sitting or over a longer period of time, section for section. since the excerpt preceding this one in the journal is dated March 24,27 the troubadour excerpt must have been written in the intervening period. there are no other entries from this time, but, however, it was during this period that Kierkegaard Brøndsted’s excerpts are printed in his Bidrag til den danske Historie og til Kundskab om Danmarks ældre politiske Forhold af udenlandske Manuscriptsamlinger, vols. 1–2, copenhagen: Forfatterens Forlag 1817–18; cf. Dansk Litteratur-Tidende, no. 2, 1818, pp. 17–26; no. 3, 1819, pp. 33–42, and raynouard’s review in Journal des Savans, March, 1820, pp. 174–82. see further Brøndsted’s treatise, “om robert waces hidtil utrykte romancekrönike, fra det 12te aarhundrede,” in Det skandinaviske Litteraturselskabs Skrifter, vols. 1–28, copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1805–32, vols. 12–13 (1816–17), pp. 127–79. 22 the treatise is entitled, De Roberti Wacii carmine quod inscribitur Brutus dissertatio, hafniae [copenhagen]: seidelin 1828; reviewed in Dansk Litteratur-Tidende, no. 51, 1828, pp. 923–7, and in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 1, 268–76 (by l. engelstoft). 23 see n.c.l. abrahams, Meddelelser af mit Liv, ed. by a. abrahams, copenhagen: Forlagsbureauet i Kjøbenhavn 1876, p. 460. 24 ibid., p. 456. 25 ibid., p. 460. 26 cf. Søren Kierkegaards Papirer, vol. 1, p. 343, column 1. the excerpt was not, however, without several transcription errors and corrections. cf. the text-critical apparatus in SKS 17, 62–75. 27 SKS 17, 59–62, BB:1 / KJN 1, 53–6. 21

304

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

completed his newspaper polemic with Johannes hage and orla lehmann, which presumably required some energy and effort.28 as noted by howard v. hong, the entry belongs to a group of Kierkegaard’s excerpts, whose source is not found in Kierkegaard’s library. since Kierkegaard was at this time active in the student association, and since we know that he used not merely the student association’s library but also the catalogue of its collection to look for new books,29 it is reasonable to assume that it was here that he came across diez’s work. it turns out that Die Poesie der Troubadours is listed under the very general rubric “digtekunst,”30 where one also finds Christian Molbech’s lectures on Danish poetry,31 that is, the work which Kierkegaard excerpted immediately before the troubadour excerpt (in BB:1), and K.e. schubarth’s lectures on goethe’s Faust,32 that is, the work, which is excerpted after the troubadour excerpt.33 the fact that Kierkegaard used the student association’s library could also explain why, in a bibliographical marginal entry (BB:2.b), he, on the one hand, notes that diez later wrote Leben und Werke der Troubadours (1829)—a work found on the same shelf as the aforementioned one— while, on the other hand, he makes no mention Beiträge zur Kenntniß der romantischen Poesie, which the library did not own. we do not know how extensively Kierkegaard read the two works by diez that he mentions, but from the latter marginal entry (BB:2.f) we can see that, as late as January 17, 1837, he returned to the entry after having read a work from the additional literature which is written down in BB:2. the troubadour excerpt thus seems to have been a part of a larger study. V. The Form of the Troubadour Excerpt Kierkegaard’s excerpts stand in close relation to Die Poesie der Troubadours by quoting or translating shorter or longer passages, or by giving an overview account in danish of larger parts of the text such that—and this is characteristic of Kierkegaard— he does not put the work into his own language but almost always lets diez’s own formulations shine through. thus Kierkegaard appears only as translator when Kierkegaard’s anonymous double article, “om Fædrelandets Polemik,” was published in Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, in mid-March 1836. orla lehmann’s response in Kjøbenhavnsposten, followed on March 31, after which Kierkegaard worked out his reply, “til orla lehmann,” which was printed in Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post on april 10. see teddy Petersen, Kierkegaards polemiske debut. Artikler 1834–36 i historisk sammenhæng, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1977. 29 see SKS 17, 142, BB:51, KJN 1, 135 / SKS 19, 92, not2:2c, and SKS 19, 94, not2:10 / JP 5, 5111. 30 see Fortegnelse over Studenterforeningens Bogsamling, copenhagen: trykt i thieles Bogtrykkerie 1833, and the update (from december 31, 1834); the rubric “digtekunst” is found on p. 50 (ASKB 984). 31 christian Molbech, Forelæsninger over den nyere danske Poesie, særdeles efter Digterne Evalds, Baggesens og Oehlenschlägers Værker, vols. 1–2, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1831–2. 32 Karl ernst schubarth, Ueber Goethe’s Faust: Vorlesungen, Berlin: enslin 1830 (ASKB u 96). 33 in BB:7, dated september 2, 1836 / KJN 1, 70–83. 28

Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours

305

we come across an apparently evaluative coloring in sentences like the following: “strangely enough, clerics also joined these singers of love songs”;34 “it is curious that the only classical poet the troub.[adours] had any particular knowledge of is ovid”;35 or “die tenzone. this remarkable kind of poem is the Provençals’ and the Frenchmen’s own.”36 similarly, when he remarks about a caption that it “contains important information,”37 or when in connection with diez’s distinction between a political, personal and moral sirventes, he adds: “not a particularly sharp division”;38 these evaluations are not Kierkegaard’s, but he is rather merely reporting them. Kierkegaard’s excerpt is thus by and large a neutral document. however, in the excerpt there are several references to examples in diez,39 of which some “should really be perused.”40 in two such references Kierkegaard does nevertheless give his own evaluation; namely, where he mentions the poetic genre alba, which vividly portrays sensual love, he writes, “there is an example cited which is really typical”41—or when he later writes, “An example from Marcabrun follows, which is especially fine.”42 But such evaluative comments from Kierkegaard’s side are the exception. VI. The Content of the Troubadour Excerpt after this summary account of the form of the excerpt, we can turn to its content, that is, what Kierkegaard selected and copied from Die Poesie der Troubadours. the work contains a foreword (pp. v–Xvi), followed by a main section (“Poesie der troubadours,” pp. 3–282), a shorter part (“ueber die provenzalische sprache,” pp. 285–328), along with an appendix with poetry from four troubadours (pp. 331–60). Kierkegaard makes only fleeting mention of the foreword, which is dedicated to the history of the research; it is reduced to a bibliographical marginal entry, where the titles of the most recent works are noted (raynouard, adrian, a.w. schlegel, and rochegude). From this one can probably—like Barfod—conclude that Kierkegaard conceived it as a possibility that he would make a more profound study of this area of research, which, moreover, is also supported by the bibliographical look of the rest of the excerpt. when Kierkegaard passes by the “vorbemerkung,” which is dedicated to the history of language, and introduces the main section (pp. 3–13), just as he only very fleetingly touches on the specific account of the provençal language, one must assume either that the historical-philological information about a dead language did not interest him or that it, with its demanding wealth of details, was simply too much for him, or that it did not strike him as something that could be excerpted. Kierkegaard follows by and large the five sections of the main part: 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

SKS 17, 64.17–18, BB:2 / KJN 1, 58. SKS 17, 70.28–9, BB:2 / KJN 1, 64. SKS 17, 72.33–4, BB:2 / KJN 1, 66. SKS 17, 66.34–5, BB:2 / KJN 1, 60. SKS 17, 72.24–5, BB:2 / KJN 1, 66. SKS 17, 65.40; 66.10; 69.3; 71.8–9; 71.16–18; 71.29–30; 72.9–10; 73.8 and 74.15, BB:2. SKS 17, 71.17, BB:2 / KJN 1, 65. SKS 17, 71.29–30, BB:2 / KJN 1, 65. SKS 17, 72.9–10, BB:2 / KJN 1, 65.

306

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

1. “geist und schicksale der Poesie” (pp. 13–83; SKS 17, 62–7 / KJN 1, 56–60), 2. “Form” (pp. 84–121; SKS 17, 67–9 / KJN 1, 60–63), 3. “inhalt” (pp. 122–94; SKS 17, 69–73 / KJN 1, 63–6.), 4. “erzählende und belehrende Poesie” (pp. 195–231; SKS 17, 73–4 / KJN 1, 66–8) and 5. “verhältniß zu auswärtiger litteratur” (pp. 232– 82; SKS 17, 74/ KJN 1, 68). as is immediately clear from the listed page numbers, he found material particularly in the first three sections. In the first section of the book, “Geist und Schicksale der Poesie,” an overview of the historical establishment of troubadour poetry is given, over twelve chapters, and Kierkegaard’s excerpt follows chapter for chapter, even listing the chapter titles.43 The first theme Kierkegaard treats concerns the relation between folk poetry and artistic poetry, which one could also call the central theme of the excerpt. First, there is a general historical explanation: it is emphasized that folk poetry is the oldest and that it “belonged to the whole nation without distinction of class, equally understood by all,”44 while artistic poetry only arose in southern France during the time of the crusades, where the knighthood had consolidated itself and produced an ennobled spirit of chivalry. this artistic poetry, that is, troubadour poetry, was associated with the courts, where a special court culture developed, which (especially directed toward the ladies) was the sign of “refined and pleasant manners (cortesia and mesura).”45 Kierkegaard notes troubadour poetry developed in three phases,46 which designate its rise, period of greatness, and fall, since the “spirit of chivalry” with its “ideal and poetic tendency” and “noblest sacrifice” was led in “the prosaic direction,” which was borne by “the greatest egoism.”47 Furthermore, Kierkegaard was struck by the distinction between the so-called jugglers, who played instruments, told stories and recited other people’s verse, and the troubadours, who wrote their own verse, and finally the socalled doctors of poetry, that is, the most outstanding troubadours, who “with their beautiful wisdom showed the way to honor, goodness, and duty” and who dictated “how noble courts and great deeds should be constituted.”48 Kierkegaard finally dwelled on the central theme, which is developed in the next section, namely that the troubadours’ artistic poetry was a cultivation of form, and this in the lyric genres, in contrast to folk poetry’s epic and cultureless character,49 against which romanticism’s cultivation of the Middle Ages was otherwise first and foremost directed.50

namely, “ursprung,” “Kunstschule,” “Poetische gesellschaften,” “Begriff von troubadour und Jongleur,” “Kunstbereich der troubadours,” “Kunstbereich der Jongleurs,” “Poetische unterhaltungen,” “lohn und ehre der sänger,” “gönner der Poesie,” “verfall und untergang der Poesie,” “zeiträume der Poesie” and “guiraut riquier über die hofpoesie.” 44 SKS 17, 62.22, BB:2 / KJN 1, 56 and SKS 17, 62.30–31, BB:2 / KJN 1, 56. 45 SKS 17, 65.36–7, BB:2 / KJN 1, 59. 46 1090–1140, 1140–1250, 1250–90. 47 SKS 17, 66.2–8, BB:2 / KJN 1, 59. 48 SKS 17, 67.5–8, BB:2 / KJN 1, 60. 49 SKS 17, 64.22ff., BB:2 / KJN 1, 58–9. 50 see, for example, Kierkegaard’s excerpt of the lectures on romanticism by christian Molbech, in SKS 17, 59–62, BB:1 / KJN 51, 55, where one reads: “Medieval poetry, which on the whole has a predominantly epic character, is therefore extremely rich in content but nonetheless frequently formless.” 43

Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours

307

the second section of the book, “Form,” consists of the following chapters, “vers,” “strophe,” “lied,” “reim” and “gattungsnamen der gedichte,” and it is evident from the excerpt that these aspects were of great interest for Kierkegaard since he skips over the chapter on “lied,” while in the chapter on the poetic genres he pays particular attention to the tenso, to which we will return. Kierkegaard excerpted a single point from the chapter on the construction of verse and the kinds of verse, which, struck him as important. the metrical form of the verse in the provençal language and in the romance languages in general is distinguished from latin poetry by the fact that while the metrical intonation in latin is quantitatively tied to the syllables, in the romance languages it is the linguistic accent which governs intonation. Kierkegaard sketches this relation by quoting a passage from diez,51 to which he adds, in a marginal entry, a supporting quotation from c.g. zumpt’s Lateinische Grammatik.52 similarly Kierkegaard excerpts a passage from the next chapter on the difference between folk poetry and artistic poetry’s construction of stanzas;53 in the margin he refers to an elucidating passage in Friedrich schlegel’s characterization of the older national-language poetry.54 and from the chapter on rhyme he quotes a longer passage,55 after which he notes that in diez there are several examples of “play on rhyme and letters”;56 as we will see, in Kierkegaard there is a later reference to this passage. there can be no doubt that the formal or technical side of lyric poetry exercised Kierkegaard. the third section of the book, “inhalt,” consists of “allgemeine Bemerkungen” and “Bemerkungen über die lyrischen gattungen” (divided into the chapters “das Minnelied,” “das sirventes,” and “die tenzone”), and Kierkegaard points out various observations throughout the entire section. He first translates Diez’s remark that all of troubadour poetry can be regarded as “the work of one man but produced in different moods,” since “the individual personality” still played “some part,” but it was the “the same spirit” and “the same poetic standpoint,” which penetrated the entire literature; troubadour poetry’s virtuosity lay in the changing, elegant attire of the known idea.57 after this there follows a longer passage, in which this is explored by a kind of comparison of the character of folk poetry and artistic poetry,58 to which Kierkegaard notes in the margin: “thus it is the difference between the sentimental and the naive that this author is, in his own way, stressing.”59 this reference to SKS 17, 67.9–21, BB:2 / KJN 1, 60. SKS 17, 67, BB:2.c / KJN 1, 61. c.g. zumpt, Lateinische Grammatik (from 1818) appeared in many editions; cf. ASKB 1009–1010 (which refer to the 6th and 7th editions from Berlin, respectively 1828 and 1834); Kierkegaard quotes from the 1828 edition. 53 SKS 17, 67.21–34. BB:2 / KJN 1, 61. 54 SKS 17, 67, BB:2.d / KJN 1, 61. this concerns a little excursus in the 15th lecture of Geschichte der alten und neuen Litteratur. Vorlesungen gehalten zu Wien im Jahre 1812, 2nd ed., printed in Friedrich Schlegel’s sämmtliche Werke, vol. 1–10, vienna: Mayer 1822–5 (ASKB 1816–1825); vol. 2, 1822, pp. 264–7. 55 SKS 17, 68.10–69.1, BB:2 / KJN 1, 61–2. 56 SKS 17, 69.1–3, BB:2 / KJN 1, 62. 57 SKS 17, 69.41–70.9, BB:2 / KJN 1, 63. 58 SKS 17, 70.10–28, BB:2 / KJN 1, 63–4. 59 SKS 17, 70, BB:2.e / KJN 1, 64. 51 52

308

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

schiller’s well-known distinction, which Kierkegaard had noted in connection with Molbech’s lectures on literature,60 could indicate that the troubadour excerpt formed a part of a larger research project. after this, Kierkegaard dwells on another central theme, namely, the relation of troubadour poetry to the latin tradition and mythology. a characteristic feature of provençal poetry was that “the classical lit.[erature] was almost wholly unknown to it,” since the troubadours only knew ovid.61 By contrast, it could everywhere presuppose folk literature’s fable cycle as generally known: “as against the modern poets who use ancient mythology to fetch images from it, the troub.[adours] had a considerable treasure trove ‘von sagen und Fictionen,’ ”62 among others the stories of roland and olivier, alexander the great, charlemagne, and the celtic saga hero arthur, cato the wise, The Lion Knight Ivan, Tristan and Isolde, and Flores and Blanceflor, and the beautiful Maguelone, titurel, and Parzival.63 Kierkegaard’s excerpt shows a particular interest in the Middle ages’ folk “mythology,” which, in contrast to the pagan mythologies (greek, roman, nordic) were still alive in the consciousness of the people. in connection with the three important lyric genres, Kierkegaard dwelled on the chapter dedicated to the minnesang (the love song), which also plays a quite central role since we find here a presentation of courtly love, or the chosen love (fin’ amor), which in romanticism was elevated into “romantic” love. in relation to the thirtyfive pages which Diez uses to treat this topic, Kierkegaard’s summary appears to be somewhat impoverished since he often refers to the book’s examples, saying that they “should really be perused.”64 Kierkegaard notices that amor is a goddess for the troubadours and not, as was traditional, a boy, and it exercises him that in love relations the greatest caution is demanded; for example, the poet used an allegorical designation for his lady in order not to offend her, which also meant that he had to have a musician deliver the poem. he refers to a “typical” example of the sensual presentation in the poetic genre alba,65 and he dwells on the question of how the poets’ enthusiasm for their lady went so far that “they preferred the possession of her before all else,”66 even if this meant receiving help from the anti-christ. he notes that there are wonderful songs of lament for a deceased person, that the religious poems are more rare, and that the love letters are also an important genre. Finally, he copies a passage, in which diez discusses the special “subjektive Darstellung,” where the poet participates in the action or directly observes it.67

Friedrich schiller’s distinction, which is developed in Über naive und sentimentalische Dichtung (1795), is noted by Kierkegaard during his reading of Molbech’s lectures (Forelæsninger over den nyere danske Poesie, vol. 2, pp. 233–4); cf. the undated, loose paper: Pap. i a 129 / JP 1, 123. 61 SKS 17, 67.40–41, 70.28–9, BB:2 / KJN 1, 64. 62 SKS 17, 70.29–37, BB:2 / KJN 1, 64. 63 SKS 17, 70.37–40. 74.13–15, BB:2 / KJN 1, 64. KJN 1, 68. 64 SKS 17, 71.17, BB:2 / KJN 1, 65. 65 the poem is printed in SKS K17, 165 / KJN 1, 380–81. 66 SKS 17, 71.31, BB:2 / KJN 1, 65. 67 SKS 17, 72.4, BB:2 / KJN 1, 65. he refers to a poem by Marcabru, which is printed in SKS K17, 166 / KJN 1, 381–2. 60

Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours

309

Kierkegaard especially emphasizes the chastizing element of the poetic genre sirventes, which was aimed sarcastically against contemporary society, just as he lists some characteristics for the special poetic genre tenso, that is, the competition poem antiphon, where two troubadours dual, using a predetermined theme. Kierkegaard, who has already sketched the character traits of this poetic genre,68 here copies diez’s formulation: “Sie ist ohne Zweifel, was ihre Entstehung betrifft, ein Product des dialectischen Geistes jener ganzen Zeit.”69 there can be no doubt that the characterization of the individual forms of poetry interested him. the fourth section of the book, “erzählende und belehrende Poesie,” consists of the two designated main chapters, under which a long series of representative works are presented. Kierkegaard for the most part follows the introductory theme that the troubadours regarded lyric artistic poetry as the highest genre, and thus that they did not want to lower themselves to practicing the narrative or epic form. in this connection he copies a note, in which diez, by using uhland’s aforementioned treatise, notes that the great epic poems, written in alexandrian verse or fivefooted iambs, were recited to music so that the music was reduced to melodies, while, by contrast, the lyric songs, with their complex construction of strophes, demanded musical diversity: “Der Abstand zwischen der epischen und lyrischen Musikbegleitung war daher derselbe wie zwischen Volks- und Kunstpoesie, und die epische in den Augen des Kunstdichters so gut wie keine.”70 Finally, in the fifth section of the book, “Verhältniß zu auswärtiger Litteratur,” an overview of the court poetry in europe of the age is given, after which appears an account of “altfranzösische Liederpoesie,” “altdeutsche Liederpoesie,” and finally “altitaliänische liederpoesie.” Kierkegaard limits himself to the chapter on german poetry, which he reduces to a bibliography of three titles, since, as he notes, the entire section contains “no particularly significant remarks.” The noted books all concern the german Middle ages’ penchant for troubadour poetry, namely the german Minnelied and Meisterlied. Kierkegaard probably never had the first book in hand.71 to the second title, which is Jakob grimm’s Ueber den altdeutschen Meistergesang (1811), Kierkegaard wrote a marginal entry dated January 17, 1837, in which he remarks that he had borrowed the book from the university library, but that it struck him as “so empirical and so learned that [he could not] make head or tail of it.”72 he elaborates on this with the remark: “it might interest me if ever i get more time.”73 the third title is Josef von görres’ Altteutsche Volks- und Meisterlieder aus den Handschriften der Heidelberger Bibliothek (1817). Kierkegaard could also have made a marginal entry on this work since although he in fact did not buy the book until the fall of

cf. SKS 17, 63.25ff. and 69.11ff, BB:2 / KJN 1, 57 and KJN 1, 63. SKS 17, 73.2–4, BB:2 / KJN 1, 66. 70 SKS 17, 73.38–41, BB:2 / KJN 1, 67. 71 this concerns Johann Jacob Bodmer and Martin Künzli, Neue Critische Briefe, über ganz verschiedene Sachen, von verschiedenen Verfassern: Mit einigen Gesprächen im Elysium und am Acheron vermehrt, zürich: orell and geßner 1763. 72 SKS 17, 74.m3–4, BB:2 / KJN 1, 68. 73 SKS 17, 74.m8–10, BB:2 / KJN 1, 68. 68 69

310

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

1836,74 he—in any case later—read it.75 whatever is ultimately the case here, these book titles and the marginal entry evidence that Kierkegaard less than a year later returned to the troubadour excerpt, and that he conceived this study as a part of a larger research project into the literature of the Middle ages. Moreover, it seems to be characteristic of Kierkegaard’s way of studying that he was busy appropriating all the historical details,76 which the troubadour excerpt also evidences. VII. Putting the Youthful Study into Perspective the common picture of Kierkegaard as a productive reader who has a loose relation to a book’s content and intention is contradicted by the picture of Kierkegaard as a reader who meticulously studies a work. this latter picture is supported not only by the troubadour excerpt but also by his other excerpts, which all bear the mark of a reliable reproduction of the original. the fact that Kierkegaard did not copy the entirety of diez’s book (as he did later, for example, stieglitz’s entire Faust bibliography),77 but only excerpted what he found immediately interesting, invites two interpretations regarding the selection itself. First one can compare what Kierkegaard wrote with everything in Die Poesie der Troubadours, which he—surprisingly—did not include in the excerpts. a systematic investigation of this kind, which could demonstrate Kierkegaard’s general tendentiousness in relation to Diez’s work, would lead too far afield here. Instead we will limit ourselves to discussing, from the aforementioned perspective, two themes, which one might immediately have expected Kierkegaard to have emphasized. second, one can relate the themes which are found in the excerpt to the complex of studies which occupied Kierkegaard during the same period in order thereby to gain an impression of the troubadour study’s specific effect and placement. Several times in the course of the analysis of the excerpt, we have suggested this direction since we found several traces of the broader context of study, which may be assumed to have been what determined Kierkegaard’s reading. in the following we will emphasize this comparison, but let us begin with the two somewhat surprisingly neglected themes. The first rather diffuse theme can be summarized by the term, “subjectivity.” we have already seen how Kierkegaard in his studies guarded against losing himself in the historical manifold. one could perhaps grant Kierkegaard that he, with excerpts of a reasonable length, reproduced diez’s otherwise so extensive, technical descriptions of genre, even if he is in no way exhaustive. By contrast, cf. ASKB 1486 (which appears on a bill from c.a. reitzel’s Bookstore to Kierkegaard, dated novemner 29, 1836; cf. the Kierkegaard archive at the royal library, d pk. 8 læg 1). 75 see the quotation of the undated journal entry SKS 17, 46, aa:29 / KJN 1, 40 (written between aa:22 / KJN 1, 35–6, dated March 19, 1837 and aa:51 / KJN 1, 46, dated august 26, 1837). 76 compare also the concluding bibliographical entry in the Journal BB (that is, SKS 17, 142, BB:51 / KJN 1, 135), where Kierkegaard writes concerning another multi-volume work: “i have had this home from the university library, where they have them, but since g.[örres] entered far too much into the historical apparatus in this work, and this would take me too far into a new world, where the very number of names would be disturbing, i have not gone further into it.” 77 see SKS 17, 92–104, BB:12 / KJN 1, 85–96. 74

Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours

311

one might wonder why he does not mention a single one of the numerous strophes which diez everywhere—often in a long series—uses by way of illustration. to be sure, Kierkegaard refers several times to such examples, but since these strophes not only illuminate a given objective situation, since they also profile the individual troubadours, what is indicated by this is also that it is not the concrete personalities of the authors which are the central point of the excerpt. to this extent this is in line with the historical-aesthetic perspective in Die Poesie der Troubadours, but there is a major difference between being the author who ahead of time knew all the troubadours and being a young researcher who comes across them for the first time. when in Kierkegaard’s excerpt there appear a score of troubadours, then one might suppose that these names in some way had a special interest for him, and perhaps that it was his intention to look them up in Leben und Werke der Troubadours. this galley of people in Kierkegaard’s text already evidences a certain degree of interest in the names, but upon closer examination, one discovers that none of these names actually goes beyond the local passage in diez. when, for example, william of Potiers (guilhem de Peitou) is mentioned en passant in a single passage as the first troubadour, this seems to be the quality which otherwise makes him into a kind of “world-historical” person, to attract greater attention, but the only troubadour who receives the honor of being named twice is Piere rogier, which again seems to be due purely to coincidence. the master of trobar clus who was made so famous by dante, namely arnaut daniel, is only mentioned in order thus to distinguish him from the later obscure style “which some troubadours no doubt for that reason seized upon in order to set themselves apart from the mass of poets.”78 this distinction, which could suggest a certain degree of subjectivity, is, however, not followed up on; the names of the relevant troubadours are not even mentioned. however, they are mentioned by emphasizing the troubadours’ subjective form of presentation, where reference is made to an “especially beautiful” poem by Marcabru. one might think that such a positive estimation would have occasioned Kierkegaard to try to find other texts by Marcabru, but this was not the case. it is of course not known to what degree Kierkegaard himself managed to gain an overview of the internal differences among the troubadours, but if one judges by the excerpt, the empirical manifold of actors did not win any profound interest in Kierkegaard’s mind. Many of the central troubadours are not mentioned in the excerpt, and those who are mentioned appear more as an illustration of a specific theme than as being in themselves interesting individual poets. the place where subjectivity is thematized most explicitly in the excerpt is in the pregnant description that all of troubadour literature could be written by a single man since the spirit, the idea, the poetic standpoint were common to all, while the individuality of the particular poet only became evident in the artistic expression.79 Kierkegaard was presumably in agreement with diez in this view,80 without, however, SKS 17, 66.18–19, BB:2 / KJN 1, 60. diez also elaborates on this view in Leben und Werke der Troubadours, pp. iX–Xi. 80 By contrast, in the modern research there are two works, in which the subjectivity of the individual troubadour is made an issue, namely, sarah Kay, Subjectivity in Troubadour Poetry, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1990, and simon B. gaunt, Troubadour and Irony, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1989. 78 79

312

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

pursuing the matter. when no troubadour is mentioned by Kierkegaard after this, the reason is presumably that subjectivity in the Middle ages, according to him, was not collected in an individual. the empirical manifold, by contrast, should—just as, for example, the sophists81—be summarized in its idea, “the troubadour,” or more broadly, “the knight.” This figure together with his opposite, “the scholastic” or “the munk,” constituted, each on their own, one-sided moments, which according to Kierkegaard was a sign of the split subjectivity of the Middle ages. the second theme which appears not to be examined in detail in the excerpt can be summarized by the word “love.” there is certainly no theme which is so intimately connected to troubadour poetry as the new conception of love, which, as if by a single blow, changed the warrior from The Song of Roland and the other chansons de geste to a doting lover. this pure love (fin’ amor), or this courtly love (amour courtois, as gaston Paris dubbed it in 1883), whose history of reception82— all distortions aside—has been colossal, is also called romantic love, and with this a family relation is established between the occitantic Middle ages and romanticism. although Kierkegaard in his youth was not the philosopher of love that he would later become, it can nonetheless strike one as odd that the excerpt does not contain more on the theme of love than the aforementioned one in connection with the love song, the Minnelied. it is of course true that the conception of love is not treated in overview in Die Poesie der Troubadours, as it is, for example, in Beiträge zur Kenntniß der romantischen Poesie, but it would nonetheless have been possible for Kierkegaard to compile something more in the field of the erotic. To be sure, Kierkegaard’s excerpt is only a part of his reading of the work, and the fact that he received an impression of romantic love at all, so to speak, from the very source, that is, from diez’s german translation is certainly noteworthy in itself. let us drop this theme since we now turn to the other youthful studies, where “subjectivity” and “love” are not central themes in the way that they are later in the published works. Before we attempt to follow the tracks which lead from the excerpt into the contemporary entries, it is first necessary to make a few general remarks about the character of Kierkegaard’s juvenalia. among the entries of the young Kierkegaard there are a few hints which could indicate that the many diverse studies were connected to a single general project. in the journal entry not3:16, which was SKS 1, 248 / CI, 203. in The Concept of Irony the following parallel is drawn when Kierkegaard writes of the sophists: “they were here, there, and everywhere, as is said of bad money. they roamed from city to city like troubadours and wandering students.” 82 also the more recent research literature on this matter is extensive. see, for example, roger Boase, The Origin and Meaning of Courtly Love, Manchester: Manchester university Press 1977; denis de rougemont, L’amour et l’Occident, Paris, union generale d’editions 1962 [1939], (english translation, Love in the Western World, new York, harcourt, Brace and company 1940; several later editions); Moshé lazar, Amour courtois et Fin’ Amors dans la littérature du XIIe siècle, Paris: c. Klincksieck 1964; rené nelli, L’Érotique des troubadours, toulouse: e. Privat 1963; The Meaning of Courtly Love, ed. by F.X. newman, albany, new York: State University of New York Press 1968; L.T. Topsfield, Troubadours and Love, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1975; nils gunder hansen, Den høviske kærlighed, copenhagen: Forlaget Basilisk 1985; and linda M. Paterson, The World of the Troubadours. Medieval Occitan Society, c. 1100–c. 1300, cambridge: cambridge university Press 1993. 81

Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours

313

presumably written in March 1836, that is, a short time before the beginning of the troubadour excerpt, he refers to “my enterprise,” which seems to contain a study of “folk life.”83 a year later, presumably in March 1837, the Journal BB ends with an entry which bears the following heading: “writings whose titles i have come across at various places and which might have significance for my studies”;84 the seven books which are listed after this treat various issues concerning the Middle ages and folk life. these uncertain allusions have led the editors of Søren Kierkegaards Papirer85 and other researchers86 to assume that Kierkegaard was working on a general project, while other researchers have denied this.87 it is not my goal to enter into this discussion since a qualified suggestion to a possible solution to this problem would require an arduous study, which is the task of the future. however, it is sufficient for us to state—what no one will deny—that through the heterogeneous material of the young Kierkegaard there runs a series of leitmotifs, which we can use as a point of departure. if one, with the goal of establishing a general perspective, discusses the internal organization of these motifs, it would be tempting to place, as the editors of Søren Kierkegaards Papirer have done, the “Middle ages” as the overarching theme, but, as is also apparent from the ambitious designation of these editors, this cannot be the entry consists of a short excerpt from F.h. von der hagen, Erzählungen und Märchen, vols. 1–2, Prenzlau n.p. 1825–6, after which the following remark comes: “as for the rest, there is in this whole collection really nothing notable for my enterprise. the whole thing is all too trivial, and there is nothing of the splendor which folk-life expresses in a special way,” SKS 19, 116, not3:16 / JP 1, 61. 84 SKS 17, 142, BB:51 / KJN 1, 135. 85 Pap. i c 83 / JP 5, 5129. see P.a. heiberg and v. Kuhr’s preface to Søren Kierkegaards Papirer, vol. 1, 1909, where Kierkegaard’s “intention” is described in one sentence: “to collect contributions for a characterization of the spirit of the age of the Middle Ages via a general historical study of the phenomena typical of the age in all the spheres of spirit, in literature, art, religion, science and social relations, concentrating on a more detailed concrete study of the effect of the Middle age’s spirit of the people on poetry, sagas, fairy tales and stories, especially of the idea-representations having sprung from the Middle age’s folk life’s world of consciousness (compare s. v. i, pp. 69ff.): don Juan—Faust—the wandering Jew, and everything in the light of a parallel, more abstract-Hegelian-philosophical interest—via the determination of concepts such as the ancient, the romantic (‘dialectic’), the modern—in the comic, the tragic, irony, humor, resignation, etc., etc. fixing the stages in the development of spirit as a whole both within ‘world history’ and within the single individual’s ’microcosmos,’ ” pp. Xv–Xvi. 86 see, for example, gregor Malantschuk, Kierkegaard’s Thought, p. 12: “in his ‘project’ and “anthropological contemplation,” Kierkegaard concentrated on essentially the same problem as hegel in his Phenomenology of Mind, but in a more comprehensive and concrete way.” Dialektik og eksistens, p. 18. 87 cf. henning Fenger, Kierkegaard-Myter og Kierkegaard-Kilder, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976, p. 75: “there is no purpose in trying to enforce some plan or model upon such an incoherent body of material. it shows us Kierkegaard in his Sturm und Drang period, when his genius seeks to find itself in many different ways, via religion, philosophy, aesthetics, and, last, but not least, literature.” (english quotation from henning Fenger, Kierkegaard, The Myths and Their Origins. Studies in the Kierkegaardian Papers and Letters, trans. by George C. Schoolfield, New Haven and London: Yale University Press 1980, p. 87.) 83

314

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

done without making various modifications. Therefore, let us tentatively suggest “the romantic/romanticism” as the general theme, since we recall that for the romantics, including Kierkegaard, the Middle ages was not merely raised to the general concept “the romantic,” but quite simply often synonymous with it.88 We find not only “the romantic” [det Romantiske] in the entries where Kierkegaard explicitly reflects on this concept,89 for example, in opposition to “the classic” or “the ancient,”90 but we find that he is everywhere concerned with the popular literature of the Middle Ages (adventures, sagas, popular books, fables, folk songs, proverbs, etc.), or when he, for example, characterizes the antipode of the troubadour, namely the scholastic. the “the romantic,” according to the then general conception, arose in the Middle ages with the crusades, the knights, christianity, etc. it thus comes as no surprise that the troubadour excerpt is a study of “the romantic.” diez had also mentioned this in his work from 1825, where he, on the title page, designated provençal poetry as “romantic Poetry,” that is, Beiträge zur Kenntniß der romantischen Poesie. when Kierkegaard then, in several entries, notes that “the romantic” lies in “the dialectical,”91 or when he remarks that the allegory is characteristic of “the romantic,”92 then we understand to be sure, Molbech, in agreement with Jean Paul, had expanded the reach of the romantic from the christian european Middle ages to include indian poetry (see the Molbech excerpt, SKS 17, 61, 5ff., BB:1 / JP 5, 5135), the latter part of which Kierkegaard denied. cf. SKS 17, 252, dd:97 (august 1, 1836) / KJN 1, 243 and SKS 17, 273, dd:186 / KJN 1, 264 (december 25, 1836). 89 in the entry on “det romantiske” in niels Jørgen cappelørn’s index to Søren Kierkegaards Papirer one can assure oneself about how central this concept was in Kierkegaard’s youthful studies. in gregor Malantschuk’s treatment of the juvenalia (in Kierkegaard’s Thought, pp. 48–58; Dialektik og eksistens, pp. 51–9), there is an overview chapter about Kierkegaard’s reflections on “the Romantic.” In our context it is important to perk up the ears when Malantschuk correctly notes: “Kierkegaard’s intense preoccupation with the romantic begins, just as with the aesthetic in general, after his reading of christian Molbech’s Forelæsninger over den nyere danske Poesie,” p. 48; Dialektik og eksistens, p. 51, that is, in March 1836, just before he got started with Die Poesie der Troubadours. however, one cannot claim that Malantschuk has understood the nerve and breadth of “the romantic.” 90 see, for example, the loose entry: “when i speak of the contrast between the classical and the romantic, i of course do not have in mind any particular aesthetic category but rather a basic contrast which must lend different coloration to every particular segment in aesthetics” (Pap. i a 171 / JP 3, 3804, June 12, 1836). this basic opposition between greek–latin and the vernacular languages is also expressed in several places in the troubadour excerpt. 91 in a loose entry from august 19, 1836, one reads, for example, “it is quite curious that, after being occupied so long with the concept of the romantic, I now see for the first time that the romantic becomes what hegel calls the dialectical, the other position where stoicism— fatalism, Pelagianism—augustianism, humor—irony etc., are at home, positions which do not have any continuance by themselves, but life is a constant pendulum-movement between them” (Pap. i a 225 / JP 2, 1565). we could add to this: troubadour/knight—scholastic/munk. one reads in another loose entry of the same year the same year, on december 11: “when the dialectical period (the romantic) has been passed through in world history (a period i could very appropriately call the age of individuality—something which can also be demonstrated historically quite easily), social life must again play its role” (Pap. i a 307 / JP 4, 4070). see also SKS 19, 208, not7:7 / JP 1, 755. 92 see the end part of FF:29, in SKS 18, 81 / JP 3, 3816: “see my papers on the romantic. the classical really has no allegory.” see, for example, also the scattered notes, in Pap. i 88

Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours

315

better why he is interested in these things in the excerpt.93 with this general perspective in mente, let us make some connections between the excerpt’s individual themes and the rest of the youthful entries’ often thematic polyphony. if we begin to follow the more tangible traces which the troubadour excerpt has left in the later entries, then there is, as noted, only one explicit reference. on october 9, 1836 Kierkegaard collected six loose—but thematically connected—drafts (written in august) along with an entirely new entry on a new sheet of paper.94 in the fourth of these entries one reads: “here i have the parody of the troubadours’ musical development in rhyme, etc., word play, cf. diez, pp. 101ff.”95 Just like the marginal entry to the troubadour excerpt, this entry evidences that Kierkegaard long afterwards maintained the impression of his study of the troubadours, but it is more revealing. the specific reference (the page number) to Diez is not found in the excerpt, which means that Kierkegaard apparently still had the book in hand in august. Kierkegaard’s later use of the work could thus easily extend beyond what he excerpted.96 concerning the entry’s immanent theme, one notes that Kierkegaard not only was attentive—just as in the excerpt—to the absolutely central role of word play in troubadour poetry,97 but he also places it in a larger thematic context. the musical element, the rhyme, the word play, etc., appear in a general thematic complex of determinate linguistic and lyric-technical relations, which, as in the marginal entries, are especially emphasized in the troubadour excerpt. the remaining entries, which were collected on october 9, 1836, evidence that this is a special interest of the young Kierkegaard, and that this interest, as we shall see, not only branches out in numerous ways but is also fundamentally bound up with the research on “the romantic.” what is the theme that this entry refers to? what is the troubadours’ word play a parody of? as was previously suggested, and as we later will explore, the Middle Ages was, for Kierkegaard, characterized by reflection, the dialectic, however, such that the individual had reflection outside himself.98 every genuine point of a 214 / JP 3, 3807 and Pap. i a 218 / JP 3, 3810. in Kalle sorainen’s article, “allegory,” (in Kierkegaard Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and Marie Mikulová thulstrup, copenhagen: c.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9), pp. 14–17), is the relation to the romantic completely missing. 93 SKS 17, 73.2–4 and 71.7–25 respectively, BB:2 / KJN 1, 66 and 64–5. 94 see Pap. i a 263. 95 Pap. i a 259. 96 there are also other examples where, for example, Kierkegaard in an entry refers to a distinction by schiller in the Molbech excerpt, but does not mention schiller in the excerpt itself, or where Kierkegaard in The Concept of Anxiety refers to a place in schelling’s Berlin lectures, to which he, however, did not take notes in his otherwise detailed notes. cf. tonny aagaard olesen, “Kierkegaards schelling. eine historische einführung,” in Jochem hennigfeld and Jon stewart (eds.) Kierkegaard und Schelling. Freiheit, Angst und Wirklichkeit, Berlin, new York: walter de gruyter 2003, pp. 75–6. 97 cf., for example, also laura Kendrick, The Game of Love: Troubadour Wordplay, Berkeley: university of california Press 1988. 98 When in the first entry from August he writes: “For the ancients the divine was continually merged with the world; therefore no irony” (Pap. i a 256 / JP 2, 1677), one should understand that irony only arose in the Middle ages, however, in such a way that the individual had irony outside himself.

316

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

view must, according to Kierkegaard, be understood in relation to its caricatured opposite. what else could be the target of the parody of the troubadours’ poetically ambiguous word play if not scholastic logic? in this case, the entry must refer to the immediately preceding third entry from august, in which he writes: “the working out of material in meter is poetry’s scholasticism.”99 we see here how a general distinction, troubadour-scholastic, can play a role in a reflection on verse and meter. Kierkegaard’s special interest in meter, which incidentally can be traced back to March 1836,100 also comes to expression in the second entry from august, in which one finds again a theme from the troubadour excerpt: “Also in meter in the modern development the opposition to the ancient is evident—in the lack of a relative measuring rod (the modern accentuated language).”101 also here, we see how one from the meter can derive general character traits of consciousness. after the fourth entry from august, which discusses “the parody of the troubadours’ musical development in rhyme, etc.,” there follows a few explanatory entries. one of them runs as follows: “Just as h. steffens speaks about how music can carry away a person ‘in die Selbstsucht der wildbewegten Töne’ (cf. Karikaturen des Heiligsten 2nd. vol. p. 103).”102 Kierkegaard emphasized elsewhere the fact that music—according to Kierkegaard’s Molbech excerpt, “the most romantic of all the fine arts”103—has an almost demonic, seducing power.104 But the relation to the poetry of the troubadours is only clear in the next entry, which begins: “the musical quality lies in the rhyme and rhythm.”105 here he also indicates how the romantic can be expressed in the written medium, namely the musical. in the last of the entries which Kierkegaard collected on october 9, he writes, “the romantic was also expressed in a distinctive way in the Middle ages by all the wandering about that went on: wandering knights, traveling scholars, itinerant singers, musicians, monks, etc. —‘fliegendes Blatt.’ ”106 thus, in a short series of entries we have moved from syllables and meter to rhyme, word play, the musical by means of “der wildbewegten Töne,” and to an analogy on an entirely different plane. and if it has not been demonstrated that “the romantic,” which, as a tertium comparationis, constitutes the background for the aforementioned oppositions and analogies, then it is made clear by the entry from september 28 of the same year. here in leading up to a pregnant quotation from the romantic henrik steffens’ Karikaturen der Heiligsten, he writes, “The difference I have sought to find in the

Pap. i a 258. on a loose scrap of paper, dated March 1836, Pap. i a 148, one reads: “it would be interesting, via a serious historical investigation, to see the different forms of meter as a necessary product of the entire age to which it belongs. our age has the novel and the novella.” 101 Pap. i a 257. 102 Pap. i a 260. 103 cf. SKS 17, 60, BB:1 / KJN 1, 54. 104 see, for example, SKS 17, 244, dd:69 (october 11, 1837) / JP 1, 130. 105 Pap. i a 261 / JP 3, 2306. hong translates this somewhat imprecisely: “the musical quality lies in the rhyme and rhythm.” 106 Pap. i a 262 / JP 3, 3814. 99

100

Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours

317

ancient languages (of quantity) and modern (of accentuation) with respect to [the concept of] the romantic, steffens...expresses as follows....”107 it is not my task here to show how many of the entries from Kierkegaard’s youth were thought or written “with respect to the concept of the romantic.” it is clear that if, for example, reflection is what especially characterizes the more recent time (in contrast to the Middle ages), then one cannot merely extract distinct, grammatical characteristics from the opposition between the ancient languages (greek and latin) and the vernacular languages,108 but such oppositions can be found on all levels. By contrast, if we have already demonstrated that even if the expression “the romantic” does not appear in the troubadour excerpt, then this concept has nevertheless been decisive for making the excerpts—at least in relation to the aforementioned aesthetic theme. From one of the journal entries from november 1836 it is clear, however, that Kierkegaard could certainly make use of what he had learned from diez concerning verse without necessarily thematizing “the romantic.”109 another theme in the troubadour excerpt, which can be followed in Kierkegaard’s early studies, is the relation between classic mythology and more recent mythology, or more generally, the definition of the mythological.110 we will not here enter into this kind of discussion but merely point to an entry from november 3, 1836, in which he writes: “the mythology produced by the Middle ages was, if i may say so, humanistic—that is, mythology in the proper sense is the creation of god in human form; this mythology creates man in his image (more epic); it was life which was supposed to clarify itself.”111 the troubadours made use not of the greek and roman mythology of the gods but rather of the numerous saga cycles, which were alive in the vernacular languages. the study of “romantic” mythology, which the troubadours represented, was then directed towards sagas, chronicles, popular books, fairy tales, folk songs, and the like which Kierkegaard read with great interest.112 every epoch Pap. i a 250 / JP 3, 2304. steffens writes: “Die europäischen Sprachen sind nur Ton; die Buchstaben, die Sylben, die Worte haben nur Bedeutung für das Ohr, der Klang schliesst sich an das innerste, lebendigste, beweglichste Dasein an, und diejenige Sprache vor allen, die den Ausdruck betont, wo die Töne sich, steigend und fallend, hervorgehoben oder zurückgedrängt, an die innere Bedeutung an jede Gemüthsbewegung eng und leicht anschmiegen, kann recht eigentlich eine christliche Sprache genannt werden, und deutet auf den Sieg der Liebe über das Gesetz” (Pap. i a 250). Kierkegaard, who emphasized “christliche,” notes in the margin: “what i would call ‘romantic.’ ” 108 see, for example, SKS 17, 238–9, dd:48–52 / KJN 1, 229–30. 109 see the journal entry SKS 18, 77, FF:13 / JP 5, 5178: “is there not something of parody in the overwhelming predominance of prose? it is very interesting to see how metrical form and everything pertaining to it gradually disappear. with the troubadours the romance [Romanen] was in verse, and to my knowledge only the novel [Novellen] was in prose (a contribution to clear up the concept of the novel); most of the books popular today were originally written in verse.” 110 gregor Malantschuk has a short overview chapter in Kierkegaard’s Thought, pp. 21–5; Dialektik og eksistens, pp. 26–30. 111 Pap. i a 269 / JP 3, 2700. 112 one needs only refer to the rubrics “Folk literature” and “Folk Poetry” (ASKB 1407– 1501). Moreover, folk life in general was, according to Kierkegaard, connected with “something poetic,” that is, the term, “the romantic.” cf. the loose entry Pap. i a 228 / JP 3, 3812. 107

318

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

has its mythology, thought Kierkegaard, and the world-historical development shows the way that the single individual must pass through.113 thus, the education of every individual goes through “the romantic.” we saw how Kierkegaard, at the end of his excerpt, listed the literature on the german Minnesänger and Meistersänger, and this theme—like folk literature in general—clearly interested him. thus, he excerpted, for example, from a work by august Koberstein,114 which treated the poetic cycle “sängerkrieg auf der wartburg” from around 1260, in which there is a kind of analogy to the dialectical competitive dimension in the troubadours’ tenso. in this excerpt, however, we also find the aforementioned theme, which became central in his early studies, namely, that the split in the Middle ages’ world-view must necessarily be portrayed in two individuals, or, as he writes in another entry, “it almost seems as if it takes two individuals to form one whole man.”115 in the troubadour excerpt we found this split expressed in the running opposition between the Middle ages’ general folk poetry and the troubadours’ special artistic poetry. the fact that Kierkegaard later returned to this distinction is evident from a loose entry from august 21, 1836: the duality i have noted in the Middle ages in other respects can also be seen in the way nature and art are involved in the formation of a great poet. the Middle ages therefore had the two poles developed separately—the nature-poets and the art-poets—and they seldom or never overlap. For the most part it seems characteristic of the Middle ages that the two forces which ought to be united, to merge with each other, are kept apart, are represented as two directions—(for example, the scholastic—the life of chivalry [Ridderlivet], etc.116

it was with diez and the troubadours that Kierkegaard encountered the artistic poetry of the Middle ages which constitutes the one pole in the “romantic” split. when Kierkegaard, as the entry already suggests, later prefers to reflect on the opposition to the scholastic—the knight,117 then we must presume that the study of the troubadours constituted a solid basis for his picture of the knights, although this picture also drew on other studies. however, we should now have demonstrated that the troubadour excerpt was more than a writing exercise (qui scribit, bis legit), and more than a study of troubadour poetry, since it was also an investigation on “the romantic.” that this was also a personal matter for Kierkegaard seems to be evident from a journal entry which he wrote two years later: “there are in all two movements for youthful life to go through, and which in the Middle ages are established and laid for observation in an unconscious see, for example, “something about life’s Four stages, also concerning Mythology,” SKS 17, 117–19, BB:25 / KJN 1, 111–13. 114 cf. august Koberstein, Ueber das wahrscheinliche Alter und die Bedeutung des Gedichtes vom Wartburger Kriege, ein litterar-historischer Versuch, naumburg: bei a.g. Bürger 1823 (ASKB 1742). the excerpt is found in SKS 17, 105–6, BB:14 / KJN 1, 96–9. 115 cf. the loose entry Pap. i a 145, p. 88 / JP 2, 1670 (dated March 1836). in this and several other entries it is the fool who represents the supplement. cf. also the loose entry: “the duality [Tvesidethed] which i have pointed out in the role of the fools in the Middle ages can also be seen in this—that they had one language for science and scholarship and one for poetry (latin-romance [latinsk-romanske] languages.” Pap. i a 213 (august 2, 1836) / JP 3, 2698. 116 loose entry, Pap. i a 226 / JP 3, 2699. 117 see, for example, SKS 18, 40, ee:104 (July 5, 1839) / JP 3, 2707. 113

Troubadour Poetry: The Young Kierkegaard’s Study on Troubadours

319

contemporaneity—the age of chivalry and scholasticism.”118 the troubadour excerpt was a study in Kierkegaard’s running through this series of moments. VIII. Concluding Glance at the Authorship since Kierkegaard’s study of the troubadours appeared as a part of a larger project such that the results won were reflected in other studies, it is not an easy matter to demonstrate its influence in other works. If one nevertheless wishes to try, then one could begin by pointing out the discussion of the romantic in The Concept of Irony. One finds, for example, a direct reference where he speaks of how the romantic or romantic irony “sought its actuality in the Middle ages in the company of knights and troubadours”—without the Middle ages, however, becoming valid as ‘a world-historical element.’ ”119 another indirect reference can be found in the section on tieck, where he speaks of the lyric, the musical, and where one, for example, recognizes a passage like this: “rhyme becomes a wandering knight.”120 however, the place in Kierkegaard’s authorship where the troubadour excerpt and the complex of early studies which surrounds it come forth most clearly is in the treatise, “The Immediate Erotic Stages or The Musical-Erotic” in the first part of Either/Or. Here one finds in the introduction and especially at the beginning of the section, “The Elementary Originality of the Sensuous Qualified as Seduction,”121 most of the elements which we have examined in the foregoing. it is interesting to note how the knight’s erotic is determined as “of the soul” [sjælelig], because the Middle ages have not yet split absolutely in the point where spirit (christianity) negates the sensuous, and don Juan becomes a possibility. Finally, one can point to Judge william’s discussion of “romantic love” in his letter on “the esthetic validity of Marriage” in the second part of Either/Or. But here arises the difficulty that the old “romantic love” is, so to speak, woven together with the “romantic love” (that is romanticism) such that the concept’s historical elements become clouded. when we move to the other side of Either/Or, the traces appear too indistinct to speculate about a connection,122 which is also indicated by the fact that the Middle ages as topos is now limited to a handful of facets of cloister religiosity. In several works—already in the first lines of the dissertation—one finds the knight as a kind of favorite figure, first and foremost in Fear and Trembling, then in connection with the story of quidam’s suffering in Stages on Life’s Way. Behind all of these loyal, courtly knights who wander about under the banner of one idea or another, one nevertheless still hears an echo of “that knight of sorrowful countenance,” don quixote. certainly, it is the expression of the highest pathos “to will only one thing,” to perform all his actions in the name of the chosen one, but to ride proudly under a “fixe idée,” a Dulcinea, is infinitely comic. Journal entry, SKS 17, 253, dd:103, april 4, 1838 / KJN 1, 244. SKS 1, 290 / CI, 277–8. 120 SKS 1, 339 / CI, 307. 121 SKS 2, 92ff. / EO1, 87ff. 122 A connection between “troubadour” and “allegorical figure” can be found in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript (SKS 7, 380 / CUP1, 417–18). 118 119

Tonny Aagaard Olesen

320

indeed, it is one thing which appears explicitly in the works and another which is presupposed implicitly by the author in them; one thing is the general hermeneutical and ethical points one can achieve by the indirect method, and another thing, Kierkegaard’s private impulse. with these distinctions, we can return to the larger perspective, which we, by way of introduction, warned about. in his essayistic research on Kierkegaard’s psychological and biographical constitution, georg lukàcs has been the only one to have hit upon the idea of comparing Kierkegaard with the provençal troubadours. granted the comparison can appear arbitrary, forced, without any of the necessary intermediary steps, nevertheless, upon closer consideration, the tempting perspective appears to conquer the necessity of unraveling the many pieces of evidence in Kierkegaard which support this view. let us therefore close by quoting lukàcs’ conclusion as a kind of unassuming tableau: even abandoned by him, regine could only be a step towards his goal. in his dreams he transformed her into an unattainable ideal: but the step that she represented was his surest way to the heights. in the woman-glorifying poetry of the Provençal troubadours, great faithlessness was the basis for great faithfulness; a woman had to belong to another in order to become the ideal, in order to be loved with real love. But Kierkegaard’s faithfulness was even greater than the troubadours’, and for that very reason even more faithless: even the deeply beloved woman was only a means, only a way towards the great, the only absolute love, the love of god.123

Translated by Jon Stewart

123

p. 36.

lukàcs, “the Foundering of Form against life. sören Kierkegaard and regina olsen,”

Bibliography I. Works by the Troubadours in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library none. II. Works in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss the Troubadours Flögel, carl Friedrich, Geschichte der komischen Litteratur, vols. 1–4, liegnitz and leipzig: david giegert 1784–7, vol. 4, pp. 226–32 (ASKB 1396–1399). görres, Josef von, Altteutsche Volks- und Meisterlieder aus den Handschriften der Heidelberger Bibliothek, Frankfurt am Main: wilmans 1817 (ASKB 1846). Koberstein, august, Ueber das wahrscheinliche Alter und die Bedeutung des Gedichtes vom Wartburger Kriege, ein litterar-historischer Versuch, naumburg: bei a.g. Bürger 1823 (ASKB 1742). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to the Troubadours gregor Malantschuk, Kierkegaard’s Thought, trans. by howard v. hong and edna hong, Princeton: Princeton university Press 1971, p. 38. (originally as gregor Malantschuk, Dialektik og eksistens hos Søren Kierkegaard, copenhagen: hans reitzel 1968, p. 42.)

index of Persons abelard, Peter (1079–1142), French theologian and logician, 23, 26, 35, 145–65, 185–6, 259. abraham of santa clara (1644–1709), austrian divine, 278. abrahams, nicolai christian levin (1798–1870), danish philologist in roman languages, 303. adler, adolph Peter (1812–69), danish philosopher and theologian, 187. adrian, Johann valentin (1793–1864), german poet, 301. amalrich of Bena (died 1206 or 1207), French philosopher, 243. ambrose of Milan (ca. 340–97), church father, bishop of Milan, 11, 97. anacletus ii (antiPope from 1130–38), 26. anselm of canterbury (1033–1109), scholastic philosopher, 31, 40, 154, 167–81, 186, 196, 198, 272. anselm of laon (ca. 1050–117), scholastic philosopher, 148. aquinas, thomas (ca. 1225–74), scholastic philosopher and theologian, 183–206, 216, 217. aristophanes, 227. aristotle, 14, 156, 184, 187, 189, 191, 210–12, 215, 207. arius (ca. 250–336), christian priest from alexandria, 3–4, 51. arndt, Johann (1555–1621), german mystic, 245–51 passim, 268–71, 281–4. arnold of Brescia (ca. 1090–ca. 1155), religious reformer, 153, 160. arnold, gottfried (1666–1714), german Pietist and church historian, 272. athanasius (ca. 295–373), Patristic author, bishop of alexandria, 3–9, 51. athenagoras (ca. 133–90), christian apologist, 117.

augustine of hippo (354–430), church father, 11–20, 40, 47, 51, 53, 123–8, 132–3, 168, 173, 191, 193, 197, 208, 211, 257, 269, 272. Baader, Benedict Franz Xaver von (1765–1841), german philosopher, 198, 216–17, 237, 239–45. Barfod, hans Peter (1834–92), danish editor, 300, 305. Barrett, lee, 15. Basil of caesarea (ca. 330–79), greek christian theologian, 95, 97–100, 135. Bauer, Bruno (1809–82), german theologian, philosopher and historian, 173. Baur, Ferdinand christian (1792–1860), german theologian, 154. Benedict Xii (Pope from 1334–42), 256. Bernard of clairvaux (1090–1153), church father, 11, 15, 23–45, 149, 153, 160, 272, 283. Blicher, steen steensen (1782–1848), danish author, 154. Boccaccio, giovanni (1313–75), italian writer, 256. Boethius (ca. 480–ca. 524), roman christian philosopher, 207–21. Böhme, Jacob (1575–1624), german mystic, 239, 277. Böhringer, georg Friedrich (1812–79), german theologian, 35, 37, 53, 85, 98–100, 105–7, 112, 115, 171, 175–7, 241, 244, 275. Bonaventura (also Bonaventure), saint (ca. 1220–74), scholastic philosopher, 185, 189, 191. Boniface viii (Pope from 1294–1303), 223.

324

Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions

Bornemann, Frederik christian (1810–61), danish jurist, 185–6. Bornemann, Johan alfred (1813–90), danish theologian, 152, 154, 186–7, 195. Bossuet, Jacob Benignus (or JacquesBénigne) (1627–1704), French theologian and bishop, 152–7. Bretschneider, Karl gottlieb (1776–1848), german theologian, 171. Brøndsted, Peter oluf (1780–1842), danish philologist, 302. Bruno, giordano (1548–1600), italian philosopher and poet, 274. Buber, Martin (1878–1965), Jewish religious philosopher, 251. Calderón de la Barca, Pedro (1600–81), spanish dramatist, 225. campanella, tomasso (1568–1639), italian philosopher and poet, 274. cappelørn, niels Jørgen, 105. carriere, Moriz (1817–95), german philosopher and historian, 241–4, 272, 274, 278. cassian, John (ca. 360–ca. 345), monastic author, 124. chrysostom, saint John (ca. 345–407), church father, 47–65, 96, 117. cicero 11, 207, 211, 256. clausen, henrik nicolai (1793–1877), danish theologian and politician, 52, 58, 97, 106, 117, 137, 171, 192–4. clement of alexandria (ca. 150–ca. 215), christian theologian, 117. clement v (Pope from 1305–14), 256. constantin the great (ca. 285–337), 97. cortese, alessandro, 229. cramer, Johann andreas (1723–88), german theologian, 152–3, 156. cyprian of carthage (ca. 200–d. 258), bishop of carthage, teacher and writer, 67–94, 133. dante, alighieri (1265–1321), italian poet, 223–32, 311. decius (roman emperor from 249–251), 71, 112.

descartes, rené (1596–1650), French philosopher, 169, 172, 174–5. dietrich of Freiberg (1250–1310), german mystic, philosopher and theologian, 237, 272. dietz, walter, 15. diez, Friedrich (1794–1876), german philologist, 299–320. dorner, isaak august (1809–84), german theologian, 242. eck, Johann (1484–1543), german theologian, 272. eckhart, Johannes, called Meister eckhart (ca. 1260–ca. 1328), german mystic, 237–53, 265–7, 272–7 passim. epiphanius of salamis (ca. 310–403), church father, 118. erdmann, Johann eduard (1805–92), german philosopher, 136. erigena, John scotus (ca 800–ca. 870), irish neoplatonist philosopher, 186, 189, 193, 243. eugenius iii (Pope from 1145–53), 27, 33–4. eusebius of caesarea (ca. 260–339), bishop of caesarea, 112. evagrius Ponticus (ca. 345–400), christian monk and ascetic, 112. Fabian (Pope from 236–250), 71. Feuerbach, ludwig (1804–72), german philosopher, 151, 154. Fichte, Johann gottlieb (1762–1814), german philosopher, 275. gaunilo of Marmoutiers (11th century), Benedictine monk, 169, 175. gerhard, Johann (1582–1637), german theologian, 272, 283. gilbert of Poitiers (1070–1154), French scholastic philosopher, 23, 26. goethe, Johann wolfgang von (1749–1832), german poet, author, scientist and diplomat, 225, 301, 304. görres, Joseph (1776–1848), german romantic writer, 4, 243, 275, 309. gregory vii (Pope from 1073–85), 167. gregory of nazianzus (329–89), archbishop of constantinople, 95, 98.

Index of Persons gregory of nyssa (335–94), christian bishop and saint, 95–102, 112. grimm, Jakob (1785–1863), german linguist and historian, 309. grundtvig, nicolai Frederik severin (1783–1872), danish poet and theologian, 191. guerike, heinrich ernst Ferdinand (1803–78), german theologian, 153, 157. gyllembourg-ehrensvärd, thomasine christine (1773–1856), danish author, 80. hage, Johannes dam (1800–37), danish editor, 304. hahn, august (1792–1863), german theologian, 171. hamann, Johann georg (1730–88), german philosopher, 137. hase, Karl (1800–90), german theologian, 171. hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich (1770– 1831), german philosopher, 116, 126, 151, 156, 173, 175, 184, 187–8, 198–200, 202, 212–13, 224–30 passim, 237, 240–41, 243. Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1832), 174. heiberg, Johan ludvig (1791–1860), danish poet, playwright and philosopher, 172–4, 224–9. On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age (1833) 173–4, 224–5. helfferich, adolph (1813–94), german philosopher, 244. herder, Johann gottfried (1744–1803), german philosopher, 275. hjort, Peder (1793–1871), danish literary critic, 186. homer, 256. honorius ii (Pope from 1124–30), 26. horn, robert leslie, 226. hugh of st. victor (1096–1141), philosopher, theologian and mystical writer, 149. ignatius of antioch (ca. 35–110), bishop and writer, 104.

325

innocent i (Pope from 401–417), 124. innocent, ii (Pope from 1130–43), 26, 149. irenaeus (ca. 130–ca. 200), church father, 103–10. Jackson, timothy P., 15, 127. Jerome (345–420), Bible translator and christian apologist, saint, 117, 123. John of salisbury (ca. 1115–80), english scholastic philosopher, 149. Justin (eastern roman emperor from 518–27), 106, 112. Justin Martyr (100–165), christian apologist and saint, 117. Kant, immanuel (1724–1804), german philosopher, 169, 173, 175, 198. Kempis, thomas à (ca. 1380–1471), dutch mystic and monk, 275, 283, 289–98. Kierkegaard, søren aabye (1813–1855). From the Papers of One Still Living, (1838) 80, 218. The Concept of Irony (1841), 12, 124, 133, 277, 39. Either/Or (1843), 124–5, 218–19, 245–6, 251, 260, 319. Fear and Trembling (1843), 17, 149, 319. Repetition (1843), 149. Three Upbuilding Discourses (1843), 149. Four Upbuilding Discourses (1844), 249, 270, 278. Philosophical Fragments (1844), 5, 90, 113, 118, 127, 137, 174–5, 198, 209, 213–15. Prefaces (1844), 12, 228. The Concept of Anxiety (1844), 12, 124–7, 133, 193, 229–30. Stages on Life’s Way (1845), 12, 154–9 passim, 162, 209, 211–12, 255–7, 259, 261, 319. A Literary Review of Two Ages (1846), 218, 227. Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846), xii, 81, 112, 118, 138, 151, 159, 175, 197, 216, 217, 278. The Book on Adler (ca. 1846–47), 187, 209, 210, 217–18.

326

Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions

Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirit (1847), 32, 218. Works of Love (1847), 13, 27, 33, 82. Christian Discourses (1848), 278–80. “the crisis and a crisis in the life of an actress” (1848), 133. The Sickness unto Death (1849), 31, 54, 89–90, 124–7, 135, 230, 232. Two Ethical-Religious Essays (1849), 34, 92. Practice in Christianity (1850), 51, 59, 280, 289. For Self-Examination (1851), 100, 107. Judge for Yourself (1851–52, published posthumously in 1876), xii, 6, 98–100, 292, 294–5. Koberstein, august (1797–1870), german literary historian, 318. Krøyer, henrik (1799–1870), danish natural scientist, 209. lactantius (ca. 240–ca. 320), early christian writer, 106, 137. lehmann, orla (1820–70), danish lawyer and politician, 304. leibniz, Baron gottfried wilhelm von (1646–1716), german philosopher and mathematician, 208, 213–14. lenau, nicolaus; see strehlenau, niembsch von. leo Xiii (Pope from 1878–1903), 208. lessing, gotthold ephraim (1729–81), german writer and philosopher, 113, 135. lindbeg, Jacob christian (1797–1857), danish pastor, 105. lombard, Peter (1100–60), scholastic theologian and bishop, 191, 237. lukács, georg (1885–1971), hungarian philosopher, 299, 320. luther, Martin (1483–1546), german religious reformer, 24, 26, 97, 126, 137, 170, 188, 268–76, 283. Malantschuk, gregor (1902–78), 300. Manasse, ernst Moritz (1908–97), german philosopher, 15. Marbach, gotthard oswald (1810–90), german author and poet, 154.

Marheineke, Philipp (1780–1846), german theologian, 131, 173. Martensen, hans lassen (1808–84), danish theologian, 106, 131, 152, 171–2, 174, 194–8, 202, 216, 217, 224–9, 237, 241–6, 250–51, 294, 276–7, 294. Maximus the confessor (580–662), christian monk and theologian, 112. Meiners, christoph (1747–1810), german historian, 191–2. Melanchton, Philipp (1497–1560), german theologian, 274. Merton, thomas, 23. Möhler, Johann adam (1796–1827), german church historian, 4, 105, 190. Molbech, christian (1783–1857), danish historian and literary scholar, 304, 308, 316. Montanus (2nd century), founder of the Montanism movement, 132. Mosheim, Johann lorentz von (1694–1755), german theologian, 240. Mynster, Jakob Peter (1775–1854), danish theologian and bishop, 55–6, 62, 292, 294. neander, august (1789–1850), german theologian, 35, 38, 53, 96, 98–100, 153, 159–62. novatian, (antiPope, 251–8), 77. nun, Katalin, 158. ockham, william of (ca. 1288–1347), scholastic philosopher, 194. olsen, regine (1822–1904), 223. origen (ca. 185–ca. 254), church father, 50, 111–21. osiander, lukas (1534–1604), german theologian, 270. ovid, 304–5, 308. Pascal, Blaise (1623–62), French scientist and philosopher, 35, 83. Pattison, george, 14. Paul, 58, 126. Pedersen, Jørgen, 14. Pelagius (ca. 354–ca. 420), ascetic monk and reformer, 123–30, 190, 192.

Index of Persons Peter the venerable (ca. 1092–1156), also known as Blessed Peter of Montboissier, abbot of the Benedictine abbey of cluny, 149. Petrarch, Francesco (1304–74), italian scholar and poet, 158–9, 255–64. Plato 14, 58, 95, 124, 133, 147, 168, 173, 207–12 passim, 219. Plekon, Michael, 88. Plotinus (ca. 205–70), roman philosopher, 11, 99. Polycarp (ca. 69–ca. 155), church father, bishop of smyrna, 103. Porphyry (ca. 234–ca. 305), neoplatonist philosopher, 147, 207. Pseudo-dionysius the areopagite (5th–6th century), anonymous theologian and philosopher, 112. Pupper, Johann von goch (1410–75), medieval theologian, church reformer, 192. Pythagoras, 156. quinn, Philip, 127. raynouard, François Juste Marie (1761– 1836), French dramatist and romance philologist, 301, 303, 305. rheinwald, georg Friedrich heirich (1802–49), german theologian, 14, 190. rochegude, henri-Pascal (1741–1834), French editor, 301. romeyer, Blaise, 15. roscelin of compiegne (ca. 1045–ca. 1120), scholastic philosopher, 146, 169. rosenkranz, Karl (1805–79), german philosopher and theologian, 240–41. rössler, christian Friedrich (1736–1821), german theologian, 134. rudelbach, andreas gottlob (1792–1862), danish theologian, 52, 185–7. ruysbroeck, John of (1293–1381), Flemish mystic, 266, 274–5. sack, Karl heinrich (1789–1875), german theologian, 277. savonarola, girolamo (1452–98), italian religious reformer, 35, 185.

327

schelling, Friedrich wilhelm Joseph von (1775–1854), german philosopher, 174–5, 198. schiller, Johann christoph Friedrich von (1759–1805), german poet, 308. schlegel, Friedrich von (1772–1829), german romantic writer, 278, 307. schleiermacher, Friedrich (1768–1834), german theologian, 116, 171, 174. schopenhauer, arthur (1788–1860), german philosopher, 243. schubarth, Karl ernst (1796–1860), german philosopher, 304. scriver, christian (1629–93), german theologian, 52, 273. shakespeare, william (1564–1616), english dramatist, 137. sibbern, Frederik christian (1785–1872), danish philosopher, 199. socrates, 5, 12, 37, 43, 118, 124–5, 135, 198–9, 212. socrates scholasticus or socrates of constantinople (ca. 380–ca. 450), church historian, 3. sozomen, salminius hermian (ca. 400–ca. 450), church historian, 3. spener, Philipp Jakob (1635–1705), german theologian, Pietist, 268, 271–3, 283. spinoza, Baruch (1632–77), dutch philosopher, 169, 174–5, 239. steffens, henrik (1773–1845), norwegiandanish philosopher, 316–17. stenersen, stener Johannes (1789–1835), danish theologian, 190–92, 197, 201–2, 268, 273, 277. strehlenau, niembsch von, i.e. nicolaus lenau (1802–50), austro-hungarian poet, 225–6. sterngassen, Johannes Korngin von (13th–14th century), german mystic, 265. suso, henry (ca. 1300–1366), german mystic, 229, 243–4, 275. tauler, Johannes (ca. 1300–1361), german mystic theologian, 239–51 passim, 265–87. tennemann, wilhelm gottlieb (1761–1819), german historian of philosophy, 152, 155–6, 187–8, 275.

328

Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions

tersteegen, gerhard (1697–1796), german mystic and poet, 273. tertullian (ca. 160–235), church father, 5, 47, 68, 70, 87–8, 92, 106, 117, 131–42. tholuck, Friedrich august gotttreu (1799–1877), german theologian, 96, 114. thomas; see aquinas, thomas (ca. 1225–74), scholastic philosopher and theologian. thulstrup, Marie Mikulová, 247, 251, 281. thulstrup, niels (1924–88), 300. tieck, Johann ludwig (1773–1853), german poet, 278, 319. uhland, ludwig (1787–1862), german poet and politician, 301, 309. ullmann, carl (1796–1865), german theologian, 244, 271, 274. urban ii (Pope from 1088–99), 43. valens (roman emperor from 364–78), 95.

valla, lorenzo (ca. 1407–57), italian humanist, 208. varenius, heinrich (d. 1635), german theologian, 268. wackernagel, Philipp (1800–77), german hymn writer, pedagogue and mineralogist, 276. werder, Karl Friedrich (1806–93), german philosopher and literary critic, 199. wessenberg, ignaz, heinrich von (1774–1860), german theologian, 134. wette, wilhelm Martin leberecht de (1780–1849), german theologian, 52, 273–4, 277. william of champeaux (ca. 1070–1122), French philosopher and theologian, 146–8. william of st. thierry (ca. 1085–ca. 1148), French theologian and mystic, 24. zozimus (Pope from 417–418), 124.

index of subjects absurd, the, 47, 58, 89, 131–8. accomodation, 48, 53, 58. acosmism, 245–7, 251. actuality, 56, 174–5, 212, 214–15, 225. antiochene creed, 51. anxiety, 127. appropriation, xii, 62, 108, 111, 115–16, 135. arianism, 3. ascension, 115. ascetism, 52, 56, 63, 132, 251, 262, 278–9, 281, 283–4. atonement, 168–71, 176–7. authenticity, 13, 267, 162. authority, 13–14, 34, 42, 54, 76, 78, 92, 104–5, 157. baptism, 79–80, 83–4, 98, 124, 135. beatific vision, 168. blood-witness, 92. bourgeois-philistinism, 292, 294–5. catholicism, 36, 40, 193, 202. christology, 5, 11, 28, 51, 62. communion, 68, 74–9, 82, 84, 86. conscience, 115, 148. creation, 4. crucifixation, 51, 54, 57, 115. defiance, 90, 124, 230. despair, 31, 54, 58–9, 90, 223–36, 127–8, 230–32, 277. dialectic, 126, 158, 161. don quixote, 319. donatism, 11. doubt, 14, 172. earnestness, 56. ecclesiology, 11, 54, 62, 73. faith, 5–6, 14–16, 23–4, 32–3, 38, 40–43, 47, 54, 57–8, 62–3, 68, 72–9, 84–6,

90, 99–100, 104, 116–17, 123–4, 126–7, 131, 133–8, 148, 150–51, 159–63, 167–82, 185, 191–2, 198–9, 202, 231–2, 243, 270, 273, 294. Faust, 310. fideism, 15. finite/infinite, 225. foreknowledge, 114, 123, 208–16 passim. freedom, 15, 27, 29–32, 34, 99, 114, 123–7, 192, 194–5, 208–10, 213–14, 280. gnoseology, 53, 57. gnosticism, 51, 104–5, 111, 132. grace, 11, 14–15, 24, 27, 29–30, 41, 72, 84, 97, 103–8, 114–17, 123–4, 126, 132, 135, 150, 154, 168, 189, 193, 228, 291, 295. hereditary sin; see sin, original. humor, 133, 136–7, 230. idealism, 186, 227, 265. speculative, 172, 175. imitation, xii, 36, 57, 114–16, 200. immanence, 63. immortality, 4, 6, 124. incarnation, 4–6, 16, 28, 57, 104, 107, 111, 132, 168–71, 194–5, 197–8, 202. indulgences, 200–201, 295. inner/outer, 211. irony, 133, 136, 230, 278. romantic, 319. irrationalism, 57. isolation, 245–6, 276, 279–81, 283, 289–98. Judaism, 51, 53, 59–60, 63, 107, 150. leap, 12, 125, 127, 137, 175. logos, 51, 111, 113, 153.

330

Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions

love, 13, 29, 32–3, 41, 50–51, 80, 82, 107–8, 145–66, 176, 223–4, 228, 230, 245, 256–61 passim, 279, 284, 302, 305, 308, 312, 319–20. Manichaeism, 11. marriage, 61–2. martyrdom, 36, 42–3, 68, 72–3, 75, 78, 84, 86. mediation, xii. miracle, 42, 60, 113, 153, 155, 159–62. monasticism, xii, 24–5, 37–43, 47–8, 51–3, 56–7, 63, 95, 99–100, 123–4, 155, 201, 238, 244, 246, 251, 257, 262, 265, 276, 278–9, 284, 290. Montanism, 132. Mysticism, 11, 28, 237–53, 265–87, 290. mythology, 317–18. natural law, 150. necessity, 128, 214–15. negation, 243, 250. neoplatonism, 11, 168, 207–11 passim, 218–19. nominalism, 146. offense, 58, 107, 137. ontological argument, 168–9, 171, 173–5, 177, 198, 202. paganism, 51, 58–9, 90, 124–5, 150, 230. Pantheism, 51, 239, 241–3, 274, 277. paradox, 63, 113, 136–7, 150. absolute, 137. passion, xii, 201–2, 261. pathos, 5, 81, 172, 175, 177, 319. Pelagianism, 11, 15. philosophy of religion, 57. Pietism, 244–5, 251, 268–77, 281, 284. Platonism, 111, 118. poetry, 210–12, 219, 223–32, 257, 259–61, 299–320. speculative, 225–7.

troubadour, 299–320. possibility, 128, 175, 212, 214. predestination, 114–15, 123–8. Protestantism, 36, 47, 193, 241. prototype, the, 13, 36, 289, 291. providence, 208. reconciliation, 154, 177, 194, 211. redemption, 11, 63, 90, 123, 168, 211. reduplication, 13. reformation, 40, 191, 268, 272–4. religiousness a and B, 81, 89. repentance, 50, 63. resurrection, 6, 54, 57, 104, 107, 117, 132. revelation, 111, 153, 157, 189, 197, 199, 242–3. romanticism, 265, 301, 305, 308, 312–19 passim. salvation, 14, 29, 50, 62, 80, 82–3, 90–91, 123, 150–51, 176. scholasticism, 27, 135–47, 151, 161, 167–8, 191, 199, 219, 274–5, 290, 316, 318–19. sin, 3, 12, 15, 28–31, 38, 50, 62–3, 73–6, 84, 89–90, 104, 107–8, 123–7, 148, 170–71, 176, 197, 223–36. original, 11–12, 15, 123, 125–8, 133, 170, 193, 197. single individual, the, 14. soteriology, 5, 11, 50, 54, 57, 61–3, 177. speculative philosophy, 137, 151. subjectivity, 47, 63, 115, 125, 157, 161, 310, 312. sublation, 172. tragedy, 210–12. transcendence, 42, 63, 99. trinity, 3–4, 51, 132, 169, 223. troubadours, 299–320. universals, 146–7, 169.