Volume 7, Tome III: Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries - Literature, Drama and Aesthetics (Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources) [1 ed.] 9780754668749, 0754668746

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of Contributors
List of Abbreviations
Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse
Jens Baggesen: Kierkegaard and His Master’s Voice
Steen Steensen Blicher: The Melancholy Poet of the Jutland Heath
August Bournonville: Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and the “Noble Art of Terpsichore”
Mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the Emancipation of Women
Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback
Thomasine Gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s Appreciation of the Everyday Stories and Two Ages
Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s Use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic
Johanne Luise Heiberg: An Existential Actress
Carsten Hauch: A Map of Mutual Misreadings
Johan Nicolai Madvig: The Master of Latin in Kierkegaard’s Parnassus
Christian Molbech: Proverbs and Punctuation: The Inspiration of a Danish Philologist
Peder Ludvig Møller: “If He Had Been a Somewhat More Significant Person…”
Adam Oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the Treasure Hunter of Immediacy
Joachim Ludvig Phister: The Great Comic Actor of Reflection and Thoughtfulness
Christian Winther: Kierkegaard as Lover and Reader
Index of Persons
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

KierKegaard and His danisH Contemporaries tome iii: Literature, drama and aestHetiCs

Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources Volume 7, Tome III

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 peter ŠaJda Advisory Board istvÁn CzaKÓ Finn gredaL Jensen david d. possen HeiKo sCHuLz

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

Kierkegaard and His danish Contemporaries

tome iii: Literature, drama and aesthetics

Edited by Jon stewart

First published 2009 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 © Jon stewart and the contributors 2009 Jon stewart has asserted his 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 his danish contemporaries. tome 3, Literature, drama and aesthetics. – (Kierkegaard research : sources, reception and resources ; v. 7) 1. Kierkegaard, søren, 1813–1855. 2. Kierkegaard, søren, 1813–1855– Friends and associates. 3. philosophy, danish– 19th century. 4. denmark–intellectual life–19th century. i. series ii. stewart, Jon (Jon Bartley) 198.9–dc22 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kierkegaard and his danish contemporaries / [edited by] Jon stewart. p. cm. — (Kierkegaard research: sources, reception, and resources ; v. 7) includes bibliographical references and indexes. — isBn 978-0-7546-6874-9 (hardcover : t. 3 : alk. paper) 1. Kierkegaard, søren, 1813–1855—sources. 2. denmark—intellectual life—19th century. i. stewart, Jon (Jon Bartley) B4377 .K512 198’.9—dc22 2009014986 isBn 13: 978-0-7546-6874-9 (hbk) Cover design by Katalin nun.

Contents List of Contributors List of Abbreviations Hans Christian andersen: andersen was Just an excuse Lone Koldtoft

vii ix

1

Jens Baggesen: Kierkegaard and His master’s voice Henrik Blicher

33

steen steensen Blicher: the melancholy poet of the Jutland Heath Sven Hakon Rossel

49

august Bournonville: Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and the “noble art of terpsichore” Nathaniel Kramer

67

mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the emancipation of women Katalin Nun

83

meïr goldschmidt: the Cross-eyed Hunchback Johnny Kondrup

105

thomasine gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s appreciation of the everyday stories and Two Ages Katalin Nun

151

Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic George Pattison

169

vi

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

Johanne Luise Heiberg: an existential actress Katalin Nun

189

Carsten Hauch: a map of mutual misreadings Poul Houe

209

Johan nicolai madvig: the master of Latin in Kierkegaard’s parnassus Jesper Eckhardt Larsen

225

Christian molbech: proverbs and punctuation: the inspiration of a danish philologist Kim Ravn

233

peder Ludvig møller: “If He Had Been a Somewhat More Significant Person…” K. Brian Söderquist

247

adam oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the treasure Hunter of immediacy Bjarne Troelsen

257

Joachim Ludvig phister: The Great Comic Actor of Reflection and Thoughtfulness William Banks

275

Christian winther: Kierkegaard as Lover and reader Nathaniel Kramer

285

Index of Persons Index of Subjects

299 307

List of Contributors William Banks, department of scandinavian studies, university of wisconsin, 1306 van Hise Hall, 1220 Linden drive, madison, wi 53706, usa. Henrik Blicher, department of nordic studies and Linguistics, university of Copenhagen, njalsgade 120, 2300 Copenhagen s, denmark. Poul Houe, department of german, scandinavian and dutch, university of minnesota, 205 Folwell Hall, 9 pleasant street s.e., minneapolis, mn 55455-0124, usa. Lone Koldtoft, Lunds universitet, institutionen för nordiska språk, Helgonabacken 14, 223 62 Lund, sweden. Johnny Kondrup, department of nordic studies and Linguistics, university of Copenhagen, njalsgade 120, 2300 Copenhagen s, denmark. Nathaniel Kramer, Humanities, Classics, and Comparative Literature, Brigham Young university, 3031 JFsB, provo, ut 84602, usa. Jesper Eckhardt Larsen, institut for pædagogisk sociologi, danmarks pædagogiske universitet, tuborgvej 164, 2400 Copenhagen nv, denmark. Katalin Nun, søren Kierkegaard research Centre, Farvergade 27 d, 1463 Copenhagen K, denmark. George Pattison, Christ Church, oxford oX1 1dp, uK. Kim Ravn, søren Kierkegaard research Centre, Farvergade 27 d, 1463 Copenhagen K, denmark. Sven Hakon Rossel, abteilung für skandinavistik des instituts für europäische und vergleichende sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft an der universität wien, dr.-KarlLueger-ring 1, 1010 vienna, austria. K. Brian Söderquist, søren Kierkegaard research Centre, Farvergade 27 d, 1463 Copenhagen K, denmark.

viii

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

Bjarne Troelsen, Center for Filosofi og Videnskabsteori, Aalborg Universitet, Fibigerstræde 10, 9220 aalborg Øst, denmark.

List of abbreviations Danish Abbreviations B&A

Breve og Aktstykker vedrørende Søren Kierkegaard, ed. by niels thulstrup, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1953–54.

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-K28, 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, Johan Ludvig Heiberg and H.o. Lange, vols. i–Xiv, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag 1901– 06. 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.

x

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

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.

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 1992.

CUP2

Concluding Unscientific Postscript, vol. 2, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1992.

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 Soap-Cellars, 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.

List of Abbreviations

xi

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.

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, vols. 1–6, ed. and trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, assisted by gregor malantschuk (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.

LR

A Literary Review, trans. by alastair Hannay, Harmondsworth: penguin Books 2001.

M

The Moment and Late Writings, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1998.

P

Prefaces, 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.

xii

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

PJ

Papers and Journals: A Selection, trans. 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.

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, London and new York: 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

List of Abbreviations

xiii

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.

WS

Writing Sampler, trans. by todd w. nichol, princeton: princeton university press 1997.

Hans Christian andersen: andersen was Just an excuse Lone Koldtoft

as professor of literature Johan de mylius writes, any article on the connection between the famous danish author of fairy tales Hans Christian andersen (1805–75), and the almost as famous danish philosopher søren aabye Kierkegaard (1813–55), can be quite brief.1 Had it not been for Kierkegaard’s vitriolic attack on andersen’s novel Only a Fiddler (1837),2 scholars would not have devoted so much time and ink to their relationship. while it is true that Kierkegaard and andersen lived nearly next door to each other in Copenhagen, evidence of their interest in each other’s person or work is almost non-existent. it is therefore a source of wonder to scholars that Kierkegaard chooses to flay Andersen in 1838 in his book-length review From the Papers of One Still Living.3 it is clearly not andersen’s novel itself or his other works that draws Kierkegaard’s ire. is it perhaps andersen’s person? when Kierkegaard criticizes the novel’s author, he does it with regard to the novel’s protagonist. This figure is, according to Kierkegaard, a mirror image of the author himself. Kierkegaard admits he does not know andersen personally, so his analysis of andersen the author is based entirely on Andersen’s works of fiction. It is not Andersen, the actual person that fixes Kierkegaard’s attention, but the main character of the novel. in this article, i will show that Kierkegaard is, properly speaking, not even interested in Only a Fiddler’s protagonist. as we shall see, Kierkegaard has his own agenda, and andersen’s novel comes as a welcome excuse to present it. i will also show that the young Kierkegaard, far from making any ground-breaking criticism of andersen, merely reinforces the criticisms others had made in connection with andersen’s earlier works. He does this apparently with the goal of moving from his position on the periphery of Copenhagen’s influential social circles into the city’s philosophical parnassus.

see Johan de mylius, Kierkegaard og Andersen eller de umage tvillinger. Kierkegaards inspiration. En antologi, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1991 (Søren Kierkegaard Selskabets Populære Skrifter, vol. 20), p. 54. 2 Hans Christian andersen, Kun en Spillemand, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1837 (ASKB 1503). (english translation: Only a Fiddler, trans. by mary Howitt, London: H.g. Clarke & Co. 1845.) 3 SKS 1, 7–57 / EPW, 51–102. 1

2

Lone Koldtoft

The article first presents Andersen, who wrote far more than “just” fairy tales, and then presents the purely factual evidence for the relationship between andersen and Kierkegaard: where they lived, which of andersen’s works Kierkegaard owned, and what he wrote about andersen. Further, i will discuss Only a Fiddler and Kierkegaard’s treatment of it; here i touch upon the title, Kierkegaard’s concepts of life view, and genius. i will conclude with a comparison of Kierkegaard’s criticisms with contemporary criticisms of andersen. I. The Multifaceted Andersen in 1835 andersen writes in a letter to Henriette wulff (1804–58),4 “Ørsted says that when The Improvisatore has made me famous, the fairy tales will make me immortal….they are the most perfect works I have written.”5 andersen goes on to doubt Hans Christian Ørsted’s (1777–1851) prophecy, claiming that the warm italian atmosphere of The Improvisatore will soon convince “cold denmark” of its excellence.6 andersen was correct in the short term, but it was undoubtedly Ørsted who was proved right in the long run. The Improvisatore was well-received and was quickly translated into several languages.7 As a result, Andersen came close to fulfilling his dream of being “the andersen and Henriette wulff met each other at the wulff’s residence in amalienborg, and their friendship lasted until Henriette drowned on board the ship Austria, as it was headed for the usa. Henriette wulff and Henriette Hanck (1807–46) were some of andersen’s most faithful pen pals in the period 1830 to 1840. 5 Breve fra H.C. Andersen, ed. by C.st.a. Bille and nikolaj Bøgh, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: aschehoug 2005 [1878], p. 215. 6 andersen saw Ørsted as a faithful “father” or “older brother,” and they maintained contact until Ørsted’s death. Ørsted believed strongly in andersen’s ability as an author and supported him throughout his life. as an example of Ørsted’s constant encouragement, he writes to andersen on July 8, 1850 (Breve til Hans Christian Andersen, ed. by C.st.a. Bille and nikolaj Bøgh, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1877, p. 590): “dear Friend!...You need to tear yourself away from the despondency that you write about to mathilde [Ørsted’s wife], if you have not already done so before you receive this letter. You have enriched literature with so many excellent works that no one except yourself can accuse you of having done far too little. i can scarcely believe that your opponents dare to have such an opinion now.” 7 The Improvisatore was appreciatively received by andersen’s friends, protectors, fellow poets, as well as by the reviewers in Søndagsblad, the newspaper Dagen and Dansk Literatur Tidende, and it was reprinted three times during andersen’s lifetime. mogens Brøndsted points out in his postscript to The Improvisatore (Improvisatoren, Copenhagen: det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab, Borgen 1995, p. 310) that andersen did not perceive the criticisms so positively in his autobiography, The Fairy Tale of My Life, twenty years later. in his eyes, his success abroad was in sharp contrast to the harsh reception at home. edvard Collin disagreed with andersen on this issue; see his H.C. Andersen og det Collinske Hus. Et Bidrag til Andersens og hans Omgivelsers Charakteristik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1929 [1882], p. 138: “to andersen, every criticism of his work was an attack on his person. the attack was usually directed only against his sins of language. as far as i have been able to see, it is a common idea that he, more than all other authors, was picked on. But this is not correct.” O.T. was published two years after The Improvisatore, and on that occasion a 4

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

3

leading novelist in denmark.”8 However, already 30 years after andersen’s death, the danish literary scholar and critic georg Brandes (1842–1927) writes in an essay in the newspaper Politiken, “it is no injustice that andersen’s fairy tales have pushed aside all the rest of his production. He stands and falls with them.”9 to this day, andersen is known the world over as the author of perennial fairy tales—The Emperor’s New Clothes, The Nightingale, The Matchstick Girl, The Ugly Duckling, etc.—while his novels have been gathering quite a bit of dust, both in denmark and abroad. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to acknowledge the significance Andersen’s novels had in their day—not least for the novel genre’s breakthrough in denmark. when Andersen published his first three novels between 1835 and 1837 (The Improvisator, 1835; O.T., 1836, and Only A Fiddler, 1837), it was something almost entirely new. previously, the novel was considered an entertainment genre, of little worth,10 but in the wake of the translations of walter scott’s (1771–1832) historical novels and the increasing interest in descriptions of everyday life, several authors of the period began trying their hand at prose.11 seen from the perspective of the history of literature, Andersen’s novels are by no means insignificant. in the beginning, andersen did not see himself as a fairy tale author—and certainly not “just” an author of children’s books—and considered the fairy tales to be of inferior quality.12 From 1820 onwards, the volume of children’s literature rose lengthy anonymous review was published in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur (vol. 16, 1996, pp. 61–87), in which both The Improvisatore and O.T. are roundly criticized. Behind the pseudonym was F.C. olsen (1802–74), who was a friend of and the literary executor for poul martin møller. andersen’s rapid rise to fame in germany can be named as an example. in 1835, andersen’s works debuted in germany with The Improvisatore (Jugendleben und Träume eines italienischen Dichters, trans. by L. Kruse, Hamburg: Campe 1835). the great breakthrough occurred in 1838 with Only a Fiddler (Nur ein Geiger!, trans. by g.F. v. Jenssen, Braunschweig: vieweg 1838). according to ivy York möller-Christensen, his success is the result of having been “published in connection with a rather comprehensive biographical study of Captain von Jenssen. H.C. andersen has, however, a good deal of credit for the biography....everywhere in the depiction of von Jenssen, andersen emphasizes his own role in what he presents as the fairy tale of his life.” ivy York möller-Christensen, Den gyldne trekant. H.C. Andersens gennembrud i Tyskland 1831–1850 med tilhørende bibliografi, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1992 (Odense University Studies in Scandinavian Languages and Literatures, vol. 24), pp. 292–3. 8 Letter to Henriette Hanck, may 13, 1836, in Breve fra H.C. Andersen, p. 250. 9 georg Brandes, “H.C. andersen. romanerne om geniet,” Politiken, april 2, 1905. (reprinted in elias Bredsdorff, H.C. Andersen og Georg Brandes, Copenhagen: aschehoug 1994, pp. 118–23, see p. 118.) 10 see anonymous [F.C. olsen], “improvisatoren. original roman i to dele af H.C. andersen. Kjøbenhavn 1835. Forlagt af C.a. reitzel,” Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 18, 1837, p. 61. 11 For example, B.s. ingemann (1789–1862), Carsten Hauch (1790–1872), thomasine gyllembourg (1773–1856), Carl Bagger, whose real name was andreas nicolai de saintaubain (1807–46), F.C. sibbern (1785–1872), and Carl Bernhard (1798–1865). 12 Cf. Johan de mylius, Forvandlingens pris—H.C. Andersen og hans eventyr, Copenhagen: Høst & søn 2004, p. 10. andersen’s relation to children is a matter of some

4

Lone Koldtoft

sharply both in and outside of denmark, and shorter works—fairy tales, fables, rhymes, and verse—became very popular. according to Johan de mylius, andersen intended to ride this new wave and “earn some easy money”13 writing fairy tales. over time, however, this wave began to bear fruit, both in terms of money and recognition. these fairy tales later became his main claim to fame, overshadowing his song lyrics, plays, and novels. in denmark today, perhaps 10–20 of his fairy tales are read, a few songs are sung,14 and his decorative paper cuts are admired.15 the rest of andersen’s authorship lies unread in storage rooms in danish libraries, except for the portion that has been brought forth from the gloom, re-illustrated and published for the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of andersen’s birth in 2005. andersen made his literary debut three times in the course of his youth.16 already as a 17-year-old, he published his first poems and dramas under the pseudonym william Christian walther, called Essays of Youth.17 He succeeded in getting the (at the time) well-known critic proft to advertise the work in the newspaper Dagen in discussion among andersen scholars; see vibeke stybe, ‘Børnene kyssede mig kærligt.’ H.C. Andersen og børnene, Copenhagen: danmarks pædagogiske universitets Forlag, Center for Børnelitteratur 2004, p. 9. Here, she writes that according to william Bloch (1845–1926), who only knew andersen in his last years, andersen was not very good with children. this is a view that is held by a number of scholars, e.g., peer e. sørensen, who claims that andersen simply did not like children at all. a milder interpretation is given by andersen’s friend and protector edvard Collin, who admits that in his later years, andersen did not have the energy that was required to relate to children, but in his younger years his relations were quite good; cf. H.C. Andersen. Eventyr, with a postscript by peer e. sørensen, Copenhagen: dansklærerforeningen 2002, p. 170; Collin, H.C. Andersen og det Collinske Hus, p. 282. vibeke stybe writes, “edvard Collin is closest to the truth. H.C. andersen could really relate to young children, but he did it only when it suited him and when he was in the mood, and he was not always in the mood.” (stybe, “Børnene kyssede mig kærligt,” p. 10.) 13 de mylius, Forvandlingens pris, p. 10. 14 For example, “i danmark er jeg født” (1850), “Hist hvor veien slaaer en Bugt” (1829), “Hvor skoven dog er frisk og stor” (1850). 15 Cf. Johan de mylius, H.C. Andersen. Paper Cuts, Copenhagen: aschehoug 2005 [1992], p. 4: “andersen was a man of many talents, a highly creative person whose imagination was constantly in motion, a man who was able to get something out of everything. in addition to writing in many different genres, none was better at reading out his texts, and he was highly successful in his later years giving innumerable public readings, especially at workers’ and students’ associations in Copenhagen. He sang, sketched motifs from his travels, made collages….He made picture books with cutouts and little texts for children of his acquaintance. and last but not least, he made paper cuts.” 16 see niels Kofoed, Guldalderdrøm og genifeber, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2001, p. 125. 17 andersen writes, “i loved william shakespeare and walter scott, and of course i also loved myself. I took therefore my name Christian, and so I assumed the fictitious name william Christian walter.” (H.C. andersen, Mit Livs Eventyr, ed. by H. topsøe-Jensen, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1996 [1855] p. 78.) (english translation: The Fairy Tale of My Life, 2nd printing, new York: paddington press 1975, p. 44.)

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

5

order to get subscribers for the series.18 andersen also succeeded in publishing the introductory scene of the drama Robbers in Vissenbjerg in a literary magazine, The Harp.19 But it was all for naught; it was not a success. the second time andersen attempted the printed word was in 1829 with Journey on Foot From Holmen’s Canal to the Eastern Tip of Amager in the Years 1828 and 1829, which many scholars see as his true literary debut.20 after encouragement from the influential culture critic Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860), a few of the chapters were published in Heiberg’s periodical, Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post, in 1827 and 1828, and it was printed in its entirety by the new Year and was in the shops on January 2, 1829. Five hundred copies of Journey on Foot were printed, and it had to be reprinted in april of that year. in 1835, andersen debuted a third time, when he, newly having returned from his travels in italy, published the novel The Improvisatore, and the first volume of fairy tales: Fairy Tales for Children. as mentioned earlier, The Improvisatore received very good reviews, while critical enthusiasm for the fairy tales was muted. only after andersen’s New Fairy Tales from november, 1843 did he get his breakthrough as a fairy tale author, because “none of the previous fairy tales have had such broad mention as these.”21 II. The Right Connections Like other celebrities of his age, andersen has become something of a myth—for better or worse. there is much material in his autobiographies, for example, Life Book, The Fairy Tale of My Life, his almanacs, letters, and artistic production that serves to create the myth of the poor shoemaker’s boy from the provinces, who by tireless effort reaches the heights of fame.22 as the authors of The Main Line: The History of Danish Literature write: H.C. andersen is the great miracle of literature in the 1800s. this peculiar child of the lower classes, who, on his own initiative traveled to Copenhagen at the age of 14 to seek his fortune and knock on the doors of influential people until he got his way, is the great

see mogens Brønsted, H.C. Andersen og avisen, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1972, p. 14. 19 see Harpen, vol. 3, no. 32, 1822. 20 H.C. andersen, Fodreise fra Holmens Canal til Østpynten af Amager i Aarene 1828 og 1829, Copenhagen: paa Forfatterens Forlag 1829. Cf. also Johan de mylius’ postscript to andersen, Fodreise fra Holmens Canal til Østpynten af Amager i Aarene 1828 og 1829, ed. by Johan de mylius, Copenhagen: Borgen, det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab 1986. 21 H.C. Andersens Eventyr. Kritisk udgivet efter de originale Eventyrhæfter med Varianter, vols. 1–7, ed. by erik dal, commentaries by erling nielsen, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel, det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab 1963–90, vol. 6, p. 149. 22 For an account of andersen’s family circumstances and origins, see Jackie wullschlager, Hans Christian Andersen: The Life of a Storyteller, London: allen Lane, the penguin press 2000, pp. 5–31. 18

6

Lone Koldtoft exception that proves the rule, that the culture in the 1800s belonged to the educated citizenry.23

Few have understood, as andersen did, the degree to which fame depends on the creation of a network. Andersen created connections to influential bourgeois and noble families, to the cultural elite in denmark as well as abroad. that he was a master of this delicate art is shown by the many invitations he received.24 He was often invited to dinner, on ordinary days as well as holidays, by the wealthy family of the royal administrator Jonas Collin (1774–1842) in their palatial home in Bredgade,25 by the naval commander peter Frederik wulff (1774–1842),26 H.C. Ørsted, and other well-wishers. As well as influential Copenhagen families, Andersen had contacts to several poets, artists, and composers of the day. He paid frequent visits to the poet Bernhard severin ingemann (1789–1862) and his wife Lucie at the academy in sorø, and he became good friends with the sculptor Bertel thorvaldsen (1770–1844). Later in life, andersen visited several notables abroad, such as the poet Heinrich Heine (1797–1856) and the author Charles dickens (1812–76). He visited danish nobility in their manor houses and made appearances in royal courts in several places across europe, as well. in contrast to Kierkegaard, who gradually separated himself from his friends and supporters, andersen steadily broadened his circle of acquaintances throughout his life.27 He never subscribed to just one newspaper,28 one journal or publishing house, but attempted to keep on good terms with everyone. andersen never missed an opportunity to make a contact, regardless of whether or not the person liked him.29 once in a while this trait gave andersen much to worry about. one person Hovedsporet. Dansk litteraturs historie, ed. by Jens anker Jørgensen and Knud wentzel, Copenhagen: gyldendal 2005, p. 360. 24 the many contacts gave andersen much pleasure and many possibilities, but he also had to pay a high price for wanting to be well-liked by everyone. in the chapter “digterskiltet” of the book I Sverrig (ed. by mogens Brønsted, Copenhagen: Borgen, det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab 2003 [1851]) andersen shows how horrible it can be to be dependant upon the good will of the public. He writes, “should one paint a shield for the poet, then it would be best to paint scheherazade from Thousand and One Nights, who tells stories to the sultan. scheherazade is the poet, and the sultan is the audience who must be pleasantly entertained, or else he will cut scheherazade’s head off. poor scheherazade! mighty sultan!” (ibid., p. 116.) 25 Jonas Collin’s son, edvard Collin (1808–86) became andersen’s great benefactor and moral supporter. more than 500 letters between andersen and Collin have survived. the grandson Jonas Collin (1840–1905) was andersen’s travel companion on trips to southern europe and northern africa. 26 He was the father of the above-mentioned Henriette wulff, with whom andersen corresponded for many years. 27 Cf. torben Brostrøm and Jørn Lund, Flugten i sproget. H.C. Andersens udtryk, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1991, p. 7. 28 Cf. mogens Brønsted, H.C. Andersen og avisen, p. 29. 29 the poet Henrik Hertz (1798–1870) made fun of andersen in his work GjengangerBreve eller poetiske Epistler fra Paradis (Copenhagen: peter nicolaj Jørgensen 1831 [1830], p. 33), and it was not easy for andersen to act cordially. when both of them lived in rome, 23

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

7

who caused andersen constant worries and who seemed impossible to avoid is a man who set the tone in matters of refinement and taste, the critic Johan Ludvig Heiberg. Like Kierkegaard, andersen was an outsider in the Copenhagen of the golden age,30 living largely on the periphery of the circle around Heiberg.31 Both authors had a strained and complex relationship to the powerful Heiberg. andersen collided with him, when Heiberg criticized andersen’s dramatic productions, while Kierkegaard, for his part, became disenchanted with Heiberg when the latter wrote a lukewarm review of Either/Or in 1842.32 as indicated earlier, Heiberg played the role of midwife in andersen’s Journey in 1829 and, despite some critical remarks, had positive things to say about the book in his review in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur.33 andersen had occasion to meet Heiberg at the social dinners at the Collin’s residence and at Heiberg’s own house, and he seldom forgot to send greetings to Heiberg via Collin and others while he was away on his many trips abroad. But there can be no doubt that andersen did not enjoy a close relationship to the great critic. Heiberg recognized andersen as a talented poet, but a good deal less as a playwright.34 The Mulatto from 1839 and The Moorish Girl from 1840 were given a thumbs down by Heiberg and his actress wife, Johanne Luise Heiberg (1812–90). after a good deal of pleading, Fru Heiberg consented to playing the lead role in

they met a few times. in a letter to Ørsted, andersen wrote that “it is dear to me to win a former enemy.” (Breve fra H.C. Andersen, p. 135.) 30 see niels Birger wamberg, H.C. Andersen og Heiberg, Copenhagen: politikens Forlag 1971, p. 7: “andersen’s and Heiberg’s Copenhagen was a literary Æbeltoft, but with an unequaled number of geniuses….[Here] they throve in the warm, provincial incubator: andersen wrote a series of his most precious fairy tales, paludan-müller wrote Adam-Homo and grundtvig his hymns, Kierkegaard his philosophical works, Heiberg his Nye Digte, Hostrup and Hertz their plays, Christian winter, aarestrup and Bødtcher their poetry, Blicher completed E Bindstouw and goldschmidt debuted with En Jøde.” 31 the core of Heiberg’s circle was very much a family affair, consisting of his wife, Johanne Luise Heiberg and his mother, Thomasine Gyllembourg. Influential members included Heiberg’s half cousin Carl Bernhard, Henrik Hertz, Frederik paludan-müller (1809–76) and later, the theologian Hans Lassen martensen (1808–84). 32 Johan Ludvig Heiberg, “Litterær vintersæd,” Intelligensblade, vol. 2, no. 24, 1843, pp. 285–92. 33 anonymous [J.L. Heiberg], “Fodreise fra Holmens Canal til Østpynten af amager i aarene 1828 og 1829. udgiven af H.C. andersen. Kjøbenhavn, paa Forfatterens Forlag 1829,” Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 1, 1829, pp. 165–8. not only did Heiberg publish five chapters of Journey on Foot (see “prøver af et skrift, betitlet: Fodreise fra Holmens Canal til Østpynten af amager i aarene 1828 og 1829. udgiven af H.C. andersen. Kjøbenhavn, paa Forfatterens Forlag 1829,” Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, vols. 90–5, 1828), he also added this note in vol. 90, 1828: “this humorous writing by a young poet, who has already shown, by virtue of various lyrical bits and pieces, that he is worthy of the sympathy of the public, will be published at the end of next month.” 34 Cf. wamberg, H.C. Andersen og Heiberg, p. 79.

8

Lone Koldtoft

The Mulatto,35 but resisted a role in The Moorish Girl, despite andersen’s many entreaties.36 after the disagreements over andersen’s plays, the invitations to dinner at the Heiberg’s became fewer and fewer, until he was no longer considered a candidate to the Heiberg circle.37 the relationship between andersen and his critic was not improved when Heiberg, in his “a soul after death,”38 consigned andersen to Hell. Here andersen is sitting and reading The Mulatto “for the sultan’s wives and The Moorish Girl for those who are to be suffocated.”39 in spite of the hard criticism he received, andersen also had a few successes, for example, The Sandman (1841) and The Elder-Tree Mother (1844).40 andersen constantly worried about his relationship to Heiberg throughout his life. He occasionally raged against Heiberg in his journal entries, letters, and works, but never seemed able to free himself of Heiberg’s influence.

ibid., p. 129: “The Mulatto, which premiered in 1840, caused andersen a great deal of difficulty. But while most of his pieces were only performed two or three times, here he could take pleasure in twenty-three.” andersen’s joy over the many performances did not last long, since it was suddenly revealed that the plot in the work was based on a French novel. according to elias Bredsdorff, andersen knew about this, but “unfortunately andersen’s own acknowledgement of his indebtedness to the French author had been omitted by the printer, for technical reasons.” (see Hans Christian Andersen: The Story of His Life and Work 1805– 75, London: phaidon press 1975, p. 142.) 36 Heiberg wrote to Jonas Collin: “i had expected something more satisfying from the author of The Moorish Girl, because I as a critic had many objections to [it.]...Briefly, the poetic intent seems unclear to me. the piece is called a tragedy, but i do not see in the main character any necessity of a tragic ending. if the author had wanted to, he could have ended his piece in an opposite way.” (Quoted from wamberg, H.C. Andersen og Heiberg, p. 141.) 37 see Johanne Luise Heiberg, Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, ed. by niels Birger wamberg, vols. 1–4, 5th ed., Copenhagen: gyldendal 1973–74 [1891–92], vol. 1, pp. 334–5. 38 Johan Ludvig Heiberg, En Sjæl efter Døden, Copenhagen: dansklærerforeningen gyldendal 1963 [1841]. 39 ibid., p. 44. 40 H.C. andersen, Ole Lukøie, in his Eventyr, fortalte for Børn. Ny Samling, vols. 1– 3, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1838–42, vol. 3, pp. 1–25; Hyldemoer, in H. C. Andersen’s Eventyr, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850, pp. 31–42 (originally published in Gæa. Æsthetisk Aarbog, ed. by p.L. møller, 1845, pp. 204–13). Cf. Johan de mylius in Den store Danske Encyklopædi, vols. 1–24, 2nd printing, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1994–2006, vol. 1, p. 389: “the life blood of the authorship is really the dramatic works, even though today they have been forgotten. it is andersen’s scenic sense that lies behind his dramatically lucid story form in the fairy tales.” 35

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

9

III. Two Geniuses as mentioned at the outset, de mylius makes the observation that “a description of the relationship between søren Kierkegaard and H.C. andersen can be quite brief, if one keeps to the facts in evidence.”41 what we know with great certainty is that they were both living in Copenhagen at the time Kierkegaard was working on and publishing his biting criticism of andersen’s Only a Fiddler in 1838. peter tudvad writes that the area within the city walls of Copenhagen measured “about 4.5 square kilometers, and there lived, according to the census on February 1, 1840, not less than 120,819 people within them, about three times the population of today.”42 And within these confines lived the two geniuses. After his travels abroad, andersen rented a few rooms in nyhavn 20 in late summer 1834, just two minute’s walk from the royal theater that lay on the south side of Kongens nytorv.43 In October 1838, he moved into the Hotel du Nord, Copenhagen’s finest hotel, which faced the royal theater to the west.44 Here he stayed until may, 1847. For his part, Kierkegaard was living in his childhood home, nytorv 2, until July, 1837, whereupon he moved to Løvestræde 7. a year later, he returned home and lived there until late 1839 or February, 1840.45 thus, it seems at the time of their conflict, they were living within 500 meters of each other. Even taking into account their respective trips out of town or abroad,46 there were still large periods where they could not avoid seeing each other in the streets.47 indeed, from andersen’s autobiography The Fairy Tale of My Life we learn that they met each other in the street in 1838, while Kierkegaard was working on his review of andersen’s Only a Fiddler. Johan de mylius, “Kierkegaard og andersen eller de umage tvillinger,” in Kierkegaards inspiration. En antologi, p. 54. 42 peter tudvad, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politikens Forlag 2004, p. 14. 43 the hotel lay on the corner of viingaardstræde and Kongens nytorv, where the department store magasin du nord now stands. 44 at the hotel, he could come and go as he pleased, and he could travel when the opportunity arose. 45 see tudvad, Kierkegaards København, pp. 21–33. 46 Cf. niels Birger wamberg, Verden er mit hjem. På rejse med H.C. Andersen. En montage, Copenhagen: aschehoug 2004, p. 5: “H.C. andersen was basically always on the move. a place to settle down was for him unfamiliar territory....after a while, it became andersen’s hobby to leave denmark behind, ‘away from eternal winter and eternal nonsense.’...He frequently speaks of his ‘inexplicable luck,’ and one must truly be amazed at how few accidents this anxious and fearless freedom-loving human being gets into in all his 29 trips abroad.” 47 From saturday, July 17 to august 8, 1840, Kierkegaard was on a trip to Jutland, and from october 25, 1841 to march 6, 1842, he lived and studied in Berlin. tudvad writes, “He strolled about in Copenhagen, went to the springs at dyrehavsbakken [an amusement park about 15 kilometers from Copenhagen] and went on tours of northern zealand” and scania. (tudvad, Kierkegaards København, p. 208.) 41

10

Lone Koldtoft

these two geniuses may well also have seen each other elsewhere in Copenhagen. andersen and Kierkegaard both frequented the royal theater48 and spent time in the student association and music association,49 and both had a habit of popping into C.a. reitzel’s Bookshop and publishing House.50 Lectures, concerts, and dinners were held in the student association, and both andersen and Kierkegaard gave talks here. at the end of november 1835, Kierkegaard presented a paper entitled “our Journal Literature: study according to nature in dinner Lighting,” and in november 1837 andersen recited a selection from Only a Fiddler as well as the first chapter of The Galoshes of Fortune in march 1838. it is unknown whether the two authors were present at each other’s performance. there is nothing to suggest that andersen and Kierkegaard were at any time close to each other. when the young and feisty Kierkegaard launched his attack on andersen and his novel Only a Fiddler in his book-length review From the Papers of One Still Living, accusing andersen of being an author absorbed in his feelings, a spiritual weakling and a sniveler,51 any potential bridge between them was burned. even if andersen had been spared Kierkegaard’s acid pen, it is still unlikely that any friendship could have arisen between them. andersen was emotionally responsive to everyone and everything around him, a man willing to overlook just about any fault in order to make a contact; Kierkegaard was by turns witty and brooding, reflective and aggressive. He was polemical and unsettling to many around him. elias Bredsdorff concludes, “they are undoubtedly far too different to have been able to have much pleasure in each other’s company.”52 Like Kierkegaard, andersen often went to the royal theater. andersen wrote to Henriette Hanck that he was in the theater, “if there is any news.” (Breve fra Andersen, p. 315.) 49 the student association was formed in 1820 for the students of Copenhagen university as an intellectual and literary forum. Kierkegaard applied on october 28, 1833 and was accepted on november 4. Kierkegaard was barred entry from January 23, 1837 until June 27, because his dues were four months in arrears. according to tudvad, it was “far from unusual that respectable members owed the association money....nonetheless, one had to wonder at Kierkegaard’s debt, because one knew his father was one of the richest citizens in Copenhagen.” (tudvad, Kierkegaards København, p. 205.) andersen, as far as we know, also frequented the association. in a letter to Henriette Hanck (april 27, 1838), he describes an ordinary week and closes with the following remark, “sunday with Fru Læssøe or at the student association.” (Breve fra H.C. Andersen, p. 313.) in 1836, the music association was formed, which had an influential role in Copenhagen throughout the century. Its purpose was at first to publish music, but arranging concerts quickly became its primary focus. tudvad writes that Kierkegaard was invited to join as a founding member; see tudvad, Kierkegaards København, p. 204. 50 Cf. niels thulstrup, The Copenhagen of Kierkegaard, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1986 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 11), p. 46: “Hans Christian andersen and søren Kierkegaard are undoubtedly the most famous authors published by C.A. Reitzel….In Kierkegaard’s day, this publishing firm and bookshop, together with ‘mini’s Café’ were the focal points of literary life in Copenhagen, where news and views were exchanged and current issues discussed.” 51 SKS 1, p. 43 / EPW, p. 88. 52 elias Bredsdorff, “H.C. andersen og søren Kierkegaard,” Anderseniana, odense: H.C. andersens Hus, odense universitetsforlag, series 3, vol. 3, 1982, pp. 229–54. this 48

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

11

IV. Kierkegaard’s Acquaintance with Andersen’s Works which of andersen’s works was Kierkegaard acquainted with? if we look at the auction records of Kierkegaard’s library,53 we find Only a Fiddler, which Kierkegaard bought himself. We also find two volumes of New Fairy Tales 1845–48,54 which andersen sent to Kierkegaard in 1848 with the following dedication: “dear mr. Kirkegaard! whether you like my little [fairy tales] or you do not, yet they come without Fear and Trembling and that is at least something. affectionately. the author.”55 Listed in the “u” section of rohde’s edition of the auction catalogue is An Open Air Comedy: Vaudeville in One Act After the Old Play “The Actor Against His Will,” which premiered in 1840.56 Kierkegaard thus owned just a few works of andersen, little more than those relating to their public feud. nevertheless, he was acquainted with more than just these works. as we shall see from examining Kierkegaard’s journals, he had a rather superficial knowledge of Andersen’s authorship and did not seem to have had a serious interest in andersen’s ideas. in a journal entry from 1835, Kierkegaard refers to a passage in Andersen’s first work in 1829: “Thus the idea of having the world be destroyed by books, found in andersen’s [Journey], chapter 1, comes from the legend of Faust.”57 in 1837, Kierkegaard writes in another journal: i have read andersen’s novel, The Improvisatore, from cover to cover, find nothing in it, just one good observation, the italian taking his leave in the evening says: felicissima notte and andersen remarks: ‘the scandinavian wishes good night, sleep well; the italians wish: the happiest night! the southern nights possess more than—dreams.’ ”58

The final reference to Andersen’s works is to the novel O.T. in a footnote in From the Papers of One Still Living.59

article is a laudable summary of the relation between andersen and Kierkegaard, including a summary in english. 53 Auktionsprotokol over Søren Kierkegaards Bogsamling, ed. by H.p. rohde, Copenhagen: the royal Library 1967. 54 H.C. andersen, Nye Eventyr, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–48 (ASKB 1504–1506). 55 see Joakim garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton university press 2005, p. 145. 56 H.C. andersen, En Comedie i det Grønne, Vaudeville i een Akt efter det gamle Lystspil: “Skuespilleren imod sin Villie,” Copenhagen: n.p. 1840 (ASKB u 14). 57 Pap. i C 46, p. 213 / JP 5, 5077. 58 SKS 17, 46–7, aa:31 / KJN 1, 40. 59 SKS 1, 33 / EPW, 78. “what i do not know, i do not get heated about, thus thinks the ox when it wears a blinder.” Kierkegaard refers here to o.t., that is, otto thostrup (who is born in the odense jailhouse and has these letters tattooed on his shoulder), the main character in andersen’s second novel. otto thostrup is not conscious of his life’s task, because it is apparently hidden from him—it lies like a hump on his back. according to Kierkegaard, however, it does not seem to be something that worries o.t.

12

Lone Koldtoft

in addition to Journey on Foot, The Improvisatore, and O.T., Kierkegaard appears also to refer to andersen’s play Agnes and the Merman.60 the play (or dramatic poem, as it is called) was performed at the royal theater in april and may, 184361 and received boos from the audience.62 nor was Collin enthusiastic.63 Kierkegaard was present at the performance64 and noted in a journal entry: i have thought of adapting [the legend of] Agnes and the Merman from an angle that has not occurred to any poet. the merman is a seducer, but after he has won agnes’s love he is so moved by it that he wants to belong to her entirely—But this, you see, he cannot do, since he must initiate her into his whole tragic existence, that he is a monster at certain times etc., that the Church cannot give its blessing to them. He despairs and in his despair goes to the bottom of the sea and remains there, but agnes imagines that he only wanted to deceive her. But this is poetry, not this wretched, miserable trash in which everything revolves around ridiculousness and nonsense. such complication can be resolved only by the religious (which has its name because it resolves all witchcraft); if the merman could believe, his faith could perhaps transform him into a human being.65

Thus, after dismissing Andersen’s play as insignificant, Kierkegaard then used it as the starting point for his own (provisional) ideas about the legend of agnes and the merman, which later found their way into Fear and Trembling. Kierkegaard also revealed in his journals that he knew of at least three of Andersen’s fairy tales. The first entry is from 1841–42, in which Kierkegaard or rather Johannes the seducer refers to andersen’s fairy tale The Steadfast Tin Soldier in describing a story about a steadfast lieutenant and a maiden in “the diary of the Seducer.” Briefly, Johannes’ story is about a lieutenant who at precisely midnight greets a maiden in a window on the second floor. One day, when the lieutenant is about to begin his greeting, he stumbles and falls and all is lost. Johannes writes: “it is indeed a terrible kind of steadfastness. Is this befitting for a soldier?...Should you not take the house by storm and the girl by force?”66 the young lieutenant is a fool in Johannes’ eyes because he does not seize the opportunity and seduce the maiden while he can. His steadfastness is a hindrance to him, and he loses the maiden. a agnes and the merman is an old danish folk ballad, also known in norway and sweden. several poets, especially in the romantic period, reinterpret the story. examples include Jens Baggesen in his poem Agnete fra Holmegaard (1808), adam oehlenschläger in his poem Agnete (1812), and H.C. andersen in his short story (læsedrama) Agnete og Havmanden (1834). 61 Cf. tudvad, Kierkegaards København, p. 266. 62 Bredsdorff, H.C. Andersen, p. 161. 63 “while reading the proofs i have often been on the point of crying because i met with so many old acquaintances in agnes whom i did not want to meet again; usually annoyance suffocated my tears...I find it painful to read such a mediocre product of his, and I must ask your forgiveness, for it is not possible for me while reading it to think of correcting small mistakes, so long as what i have read so far only very rarely offers a single bright spot.” (Bredsdorff, Hans Christian Andersen, p. 111.) 64 tudvad, Kierkegaards København, p. 266. 65 SKS 18, 180, JJ:120 / KJN 2, 166–7. 66 SKS 2, 382 / EO1, 394. 60

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

13

college student, a jurist or a clergyman can remain in this hopeful state, but a soldier ought to be vigorous and courageous. in the margin to this story Kierkegaard writes, “He reminds one very much of the tin soldier, and i cannot help laughing, every time i think of their common fate, to fall in under a cover, into the gutter.”67 Beyond allusions to The Tin Soldier, Kierkegaard briefly mentions Ole Goodnight in 1844, which is presumably a reference to andersen’s The Sandman.68 “if on the other hand, she is true to him, then good night ole and ideality.”69 the third and last fairy tale Kierkegaard mentions in his journals is The Galoshes of Fortune: 70 “andersen can tell the fairy tale about the galoshes of good fortune—but i can tell the fairy tale about the shoe that pinches, or more correctly, i could tell it, but because i do not want to tell it but hide it in deep silence i am able to tell something quite different.”71 Kierkegaard regarded andersen as quite a harmless writer, a conclusion he had come to some years previously. in a journal entry from 1837–39 he writes: But andersen is not so dangerous, after all; from what i have experienced, his main strength is an auxiliary chorus of volunteer arrangers and invitation distributors, a few vagabond esthetes, who perpetually protest their honesty, and this much is certain, they can by no means be charged with any reservatio mentalis, for they have absolutely nothing in mente.72

according to the editors of Søren Kierkegaards Papirer, this entry and a few others73 are likely fragments “possibly to be used in a planned attack in the newspapers in connection to the publication of søren Kierkegaard’s writing From the Papers of One Still Living on september 7, 1838.”74 as we know, Kierkegaard had no need of these notes because a controversy was not raised on that occasion. Kierkegaard could well have predicted this. He was at any rate never in doubt that andersen could not put up much resistance. as mentioned earlier, it was Kierkegaard’s vitriolic attack on andersen in From the Papers of One Still Living that was the pivotal event in the Kierkegaard– andersen relationship, and it is very nearly the only concrete evidence we have. in the following section, i will examine the title and a few of the essential themes in Kierkegaard’s criticism of andersen.

Pap. iii B 71, 2, p. 151. andersen, Ole Lukøie. 69 Pap. v B 180, 1. 70 Lykkens Kalosker was published for the first time in 1838, together with En rigtig Soldat og Det har Zombien gjort in Tre Digtninger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1838. 71 SKS 20, 103, nB156 / JP 5, 5988. 72 Pap. ii a 781, p. 263 / JP 5, 5348. 73 see Pap. ii a 768–85. 74 see Pap. ii a 261, note. in the commentary to From the Papers, Johnny Kondrup also believes that Kierkegaard “prepared himself for a public controversy with his victim and sympathizers. the last 18 entries in his Journal FF can be taken as ammunition for such a controversy. the entries are all undated, but follow shortly after an entry dated august 17, 1838.” Cf. SKS K1, 76. 67 68

14

Lone Koldtoft

V. From the papers of one still Living From the Papers of One Still Living is not only Kierkegaard’s literary debut,75 but also the very first book on Andersen. Kierkegaard’s idea was to have the review published in Heiberg’s journal Perseus, but was apparently turned down.76 Briefly, From the Papers attacked andersen for allegedly lacking a life view and for having misunderstood the concept of genius. it was not simply a review of the novel, but a personal attack on andersen himself. Kierkegaard characterizes the novel’s main character, Christian, as “a sniveler,”77 “a little boy,”78 and “a poor wretch,”79 who is without strength of character, vain, responding only passively to the whims of his milieu. Kierkegaard characterizes andersen himself as having a “weakly developed temperament.”80 there was therefore for Kierkegaard no doubt that Christian was entirely a reflection of the author himself. Kierkegaard writes, “The same joyless battle Andersen himself fights in life now repeats itself in his poetry.81 Kierkegaard was probably being truthful when he wrote that he hardly knew andersen personally, but he could well have known andersen from the accounts of others. there was, as we shall see, an unmistakable similarity between Kierkegaard’s conception of andersen and that of his contemporaries—many of whom did know andersen personally. in addition to the full title of the work From the Papers of One Still Living: Published Against His Will by S. Kierkegaard, it bears a subtitle, On Andersen as a Novelist with Constant Reference to His Latest Work, ‘Only a Fiddler,’ which follows the foreword. together with the last two pages of the review, the foreword constitutes a kind of story that puts the review in context.82 To this end, Kierkegaard introduces a conflict in the foreword between a publisher and an author, a conflict described “as if one soul resided in two bodies.”83 the author “suffers...to a rather high degree from a sense of unfulfillment in the world.”84 and when he is in the midst of his artistic creativity he becomes isolated and silent. Kierkegaard disowns the work in The Point of View for My Work as an Author in the sense that it is not included in the list of works he considers to be his authorship. 76 Kierkegaard attempted first to get his monograph published in Perseus, which failed. Heiberg read the manuscript and apparently asked Kierkegaard to change the style of the piece. what happened next is uncertain. Kondrup writes, “the cause is not known. But one may well surmise that Heiberg was not happy with the revision and that it was not finished by the time the journal was to be printed...the possibility that Heiberg in the meantime had decided to substitute another contribution instead of Kierkegaard’s is of course still open.” Cf. SKS K1, 72. 77 SKS 1, 43 / EPW, 88. 78 SKS 1, 54 / EPW, 99. 79 SKS 1, 30 / EPW, 74. 80 SKS 1, 31 / EPW, 75. 81 SKS 1, 38 / EPW, 83. 82 the work also has a postscript which follows immediately after the foreword: “postscript for the readers who possibly could be harmed by reading the preface: they could skip over it, and if they skipped far enough so that they skipped over the essay as well, it is of no consequence.” (SKS 1, 9 / EPW, 60.) 83 SKS 1, 9 / EPW, 55. 84 SKS 1, 10 / EPW, 55. 75

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

15

“Although he succeeds now and again..in grasping one or another of the fleeting ideas, he must also, as he says himself, struggle and strive with it.”85 when the idea has unfolded, the happy publisher attempts to worm what has been created out of him, so it can be published. the author is vain and anxious, however, and fears the condemnation of his readers, which is why he wishes to take back what he has created. after a bit of pulling back and forth, the publisher succeeds in overpowering the introverted, depressive author and publishes the work “against his will.”86 This battle between the two personified urges is taken up again in the work’s last two pages, except that the author has been replaced by a reader. according to Kierkegaard, there is a “misrelation...between a reading and a criticizing world’s judgment of andersen.”87 So, after having filled nearly fifty pages with Andersen’s shortcomings as an author and a person, Kierkegaard then unexpectedly leaves it to the “reader” to “whisper in andersen’s ear” his “feelings of thankfulness as [he] recollects the man to whom [he] owes it all.”88 andersen may have appreciated a little elaboration on this last point, but none is forthcoming. Kierkegaard closes merely by assuring andersen that the review is written in “sympathetic ink” and needs to be read in “that light which alone makes the writing readable and the meaning clear.”89 in other words, andersen was supposed to understand that the review had a different, friendlier message, if he would but try to read between the lines. it was this farewell that B.s. ingemann, when he attempted to comfort his fellow poet, pointed to as an indication of Kierkegaard’s true intentions. in a letter to andersen in 1838, ingemann writes: Kierkegaard’s review has quite depressed you, but I do not find bitterness and the desire to offend in it. presumably, he means it much better than he has let on. the closing lines hint at a somewhat strange, suppressed mood of friendliness. But it is one-sided and unfair to proclaim one’s censure but to whisper one’s praise and acknowledgement, to express one’s disapproval in printer’s ink and write one’s thanks and approval with sympathetic ink.90

we know from andersen’s almanacs that he clearly was not convinced of Kierkegaard’s good intentions in 1838.91 together with Kierkegaard’s review, andersen received that day, september 6, a disturbing letter from peter Frederik SKS 1, 10–11 / EPW, p. 56. Cf. SKS K1, p. 77. 87 SKS 1, 56 / EPW, 101. 88 ibid. 89 SKS 1, 57 / EPW, 102. 90 Breve til Andersen, p. 293. dated sorø, december 9, 1838. 91 see H.C. Andersens Almanakker 1833–1873, ed. by Helga vang Lauridsen and Kirsten weber, Copenhagen: det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab, g.e.C. gads 1990 [1838], p. 24: “an outrageous letter from wulff and immediately after that Kierkegaard’s criticism. edvard gave me a cooling powder. walked as in a stupor.” andersen also wrote many years later in The Fairy Tale of My Life, “at the time, i was told from [From the Papers] that i was no poet...Later, i understood this author better, who in my development, has greeted me with friendliness and appreciation.” andersen, Mit Livs Eventyr, p. 204. 85 86

16

Lone Koldtoft

wulff, which necessitated him to receive a “cooling powder” from Jonas Collin.92 many researchers have pointed to the conciliatory tone of the last lines, but few have considered them in as positive a light as ingemann has done. i believe that the reference to “sympathetic ink” can certainly be thought of as a little bandage on a gaping wound, but it can also point in an entirely different direction. in an anonymous review of andersen’s poetry collection The Year Has Twelve Months of 1833,93 the critic Christian molbech (1783–1857) explains that “sympathetic ink” as follows: “the poetical one thought one heard in the evening is gone when one wants to read it the next morning.”94 this explanation was in line with andersen’s entry in his almanacs. in his later autobiography The Fairy Tale of My Life andersen writes that Kierkegaard changes his conception of Only a Fiddler from positive to, as time went by, negative. on august 30, 1838, andersen expresses his concerns in his almanacs: “Felt martyred in my soul over Kierkegaard’s unpublished review.”95 in the autobiography, andersen writes: meeting him in the street, he told me that he would write a review of my book, and that I should be more satisfied with that than the earlier, because, he said, they had misunderstood me! A long time elapsed, then he read the book again, and the first good impression was effaced. i must almost believe that the more seriously he examined the story, the more faults he found.96

it appears, according to andersen’s account, that Kierkegaard changed his assessment along the way, which explains the reference to “sympathetic ink.” the excellent qualities he saw in the “evening’s” first reading disappeared in the clear light of morning. regrettably, there is nothing in Kierkegaard’s journals or the surviving letters that can confirm this interpretation.97 thus we cannot say for certain whether see Bruce H. Kirmmse, “a rose with thorns: Hans Christian andersen’s relation to Kierkegaard,” in Early Polemical Writings, ed. by robert L. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1999 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 1), p. 74: “Captain [later admiral] p.F. wulff had been andersen’s early friend and benefactor, but in the letter Andersen received from him…Wulff unfairly accused him of slander and barred him from his home. andersen was understandably very upset with this rejection. what is unclear is how much of the reaction andersen mentions in his almanac entry is attributable to the rejection by wulff and how much to the scathing criticism from Kierkegaard. andersen scholars such as Helge topsøe-Jensen and, more recently, elias Bredsdorff have argued that the letter from wulff was the real cause of andersen’s dismay, and this view has been echoed by Julia Watkin.…Nonetheless, it does not have to be one or the other; that is, both wulff’s letter and Kierkegaard’s book could have combined to upset andersen, who was notoriously thin-skinned.” 93 H.C. andersen, Aarets tolv Maaneder, Tegnede med Blæk og Pen, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1833. 94 anonymous [Christian molbech], “om den nyeste dansk poesi. 2den artikel,” Maanedsskrift for Litteratur,” vol. 10, 1833, pp. 867–82, see p. 870. 95 H.C. Andersens Almanakker, p. 23. 96 andersen, Mit Livs Eventyr, p. 204. (The Fairy Tale of my Life, pp. 136–7.) 97 we know very little of the history of how From the Papers came about. andersen’s novel was in the bookshops on november 22, 1837, and was followed nearly ten months later 92

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

17

“sympathetic ink” is meant in a positive way, as ingemann suggests, or in a negative way, as indicated by molbech. Kierkegaard’s choice of a title has provoked many interpretations by scholars.98 georg Brandes, for example, in 1877 surmises that the phrase “one still living” refers to “a bit of titillating autobiography in the direction of a failed suicide attempt or something like that.”99 scholars after Brandes continue in this biographical vein. Historian of literature vilhelm andersen (1864–1953) believes the title points to the death of Kierkegaard’s professor and friend poul martin møller in march 1838,100 while niels thulstrup claims the death of Kierkegaard’s father in august 1838 is the answer. Sejer Kühle’s interpretation of the title is the first that emphasizes the title as an integral part of the text, rather than a sly reference to some arbitrary bit of personal history. Kühle does not exclude the possibility that a reference to møller’s or his father’s death was a part of Kierkegaard’s intent, but suggests that in addition, “one still living” refers to one who, “like the prodigal son has been brought back from the dead.”101 in Poets and Demons, the modernist writer villy sørensen (1929–2001) puts the title in the context of both the work and person of Kierkegaard himself. He writes, “already in the title that he gave the book, there rings a note of defiant triumph; here spoke a genius that was not destroyed.”102 several scholars echo this thesis.103 by Kierkegaard’s review on september 7, 1838. according to Johnny Kondrup, it is likely that Kierkegaard penned From the Papers “at the end of april or the beginning of may and was largely finished around the middle of June.” Cf. SKS K1, “tekstredegørelsen,” p. 70. 98 Cf. Jørgen Bonde Jensen, Jeg er kun en digter. Om Søren Kierkegaard som skribent, Copenhagen: Babette 1996. 99 georg Brandes, Søren Kierkegaard. En kritisk Fremstilling i Grundrids, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1967 [1877], p. 35. 100 see vilhelm andersen, Poul Møller. Hans Liv og Skrifter, Copenhagen: universitetsboghandler Gad 1904 [1894], p. 302: “Briefly stated, it is the recently deceased thoughts that are contained in the Papers of One Still Living. is it possible the odd title of the little work is chosen with regard to this state of affairs?” Kierkegaard admired møller (1794–1838), and he was Kierkegaard’s favorite professor at the university. in the last two years of møller’s life, a friendship developed between them. 101 see sejer Kühle, Søren Kierkegaard. Barndom og ungdom, Copenhagen: aschehoug 1950, pp. 124–5: “there is some doubt as to how Kierkegaard hit upon the title of his book. several things could have been the stimulus for the idea. one that deserves mention is what he wrote on January 9, 1838: ‘i searched for precisely an expression that designates the class of human beings i might want to write for, in the conviction that they would share my point of view and now I find it in Lucian paranekroi (one who is dead, as am i).’ ” 102 villy sørensen, Digter og dæmoner. Fortolkninger og vurderinger, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1979 [1959], p. 13. one can see the rudiments of this interpretation already in Brandes in 1877, since he places the problem of genius at the center of his analysis. “the theme in andersen’s novel had struck Kierkegaard...it was the dogma about genius that andersen had created, a dogma of non-industriousness, that genius required nurturing, loving surroundings.” Brandes, Søren Kierkegaard. En kritisk Fremstilling i Grundrids, p. 39. 103 see, for example, richard m. summers, “aesthetics, ethics and reality: a study of From the Papers of One Still Living,” in Early Polemical Writings, ed. by robert L. perkins,

18

Lone Koldtoft

Jørgen Bonde Jensen believes, contrary to sørensen and Jørgensen, despite Kierkegaard’s harshness there is a great deal of sympathy for andersen’s arbitrary changes of mood, and there is an admission of this hidden in the title: “[Kierkegaard] does not go so far as to call himself deceased and did not do so at the time of his death. He acknowledges his shadowy traffic with Andersen’s position, he clings to the poet’s immediacy.”104 Bonde Jensen’s interpretation of the title is interesting because it makes Kierkegaard appear somewhat more sympathetic and seems quite appealing. i think it is unlikely that Kierkegaard wrote From the Papers solely as a hatchet job, rather he did it also in a (failed) attempt to edify the hapless andersen with his perhaps, at the time, underdeveloped ideas about “maieutic” communication, which requires a degree of indirection and sympathy with the communicant. on the other hand, there is much to be said for the more cynical interpretation of sørensen and Jørgensen. Kierkegaard writes “the whole family [in Only a Fiddler] comes to an unnatural end. the author of these lines is, he believes, so fortunate to be able to end his discussion of Only a Fiddler in a natural way.”105 Christian is so much a part of andersen that when he dies, Kierkegaard claims, andersen dies with him. not so with Kierkegaard’s own work, which possesses “an immortal spirit that survives the whole.”106 Kierkegaard does not make the same mistake as andersen; at the end, he still stands—still living. 107 VI. Andersen Has No Life View the two essential claims of From the Papers are that andersen lacks a life view and that his conception of genius is wrong. Let me begin with the problem of life view. in the beginning of the review, Kierkegaard advances an author whom he believes exemplifies a life view: the so-called “Author to a Story of Everyday Life.” Behind the pseudonym is thomasine gyllembourg (1773–1856), the mother of Johan Ludvig Heiberg. this was formally acknowledged after her death, but many of her contemporaries in the educated classes were in on the secret beforehand. Kierkegaard praises her novels for having an “evangelistic tinge,”108 and he promotes the reading of her works as “a truly upbuilding study.”109 where andersen in his novel presents pp. 51–2: “That there is a definite connection between Kierkegaard’s reaction to Only a Fiddler and his view of what is involved in being a genius seems to be borne out by a later journal entry (JP 5, 5614) Kierkegaard saw himself as ‘the one still living,’ the genius who succeeded.” see also merete Jørgensen, Kierkegaard som kritiker. En undersøgelse af forholdet mellem det æstetiske og det etiske i Kierkegaards litterære kritik, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1978, p. 141: “based on the text, one can understand the title to have a hidden ironic intent: here is a genius who has not buckled under.” 104 Bonde Jensen, Jeg er kun en digter. Om Søren Kierkegaard som skribent, p. 71. 105 SKS 1, 56 / EPW, 101. (Translation modified.) 106 SKS 1, 38 / EPW, 83. 107 Kierkegaard’s ironic intent is thus not so “hidden” as merete Jørgensen believes. 108 SKS 1, 21 / EPW, 66. 109 ibid.

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

19

a picture of social decline into nothingness, gyllembourg’s novels are edifying and possess the distillate of “joy in life, the battle-won confidence in the world, yielding a life dividend.”110 in their contact with the world, her protagonists establish, after grinding personal struggle, some form of harmony with it, instead of a descent into personal anarchy. one might claim that Kierkegaard was reacting to andersen’s break with the romantic Bildungsroman,111 because Christian does not win out over the challenges he faces and follow the ideal development of home—away from home—home again. Only a Fiddler can be said to point forward to a new novel genre, the Bildungsroman. this is a genre that appears together with naturalism in denmark in the 1870s,112 in which the main character does not end up at peace with himself or herself and the world, becoming disillusioned with both instead. For the naturalists, human beings are determined by their biological and social relations and are therefore unable to act freely. Kierkegaard is opposed to such a view of human nature, in all its forms, because the only result of this, in his view, would be to resign and become a passive onlooker of one’s own life. From Kierkegaard’s perspective, a life view cannot be based on a social or biological conception of human nature, because the task of every individual, in spite of his or her social or biological background, is to “first and foremost win a competent personality.”113 after Kierkegaard has diagnosed andersen as lacking a life view, he gives an explanation of why this is so. according to Kierkegaard, andersen has failed to develop properly because he has bypassed the epic stage and lies stagnant in the lyrical stage.114 the poet andersen lacks the “consolidating total survey” of life that is won in the epic stage and thus is overpowered by his moods, led astray by the ibid. “the Bildungsroman (german) depicts a course of events toward a predetermined conclusion. the author has a particular edifying or educative ideal, towards which the main character is to progress. Through a series of conflicts in which it ‘strays from the path,’ the author guides the character until it once again is traveling the right path, ending in the ideal state that is the novel’s moral and ideological foundation....the Bildungsroman’s development can be summarized as ‘home—homeless—home again.’ ” (see Litteraturhåndbogen, ed. by ib Fischer Hansen et al., Copenhagen: gyldendal 1990, p. 570.) 112 “the Bildungsroman believes in the freedom of the will and in the sovereignty of the individual. Naturalism questions the validity of these concepts. the individual is here understood in his concrete relation to society as a product of historical circumstances and inheritance. the individual does not determine his own fate, but rather it is determined by social and biological factors.” (see ibid., p. 570.) 113 SKS 1, p. 37 / EPW, 82. 114 Analogous to Heiberg’s genre systematic, lyrical poetry is the first stage, epic poetry is the second and dramatic poetry is the third and final stage. Heiberg was inspired by Hegel’s system, except that, as Jon stewart demonstrates, Heiberg reverses the lyrical and epic stages. stewart writes, “when developing this scheme, Heiberg did not have at his disposal the published version of Hegel’s lectures on aesthetics, although he seems to have had some lecture notes to work with.” see Jon stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, Cambridge and new York: Cambridge university press 2003, p. 124. 110 111

20

Lone Koldtoft

multiplicity of his own possibilities.115 He is unable to prioritize the impressions he receives because he lacks life experiences and the reflection necessary to distance himself from his novel. andersen lives so much through the life of his hero that he becomes one with him and loses himself. His novels stand, according to Kierkegaard, in “so physical a relation to him that their genesis is to be regarded more as an amputation than as a production from himself.”116 it is not andersen who has power and an overarching perspective in the novel, and therefore the reader is at times “tempted to believe that andersen is a character who has run away from an as yet unfinished group composed by a poet.”117 given this weakness, given that he has a lyrical temperament and is unable to find direction in his life, andersen cannot give the reader “a resting place,118 where we could collect ourselves and look back.”119 VII. The Genius Fever Kierkegaard’s criticism of andersen’s lack of a life view is related to his attack on andersen’s concept of a genius, as it is presented in Only a Fiddler.120 Kierkegaard is clearly indignant over andersen’s description of a genius as an egg that needs warmth and fertilization by good fortune, so as not to succumb to the winds that would blow it out of the nest. Kierkegaard writes, “[Only a Fiddler] implies a failure to appreciate the power of genius and its relation to unfavorable circumstances (for genius is not a rush candle that goes out in a puff of air but a conflagration that the storm only incites) and is due to andersen’s depicting not a genius in his struggle but rather a sniveler.”121 according to Kierkegaard, external circumstances cannot determine how genius unfolds. if one really is a genius—and Kierkegaard is otherwise in doubt as to whether Christian is—then he would continue fighting the good fight, rather than giving up so easily. andersen’s Christian is “a vain creature,”122 who is much more preoccupied with people’s attention and recognition of his genius than he is with his art. in 1821, Christian wilster (1797–1840), professor of greek at sorø academy, gave a lecture at the newly-formed student association with the title “on geniusFever.”123 at this point, Kierkegaard was only a small boy and thus could hardly SKS 1, 38 / EPW, 83. SKS 1, 39 / EPW, 84. 117 SKS 1, 31 / EPW, 75. 118 Bedested, literally, “a place of prayer.” 119 SKS 1, 51 / EPW, 95. 120 Cf. Bredsdorff, Hans Christian Andersen, p. 128: “the novel is, therefore, really about the way in which social conditions and general adversity are able to destroy talent. But it is not the story of how genius is destroyed, for, in his optimistic moments at least, andersen believed in the romantic theory that true genius will always be victorious in the end—a philosophy he expressed most clearly in another autobiographical story, The Ugly Ducking.” 121 SKS 1, 43 / EPW, 87–8. 122 SKS 1, 46 / EPW, 91. 123 Christian wilster, “om genifeberen,” Nye Hygæa, vol. 1, 1823, pp. 99–122. 115 116

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

21

have heard this lecture. However, it is clear that Kierkegaard was influenced by the same ideas of genius in From the Papers. in his lecture, wilster criticizes the romantic search for and worship of genius, in the sense that he warns and makes fun of all who would be geniuses and in that way attempt to avoid the drudgery of ordinary life. But despite the satirical tone, wilster is far from divorcing himself from the romantic idea of the divinely inspired genius who rises to the top, despite resistance. wilster’s lecture is clever, and he gives many humorous instructions for the treatment of genius-fever, for example, “a sufficient number of leeches and applications of ice would also be efficacious in the treatment of this disease.”124 wilster believes, as does Kierkegaard, that the striving for genius ends up in “vanity and delusion,”125 and really has nothing to do with true genius. He also believes that genius survives in most cases, provided one really is a genius. wilster writes, “one does better by submitting than one does by feeding the inclination; if spirit is actually present, then it must be elastic, that it may raise itself up to its full power.”126 up to this point, i have shown that Kierkegaard’s concept of life view is similar to the overarching perspective in the romantic Bildungsroman and that Kierkegaard’s concept of genius is in agreement with romanticism’s idea of the inspired genius. Kierkegaard’s criticism of andersen is not therefore notable for its originality. VIII. Ammunition from Contemporary Criticism Kierkegaard is decidedly not alone in his skeptical view of andersen. Critical opinion certainly does change as time goes by, but even when the corps of danish reviewers has to capitulate in the face of andersen’s fabulous ability to write fairy tales,127 the old picture of him is still not entirely forgotten. By and large, danish reviewers in the 1820s and 1830s took particular delight in displaying Andersen’s difficulties with spelling, grammar, and syntax,128 and they were all in agreement that he was lacking in refinement.129 many were even of the opinion that it would have been better if andersen had been less productive. there was no lack of condescending bits of advice to andersen, and these, however true ibid., p. 99. ibid., p.103. 126 ibid., p. 107. 127 Cf. H.C. Andersens Eventyr. Kritisk udgivet efter de originale Eventyrhæfter med Varianter, p. 149: “[andersen] got his breakthrough as a teller of fairy tales with [Nye Eventyr]. none, or close to none, of his previous [tales] had been so widely mentioned as this one.” 128 Cf. anonymous [Christian molbech], “digte af H.C. andersen. Kiøbenhavn paa Forfatterens Forlag 1830,” Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 3, 1830, p. 172: “now and then horrible grammatical mistakes and orthographical sloppiness are inserted....For example, he consistently spells ‘giorte’ instead of ‘giorde.’ ” see also, anonymous [Christian molbech], “om den nyeste dansk poesi. 2den artikel,” p. 876. 129 see, for example, the anonymous (F.C. olsen) review of The Improvisatore and O.T., in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 18, 1837, p. 68: “Likewise, andersen reveals a certain lack of strength, first and foremost strength of intellect, sharpness of reflection and clarity.” 124 125

22

Lone Koldtoft

they may be, seldom found favor with him. He was constantly wringing his hands over being considered an immature and naïve but promising young poet. He was quite simply afraid that he would not be able to throw off his critics’ early indignant reception, and his work would be forever labeled as unfinished. Kierkegaard was reserved about, or disinterested, in andersen’s formal sins against the danish language, but otherwise he agreed on several points with andersen’s critics. they, like Kierkegaard, did not distinguish between andersen as a person, andersen as an author, and andersen’s works themselves. when F.C. olsen wrote an anonymous review of The Improvisatore as well as O.T., he explicitly acknowledged his biographical standpoint. “poets show themselves in their works for what they are.”130 the division between the poet and his or her work is erased, which makes Andersen’s novel “an autobiography, a significant person’s developmental history, told by himself.”131 it is quite the norm to emphasize that andersen’s works seem fragmentary and arbitrary and Kierkegaard is no exception when he notes that “incidental associations of ideas”132 dominate Only a Fiddler. according to Kierkegaard, there is no natural connection between the literary elements in the novel. andersen can therefore suddenly produce remarks that have nothing to do with the concrete situation. in 1831, an anonymous reviewer writes of andersen’s Phantasies and Sketches, “[andersen] jumps around between elements that do not have sufficient connection; rather, they work against each other.”133 For this reviewer, “the freedom with which thoughts and feelings are supposed to arise and follow one another in lyrical enthusiasm... depends on a natural association of ideas.”134 Heiberg claims in 1829 in his review of A Journey on Foot that “mere idea association is...the worst guiding light fantasy can choose for itself.”135 the cause of andersen’s many “arbitrary idea associations” is, according to the critics, that his writing lacks a unifying theme. the above-mentioned anonymous reviewer claims “the author has not wished to express any idea or thought.”136 Heiberg was also in doubt as to whether there is a guiding idea in A Journey on Foot, but comforted himself with the thought that it was not strictly necessary in such a poetic work.137 molbech also joined the chorus of andersen’s critics, saying that andersen’s poetry “is a formless piling up of fragments” that lacks “poetry’s central ibid., p. 85. ibid., p. 69. 132 SKS 1, 47 / EPW, 92. 133 anonymous review of andersen’s Phantasier og Skizzer, in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 6, 1831, p. 129. 134 ibid., p. 127. 135 see, Heiberg’s review of andersen’s book-length debut, Fodreise fra Holmens Canal til Østpynten af Amager i Aarene 1828 og 1829, in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 1, 1829, p. 167. 136 see, anonymous review of andersen’s Phantasier og Skizzer, in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 6, 1831, p. 129. 137 see, Heiberg’s review in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 1, 1829, pp. 165–6; “if the [author] on his journey to amager goes through Christiansborg Castle or into Holmen’s Church, if he goes by the morgue or by the sugar refinery, it is altogether arbitrary. all the 130 131

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

23

spirit that must animate the whole, as the form of the totality that interlaces the parts into an organic work of art.”138 Kierkegaard thus agreed with the skeptical reviewers of the day, who accepted Andersen as a lyricist, but found him unfinished and undeveloped as a person. It was permissible as a young poet to be flighty, but as an author of “epic and dramatic works, there must exist a rigorous and artful plan.”139 F.C. olsen writes in 1837, “spirit is needed to produce a beautiful and harmonious finished whole, between whose capacity of nature and by training a joyous harmony is present.”140 it is precisely “spirit”—a gift freely bestowed by nature and won by the acquisition of culture—that the poor andersen does not possess. “true works of art are,” according to F.C. olsen, “a school for life, to contain guidelines for experience, multifarious enrichment of the imagination and material for the training of the emotions.”141 if we look at andersen’s Only a Fiddler, it fails to live up to the contemporary demand that the narrator act as a role model for the readers and have an educative effect on them. For Kierkegaard, Only a Fiddler is far too pessimistic in its perspective to be instructive, since the author feels a “dissatisfaction with the world.”142 in sum, Kierkegaard cleaved to the example of his critical predecessors and may even have used their criticisms as points in his own review. It is difficult to understand Kierkegaard’s anachronistic literary views in 1838, especially taking his later authorship into consideration, with all its many oblique narrative positions. Just a few years later, Kierkegaard had seemingly abandoned belief in the overarching perspective, the “place of prayer” from which we look back, and introduced pseudonymous perspectives that may or may not hint at the existence of higher perspectives than they themselves express. Here we are treated to a world related to us in fragments and the main characters do not arrive home safe and sound, quite unlike an exemplary Bildungsroman. one is tempted to claim that Kierkegaard himself in From the Papers does not even conform to the standard he requires of andersen. as shown earlier, the title is far from straightforward and by putting forward the various figures of himself as an author, an editor, a critic, and a reader, Kierkegaard distances himself from his text in a way that does not reveal the unity of giftedness and acculturation in spirit. One can hardly find an “over-arching perspective” in From the Papers of One Still Living.

events in the book could have been changed without the theme (as far as one is expressed) suffering the slightest harm thereby.” 138 anonymous [Christian molbech], “om den nyeste dansk poesi. 2den artikel,” p. 876. 139 see, Heiberg’s review in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 1, 1829, p. 165. 140 see F.C. olsen’s review of The Improvisatore and O.T., in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 18, 1837, p. 85. 141 ibid., p. 64. 142 SKS 1, 45 / EPW, 89.

24

Lone Koldtoft

IX. Kierkegaard’s Motives many scholars have done a good deal of head-scratching about why Kierkegaard felt the need to review Andersen’s novel at all. If Kierkegaard could not find anything of significance in Andersen’s works, what motivated him to commit such seemingly blatant character assassination? it is true that andersen was the tempting combination of an easy mark and an up-and-coming celebrity with, according to Kierkegaard, no life view and wrong-headed ideas about genius. nevertheless, it is still hard to imagine Kierkegaard wasting time on a man who neither was, nor wished to be, a polemicist. scholarly attention to the issue has resulted in a variety of explanations.143 the most obvious explanation is perhaps to consider the review as a rhetorical exercise, as an opportunity for the young Kierkegaard to flex his polemicist muscles. This seems to be precisely what he did earlier when writing his first articles in Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post and Fædrelandet.144 a similar explanation is that Kierkegaard was attempting to take on the role of reformer, in that he wished to warn andersen and his readers against what he calls andersen’s “passivity theory,”145 that is, taking a passive stance toward life’s possibilities. Finally, there is the possibility that Kierkegaard wished to gain favor, perhaps with the Heiberg circle, by criticizing andersen, as Henrik Hertz does in 1830,146 with the publication of Ghost Letters. Hertz went on to win a leading position in this circle by praising Heiberg and denigrating denmark’s national poet, adam oehlenschläger (1779–1850).147 Hertz also used the occasion to proclaim andersen Jørgen Bonde Jensen and Johan de mylius believe that Kierkegaard is out to dabble in politics. Bonde Jensen asks in Jeg er kun en Digter (p. 86) whether the controversy between Andersen and Kierkegaard can be seen as “an instance of the conflict between liberal and conservative of denmark? did Kierkegaard see andersen as politically dangerous, as he saw orla Lehmann to be? in his journal, Kierkegaard notes this is not the case; but simply mentioning it means that the political struggle between absolute monarchy and democracy is present in the flare up against Andersen.” De Mylius writes in “Hans Christian Andersen— on the wave of Liberalism,” in his Hans Christian Andersen: A Poet in Time, odense: the Hans Christian andersen Center, odense university press 1999, p. 121: “søren Kierkegaard’s attempt to ‘rescue’ Andersen—or perhaps, through forceful criticism, to deflect him from the path that he was embarking upon, and which would lead him into the liberal opposition circle—had only the effect that andersen took a break of 10 years from writing novels. But he did not give up his sympathies.” 144 see, for example, Kierkegaard’s article entitled “ogsaa et Forsvar for Qvindens høie anlæg,” in Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post, vol. 34, december 17, 1834, columns 4–6 / EPW, 3–5. Cf. also Julia watkin’s introduction in EPW, xviii: “For the time, Kierkegaard publicly demonstrated his capacity for polemic against a direct target, and clearly one of his goals here is the exercise and demonstration of this capacity.” 145 SKS 1, 51 / EPW, 96. 146 see, for example, stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, p. 115: “the work [From the Papers] seems to be intended to endear Kierkegaard to Heiberg. Kierkegaard knew full well that Heiberg was estranged from andersen at the time, and thus it was no coincidence that his review is critical of andersen’s novel.” 147 see Hovedsporet, ed. by Jens anker Jørgensen and Knud wentzel, pp. 347–9. 143

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

25

as “Holy andersen, who rides / drunk with the beer of fantasy / on the muse’s night-old foal / the slagelsian nag with lame sides / while the masses regard him as a prophet / of a poet.”148 in the same breath, Hertz makes fun of andersen’s problems with language, referring to “coarse blunders against grammar / Like those he constantly makes.”149 it seems likely that From the Papers was an attempt, at least in part, to follow Hertz’s example. unfortunately for Kierkegaard, Heiberg may not have been pleased with Kierkegaard’s humiliation of andersen. Heiberg was not particularly enthusiastic about andersen’s works and found his company quite stressful. on the other hand, Heiberg acknowledged andersen’s talent and even helped him along from time to time.150 Heiberg may even have felt that Kierkegaard’s criticisms were simply old hat, mere repetitions of the wisdom of others, despite packaging them with flattering mention of Heiberg’s mother and her “Stories of Everyday Life,” as well as the use of Heiberg’s genre theory. X. One Moment, Dr. Kierkegaard as mentioned earlier, Kierkegaard was probably collecting notes for a possible controversy in connection with the publication of From the Papers, but he did not find use for them in 1838. Only on May 13, 1840 did Kierkegaard need his work, when andersen gave a form of riposte in his one-act play, An Open-Air Comedy.151 the choice of subtitle, “an actor against His will,” pointedly directed the play at Kierkegaard and, precisely as Kierkegaard did in From the Papers, andersen first made fun and then apologized. In the play, a theatrical hairdresser enters the stage spouting unintelligible Hegelian verbiage, Kierkegaard’s own verbiage in fact, from From the Papers. Casting Kierkegaard as a hairdresser is a particularly good jab because it refers both to Kierkegaard’s distinctive hairstyle and to the fact that Kierkegaard, in andersen’s eyes, babbles as much nonsense as a hairdresser. An Open-Air Comedy ran only a few times and was greeted with a collective shrug by the reviewers. Kierkegaard evidently did not attend the performance, but heard about it second-hand. He later obtained a printed copy of the play on october 27, 1840 and wrote a draft of an article “one moment, Hr. andersen” in reply.152 Kierkegaard seemed unprepared for the fact that andersen refused to engage him in witty debate, but, playing to his strong suit, andersen drew a picture of a braying, Henrik Hertz, Gjenganger-Breve eller poetiske Skrifter fra Paradis, Copenhagen: peter nicolaj Jørgensen 1831 [1830], p. 33. 149 ibid. 150 not only did Heiberg promote andersen’s debut book Fodreise in 1829, but he also gave him a letter of recommendation, when andersen applied for money for his journey to italy in 1833. Cf. wamberg, H.C. Andersen og Heiberg, p. 64. 151 H.C. andersen, En Comedie i det Grønne, Vaudeville i een Akt efter det gamle Lystspil: “Skuespilleren imod sin Villie,” in Samlede Skrifter, vol. 31, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1876, p. 9. 152 Pap. iii B 1, pp. 105–10 / EPW, supplement, pp. 218–22. 148

26

Lone Koldtoft

pretentious ass. Kierkegaard was clearly rattled by andersen’s lampoon, and he abandoned all pretense of argument and responded with even more vitriol than before: andersen knew nothing about Hegel. He “does not know what a Hegelian is in truth and neither does he know what a Hegelian is in untruth.”153 andersen was singularly ignorant, or in Kierkegaard’s words, he was “the monopolized negative owner of all philosophy and science.”154 andersen spelled Mathematica without the ‘h.’ Kierkegaard finally resorted to begging Andersen to publish a pamphlet together with him, so as not to “burden the newspapers”155 with their little tiff. andersen may be a weak shell of a man and sniveler, but he found, by luck or design, the genius Kierkegaard’s soft spot, his sensitivity to ridicule. Kierkegaard realized that the article was an exercise in futility: andersen was unlikely to be drawn into debate and Kierkegaard would expose himself to even more opportunity for ridicule. so he decided to cut his losses and did not publish his reply. it was perhaps unfortunate that Kierkegaard did not employ a similar strategy in his controversy with The Corsair five years later. there is little to indicate that Kierkegaard had a notable effect on andersen. in a letter to signe Læssøe, andersen claims that reading Either/Or is painful for both author and reader.156 Kierkegaard’s style and world of ideas commits violence against “all holy emotions.”157 the danish literary critic Jens andersen, in his recent biography of andersen, states andersen not only read Kierkegaard, but also understood him. He writes, “small notes in andersen’s diaries throughout the years, also after Kierkegaard’s death, reveal that Kierkegaard’s books were taken out now and then and read, almost in secret. H.C. andersen read and understood quite well the broad outlines in Kierkegaard’s philosophy.”158 Jens andersen’s evidence to back up his claim is that, in just a few instances, H.C. andersen has made the terse note, “Have read Kierkegaard.” He does not, however, tell us what he has read or what he thinks of what he has read. Jens andersen’s claim is therefore quite unsupported by any evidence, and we can only guess at how much andersen actually read and understood of Kierkegaard. a glance at their respective authorships reveals a few thematic similarities, but this is likely due to the fact that they are children of their age—the golden age—and attentive to current intellectual trends.

Pap. iii B 1, p. 108 / EPW, supplement, p. 220. Pap. iii B 1, p. 109 / EPW, supplement, p. 221. 155 Pap. iii B 1, p. 110 / EPW, supplement, p. 222. 156 Kirsten dreyer, H.C. Andersens brevveksling med Signe Læssøe og hendes kreds, Copenhagen: museum tusculanum 2005, p. 249. 157 ibid. 158 Jens andersen, Andersen—en biografi, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 2003, vol. 1, pp. 398–9. (english translation: Hans Christian Andersen: A New Life, trans. by tina nunnally, new York: overlook duckmorth 2005.) translator’s note: this passage differs significantly from the English translation, where the claim that Andersen is familiar with Kierkegaard’s philosophy is toned down. i have therefore provided my own translation, rather than refer to nunnally’s. 153 154

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

27

By the same token, there is nothing to indicate that andersen had any lasting effect on Kierkegaard. the few works of andersen with which we know Kierkegaard was familiar did not give Kierkegaard much pause for thought, and when he comments on andersen’s authorship, it was not done with a serious effort to understand andersen’s literary intentions. it was not so much andersen or his works that motivated Kierkegaard, rather it was the restlessness of his own ideas seeking fuel for thought. andersen was just an excuse. Translated by Paul A. Bauer

Bibliography I. Andersen’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library “psalme,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 8, no. 414, 1853, column 577 (ASKB 321-325). Kun en Spillemand. Original Roman i tre Dele, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1837 (bound in one volume) (ASKB 1503). Nye Eventyr, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1844–48 (ASKB 1504–1506). En Comedie i det Grønne, Vaudeville i een Akt efter det gamle Lystspil: “Skuespilleren imod sin Villie,” Copenhagen 1840 (ASKB u 14). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Andersen Heiberg, Johan Ludvig, “Fodreise fra Holmens Canal til Østpynten af amager i aarene 1828 og 1829, udgivet af H.C. andersen. Kjøbenhavn, 1829,” in Prosaiske Skrifter, vol. 3, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothes Boghandling 1843 (vol. 3, in Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Prosaiske Skrifter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1841–43), pp. 137–42 (ASKB 1560). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Andersen andersen, Jens, Andersen—en biografi, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 2003, vol. 1, p. 247; p. 298; pp. 388–407; p. 419; p. 422; p. 428; vol. 2, p. 173; p. 261; p. 267. (english translation: Hans Christian Andersen: A New Life, trans. by tina nunnally, new York: overlook duckmorth 2005.) andersen Kim, “ ‘genius’ and the problem of ‘Livs-anskuelse’: Kierkegaard reading andersen,” in H.C. Andersen: Old Problems and New Readings. Papers from the Third International Hans Christian Andersen Conference, ed. by steven p. sondrup, odense and provo: the university press of southern denmark, odense and Brigham Young university 2004 (University of Southern Denmark Studies in Scandinavian Language and Literatures, vol. 68), pp. 145–60. Betz, werner, “andersen und Kierkegaard,” in Festschrift Walter Baetke, ed. by Kurt rudolph, rolf Heller, and ernst walter, weimar: Hermann Böhlaus nachfolger 1966, pp. 50–8. Bonde Jensen, Jørgen, Jeg er kun en Digter. Om Søren Kierkegaard som skribent, Copenhagen: Babette 1996, pp. 56–89.

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

29

Bøggild, Jacob, “Reflections of Kierkegaard in the Tales of H.C. Andersen,” in Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2006, pp. 68–82. Brandes georg, Søren Kierkegaard. En kritisk Fremstilling i Grundrids, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1967 [1877], pp. 35–40. Brandt Frithiof, Den unge Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: Levin & munksgaard 1929, pp. 115–59. Bredsdorff elias, Hans Christian Andersen: The Story of His Life and Work 1805– 75, London: phaidon press 1975, p. 84; pp. 128–30; p. 233; p. 298. —— “H.C. andersen og søren Kierkegaard,” Anderseniana, 3rd series, vol. 3, 1978– 81, pp. 229–54. Bukdahl, Jørgen, “artisten—omkring andersen,” in Forgyldning og svinelæder, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1966, pp. 136–64. Fenger, Henning, 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. xiii; pp. 3–5; p. 14; pp. 16–20; p. 24; p. 28; p. 38; p. 42; p. 58; p. 63; p. 67; p. 70; p. 75; p. 88; p. 98; p. 122; p. 128; p. 140; p. 142; p. 155; p. 169; p. 174; p. 179; p. 220. (originally as KierkegaardMyter og Kierkegaard-Kilder. 9 kildekritiske studier i de Kierkegaardske papirer, breve og aktstykker, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976.) Fink, peter Lehmann, Mennesket og digteren. Forholdet mellem eksistens og æstetik hos Søren Kierkegaard og H.C. Andersen, Copenhagen: Københavns universitet 1999, pp. 1–26. garff Joakim, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton: princeton university press 2005, pp. 139–46; p. 450; pp. 574–5. (originally as SAK. Søren Aabye Kierkegaard. En biografi, Copenhagen: gads 2000.) —— “andersen, Kierkegaard—and the deconstructed Bildungsroman,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2006, pp. 83–99. Hannay, alastair, Kierkegaard: A Biography, Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2001, p. 61; pp. 102–3; p. 107–9; pp. 120–1; p. 126; pp. 149–50; p. 166; p. 172; pp. 420–1; p. 435; p. 455. Hansen søren gorm, H.C. Andersen og Søren Kierkegaard i dannelseskulturen: om H.C. Andersens og Søren Kierkegaards virkelighedsdiskussion og nogle perspektiver af denne diskussion set i lyset af embedsmandskulturen og dens litterære institution i tidsrummet 1835–1855, Copenhagen: medusa 1976. Jeppesen niels, “digter og Kritiker,” in Gads danske Magasin, ed. by g. Helweg Larsen, vol. 33, 1939, pp. 100–4. Jørgensen, aage, “H.C. andersen og søren Kierkegaard,” in Den danske realskole, ed. by Karl Hårbøl, vol. 70, no. 17, 1968, pp. 922–4. Jørgensen, merete, Kierkegaard som kritiker en undersøgelse af forholdet mellem det æstetiske og det etiske i Kierkegaards litterære kritik, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1978, pp. 97–144. Kirmmse, Bruce H., “a rose with thorns: Hans Christian andersen’s relation to Kierkegaard,” in Early Polemical Writings, ed. by robert L. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1999 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 1), pp. 69–85.

30

Lone Koldtoft

Kofoed niels, H.C. Andersen, Copenhagen: gad 1967, pp. 48–51. Kreisberg, ove and F.J.Billeskov Jansen, “H.C. andersen,” in Kierkegaard Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana vol. 9), pp. 121–6. Kühle, sejer, Søren Kierkegaards barndom og ungdom, Copenhagen: aschehoug 1950, p. 99; pp. 105–6; p. 114; pp. 117ff.; pp. 129–39 passim; p. 164; p. 170; p. 192; pp. 203–4. Lilleør, Kathrine, Eventyrenes vidtlysende blink H.C. Andersens Eventyr og Historier læst på baggrund af et udvalg af Søren Kierkegaards tekster som litteræræstetiske metaforer med henblik på at fremhæve en række eksistenstemaer i eventyrdigtningen, Copenhagen: gyldendal 2006. malantschuk, gregor, Dialektik og Eksistens, Copenhagen: Hans reitzel 1968, pp. 176–81. mortensen, Klaus p., “guldalderdæmoner—andersen, Kierkegaard og dannelsens skygger,” Bogens Verden, vol. 76, no. 5, 1994, p. 6. mylius, Johan de, “Kierkegaard og andersen eller de umage tvillinger,” in Kierkegaard inspiration. En antologi Copenhagen: reitzel 1991 (Søren Kierkegaard Selskabets Populære Skrifter, vol. 20), pp. 54–69. —— “Øjeblikket—en anskulsesform hos H.C. andersen,” in Andersen og Verden, ed. by Johan de mylius, aage Jørgensen, and viggo Hjørnager pedersen, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1993, pp. 57–74. —— “Hans Christian andersen—on the wave of Liberalism,” in Hans Christian Andersen: A Poet in Time, ed. by Johan de mylius, aage Jørgensen, and viggo Hjørnager pedersen, odense: odense university press 1999, pp. 109–24. —— Forvandlingens pris—H.C. Andersens og hans eventyr, Copenhagen: Høst & søn 2004, pp. 37–40 passim; p. 52; p. 62; p. 65; pp. 71–4 passim; p. 83; pp. 108–10; p. 135; pp. 145–7; p. 181; p. 189; pp. 215–17; p. 226; p. 247; pp. 261–2; p. 281; p. 318; p. 324; p. 328; p. 356; p. 358. —— “af en endnu Levendes papirer,” in Den udødelige—Kierkegaard læst værk for værk, ed. by tonny aagaard olesen and pia søltoft, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2005, pp. 11–33. sørensen, peer e., “den sindrige edderkop. om ‘af en endnu Levendes papirer,’ ” in When I’m Sixty-Four, ed. by tore eriksen and Hans Jørgen thomsen, Århus: modtryk 1999, pp. 206–25. sørensen, villy, Digtere og dæmoner. Fortolkninger og vurderinger, Copenhagen: gyldendals uglebøger 1979 [1959], pp. 10–17. stewart Jon, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, Cambridge and new York: Cambridge university press 2003, pp. 90–131. summer, richard m., “aesthetics, ethics, and reality: a study of From the Papers of One Still Living,” in Early Polemical Writings, ed. by robert L. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1999 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 1), pp. 45–68. thulstrup niels, “H.C. andersen og Kierkegaard,” Meddelelser fra Søren Kierkegaard Selskabet, vol. 3, no. 3, 1951, pp. 120–1. tudvad, peter, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politikens forlag 2004, p. 14; p. 34; p. 55; p. 62; p. 78; p. 80; p. 118; p. 202; p. 206; p. 219; pp. 228–30;

Hans Christian Andersen: Andersen was Just an Excuse

31

p. 233; p. 243; p. 245; p. 256; pp. 265–6; p. 273; p. 281; p. 19; p. 322; p. 325; p. 333; p. 445; p. 455. walsh, sylvia, Living Poetically: Kierkegaard’s Existential Aesthetics, university park, pennsylvania: pennsylvania state university press 1994, pp. 23–41. watkin Julia, “Historical introduction,” in Early Polemical Writings, princeton: princeton university press 1990, pp. vii–xxxvi. weltzer Carl, “søren Kierkegaard karrikeret, kopieret og kanoniseret,” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift, vol. 11, no. 1, 1948, pp. 105–32. wullschlager, Jackie, Hans Christian Andersen: The Life of a Storyteller, London: allen Lane the penguin press 2000, pp. 34–5; p. 49; p. 89; pp. 174–6.

Jens Baggesen: Kierkegaard and His master’s voice Henrik Blicher

I. we have several entries in Kierkegaard’s journals attesting the fact that he considered himself the unsurpassed champion of Danish prose. A first example might be a late consideration from 1854; the author finds a moment’s rest from his all-consuming battle with the Church and ponders the relevance of an occupation with matters of style. should not old warriors like himself and socrates, facing execution, let go of such boyish entertainment? And yet, “it may awaken, wistfully, my old urge to find delight in word-forms. as a prose writer, i believe that simply with word-forms i am able to achieve effects which the poet cannot exceed in truth and beauty.”1 in 1846 Kierkegaard clearly felt his leading position threatened by adolph peter adler (1812–69). on June 12 the eruptive theologian had launched “4 books at one time!” as Kierkegaard notes with a sigh in his journal.2 initially, he tries to persuade himself that pseudonyms like Frater taciturnus and Quidam (in Stages on Life’s Way) were familiar with the style of adler (although they had abstained from using it); accordingly, adler, speaking in his own name, must have been copying from Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms. But a fair copy it is not; Kierkegaard considers adler’s 1846 oeuvre to be remakes of his own works on a lower, barbaric level.3 seemingly, there is a fine line between the “wild” and the “passionate,” but Kierkegaard breaks off his investigation and ends up, for the moment, by deploring the incompetence of the public: “how many are there, after all, who have any intimation of how prose can SKS 25, 414, nB30:41 / JP 6, 6883. Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 128. on the day of publication Kierkegaard bought all of them at C.a. reitzel’s. these books are adolph peter adler, Nogle Digte, Copenhagen: paa Forfatterens Forlag hos Louis Klein i Commission hos universitets-Boghandler C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB 1502); Studier og Exempler, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB u 11); Theologiske Studier, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB u 12); and Forsøg til en kort systematisk Fremstilling af Christendommen i dens Logik, Copenhagen: Louis Klein 1846 (ASKB u 13). Cf. H.p. rohde, “søren Kierkegaard som bogsamler,” Fund og forskning, 1961, p. 120. 3 SKS 20, 42, nB:39 / JP 5, 5939: “there are examples in adler of wild constructions no doubt familiar (esthetically and artistically) to Frater taciturnus, since he, himself using a completely different style, has Quidam of the experiment express himself in this stylistic form.” 1 2

34

Henrik Blicher

be used lyrically and of (what i am committed to) how prose can produce a stronger lyrical effect than verse.”4 so, on different occasions Kierkegaard returns to the subject of emulatio, that is, the competitive aspect of being an author.5 when it comes to naming his foremost competitor, Henning Fenger has no doubt: it is Jens Baggesen (1764–1826): with the support of benefactors he departed in 1789–90 on a sentimental journey à la sterne to germany, switzerland, and paris; the journey is described in the humoroussentimental travel book The Labyrinth (Labyrinten, 2 vols., 1792–93), the most original danish prose work in the eighteenth century and undoubtedly the book from which Kierkegaard learned most about style.6

unfortunately, the Kierkegaard scholar did not bother to document his daring hypothesis in any detail, neither in his book on The Heibergs, nor later. a thorough examination was left to posterity. and in order to pursue this, an outline of Kierkegaard’s predecessor in danish prose writing, Jens Baggesen, might be helpful.7 to the mid-century generation of Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860), among others, Baggesen signified partly a refined climax of the comic in Danish literature, partly a figure of controversy and critical excellency, useful to Heiberg in shaping his own position as “an institution, a veritable literary dictator” in denmark.8 according to Heiberg, the young Baggesen, that is, the author of the Comical Tales,9 prolongs and refines a line of comic poetry from Johan Hermann Wessel (1742–85), standing on the shoulders of playwright Ludvig Holberg (1684–1754). Leaning on voltaire and the French influenced Christoph Martin Wieland (1733–1813), Baggesen is said to promote “the French tendency—still nationally inherent in our literature.”10 in short, ibid. in some anonymous recollections of a clergyman related by H.p. Barfod (Søren Kierkegaards Efterladte Papirer, vols. 1–9, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1872, vol. 2, pp. 873– 4), the unknown cleric relates of Kierkegaard: “as a young undergraduate i met him thus once in the street; he was in his humorous-overweening mood, perhaps wanted to feel his way with me, and said, ‘Look here, denmark has now had its greatest sculptor in thorvaldsen, its greatest poet in oehlenschläger, and now, in me, its greatest writer of prose—denmark will not last much longer!” Cf. also SKS 20, 25, nB:14 (1846): “i am fully convinced that no danish author, to the extent that i do, treats every single word with utmost meticulosity”; and Pap. vii–1 a 127 (JP 5, 5914). 6 Henning Fenger, The Heibergs, trans. and ed. by Frederick J. marker, new York: twayne 1971, p. 48. 7 see also Henrik Blicher, “Jens Baggesen (15 February 1764 – 3 october 1826),” in Danish Writers from the Reformation to Decadence, 1550–1900, ed. by marianne stecherHansen, Farmington Hills, michigan: thomson gale 2004 (Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. 300), pp. 47–58. 8 ibid., pp. 17–18. 9 Jens Baggesen, Comiske Fortællinger, Copenhagen: august Friderich stein 1785. 10 Johan Ludvig Heiberg explains in his Udsigt over den danske skjønne Literatur. Som Ledetraad ved Forelæsninger paa den Kongelige militaire Høiskole, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1831. (reprinted in Prosaiske Skrifter, vols. 1–11, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1861– 4 5

Jens Baggesen: Kierkegaard and His Master’s Voice

35

wessel, and Baggesen indeed, are seen as the forerunners of Heiberg himself—the French connection. in order to understand the other reason for the rehabilitation of Baggesen in the 1830s, a little background is needed. although spending substantial parts of his life on travels and stays abroad, Baggesen played a crucial part in a literary feud in denmark around 1813–19. as a theater critic, Baggesen had offended the consensus view, which held adam oehlenschläger (1779–1850) to be the infallible national poet. With considerable justification, it seems, Baggesen emphasized the dramaturgical shortcomings, the sentimentalism, and the general sloppyness of Oehlenschläger in the early part of his late phase. Baggesen’s final word proved to be his last book in danish, Rose Pedals with a Few Thorns (1819).11 the following year he left denmark for good. But, shortly after his death Baggesen once again became the subject of a dispute, when he was resurrected in Henrik Hertz’s (1797– 1870) Letters from a Ghost or Poetical Epistles from Paradise (1830).12 after his unfinished masterpiece in prose, a travelogue The Labyrinth (1792–93),13 Baggesen had completed two collections in his very own genre, the rhymed epistle.14 in order to moderate a lengthy struggle between Heiberg and his contemporaries from a poet’s point of view, Hertz adopted the voice of the late Baggesen in five letters from beyond. published anonymously, Letters from a Ghost made a literary sensation; and at the end of the day they were considered the most elegant support to Heiberg.15 in the words of Henning Fenger, they proclaimed the program for the Heiberg school’s poetic realism, with its cultivation of contemporary subjects and impeccable form. the author praised the three or four writers who had rejected german models and had championed good taste, and he pointed to the French elegance, correctness, precision, and, in particular, clarity, beauty, and respect for the laws of esthetics. decorum, study, and criticism are the publication’s key words.

62, vol. 3, pp. 1–139.) Quoted from Flemming Conrad, Smagen og det nationale. Studier i dansk litteraturhistorieskrivning 1800–1861, Copenhagen: museum tusculanums Forlag 1996, p. 175. 11 Jens Baggesen, Rosenblade med et Par Torne, Copenhagen: H.F. popp 1819. 12 Henrik Hertz, Gjenganger-Breve eller poetiske Epistler fra Paradis, Copenhagen: peter nicolay Jørgensen 1830. 13 Jens Baggesen, Labyrinten, eller Reise giennem Tydskland, Schweitz og Frankerig, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: Johan Frederik schultz 1792–93. 14 Jens Baggesen, Skiemtsomme Riimbreve, Copenhagen: F. Brummer 1807 and Poetiske Epistler, Copenhagen: J.r. thiele 1814. 15 in 1827–28 Heiberg had directed a rigorous critique of adam oehlenschläger as a dramatist, thus continuing where Baggesen had stopped. in his periodical Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, Heiberg reviewed oehlenschläger’s latest tragedy, Væringerne i Miklagaard (1827). oehlenschläger’s reply afforded Heiberg an occasion for writing a comprehensive treatise, “svar paa Hr. prof oehlenschlägers skrift,” which appeared in the Flyvende Post, vols. 7–8, 1828. (reprinted in Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, vols. 1–4, ed. by uffe andreasen, Copenhagen: C.a reitzel 1981, vol. 2, pp. 37–44; reprinted also in Heiberg, Prosaiske Skrifter, vol. 3, 1861, pp. 194–284.)

36

Henrik Blicher grace, ease, and elegance are its ideals, while Holberg, Baggesen, and eighteenthcentury classicism are recognized as its literary roots.16

this reception and use of Baggesen in the years preceding Kierkegaard’s debut became an important part of his literary background. as a disciple of Heiberg, the victorious newcomer, Kierkegaard was handed over the prominent position of Baggesen. But, before the actual incidents of influence are mapped out in the following section, another view should be presented, namely, that of Christian molbech (1783–1857). in the introduction to his dictionary, Dansk Ordbog, he recognizes “the extraordinary and great verbal talent” which made Baggesen “original as a witty poet and one of the most ripe and influential from the century or the period he totally belonged to.”17 Yet, Molbech’s conclusive statements about influence are worth noting; when stating the unsurpassed impact of oehlenschläger, only to be compared with that of Holberg, he makes the following observation: “what he [oehlenschläger] has become to poetry nobody has yet, to the same degree, become to danish prose; and this [prose] has still a vast field, where, in more than one aspect, it can gain power, ability and richness.”18 in short, when planning to be the oehlenschläger of danish prose, Kierkegaard was offered Jens Baggesen as his role model. II. Kierkegaard bought Baggesen’s Danske Værker in 12 volumes in 1836,19 when collecting material for his reflections on the classical and Romantic. He may have started reading Baggesen for the same purpose: he briefly sketches the possibility of extracting the very idea of the romantic from a recurrent stanza in Baggesen’s epic thriller Thora. A Fragment in Nine Cantos (1814–17).20 the story portrays the wily thora and her family’s persistent feud with a gang of thieves led by a red-bearded villain. eventually, the whole clan is beheaded and their bodies displayed on the gallows hill, but their rough laughter can still be heard when the moon is full, and every eleventh night the words “Jeg kommer igien!” (i will return!) echo in the Fenger, The Heibergs, p. 131. Christian molbech, Dansk Ordbog indeholdende det danske Sprogs Stammeord, tilligemed afledede og sammensatte Ord, efter den nuværende Sprogbrug forklarede i deres forskiellige Betydninger, og ved Talemaader og exempler oplyste, af Christian Molbech. Med en kort Oversigt af det danske Sporgs Historie, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1833, p. LXXXii (ASKB 1032): “…og med et sieldent og overordentligt Sprogtalent blev han original som vittig Lyriker, og en af de frugtbareste og mest virkende Digtere fra det Aarhundrede, eller det Tidsløb, som han ganske tilhørte.” 18 ibid. “Hvad han er bleven for Poesien, er Ingen endnu i lige Grad bleven for den danske Prosa; og denne har endnu en vid Mark, hvor den, til meer end een Side, kan vinde i Kraft, Evner og Rigdom.” 19 [Jens Baggesen], Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vols. 1–12, ed. by the author’s sons and C.J. Boye, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1827–32 (ASKB 1509–1520). 20 Jens Baggesen, Thora af Havsgaard. Et Fragment i ni Sange, 1814–1817 (unfinished poem). 16 17

Jens Baggesen: Kierkegaard and His Master’s Voice

37

ringing of the church bell.21 Kierkegaard only notes the idea that the fateful refrain is to be considered romantic.22 when Baggesen’s sons edited his Danske Værker they chose to place The Ghost and Himself, or Baggesen over Baggesen (1807),23 under the heading “polemical writings.” in the central part, “my ghost and i. a poetic Conversation,” a dialogue takes place in the somewhat allegorical garden of søndermarken.24 Baggesen passes harsh judgment on his own former self as well as on selected members of the Copenhagen literary circles. Aiming at a complete rebirth, the final showdown before leaving Denmark is considered necessary—because “every age has its fight, its victory, its heroes and its epic in itself.”25 as a sign of approval, Kierkegaard copies the programmatic passage surrounding this stanza, linking the great deeds of ulysses, Cook, and tasso to everyday existence.26 Baggesen wrote in Danish as well as in German. After having finished Baggesen’s Danske Værker, the two sons edited his Poetische Werke in deutscher Sprache (1836).27 a review, apparently copied from a “widely read” german periodical, appeared in Kjøbenhavnsposten. Baggesen is said to be without the one thing defining poetry, the “inexpressible.” In his journal Kierkegaard tends to agree but is more eager to define the one quality missing in Baggesen as the essence of the romantic, that is, the striving for something, which tends to disappear, which can only be depicted indirectly in shadowy forms, and whose ephemeral nature can only be attained through allegory.28 Kierkegaard’s basic definition of “the Romantic” is by no means original, although there may be differences to whether the “inexpressible” should best be termed “allegorical” or “symbolical.”29 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 7, p. 337. Pap. i a 155 / JP 3, 3808. an explanation occurs when comparing Kierkegaard’s notion with that of Jean paul, quoted by molbech and copied by Kierkegaard in the Journal BB, SKS 17, 60, BB:1 / KJN 1, 54: “Jean p. likens the romantic to the illumination of a region by moonlight or to the reverberations in the echoes of a ringing bell, or a stroked string—a trembling sound that as it were swims further and further away and finally becomes lost in ourselves, still sounding within even though outside us it is quiet.—” this is the case of thora. 23 Jens Baggesen, Giengangeren og han selv, eller Baggesen over Baggesen, Copenhagen: Frederik Brummer 1807. 24 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 5, pp. 397–488. this edition leaves out substantial parts of the first edition, namely, “Odysseus Hevn” (The Revenge of Ulysses), Baggesen’s translation of canto 22 of Ulysses, and “ridder ro og ridder rap,” a mock ballad about the quest for love, and a Latin postscript. 25 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 5, p. 472. 26 SKS 19, 110, not3:10. 27 Jens Baggesen’s Poetische Werke in deutscher Sprache, vols. 1–5, ed. by Carl and august Baggesen, Leipzig: Brockhaus 1836. 28 SKS 18, 81, FF:29 / KJN 2, 74. Cf. SKS K18, 126. 29 Pap. i a 307 / JP 4, 4070. Here, Kierkegaard puts the “romantic” on the same footing as the “dialectic,” both terms designating a phase of cultural crisis, which is to be overcome in due time when, what is most properly called, “the age of individuality” is replaced by “fixed objective faith etc.” 21 22

38

Henrik Blicher

Baggesen’s puzzling nature mystified his contemporaries. From Molbech’s Lectures on More Recent Danish Poetry, Especially after the Works of the Poets Evald, Baggesen and Oehlenschläger,30 Kierkegaard in march 1836 copied the following descriptions of Baggesen: “in his poetry Baggesen was a strange proteus; the main key to his poetry is a perpetual hovering on the border between earnestness and irony. in a similar way, his life and his fate may be described as a wavelike movement without rest.”31 the story of agnes and the merman was to play a prominent part in Fear and Trembling (1843), in which different characters are introduced in order to illuminate the enigmatic main character of abraham.32 in 1843, it seems, Kierkegaard was mainly influenced by Baggesen’s “Agnes from Holmegaard,” from 1808, which portrays agnes as the tragic heroine, torn between her two homes.33 and the later variations on Baggesen’s original theme were the basis for Kierkegaard’s early preoccupation with the concise poetic diction of the ballad: in 1837 he compared the foggy trivialites of contemporary criticism with a true writer’s ability to reinvent old words for new purposes, the example being Baggesen’s use of the word “sød” (tender) in his ballad.34 For the sake of comparison, it should be noted that “tender” refers to the seductive qualities of the merman, and not to the innocent heroine.35 seemingly, Baggesen’s ballad served as one of the pretexts of Kierkegaard’s relation to his fiancée Regine Olsen (1822–1904). A stanza from “Agnes from Holmegaard” found its way into one of his actual love letters,36 and in 1839, while preparing his final examen, Kierkegaard, in a “Fragment” addressed to a female reader (regine olsen?), expounded a certain point of no return in a woman’s life.37 at this decisive point her former home is lost, a development visualized in the significant scene in the ballad, when at church “they were turning around all the little pictures.”38 Baggesen coined several new words in danish. some of them became salient and were incorporated into german and danish—like Umwelt / Omverden—while Christian molbech, Forelæsninger over den nyere danske Poesie, særdeles efter Digterne Evalds, Baggesens og Oehlenschlägers Værker, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1831–32. 31 SKS 19, 120, not3:18. another passage from molbech’s lectures stressing the (mere) subjectivity and the light erotic themes of Baggesens’ poetry, is copied in BB, SKS 17, 59, BB:1 / KJN 1, 53. 32 SKS 4, 183–91 / FT, 94–101. Cf. SKS K4, 149. 33 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 2, pp. 348–58. 34 SKS 17, 122, BB:34 / KJN 1, 115–16. Cf. SKS K17, 240–1. Baggesen’s ability (in comparison to grundtvig’s) is also mentioned in Pap. vi B 34 (pp. 115–16). 35 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 2, p. 349. “Hans Stemme var saa sød / O! saa sød.” (His voice was so tender, o, so tender). 36 B&A, vol. 1, p. 56 / LD, 71, Letter 26. Cf. SKS K18, 286 (referring to the idea from 1843 of elaborating agnes and the merman, cf. SKS 18, 180, JJ:120 / KJN 2, 166–7). 37 this entry in the Journal EE (SKS 18, 10, ee:9 / KJN 2, 5–6) follows the famous consideration on “Du mit Hjertes Herskerinde, ‘Regina’ ” (You, my heart’s sovereign mistress, ‘regina’), ee:7, both dated February 2, 1839. 38 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 2, p. 357. 30

Jens Baggesen: Kierkegaard and His Master’s Voice

39

others did not last long. Kierkegaard might have read Baggesen’s description of the apparently mad Johann georg Hamann (1730–88) in The Labyrinth, with the purpose of studying the german philosopher. to Baggesen the reading of one single paragraph, which he copies, is enough to make him dizzy; and rather than explaining the mysterious passage, he is reminded of another tale told by an idiot “by explicit request of the numerous fairly destilled eggnogs.”39 apparently, the “mad” expression was almost a saying before Kierkegaard used it in order to designate what he considered the redundant writings of the contemporary press.40 it has been said that Baggesen never really entered the nineteenth century. after all, he spent his 26 years of that century fighting the new school of Romanticism. As a one-man army, indeed a figure of controversy, he produced numerous witty contributions attesting to the decline of early romanticism, his main target being oehlenschläger. in 1816 he presented a polemical drama, in which a schoolboy confessed his faith in adam oehlenschläger as the center of mad worship: everybody except Baggesen is said to believe in “For-Poetens A—Bag-Philosophens O—/ (Som Galskabs Eet I Alskabs To).”41 Kierkegaard considered Baggesen a fellow in arms when sharpening his pencil on (unspecified) contemporary madness. For that purpose he invented the mock-philosophical term of “the category of higher lunacy” and considered his invention anticipated by Baggesen.42 according to the majority of Baggesen’s contemporaries he was mainly polemical and mainly humorous. Baggesen was considered funny in the eighteenth century’s sense of the word: “merely” witty and deceitful, sometimes farcical—essentially superficial. After all, he had made his debut with Comical Tales in 1785. Kierkegaard challenged this commonplace when, in his dissertation, he argued that socrates was ironical through and through; even in his famous last words in the Apology, socrates continued his irony, Kierkegaard claimed.43 instead of trying to refute the accusations, and thereby acknowledging the conditions of the trial, socrates remained ironical. the conviction was a fact even before the trial; accordingly, socrates was to be considered a dead man talking. this absurd situation reminds Kierkegaard of a similar episode in one of Baggesen’s comical tales: a thief is about to be executed for the second time, since both trial and conviction were sloppy in the first place. Baggesen’s “profoundly witty” stanza states the fact that it is impossible to kill a man who is already dead.44 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 8, pp. 201–4; “paa de utallige vel destillerede Æggesopkeners udtrykkelige Opfordring.” 40 Cf. SKS K18, 156. 41 “abracadabras tredje deel. marens Hemmeligheder, eller steenpære-skallen,” the final part of “Asenutidens Abracadabra. Eller Skialdbørnelærdommens, hiin ‘lurvedes’ ‘betydningsfulde’ Kiærne i tre skaller,” from 1816, in Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 7, p. 195. a brief allusion was already present in From the Papers of One Still Living, SKS 1, 20 / EPW, 65. Cf. K1, 86. 42 SKS 18, 70, ee:195 / KJN 2, 64. Cf. K18, 99–102. the concept of “higher lunacy” was to enter Prefaces, cf. SKS 4, 499 / P, 37. 43 SKS 1, 144–5 / CI, 88. 44 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 1, p. 236 (“Kallundborgs Krønike eller Censurens oprindelse,” 1786–91). Cf. SKS K1, 226. 39

40

Henrik Blicher

the impossibilty of killing a man twice, undoubtedly referring to the episode in “Kallundborgs Krønike,” reappears in Either/Or. according to Kierkegaard’s analysis “irony is...prevalent” in mozart’s Don Juan: thus “the Commendatore’s reappearance is enormously ironic, for don giovanni can surmount any obstruction, but a ghost [Gjenganger], as we all know, cannot be slain.”45 the connection with Baggesen’s way of thinking is also apparent in a passage from “rotation of Crops.”46 in “theatrical managementiad”47 Baggesen, who once served (hopelessly) as co-director at the royal theater, complained that one of his employees, a certain Mr. Hassing, was qualified in every way but one: no decent rhyme could match his name.48 a similar idiosyncracy is present in the portrait of the aesthete a in Either/Or: in conversation with a philosophically inclined friend, he is best entertained by signs of involuntary perspiration. “something accidental is made into the absolute” is the formula, and life is suddenly diversified and enjoyable.49 Baggesen’s aforementioned anecdote of destiny about agnes reappears in “the diary of a seducer.” in this different setting the purpose of allusion is no longer tragic but comical: a proud lieutenant is being watched while courting a young girl in the street. Concentrating too eagerly on her promising smile from above “he is reeling...he staggered, he fell.”50 Baggesen is slowing down the fatal falling of agnes with the use of three synonyms; Kierkegaard imports the crucial scene in order to portray his seducer. Baggesen’s ironic perspective is also present in Fear and Trembling. while strolling at the imaginary cemetery of sobradise, the poet reads some sarcastic epitaphs, including the one for “our city’s most prominent poet, Killevalle...if he becomes immortal we all do.”51 Kierkegaard was reminded of this passage, when in 1843 he tried to cope with J.L. Heiberg’s superficial treatment of Either/Or. obviously, professor Heiberg was more concerned about the new volume of his own periodical Intelligensblade, but Kierkegaard does not share his expectations: the editor has certainly been occupied with genius at the level of Killevalle at the expense of an immortal masterpiece.52 in Fear and Trembling the reference to Baggesen’s poetic narrative reappears: this time the contemporary poets are taunted. they seem SKS 2, 123 / EO1, 120. Cf. SKS K2–3, 137. SKS 2, 288 / EO1, 299. 47 Jens Baggesen, “theateradministratoriade,” in his Eventyrer og comiske Fortællinger, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: Frederik Brummers Forlag 1806–07, vol. 1, pp. 247–80. 48 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 1, p. 421. 49 SKS 2, 288 / EO1, 299. 50 SKS 2, 382 / EO1, 394. in EO2, 87 (SKS 3, 90. Cf. SKS K2–3, 277) victor eremita compares the heart of the seducer to a pigeon house, referring to Baggesen’s “scheerenschleiferepopee,” in Jens Baggesen’s poetische Werke, vol. 2, p. 228. Yet another reference occurs in SKS 3, 281 / EO2, 297 (cf. SKS K2–3, 336), when victor eremita presents the attractions of a conscientious life with reference to Baggesen’s “tilegnelse,” in Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 6, pp. 44–7. the “childhood’s golden summer pears” should in due time be replaced with “bread-and-butter with honor.” 51 Jens Baggesen, “Kirkegaarden i sobradise,” 1791, in Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 1, p. 282: “Blir han udødelig, saa blive vi det Alle!” 52 Pap. iv B 46, p. 203: “Hvordan behandler ‘man’ Enten-Eller?” 45 46

Jens Baggesen: Kierkegaard and His Master’s Voice

41

to be occupied with artful rhyming and trivial matters; they are useful, Kierkegaard states with irony, only because they, like Killevalle, “provide an edifying proof of the immortality of the soul.”53 a similar case of recycling of older observations is present in Repetition. when praising the comical genius of Friedrich Beckmann at the Königsstädter theater, Kierkegaard is reminded of Baggesen’s vivid glimpse of the performance by a certain sara nickels in the ballad opera Ludlam’s Cave by oehlenschläger: out of the blue “she enters the stage with a rural scene behind her.”54 Baggesen’s objection to what he considered a shortcoming of oehlenschläger becomes a praise of Beckmann’s eminent stage presence: all alone he incorporates a whole scenery.55 an allusion to the very same passage appeared in Kierkegaard’s draft of a preface to The Concept of Irony from the years 1840–41: anticipating the reluctance of the Hegelian “boys” he characterizes their attitude; they will probably come rushing in “like the lady in Ludlam’s Cave” to examine his degree of Hegelian orthodoxy.56 in 1844, when planning a “post-scriptum to Either/Or,” Kierkegaard meditated (too) generously on a single line from Baggesen’s comical tale “Jeppe. a zealand tale”: “everything will have its end, ‘even Jesper morten’s sermon at the evening prayer had an end.’ ”57 Baggesen’s portrait of the simple-minded vicar was already in use in a diapsalm about his dubious theological interpretation of natural phenomena like funnel-shaped clouds.58 in one of his rhymed letters, “my ghost Joke or the sweet Knife,”59 Baggesen stated the proper conditions of a fair match. From his ghost-like exile as professor in Kiel (1811–14) he maintained that poets ought to fight their enemies objectively and courteously strike them without hurting them, but “alas! this is the trouble with the world / one strikes in this way only when one is dead / dead to the numerous affairs here on earth / all the many different kinds / the festive and the everyday ones.”60 this position of an outsider clearly appealed to the author of the book Prefaces, when in 1844 describing his situation among his contemporaries, he uses Baggesen’s melancholy declaration of war.61 SKS 4, 195 / FT, 106. Cf. SKS K4, 195. oehlenschläger, Ludlams Hule. Syngespil, Copenhagen: trykt hos Boas Brünnich paa Forfatterens Forlag 1814. 55 SKS 4, 38. Cf. SKS K4, 52. Baggesen’s critique appeared in the periodical Danfana, 1816, cf. Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 12, p. 25. 56 Pap. iii B 2, p. 113. 57 Pap. iv B 59. “Jeppe. et siællandsk eventyr. i ti sange” (1785), in Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 1, p. 201. 58 SKS 2, 36 / EO1, 27 (referring to a passage in Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 1, pp. 202–3), cf. SKS K2–3, 101. the reference is used for the third time in 1844, concerning the politician C.g.n. david, cf. SKS 18, 229, JJ:282 / KJN 2, 210; cf. also SKS K18, 229–30. 59 Jens Baggesen, “min gienganger-spøg, eller den søde Kniv,” written in Kiel in 1813, see Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 6, p. 143. 60 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 6, p. 143. “ak! men det er Verdens Nød / Saaledes slaaer man kun, naar man er død / Død for de mange Forhold her paa Jorden / De mangehaande, mangeslags / De ordensfestlige, de dagligdags....” 61 SKS 4, 526 / P, 67. Cf. SKS K4, 626. 53 54

42

Henrik Blicher

this line of thought was prolonged into Kierkegaard’s war-like year of 1854, when he stated that “A Christian is a man who has caught fire.”62 at this point Kierkegaard returned to Baggesen’s notion of non-existence, of being “burned into spirit” from “my ghost Joke”: “dead, departed, forgotten / safe in his grave / in purgatory completely burned into spirit.”63 Kierkegaard’s adaptation has it this way: “Spirit is fire. Hence the phrase to burn out into spirit (in Baggesen: ‘burned into spirit’).”64 In 1844 the preliminary work on “Guilty?/Not Guilty” contained a reflection on the difference between the heroic and the ordinary. Baggesen’s satirical epigram “on Baldrian,” in which a man is created in the picture of a sausage, was quoted by Kierkegaard in order to illustrate the latter: “Baggesen’s words fit most people (the plurality): our Lord took a bit of sausage / and said, become a man / grow sausagewise and sausage-happy.”65 an allusion to Baggesen is also present in another part of Kierkegaard’s unpublished work. in the “in vino veritas” chapter of Stages on Life’s Way, Johannes the seducer from Either/Or reappears at the banquet: referring to another noble speaker, he denies the ideality of any woman and states, in accordance with the biographical facts connecting Kierkegaard to regine olsen, that Cordelia did what he had expected her to do, she married edward. But, despite her new position she can still become to him “et Eventyr i det Lave” (an adventure in the low).66 the expression refers to Baggesen’s title “Veddeløbet i det Lave” (the race in the low).67 another allusion to Baggesen is present as a series of almost absurd interjections in Kierkegaard’s exposition of n.F.s. grundtvig’s (1783–1872) habit of accompanying yet another “exceptional discovery” of his with signs of pleasure: “oh! oh! oh! hey! matchless! hu! hey! see! oh! see! see! moses! o! see! moses!”68 SKS 26, 210, nB32:122 / JP 6, 6922. Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 6, p. 143: “Død, borte, glemt / i Graven vel forvaret / I Skiærsild udbrændt rent til Aand....” 64 SKS 26, 211, nB32:122 / JP 6, 6922. Yet another reference to “my ghost Joke” appears in Stages on Life’s Way, see SKS 6, 453 / SLW, 493. Cf. SKS K6, 400. 65 Pap. v B 37, p. 251. the quotation was not included in the printed text. “over Baldrian” (1806), in Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 4, p. 234. a reference to the expression “dazed June bugs” (“fortumlede Oldenborrer”) as a category between men and madmen appears in SKS 6, 295 / SLW, 318. Cf. SKS K6, 284. 66 Pap. v B 183–4, pp. 316–17. Johannes the seducer’s speech at the banquet is reprinted in SKS 6, 71–8 / SLW, 71–80. 67 Baggesen, “veddeløbet i det Lave. til digteren oehlenschläger i paris” (1814), in Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 5, pp. 312–25. 68 Pap. vi B 22 (preliminary work on the Concluding Unscientific Postscript). in 1849 Kierkegaard is annoyed that p.C. Kierkegaard adopts grundtvig’s position (SKS 22, 418, nB14:128); he compares his brother’s position with a certain caraway pretzel forming circles around niels Klim on his way to the underworld, thereby alluding to Baggesen’s translation of Ludvig Holberg, Niels Klims Underjordiske Reise, cf. Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 12, p. 180. Cf. SKS 4, 229 / PF, 21. SKS K4, 219. the last exclamations refer to Baggesen’s satirical “to mr. Hempel.” “til Herr Hempel,” see Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 7, pp. 91–7. Baggesen’s freedom of expression in coining words is quoted in The Concept of 62 63

Jens Baggesen: Kierkegaard and His Master’s Voice

43

When, in 1845, Kierkegaard was trying to find the proper official answer to the fact that a newspaper had made him the author of the pseudonymous books, he stated rule number one in the printed press: be interesting! accordingly, the largest sin “is to be boring in print.”69 it seems that Kierkegaard is reversing the dictum he inherited from Baggesen’s “to the singer of Ballads. when He stopped Chanting” (1785).70 there Baggesen ironically celebrated the fact that a certain bore had quit writing; Kierkegaard, on the other hand, is here deploring the fact that the conditions of modern media are at odds with truth. Kierkegaard’s favorite poem, or at least the one he keeps referring to, is “Kallundborgs Krønike,” literally the “Chronicle of Kalundborg.” in the draft for The Moment, no. 5 he alludes to Baggesen’s elegant remake of Horace (Epistulae 1.10.24) “Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret” (you may drive nature out with a pitchfork, but she will keep coming back).71 in Baggesen’s comical tale about a thief who evidently stays a thief it is rendered: “Naturam furca pellas ex / Hun kommer dog igien, den Hex!”72 already in 1837 Kierkegaard observed another useful character in the story: There are certain busybodies who will constantly and officiously interfere with everything, who will ever play a very comical part. i cannot think of any better representative of this kind of people than the ranger Jens in Baggesen’s “the Chronicle of Kallundborg”: on horseback clip clap clip clap / came riding Jens the ranger trip trap.73

in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript the comical character rides again in contemporary philosophy: “since [Hegel’s] time, it has become a favorite sport for some Hegelian as soon as anyone lets fall a hint about an aut-aut, to come riding clip clap, clip clap (like Jens the ranger in the Chronicle of Kallundborg) and after gaining a victory to ride home again.”74 III. Based on the majority of the occurrences mentioned above, F.J. Billeskov Jansen in 1981 concluded that Kierkegaard

Anxiety (see SKS 4, 410 / CA, 108–9; cf. also SKS K4, 480) in the Philosophical Fragments (see SKS 4, 216 / PF, 6: cf. also SKS K4, 204). 69 Pap. vi B 187.4, p. 261. 70 Jens Baggesen, “til Balladebarden. da han holdt op at qvæde,” in Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 2, pp. 48–52. 71 Pap. Xi–3 B 279.11, p. 430. Cf. also SV1 Xiv, 194 / M, 182. 72 Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 1, 1827, p. 241. Cf. also Prefaces; SKS 4, 472 / P, 8. 73 SKS 17, 44, aa:25 / KJN 1, 38. Cf. SKS K17, 110. 74 SKS 7, 277 / CUP1, 305. Cf. SKS K7, 262. in the preface (SKS 7, 10 / CUP1, 6) Kierkegaard compares the contemporary critics with Baggesen’s description of the tailor’s trade in “thomas moore eller venskabs seier over Kiærlighed.” Cf. Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vol. 1, p. 329.

44

Henrik Blicher had an ally in Baggesen...he did understand his irony and appreciated his eminent mastery of the mother tongue, both the linguistic inventiveness which found expression in the coinage of new words and phrases...and the ability to give new life to outworn phrases....Baggesen contributed decisively to sK’s artistic freedom in the use of language. Baggesen’s irony and humor were intensified and sharpened in SK.75

this conclusion holds true. still, there is a long way between this modest conclusion and Henning Fenger’s words about Baggesen’s The Labyrinth cited above: “undoubtedly the book from which Kierkegaard learned most about style.” to be sure, there are almost no references to Baggesen’s most important prose book—despite the fact that other quotations and allusions (seemingly known by heart) appear in Kierkegaard’s oeuvre throughout his writing career. rather than pursuing here the immense task of examining Kierkegaard stylistically, the conditions of such an enterprise should be outlined. Kierkegaard’s mastery of a broad variety of different styles ranges from imitation of pauline diction to extensive clustering of technical terms from philosophy and dogmatics and simple descriptive prose. nobody has, it seems, dared to continue georg Brandes’ (1842– 1927) virtuoso description of Kierkegaard’s virtuoso style.76 the following outline relies mainly on peter skautrup and his History of the Danish Language.77 according to skautrup, the history of danish prose begins with the founding father of danish literature, the norwegian-born playwright Ludvig Holberg in the first part of the eighteenth century. Holberg also wrote on moral philosophy in prose, and in this field he is mainly important because of his success in making danish a suitable language for educated expression. stylistically he relies heavily on Latin. According to Skautrup, the central figure in liberating the Danish language from Latin oppression is Jens schelderup sneedorff (1724–64). sneedorff is the French revolution in danish prose. He demands an easier, shorter way of writing, as in montesquieu and especially voltaire. unlike Holberg, he avoids French loan words, but his syntax remains French. the complex, Ciceronian patterns of Holberg is simplified or broken up into several periods. Sneedorff frequently uses rhetorical questions and groups of short subordinate clauses of the same standing. in short, sneedorff is the incarnation of the neo-classical virtues, such as clarity and purity, and this explains his heroic position among literary historians like Billeskov Jansen

75 F.J. Billeskov Jansen, “Baggesen,” in Kierkegaard: Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9), pp. 89–90. 76 georg Brandes, “Forførerens dagbog, drikkegildet, stilen” (Chapter XiX), in Søren Kierkegaard. En kritisk Fremstilling i Grundrids, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1877. Cf. also Brandes, Samlede Skrifter, vols. 1–18, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1899–1910, vol. 2, pp. 336– 45. 77 peter skautrup, Det danske sprogs historie, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab, gyldendal 1944–53, see vol. 3 (Fra Holbergs Komedier til H.C. Andersens eventyr, 1953).

Jens Baggesen: Kierkegaard and His Master’s Voice

45

and philologists like skautrup.78 sneedorff invented normal danish, a sober, selfeffacing style, which tends towards invisibility: courteously, the language form should step aside in order to let the meaning come through. Compared to sneedorff’s enlightened diction, which, according to skautrup, is “well-tempered, correct and abstract”79 Kierkegaard is a deviation, or, to put it more bluntly, he is baroque. a certain neo-classical bias is evident in skautrup’s concession to Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard is probably the greatest verbal artist in this period, after the first attempts, a passionate and carefully working virtuoso with several and studied approaches to spoken language and the audible, rhythmic, but all the same in a rhetorical mode marked by dissipation, foreign elements (especially german) together with an abstraction, which did not gain him many contemporary readers and probably—except for a few new words—did not leave any trace on the linguistic standard, whereas stylistic influences might be glimpsed in later writers.80

If Sneedorff was the first liberator in this evolutionary epic of the Danish language, H.C. andersen (1805–75) is the next. His fairy tales marked, according to skautrup, a development from stiff written prose towards a free spoken language. and who would not prefer to be free? “even Kierkegaard’s prose...is indebted to H.C. andersen.”81 so, at the time of andersen, Kierkegaard was already old-fashioned. Brandes is, rather, looking for past masters in his account of Kierkegaard’s style: style is here a style which seldom is properly spoken like the short remark and seldom is properly written as a book; it is a style in between, almost like the epistulary style which has something of the familiarity and pregnancy of spoken language, something of bookish language’s intricate sentence structure and ordering. it is thus a pure virtuosostyle which plays with language, performs with words, entangles them or hurls them into loops. it addresses—in contrast to the younger european prose style—the ear more than the eye, it desires the rhythm of a certain singing speech [en vis Sangtalens Rytme] which flatters the sense of hearing.82

every master must have a master; it would certainly be worthwhile incorporating Baggesen along with the older tradition of prose writing highlighted by Brandes. no contemporary writer had so many different levels of style. indeed, Baggesen mastered so many different styles that he disregarded the well-known dictum about the style being the man (Le style, c’est l’homme). His contemporaries were confused and called him a chameleon. skautrup shows his preferences in emphasizing

Cf. Billeskov Jansen and gustav albeck, Fra Ludvig Holberg til Carsten Hauch, vol. 2 in Dansk litteraturhistorie, vols. 1–6, ed. by p.H. traustedt, Copenhagen: politikens Forlag 1976–77, see pp. 161–70. 79 skautrup, Det danske sprogs historie, vol. 3, p. 265. 80 ibid., p. 268. 81 ibid., p. 245. 82 Brandes, Samlede Skrifter, vol. 2, p. 342. 78

46

Henrik Blicher

Baggesen’s “associative vigor and technical skills”; he even makes “artistic” sound condescending.83 the same verdict is allotted to Kierkegaard. Finally, let us have a look at the overall development from sneedorff to Kierkegaard. skautrup summarizes sneedorff’s enlightened prose thus: “the goal was to teach, to enlighten or merely to tell a story,” and he continues: But at the end of the century new goals are set up and new dimensions are drawn in: the description of mental life and moods, the individual emotional life, which demands empathy and not merely understanding. and in the attempts at representing these irrational dimensions, prose was made supple and, to some extent, partly liberated from the rules and restrictions of rational grammar.84

now, according to skautrup, the major example of this development is Baggesen. and, we might add, the next turn of the screw is Kierkegaard.

83 84

skautrup, Det danske sprogs historie, vol. 3, p. 267. ibid., p. 266.

Bibliography I. Baggesen’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Adam und Eva oder die Geschichte des Sündenfalls. Ein humoristisches Epos in zwölf Büchern, Leipzig: georg Joachim göschen 1826 (ASKB 1507). Danfana. Et Maanedskrift, Copenhagen: Boas Brünnich 1816, vol. 1, January 1816 (ASKB 1508). Jens Baggesens danske Værker, vols. 1–12, ed. by the author’s sons and C.J. Boye, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1827–32 (ASKB 1509–1520). Breve til Adam Øhlenschlæger (I Anledning af En Reise af en Dito), 2nd ed., Copenhagen: paa Forfatterens Forlag 1818 (ASKB u 16). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Baggesen [gyllembourg, thomasine], To Tidsaldre. Novelle af Forfatteren til “En HverdagsHistorie,” ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845, pp. 184–5 (ASKB 1563). s... [Heiberg, Johan Ludvig], “solger og Baggesen,” Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, 1827, January 22, no. 7 [pp. 38–9] (see ASKB 1606–1607; ASKB u 55). Heiberg, Johan Ludvig, “Lyrisk poesie,” in Intelligensblade, vol. 3, nos. 25–6, 1843, pp. 25–72, see pp. 46–7; p. 48; pp. 55–6 (ASKB u 56). martensen, Hans Lassen, Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849, p. 189 (ASKB 653). menzel, wolfgang, Die deutsche Literatur, vols. 1–4, 2nd enlarged ed., stuttgart: Hallberg’sche verlagshandlung 1836, vol. 4, p. 10 (ASKB u 79). [møller, poul martin], Efterladte Skrifter af Poul M. Møller, vols. 1–3, ed. by Christian winther, F.C. olsen, and Christen thaarup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839–43, vol. 3, p. 213 (ASKB 1574–1576). munthe, e., De vigtigste indenlandske Tildragelser og de mærkeligste danske og norske Personers Levnetsbeskrivelser, fra de ældste Tider til vore Dage. En Læse- og Lærebog i Fædrelandets Historie for Begyndere og Ustuderede, 5th revised ed., Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1837, pp. 369–70; pp. 327–9 (ASKB 2012). mynster, Jakob peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852– 53 (vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57), vol. 2, p. 314; p. 359; pp. 366– 7; p. 371; p. 374; pp. 379–81; vol. 3, p. 151; pp. 193–4 (ASKB 358–363).

48

Henrik Blicher

Ørsted, anders sandøe, Af mit Livs og min Tids Historie, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1851–52 (vols. 3–4, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57), vol. 1, p. 98 (ASKB 1959–1960). steffens, Henrich, Was ich erlebte. Aus der Erinnerung niedergeschrieben, vols. 1–10, Breslau: Josef max und Comp. 1840–44, vol. 2, p. 117; vol. 5, pp. 31–2; vol. 9, pp. 265–6 (ASKB 1834–1843) thortsen, Carl adolph, Historisk Udsigt over den danske Litteratur indtil Aar 1814, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839, pp. 153–4 (ASKB 970). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Baggesen F.J. Billeskov Jansen, “Baggesen” in Kierkegaard: Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9), pp. 83–90. Fenger, Henning, The Heibergs, trans. and ed. by Frederick J. marker, new York: twayne 1971, pp. 48–50 (in danish as Familjen Heiberg, ed. by the Heibergselskab, Copenhagen: museum tusculanums Forlag 1992, pp. 35–37). — 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. 74; p. 120; p. 199. (originally as Kierkegaard-Myter og Kierkegaard-Kilder. 9 kildekritiske studier i de Kierkegaardske papirer, breve og aktstykker, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976 p. 66; p. 100; p. 160.)

steen steensen Blicher: the melancholy poet of the Jutland Heath sven Hakon rossel

I. in a letter from søren Kierkegaard to his close friend emil Boesen from october 1843—the letter has no specific date—one finds the rather laconic information: “I do not own Blicher’s short stories.”1 this information seems to imply that the philosopher does not show much interest in this contemporary danish writer, but this is in fact misleading as is evidenced by Kierkegaard’s somewhat flippant review, From the Papers of One Still Living,2 of Hans Christian andersen’s novel Only a Fiddler.3 this review in conjunction with his analysis of the danish short story writing around 1830 not only gives a very precise and laudatory presentation of steen steensen Blicher as a short story writer but also indicates that he has a thorough knowledge of his oeuvre. In addition, in his journals we find several indications of Kierkegaard’s preoccupation with Blicher. Kierkegaard’s presentation of Blicher is based on a view of his works seen in contrast to the highly popular short stories by the then anonymous author of the so-called “everyday stories”—as it turned out they were written by thomasine Gyllembourg (1773–1856), the mother of the influential poet and Hegelian critic Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860).4 whereas Blicher’s short stories are B&A, vol. 1, p. 125 / LD, Letter 86, p. 159. SKS 1, 5–57 / EPW, 53–102. 3 Hans Christian andersen, Kun en Spillemand, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1837. (english translation: Only a Fiddler, trans. by mary Howitt, London: H.g. Clarke & Co. 1845.) 4 thomasine gyllembourg, perhaps the most important female author of the danish golden age, wrote between 1827 and 1845 24 novels and stories, which all are set in the Copenhagen of her day. in 1828, she published “a story of everyday Life,” and her stories and novels were subtitled from then on as “a story from the author of A Story of Everyday Life.” of her last work, Two Ages (To Tidsaldre, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845), Kierkegaard wrote a long review, which was published as an independent monograph: En literair Anmeldelse. To Tidsaldre. Novelle af Forfatteren til “En Hverdags-Historie,” udgiven af J.L. Heiberg. Kbhv. reitzel 1845. anmeldt af s. Kierkegaard, Copenhagen 1846 (SKS 10, 5–106). (english translations: The Present Age and Two Minor Ethico-Religious Treaties, trans. by alexander dru and walter Lowrie, London and new York: oxford university press 1949; Two Ages. The Age of Revolution and the Present Age. A Literary Review by Søren Kierkegaard, ed. and 1 2

50

Sven Hakon Rossel

characterized by an “individual-popular poetic keynote,”5 that is, an original and general, poetic atmosphere, “and a popular-idyllic picture, spread out for the imagination, illuminated by mighty flashes of summer lightning (Kornmod)—a deep poetic mood, shrouded in the mist veil of spontaneity,”6 gyllembourg’s “everyday Stories” contain an already finalized “view of life which belongs to the individual.”7 in his analysis Kierkegaard continues his juxtaposition of the two writers by stressing the “masterly technique”8 of gyllembourg’s stories, which to him, however, is nothing but a guarded remark (forbeholden ros), in particular if it is juxtaposed to the characterization of Blicher’s dialogues as “dramatically charged speeches”9 and the “unity..., which in its spontaneity significantly points to the future”10 of his short stories. Furthermore, Kierkegaard in the introduction to his Blicher presentation in a footnote quotes a poem by Blicher11 as the melancholy poet of the Jutland heath, after he has been introduced as “that voice in the wilderness,”12 an explicit reference to Blicher’s position as an outsider both geographically—being from Jutland—and with regards to his rather marginal public position in the Heiberg-dominated danish literature of the time: silent and dark-laden so is my heath Though under heather top flowers will spring. Lark behind grave mound is building its nest and in the wilderness warbles away.13

not only can the poetry volume in which the poem is printed as a motto be found in Kierkegaard’s own library together with the second volume of the collected poems, published in 1835–36 and bought at C.a. reitzel’s bookstore on July 10, 1836,14 but also the following editions of Blicher’s works: Collected Short Stories, of which is known that Kierkegaard bought the fifth volume himself at C.A. Reitzel’s

trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1978; A Literary Review. ‘Two Ages,’ a Novel by the Author of ‘A Story of Everyday Life,’ published by J.L. Heiberg. Copenhagen: Reitzel 1845. Reviewed by S. Kierkegaard, ed. and trans. by alastair Hannay, Harmondsworth: penguin Books 2001.) 5 SKS 1, 25 / EPW, 69. 6 Ibid. (Modified translation.) 7 Ibid. (Modified translation.) 8 ibid. 9 ibid. 10 ibid. 11 The poem, originally addressed to Kierkegaard’s friend the prolific romantic writer Bernhard severin ingemann, is reprinted—with several changes—as the last stanza in “Forsang,” in Jyllandsrejse i sex Døgn, in s.s. Blicher, Digte, vols. 1–2, aarhus: elmquist 1814–17, vol. 2. 12 SKS 1, 24 / EPW, 68–9. 13 SKS 1, 245 / EPW, 69. 14 s.s. Blicher, Samlede Digte, vols. 1–2, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1835–36 (ASKB u 23).

Steen Steensen Blicher: The Melancholy Poet of the Jutland Heath

51

bookstore on January 1, 1836,15 the poetry collection The Birds of Passage: Nature’s Concert,16 the capricious travelogue The Western Profile of the Cimbrian Peninsula from Hamburg to Skagen,17 as well as the journal Northern Lights18 published by Blicher and purchased by Kierkegaard at the schubothe’s bookstore on november 13, 1840. so, in fact, Kierkegaard had in his library the major works by Blicher and, indeed, there are several indications in his writings clearly showing that his knowledge of “that voice in the wilderness” was quite substantial. Fascinating in its empathy with Blicher is, furthermore, Kierkegaard’s immediate response in his diary on september 11, 1838 after having bought Blicher’s poetry collection The Birds of Passage—namely a quotation from a german folksong in Johann gottfried Herder’s collection Volkslieder or Folksongs from 1778f: sub rosa to s.s. Blicher on the occasion of his nature concert Wenn ich ein Vögelein wär, Und auch zwei Flüglein hätt, Flög ich zu Dir; Weils aber nicht kann sein, Bleib ich allhier.19

it appears that Blicher read Kierkegaard’s praising, albeit not easily accessible, words about him in his review from 1838 with satisfaction, in as much as the philosopher’s sentence containing the rather unusual danish word “kornmod” (in english translated with “summer lightning”) in fact inspired him to give his next short story collection from 1839 the title Kornmodn (summer Lightning). II. who, now, is this steen steensen Blicher?20 He was born in 1782 in the Jutland village of vium. a degree in divinity from the university of Copenhagen in 1809 s.s. Blicher, Samlede Noveller, 2nd printing, vols. 1–5, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1833–39 (ASKB 1521–1523). 16 s.s. Blicher, Trækfuglene: Naturconcert, randers: smiths Forlag 1838 (ASKB 1525). 17 s.s. Blicher, Vestlig Profil af den cimbriske Halvøe fra Hamborg til Skagen, Copenhagen: C. steen 1839 (ASKB 1524). 18 s.s. Blicher (ed.), Nordlyset, may, 1828, randers (ASKB u 22). 19 SKS 17, 261, dd:140 / KJN 1, 252. the poem as quoted by Kierkegaard can be found in Johann gottfried von Herder, Volkslieder, new ed., introduced by Johann daniel Falk, Leipzig: weygand 1825, p. 104. 20 For further information see, for example, A History of Danish Literature, ed. by sven H. rossel, Lincoln and London: university of nebraska press 1992, pp. 219–24 (vol. 1, in A History of Scandinavian Literatures, vols. 1–5, ed. by sven H. rossel, Lincoln and London: university of nebraska press 1992–98). selections of Blicher’s short stories in english translation are published as Twelve Stories by Steen Steensen Blicher, trans. by Hanne astrup 15

52

Sven Hakon Rossel

marked the beginning of a lifelong ministry in Blicher’s native Jutland countryside, from 1819 in the village of thorning and from 1825 in spentrup, where he also died. His ministry in one of the most impoverished and secluded parts of denmark as well as a constant debt and an unhappy marriage cast a tragic gloom over Blicher’s life, and as often as possible he escaped on lengthy hunting trips and into heavy drinking. with Blicher, an outsider entered danish literature neither anchored in the Copenhagen bourgeoisie nor in the idyllic parsonages on the island of zealand, the home of so many danish romantic poets. all his life Blicher remained outside the leading and trend-setting coterie surrounding Johan Ludvig Heiberg. in fact, Blicher was not a typical representative of the predominant romantic movement in denmark of his time. granted, with his works he introduced the Jutland dialect, folk life, and nature into danish literature—true romantic endeavors—but his keen interest in topography and the general education of the common people—for instance in a series of articles about sheep-keeping and reclamation of the heath— and through his rather progressive involvement in current social and political issues he displayed much stronger ties to the preceding eighteenth century. at the same time his interests also point ahead toward the polemical naturalistic writers of the 1880s. an additional link to the eighteenth century is shown through Blicher’s love for english literature—quite unusual for the time. He translated alexander pope (1688–1744) and oliver goldsmith (1728–74) and, in fact, began his authorship in 1807–1809 by translating into danish James macpherson’s (1736–96) ossian poems from 1760. their melancholy descriptions of nature are clearly also present in Blicher’s own writings and their elegiac mood became a significant component in his own poetry, the culmination of which is the volume The Birds of Passage: Nature’s Concert from 1838. these texts constitute a sustained bird allegory, in fact a genre with its roots in the middle ages, that expresses a tragic sense of transitoriness (hence the volume’s title)—a keynote theme in Blicher’s entire oeuvre—in both a social and metaphysical context. another important english source of inspiration was walter scott (1771–1832), whose historical novels were bestsellers on the danish book market during the early decades of the nineteenth century. scott—together with the danish popular legends— became important sources of inspiration for Blicher’s short stories. His first totally original prose work, “Fragments of the diary of a parish Clerk” appeared in 1824 in the popular Jutland magazine A Reader’s Collection of Fruits from the Literary Field to which Blicher contributed in order to improve his own desperate financial situation.21 Blicher based his story on the biography of the noblewoman marie Larsen, princeton: princeton university press for the american-scandinavian Foundation 1945 (reprinted: new York: Kraus 1972). Further editions: The Diary of a Parish Clerk and Other Stories, trans. by paula Hostrup-Jessen, London: athlone press 1996; Tardy Awakening and Other Stories, trans. by paula Brugge and Faith ingwersen, ed. by niels ingwersen, madison, wisconsin: department of scandinavian studies university of wisconsin-madison 1996 (Wits ii, no. 7). 21 s.s. Blicher, “Brudstykker af en Landsbydegns dagbog,” in Læsefrugter: samlede paa Literaturens Mark, ed. by a.F. elmquist, vol. 23, aarhus: a.F. elmquist 1824, pp. 145– 87. (english translations: “the Journal of a parish Clerk,” in Twelve Stories by Steen Steensen

Steen Steensen Blicher: The Melancholy Poet of the Jutland Heath

53

grubbe, a seventeenth-century historical character who later fascinated both Hans Christian andersen (1805–75) and Jens peter Jacobsen (1847–85) among others, which he found in some old clerical diaries. this historical distance corresponds to a similar distance on the part of the narrator—a fundamental feature of Blicher’s work—as the author pretends that the story is made up of episodic diary entries, a distance that mirrors the narrator’s own attitude towards life as he learns life’s bitter lesson: all is transitory and subject to an inexorable destiny. the motifs and narrative technique for Blicher’s following prose works are already present in this consummate masterpiece. thus documentarism and diary technique are employed in the detective story “the parson at vejlbye,”22 which at the same time entails the unveiling of human evil and life’s absurdity. the unmasking of a chaotic reality behind an apparent harmonious surface is also the main motif in “tardy awakening,”23 and “the Hosier and his daughter.”24 Like “the parson at vejlbye” the story is told from two different perspectives. the relentlessness of existence, coupled with the motif of change is another of Blicher’s major themes. it was introduced in the novella “Fragments of the diary of a Parish Clerk” and is reflected in the very title of “Alas, How Changed!”25 as the events filter through the narrator’s mind, they turn into a sort of existential reflection about the impossibility of reaching any insight into god’s plan for humanity. this realization forms the basis for Blicher’s entire oeuvre—in all he wrote about one hundred stories—and explains its tragic outlook and profound pessimism.

Blicher, pp. 49–78; The Diary of A Parish Clerk, trans. by paula Hostrup-Jessen, Copenhagen: Hans reitzels Forlag 1968; The Diary of a Parish Clerk, trans. by paula Hostrup-Jessen, seattle, washington.: mermaid press 1991; “the diary of a parish Clerk,” in The Diary of a Parish Clerk and Other Stories, pp. 1–34.) 22 s.s. Blicher, “præsten i vejlbye. en Criminalhistorie,” Nordlyset, vol. 10, 1829, pp. 263–304. (english translations: “the parson at vejlby,” in Denmark’s Best Stories. An Introduction to Danish Fiction, ed. by Hanna astrup Larsen, new York: the american scandinavian Foundation and norton 1928, pp. 15–71; “the parson at vejlbye,” in Twelve Stories by Steen Steensen Blicher, pp. 168–201; “the parson at vejlby,” in From the Danish Peninsula, ed. by Johannes smith, ringkøbing: the tourist association of Jutland 1957, pp. 29–74; “the pastor at vejlbye. a Crime story,” in Tardy Awakening and Other Stories, pp. 41–66; “the pastor of vejlbye,” in The Diary of a Parish Clerk and Other Stories, pp. 101–34.) 23 s.s. Blicher, “sildig opvaagnen. original Fortælling,” Nordlyset, vol. 5, 1828, pp. 227–58. (english translations: “tardy awakening,” in Twelve Stories by Steen Steensen Blicher, pp. 122–45; “tardy awakening. original tale,” in Tardy Awakening and Other Stories, pp. 1–19; “tardy awakening,” in The Diary of a Parish Clerk and Other Stories, pp. 135–58.) 24 s.s. Blicher, “Hosekræmmeren,” Nordlyset, vol. 9, 1829, pp. 59–80. (english translations: “the Hosier and His daughter,” in Twelve Stories by Steen Steensen Blicher, pp. 220–36; “the Hosier,” in Tardy Awakening, pp. 20–32; “the Hosier and His daughter,” in The Diary of a Parish Clerk and Other Stories, pp. 81–99.) 25 s.s. Blicher, “ak! hvor forandret!” Nordlyset, vol. 8, 1828, pp. 7–37. (english translations: “alas, How Changed!” in Twelve Stories by Steen Steensen Blicher, pp. 146–67; “alas, How Changed!” in The Diary of a Parish Clerk and Other Stories, pp. 57–80.)

54

Sven Hakon Rossel

while Blicher undoubtedly, perhaps subconsciously, saw himself in a rejected, semi-tragic light, he was, in fact, generally acknowledged as a writer of standing by the contemporary critics. nevertheless, he was far ahead of his time, and his unique artistic qualities were hardly acknowledged in his time. His narrative experiments as well as his artistically flawless rendering of a general sense of disillusionment—a sense of spleen which is echoed, for instance, in many of Kierkegaard’s “diapsalmata” from Either/Or, part one—clearly point to the following century and certainly secure him a name among the great short story writers of world literature. III. Blicher only once in his writings mentions the name Kierkegaard. this happens in his short story “Juliane’s marriage” from 1840,26 in which one of the characters while mentioning the price of the shawl of a councillor’s wife briefly—and without any comment—refers to the store of Kierkegaard’s father, michael pedersen Kierkegaard, in Copenhagen. nevertheless, Blicher knew about Kierkegaard—after all, he had read his review of andersen from 1838—because, on september 21, 1842, the poverty-stricken poet wrote a letter, in fact a begging letter, to “Hr. doctor Kierkegaard,” which somehow was sent on to his brother, the later bishop peter Christian Kierkegaard, who then worked as a tutor of theology in Copenhagen. in his letter Blicher asks for a loan of 100 rigsdaler (an amount corresponding to around 1,500 dollars). the letter, which was delivered personally by Blicher’s son, opens with the following characteristic lines: “Due to misfortune that has occurred, I am, for a short while, in financial trouble. i have been told that your conditions are to the contrary and that you are generous.”27 we do not know, whether Blicher was successful with his request or not. in Blicher’s writings there is only the following direct reference to a Kierkegaard text. It is found in his otherwise quite insignificant story “A Squire on Earth” from 1845,28 in which Blicher mentions a “misogynist philosopher” who makes the following statement: “if you marry you do wrongly, if you don’t marry, you do the same”—from the content it is clear that this is a direct rendering of the well-known introduction to the section “either/or: a ecstatic discourse” in “diapsalmata” in Either/Or from 1843: “marry, and you will regret it. do not marry, and you will also regret it.”29

s.s. Blicher, “Julianes giftermaal,” Salonen, vol. 1, 1840, pp. 1–20. Quoted from Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vols. 1–33, ed. by Jeppe aakjær et al., Copenhagen: gyldendal 1920–34, vol. 25, p. 28. 27 Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 32, p. 135. Here it is taken for granted that the letter was addressed to p.C. Kierkegaard. 28 s.s. Blicher, “en Herremand paa Jorden,” in Min Vinterbestilling 1844 og 1845, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845. Quoted from Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 30, p. 31. 29 SKS 2, 47 / EO1, 38. 26

Steen Steensen Blicher: The Melancholy Poet of the Jutland Heath

55

IV. the earliest mention of Blicher in Kierkegaard’s journals can be found in two undated entries from 1836 as part of a discussion of the concept of romanticism as being vague “over all boundaries,”30 as being a “lack of a relative standard.”31 as an example of the “very romantic” Kierkegaard mentions “a wide, wide desert” and “also the Jutland heath (Blicher), the beginning of the short story ‘telse.’ ”32 indeed, “telse” from 1829 opens with one of Blicher’s numerous evocative depictions of nature, however, less elaborate than in his other texts: the ground was covered with snow, the sky with stars, the moon was waning, all winds had come to a rest. Down below nothing moved, but up high the firmament was moving incessantly. the countless small lights in the darkness glimmered, twinkled, trembled, gleamed—and smiled—like angels’ eyes from a distant, dark eternity.33

The contrast between the earth and the firmament, the “romantic” (Kierkegaard’s word) predilection for the wide expanse and the infinite horizon, which Blicher found on the boundless Jutland heath, and a melancholy mood, which the poet had found in the ossian poems—all of these elements appealed to Kierkegaard, as is evident in his own attempts at romantic nature depiction in his journals from 1835. The following year, 1837—and also with no specific date—we find Blicher briefly mentioned again in the journals, this time in the context of a discussion of humor—possibly inspired by Kierkegaard’s preoccupation with the german philosopher Johann georg Hamann (1730–88): therefore the humorist can never actually become a systematizer, either, for he regards every system as a renewed attempt to blow up the world with a single syllogism in the familiar Blicherian manner; whereas the humorist himself has come alive to the incommensurable which the philosopher can never figure out and therefore must despise. 34

The systematizer, who has figured out and planned everything, is here contrasted to the humorist, who acknowledges the incalculability of our existence. this is a contrast in world-view and attitude which Kierkegaard found presented in Blicher’s novella “Fourteen days in Jutland” from 1836.35 Here the narrator of the events is Pap. i a 130 / JP 3, 3796. Pap. i a 131 / JP 3, 3797. see Henning Fenger, Kierkegaard-Myter og KierkegaardKilder, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976 (Odense University Studies in Scandinavian Languages and Literatures, vol. 7), p. 105, where Fenger suggests 1834 as the year of the entry’s composition. 32 Pap. i a 131 / JP 3, 3797 (translation modified). The short story “Telse” was first published in Nordlyset, vol. 11, July 1829, pp. 73–114 and august 1829, pp. 191–233. reprinted in s.s. Blicher, Samlede Noveller, vols. 1–6, Copenhagen: C. steen and randers: n. schmidt 1833–44, vol. 2, pp. 1–85. 33 Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 15, p. 12. 34 SKS 17, 235, dd:37.b / KJN 1, 226. 35 “Fjorten dage i Jylland,” in s.s. Blicher, Samlede Noveller, vol. 5, pp. 65–214. 30 31

56

Sven Hakon Rossel

related to the Kierkegaardian humorist, whereas the character of the systematist is even more pronounced, represented by a certain vang, a student of Kant’s philosophy, who is introduced as the “paradox man!” and a representative of “newfangled wisdom!”36 as a result of his barren world-view vang ends up in complete insanity and declares in a long monologue toward the end of the novella—with an allusion to Ludvig Holberg’s science fiction novel from 1741, The Journey of Niels Klim to the World Underground,37—that he, like another niels, intends to climb down through a cave outside the norwegian town of Bergen to the world underground. Here he intends to blow up “like a bomb”38 the existing world, which to him is not organized according to certain philosophical principles, by applying a single syllogism in order to assemble it again afterwards. this Blicher character must have fascinated Kierkegaard. in an undated entry from as late as 1852 as part of a discussion of the concept of either/or he returns to the Vang figure—however, with an erroneous location—with the following reference after he first has described the status quo: in a small happy country (the misfortune of which perhaps is precisely this happiness), in a small happy country there is a definite tendency to idolize mediocrity. There, one has also managed as part of pagan optimism (a sad consequence of protestantism) to make Christianity, what is Christian, commensurable with finitude...And what is it then that is needed? what else but disjunction, either/or, in order to blow up this entire entanglement. Like that unhappy madman in one of Blicher’s short stories, who declares that he intends to climb down into the cliff of dover in order to blow up the entire world with one single syllogism.39

in addition, it becomes apparent when reading “Fourteen days in Jutland” to what degree Blicher shared Kierkegaard’s infatuation with the music of wolfgang amadeus mozart, and it is tempting, indeed, to see the novella as one of the sources of inspiration for the philosopher’s treatment of this composer. Blicher lets a young girl on the piano play the overture to mozart’s opera Don Giovanni—“this masterpiece of the shakespeare of composers”40 in such an intensive way, that another of the novella’s characters reacts in such a way “that now he sat absorbed in numb astonishment, now he jumped up as if he had been dreaming, now he smiled with rapture as if he had been moved to the seventh heaven, now he trembled, as if attacked by a shiver.”41 it is reasonable in a passage like this to find a rough draft of the characterization of the same overture in Kierkegaard’s Either/Or: “it is powerful like a god’s idea, turbulent Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 20, p. 9. nicolaus Klimius [Ludvig Holberg], Nicolai Klimii Iter subterraneum, Copenhagen and Leipzig: svmptibvs iacobi prevssii 1741. (danish translation: Niels Klims underjordiske Rejse, vols. 1–3, trans. and ed. by a. Kragelund, Copenhagen: gad 1970 [1742].) (english translations: The Journey of Niels Klim to the World Underground, London: t. astley and r. Collins 1742; The Journey of Niels Klim to the World Underground, trans. by James ignatius mcnelis, Lincoln: university of nebraska press 1960.) 38 Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 20, p. 155. 39 Pap. X–6 a 665, p. 476. 40 Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 20, p. 19. 41 ibid., p. 20. 36 37

Steen Steensen Blicher: The Melancholy Poet of the Jutland Heath

57

like a world’s life, harrowing in its earnestness, palpitating in its desire, crushing in its terrible wrath, animating in its full-blooded joy.” 42 Furthermore, Blicher in the succeeding lines clearly focuses on the erotic power of this music! From 1838 we find the above-quoted reference to Blicher’s poetry collection, The Birds of Passage, and from 1839 an interesting entry on march 23 about a broadside ballad that Kierkegaard has bought from one of the most renowned danish producers of broadsides, the tribler family in Copenhagen, containing a popular, anonymous love poem.43 Kierkegaard quotes the following stanzas from the print without following the strophic structure of the original text: i have experienced a grief in my youth which shall never leave me as long as i live. it is the greatest grief which can happen to anybody: to love someone you can never get. the greatest grief on this earth is to lose the most dearest of your heart, the greatest grief which surpasses the sun, is to love the one you cannot have.44

after the last stanza Kierkegaard adds: “in my mind the two stanzas [which] are here pasted to the paper are excellent,” a rather positive evaluation, which brings to mind Kierkegaard’s appreciative statement about the “popular” in his review of andersen from 1838, an evaluation which Blicher must have shared. In one of his finest short stories, “the Hosier and his daughter” from 1829, it is an exquisite feature that he lets its heroine, Cecilia, express her tragedy precisely with lines from the then popular song, lines which, like a leitmotif, run through the text. thus, already as the story’s motto we find the following lines: the greatest grief on earth, i fear that is to lose the one, you hold dear. 45

undoubtedly, Kierkegaard with his thorough knowledge of Blicher’s oeuvre immediately realized the connection between the broadside ballad and Blicher’s version. SKS 2, 129 / EO1, 127. see sven H. rossel, “ ‘es ist auf erden kein schwerer Leiden, denn wann zwei Herzlieb müssen scheiden.’ die geschichte eines Blicher-mottos,” Nerthus. Nordischdeutsche Beiträge, vol. 4, 1979, especially p. 79. 44 Pap. i a 385, p. 152. danish original: “Jeg har faaet en Sorg i mine Ungdoms / Dage, der aldrig fra mig gaaer saalænge / som jeg lever. Det er den største Sorg som / nogen overgaaer, det er at elske den man ei / kan faae. // Det er den største Sorg som Jorden den / kan bære, det er at miste bort sin Hjertens / Allerkjæreste, det er den største Sorg som Solen / overgaaer, det er at elske den man ei kan naae.” 45 Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 14, p. 33. danish original: “Den største Sorg i Verden her / Er dog at miste den, Man har kjer.” 42 43

58

Sven Hakon Rossel

in his entry Kierkegaard also quotes the broadside ballad as “an example of the aforementioned objectivity which the truly popular always possesses,” an objectivity which he in an earlier entry from march 15 sees as being characteristic of the poetry of the middle ages—without Kierkegaard knowing it, the broadside text is, in fact, of medieval german origin—in contrast to contemporary poetry, in which “the idiosyncratic individual gyrates about in his own idiosyncrasy.”46 Not until many years later, in 1844–45, do we find a reference in Kierkegaard’s journals to Blicher, quite witty albeit indirect, as part of his deliberations on the topic “the power of the word”: one sees the power the word has from the story about a Jutlander who came to Holstein and when he arrived home said: a remarkable language and land, where, when one asks for 1 shilling’s worth of Vust, one gets 2 shilling’s worth of sausage. (he really meant Ost [cheese], and 1 danish shilling, but 1 Lübecker shilling equals 2 danish shillings, and his wrong pronunciation sounded like Wurst [sausage]).47

Clearly, Kierkegaard refers to Blicher’s short story A Knitting-Bee from 1842,48 told in Jutland dialect. Here, one of the characters, wolle vistesen, tells about his experiences as a soldier south of the danish border. the area of Holstein is not mentioned specifically, and obviously Kierkegaard has added on to the two lines in Blicher’s short story—thus the Jutlander’s remark about a “remarkable language and land” is not found here—indeed, Kierkegaard adds an almost pedantic explanatory note to Blicher’s passage. In 1848 we find in the journals a brief overview of the Danish literature of Kierkegaard’s time with a statement which includes not only a self-asserting remark which is so typical of the philosopher but also indirectly contains an explicit acknowledgment of Blicher’s authorship: since i began with Either/Or no important literature has been published. [Johan Ludvig] Heiberg stopped; the Everyday Stories stopped; Blicher did not continue to write; Oehlenschläger only wrote something insignificant; and thus it is in all directions; not a single book has been published...; Here i have positioned myself with a productivity during five years, which Denmark has never had and certainly not in prose.49

as part of this chronological overview, it remains to point to the above-discussed second reference to “Fourteen days in Jutland” from 1852. the last reference to Blicher altogether can be found in an undated entry from 1854,50 in which Kierkegaard almost verbatim quotes some lines from Blicher’s translation of oliver goldsmith’s SKS 18, 17, ee:37 / KJN 2, 14. see rossel, “ ‘es ist auf erden kein schwerer Leiden, denn wann zwei Herzlieb müssen scheiden.’ die geschichte eines Blicher-mottos.” 47 Pap. vi B 220, p. 281 / P, Supplement, p. 136. (Translation modified.) 48 see s.s. Blicher, E Bindstouw: Fortællinger og Digte i jydske Mundarter, randers: elmenhoff 1842. according to the catalogue from Kierkegaard’s library, he did not own this work, but, according to his journals, he obviously was familiar with the text. 49 SKS 21, 187–8, not8:104. 50 SKS 25, 449-50, nB30:78 / JP 4, 3769. 46

Steen Steensen Blicher: The Melancholy Poet of the Jutland Heath

59

novel, The Vicar of Wakefield from 1766,51 which in 1837 was published with the title Præsten i Wakefield.52 none of these references to Blicher—apart from a possible inspiration in connection with his reading of “Fourteen Days in Jutland”—implies any significant impact on Kierkegaard’s writings. on the other hand, the 11 gilleleje entries which open his journals from a stay in this fishing village in northern Zealand in the summer of 1835, bear witness to an unmistakable Blicher influence with their blend of topographical information and atmospheric and often evocative nature description. parts of these often rather lyrical texts describing various excursions to the surroundings of gilleleje are clearly composed in a calculated, literary style and are even permeated with a Blicher-like melancholy, the “certain mood of melancholy,” which Kierkegaard himself later invokes.53 the point of departure, the wanderer—a typical Blicher-figure—and his panoramic view over the landscape, a combination of observation and reflection, is clearly inspired by a typical Blichertext such as “the Hosier and his daughter” or “the Hermit on Bolbjerg”:54 Looking down from this high point into the valley where the town of Tisvilde lies, and informed of the nature of the terrain both by the inscription on the column and by the lush buckwheat growing on both sides, there a friendly, smiling nature meets one’s eyes. the small but very neat houses lie each surrounded by fresh verdure (unlike larger cities which when we approach them impress on us the clear outline of the whole mass of buildings, these are, if i may so put it, like individuals extending a friendly hand to one another in a smiling totality), for the whole expanse where the sand did its worst is now planted with pine trees—so one is almost tempted to believe it’s all a fiction, a strange fiction: that in this very region where health is sought so many have found their graves. at dusk the whole thing looks like a legend made visible, a kind of story of Job in which above all Tibirke Church plays the main part.55

Furthermore, it is hardly a coincidence that Kierkegaard in his ensuing description of the ocean, after he on his excursion has visited the ruins of gurre Castle—as correctly observed by Jesper Langballe in his book about Blicher56—refers both to mozart, which comes as no surprise, but also to the romantic composer Carl maria oliver goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield: a Tale, London: F. newberry 1766. oliver goldsmith, Præsten i Wakefield, trans. by s.s. Blicher, Copenhagen: C. steens Forlag 1837. the quotation can be found in Blicher’s translation on p. 5. 53 SKS 17, 9, aa:1 / KJN 1, 3 (translation modified). Henning Fenger suggests that the entry from June 1 (aa:12) is part of a planned epistolary novel. see Fenger, KierkegaardMyter og Kierkegaard-Kilder, especially pp. 71–108. Fenger’s suggestion gains credibility in particular when it is interpreted as another Blicher influence on Kierkegaard. Letter writing is a frequent feature in Blicher’s short stories. 54 s.s. Blicher, “eneboeren paa Bolbjerg,” in Blicher, Samlede Noveller, vol. 4, pp. 248–74. 55 SKS 17, 7, aa:1 / KJN 1, 3. 56 see Jesper Langballe, Anlangendes et menneske: Blichers forfatterskab—selvopgør og tidsopgør, odense: syddansk universitetsforlag 2004, pp. 427–8. Langballe suggests a number of additional parallels between Blicher and Kierkegaard to which this essay is indebted. 51 52

60

Sven Hakon Rossel

von weber (1786–1826) as the conclusion of an onomatopoetic description which is definitely Blicheresque: the sea is at its height when the storm chimes in with its bass, when its distinctive deep roar vies with heaven’s thunder and everything is lit by lightning. gurre Lake is at its most beautiful when a soft breeze ruffles its blue surface and birdsong accompanies the soughing of the reeds; the only accompaniment to the sea is the hoarse shriek of the solitary seagull. the former (the sea) is like a mozart recitative, the latter like a melody by weber.— 57

a rapt eulogy of weber’s music can be found in Blicher’s short story “the Himmel mountain” from 1833,58 and it is, furthermore, at Lake esrom—which Kierkegaard visited on July 8—that Blicher’s protagonist Ludvig falls in love!59 Kierkegaard’s description of his excursion to esrom brings to mind the opening of Blicher’s “the Hosier and his daughter” with the wanderer, the story’s narrator, who—as he walks across the heath—approaches a farmhouse and then enters: Clad now in my huge cloak, i entered the parlor and found myself in the company of three persons about to have an afternoon meal. the furniture included of course the long big table at which our farmers like to feed, and also a towering Himmelseng [four-poster literally heaven-bed due to its canopy] in the literal sense of the word, for i imagine that to go to bed one would have to climb up to the loft and fall into it—a fall of some distance according to country custom. the next room, the door to which stood open, was a storeroom for linen, canvas, toweling etc., in disordered piles, easily prompting the thought that one was in the presence of a little band of robbers, an idea that seemed consistent with the place’s location (Lake esrom on one side and grib Forest on the other and no house within a mile or so) and the appearance of the people....at the far end of the said long table sat the man with his sandwich and bottle of aquavit before him.... the woman was not very tall, with a broad face and an ugly upturned nose and a sly pair of eyes....in addition there was a little round-shouldered girl, the same person who had appeared at the window and whom i had taken for a child.60

the “little band of robbers” mentioned here appears as if copied from a short story by Blicher with his fondness precisely for gypsies and other outcasts, and, as noticed by Fenger,61 Kierkegaard’s presentation of man–wife–daughter reminds conspicuously of Blicher’s description of the farmer, his wife and their daughter Cecilia in “the Hosier and his daughter.” Fenger finds a similar Blicher influence in Kierkegaard’s description of his journey to Jutland from July 17—according to Fenger the correct date is July 1962— to august 6, 1840. indeed, as particularly Blicheresque with regards to setting, SKS 17, 11, aa:2 / KJN 1, 7. s.s. Blicher, “Himmelbjerget,” in Blicher, Samlede Noveller, vol. 1, pp. 259–90. 59 SKS 17, 12–13, aa:4 / KJN 1, 8. 60 ibid. the similarity with Blicher is also noted by Fenger, Kierkegaard-Myter og Kierkegaard-Kilder, p. 92. in addition, it should be mentioned that one of Blicher’s most popular short stories is titled “røverstuen” [the robbers’ den], in Nordlyset, vol. 2, 1827, pp. 226–83. 61 Fenger, Kierkegaard-Myter og Kierkegaard-Kilder, p. 105. 62 ibid., p. 140. 57 58

Steen Steensen Blicher: The Melancholy Poet of the Jutland Heath

61

the encounter and finally the concluding reflection, one can point to the following passage: the visit at Hald; the carefree old man i met who lay on his back in the heather with only a stick in his hand. He accompanied me to the non mill. we came to a stream called Koldbæk; he assured me that it was the most delicious water in the whole region, whereupon he went down to it, lay full length on his stomach and drank from it. we continued on our way, and he confided to me that he actually had started out with the intention of begging. what a happy fellow! so unconcerned as he slept there in the heather, so content refreshing himself there with the cold water....and this is the life we are brought up to disdain! and what a life the rest of us lead, whether we toil and moil or whether by sleeping we have more than we need! the earth no longer yields by itself what human life needs for sustenance, but nevertheless does not such a life remind us of our paradisal origin?63

another example would be from the succeeding text passage: a walk on the heath. (the wooded area near Hald. the woman and the little boy who hid in the thicket when i came along, and although unwilling to look at me, answered my question.) i lost my way; in the distance loomed a dark mass which restlessly undulated to and fro. i thought it was a woods. i was utterly amazed, since i knew there was no woods in the vicinity except the one i had just left. alone on the burning heath, surrounded on all sides by sheer sameness except for the undulating sea straight ahead of me. i became positively seasick and desperate over not being able to get closer to the woods in spite of all my vigorous walking. i never reached it, either, for when i came out on the main road to viborg it was still visible; but now that i had the white road as a starting point, i saw that it was the heathered hills on the other side of viborg Lake. simply because a person has such a wide vista out on the heath he has nothing at all to measure with; he walks and walks, objects do not change since there actually is no object (an object always requires the other by virtue of which it becomes an ob-ject. But this [other] is not the eye; the eye is the associating factor).64

the scenery, the Jutland heath, the wide horizon, and the two characters that the wandering Kierkegaard encounters as well as—once again the existential reflection could have been taken right out of a short story by Blicher—even though one cannot point to one single text as model. Furthermore, it should be noted that in 1828 Blicher had published a short story entitled “the Jews at Hald.”65 Here, the narrator on the opening pages—exactly as in Kierkegaard’s text—also encounters a stranger, “an old but still sturdy man.”66 However, as Langballe has correctly observed,67 Kierkegaard did not confide to his journals that which truly inspired him in Blicher’s writings, and this inspiration, anyway, did not come to fruition until 1843. its impact can be found in Kierkegaard’s SKS 19, 197, not6:18 / JP 5, 5464. SKS 19, 198, not6:19 / JP 2, 2276. 65 s.s. Blicher, “Jøderne paa Hald,” Nordlyset, vol. 5, 1828, pp. 5–54. (reprinted in Blicher, Samlede Noveller, vol. 1, 1833, pp. 164–213.) 66 Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 11, p. 169. 67 Langballe, Anlangendes et menneske, pp. 423ff. 63 64

62

Sven Hakon Rossel

breakthrough work Either/Or. He published it under the pseudonym “victor eremita,” a name not copied directly but nevertheless inspired by Blicher’s lesser known “the Hermit on Bolbjerg” from 1834, a frame short story.68 in the same way as victor emerita discovers a’s and B’s papers, the crucial texts of Blicher’s story are found accidentally and then handed over to the narrator. these texts on loose pieces of paper, a sort of undated, fragmentary diary composed by the hermit Christian, who lives in a solitary hut on the cliff of Bolbjerg on the western coast of Jutland, are printed toward the conclusion before the frame story is resumed but contains the actual plot. a similar technique Blicher also employs in his short story “The Jews at Hald.” Here the individual texts are short, reflective prose texts, which formally remind the reader of Kierkegaard’s “diapsalmata.” with regard to content, the spleen-like mood “diapsalmata” is clearly related to the initial spiritual situation of the young Christian as it is reflected in his earliest notes, such as in the following: How can this happen? even though i am not yet thirty years of age, it seems to me that i have lived hundred years? Can one take possession of time in the same way as one takes possession of one’s share of an inheritance? and—then squander it before it is handed out?69

Likewise, it is characteristic that Christian, when he is faced with the choice of accepting or rejecting the invitation by a woman of royal blood but with a doubtful reputation, does not make that choice, just like Kierkegaard’s aesthete: “marry, and you will regret it. do not marry, and you will also regret it,”—a quotation, which Blicher, incidentally, has paid attention to.70 Victor Eremita finds the writings of A, the aesthete, and the letters of B, the ethicist, in a secret compartment in an old desk. He dates these papers to the year 1834 which happens to be the same year as the fourth volume of Blicher’s Collected Short Stories was published containing “the Hermit on Bolberg.” the short story itself tells of Christian (sic.!) the hermit, (originally a true aesthete) who in his youth let himself be seduced into a purely erotic relationship with “the high lady,” who subsequently treats him like her toy.71 then Christian encounters his true love, Bodil: “Bodil! which sweet sound this name entails! Bodil! the most beautiful of all names! —each time i hear it, my heart starts to beat in the loveliest way; and a longing takes possession of me—but softly and tenderly,”72 a rapt description, which calls to mind Johannes’ lyrical eulogy in “the seducer’s diary” from Either/Or when he encounters Cordelia: i have seen her, but it is as if i had seen a heavenly revelation—so completely has her image vanished again for me. in vain do i summon all the powers of my soul in order to

68 69 70 71 72

s.s. Blicher, “eneboeren paa Bolbjerg,” in Blicher, Samlede Noveller. Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 19, p. 141. SKS 2, 47 / EO1, 38. Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 19, p. 140. ibid., p. 145.

Steen Steensen Blicher: The Melancholy Poet of the Jutland Heath

63

conjure up this image. if i ever see her again, i shall be able to recognize her instantly, even though she stands among a hundred others....73

when Christian now wishes to disengage himself from his demonic “mistress,” as he now condescendingly calls her,74 she inflicts a cruel revenge on him by having his wife and baby child killed. Finally, the reader encounters Christian in his hut on Bolbjerg, where he atones for his guilt, his sins, as a religiously purified and hence victorious hermit—he, too, is a Victor Eremita: god is just. —through my sinful life i had made myself unworthy of a happy marriage. my conscience had fallen asleep, therefore it had to be awakened through a shock. it is an act of grace by the all-wise god that he allows me to atone for my transgressions through prolonged penitence and hard work....patiently i shall suffer, so that once i can be united with my beloved in His beautiful heaven.75

thus, Blicher has written a story which, in fact, sketches all three of Kierkegaard’s stages. Kierkegaard may have used yet another short story by Blicher to illustrate his stages. in the section “rotation of Crops” in Either/Or, he lets his aesthete use an example of a gypsy woman who “carried her husband on her back throughout life” in order to illustrate the boredom and burden of marriage.76 Langballe suggests77 that Kierkegaard has found this scene in Blicher’s short story “gypsy-Life” from 1829.78 in a passage here, Blicher intends to illustrate marital love by depicting a wandering gypsy woman, on her way with her little child, who patiently and as a matter of course carries her husband, who is missing his feet, on her back. whereas Kierkegaard’s aesthete and ethicist both express themselves through diary entries, essays and letters, the religious stage is in Either/Or presented in the manuscript for a sermon, “ultimatum,” which concludes the work. this sermon has been sent to the ethicist by an older friend, who is a pastor in Jutland. Langballe concludes correctly79 that Kierkegaard with this Jutland minister has intended to portray Blicher: although in the depths of his soul he was deeply earnest, in his outward life he seemed to follow the advice “Let things take their course.” scholarly studies enthralled him, but he was no good at taking the examinations. in his theological examination, he managed no more than a haud illaudabilis [not unpraiseworthy].80 Five years ago, he was stuck out in a little parish on the heath in Jutland.... “the heath in Jutland,” he says, “is a real SKS 2, 313ff. / EO1, 323. Steen Steensen Blichers Samlede Skrifter, vol. 19, p. 145. 75 ibid., p. 149. 76 SKS 2, 286 / EO1, 297. 77 Langballe, Anlangendes et menneske, pp. 429–30. 78 s.s. Blicher, “Kjeltringliv,” in Nordlyset, vol. 10, 1829, pp. 410–33. (reprinted in Blicher, Samlede Noveller, vol. 1, pp. 235–59.) 79 Langballe, Anlangendes et menneske, p. 424. 80 this statement, however, is incorrect. in fact, Blicher passed his theological examination on april 21, 1809 with the grade laud [satisfactory]. 73 74

64

Sven Hakon Rossel playground for me, a private study room beyond compare. i go out there on saturday and meditate my sermons, and everything unfolds for me. i forget every actual listener and gain an ideal one; i achieve total absorption in myself. therefore, when i step into the pulpit, it is as if i were still standing out there on the heath, where my eyes see no human being, where my voice rises to its full power in order to drown out the storm.” 81

this portrait is strictly based on intuition—Kierkegaard and Blicher never met—but it is nevertheless correct. above all, Blicher’s love for the Jutland heath is genuinely rendered and, in fact, Blicher’s examination for a degree in theology was by no means brilliant. But more important are the introduction’s concluding lines, which more than anything else illustrate the concord between the two, steen steensen Blicher and søren Kierkegaard, a concord which is also underscored by the fact that Kierkegaard’s own father was born in one of the poorest areas on the Jutland heath and being a hosier even shared an occupation which has given the title to Blicher’s superb short story from 1829: in this sermon he [sc. the pastor in Jutland] has grasped what i have said and what i would like to have said to you; he has expressed it better than i am able to. take it, then; read it. i have nothing to add except that i have read it and thought about myself, read it and thought about you. 82

This is an unqualified and thought-provoking tribute to a great Danish writer who unfortunately is much too little known abroad but nevertheless important enough to have caught the attention of and even inspired a world-renowned philosopher.

81 82

SKS 3, 317 / EO2, 337–8. (Translation modified.) SKS 3, 318 / EO2, 338.

Bibliography I. Blicher’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Samlede Noveller, 2nd printing, vols. 1–5, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1833–39 (ASKB 1521–1523). Vestlig Profil af den cimbriske Halvøe fra Hamborg til Skagen, Copenhagen: C. steen 1839 (ASKB 1524). Trækfuglene: Naturconcert, randers: smiths Forlag 1838 (ASKB 1525). (ed.), Nordlyset, may, 1828, randers (ASKB u 22). Samlede Digte, 2nd ed., vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1835–36 (ASKB u 23). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Blicher none. III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Blicher albeck, ulla, “Blicher,” in Kierkegard Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9), pp. 112–17. Fenger, Henning, “Kierkegaard and Blicher,” in his Kierkegaard, the Myths and Their Origins. Studies in Kierkegaardian Papers and Letters, trans. by george C. Schoolfield, New Haven and London: Yale University Press 1980, pp. 123–31; see also p. 39; pp. 87–9; pp. 110–11; pp. 173–4; p. 176. (originally published as Kierkegaard-Myter og Kierkegaard-Kilder. 9 Kildekritiske studier i de Kierkegaardske papirer, breve og aktstykker, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976 (Odense University Studies in Scandinavian Languages and Literatures, vol. 7) pp. 102–7; see also p.40; pp. 76–7; pp. 92–3; pp. 140–4). Langballe, Jesper, “staffeten til Kierkegaard,” in his Anlangendes et menneske Blichers forfatterskab—selvopgør og tidsopgør, odense: syddansk universitetsforlag 2004, pp. 400–34; see also p. 11; p. 14; p. 64; p. 66; p. 71; pp. 73–4; p. 76; p. 96; p. 140; p. 154; p. 205; pp. 223ff.; p. 237; p. 239; p. 243; p. 289; p. 297; p. 300; pp. 365–6; pp. 369–70; p. 446; p. 487; p. 489; p. 494; p. 510; p. 514; p. 516; p. 521; p. 527. rubow, paul v., Kierkegaard og hans Samtidige, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel nordisk Forlag 1950, p. 20.

august Bournonville: Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and the “noble art of terpsichore” nathaniel Kramer

on the eve of his departure to stockholm for a three-year engagement with stockholm’s royal theater, august Bournonville describes to a group of wellwishers the impact søren Kierkegaard had on him: an excellent danish philosopher has written a lengthy dissertation on the concept of irony. i admit with modesty that i have not yet read it, since i have only perused and digested very little of the aforesaid author. on the other hand, i enjoyed the great happiness of often walking with him and refreshing myself with his insatiable fount of knowledge and perspicacity. one thing i did discover, that irony is not identical with ridiculousness, mockery or bitterness, but is on the contrary an important element in our spiritual existence—the fortification with alcohol that takes away the sickly sweetness of a wine’s grapes, the jet of cold water that dampens a fever, in short the smile through tears that prevents us from becoming lachrymose. i will not claim that all friends here gathered know me to my inner being, but their acquaintance with me is sufficient to realize that it is more feeling than irony that plays the main role in my life. i and my art belong properly to a sentimental time and direction, i have unceasingly lived in a battle with the external influence of irony; and I will not deny that it has dominated me so much that i have often felt strange and embarrassed in the middle of its atmosphere of self-parody. Today for the first time I have realized its true worth.…It is certain that after our standards I possess too little irony, but that supply which i have been able to collect in so many years of this ingredient will now be to my benefit.…If I should begin to laugh and cry at the same time, then this gathering must admit: Can a man and artist achieve more.1

although Bournonville admittedly read little of Kierkegaard, his walks with Kierkegaard through the streets of Copenhagen certainly had their effect on him. Knud arne Jürgensen suggests that while Bournonville was not a student of philosophy, he was by nature reflective and thus receptive to the philosophical turns these walks with Kierkegaard apparently took. Bournonville’s understanding of irony in the description above, if dramatic, is also perceptive and demonstrates a keen grasp of Kierkegaard’s concept. Knud arne Jürgensen, The Bournonville Tradition, vols. 1–2, London: dance Books 1997, vol. 1, pp. 66–7. 1

68

Nathaniel Kramer

How this unlikely choice of walking companions came to be is not known but Kierkegaard enjoyed his tours along the streets of Copenhagen with many of the city’s eminent figures. As the ballet-master of The Royal Theater for almost fifty years, Bournonville certainly enjoyed a visibility and renown and not just in Copenhagen but throughout Europe. If the remarks to his well-wishers appear flattering toward Kierkegaard, Bournonville, however, also hints at a fundamental difference between the two when he acknowledges that his life had been spent in opposition to irony. if Bournonville enjoyed these excursions with Kierkegaard, refreshing himself at that fountain of knowledge and shrewd intellect as he says, Bournonville had other opinions of Kierkegaard as well. these other opinions are glimpsed in the wake of Kierkegaard’s attack on Bishop mynster (1775–1854) and the danish state Church. in a journal entry dated december 29, 1854, Bournonville writes “we had a pleasant time, but Høedt displeases me by defending søren Kierkegaard’s vile attack on münster.”2 the Høedt referred to here is Frederik Ludvig Høedt (1820–85), an instructor and actor at the royal theater. among the other guests at Bournonville’s evening social were Holger simon paulli (1810–91), the composer responsible for composing much of Bournonville’s ballet music and one who was related, albeit distantly, to the late Bishop mynster. Bournonville, of course, was not alone in his denunciation of Kierkegaard but the unsympathetic stance to Kierkegaard is revealing. religiously and socially conservative as he was, Bournonville was certainly not one to back Kierkegaard and his one-man assault on the revered bishop and the institution of the danish state Church. Bournonville undoubtedly saw Kierkegaard’s actions as a violation of decency and contrary to the strong sense of danishness his father had inculcated in him. perhaps further indicative of the differences that separated these two men is the fact that Bournonville’s substantial autobiography, My Theater Life, bears no mention of Kierkegaard.3 Filled with stories, letters, and anecdotes about the luminaries of nineteenth-century denmark, Kierkegaard is conspicuously absent. whatever this may suggest about the differing temperaments of the two men, in what follows, I am to argue for a richer and more significant encounter between the two that deserves attention. I. Bournonville’s Significance and Biography august Bournonville was one of the leading lights of the danish golden age and became recognized as an internationally important figure in the world of ballet.4 Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1996, p. 101. 3 august Bournonville, My Theatre Life, trans. by patricia mcandrew, middletown: wesleyan university press 1979. 4 other sources in english on Bournonville include Bournonvilleana, trans. by gaye Kynoch, ed. by marianne Hallar and alette scavenius, Copenhagen: rhodos 1992 and walter terry’s biography of Bournonville, The King’s Ballet Master, new York: dodd, mead & Co. 1979. Jürgensen’s is probably the best and most exhaustive account of Bournonville and his ballets in english, see The Bournonville Tradition. A fine general source in Danish is Den 2

Bournonville: Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and the “Noble Art of Terpsichore”

69

employed as dancer, choreographer and ballet-master at the the danish royal Ballet for more than fifty years, Bournonville left a legacy that not only garnered him international recognition and fame but also positioned Copenhagen as a significant center for ballet, the last an unlikely distinction for the small European capital and a theater that had to split time as opera house, play house, and ballet theater.5 Bournonville’s legacy rests on the more than fifty ballets which he either choreographed himself, performed in, or adapted from others’ ballets. He also created numerous divertissements, single pas and dances. He established a repertory that is still performed to this day not only by the royal danish Ballet but by international ballet companies as well. this repertory, referred to as the Bournonville tradition, includes eight ballets (including Bournonville’s adaptation and the only extant version of aumer’s La Sylphide (1836), Napoli (1842), a favorite of the danish court to this day, and A Folk Tale (1854): a typical ballet in the national romantic style). Bournonville was born to antoine Bournonville (1760–1843) and the swedish born Lovisa sundberg, antoine Bournonville’s housekeeper, on august 21, 1805. although it might go without saying that much is owed to a father and mother for a child’s fortunes, in the case of august Bournonville, this is no empty statement. the fame and legacy of Bournonville and the prominence of Copenhagen as a center of ballet owes itself, for more reasons than one, to antoine Bournonville and his fateful decision to remain in stockholm and become a part of gustav iii’s royal swedish Ballet instead of returning to his native paris. a pupil of Jean georges noverre (1727–1810), the great French choreographer and ballet-master, antoine Bournonville was an accomplished French-trained ballet dancer in his own right and, after gustav iii’s assassination, left for Copenhagen where he later succeeded vincenzo galeotti (1733–1816) as ballet-master of the royal danish Ballet. Between antoine and his son august, the Bournonville name is associated with almost an entire century of ballet at the royal theater. antoine Bournonville thus grew up surrounded not only by ballet but part of a ballet pedigree that involves some of the best-known and most significant figures of the early nineteenth century. Bournonville also grew up immersed in the crosscurrents of competing ballet styles. noverre and galeotti represent two contrasting approaches to ballet that had fused themselves in antoine Bournonville’s classicallyinspired ballet style. noverre represents the classical French ballet d’action while galeotti’s style was the italian ballo pantomimo. within this balletic cosmopolitanism, the young Bournonville was to develop his own unique style and alter the future of danish ballet. after studying with his father and performing in several ballets himself, Bournonville traveled with him to paris in may 1820 to study ballet with the greatest dancer of the age, marie-Jean-augustin vestris, known as auguste vestris (1760–1842). it was in paris that Bournonville furthered the training in the classical ballet vocabulary his father had first provided him in Copenhagen. Ultimately, kongelige danske ballet, ed. by svend Kragh-Jacobsen and torben Krogh, Copenhagen: selskabet til udgivelse af kulturskrifter 1952. 5 Bournonville’s engagement with the royal theater was not continuous nor was he always contracted simultaneously as dancer, choreographer, and ballet-master.

70

Nathaniel Kramer

Bournonville would secure this style in denmark even as it was disappearing in other parts of Europe. However, it was also during this first trip to Paris that he was introduced to a bold new style of dance. during the 1820s, ballet in paris was in the midst of a profound transformation. this transformation was the shift from noverre’s classical style of ballet to a romantic conception of ballet. Bournonville was fascinated with this shift to romanticism and much to his father’s disapproval. Bournonville would in fact return to paris in 1824 where he would remain for the next six years studying romantic ballet under the tutelage of Baptiste petit and pierre gardel (1758–1840). He would also study with two of the leading choreographers of the day, Jean aumer (1774–1833) and Louis Henry (1784–1836). the clash between classical and romantic ballet as well as French and italian styles thus led to a further rich and productive cross-fertilization that was to mark august Bournonville’s own choreography and style. on march 10, 1826, Bournonville passed his examination at the royal music Academy in Paris which qualified him to perform at the Paris Opéra. He made his début on april 5, 1826 in Louis milon’s (1766–1845) ballet Nina. after performances in Berlin and London, Bournonville returned to Copenhagen in 1829 and was contracted for the next 18 years to become the principal dancer and director of the royal danish Ballet. in 1836 he was offered the position of ballet-master to the royal danish Court in addition to his other duties. when these positions expired in 1848–49, Bournonville was offered a second term of seven years as ballet-master and stage director for the royal theater. the position of stage director meant that Bournonville was involved in the production of operas at the royal theater as well. on the one hand, this enabled Bournonville to develop his artistic talents in other directions but, on the other, it also meant that Bournonville was increasingly engaged in the already complicated management of the royal theater. the theater housed not only ballet and opera, but drama as well as the royal choir. Conflicts with the director of the time, Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860), were inevitable. Bournonville was also engaged in a series of famous disputes during this period with four of his leading ballerinas. among them were andrea Krætzmer (1811–89) and Lucile grahn (1819–1907). each of these ballerinas would go on to success at other european ballet centers. while Bournonville does not come off well in the material on these conflicts, Knud Arne Jürgensen argues that at least part of the conflict had its root in Bournonville’s refusal to grant the ballerina the privileged place that she had become accustomed to in romantic ballet. one of the characteristic features of Bournonville’s choreography is that he maintained the balance between the male and female dancer at a time when the function of the male dancer was declining, playing a more supporting role to the ballerina. after his contract with the royal theater ended in 1854, Bournonville embarked on a series of short-term engagements with other theaters throughout europe. the most significant of these was his appointment as artistic director of Stockholm’s royal theater. Here he supervised the repertory, staged several operas and plays besides mounting a number of his own ballets. after his swedish interim he returned to denmark where he was once again engaged as choreographer, ballet-master and/or stage director at Copenhagen’s royal theater for a series of shorter periods between 1865 and 1877, retiring finally at the end of the 1876–77 season.

Bournonville: Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and the “Noble Art of Terpsichore”

71

with the fact that Bournonville’s tenure at the royal theater is punctuated with so many absences, Jürgensen has challenged the romantic view of Bournonville as an artist working out his own distinctive style isolated from the ballet centers of the time. Bournonville instead traveled widely and participated in the theater and ballet life of many of the capitals throughout europe during his long career. these absences abroad served to revitalize Bournonville, and his choreography often reveals the impact of his travels. as is the case with so many of the authors and painters of the danish golden age, Bournonville is as much a product of cosmopolitanism and internationalism, and he continued to be very much a part of the international scene throughout his career. indeed, it was to be this international aspect that would make Bournonville a crucial figure for the twentieth century. Bournonville’s significance for the twentieth century is unmatched as a resource for understanding romantic ballet. Bournonville has indeed come to be synonymous with romantic ballet and “represent[s] today the most extensive single artistic contribution from that era which has survived on the stage.”6 Bournonville drew on many of the themes and motifs of the romantic including an emphasis on the supernatural. His adaptation of the French ballet La Sylphide remains the only extant version and has entered the Bournonville repertory as one of the most performed ballets today. Bournonville also incorporated a romantic nationalistic sentiment into many of his ballets, basing some of them on themes drawn from danish history. in addition to the ballets themselves, part of the significance of Bournonville lies in the considerable writings he left for posterity about ballet and the romantic period. this contribution is not only significant for understanding Bournonville’s own ballets and the Bournonville tradition, but also documents his adaptations of other romantic period ballets and provides valuable insight into the performance practice of the period as well as contemporary analysis of ballet of the period. on the november 30, 1879, Bournonville collapsed on a street in Copenhagen on his way home from church services. He was quickly taken to Copenhagen municipal Hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. although he left 23 ballets of his own and divertissements, the Bournonville repertory declined rapidly during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. Largely through the efforts of Hans Beck (1861– 1952), one of Bournonville’s pupils, the Bournonville tradition has been preserved. today it remains a vibrant and integral part of the royal danish Ballet, and the repertory has been adopted, transformed, and enjoyed throughout the world. II. Kierkegaard, Bournonville, and Ballet If the significance of Bournonville for Danish and nineteenth-century ballet is wellattested and beyond dispute, his significance for Kierkegaard has received little attention. those studies that do attend to the relationship are slight in substance and only suggestive of the possible connections. For example, david michael Levin’s “philosophers and the dance” sees edwin denby’s discussion of the ballet leap as particularly resonant with Kierkegaard’s conception of the leap. Levin writes that 6

Jürgensen, The Bournonville Tradition, vol. 2, p. 125.

72

Nathaniel Kramer

“denby gives us a stunning account of the leap in classical ballet. (Compare it to Kierkegaard’s in Fear and Trembling. the similarities are unsettling).”7 denby’s account of the leap, to be sure, does indeed give a very descriptive account of the technical prowess and skill that goes into such a performance, but with regard to the relationship to Kierkegaard’s leap it is left to the reader to make the comparisons. and Levin’s parenthetical remains simply an aside. two of the most sustained discussions of Kierkegaard’s relation to dance more broadly are Kimerer L. Lamothe’s “the poet and the dancer” in her book Between Dancing and Writing: The Practice of Religious Studies and Heidi gilpin’s “Lifelessness in movement, or How do the dead move? tracing displacement and disappearance for movement performance.”8 although there is only a single reference to Bournonville (and then only in a footnote), Lamothe’s chapter does draw some provocative conclusions about Kierkegaard’s usage of the figure of the dancer. LaMothe sees de silentio’s use of the figure of the dancer as functioning in opposition to the philosophical as it is figured by Hegel. In doing so, de silentio, according to Lamothe, draws an intimate connection between dancing and faith. gilpin’s article likewise does not pursue Kierkegaard’s relation to Bournonville but instead takes up the “idea of movement” as it is found in Constantius’ Repetition: A Venture in Experimenting Psychology. the idea of movement and repetition as developed by Constantius is pursued here in terms of performance as “oriented towards the impossible desire to stop disappearance.”9 indeed, this is precisely what Constantius is after: to somehow arrest the loss that occurs in lived experience. But Constantius discovers that repetition, instead of naming that which stems disappearance, actually emphasizes the loss. For gilpin, this dialectic of presence and absence is apprehended profoundly in the movement of the dancer who both repeats what has been lost in order to regain it but in doing so also loses it again. i will discuss these two essays further in the following. despite the slimness of secondary material on the relation between Kierkegaard and Bournonville, there are rich and provocative connections to be drawn between the various philosophical themes Kierkegaard presents throughout his oeuvre and ballet. One of the most significant of these associations, as suggested by Levin, is to be found in Kierkegaard’s famed “leap.” in Fear and Trembling, de silentio compares the knights of infinity to ballet dancers: “The knights of infinity are ballet dancers and have elevation.”10 as de silentio explains, the reason for such a comparison has to do with the particular kind of movement the knight makes; the movement of infinity is david michael Levin, “philosophers and the dance,” What is Dance? Readings in Theory and Criticism, ed. by marshall Cohen and roger Copeland, oxford: oxford university press 1983, p. 92. see also edwin denby, “Flight of the dancer,” in his Looking at the Dance, new York: Horizon press 1968, pp. 23–9. 8 Kimerer L. Lamothe, “the poet and the dancer,” in her Between Dancing and Writing: The Practice of Religious Studies, new York: Fordham university press 2004, pp. 85–102; Heidi gilpin, “Lifelessness in movement, or How do the dead move? tracing displacement and disappearance for movement performance,” in Corporealities: Dancing Knowledge, Culture, and Power, ed. by susan Leigh Foster, new York: routledge 1996, pp. 106–28. 9 gilpin, “Lifelessness in movement, or How do the dead move?” p. 101. 10 SKS 4, 135 / FT, 41. 7

Bournonville: Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and the “Noble Art of Terpsichore”

73

compared to the leap of a ballet dancer. He continues, “[i]t is supposed to be the most difficult feat for a ballet dancer to leap into a specific posture in such a way that he never once strains for the posture but in the very leap assumes the posture. perhaps there is no ballet dancer who can do it—but this knight does it.”11 while the critical apparatus in the Hong translation as well as the new Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter suggests that there are other possibilities to be understood by the word “elevation,” the figure of the ballet dancer as he or she leaps into the air and returns to the ground again provocatively mirrors the leap of faith.12 Lamothe, for example, suggests that the very shape of the ballet leap is itself significant for understanding what de silentio means by faith: the leap is a movement in which a dancer springs off the ground with one foot, hovers for a moment off the ground, and then lands on the other foot. as such, it embodies in one explosive action a double movement—a movement of leaving the earth and returning to it, like the knight of faith. in a leap, as in faith, although the two movements contradict one another (going up, going down), they appear in that act as one seamless arc, connecting earth to earth…the unity exists in the form of a singular, temporal finite act. It exists only in passing—in the flash of its occurrence.13

the shape of the ballet leap, in the way that it connects earth to earth, calls to mind the bridging of heaven and earth characteristic of faith. the balletic leap as a leap of faith thus unifies in the moment of its performance the temporal and the divine. edwin denby’s description of the leap likewise lends itself well to such a comparison of the leap and faith. if denby, however, focuses on the leap as a kind of test of the physical prowess of the dancer, he also points to the failure of the leap of faith that de silentio sees in the knight of infinity: the most obvious test for the dancer comes in the descent from the air, in the recovery from the leap. she has to catch herself in a knee bend that begins with the speed she falls at, and progressively diminishes so evenly that you don’t notice the transition from the air to the ground…[t]his is the “divine moment” that makes her look as if she alighted like a feather. it doesn’t happen when she lands, you see, it happens later. after that, straightening up from the bend must have the feeling of a new start; it is no part of the jump, it is a new breath, a preparation for the next thing she means to do.14

it is in some sense that this “divine moment” as denby calls it, escapes the knight of infinite resignation, keeping it from being a knight of faith. De silentio notes that although the knight of infinite resignation is able to launch into the air and assume the pose of the dancer in mid-air, the completion of the leap, which is to say the landing, reveals a fundamental difference from the knight of faith. “But every ibid. among the possible references is a military reference in which a ball shot from a cannon and the arc it achieves are described as elevation as well as a more religious meaning in which the wafer is “elevated” as it is being consecrated by the priest. one also hears a reference to Hegel’s Aufhebung. see the entry “elevation” in SKS K4, 120. 13 Lamothe, “the poet and the dancer,” p. 92. 14 denby, “Flight of the dancer,” p. 26. 11

12

74

Nathaniel Kramer

time [the knights of infinite resignation] come down, they are unable to assume the posture immediately, they waver for a moment, and this wavering shows that they are aliens in the world.”15 it is this failure to assume the position immediately and the waver, however slight it may be, that gives the knight of infinity away. “One does not need to see them in the air; one needs only to see them the instant they touch and have touched the earth—and then one recognizes them.”16 That the knight of infinite resignation cannot accomplish such a transition back to earth, the completion of the “divine moment” of faith as it were, reinscribes the difference between the temporal and the divine, between the world and god. the grand jeté is recognizably one of the most difficult feats performed by a ballet dancer. it is worth noting in this context that Bournonville criticized himself for having, as he put it, a “certain hardness in my elevation.”17 Because of this difficulty, elevation was to become an important emphasis in the Bournonville style. erik aschengreen, in his “Bournonville style and tradition,” writes that typical of the Bournonville style “is the grand jeté en avant with the open arms—‘the danish embrace’ as Walter Terry called it—and this step had a stunning, flying effect on a raked stage. elevation is also one of the secrets of Bournonville dancers whose daily classes ended with long and complicated enchaînements designed to enhance their elevation.”18 that de silentio attends to this feature of Bournonville’s style suggests the prominence and important role it played in the choreography of Bournonville. while the Bournonville style, in general, was not given to bravura or virtuoso display, it was characterized by a refined, technically demanding kind of dance; one that captured a sense of lightness and the ethereal. de silentio’s focus on the effort and difficulty of performing such a leap—“perhaps there is no ballet dancer who can do it”—suggests once again a comparison with the difficulty of faith. That de silentio alights on this figure of the leap and the ballet dancer as analogous to faith is certainly curious. indeed, such a comparison of Kierkegaard’s famed leap of faith to a ballet grand jeté is provocative because it challenges the more philosophically based views of Kierkegaard’s leap. the inspiration for Kierkegaard’s leap has traditionally been located in Jacobi and Lessing. one might consult, for example, Climacus’ extensive discussion of the leap in relation to Jacobi and Lessing in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments.19 de silentio’s use of the ballet dancer, however, seems a far cry from this traditionally philosophical orientation of Kierkegaard’s leap. indeed, such an exclusively philosophical conception of the leap runs contrary to what Kierkegaard seems to have intended by faith in the first place. In figuring the leap as a balletic grand jéte, de silentio calls attention to the physical action and performative dimensions of the leap itself. dance, as Lamothe SKS 4, 135 / FT, 41. ibid. 17 Jürgensen, The Bournonville Tradition, vol. 1, p. 33. 18 erik aschengreen, “Bournonville style and tradition,” Dance Research, vol. 4, no. 1, 1986, p. 53. 19 see especially SKS 7, 96ff. / CUP1, 99ff. it is noteworthy in these passages that mendelssohn is also referred to as having been a profound “thinker” of the leap. 15 16

Bournonville: Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and the “Noble Art of Terpsichore”

75

claims, has often been excluded from the discussion because it “appears to be a simple, nonverbal, pre-literate, unreflective incidence of sensory experience.”20 as such, dance, like faith, is marginalized and rendered peripheral to the concerns of philosophy. Lamothe thus exposes an opposition on the part of philosophy to the subjective, performative dimensions of faith and dance. In the use of such a figure, de silentio appears to shift the problem of defining faith in an abstract, distant, and philosophical sense to a more physical and concrete sense of action, a performance. a leap is something one does and not simply thinks. this challenge to the philosophical through the figure of the dancer furthermore reconfigures the very notion of the leap itself. undoubtedly, because the concept of the leap has been so laden with philosophical weight and significance, the overt reference to Bournonville and to ballet has been obscured. at stake here, however, is not just the leap as a leap of faith but the leap as it is employed throughout Kierkegaard’s oeuvre. alastair mcKinnon has lamented the relative lack of material on Kierkegaard’s leap, citing his research that too often the leap has been associated with faith when in reality Kierkegaard never used the precise phrase.21 mcKinnon goes so far as to claim that Kierkegaard had, in fact, good reasons for keeping the two apart. in opposition to what Lamothe has proposed, mcKinnon argues that the leap as a discrete performance and faith as an ongoing relationship are inherently opposed: [t]he leap is both an ontological discontinuity and, resulting therefrom, a human act by which the individual bridges that discontinuity whether, for example, by passing from the quantitative to the qualitative or from thought to existence. By contrast, faith for Kierkegaard is a relationship to or with God and, in its specifically Christian form, one which must be constantly renewed every moment of one’s life. Hence the notion of a sudden, once-for-all leap into anything like a Kierkegaardian Christian faith is particularly incongruous and confused.22

although mcKinnon’s point is well taken, the image of the leap as developed by de silentio does suggest a connection to faith. Furthermore, in the use of such an image, faith appears to have a performative dimension as well as a discreteness—a beginning and an end—that can be perceived and identified. This discreteness need not mean a “once-for-all” leap as suggested by mcKinnon, but might be understood in a broader context of faith as a continuing relationship with god as itself a kind of ongoing dance performance. Faith figured as dance. if i am not ready to give up on the leap of faith in Kierkegaard just yet, mcKinnon’s point that the concept of the leap in the Kierkegaardian corpus has only a limited relationship to Kierkegaardian faith is well taken. The leap, as such, figures broadly in the Kierkegaardian corpus. as evidence of this, vigilius Haufniensis in The Concept of Anxiety also makes use of the figure of the leap but, interestingly enough in contrast to the foregoing, by comparing it to the demonic. it is in fact in Lamothe, “the poet and the dancer,” p. 94. see alastair mcKinnon, “Kierkegaard and the ‘Leap of Faith,’ ” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 16, 1993, pp. 107–25. 22 ibid., p. 116. 20 21

Nathaniel Kramer

76

Haufniensis’ discussion of the leap that the most specific and substantial references to Bournonville and ballet occur. Kierkegaard was often at the theater and most likely would have seen many of Bournonville’s ballets. peter tudvad in his Kierkegaards København speculates that Kierkegaard would probably have seen La Sylphide, for example, even though no direct mention is made of the ballet in Kierkegaard’s work.23 the only ballet that is mentioned by name is Bournonville’s ballet adaptation of goethe’s Faust. Kierkegaard had long been interested in the Faust theme, no doubt due to Frederik Christian sibbern’s (1785–1872) lectures in the summer of 1833. according to Henning Fenger, Kierkegaard’s interest was part of a more general wave of “goethe fever” that swept denmark in the 1830s.24 Bournonville’s Faust premiered at the royal theater on april 25, 1832 and was staged in memory of the late goethe who had died but a month earlier on 22 march. Bournonville was to revise his adaptation several times over the course of the next decade but his first staging of the ballet, the staging that concerns us here, was performed 32 times and was last performed on march 13, 1843. it was, however, the performances from June 10, 1842 to sometime toward the spring of 1843 that were to catch Kierkegaard’s attention. in these performances, Bournonville casts himself in the role of mephistopheles (previously he had played the role of Faust). But it was not just the fact of Bournonville himself that caught Kierkegaard’s eye, but the manner of Bournonville’s/mephistopheles’ entrance onto the stage. Haufniensis describes the entry of Bournonville/mephistopheles in The Concept of Anxiety thus: in this respect the ballet master, Bournonville, deserves great credit for his representation of mephistopheles. the horror that seizes one upon seeing mephistopheles leap in through the window and remain stationary in the position of the leap! this spring in the leap, reminding one of the leap of the bird of prey and of the wild beast, which doubly terrify because they commonly leap from a completely motionless position, has an infinite effect. Therefore Mephistopheles must walk as little as possible, because walking itself is a kind of transition to the leap and involves a presentiment of the possibility of the leap. The first appearance of Mephistopheles in the ballet Faust is therefore not a theatrical coup, but a very profound thought.25

this reaction of horror and terror speaks to what must have been a spectacular and dramatic moment in the course of the ballet. Bournonville, in the scenario for the ballet, which incidentally may have contributed to Haufniensis’ reaction, describes the entrance of mephistopheles in similarly dramatic terms: “the evil one doesn’t

23

p. 266.

see peter tudvad, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politikens forlag 2004,

see Henning Fenger’s brief discussion of Kierkegaard’s interest in goethe as well as Bournonville in his Kierkegaard: Myths and Their Origins, new Haven, Connecticut: Yale university press 1980, pp. 81–8. 25 SKS 4, 432–3 / CA, 131–2. 24

Bournonville: Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and the “Noble Art of Terpsichore”

77

wait long, thunder crashes, lightning and red flames illuminate the sinister figure and from a bookcase mephistopheles leaps.”26 Henning Fenger conjectures that Kierkegaard probably knew little about ballet and its conventions. more particularly, Kierkegaard would not have known that Bournonville/mephistopheles’ leap through an open window was part of the French tradition of ballet in which a dancer leaps, often through a window, to make their entrance on the stage. peter tudvad expounds on this manner of entrance by noting “Bournonville was to stand behind a blind door…which was hidden by a piece of scenery painted to look like a bookcase but which could be opened like a cupboard; but this piece of scenery had to be fastened onto one of the carts so that it could be moved back and forth together with a crate whereon mephistopheles could stand.”27 whatever Kierkegaard knew or did not know about ballet and French conventions, its impact on him is apparent. mephistopheles’ entrance, according to Haufniensis, is not just a dramatic moment among others in the ballet but a “profound thought.” the profound thought that Haufniensis sees expressed in this leaping entrance onto the stage is a depiction of the demonic personality. the demonic or “anxiety for the good” is a particular form of anxiety that twists the more positive dimensions of anxiety into a fear and repulsion of the good, a fear of “the restoration of freedom, redemption, salvation or whatever one would call it.”28 more particularly it is the characteristic of the sudden, a feature of the demonic personality, that Haufniensis uses Bournonville’s ballet to illustrate. the sudden, as Haufniensis describes it, is antithetical to continuity because “the good signifies continuity, for the first expression of salvation is continuity.”29 this negation of such continuity is what Haufniensis means by the sudden. when observing the demonic from a temporal standpoint, the demonic is given to sudden fits of starts and stops; the demonic halts and jerks never finishing anything because it has never really begun anything. To acquire the continuity found in the good there is the need of connection to some ordering force outside of oneself that would give steady, consistent and regular direction. Because the demonic has no particular world-view for which to live or around which to organize and thus harmonize its life, it is characterized as the sudden. the temporalizing of the sudden has to do with the conversion of a psychological and spiritual state into the physical aspect of motion and movement. initially, Haufniensis figures the movements of the demonic, of inclosing reserve and the sudden, as a spinning top. the continuity that such the spinning top has depends upon its incessant revolutions around its own pivot, its own self. Haufniensis describes this as a “pseudocontinuity.” thus, the demonic does have a kind of motion resembling the movement of the good, but it is revealed to be a motion that is turned in on itself, a “sad perpetuum mobile of monotonous sameness.”30 Haufniensis, however, moves from the figure of the top to the figure of the ballet dancer in his leap to further describe and explore the futility of the sudden. 26 27 28 29 30

tudvad, Kierkegaards København, p. 264. (my translation.) ibid. (my translation.) SKS 4, 421 / CA, 119. SKS 4, 431 / CA, 130. ibid.

78

Nathaniel Kramer

Bournonville’s/mephistopheles’ entrance onto the stage is indicative of the sudden because there is no preparation, no indication of a gathering of muscular force to prepare the body for a leap. instead, the leap arrives out of a completely motionless position. no one expects it. it simply happens. Haufniensis further insists on this suddenness in the character of Bournonville/mephistopheles by observing that he refrains from walking since “walking itself is a kind of transition to the leap and involves a presentiment of the possibility of the leap.”31 presented on stage, according to Kierkegaard’s reading, is not just a ballet but an exploration of the demonic personality in the character of Faust. this absence of transition in the demonic, the absence of warning and presentiment, also reinforces the bestial nature of the demonic. Haufniensis describes it as similar to the attack of a wild beast or the jumping into flight from a branch by a bird of prey. in this comparison of a psychological and spiritual state to the dramatic physical entrance of Bournonville/mephistopheles, Haufniensis points toward the gestural language of ballet, pantomime. Haufniensis writes: “without being the sudden as such, the mimical may express the sudden. in this respect the ballet master, Bournonville, deserves great credit for his representation of mephistopheles.”32 the “mimical” here refers to the dramatic art of representing action, character, emotion and thought by way of gestures and movement. in ballet, mime is used to propel the narrative forward by describing character with the body. Historically and especially in the influences that informed Bournonville’s own style of ballet, there had been a conflict over the function and place of mime within ballet. The clash between italian and French ballet was, at least in part, a clash over the role of mime. the italians developed a highly intricate and expressive vocabulary of gesture used to communicate all manner of nuance and sense in their ballo pantomimo. Characteristic of Bournonville’s style and choreography is his emphasis on the dancer’s ability to draw characters through gesture and movement. Bournonville was, however, rather ambivalent about the use of pantomime as a language of conventional gestures. instead, Bournonville saw pantomime as “a harmonious and rhythmic series of picturesque poses, gathered from nature and the classical models.”33 Bournonville’s adaptation of italian ballo pantomimo and the incorporation of the French style into his own resulted in the pursuit of something beyond conventional pantomime. Bournonville, in fact, called this his “dramatic truth.” although Bournonville’s “dramatic truth” and Kierkegaard’s “profound thought” are worlds apart, the fact that both see something fundamentally expressive and even expressive of truth in mime is worth paying attention to. For Haufniensis this profound truth discovered in pantomime is to be found in its opposition to other discursive registers. Haufniensis writes, “even though the word were terrible, even though it were a shakespeare, a Byron, or a shelley who breaks the silence, the word always retains its redeeming power, because all the despair and all the horror of evil expressed in a word are not as terrible as silence.”34 the most adequate depiction of 31 32 33 34

SKS 4, 432 / CA, 132. SKS 4, 432 / CA, 131. aschengreen, “Bournonville style and tradition,” p. 57. SKS 4, 432 / CA, 131.

Bournonville: Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and the “Noble Art of Terpsichore”

79

the demonic cannot be represented in language. Haufniensis had in fact commented earlier that communication, language, still has something about it of the continuous. the balletic use of mime offers, for Haufniensis, an important counter to verbal discourse. Likewise, Haufniensis objects to the musical as a register for expression of the demonic: “the author of Either/Or has pointed out that don giovanni is essentially musical. precisely in the same sense it is true that mephistopheles is essentially mimical.”35 Just as mozart’s Don Giovanni captures something essential about the seducer through mozart’s music, Bournonville has perceived the fundamental truth about the demonic in his representation of mephistopheles. it is ballet and its gestural, pantomimic mode of storytelling that becomes the best mode of representing the aspect of the suddenness of the demonic. there is something of a back-handed compliment to Bournonville and ballet in general when Haufniensis writes: “there is a ballet called Faust. Had its composer really understood what is implied in conceiving mephistopheles as mimical, it could never have occurred to him to make a ballet of Faust.”36 At first glance Haufniensis’ comment seems to reflect a common prejudice of the nineteenth century. Ballet had been long considered a diversion, a dance for entertainment. it lacked the aesthetic seriousness that other arts had long since acquired. its emphasis on spectacle and the technical prowess of the dancers, according to deborah Jowitt, led to its being rendered subordinate to the other arts. indeed an erotic component seemed to accompany this sense of ballet as spectacle: “[ballet] was…an excuse for watching pretty, lightly clad women disporting themselves.”37 Because of its associations with the amorous and the emotional, its aesthetic and philosophical significance was dismissed. théophile gautier, himself an ardent supporter of ballet, claimed that “dancing is little adapted to render metaphysical themes.”38 slowly during the nineteenth century, however, ballet came to acquire that aesthetic seriousness initially seen to be lacking. put in such a context, Haufniensis’ comments about the demonic and Bournonville reveal a more sophisticated conception of ballet, one that sees ballet as precisely suited to render such metaphysical themes. Haufniensis is careful here to clarify that ballet itself is not demonic. rather, it is capable of the proper expression of the demonic. Haufniensis asks “if one wants to clarify in a different way how the demonic is the sudden, the question of how the demonic can best be presented may be considered from a purely esthetic view point.”39 this aesthetic viewpoint that best represents the demonic is ballet and, in making such an assertion, Haufniensis joins the ranks of a relatively small cadre of engaged ballet critics.

ibid. ibid. 37 deborah Jowitt, “in pursuit of the sylph: Ballet in the romantic period,” in The Routledge Dance Studies Reader, ed. by alexandra Carter, new York: routledge 1999, p. 33. 38 ibid., p. 34. 39 SKS 4, 432 / CA, 131. 35 36

80

Nathaniel Kramer

the question of Kierkegaard’s appropriation of Bournonville and ballet in general leads us back to the question of figuration itself. By locating the more precise expression of the demonic in ballet and de silentio’s leap as well, Kierkegaard raises questions about how such representations rearticulate and revise the concept of the demonic as well as the leap. Kimerer Lamothe has suggested that the metaphoric weight of the image [of the dancer] does not depend on an opposition of the bodily to the intellectual, the outer to the inner, or the emotional to the rational. dancing appears as religion. it appears as a way of inhabiting religion; it engages thinking, feeling, and enacting…in Kierkegaard’s work, “dancing” has a meaning as a kind of doing that eludes the grasp of philosophical writing.40

Although the appropriation of the figure of the dance in The Concept of Anxiety might temper the idea that ballet and dance are exclusively bound to the domain of the religious in Kierkegaard, Lamothe’s point might be understood another way. the figure of the dancer repositions the endeavor to think of faith as well as the demonic in terms of performance and motion. Ballet and the figure of the ballet dancer as an image actively intervene and transform Kierkegaard’s concepts, thus coming to stand for what cannot be grasped or comprehended by philosophy. although Lamothe rejects the idea that dance as bodily performance simply opposes the intellectual in the above, the physical presence of the dancer does need to be accounted for in such a reformulation of Kierkegaard’s concepts. By locating not just faith but also other more spiritual movements (including demonic ones) in the figure of the dancer, Kierkegaard moves philosophy into the discourse of the corporeal, that of embodied experience. it is this emphasis on the body as a register of spiritual and psychological experience that represents a challenge to the philosophical. if writing comes to stand in Lamothe’s reading for an exclusively philosophical domain that stands in opposition to what cannot be finally apprehended, dancing and, in this case ballet, becomes a challenge to the abstraction produced by writing and language. In the dancing (leaping, miming) figure’s opposition to the inherently reflective and thus abstracted nature of philosophical discourse and language, Kierkegaard presents the body as a tangible and substantial category over and against the vapid obtuseness of the danish Hegelian rationalist language. such a grammar of gesture produced by ballet and the body points toward the expressiveness to be found in the non-verbal or the extra-verbal, something outside language. Kierkegaard turns therefore to the body, and in particular the movements of the body, as a locus for “reading” these experiences as if their very legibility depended upon the corporeal. the focus on the bodily here does not necessarily presume the body to be a natural or a “given,” but it does force a reconsideration of Kierkegaard’s interest in the idea of movement in general. indeed, Kierkegaard appears fascinated by the very notion of movement itself. For example, repetition, as both text and concept, looms large in this regard. Constantin, in attempting to verify the possibility of repetition, returns to Berlin to stay in the same hotel as he had on a previous visit, to go the same café, to eat in the same restaurant, and so on. Perhaps most significantly, Constantin will 40

Lamothe, “the poet and the dancer,” p. 85.

Bournonville: Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and the “Noble Art of Terpsichore”

81

return to the Königstädter theater to watch a dancing girl. Constantin is, however, devastated to find upon his return to this same theater, that “the little dancer who had enchanted me with her gracefulness, who so to speak, was on the verge of a leap, had already made the leap.”41 Constantin’s emphasis on the “verge” of the leap is analogous to a promise that had yet to be fulfilled. When Constantin returns, the leap has already taken place and without him being present, thus doubling the sense of loss. This figure as a figure of dynamic movement, of change, and of what time takes away from life reappears in “the seducer’s diary” and the Concluding Unscientific Postscript. although the references to ballet and Bournonville in particular are rather slight, occurring in only two books in the entire corpus, their value for Kierkegaard as metaphors are more substantial. indeed the extrapolation to the idea of movement in general suggests broader connections to the Kierkegaardian corpus that still need to be understood. The significance of the figure of the ballet dancer for Kierkegaard as a figure for the demonic and especially in relation to that arguably most famous of Kierkegaardian tropes, the leap, has yet to be fully accounted for. it is clear, however, that such a figure resonates particularly well with the perceived intent of Kierkegaard to counter the excesses of danish Hegelianism and of the philosophical in general. Kierkegaard thus finds in Bournonville’s ballet dancer a figure to do just this.

41

SKS 4, 44 / R, 170.

Bibliography I. Bournonville Performances Referenced by Kierkegaard Faust, premiered in Copenhagen on april 25, 1832, and was afterwards performed in various revisions with its last staging by Bournonville in Copenhagen on september 25, 1855. Kierkegaard was most interested in the performances in which Bournonville performed the part of mephistopheles, i.e., those performances from June 10, 1842 to march 13, 1843. II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Bournonville none. III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Bournonville denby, edwin, “Flight of the dancer,” in his Looking at the Dance, new York: Horizon press 1968, pp. 23–9. gilpin, Heidi, “Lifelessness in movement, or How do the dead move? tracing displacement and disappearance for movement performance,” in Corporealities: Dancing Knowledge, Culture, and Power, ed. by susan Leigh Foster, new York: routledge 1996, pp. 106–28. Jürgensen, Knud arne, The Bournonville Tradition, vols. 1–2, London: dance Books 1997, vol. 1, pp. 66–7. Lamothe, Kimerer L., “the poet and the dancer,” in her Between Dancing and Writing: The Practice of Religious Studies, new York: Fordham university press 2004, pp. 85–102. Levin, david michael, “philosophers and the dance,” What is Dance? Readings in Theory and Criticism, ed. by marshall Cohen and roger Copeland, oxford: oxford university press 1983, p. 92. tudvad, peter, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politikens Forlag 2004, p. 90; pp. 217–8; pp. 227–31; p. 239; p. 248; p. 253; p. 255; p. 264; p. 266; p. 270; p. 281; p. 287.

mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the emancipation of women Katalin nun

in Kierkegaard research there has for many years been a keen interest in Kierkegaard’s view on women and his opinions regarding their emancipation.1 this feminist-oriented secondary literature presents a range of interpretations of the many passages in Kierkegaard’s writings, where he deals with any number of thematic issues that have some bearing, for example, on the role of men and women in society, the institution of marriage or the differences between the sexes.2 thus, one often reads analyses of the attitude of Kierkegaard’s various pseudonyms to the other sex and sexuality in general; key themes include seduction, marriage or female despair. another part of this literature takes a biographical approach and tries to understand Kierkegaard’s relationship to regine olsen, which exercises him virtually to the point of becoming an obsession, or to his mother, whom, by contrast, he never mentions anywhere in his writings. others explore his treatment of female characters such as anna or donna elvira in “the immediate erotic stages,” antigone in “the tragic in ancient Drama Reflected in the Tragic in Modern Drama.” Yet others explore the issue of

see, above all, Feminist Interpretations of Søren Kierkegaard, ed. by Céline Léon and sylvia walsh, university park, pennsylvania: pennsylvania state university press 1997 and david Brezis, Kierkegaard et le féminin, paris: Cerf 2001. see also: gregor malantschuk, “Kierkegaard’s view of man and woman,” in his The Controversial Kierkegaard, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, waterloo, ontario: wilfrid Laurier university press 1980, pp. 37–61; Birgit Bertung, Om Kierkegaard, kvinder og kærlighed: en studie i Søren Kierkegaards kvindesyn, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1987; and Birgit Bertung, “søren Kierkegaard,” in her Gyldne Lænker—Kvindernes Guldalder, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2006, pp. 61–79. 2 see, for example, “diapsalmata” and “rotation of Corps. a venture in a theory of social prudence” in Either/Or, part one; “the esthetic validity of marriage” and “the Balance between the esthetic and the ethical in the development of the personality” in Either/ Or, Part Two; “In vino veritas” and “Some Reflections on Marriage in Answer to Objections by a married man” in Stages on Life’s Way. see also the passages about the female despair in The Concept of Anxiety (SKS 4, 369 and 373–5 / CA, 64–5 and 69–70) and anti-Climacus’ concerns about “the femininity” and “women” in The Sickness unto Death (SKS 11, 163–6 / SUD, 49–50). regarding Kierkegaard’s religious writings, one can mention in this context the upbuilding discourse entitled “on the occasion of wedding” from 1845 (SKS 5, 419–41 / TD, 41–68) or some passages from For Self-Examination (SV1 Xii, 333–7 / JFY, 46–51). 1

84

Katalin Nun

Kierkegaard’s possible female readers in connection with the upbuilding discourses from 1843–44.3 the point of departure and the kinds of analysis found in these interpretations are of course diverse. a common characteristic is, however, the desire to understand Kierkegaard within a feminist frame of interpretation. this invariably leads to conclusions along the lines of, for example, claiming that Kierkegaard was a reactionary in his attitude toward women and their emancipation, or that he was after all not that bad, if one can only read between the lines. in my opinion, it is easy to miss the point when one tries to approach Kierkegaard with a modern frame of thinking, which is in this case feminism. Specifically, by imposing modern categories on texts from the first part of the nineteenth century, one posits a profoundly unfair standard for evaluation. the natural tendency is to want Kierkegaard to measure up to our modern progressive sensibilities with regard to issues such as women’s rights. with such a standard for evaluation, he can hardly come out of the analysis looking particularly good. moreover, the inevitable result of this kind of procedure is an anachronistic understanding of the roles of men and women in nineteenth-century european society. in contrast to these methods, i would like to suggest a more historically grounded approach that explores Kierkegaard’s thought in its proper social context. Specifically I wish to focus on a single Kierkegaard text which, in my view, can be used to determine his opinions on the emancipation of women. the text in question is an unpublished review, which Kierkegaard wrote of the very first Danish book on this issue, namely, Clara Raphael. Twelve Letters, which was written by the young mathilde Fibiger (1830–72).4 this book was published in 1850 and was the occasion for a short but very ardent controversy about the rights and status of women in society. this controversy started after the publication of the book and lasted for about six months. Kierkegaard wrote his review almost immediately after Clara Raphael appeared. in the present article, i would like to analyze this review in two contexts: first, I wish to give an interpretation of the short piece in the context of the contemporary discussion about women’s emancipation, which was a very topical issue at the time. second, i would like to give an overview of Kierkegaard’s own context; specifically, I wish to show in which works and journal entries Kierkegaard otherwise dealt with the qualities, rights, and status of the genders. Before doing this, however, it will be useful to give a short introduction to mathilde Fibiger’s life and works. when talking about Kierkegaard’s views of the other sex and the emancipation of women, my aim is thus to attempt to understand Kierkegaard in his own biographical and historical context. ultimately, i wish to argue that in his review Kierkegaard, for some unknown reason, avoided treating the novel’s central issue: that is, whether and how the status and rights of women could be improved in society. this is surprising given the fact that Kierkegaard wrote about related topics frequently in some of his other works and was well familiar with the problem. see sylvia walsh, “when ‘that single individual’ is a woman,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2000, pp. 1–18. 4 [mathilde Fibiger], Clara Raphael. Tolv Breve, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851 (ASKB 1531). 3

Mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the Emancipation of Women

85

nevertheless, he did not use the opportunity to write about this issue, when it was at the center of the interest of many of his contemporaries. I. Mathilde Fibiger’s Life mathilde Lucie Fibiger was born on december 13, 1830 as the youngest of nine children to major Johan adolph Fibiger (1791–1851) and margrethe Cecilie Fibiger, born aasen (1794–1844).5 Her father was an officer, who was appointed as commandant for the newly founded royal military College in the same year his youngest child was born. in 1835, however, he was dismissed from this position because of a conflict with the other leader of the school, but it is suspected that his dismissal also probably had something to do with his liberal political views.6 as a result of this, the Fibigers had to leave Copenhagen for vejle, a small town in eastern Jutland.7 this event had catastrophic consequences for the life of mathilde’s family, since her father, no mere officer, also was something of an intellectual. He was highly engaged in contemporary political and literary debates. He thus sorely felt the loss of his academic position at the College. while living in Copenhagen, the family had an active social life thanks to her father’s manifold activities as, among other things, co-editor of the periodicals Borgervennen and the well-known Maanedsskrift for Litteratur. in 1835, he was also among the founders of a reading society (Læseforeningen), which played an important role in keeping the middle classes interested in political and social issues.8 even if mathilde Fibiger was a very young child at this time, she nevertheless inherited the engagement and interest in current social and political issues from her family in general and from her father in particular. as we will see below, these topics are also present in her debut novel, Clara Raphael. the family’s move to vejle in 1835 was the beginning of its dissolution: a few years later mathilde Fibiger’s mother moved back to Copenhagen alone with the youngest children and ultimately got a divorce in 1843.9 But it is possible that the divorce was not exclusively a consequence of the difficulties that the family had to face after her father’s dismissal from the royal military College. as margrethe For an account of mathilde Fibiger’s life and works, see margrethe Fibiger’s biography, Clara Raphael–Mathilde Fibiger. Et Livsbillede, Copenhagen: philipsen 1891. see also Dansk Biografisk Lexikon, vols. 1–19, ed. by C.F. Bricka, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1887–1905, vol. 5, pp. 142–4; anton andersen, Danske forfatterinder i det nittende hundredår. Biografier og karakteristiker, Copenhagen: em. Langhoff 1896, pp. 63–8; Johannes steenstrup, Den danske Kvindes Historie fra Holbergs Tid til Vor. 1701–1917, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: H. Hagerup 1917, vol. 2, pp. 98–104; and tine andersen and Lise Busk-Jensen, Mathilde Fibiger-Clara Raphael. Kvindekamp og kvindebevidsthed i Danmark 1830–1870, Copenhagen: medusa 1979, pp. 79–106. 6 andersen and Busk-Jensen, Mathilde Fibiger-Clara Raphael, p. 81. 7 Cf. Dansk Biografisk Lexikon, ed. by C.F. Bricka, vol. 5, p. 139. 8 ibid., p. 140. 9 see andersen and Busk-Jensen, Mathilde Fibiger-Clara Raphael, pp. 81–2. 5

86

Katalin Nun

Fibiger (1846–1927), a niece of mathilde Fibiger, points out in her biography of mathilde’s elder sister ilia Fibiger (1817–67),10 the parents never had an especially good relationship. she writes, “each of them was particularly well gifted, but their very different natures were not in harmony. as early as in the days of their engagement she [sc. mathilde’s mother] had a sense of this and wanted to break off the relationship, but with his [sc. mathilde’s father’s] passionate love and sanguine disposition, he always convinced her to stay with him.”11 shortly after moving back to the capital, mathilde’s mother died, and this event marked the beginning of mathilde’s life as an adult, which can be characterized as somewhat chaotic and difficult. After the death of her mother, she lived for a while with one of her brothers and later on with an aunt, but nobody in the family was able to give mathilde and ilia, who also later became a writer, a permanent home. in order to earn her own money, mathilde Fibiger in 1849 became a private tutor, which was one of the few professional occupations open to a woman. in this capacity she came to live with a family in a small town on the island of Lolland. Here she wrote her famous epistolary novel, Clara Raphael, which marked the start of a brief controversy about the question of the emancipation of women—the so-called Clara raphael controversy. Clara Raphael, the very first Danish book to discuss the rights of women, was followed by other works by mathilde Fibiger such as What is Emancipation? (1851),12 A Visit (1851),13 A Sketch from Real Life (1853),14 and Minona (1854).15 due to the controversies which followed the publication of Clara Raphael, mathilde Fibiger’s father forced his daughter to give up her position as a private tutor and to move back to Copenhagen. However, her father died in the same year (1851), and Mathilde Fibiger had to find a position in order to earn a living. She had various teaching jobs in Jutland, working as a seamstress and making translations. In 1864 she was trained as a telegraph operator and became Denmark’s first female telegraphist, working in this capacity in Helsingør, nysted, and Århus. mathilde Fibiger never married. Lonely and only 42 years of age, she died on June 17, 1872, of pneumonia in Århus Communal Hospital. II. The Novel Clara raphael mathilde Fibiger wrote her debut novel when she was only 20 years old. she was courageous enough to send the manuscript to Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860), 10 11 12

1851.

margrethe Fibiger, Et Kvindeliv. Ilia Fibiger, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1894. ibid., p. 2. sophie a*** [mathilde Fibiger], Hvad er Emancipation? Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel

[mathilde Fibiger], Et Besøg: Nye Breve af Forfatterinden til Clara Raphael, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851. 14 [mathilde Fibiger], En Skizze efter det virkelige Liv, ed. by Forfatterinden til Clara Raphael, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1853. 15 [mathilde Fibiger], Minona. En Fortælling af Forfatteren til Clara Raphael, Copenhagen: andreas Frederik Høst 1854. 13

Mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the Emancipation of Women

87

director of the royal theater and the most respected literary critic of the time, in the hope that he would help her to publish the book.16 the question naturally arises here about why mathilde Fibiger picked Heiberg to be the recipient of her manuscript and her request for help. there is no a single answer to this. First, at the time Heiberg was a literary institution in person, and many young authors curried his favor. one recalls the statement of Kierkegaard’s pseudonym nicolaus notabene in Prefaces: “any younger person would feel flattered by the mere thought of the literary prestige of having the honor of being a contributor to prof. Heiberg’s journal.”17 although there may well be some irony in this in the context of such a satirical work, nonetheless there was also some truth to it. second, Heiberg himself had published in 1847 a comedy entitled Valgerda.18 the protagonist of this work is the intellectually oriented Judita. she is an independent and outspoken young woman, who is occupied with important historical events and political questions of the time. this fact might have given mathilde Fibiger the impression that Heiberg would possibly understand and have sympathy for the social questions which Clara raphael raises. Finally, mathilde Fibiger’s eldest brother, the officer Adolph Fibiger (1813–41), who had died young, was a former student of Heiberg at the royal military College in 1831. since he was regarded as a close acquaintance, adolph Fibiger had the chance to visit the Heibergs on some occasions. moreover, Fibiger’s father had been Heiberg’s colleague at the College prior to the former’s dismissal. whatever her reasons for appealing to him, Heiberg decided to help mathilde Fibiger to publish the manuscript at the distinguished publishing house C.a. reitzel, where Kierkegaard and Hans Christian andersen (1805–75) also published their works. Heiberg also wrote a short seven-page introduction to the book, where he says: the more i appreciate being the one to whose lot it has fallen to introduce these pages to the reading world, the more i could wish to do so in such a manner that i in truth could contribute to the recognition which they seem to me to deserve, but which they also—i hope—both can and will find without any assistance. For if I would make an attempt at what one calls placing the reader at the correct standpoint, i would have to go into the ideas presented in the work, partly supporting those, where they are in conflict with common prejudices, and partly limiting their validity, where they seem to me to be stuck in a crisis, which cannot yet be the final result.19

thus, Heiberg warmly recommends Clara Raphael to the reader, speaking of the book’s positive qualities. He praises “the unusual maturity in the presentation, the

see morten Borup, Johan Ludvig Heiberg, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1947– 49, vol. 3, p. 147. 17 SKS 4, 509 / P, 47. 18 anonymous [Johan Ludvig Heiberg], Valgerda. Lystspil i to Acter, Copenhagen: Schubothe 1847 (first performed at the Royal Danish Theater on February 5, 1847). 19 [Fibiger], Clara Raphael. Tolv Breve, p. iii. 16

Katalin Nun

88

expression and style” of the work.20 at the same time, he draws the readers’ attention to the fact that the book also has some shortcomings. the similarities between mathilde Fibiger’s life and that of her protagonist, Clara raphael, are striking. as Heiberg writes in his introduction: “it is clear that in the fictional letters from Clara [the author] has allowed her own view to be expressed.”21 Nevertheless, it is important to insist that this is a fictional work. The novel’s young protagonist is employed as a private tutor in a family in a small town in the province, just as mathilde Fibiger was. Here, she writes letters to her friend mathilde in Copenhagen. Before becoming a teacher, Clara also lived in Copenhagen with an aunt, who raised her. about the decision to leave her aunt and become a private teacher, she writes in her first letter as follows: “In the situation that I was in [sc. with her aunt], I could not find any suitable activity, and I had to do something.”22 Her motivation is thus to find a position which will allow her to accomplish something important in the world. Clara’s letters tell about her life as a tutor and about her opinions regarding her position as a woman in society, the education of children, and Christianity. Clara’s way of thinking can be characterized as idealistic and not entirely free from naiveté. The novel is set in 1848, and Clara is clearly influenced by the events of the First schleswig war that denmark fought with prussia from 1848 to 1851. she is determined to do something good for her beloved native country. of course, she cannot serve as a soldier, but she believes that the education of small children is as good a patriotic service as going to war. But the satisfaction with her new occupation does not last very long, and Clara’s letters witness a gradual disillusionment. she realizes that her teaching job is rather boring and that the people with whom she lives are also rather dull. she has a need to be alone with her thoughts and ideas and does not have the feeling that there is anyone who understands her, with the exception of her friend mathilde: “at a time when such great interests, such important events must awaken the most serious excitement of the soul, the people around me nevertheless live and breathe in this petty atmosphere,” she writes in her second letter.23 Clara has some quite radical opinions about the rights of women (or rather about the lack thereof), human freedom, and Christianity. according to her views, women should have the same right to decide freely over their own lives as men have. “For the first time in my life I feel sadness that I am not a man. How impoverished and empty our lives are compared to theirs. is it just that half of all human beings are excluded from all employment?” she asks in one of her letters.24 and a few pages later the following question is raised: “what right do men have to oppress us? For we are suppressed even if the chains are golden.”25 it is clear that opinions like this would not make life particularly easy for a young woman in a patriarchal society like denmark at the time. and, indeed, Clara’s life is 20 21 22 23 24 25

ibid., p. iv. ibid., p. v. ibid., p. 7. ibid., p. 16. ibid., p. 20. ibid., p. 21.

Mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the Emancipation of Women

89

far from easy. she decides for a life where she can work for the “true idea,”26 because she is convinced that this is the way god demands her to go. she wants to be “god’s bride” and decides never to marry.27 A conflict arises, however, when she meets a man with whom she falls in love. After the first intoxication of this new feeling, Clara becomes terrified because of her promise to God. She is not able to find a solution to this problem and becomes seriously ill. The resolution to the conflict is something of a deus ex machina: alex, with whom Clara has fallen in love, promises that they will be spouses only for the world, but otherwise they will live like sister and brother: that is, without sexuality. in this way Clara can keep her promise to god and live for the true idea, while at the same time marrying the man she loves. III. The Clara raphael Controversy as indicated above, the publication of Clara Raphael was explosive. Lise BuskJensen summarizes the novel and its impact as follows: mathilde Fibiger’s style is beautiful and clear, but her train of thought is abstract, and the changing society in which the novel appeared did not take its philosophical niveau seriously. Her self-confident claim of a newly liberated female ideal, by contrast, awakened a furor. a stream of reviews and critical works followed in its wake, and soon people were talking about the “Clara raphael controversy.” the views that were set forth with respect to the “question of women” can still be found right up to today.28

a small book of 110 pages thus started a major controversy with a series of reviews and articles.29 this is, however, not surprising if one takes into consideration that the idea of the emancipation of women was a very sensitive one at the time, and that mathilde Fibiger entered the scene very early with her radical ideas; for example, her revolutionary thoughts appeared some twenty years before John stuart mill (1806–73) published The Subjection of Women.30 it appeared a generation before the so-called modern breakthrough in Denmark, where this issue was for the first time taken up seriously among danish intellectuals and political thinkers. at that time Fibiger was hailed as an important forerunner of this progressive movement. on the title page of Clara Raphael the year of publication was given as 1851, but, in accordance with the custom of the time, the book was on the market already at Christmas 1850. in his book on the Clara raphael controversy, Fredrik Bajer (1837–1922) writes about the beginning of the debate, “now Christmas came; and ibid., p. 75. ibid., p. 74. 28 Nordiske Forfatterinder. Fra Leonora Christina til Elsa Gress, ed. by Lise BuskJensen, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1990, p. 80. 29 For an account of the Clara raphael controversy, see above all Fredrik Bajer’s monograph, Klara-Rafael Fejden, Copenhagen: C.a. topp’s Forlag 1879. see also Fibiger, Clara Raphael-Mathilde Fibiger. Et Livsbillede, pp. 99–108 and andersen and Busk-Jensen, Mathilde Fibiger-Clara Raphael, pp. 225–50. 30 John stuart mill, The Subjection of Women, London: Longmans, green, reader, and dyer 1869. 26 27

90

Katalin Nun

in the many social gatherings which this festive time brought with it, the name ‘Clara raphael’ was heard countless times. during the Christmas season, people from the country exchanged ideas with relatives from the city and vice versa. the intellectual seed had, so to speak, been spread before all the winds in wide circles.”31 as Bajer points out, Clara Raphael was reviewed tersely in the reputable conservative newspaper Berlingske Tidende as early as december 21, 1850. But the reading public of Copenhagen did not have to wait long for more extensive reviews.32 it is not the task of this essay to discuss this controversy in detail; however, in the following i will try to give a brief survey of the most important ideas which came up in the various reviews, articles, and books in order to set the context for Kierkegaard’s comments. the physician and social critic Frederik dreier (1827–53) entered the controversy when it was at its highest point.33 His approach to the question of the rights and position of women in society was a socialist one. according to his view, both men and women are suppressed in society, which means that the question of the liberation of women at the same time has to be a question of the liberation of men. the main task is therefore to secure social equality in society for both men and women.34 remarkably enough, the author and editor meïr goldschmidt (1819–87), who entered the debate in January 1851, says almost the same thing in his first article on Clara Raphael.35 this is remarkable because goldschmidt stood at the opposite end of the political spectrum compared to the leftist-oriented dreier. towards the end of 1850 and the beginning of 1851, goldschmidt founded, for example, a land-owner society (Grundejerforeningen)—a clear sign of his conservatism. Fredrik Bajer sarcastically referred to this as a kind of “holy society.”36 In his first article on Clara Raphael, goldschmidt writes, “one cannot talk of women’s emancipation without also talking of men’s and knowing what the word in general means.”37 according to goldschmidt, it is thus a mistake to regard the question of the liberation of men and women as separate from one another. to goldschmidt, the concept of liberation means to be free from slavery and to attain one’s natural rights, which are, however, also naturally determined by the given circumstances of a given society.38 and what are then the natural rights of women? although in goldschmidt’s opinion women have to develop their abilities, they nevertheless should not gain independence, but they have to be protected much more by society, that is, by men. thus, women have

Bajer, Klara-Rafael Fejden, p. 36. Cf. ibid., pp. 35–6. 33 peter vandal [Frederik dreier], Blik paa det verdenshistoriske Værk “Clara Rafael” og den derved fremkaldte Dameliteratur, efter en høj Beskytterindes Ordre, af Peter Vandal academisk og Verdensborger, Copenhagen: C.B. stinck 1851. 34 Cf. Bajer, Klara-Rafael Fejden, p. 102. 35 meïr goldschmidt, “Clara raphael. tolv Breve udgivne af J.L. Heiberg,” Nord og Syd, no. 6, 1851, pp. 14–33. 36 Bajer, Klara-Rafael Fejden, p. 43. 37 goldschmidt, “Clara raphael. tolv Breve udgivne af J.L. Heiberg,” p. 22. 38 ibid. my emphasis. 31 32

Mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the Emancipation of Women

91

to choose a husband and become wife and mother, which is in accordance with their true nature.39 However, goldschmidt’s participation in the debate was far from over with this article. in his periodical Nord og Syd, where his first article was also published, there appeared four other articles on Clara Raphael. three of these were by goldschmidt,40 while one of them was written by Fanny Lodovica le normand de Bretteville (1827–59), who signed her piece as sibylla.41 Fanny de Bretteville’s main point is that there is something wrong with society when it does not make possible a better education for women. she writes, “the result of the present education for women is this: be a housewife or nothing.”42 she explains further that an unmarried woman has very limited opportunities for earning a living, which results in many unhappy marriages.43 she proposes the following solution: “give women a sound, free, independent education, and they will be something; or either they will be unmarried or not, and if they marry, then they will know how to make their choice with thought and feeling.”44 with these ideas, de Bretteville shows clear sympathy for the ideas in Clara Raphael. goldschmidt’s answer to this article had a much harder tone than that of his first article. Here, he declares that a woman can only stay in contact with society through her husband, and that the main task of a woman is to be “the sunshine for the life of men.”45 Fanny de Bretteville received support from pauline worm (1825–83), who published a little book on Clara Raphael.46 pauline worm worked in Jutland as a teacher and did not read many of the reviews and articles, most of which were published in Copenhagen. Like Fanny de Bretteville, worm also emphasizes the importance of education. she, too, complains about the fact that women do not have rights as adults and that men subsequently regard them as children. in worm’s opinion, the main problem is that women are weak because society has made them ibid. meir goldschmidt, “en Brevvexling, om Kvindens stilling i samfundet. ii. svar til sibylla,” Nord og Syd, no. 6, 1851, pp. 171–8; goldschmidt, “Clara Literaturen,” Nord og Syd, no. 6, 1851, pp. 321–8 and “til Clara raphael!” Nord og Syd, no. 7, 1851, pp. 338–43. see also goldschmidt’s overview article about the reviews of Clara Raphael: “Clara-Literaturen,” Nord og Syd, no. 6, 1851, pp. 321–8. 41 sibylla [Fanny Lodovica le normand de Bretteville], “en Brevvexling, om Kvindens stilling i samfundet. i.,” Nord og Syd, no. 6, 1851, pp. 123–31. 42 ibid., p. 129. 43 ibid. 44 ibid. 45 goldschmidt, “en Brevvexling, om Kvindens stilling i samfundet. ii. svar til sibylla,” p. 172. it is interesting to note that mathilde Fibiger asked goldschmidt in 1853 to help her publish her novel Minona. goldschmidt visited her at home and soon became infatuated, but Fibiger rejected his advances. Cf. mathilde Fibiger’s letters to goldschmidt on september 27 and november 7, 1853, in Breve fra og til Meïr Goldschmidt, vols. 1–3, ed. by morten Borup, Copenhagen: rosenkilde og Bagger 1963, vol. 2, pp. 6–8 and pp. 14–17 respectively. 46 pauline [pauline worm], Fire Breve om Clara Raphael til en ung Pige fra hendes Søster, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851. see also pauline [pauline worm], “om Qvindens Kald og Qvindens opdragelse,” Fædrelandet, nos. 93–5 (april 23–5), 1851. 39 40

92

Katalin Nun

so. according to her, in order to please men, women have become focused only on beauty and their external appearance, with the result that they have become vain.47 Clara raphael is also convinced that vanity is one of the barriers to the liberation of women. this is why she decides to live for the true idea and give up being a woman, whose main task is to be beautiful and to please men. in addition to these reactions to Clara Raphael, there appeared articles in newspapers and periodicals such as Berlingske Tidende, Kjøbenhavnsposten, and Fædrelandet. 48 although some of these articles speak somewhat positively of Clara Raphael,49 most of the reviews display a lack of comprehension regarding the basic ideas of the novel.50 there were also reviews which emphasized and appreciated the national character of the work. Here, one has to mention, for example, an article written by n.F.s. grundtvig (1783–1872) and published in his periodical Danskeren.51 among the reactions to Clara Raphael, one can also find a longer review, published pseudonymously as a book by the icelandic theologian magnús eiríksson (1806–81).52 in this very positive review, eiríksson speaks warmly of the ideas in Clara Raphael. He appreciates especially Clara’s religious attitude and her aspiration to live for the pure idea and god.53 in addition to these contributions, mathilde Fibiger herself took part in the debate with two new books entitled What is Emancipation? and A Visit in order to explain in more detail her views on the central question of the emancipation of women.54 mathilde Fibiger’s biographer, margrethe Fibiger, characterizes these two works as follows: “with respect to the freshness of the content and captivating talent, they stand well behind Clara Raphael—as a natural consequence of the fact that they are more or less a repetition and further development of it.”55 the reading public did not pay much attention to these new books, and their authoress had to stand by and watch how her attempts, with them, to explain what she really meant with Clara pauline [pauline worm], Fire Breve om Clara Raphael til en ung Pige, pp. 15–16. Cf. Bajer, Klara-Rafael Fejden, pp. 36–42. see also andersen and Busk-Jensen, Mathilde Fibiger–Clara Raphael, pp. 229–31. 49 see, for example, rudolf varberg’s articles (signed as r.s.) in Kjøbenhavnsposten on december 31, 1850, on January 4 and January 8, 1851. in spite of his critique of the novel, varberg calls, for example, Clara Raphael the most important work of the decade. Cf. andersen and Busk-Jensen, Mathilde Fibiger-Clara Raphael, p. 229. 50 see, for example, the very critical poem in Berlingske Tidende on January 11, 1851 entitled “til Klara rafael” or Carl ploug’s review (signed as —a—) in Fædrelandet on January 8, 1851. 51 see n.F.s. grundtvig, “Clara raphael,” Danskeren: et Ugeblad, vols. 1–4, collected and ed. by n.F.s. grundtvig, Copenhagen: J.d. Qvist 1848–51, vol. 4, no. 21, may 24, 1851, pp. 321–30. 52 theodor immanuel [magnús eiríksson], Breve til Clara Raphael, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851. 53 Cf. Bajer, Klara-Rafael Fejden, pp. 69–77 and andersen and Busk-Jensen, Mathilde Fibiger-Clara Raphae, p. 241. 54 sophie a*** [Fibiger], Hvad er Emancipation?, and [Fibiger], Et Besøg: Nye Breve af Forfatterinden til Clara Raphael. 55 Fibiger, Clara Raphael-Mathilde Fibiger. Et Livsbillede, p. 93. 47 48

Mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the Emancipation of Women

93

Raphael, found no resonance. while the controversy about Clara Raphael ultimately died out in may 1851, nonetheless, as mentioned, the book had a delayed impact on discussions about the rights of women in denmark that started in the 1870s. IV. Kierkegaard on the Emancipation of Women it would be impossible to give a complete overview of all of Kierkegaard’s statements that could be relevant for the issue of the emancipation of women prior to the review of Clara Raphael. However, it will be useful to have a brief look at the most obvious of these. the goal will be to see if his views changed over time or were in any way significantly influenced by what he read in Mathilde Fibiger’s novel. one of Kierkegaard’s earliest statements about the role of women in society comes from his earliest publication, an article entitled “another defense of women’s great abilities” in Heiberg’s Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, published on december 4, 1834.56 the background for this article is as follows: in the spring of 1833, Heiberg published the short treatise On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age, in which he announced that he would present a series of lectures on Hegel’s philosophy, to which the published treatise was to be an introduction. at the time, of course, only men were admitted to the university of Copenhagen. (it was not until 1875 that women were allowed to enroll.) given that the lectures were to be private, Heiberg was not bound by these rules. thus at the end of his treatise, he takes the revolutionary step of inviting women to attend: the author of the present work nourishes at least the hope that he has now advanced sufficiently that he will be able to contribute to the attainment of the aforementioned end [sc. to promote Hegel’s philosophy], so that in a series of lectures he will be able to present an “introduction to philosophy” accessible to all cultured people. indeed, this hope is so alive in him that he does not even assume that he needs to limit himself to a lecture for gentlemen but dares to believe that cultured ladies will also be able to participate in the lecture’s serious investigations, in that they make the group more beautiful by their presence. For if men usually have a sharper and more consistent understanding, a greater dialectical proclivity, then the feminine sex is accustomed to having a more certain, infallible disposition for immediately comprehending the truth and, undisturbed by all finite determinations, for looking into the infinite in which they rest, the unity, in which they consist. the author sees the one ability as just as effective for knowledge as the other.57 Kierkegaard, “ogsaa et Forsvar for Qvindens høie anlæg,” Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post. Interimsblad, no. 34, december 17, 1834, [pp. 142–3]; SV1 Xiii, 5–8 / EPW, pp. 3–5. (the pages numbers in square brackets refer to the photomechanical reproduction of Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, edited by uffe andreasen, vols. 1–4, Copenhagen: det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab 1980–84.) 57 Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1833, p. 53. (english translation: On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age, in 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, see p. 118.) 56

94

Katalin Nun

in Heiberg’s eyes, the different abilities of men and women have the same value. although the stated reasons for inviting women may sound highly dubious to the modern ear, nevertheless Heiberg is to be lauded for making the gesture and for believing that they could, without any previously scholarly training, understand his lectures on Hegel’s quite difficult philosophy. it is in response to this that Kierkegaard writes his short article “another defense,” in which he pokes fun at Heiberg’s extending an invitation to women. Kierkegaard is highly skeptical of the idea of women learning something from academic lectures: Hardly was man created before we find Eve already as audience at the snake’s philosophical lectures, and we see that she mastered them with such ease that at once she could utilize the results of the same in her domestic practice. in the countries of the east, they tried to satisfy this talent for speculation and the allied craving for deeper knowledge already manifest here; for this reason women were confined in seraglios.58

Kierkegaard refers to the ability of women to understand the spirit of the age: “regarding history, they keep abreast of events, and many a paper, many a journal that man considers insignificant does not escape their keen eye—in fashion magazines they study the spirit of the age.”59 Kierkegaard then refers to Heiberg’s invitation: “thanks, therefore, to you, great men, who help them up to the peaks of knowledge but nevertheless do not forget the other sex. therefore it is so lovely to see that the man who especially wishes to have an effect upon the ladies does not, however, forget the men and finally extends his philanthropic enthusiasm to all.”60 while one might wish to dismiss this passage by arguing that there is an intended humorous or ironic element in this entire article, nonetheless this can certainly be interpreted as an expression for Kierkegaard’s low estimation of the intellectual abilities of women. one can thus conclude that against the background of Kierkegaard’s article, Heiberg’s attempt to include women in his lectures starts to appear quite progressive and can be understood as a possible motivation for Fibiger to choose him to help her to publish her work. some 12 years later, in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript from 1846, Kierkegaard has his pseudonymous author write the following: “But if the dialectical is skipped, what then? then it becomes woman-chatter and old wives blather, for, as is known Jews and women blather in a minute what a man is unable to do in a lifetime.”61 Although this is somewhat difficult to interpret due to the veil of the pseudonym, nonetheless this passage can certainly be understood again as an expression for the fact that Kierkegaard did not have a particularly high opinion of women’s qualities (or of those of Jews in this example). also from the second half of the 1840s, one can mention the well-known passage in The Sickness unto Death. in the third Chapter of part one, that is, “the Forms of this sickness (despair),” Kierkegaard distinguishes between “feminine despair”

58 59 60 61

SV1 Xiii, 5 / EPW, 3. (Translation slightly modified.) SV1 Xiii, 7 / EPW, 4. ibid. SKS 7, 391 / CUP1, 430.

Mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the Emancipation of Women

95

and “masculine despair.”62 the basis for this distinction is Kierkegaard’s categorical opinions about feminine and masculine qualities. He says: “However much more tender and sensitive woman may be than man, she has neither the egoistical concept of the self nor, in a decisive sense, intellectuality. But the feminine nature is devotedness, givingness, and it is unfeminine if it is not that.”63 Kierkegaard calls this feminine devotedness a “divine gift and treasure,” and adds that “nature has affectionately equipped her with an instinct so sensitive that by comparison the most superior masculine reflection is as nothing.”64 women have thus devotedness, accompanied by sensitiveness, as their true nature, which are, in Kierkegaard’s eyes, higher qualities than masculine reflection, which women lack essentially. But, Kierkegaard continues, by nature...women’s devotedness also enters into despair....in devotion she loses herself, and only then is she happy, only then is she herself; a woman who is happy without devotion, that is, without giving herself, no matter to what she gives it, is altogether unfeminine....take this devotion away, then her self is also gone, and her despair is: not to be oneself.65

these passages are interesting, because they throw light on Kierkegaard’s opinions about what is and is not feminine. one should, however, not blame Kierkegaard for these highly ontological views on the genders, inasmuch as most of his contemporaries shared this point of departure when talking about the qualities and roles of men and women. moreover, these passages demonstrate also that Kierkegaard’s views of feminine and masculine qualities served as a basis for him to develop his central concept of despair as well. in this context it is interesting to quote the last part of this passage, where Kierkegaard writes: the above pertains to the relations between masculine and feminine despair. But it is to be borne in mind that this does not refer to devotion to god or to the god-relationship.... in the relationship to god, where the distinction of man–woman vanishes, it holds for men as well as for women that devotion is the self and that in the giving of oneself the self is gained. this holds equally for man and woman, although it is probably true that in most cases the woman actually relates to god only through the man.66

Here Kierkegaard underlines that the above outlined concept of the female quality of devotedness is only valid regarding a woman–man relationship. Concerning the relationship to god, women and men are identical, but yet not completely. in Kierkegaard’s eyes, women, after all, do not have the ability to think independently, even regarding their relationship to god. also here they need a man as a mediator. perhaps Kierkegaard’s most extensive consideration of this issue comes in his journals NB10 and NB11, which he wrote in 1849. this is no coincidence. this was precisely the period when denmark was experiencing the birth pains of 62 63 64 65 66

SKS 11, 164–6 / SUD, 49–51. SKS 11, 165 / SUD, 49–50. SKS 11, 165 / SUD, 50. SKS 11, 166 / SUD, 50. ibid.

96

Katalin Nun

democracy with the abolition of absolutism and the establishment of the first Danish constitution. during the years 1848 and 1849, it was impossible to be immune to the many discussions about the new social reforms that the constitution would bring with it. thus, Kierkegaard’s comments are to be understood in this wider context. this is clear evidence that he was at least at some level engaged in the issue of the emancipation of women prior to the publication of Clara Raphael in december 1850. indeed, the immediate context of discussion seems to have prepared him for a critical encounter with the work. in the mentioned journal entries, as in his Flyvende Post article several years previously and the passage about female despair, Kierkegaard’s assessment of women falls far short of what we would regard as egalitarianism. in the Journal NB10, he claims “Woman is personified egotism,”67 and he adds, “an egotism of which man has no intimation.”68 in his Journal NB11, he gives a straightforward condemnation of the emancipation of women when he writes, “if girls were brought up the same way [sc. as boys]—then good night to the whole human race. and no doubt the emancipation of women, which tends toward this kind of upbringing is the invention of the devil.”69 it is probably best to simply let these passages speak for themselves. Judging them in the historical context, one cannot help but reach the conclusion that Kierkegaard’s social-political disposition at the time was clearly on the side of the conservatives who were in majority and who were anxious to prevent serious social reform. it is in any case interesting that he is engaged in these issues immediately before his encounter with Clara Raphael. there are a couple of other journal entries, from 1850–51, where Kierkegaard compares the sexes on some specific point under the heading “man—woman.”70 Both of these betray the same ontologically fixed conception of the nature of the sexes and their roles in society that is found in his previous writings. thus, it does not seem that there is any clearly discernable change or development in Kierkegaard’s views through the years. V. Kierkegaard on Clara raphael Kierkegaard owned mathilde Fibiger’s book,71 which he bought on december 15, 1850, that is, shortly after its publication.72 He could hardly have been unaware of the current reviews and discussions of it since he was, for example, clearly familiar with goldschmidt’s Nord og Syd, where, as we have seen, some of the articles on mathilde Fibiger’s novel were published. the topic of the book must have been of some interest to Kierkegaard, since he began writing a review of it a shortly after

67 68 69 70 71 72

SKS 21, 330, nB10:145 / JP 4, 5000. SKS 21, 291, nB10:63 / JP 4, 4998. SKS 22, 94, nB11:159 / JP 4, 4992. SKS 24, 71, nB21:120. SKS 24, 258, nB23:104 [Fibiger], Clara Raphael. Cf. ASKB 1531.

Mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the Emancipation of Women

97

purchasing it; however, this review was never finished. Thus, one can only find it among his papers and journals.73 the review itself represents a single entry in Kierkegaard’s Journal NB22. it covers about two-and-a-half pages in the new edition of Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter. moreover, it includes marginal notes that Kierkegaard presumably added at some later point in time. The text can be divided into five parts, which I will examine in what follows. The first part is dedicated to a brief description of the protagonist in the work, whom Kierkegaard describes in some detail. He writes: a young girl. Full name: Clara raphael. age: 20. appearance: good-looking. religion: freethinker. occupation: governess in the household of a business manager. Character: original, a characteristic affirmed by her, by her friend Mathilde, by many respectable men and women in the neighborhood where she is governess—she gets the no less original idea: i will also be original. very original!74

Here Kierkegaard underscores what will be a leading motif in the review: the attempt to be “original.” the criticism and the somewhat sarcastic tone here (and in what follows) seems to be aimed against shallow attempts to make an impression on one’s reading public by means of new and trendy ideas. He seems to regard women’s emancipation as just such an idea. the point is that it should not be taken any more seriously than a new fashion or a new superficial theory of art or aesthetics. It is merely a trivial kind of game that the author is playing with the public in an attempt to create a stir merely for the sake of doing so. He seems not to recognize that there is a deeply seated grievance that motivates the work and not merely a flippant desire to cause a sensation or be the focal point of a new literary dispute. the second and longest part of the review features a general description of the plot of the work. Kierkegaard describes this with the same sarcastic tone as follows, again with reference to being “original”: then it perhaps occurs to her that this is a much too inadequate category, so she looks around for an idea for which she can live unmarried, for she does not wish to get married. and this is the idea: the emancipation of women. this is the whole thing; her letters offer nothing more concrete about this idea of hers; it is original enough. if the idea were more concrete, she might possibly have shared it with another, but she has protected her originality. one day she goes to communion, which again is something very original for a freethinker like her. For a young girl she apparently has had a most unusual religious education, which the reader, as well as the editor, cannot admire enough—having read a few pages in magnús eiríksson’s book on the Baptists and the trinity.75

SKS 24, 136–8, nB22:63 / JP 6, 6709. SKS 24, 136, nB22:63 / JP 6, 6709. 75 Here Kierkegaard refers to magnús eiríksson’s Om Baptister og Barnedaab, samt flere Momenter af Den kirkelige og speculative Christendom, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1844. the question of baptism was a topical one at the time due to the controversy surrounding the 73 74

98

Katalin Nun she goes to communion and promises god that she will live for her idea—a vow which no doubt embarrassed god because of the originality of her idea—namely, that she actually has no idea. she makes her vow, then she goes home—and falls in love. But Clara raphael is not merely virtuous like Charles,76 but she is a heroine—she will not marry. the suffering caused by this decision makes her ill; nobody knows how she suffers, says her closest friend; and since there is no one in a better position to know it, it is quite true that no one knows it. no, she wants to enter a convent, she wants to live for her idea—and proceeds to found a completely new order: that is, she marries her beloved—but as brother and sister. truly an original kind of convent!77

Here he criticizes the “idea” of the novel as being too abstract and thus vacuous. this seems quite striking given the fact that the work itself contains a number of very concrete examples of how the idea is to be grasped in actuality. For example, there are concrete discussions about the education of girls or the opportunities open to women in the workplace—things which seem to be profoundly concrete. in addition, Kierkegaard writes ironically about Clara’s attempt to find a special kind of religiousness for herself. His critique has, however, more to do with the literary structure of the novel than with its content. it seems that Kierkegaard here criticizes elements of the book that are of secondary importance and ignores the central issue, which is the emancipation of women. in the margin to this entry Kierkegaard adds the following observation: although the idea she has chosen is so exceedingly abstract that it cannot be considered the slightest hindrance to her marrying, even to a widower with ten children—yet Clara raphael is determined not to marry, she will live for her idea. almost incomprehensible originality! For the less the idea stands in her way, the more original it is to stick to it—but of course when the idea is not so abstract, that is, empty, that is, no idea at all, less resolution is required. Basically the idea makes its own decision, and it is not so much a question of resolving and again resolving not to marry, as it is of not getting time to marry, because the idea completely fills up one’s life and one’s time.78

Here again, the emphasis of the critique lies on the fact that Clara wishes to live for an idea and that this idea is too abstract in Kierkegaard’s eyes. But he does not go further to examine the idea in question, namely, the emancipation of women. this central issue of the novel remains unnoticed also in this passage of Kierkegaard’s review. the third part of the review initiates Kierkegaard’s criticism proper. Here he points out what he takes to be a weakness in the general conception of the work: Baptists and the attempt of the danish state Church under the leadership of Bishop mynster to have their children forcibly baptized. 76 see SKS 2, 240–70 / EO1, 247–79. 77 SKS 24, 136–7, nB22:63 / JP 6, 6709. 78 SKS 24, 137, nB22:63.a / JP 6, 6709.

Mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the Emancipation of Women

99

Just one more observation on the original thought: a marriage between a brother and a sister. From novels one is acquainted with the phrase: “i esteem him highly, but i cannot love him” and also “i can only love him as a sister.” this usually means that the two do not get married. that is not so original that it cannot be understood. But that it becomes a signal for them to be married.79

Kierkegaard finds the idea of a married couple living together in celibacy completely absurd. this seems to be primarily a literary criticism aimed at undermining the novel as being naive or distant from actuality and real life. then he continues in the margin in the same spirit: [to be married] is a most original turn, an almost indecent turn, as everyone will no doubt agree, no matter how far he otherwise is, as i am, from being as potentially severe as Herr zierlich, who considers it indecent for men’s and women’s clothes to hang together in the same closet. if this goes much farther, it will not be long before a couple of men will want to be married, which is almost as indecent as a brother and a sister getting married.80

Here Kierkegaard continues his previous sarcastic critique. again it is surprising that in his review Kierkegaard focuses almost exclusively on few more or less insignificant issues and does not even touch the central topic of the novel. the fourth part of the review brings Heiberg, the editor, into the criticism. this gives Kierkegaard the opportunity to renew his long-standing attacks on Heiberg that date back to the latter’s negative review of Either/Or,81 which Kierkegaard answered with his polemical article “a word of thanks to professor Heiberg”82 and later with the book Prefaces. Here Heiberg is again the object of the satire: this book has an unusual feature: a lengthy and detailed introduction by the editor, theater director, Councillor Heiberg, Knight of denmark. in this introduction he does his best to show that this book is an extraordinary production—which is perhaps the worst thing he could do for himself and for the book. He shows that it is the idea of the protestant monastery—which idea? to marry? no, not to marry, but not to marry as man and wife but rather as brother and sister. in short, a theatrical marriage—that is what protestantism understands by the monastery and by living celibate for an idea.83

Here Kierkegaard’s emphasis lies on a literary solution of the novel. as we have seen above, Clara’s way out of the contradictory conditions, which she created for herself, is somewhat dubious and a kind of deus ex machina. However, this belongs to the literary structure of the piece and does not change the importance of the novel regarding the demands for female equality. the entry becomes sharper in its tone with Kierkegaard’s sarcastic account of Heiberg which appears in the margin: “(a SKS 24, 137, nB22:63 / JP 6, 6709. SKS 24, 137, nB22:63.c / JP 6, 6709. 81 Johan Ludvig Heiberg “Litterær vintersæd,” Intelligensblade, vol. 2, no. 24, march 1, 1843, pp. 285–92 (ASKB u 56). 82 victor eremita, “taksigelse til Hr. professor Heiberg,” Fædrelandet, vol. 4, no. 1168, march 5, 1843, columns 9373–6. SV1 Xiii, 411–15 / COR, 17–21. 83 SKS 24, 138, nB22:63 / JP 6, 6709. 79 80

100

Katalin Nun

one-time obedient servant of the system, the unforgettable author of promises, later the if-not-incarnate nevertheless astronomical heaven-ascending professor, at present the champion and promoter for the convent, the Clara Convent, or the Clara-raphael Convent).”84 this remark clearly falls under the heading of Kierkegaard’s critique of Heiberg and has nothing really to do with mathilde Fibiger’s work. The fifth and final part of the review drags another of Kierkegaard’s old enemies into the discussion: the theologian Hans Lassen martensen (1808–84). He writes: the editor unreservedly gives all the credit for this discovery and for having introduced this idea to the world to his client raphael, even keeping to himself a few possible objections, such as to Clara raphael’s doctrine of the trinity, perhaps also counting on professor martensen’s being provoked by this extremely important contribution to the dogma of the trinity to take up the matter. For he cannot possibly agree with her any more on this than on her intended mixed monastery, since according to his Dogmatics professor martensen transfers the monastery to the next world, where all we dead will be scrupulously careful to refrain from marriage, even more scrupulously than adam before eve was created. if no one else will take it upon himself to oppose the intrusion of this aesthetic invasion into the religious realm, i at least do not wish to have kept silent about it.85

Here Kierkegaard refers to martensen’s account of the trinity in the latter’s work Christian Dogmatics from 1849.86 this was a much-discussed book at this time, and Kierkegaard was clearly closely following the discussion. there is one other brief journal entry where Kierkegaard refers to the character Clara raphael,87 where he merely asserts that she is more a “communis generis” than a “neuteris generis” as people have claimed. Here he makes use of terms from grammar. some languages, such as german, have a neuter gender in addition to masculine and feminine; thus a neuter is neither the one nor the other. it was apparently claimed that this was the case with the persona of Clara raphael, who was neither male nor female. By contrast, other languages, such as danish, have a “communis generis” or common gender that includes both masculine and feminine. Kierkegaard’s observation is that Clara raphael represents a person who, like the common gender, contains characteristics of both sexes. the implied criticism is that the liberation of women as personified by the person of Clara Raphael will destroy the differences between the sexes and will lead to a distortion, and even perversion of roles in society. Clara raphael does not know if she is a woman or a man, and this confusion could lead to serious social and personal consequences for life in the future.

SKS 24, 138, nB22:63.d / JP 6, 6709. SKS 24, 138, nB22:63 / JP 6, 6709. 86 Hans Lassen martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849, see pp. 546ff., especially p. 550 (ASKB 653). 87 SKS 24, 192, nB22:160. 84 85

Mathilde Fibiger: Kierkegaard and the Emancipation of Women

101

VI. Critical Evaluation The material testifying to the influence of Mathilde Fibiger on Kierkegaard ultimately raises more questions that it answers. if we now remember the above-outlined controversy, which followed the publication of Clara Raphael, and compare it with Kierkegaard’s review of the novel, we can find something very surprising. As we have seen above, the controversy, which had already started when Kierkegaard wrote his unpublished review, was primarily about one thing, namely, the question of the emancipation of women. all the contributors to the discussion understood the importance of Clara raphael’s claims about the importance of equal opportunities and rights for women, and therefore this was the natural focus of the controversy. in Kierkegaard’s review, however, this central issue of the novel is strangely absent. as we have seen, he criticizes different things in Clara Raphael, such as the protagonist’s wish to live in accordance with an idea, or Clara’s attitude toward Christianity. But in his review, he never addresses the real question. this is an interesting fact, because we are accustomed to think of Kierkegaard as someone who was sensitive enough to notice the Zeitgeist, and who was, at least sometimes, interested in contemporary debates about topical issues. moreover, as we have seen, in several places in his writings he discusses issues such as the differences between the sexes, marriage, the nature and role of women, but when he has the chance to discuss these topics publicly in connection with the Clara Raphael controversy, he refrains from doing so. so why is it that Kierkegaard ignores the central issue of the novel Clara Raphael in his review? it is possible that there is no one explanation for this question, but rather there are a number of possible interpretations. First, one might be tempted to claim that Kierkegaard simply missed the point, and that he was not sensitive enough to understand the importance of the demands of the novel. as we have seen above, Kierkegaard had strong opinions about the nature of feminine and masculine qualities. the claims of the young protagonist of the novel such as female independence and equal education for girls and boys could not be further away from his own views regarding the natural disposition of the two sexes. But is it really possible that he simply could not comprehend that women’s emancipation should be an issue for discussion? this hardly seems possible, especially given the fact that it is clear from some of his comments that he was clearly aware of the issue. given this, it is impossible to imagine that he simply failed to grasp the point of the work. Second, and also in relation with the first point, one might wish to claim that, although Kierkegaard was clear about the upshot of the work, he simply did not take the proposition of women’s emancipation seriously enough to engage in it intellectually. in other words, he could perhaps very well see what the novel was about, but he deliberately ignored its main theme since he regarded it as trivial or unworthy of a deeper-going response. this interpretation does have some plausibility when one considers that Kierkegaard’s other comments about this and related issues do not really have the character of detailed arguments or developed considerations. rather, they tend to have the character of terse, straightforward statements of his views on the issue. in other words, while Kierkegaard had clear intuitions about the nature of women and their role in society, he never really developed these into

102

Katalin Nun

philosophically argued positions. thus, it might well be the case that even his planned review of Clara Raphael was never conceived as a social-political tract with well-reasoned arguments or carefully crafted positions on the key issue. Like his other considerations on the question of the liberation of women, his consideration of this work did not get much beyond simple intuitions about emancipation or critical literary observations about its weak plot and conclusion. Yet another interpretative possibility is that Kierkegaard, on this occasion, was not interested in the question of the emancipation of women at all and that the novel served merely as a welcome occasion for him to criticize Heiberg and martensen. This certainly would be not have been the first time that he would go out of his way to get in a few critical remarks about these iconic figures of Danish cultural life. But this interpretation probably overstates the case since, while there are, to be sure, the noted critical comments about Heiberg and martensen, these cannot be said to dominate the review. it would thus be more accurate to say that the point of the review was something else, and along the way the two long-standing enemies were given a customary quip for good measure. Finally, there might also be a very banal explanation for the question of why Kierkegaard failed to take notice of the main theme of the novel: namely, his review clearly represents an unfinished piece of writing. Perhaps Kierkegaard intended to write more on the topic of women’s emancipation, but for some reason he stopped working on the review and did not pursue the issue further. this is a quite plausible, albeit fairly uninteresting explanation, but it does invite the question of why he never finished the review. This might well have something to do with the aforementioned considerations regarding his general reluctance to address the issue of women’s liberation in a serious, scholarly manner. in short, it might be that he simply did not consider the issue to be one worth pursuing. But this is, for the most part, all pure speculation. in the absence of further concrete evidence, we are left with little else. the issue is one that thus invites further research due to Kierkegaard’s apparently conscious omission of a serious discussion of the issue of the emancipation of women, which would become such a crucial matter for subsequent generations.

Bibliography I. Fibiger’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Clara Raphael. Tolv Breve, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851 (ASKB 1531). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Fibiger Heiberg, Johan Ludvig, “udgiveren til Læserne,” in Clara Raphael. Tolv Breve, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851, pp. iii–X. III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Fibiger andersen, tine and Lise Busk-Jensen, “søren Kierkegaard: In vino veritas (1845),” in their Mathilde Fibiger—Clara Raphael. Kvindekamp og kvindebevidsthed i Danmark 1830–1870, Copenhagen: medusa 1979, pp. 212–24. Bertung, Birgit, Om Kierkegaard, kvinder og kærlighed: en studie i Søren Kierkegaards kvindesyn, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1987. —— “Mathilde Fibiger (1830–1872),” in her Gyldne Lænker—Kvindernes Guldalder, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2006, pp. 121–36, see p. 128; p. 131. Holm, søren, “Clara raphael,” in Kierkegaard Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9), pp. 127–8.

meïr goldschmidt: the Cross-eyed Hunchback Johnny Kondrup

the name meïr goldschmidt certainly does not belong to world literature in the same way as the name søren Kierkegaard. if goldschmidt is known beyond the borders of denmark, then it is presumably as a footnote to Kierkegaard’s life and authorship—specifically, as the editor of the journal The Corsair, which Kierkegaard came into conflict with during 1845–46. But in his time goldschmidt was one of denmark’s most important authors, and to this day he stands as one of the most significant figures in Danish literary history in the long period of transition between romanticism and naturalism (ca. 1825–70). apart from his celebrity with The Corsair, his name is also indissolubly connected with the blooming of the Bildungsroman in denmark, and, moreover, he produced a many-faceted authorship of short stories.1 I. Goldschmidt’s Life goldschmidt was born in the provincial town of vordingborg in south zealand on october 26, 1819.2 He was the eldest of in all five children. At his baptism, he bore the name meyer aron, but later he preferred to be called meïr, which means “light” i owe niels Jørgen Cappelørn and Jon stewart thanks for constructive criticism of the manuscript of this article. 2 one of the main sources of goldschmidt’s life especially up to 1847 is his autobiography, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1877 (reprinted with commentaries and textual variants by morten Borup, Copenhagen: rosenkilde & Bagger 1965). the standard biography of goldschmidt is still Hans Kyrre, M. Goldschmidt, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: H. Hagerup 1919. a more recent, but less extensive biography is mogens Brøndsted, Meïr Goldschmidt, Copenhagen: gyldendals uglebøger 1965. Brøndsted has also written a monograph: Goldschmidts Fortællekunst, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1967. in english there is Kenneth H. ober, Meïr Goldschmidt, Boston: twayne 1976 (Twayne’s World Authors Series, vol. 414). morten Borup has edited, in addition to goldschmidt’s autobiography, two collections of letters with introductions and commentaries: Breve fra og til Meïr Goldschmidt, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: rosenkilde & Bagger 1963, and Meïr Goldschmidts Breve til hans Familie, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: rosenkilde og Bagger 1964. Kenneth H. ober, together with uffe andreasen and merete K. Jørgensen, has edited M. A. Goldschmidts Dagbøger, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab and C.a. reitzel 1987. 1

106

Johnny Kondrup

in Hebrew. His family was Jewish on both sides, but his childhood home was not orthodox, and the boy only truly learned the Jewish rituals when he, at the age of seven, came into the home of his father’s sister in Copenhagen. when he later in life came to emphasize his Jewish heritage, it was to some degree a choice or a conscious creation of identity. goldschmidt grew up during a time of unrest for the Jews in denmark. on the strength of the reform-minded government, the Jews had, in 1814, gained equal rights with other danish citizens to engage in business. But they did not receive equal rights in the political sphere, and so when the advisory estates assembly—a precursor to the parliamentary system—was introduced in 1834, while Jews could vote, they could not be elected to this body. only with the democratic constitution of 1849 did the Jews achieve full equal rights. moreover, in spite of the fact that they had equal rights on paper, it remained difficult for Jews to become employees of the state. in 1837, for example, not a single Jew held a position as teacher at a danish Latin school, as a clerk in a government ministry, as an officer in the army, or as an official in the customs service.3 the government’s policy of reform was not in harmony with the will of the people. when in 1813 the danish state had to declare itself bankrupt, there were various Jewish exchange firms among the creditors, which created ill-will. In addition, a leading member of the Jewish community in Copenhagen had played a central role in the danish economic policy up to the time of the bankruptcy.4 there arose rumors of a Jewish conspiracy, and the result was a wave of anti-semitic writings and responses, that is, an intellectual or “literary Jewish conflict.” A few years later in 1816 there appeared another wave of anti-semitic literature, and in 1819 it even came to riots—the “physical Jewish conflict”—when a Jewish pogrom spread from germany to Copenhagen and other danish cities. also in vordingborg, where goldschmidt’s parents lived, things were escalating to the plundering of Jewish property, which was only prevented at the last minute by the town constable. Goldschmidt himself did not experience these events first-hand—he was born a month later—but they came to play an important role in his self-understanding. also in 1830 riots of protest broke out when the foundation stone to the new synagogue was laid in Copenhagen.5 goldschmidt’s father aron (1792–1848) was a merchant and agriculturalist, but without success in either endeavor. in the years when meyer was growing up, the family moved several times in order to try its luck in new places. out of consideration for meyer’s schooling, he was sent in 1826 to Copenhagen where he came to live with his aunt and uncle. He was at that time exactly seven years old. in the home of Cf. martin schwarz Lausten, Frie jøder? Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i Danmark fra Frihedsbrevet 1814 til Grundloven 1849, Copenhagen: anis 2005, pp. 12– 16 (Kirkehistoriske Studier, 3rd series, no. 10, ed. by department of Church History, the theological Faculty, the university of Copenhagen). 4 Cf. Bent Blüdnikow, “Jøder i danmark. en historisk oversigt,” in Dansk jødisk kunst. Jøder i dansk kunst, ed. by mirjam gelfer-Jørgensen, Copenhagen: selskabet til udgivelse af danske mindesmærker / Forlaget rhodos 1999, pp. 23–45; p. 35, column 1. 5 ibid., pp. 16–35. 3

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

107

his aunt and uncle he received a strong impression of Judaism, which in the home of his parents had only been a pale memory. this Judaism unfolded itself like an oriental mysticism, which spoke to his receptive imagination. the result was that hardly a year later, when he left his aunt’s house to move back to his parents, he was filled with a burning enthusiasm for the faith of his ancestors. He himself thought that this one year meant as much as the six previous ones together.6 Meyer received an influence in the opposite direction when in 1833 he was enrolled in the Latin school in Copenhagen. the school’s nonconfessional, humanistic spirit seized him and led to a conscious break with Judaism, although goldschmidt never went so far as to declare himself Christian. For the rest of his life he came to stand outside both Judaism and Christianity. goldschmidt took his university examination in october 1836, but with a worse result than he had expected, and continued his university studies without enthusiasm. along the way be came to earn money as an editor and journalist. in october 1837, hardly 18 years old, he founded Næstved Weekly or Præstø County’s Times,7 a provincial newspaper which appeared twice a week in his native district (from January 1839, it also appeared in northwest zealand, after it had been incorporated with Callundborg Ugeblad). initially the content consisted of novellas and verse from his own hand, but soon more practical material, local and domestic political news was presented and discussed in a liberal spirit. For a handful of articles goldschmidt was later sentenced to pay a fine for injuries and a one-year censure. after two years, in december 1839, goldschmidt sold the paper,8 and he invested the profits from the sale in the weekly paper The Corsair,9 the first number of which appeared on october 8, 1840. the idea behind the paper had been conceived in discussions with a small group of comrades from Copenhagen, but when the others dropped out, goldschmidt remained as the sole editor. although he received a number of contributions from without,10 he himself came to write the better part of the articles in the first six volumes. The name of the paper was inspired by the parisian Le Corsaire-Satan, which goldschmidt presumably knew only in name. The Corsair itself was the inspiration for the german satirical paper Fliegende Blätter (1844–1944).11 to posterity The Corsair received, not least of all due to Kierkegaard’s judgment of it, a reputation for being a purely comic paper, indeed even a gutter paper. it goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, pp. 90–1 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 76). 7 Nestved Ugeblad eller Præstø Amts Tidende, appeared from october 3, 1837 until december 28, 1838 (its successor newspaper from 1839, was Sjællandsposten eller Nestved og Kalundborg Ugeblad). 8 goldschmidt, however, continued as editor of the paper until april 7, 1840, at which time the buyer, L.H. Lützhøft, himself took over the editorial work. 9 Corsaren, ed. by m.a. goldschmidt, nos. 1–740, 1840–53; nos. 1–93, 1853–54; nos. 1–11, 1855. (reprint edition: Corsaren 1840–46, vols. 1–7, ed. by uffe andreasen, Copenhagen: det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab and C.a. reitzel 1977–81.) 10 Cf. uffe andreasen, “efterskrift” to the reprinted edition of Corsaren, vol. 7, pp. 48–9. 11 ibid., pp. 18–19. 6

108

Johnny Kondrup

is, to be sure, correct that the humorous material contributed to the popularity of the journal and that in the course of time it came to take up more space than the editor liked. the reading public wanted it this way. But the paper also had a decided political agenda, and in order to understand this it is necessary to say a few words about the situation in denmark around 1840. during the napoleonic wars, the danish regent and later King, Frederik vi, under pressure from england’s policy towards denmark, had been allied with France since 1807. denmark’s neighbor, sweden, was, by contrast, allied with england, and at the end of 1813 the newly chosen swedish Crown prince—who ironically had been one of napoleon’s former marshals, Bernadotte, but had switched alliances in time—waged war on denmark. the plan was to conquer norway, which for around 400 years had been under danish control. the plan succeeded, and at the concluding of peace in January 1814 denmark was compelled to cede norway to sweden. But in norway, where the danish Crown prince Christian was governor, there was a revolt against the conditions of the peace treaty. a hastily called national assembly drafted a democratic constitution, which was accepted in may 1814, declared norway independent and elected prince Christian as constitutional monarch. King Christian’s time in the norwegian government was, however, very short. after the swedish army invaded norway, he was compelled to abdicate in october 1814. Hereafter norway was annexed into a union with sweden, and prince Christian returned home to denmark, as if wearing a halo, as the one who had given norway the freest constitution in europe. the liberal forces expected him to introduce democracy in denmark when he succeeded the absolutist Frederik vi as denmark’s king. But they came to wait long and in vain. Frederik vi only died in december 1839—after having been compelled to introduce the advisory estates assembly, which could suggest reforms, which the king was not obliged to act on—and by that point in time Crown prince Christian had become conservative. when a deputation from the people, immediately after his succession to the throne in 1840, brought to him the demand of a free constitution, it was rejected. the result was the same with a request to relax the censorship of the press and to give the estates assembly the right to make decisions about taxation. this was thus the situation when The Corsair was created. the reading public, which at the beginning of the century had been aesthetic—especially after the July revolution in France in 1830—had become political and polarized. in the press several conservative, royalist newspapers stood opposite a few liberal organs of opposition, which were distinguished among themselves by their degree of nationalism but were united in their demand for a constitutional monarchy.12 with The Corsair there arose something new: an organ which was independent of party interests and critical of both the government and the opposition. goldschmidt summarized the independence of the paper with a motto from genesis 16:12, “His hand will be against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him.”13 moreover, the paper’s program lay far to the left since it wanted to see the creation of a republic. Cf. elias Bredsdorff, Corsaren, Goldschmidt og Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: Corsarens Forlag 1977, p. 13. 13 Corsaren, no. 10, January 8, 1840, columns 1–4. 12

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

109

in addition to these political principles, The Corsair was the spokesman for social ideals such as the just distribution of the goods of society, equality before the law, and decent treatment of smallholders and workers. this line can be regarded as ideally socialist14—although not materialist as in the somewhat later marxism—but the journal never called people to revolution.15 the paper immediately became the object of the censor’s zealous interest, and as early as the third issue, the first confiscation took place. Of the in all 342 numbers (including the extra numbers and supplements), which goldschmidt published in his six-year period as owner, 43 were confiscated, and there were 29 court cases.16 in order to ensure the existence of the paper, goldschmidt was not himself mentioned as responsible editor; instead, he used random front men, who for a fee let themselves be sentenced to fines and jail.17 in the course of the six years he edited The Corsair, he used in all 13 such front men;18 but it was a public secret that goldschmidt edited the paper, and in June 1843 the High Court cut through the games and sentenced him (contrary to the letter of the law) to a penalty consisting of jail for six times four days, a fine and lifelong censorship.19 From no. 161 (october 13, 1843) he was named in the paper’s colophon as publisher, and from no. 263 (october 3, 1845) also as editor. the paper quickly obtained a print-run of 1,000 copies and later rose to almost 3,000, which was very high by contemporary standards.20 The semi-official daily newspaper, Berlingske Tidende, had only a few hundred more, while the leading opposition newspaper, Fædrelandet, printed around 1,500 copies.21

Cf. otto Borchsenius, “m. goldschmidt og Korsaren,” in Fra Fyrrerne. Literære Skizzer, series 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel & otto B. wroblewsky 1880, 2nd series, pp. 231–325; pp. 251–5. 15 Cf. uffe andreasen, “efterskrift” to the reprinted edition of Corsaren, vol. 7, p. 31. 16 ibid., p. 53. 17 goldschmidt states in Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, p. 244 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 143), that he himself was unable to be the editor because he had been forbidden to publish by the authorities for an article in Nestved Ugeblad. But this cannot have been the reason since, as morten Borup has pointed out in a note in his edition of the autobiography (vol. 1, p. 296), the judgment in this case only came on may 30, 1842, that is, more than a year and a half after The Corsair had begun. Cf. “Landsover-, samt Hof- og stadsretten, Justitskontorets domprotokol til sager ved 1. instans nr. 36 B, pp. 117–18, Landsarkivet for sjælland,” the case began on February 17, 1840, that is, after goldschmidt had sold the paper, but before he resigned as editor. 18 Cf. uffe andreasen, “efterskrift” to the reprinted edition of Corsaren, vol. 7, pp. 45–6. (morten Borup puts the number at 14, which, however, rests on an error in the counting of the numbers 21 and 22. Cf. the commentary in Borup’s edition of Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, pp. 298–9.) 19 morten Borup’s commentary, vol. 1, p. 299. 20 the number 3,000 is uncertain. it comes from Livs Erindringer og Resultater (vol. 1, p. 264; morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 152). the number 1,000 comes from a variant in goldschmidt’s posthumous papers, cf. morten Borup’s commentary, vol. 1, p. 299. But in Corsaren, no. 270, november 21, 1845, the reader is informed that the paper will soon reach 5,000 subscriptions. 21 see SKS K8, 136. 14

110

Johnny Kondrup

after goldschmidt had been publishing The Corsair for about two years, he met the man who would have a great influence on his life: the literary critic, Peder Ludvig Møller (1814–65). He was five years older than Goldschmidt and known in Copenhagen as a highly gifted and polemical aesthetician. in 1841 he had won the university’s gold medal and aspired to be the successor of the romantic poet adam oehlenschläger (1779–1850) as professor of aesthetics at the university of Copenhagen.22 moreover, møller was a great admirer of oehlenschläger as poet and preferred (paradoxically, when one considers his own disposition) his naïve romanticism at the expense of the younger generation’s leader, Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860) and his romanticism of form. møller, however, was not only famous but also infamous for his debauched life and cynical view of women. For his contemporaries he stood as an example of the aesthetic personality type, and it has been argued that søren Kierkegaard used him as the model for Johannes the seducer.23 møller contributed some anonymous articles to The Corsair and for two months in 1843, while goldschmidt was on a journey abroad, acted as the paper’s actual editor. But most significantly he acted as Goldschmidt’s aesthetic educator. The feared Corsair editor was at bottom surprisingly ignorant both of the principles of the comic which he blindly practiced, and the ways to knowledge. møller acted as goldschmidt’s advisor and even literally advised him where the university Library was located! moreover, it was møller who redeemed goldschmidt’s artistic possibilities. one evening in 1844, when they, contrary to habit, spoke as friends more intimately with one another, Goldschmidt confided to Møller how it felt to be a Jew in Denmark. He freely expressed all the alienation and bitterness toward society, which, due to his race, excluded him from political rights, public offices, and so on. Møller neither contradicted nor consoled goldschmidt, but simply said, as he was taking his hat to go, “it’s with such feelings that people write novels.”24 goldschmidt followed the advice; the very same night he wrote what would become the concluding chapter of A Jew. They did not become friends, if one ascribes to this word a confidentiality or intimacy, for the ironist møller allowed no one to come within arms-length. But they concluded a pact to search for truth and beauty. Kierkegaard came unknowingly to enter into this pact as a third party. when Kierkegaard in 1843 published Either/Or, goldschmidt wrote a rather unclear but violent praise of the book in The Corsair.25 at møller’s aspirations are mentioned explicitly by goldschmidt in Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, pp. 327–8 and 409–10 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, pp. 179–80 and p. 215). 23 Cf. Frithiof Brandt, Den unge Søren Kierkegaard. En række nye bidrag, Copenhagen: Levin & munksgaard 1929, pp. 160–304. 24 goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, p. 366 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 196). 25 Corsaren, no. 129, march 10, 1843, columns 1–3 / COR, supplement, pp. 93–5. two years earlier in Corsaren, no. 51, october 22, 1841, Kierkegaard’s master’s thesis, The Concept of Irony, had been ironically but benevolently reviewed (COR, supplement, pp. 92f.). the review, however, was not, apart from the appreciative postscript, written by goldschmidt 22

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

111

the same time he invited møller and (in spirit) the ostensible author, victor eremita, to a banquet or symposium with a bottle of italian wine. the banquet ran “as if under sun-covered vine leaves and at the ionic sea,” and at the end møller said to goldschmidt: now, i will make a pact with you that we will both be in the service of the truth of literature and, when required, will stand up ruthlessly against anyone and against each other, without comradery and compromise, and as reward for this we will remain eternally young.26

the pact between møller and goldschmidt rested, moreover, on the principle that society and conventions were always wrong. also here Kierkegaard, without knowing it, entered as a third party, since when he broke his engagement with regine olsen (1822–1904) he became for them a testimony of a person’s artistic right above all mundane bonds.27 Kierkegaard, however, was no admirer either of The Corsair or of p.L. møller. as a conservative and royalist, he was directly in disagreement with the paper, and he found that its ironic tone was brazen and its use of anonymous articles and front-men editors was destructive. (this indignation might perhaps strike one as surprising in such a decidedly ironical writer, who also makes use of pseudonyms and claims that the pseudonymous works do not contain a word from him himself.) But The Corsair continued to discuss Kierkegaard in laudatory terms, and when in november 1845 it claimed that his pseudonym victor eremita was immortal, he decided to distance himself from the paper and asked to be abused like all the other ordinary people.28 Before his decision was carried out, p.L. møller published—not in The Corsair, but in his own aesthetic journal Gæa29 for 1846 (published on december 22, 1845)—an article where he, in dialogue form, reviewed a number of newly published books, including Kierkegaard’s Stages on Life’s Way. møller presented here a sharp criticism, both aesthetic and moral, of the book’s third part, “ ‘guilty?’/‘not guilty?’ ” the moral part of the criticism concerned the alleged wrong that is perpetrated against the young girl who is “placed on the experimental rack” and “[is] dissect[ed] alive.”30 the himself. Cf. goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, p. 275 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 156). 26 ibid., p. 319 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 176). 27 ibid., p. 323 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 178) / COR, supplement, p. 142. 28 SKS 21, 267, nB10:20 (from February 1849) / COR, supplement, pp. 233–4. Kierkegaard here refers to the fact that in his papers he has “a little article that is older and was most immediately prompted by the immortalizing.” The claim is confirmed by the article, “en Bøn til Corsaren,” printed in Efterladte Papirer, vol. 3, pp. 219ff. (Pap. vi B 192–3 / JP 5, 5853–4 / COR, supplement, pp. 157–8). the original disappeared after it was printed in Efterladte Papirer. The Corsair’s immortalizing of victor eremita appears in no. 269, november 14, 1845, column 14. 29 Gæa: æsthetisk Aarbog, vols. 1–3, 1845–47, ed. by p.L. møller. 30 p.L. møller, “et Besøg i sorø” [a visit in sorø], in Gæa, æsthetisk Aarbog. 1846, Copenhagen: udgiverens forlag, 1846, pp. 144–87; quotations p. 177 / COR, supplement, pp. 96–104; quotations pp. 101–2.

112

Johnny Kondrup

criticism was clearly addressed to the publicly known relation between Kierkegaard and regine olsen. Kierkegaard’s reaction is well known. under the pseudonym Frater taciturnus he published, on december 27, an article in the conservative daily newspaper, Fædrelandet, in which he referred to møller as a literary vagabond, a parasite, and a thief. since møller’s review had the form of a dialogue, which allegedly took place in sorø, in connection with a visit at the home of the poet and professor Carsten Hauch (1790–1872), Kierkegaard reproaches møller for gaining entry into the home of the decent man in order thereafter to put their private statements directly into Gæa. Kierkegaard’s article, which has an unusually sharp tone, ends by identifying p.L. møller with The Corsair. in this connection he asks that he may come in The Corsair just like other ordinary people and adds: “and yet, i have already been there, for ubi spiritus, ibi ecclesia: ubi p.L. møller, ibi The Corsair.” For this reason he could call møller’s article in Gæa “one of those loathsome Corsair attacks on peaceable, respectable men.”31 this was the opening shot of the Corsair controversy, which is also such a wellknown episode in Kierkegaard’s life; here we can limit ourselves to its most essential main lines: through about the first half of the year 1846, from January 2 to July 17,32 Kierkegaard was made fun of in an intensive manner, not only for his works, their mannered style, and their high-flying reflections; but also for his personal habits and appearance: his self-indulgence, his lack of immediacy, his round shoulders, his thin legs and—not least of all—his trousers, which, it was claimed, had one leg that was shorter than the other. the more or less humorous articles were accompanied by illustrations in the form of crude woodcuts based on the sketches of peter Klæstrup (1820–82). Here Copenhageners could see the philosopher’s well-known figure in caricature. in Kierkegaard research it has often been claimed that The Corsair discontinued its persecution of Kierkegaard when goldschmidt, in october 1846, sold the paper. this is, however, incorrect. First, there were new teasing jabs at Kierkegaard from

“en omreisende Æsthetikers virksomhed, og hvorledes han dog kom til at betale gjæstebudet” [the activity of a traveling esthetician and How He still Happened to pay for the dinner], Fædrelandet, no. 2078, december 27, 1845, printed in SV2 Xiii, 459–67; quotations p. 467 / COR, 38–46; quotations p. 46. 32 poul Behrendt wishes to date The Corsair’s “all-out attack” on Kierkegaard starting with no. 278, which appeared on January 16, 1846 (cf. “det tidsforskudte tanke-Ærinde. en rekonstruktion af sammenstødet mellem søren Kierkegaard, p.L. møller og meïr goldschmidt 1845–46,” in Tænkesedler. 20 fortællinger af fædrelandets litteraturhistorie. Festskrift til Flemming Lundgreen-Nielsen, ed. by Henrik Blicher, merete K. Jørgensen & marita akhøj nielsen, Copenhagen: universitets-Jubilæets danske samfund & C.a. reitzel 2007, pp. 151– 75; p. 172). it is correct that no. 278 includes the most taunts at Kierkegaard of all the numbers from January to February of 1846, but at the same time there are considerably more taunts in the two numbers which precede no. 278, than in the following six numbers. Consequently, it would be more correct to say that the “all-out attack” is the sum of the three first numbers, which, strictly speaking, would mean that it begins with no. 276, on January 2. 31

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

113

october 23 and to the end of 1846, although they were few and subdued.33 second, the campaign continued in the following years, in the first instance until February 1848, and then very sporadically until the paper ceased publication in march 1855.34 in our perspective the Corsair controversy, however, concludes with goldschmidt’s departure from the paper, and this seems to have been Kierkegaard’s perspective as well. He was little exercised by the post-goldschmidt Corsair and found it harmless.35 if one is to evaluate the results for the three main characters in the controversy, the unquestionable loser was p.L. møller. after the confrontation with Kierkegaard he saw his chances of obtaining a professorship forever destroyed.36 what was decisive was not so much the fact that his name was publicly connected with The Corsair, since he had already more or less done this himself before the outbreak of the controversy. in February 1845 an article in thomas Hansen erslew’s lexicon of authors—an article which møller himself had written—had informed the reader that he had made “contributions...to the ‘Corsair’ (various satirical works and poems).”37 it was, rather, the violent social stigmatization that møller was exposed to in Kierkegaard’s articles which made it unlikely that he would realize his ambitions.38 at the end of 1847 he left denmark on a journey with a stipend, which, to be sure, had been planned before the Corsair controversy, but he never returned home again. He lived for some years in germany, but from 1851 he settled in paris, where illness and poverty slowly destroyed him. He died in 1865, mentally disturbed as a result of advanced syphilis. For Kierkegaard’s part, he greatly regretted that, as a result of The Corsair’s campaign, he lost his relation of trust to the common man. the uneducated part of Copenhagen’s population, which he had previously associated with during his walks, had now been taught by The Corsair to regard him as a laughable and arrogant figure. On the other side, the affair meant that he postponed the thought that he, up to that point, had toyed with, namely, to stop as an author after the Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846) and seek a priesthood in the countryside. it would this is no. 318, october 23, column 10; no. 326, december 18, columns 8–9; and no. 327, december 24, column 3 (since the discussion in the same no. columns 8–9 is identical with that in no. 326 from december 18). 34 on this see peter tudvad, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politikens forlag 2004, pp. 381–90. 35 Cf., for example, the unprinted article, “et ligefremt ord om mig selv som Forf.” [“a direct word about myself as an author”] (Pap. X–6 B 249 / CUP2, supplement, p. 167), which the editors dates at 1849–51: “with the proportion of the circulation which The Corsair now has with such editors as the present one, i regard it as not dangerous, also since there is so much commotion in denmark now.” (p. 410). 36 Cf. goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, p. 414 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 217). 37 thomas Hansen erslew, Almindeligt Forfatter-Lexicon for Kongeriget Danmark med tilhørende Bilande, fra 1814 til 1840, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: Forlagsforeningens Forlag, 1843–53; vol. 2 (K–r), 1847, p. 406. the lexicon was published in individual installments, and the installment with the article about møller appeared on February 13, 1845. 38 Cf. Behrendt, “det tidsforskudte tanke-Ærinde,” p. 170. 33

114

Johnny Kondrup

presumably never have happened anyway, but, whatever the case, he was convinced that it had now become impossible. with the Corsair controversy, the authorship received new energy and took a new turn in the direction of defining Christianity as follows: to endure mocking, persecution, suffering, and martyrdom.39 the affair contributed to keeping Kierkegaard’s focus on the public but also to isolating him in relation to it and to radicalizing his position towards it. it is therefore clear that the attack on official Christendom, which took place in Kierkegaard’s final years, and the resulting attack on the Church would not have had the same violence if it were not for the conflict with P.L. Møller and Goldschmidt—indeed, perhaps it would never have taken place at all. For Goldschmidt, the conflict was the occasion to part ways with The Corsair. The final issue of The Corsair, which he edited, appeared on october 2, 1846. immediately thereafter he traveled abroad “in order to be done with witticism and to learn something.”40 His journey took him through germany, austria, and the present Czech republic to italy and home again via switzerland. it provided him with a rich impression of art, above all in italy, and decisive political impulses. in austria he experienced under Count metternich a repression which made the danish conditions seem liberal, while in switzerland he was witness to the putting down of the conservative, Catholic “sonderbund” by the forces of freedom. it was also in switzerland that goldschmidt received the idea for his thoughts on an ordering of the danish Kingdom’s danish-speaking and german-speaking provinces into a federal state. this thought would soon bring him into opposition with the national liberal party. in the fall of 1847 goldschmidt was back at home again, and at the end of December appeared the first issue of his new journal, North and South.41 He would keep it going, with minor interruptions, for the next 12 years, until 1859. the collected number of volumes ran up to 35, and goldschmidt wrote almost all the articles himself. the quality of the journal was high; the issues treated were primarily politics (international and domestic), theater and literature, and the printrun was around 1,500. North and South was an organ of sober-mindedness and moderation. its political goal was not, like that of The Corsair before it, a republic, not even a democracy with one blow, but first democratic citizens, and then a democratic constitution. The focus was, in other words, transferred from the form of state to the individuals who were supposed to carry it, that is, to the demand for education or Bildung. The idea of becoming a rural priest was never definitely abandoned. Kierkegaard returned to it the following years, sometimes in a positive, sometimes in a negative manner. see, for example, the two almost contemporary entries from october 1849, SKS 22, 289, nB13:27 and SKS 22, 296, nB13:35. 40 goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, p. 430 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 224) / COR, supplement, p. 150. 41 Nord og Syd: et Maanedskrift, vols. 1–6, 1848–49, ed. by m. goldschmidt; Nord og Syd: et Ugeskrift, vols. 1–7, 1849–51, ed. by m. goldschmidt; Nord og Syd: ny Række, vols. 1–11, 1852–57, ed. by m. goldschmidt; Nord og Syd: et Ugeskrift, vols. 1–4, 1856, ed. by m. goldschmidt; Nord og Syd: et Ugeskrift: ny Række, vols. 1–6, 1857–59, ed. by m. goldschmidt. 39

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

115

the year 1848 and those that immediately followed were politically tumultuous. First, there was the struggle for the constitution which became acute when King Christian viii, in January 1848, was succeeded by his son Frederik vii. a deputation of the people, in march 1848, made a peaceful revolution and got the new king to promise a free constitution; the promise was made good in the following year. second, there were national oppositions. denmark was a united monarchy, which after the loss of norway in 1814 consisted of the Kingdom itself (north of the Kongeåen river in Jutland) along with the southern provinces schleswig, Holsten, and Lauenborg. Holsten-Lauenborg was german-speaking, while schleswig was half german- and half danish-speaking. while Lauenborg was a quite recent possession (since 1815), Schleswig and Holsten had for centuries been more loosely affiliated with the Danish realm, since they were governed by dukes, who often had been one and the same person as the danish king. in the duchies people also demanded a free constitution, but independent of that of the Kingdom, and certain forces in schleswig wanted it to be taken up in the german confederation, where Holsten was already a member. in denmark the leading political group was the national Liberals, whose politics aimed at incorporating schleswig into the Kingdom, while Holsten and Lauenborg could receive their freedom. the idea of incorporation meant that a free constitution, which was being created in the Kingdom, should also be valid for schleswig. the schleswigians should thus have a free constitution, but not their own. thus, the struggle for democracy unfortunately came to be mixed together with the struggle for nationality. in the spring of 1848 the rebellion in schleswig-Holsten broke out, and it resulted in a war lasting almost three years, which the Kingdom of denmark won. goldschmidt’s inspiration from switzerland, where he heard german- and French-speaking members of the same government, caused him to advocate the conservation of the united monarchy. For this reason—and also because he thought that a free constitution ought to be prepared via democratic education—he came into opposition with the national Liberals. By contrast, in 1850 he came into contact with a group of estate owners, who under the name of “the society of Land owners” wished to use him as an advocate for their causes—defense of property rights and for the united monarchy—but the relation dissolved into disharmony after only a year. this led to further political isolation, and the expectations which goldschmidt, with the founding of North and South, had had about exercising influence on Danish politics became more and more scant. symptomatic for this turn, the journal was followed, in the years 1853–57, by a piece of fiction, the Bildungsroman Homeless, where he sketched, among other things, a disillusioned picture of the age’s political life, rich with chit-chat and ambition, but ignoble. in the years after the victory over the duchies, people worked politically to create a common constitution for the Kingdom of denmark, schleswig, Holsten, and Lauenborg. But the work was in vain, and around 1860 most people could see that things were building up to a new war with the duchies and their allies, prussia. Goldschmidt thought that Denmark should take up the fight immediately, but also here he was out of sync with the times. the government was disposed to try to buy time—and it bought it until 1864, after otto von Bismarck had come to power in

116

Johnny Kondrup

prussia. then denmark lost to his effective war machine and was obliged to cede all three duchies. goldschmidt’s political isolation was not the only reason that he, at the beginning of the 1860s, directed his eye abroad. after Homeless his artistic abilities were on the verge of drying up, and when he no longer had income from North and South, he came into financial difficulties. For this reason he accepted an offer from a rich cousin, the diamond dealer Benjamin rothschild (who was not related to the rich german family of the same name), to move to London, where he could try to establish himself as an english author. in august 1861 goldschmidt left denmark for an indeterminate time. However, the stay in england alone did not have the effect of inspiring goldschmidt, but when his cousin, at the end of 1862 and the beginning of 1863, also paid for a trip to rome, something marvelous happened: goldschmidt fell in love with a danish woman, who was married and could not or would not leave her sick husband; but the wave of passion which she raised in him he was able to preserve for years as poetic inspiration.42 when she further told him that he should be a danish poet, he chose to return to denmark in the summer of 1863, and, as a result of the entire affair, in the following years he produced a whole series of works, including the Bildungsroman The Heir (1865). apart from a series of journeys abroad—goldschmidt was a very active traveler43—his life after The Heir was rather uneventful. He was unmarried, or rather, divorced, for in the years 1848–52 he had been married to Johanne sonne (1825–1900), the daughter of a shipmaster. she had been his mistress, presumably from 1843, and in 1845 they had a son. when in 1848 a daughter arrived (which goldschmidt was not certain he was the father of), they got married pro forma. But it was not a relationship of love, and the married couple probably never lived together. the result of the divorce in 1852 was that Johanne had custody of the daughter, while the son went with goldschmidt. He moved into the home which goldschmidt, since 1839, had shared with his mother, a strong lady, full of character, who was also his confidante. When they moved in together in 1839, two younger sisters also came along. the one, esther, later got married, while the other, ragnhild, remained unmarried and lived together with goldschmidt even after their mother’s death in 1870. she was in charge of the common household until the poet’s death in 1887 and died herself in 1890.

the norwegian art historian Lorentz dietrichson, in his memoirs, claims that Goldschmidt had fallen in love with Mrs. Stilling as a young man. He calls her “an old flame of youth.” Svundne Tider. Af en Forfatters Ungdomserindringer, vols. 1–4, Kristiania: J.w. Cappelen 1896–1917, vol. 3, p. 95. 43 a list of goldschmidt’s journeys can be found in morten Borup’s introduction to Meïr Goldschmidts Breve til hans Familie, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: rosenkilde og Bagger 1964, vol. 1, p. 109. on the pages preceding this, there is a systematic account of the journeys organized according to destination (pp. 17–118). 42

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

117

II. Goldschmidt’s Novels goldschmidt’s debut novel, A Jew,44 appeared in november 1845 under the pseudonym Adolph Meyer. At first glance, it treats the Jewish problem, which the author had described in the former discussion with p.L. møller, and the descriptions of the separated, secretive Jewish world contribute with a local color, which until then was unknown in Danish literature. Goldschmidt was the first person to describe this milieu from the inside. at a deeper level, the book raises the question of the possibility of the individual to realize himself in bourgeois society. the main character, Jacob Bendixen, is a gifted young man, born in 1808 in the family of a merchant in the province. His home is orthodox Jewish, and Jacob grows up in the faith of his ancestors. But when he comes to Latin school in Copenhagen, he is attracted by the school’s humanistic spirit and breaks with his family. on the other side, however, he does not wish to become a Christian but confesses a universalhuman faith in god, without dogma. after his student examination, Jacob becomes engaged to a Christian girl, thora, but incurs the disapproval from her milieu when he refuses to be baptized. In an attempt to overcome the conflict and compel respect from his environment, Jacob decides to distinguish himself as an officer. He signs up for foreign military service but wins no honors, and in the interim Thora marries another officer, who is a Christian. when Jacob returns home, he has thus lost hope of liberating himself from his origins, and in a mixture of resignation and vengeance he enters into the identity which his surroundings have prepared for him: he becomes a pawnbroker, a usurer—a Jew. in this capacity he indirectly causes the death of thora, while he himself dies spiritually. The last chapter of the book—which was written first—takes place long after the rest of the action and portrays an old-fashioned Jewish funeral. through the gossip in the funeral procession, it becomes clear that the deceased was the moneylender Jacob Bendixen. when Jacob’s liberation fails to be successful, it is, according to the author, because his childhood experiences of being an outsider sit deep in him and because the outside world constantly adds new experiences of the same kind. But, on the other side, the plot confirms that Jacob’s fate is only so poor because the author wants it thus. in order to bring about this result the author makes use of accidents and misunderstandings to such a degree that it goes beyond what is probable. goldschmidt recognized this himself, when he wrote in his autobiography that A Jew was stamped with a “belief in disorder” which was unjustified in a higher sense.45 By contrast, goldschmidt’s next novel, Homeless (1853–57),46 is stamped with a “belief in order” which in the human sense seems unbelievable. it falls into three 44

1845.

adolph meyer [meïr goldschmidt], En Jøde: Novelle, Copenhagen: m. goldschmidt

goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, p. 367 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, pp. 196–7). 46 meïr goldschmidt, Hjemløs: en Fortælling, vols. 1–5, Copenhagen: andr. Fred. Høst & søns Forlag 1853–57. (originally published in goldschmidt’s periodical Nord og Syd: ny Række, vols. 4–6, 1853–54 and vols. 9–11, 1856–57.) 45

118

Johnny Kondrup

parts, whose headings have, in denmark, become the very formula for the genre of Bildungsroman: at home—homeless—back home. In the first part one follows the son of a merchant, Otto Krøyer, from his childhood years in the danish province to his student examination in Copenhagen (around 1839). His childhood is portrayed as a paradise where otto and the neighbor’s daughter emilie play the roles of adam and eve. But with puberty they gain selfconsciousness, become alienated from each other, and the harmony is destroyed. the second part, which sketches a broad picture of the age’s intellectual and political life, begins with a portrayal of otto’s years at the university. they are rich in discussions about art, politics, love, and religion. the most important supporting character is the ironist schiøtt (an idealized portrait of p.L. møller), who preaches beauty and the gospel of free erotic love. otto learns from him, but receives thereby the opportunity to discover what reality of ugliness and compulsion—poverty, usury, prostitution—lies beneath the fine words. Terrified, he tears himself away and travels abroad in order to find an ideal which is worth living and dying for. He becomes entangled in battles in italy and paris (it is the revolutionary year 1848), but does not find among those engaged in the fighting motives that are sufficiently pure. As in all Bildungsromane, it is the middle phase which fills the most pages and captures the reader’s interest. otto lives here, to use a fashionable word from the period, in accordance with “the interesting,” that is, as a foreigner in the world and foreign to himself. it is an enlightened Jew, who in rome formulates the life view of the novel. it states that in life there rules an all-encompassing spiritual order, which assures that every human’s actions and thoughts return as fate. the events prove the Jew right, since otto from then on meets a series of old acquaintances whom he has hurt in his blind drive to self-fulfillment. With a dawning consciousness of being in debt to life, he turns his back on the big world and goes home in order to pay. in the third part “Back Home,” the question is merely what form should this payment take? How is he to come again into the harmony with the order of the world which he was in unconsciously as a child? after a long period of uncertainty, he decides to become a schoolteacher, but even this humble wish is not fulfilled. Fate demands further payment because otto, upon seeing emilie again, who is now married, becomes filled with desire and only by an “accident” avoids seducing her. On the same night he is injured and dies, hardly 35 years of age. His death brings with it the final reconciliation but raises doubt about to what degree it is really possible to live in harmony with the novel’s order of the world. especially if one compares the novel with goldschmidt’s great model, goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre (1795–96), it becomes clear why the conclusion of Homeless is unsatisfying. goethe’s novel ends, like goldschmidt’s, in an optimistic faith in the fact that there is an order in existence, and lets his hero bring himself into the order. But whereas Goethe points to a future field of activity for Wilhelm, goldschmidt has otto Krøyer die away from reality. it implies that the order which is referred to is more of a vision, a longing in the author, than a viable experience.

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

119

in goldschmidt’s third novel, The Heir (1865),47 he is more successful at incarnating the vision in a varicolored, at times directly colored material. the novel takes place in the years around 1833–61 and tells, to a large extent, the same story as Homeless about a young man’s breaking away from a safe childhood, through a youth stamped with homelessness and crisis, leading to the maturity of manhood. the action takes place in denmark, germany, austria and, not least of all, rome. the novel operates on several levels and is, among other things, a love story. the main character, axel, while at school in Copenhagen, falls in love with astrid, but their ways are separated due to misunderstandings. out of consideration for the family, astrid marries a baron whom she does not love, and axel yields to a girl whom he is indifferent to. on his journey out into the world, his eros is split in two: a supermundane love of astrid and a soulless sexual desire. in the struggle between these two, which is fought out in the dramatic course of the action, the first wins out, and axel maintains his paradoxical hope of winning back astrid. Fate rewards his self-mastery, for in rome he meets astrid with the two adoptive children for whose sake she got married. For a time she and axel live a sweet, spiritual-soulful common life, but their love cannot be realized, primarily because they have each sinned against it by giving themselves to someone whom they did not love. therefore it is in its own way justified that their common life together is interrupted by the death of astrid. immediately before this she gives custody of her adoptive children to axel, with whom he can return to denmark, not merely as a man, but as a father. the order which goldschmidt treats in his two Bildungsromane he calls “nemesis.” in his autobiography Life’s Memories and Results (1877)48 he demonstrated its validity in his own life, at the same time as he published a scholarly treatise on the history of this idea. this order is a later expression of romanticism’s unity thinking; in spite of its elements of superstition and constant looking for signs, it is a variant of the idealist thought construction which the philosopher Henrich steffens (1773–1845) imported from Jena, the heart of german romanticism, in 1802. it is worth noting that goldschmidt struggled forth to this order from the standpoint of disorder, and that in the descriptions of it, he is able to take up large portions of realistic material from the age. His ambition is precisely to maintain the idealist vision in the material that is close to reality. However, he lets go of this ambition in his final novel, The Raven (1867),49 which, to be sure, contains realistic elements from the period 1848–50, but whose plot builds on a fairy tale. the main characters are three poor brothers, who with their unselfish demeanor win the favor of fate and clear up an old crime against the family, so that it wins its fortune again. the improbable plot is, from the author’s side, intended as a demonstration of the order of nemesis, but, for the reader, it takes on the character of a calculated accounting, where everyone receives his due and everything falls into place. the surprise of the novel is a supporting character, the hunchbacked, twitching Jew, simon Levi. He acts as an agent for the villain but ends by bringing him down 47 48 49

meïr goldschmidt, Arvingen, Copenhagen: Chr. steen 1865. goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater. meïr goldschmidt, Ravnen, Copenhagen: Chr. steen & søns Forlag 1867.

120

Johnny Kondrup

so that justice can be served to the fullest. goldschmidt has sketched in simon Levi a tragic-comic portrait of a type of person in danish Jewish history: the poor and pragmatic city-Jew, to the outside world, cautious and humble, but inwardly proud of his people’s history and without any wish to be assimilated. III. Goldschmidt’s Short Stories goldschmidt’s authorship as writer of short stories began as early as 1846 with Short Stories50—published, like A Jew under the pseudonym adolph meyer. the collection includes, among other things, the school textbook classic “the Lumberyard,” which a half a year previous had been published in p.L. møller’s above-mentioned aesthetic journal Gæa for 1846 under the title “my uncle’s Lumberyard.”51 it is a humorous idyll, a story of young love, which ends happily. in Short Stories “the Lumberyard” constitutes part of the cycle “memories from my uncle’s House,” whose main goal is to communicate local color from a large merchant’s house in a provincial town. other of the house’s localities are the taproom and the mangling room. Local color, la couleur locale, was one of the key words in danish post-romanticism. the book, which is, moreover, uneven, also contains a sentimental tale of fate with elements of goldschmidt’s later doctrine of nemesis (“wheat Bread for eight pennies”), an ironic story (“a may Festival”), and a genre picture from a Jewish milieu (“aron and esther”). But the tragedy from A Jew is far away. goldschmidt’s short story authorship only truly began to take wing in the 1860s, that is after Kierkegaard’s death. For this reason we will not make so much of it here. the authorship naturally falls into two parts, of which the one contains Jewish people and motifs, while the other does not. in the Jewish part we meet again simon Levi from The Raven; he is the main character in “maser” (1868) and “Levi and ibald” (1883). goldschmidt’s Jewish short stories are marked by a tragic-comic humor, which arises from the lack of fit between the smallness of the main characters, often oppressed by the conditions and laughable to the outside world, and the greatness of their feelings or agonies of the soul. It is a lack of fit between the outer and the inner, between reality and ideality. in Avromche Nightingale (1871),52 for example, Fortællinger af Adolph Meyer [goldschmidt], Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846. in his autobiography goldschmidt recounts how immediately after the publication of Gæa in december 1845 he met Kierkegaard in the street and was anxious to hear what he thought of the short story. even he himself had not yet read møller’s criticism of Kierkegaard. “well, yes, he replied, and talked about my story with some praise. But otherwise he was more silent than usual, obviously his thoughts were elsewhere; perhaps he also believed that my naiveté was feigned.” (Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, p. 422; morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 220 / COR, supplement, p. 145.) on a loose scrap from among goldschmidt’s posthumous papers, Kierkegaard’s conditioned praise is elaborated on: “ ‘the Lumberyard’ might have been good enough, but now i had to stop with that kind of thing in order not to come into sugar-sweet gruel.” (Quoted from Kyrre, M. Goldschmidt, vol. 2, p. 12; reprinted in facsimile in Brøndsted, Meïr Goldschmidt, 1965, p. 75.) it is obviously the short story’s strewing of sentimentality that bothered Kierkegaard. 52 meïr goldschmidt, Avromche Nattergal. En Fortælling, Copenhagen: Chr. steen & søn 1871. 50 51

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

121

the title character is an older Jew, who as a young person dreamed of becoming an opera singer, but instead became a ticket scalper, that is, for theater tickets. He secretly falls in love with a 19-year-old Christian servant girl, and the great feelings, which he had otherwise buried, flame up in him. When he, with an unconsidered remark, compromises both the girl and himself, he attempts to hang himself but is cut down at the last minute. then his friends see to it that a reasonable Jewish old maid marries him. in the part of goldschmidt’s late short stories which do not have a Jewish background the perspective is more profound. Here a theme can be found which is dominant in the late danish golden age, the period between 1840 and 1870 also in Kierkegaard’s works. it concerns the relation between ideas (or dreams) and reality. the most important titles in this context are goldschmidt’s Letters from the Time of Cholera (1865),53 Love Stories from Many Countries (1867),54 and “spellbound i–ii” (1868).55 the collection of love stories, which build on the love sagas from europe and the orient, is probably the most complex in the authorship. For an immediate observation, it consists in a series of stories about how love conquers all boundaries, but, upon further consideration, it becomes clear that it offers an investigation of the relation between reality and ideas (dreams, illusions) with the erotic as its fuel. Love can appear as an elevating, ideal force, as happens in the italian story “paolo and giovanna,” but the ideal drive can also become a temptation, which betrays both earthy actuality and love; it is present in the Jewish story “the Bird which sang.” The main character Elijah, on his wedding day, desires to see God’s magnificence and is transported to heaven in a rapture, which only lasts as long as a bird takes to sing two notes. But when he returns, 70 years have passed and his wife is dead. if elijah’s being transported to heaven is a reality in itself, then the transporting, which the main character in the german story “Lureley” experiences, is dubious. He is a young platonically disposed student, who longs for the deepest secret in life and thinks that he has found it in the form of an actress. she is a member of a troupe which gives nocturnal parties in the ruins of a castle on the cliffs of Loreley on the rhine. But she disappears, and when the student later meets another girl who resembles the actress, he convinces her and himself to get married. when he gives his Bertha the kiss of engagement, he, however, realizes that he has made a mistake—she is only a good, bourgeois girl—and becomes melancholy. shortly afterwards he meets the actress again, anew at the Loreley cliff. in order to avoid seeing the actress, he stares fixedly down into the water, but there her reflection appears clearly, and wild with desire he throws himself out into the river where he drowns. that it is not merely an actress but her reflection which drives him to death, relativizes by increasing degrees his interpretation of life’s deepest secret. meïr goldschmidt, Breve fra Choleratiden, indeholdende en lille Begivenhed, Copenhagen: Chr. steen & søn 1865. 54 meïr goldschmidt, Kjærlighedshistorier fra mange Lande, Copenhagen: Chr. steen & søn 1867. 55 meïr goldschmidt, “Bjergtagen i–ii,” in Smaa Fortællinger, Copenhagen: Chr. steen & søn 1868, pp. 181–217. 53

122

Johnny Kondrup

if goldschmidt’s late novels seem forced in their will toward order and structure, then there is in his short stories a more searching, indeed, also more modern spirit. their multifaceted investigation of the relation between reality, illusion, and interpretation is, for example, an important precursor of Karen Blixen’s (isak dinesen’s) nihilistic stories. the short stories, which, like “Lureley,” portray the human being losing his foothold in existence, because he can no longer decide what is real, can be seen as preliminary forms for Blixen’s studies of (especially male) dreamers, who go about in their own ideas in the belief that they constitute the external world. IV. Goldschmidt in Kierkegaard’s Published Works goldschmidt is almost never mentioned in Kierkegaard’s published works: if one limits oneself to the works which Kierkegaard himself published, he appears only a single time. it is, however, on the periphery of the authorship, in the newspaper article “the dialectical result of a Literary police action,” published in Fædrelandet, no. 9, January 10, 1846, under the pseudonym Frater taciturnus. only eight days previous The Corsair had begun its campaign of ridiculing Kierkegaard. The Corsair’s first two articles in the campaign were printed on January 2 and 9, respectively. in the article he wrote as response, Kierkegaard/Frater taciturnus draws attention to the fact that he himself had asked to be ridiculed and that one can thus make such requests to The Corsair just as one can make requests of a barrel organ to make music. His disrespect for the paper comes to expression in strong formulations, and en passant he mentions that it does not make The Corsair less contemptible that “mr. goldschmidt” earns money on the publication. the same goldschmidt is discussed as a person, who has the honor of having written a good book (that is, A Jew), and Kierkegaard wishes him a rich recognition for this. But one is given to understand that, as editor of The Corsair, goldschmidt is a person without honor.56 if one expands the perspective to include the works which were ready for publication at the time of Kierkegaard’s death and were published posthumously, then one finds two mentions of Goldschmidt, albeit not directly by name. In The Point of View for My Work as an Author, which was written in 1848, but published by peter Christian Kierkegaard (1805–88) in 1859, Kierkegaard discusses the change in the authorship which took place with the Corsair conflict. He describes in exaggerated formulations the public demoralization, which the paper’s ironic tone, carried by “an editorial staff of street-corner loafers,” had caused. in the same breath Kierkegaard mentions that “even though the actual ringleader was indeed a man of not inconsiderable talent,” his irony was transformed into “rabble-barbarism” when it was transmitted to the masses.57 Finally, goldschmidt is mentioned indirectly in The Moment, no. 10, that is, the final number of the one-man journal with which Kierkegaard struggled against the State Church in the last year of his life. This issue lay finished in manuscript form at his death but was not published. in the article “my task” (in the draft dated september SV1 Xiii, 432 / COR, 47. SV1 Xiii, 580f. / PV, 64 (Chapter ii, section “B. personal existing in relation to the religious writing”).

56 57

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

123

1, 1855) Kierkegaard concludes with his famous reference to “the common man.” Here he writes, among other things, “…you common man, you who nevertheless at one time, enticed by someone who, making money on you, gave the appearance of desiring your welfare, have been willing enough to consider me and my life ludicrous….”58 nothing remains of goldschmidt’s talent here; there remains only the image of a cynical speculator, who, for the sake of money, sets Kierkegaard’s natural public against him. V. References in the Journals and Papers Surrounding the Corsair Conflict while there are only a few references to goldschmidt in Kierkegaard’s published works, there are, by contrast, several in his journals and papers. it is almost exclusively as editor of The Corsair that goldschmidt appears. although the paper had appeared since october 8, 1840—and had mentioned Kierkegaard with words of praise several times, the first of which came after the publication of The Concept of Irony in 1841—it does not appear in Kierkegaard’s papers until the middle of 1845.59 its “editor and publisher” (as goldschmidt was designated in the paper’s colophon at this time) appears at the end of the same year, that is, when the Corsair conflict breaks out. It is known that the two men had met each other previously and were on speaking terms—Goldschmidt places their first meeting in late summer 1838 when Kierkegaard had just published From the Papers of One Still Living.60 the second meeting he dates to 1841, when The Corsair had just reviewed The Concept of Irony, and in this connection he refers to several meetings “during this time.”61 From a third-person account, it is known that they also met and exchanged humorous remarks, while goldschmidt in the summer of 1843 was serving his sentence from the high court.62 all of these meetings took place in the streets, but none of them has left a trace in Kierkegaard’s papers. this can strike one as strange, but it is not the only example of this. the philosopher rasmus nielsen (1809–84), whom Kierkegaard in 1848 made his confidant, appears only sparingly in the papers before—but all the more frequently thereafter. similarly, the philosopher and poet Poul Martin Møller (1794–1838), who has great significance for Kierkegaard in his youth, is only mentioned a few times in the papers at all.

SV1 Xiv, 357 / M, 346. SKS 18, 256, JJ:353 (JJ:354 is dated June 10, 1845) / KJN 2, 236. 60 goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, pp. 214–15 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, pp. 130–1). goldschmidt writes “summer 1837,” but From the Papers of One Still Living only appeared in september 1838. thus either goldschmidt mistakenly remembers the year or he confuses two meetings. 61 goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, pp. 275–80 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, pp. 156–8). 62 recounted by the Latin teacher Johannes a. ostermann in a letter from april 25, 1868 to H.p. Barfod, the editor of Efterladte Papirer. printed in Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1996, pp. 63–4. 58 59

124

Johnny Kondrup

in the Corsair controversy, Kierkegaard published only two articles, both under the pseudonym Frater taciturnus, in the newspaper Fædrelandet. the one was the aforementioned “the dialectical result of a Literary police action.”63 the other, which preceded it and initiated the conflict, was “The Activity of a Traveling esthetician and How He still Happened to pay for the dinner.”64 this was the article directed against p.L. møller’s criticism of “ ‘guilty’/‘not guilty’ ” in the journal Gæa for 1846, published on december 22, 1845. Kierkegaard’s article ended by identifying p.L. møller and The Corsair and requested that Kierkegaard himself (or, more precisely, Frater taciturnus) be ridiculed in The Corsair just like other normal people. these two articles, however, represent only the tip of the iceberg. in the course of four months from the end of december 1845 to the end of april 1846, Kierkegaard wrote or drafted at least 12 articles, and in Søren Kierkegaards Papirer, where only the most important variants are printed, the material fills more than 100 pages.65 in these preliminary studies, which overlap with each other to some degree thematically, six important themes can be distinguished. First, the printed article’s compact opposition of goldschmidt’s honor as author of A Jew and his contemptibility as the editor of The Corsair is further developed. Kierkegaard writes that goldschmidt, on the one hand, wants to be an author, which is an honorable profession, all the more so since it provides only an impoverished livelihood. since denmark is such a small country, no author earns money with his books, not even oehlenschläger or Heiberg, but precisely for this reason danes hold authors in high esteem for their faithfulness to the people and the language. on the other hand, goldschmidt pursues a dubious literary livelihood by throwing mud at people in The Corsair, and with this activity he even earns money. it is, says Kierkegaard, as if a married man were to establish a bordello, with the income from which he would live in comfort in his fine house.66 the opposition of the honorable and contemptible goldschmidt is also expressed in a kind of benevolence, namely, when Kierkegaard declares himself willing to not identify the editor with the paper. in the long and deep-searching article “a personal Frater taciturnus [Kierkegaard], “det dialektiske resultat af en literair politiForretning,” Fædrelandet, no. 9, January 10, 1846. 64 Frater taciturnus [Kierkegaard], “en omreisende Æsthetikers virksomhed, og hvorledes han dog kom til at betale gjæstebudet,” Fædrelandet, december 27, 1845. 65 eleven of the articles appear as normal preliminary drafts and are thus printed in the B section of Papirer (Pap. vii–1 B 1–72, pp. 165–263; a few of these are translated in JP 5, 5860–3, and some more appear in COR, supplement, pp. 158–208). the twelfth one, by contrast, Kierkegaard has chosen to write in his diary, so it has ended in the a section (Pap. vii–1 a 99, pp. 46–8 = SKS 20, 19–20, nB:7 / JP 5, 5888 / COR, supplement, pp. 213–14). the article appears in the “rapport,” dated march 9, 1846, with which Kierkegaard introduces his first NB journal—that is, the first of the in all 36 journals, which he was from then on to write in regularly until spring 1855. moreover, Kierkegaard later in the year 1846, after goldschmidt had sold The Corsair and had traveled abroad, wrote the short article, Pap. vii–1 B 73. 66 Pap. vii–1 B 20, p. 192. see further vii–1 B 8, pp. 169–70; vii–1 B 12, pp. 178–9; vii–1 B 55, p. 231 / COR, supplement, pp. 183–4. 63

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

125

statement in Costume,” Kierkegaard directs a few words to goldschmidt in his own name. the reason for this is purportedly that he nourishes an unusual sympathy for the human being behind The Corsair and would like to “keep [this] human being from being destroyed.”67 if goldschmidt would only give up The Corsair and his alliance with p.L. møller, then he would be free from shame.68 It is difficult to say how far this promise has been honestly or strategically intended, but in any case it testifies to the fact that Kierkegaard wanted to separate Goldschmidt from P.L. møller. one can even have the impression that there was a struggle going on between Kierkegaard and møller about whom goldschmidt should belong to. Second, Kierkegaard nuances and qualifies his favorable judgment of Goldschmidt’s novel A Jew. the novel is praised for its “occasional outstanding details” and for its ability to impart images; but the concluding chapter, which portrays the main character’s funeral in the Jewish cemetery in Copenhagen, is called a “terribly failed conclusion, which certainly bespeaks great immaturity.”69 Finally, the book is criticized for its “complete lack of life view,” which interestingly enough is the same criticism which Kierkegaard in his debut book seven years earlier had leveled against H.C. andersen’s (1805–75) novel, Only a Fiddler.70 third, the portrait of goldschmidt as a talented young man is expanded when Frater taciturnus addresses him directly with the words: You are a young person, you are a hopeful person, you are talented, you are an awakened mind; but you lack fundamentally culture and maturity to have a view of life. You have passion, and it is good, but you are also misled in passion, which defies people and makes you want to force your way to a splendid position.71

in the article, “some instructive Comments on The Corsair’s drastic errors,”72 the portrait of goldschmidt takes on the character of a psychological analysis. He is described as an evil spirit, which has possessed The Corsair, and his driving force is an “unhappy pride,” which has not found expression in humility, that is, by serving god, but instead has gone in for making money. at the same time he is proud enough to despair over the contemptible situation, but he tries to forget the despair by flattering himself with the fear which his paper instills in the public. The analysis of this dialectic of pride is summed up in the following words, “the spirit of The Corsair is a despairing, not ungifted spirit which, fruitless and essentially tired of

67

55–68.

Pap. vii–1 B 55, p. 230 / COR, supplement, p. 182. the article contains the numbers

see also Pap. vii–1 B 22, pp. 194–5. Pap. vii–1 B 12, p. 178. 70 SKS 1, 5–57, especially 32–9 / EPW, 53–102, especially 76–84. 71 Pap. vii–1 B 22, p. 194. see further Pap. vii–1 B 18, p. 189; vii–1 B 55, p. 229 / COR, supplement, p. 182; SKS 20, 19, nB:7 / JP 5, 5888 / COR, supplement, p. 213. 72 “nogle veiledende Betragtninger betræffende ‘Corsarens’ kraftige vildfarelser” in Pap. vii–1 B 38, pp. 214ff. / COR, supplement, pp. 172ff. 68 69

126

Johnny Kondrup

existence, is tossed back and forth between wanting to earn money and be feared but always has an intuition of the self-contradiction.”73 Correspondingly, Kierkegaard sketches a picture of the typical Corsair author, also modelled on goldschmidt: “He is an awakened mind, but he has a despairing life, a life which lacks completion.”74 in his deepest soul the Corsair author is horrified by his own contemptibility and longs to give up everything. If this demand is made from the outside, by someone else (that is, Kierkegaard), then he secretly acknowledges that the other person is right; indeed, he is even clever enough to realize that the other person means it well for him, and for this reason it is impossible to hate him. But the Corsair author cannot meet the demand. instead he drowns his better self in revenge on the culprit who does not want to laugh at his jokes.75 Fourth, Kierkegaard refers several times to an article in The Corsair, where goldschmidt, in his capacity as a Jew, has enjoined other Jews—including the editor of the Berlingske Tidende, the merchant m.L. nathanson (1780–1868)—not to play favorites with each other. the point of view in goldschmidt’s article was that if the Jews did not show justice also in the criticism of their fellow Jews, it could destroy the civil respect that they had cautiously achieved through the years.76 But Kierkegaard is scathing in his mockery of this article, whose author at the same time can give other people advice about the way to respect and edit a paper, which is the very essence of literary contemptibility.77 Fifth, goldschmidt and his paper are branded a Jewish enterprise. with reference to the anti-semitic riots which took place throughout denmark in goldschmidt’s year of birth 1819, The Corsair is designated an inverted Jewish conflict, that is “a Jewish revolt against the Christians.”78 The Corsair is the Jews’ persecution of Copenhagen’s citizens, who have even become accustomed to the tyranny to such a degree that when a Copenhagener comes to a foreign city, he asks temerously: “is there much Resches here in the city, that is, are you persecuted badly by the Jews?”79 Kierkegaard does not hold anything back when he portrays the ruler of The Corsair as “vagabond-prince, Creditor Jean,” who sits in his entryway and casts out threats at respectable people.80 The Corsair’s editorial office is compared with a basement, where a creditor Jew, instead of buying gold ornaments and plated things and the like, buys half-humorous remarks [added in the margin: genuine trivialities] half-funny 73

35.

Pap. vii–1 B 32, p. 203. the article covers numbers 32–9. see further Pap. vii–1 B

Pap. vii–1 B 32, p. 204. see further Pap. vii–1 B 36. Pap. vii–1 B 32, pp. 204–5. see further Pap. vii–1 B 36, where the Corsair author is thought to understand obscurely that the other was “the only one who could help him” (p. 207). 76 the “Jødedom og Kunst” was published without the author’s name in The Corsair, no. 274, december 19, 1845, columns 13–14. 77 Pap. vii–1 B 8, p. 170. Pap. vii–1 B 13, p. 181. Pap. vii–1 B 20, pp. 191–2. 78 Pap. vii–1 B 13, p. 181. Pap. vii–1 B 21. see also vii–1 B 18, p. 188, marginal note 1. 79 Pap. vii–1 B 13, p. 182. 80 ibid., p. 181. 74 75

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

127

rubbish, old jokes, in short anything that can be used in the trade. what is this editorial office but a basement, where rags and patches are bought—not to make paper from—no, to make a publication….Everything has a cash value.81

the Jewish theme is treated with a new variation in the article “the Cross-eyed Hunchback,” a little allegory where goldschmidt’s Jewish origin is represented by the two handicaps named in the title: cross-eyes and a hunchback. the bearer of these handicaps has published a book, The Cross-Eyed Hunchback (that is, A Jew), in which he straightforwardly has expressed his innermost feelings, but in his paper he instead compensates for his physical deformities by sowing evil among people.82 in other words, it is in Goldschmidt’s Jewish origins that one will find the explanation for his spiteful and evil newspaper activity—with which he, moreover, follows the Jews’ traditional business, that is, of making money. although these statements about Jews may appear offensive to the modern observer, there is nothing particularly Kierkegaardian about them or especially evil. they are merely characteristic for the age. right up to the twentieth century the danish population, even in the enlightened upper class, was victim of such primitive prejudices against the Jew as a type of person. several authors have raised the question of whether Kierkegaard was antisemitic and have answered negatively. Bruce Kirmmse, for example, argues that Kierkegaard’s anti-semitism, in spite of its “very provocative” rhetoric, which he develops in his journals and papers, was a reflexive phenomenon: at the beginning of the authorship the Jew was a mirror for his own desperation, since he identified himself with the figure of Ahasverus; later Judaism became a metaphor for the kind of Christianity that surrounded him, which was oriented towards the world (grundtvig, mynster, et al.).83 ronald m. green, who has contrasted Kierkegaard’s interpretation of abraham in Fear and Trembling with Kant’s and especially Hegel’s anti-Jewish interpretations of the same figure, could conclude that Kierkegaard emphasizes the common Jewish-Christian tradition.84 i will not make any objections in principle to these views, but since both authors perceive a discrepancy between Kierkegaard’s anti-semitic rhetoric and his actual disposition towards Jews, there may be reason to nuance their conclusions: Kierkegaard was not theoretically or in principle antisemitic, but he shared the popular prejudice against the Jews which was in circulation in his time. in this connection, there is reason to modify Kirmmse’s opinion, which claims that Kierkegaard’s anti-semitic language is harsh, “even when it is viewed against the background of the level of anti-semitism then considered normal and acceptable in denmark and in europe.”85 around the middle of the nineteenth century even high-standing and well-educated danes argued against granting the Jews equal pap. vii–1 B 18, pp. 187–8. Pap. vii–1 B 49, p. 221. 83 Bruce H. Kirmmse, “Kierkegaard, Jews, and Judaism,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 17, 1994, pp. 83–97; quotation p. 95. this article is a short version of “Kierkegaard, Jødedommen og Jøderne,” Kirkehistoriske samlinger, 1992, pp. 77–107. 84 ronald m. green, “Fear and Trembling: a Jewish appreciation,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2002, pp. 137–49. 85 Kirmmse, “Kierkegaard, Jews, and Judaism,” p. 83. 81 82

128

Johnny Kondrup

rights with a rhetoric that was not far from Kierkegaard’s. at the negotiations prior to the establishment of the advisory estates assembly in 1834, where people discussed whether the Jews should be able to hold elected office, Viborg’s bishop N.E. Øllgaard (1775–1863), for example, argued against this with the following reasoning: the orthodox Jews regarded themselves as in exile in denmark and did not possess any fatherland sentiment. the non-orthodox Jews were dishonest, and they could not be trusted. The Jews were driven solely by selfishness, and they were, moreover, vain. the professor of Law, J.F.w. schlegel (1765–1836), supplemented this with, among others, the following arguments: the Jews’ oath was not obligatory for them. the Jews constituted a state within a state, that is, they did not want to be integrated. By contrast, the Jews, across countries’ borders, constituted an international group, which distanced them from Christians.86 there are several examples of the currency of such prejudices, but this is not the main issue here. it is merely worth noting that the fact that goldschmidt was a Jew was not for Kierkegaard a decisive argument against him. it was the person and his behavior, which made him disagreeable, and the accidental fact that goldschmidt was a Jew meant that in the heat of the controversy he received his portion of the then typical anti-semitic rhetoric. However, it is worth noting that Kierkegaard kept his statements to himself. the harsh anti-Jewish statements which are cited above are found in the unpublished drafts to the article “the dialectical result of a Literary police action,” but they disappear in the published version. Kierkegaard himself apparently found them inappropriate for publication.87 VI. The Conversations on the Streets a sixth theme which the drafts of Kierkegaard’s published and unpublished articles in the Corsair controversy treat is a series of conversations between Kierkegaard and goldschmidt. Frater taciturnus reports on a conversation that one of his acquaintances—a reliable person with a good head, but with “frightfully thin legs”88—had with goldschmidt. the reliable person has expressed his opinion of A Jew (the conversation thus took place after the publication of this novel on november 6, 1845), but at the same time, he impressed upon goldschmidt that it was destructive to publish The Corsair. the reliable person has almost asked the editor of The Corsair to give up the paper, both for goldschmidt’s own sake and that of a higher endeavor. But instead goldschmidt went home and wrote an article for The

Cf. Lausten, Frie jøder? Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i Danmark fra Frihedsbrevet 1814 til Grundloven 1849, pp. 324–5. see further pp. 337–40. 87 Bruce Kirmmse also touches on this fact in the original danish version of his article, which includes an appendix on Jews and Judaism in Kierkegaard’s published works. Kirmmse notes here that the discussion of Jews in the works is “less striking...: to be sure, the works had to be published!” (“Kierkegaard, Jødedommen og Jøderne,” p. 98). But this does not prevent Kirmmse from drawing his conclusions about the radicality of Kierkegaard’s anti-semitism solely based on statements in his journals and papers. 88 Pap. vii–1 B 22, pp. 194–5. 86

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

129

Corsair, in which he reproduced the content of the conversation in a garbled and confused form!89 in another draft a bit more of the content of this conversation is revealed: the reliable person is known to have said to goldschmidt that if one in the greek spirit wanted to create an idea for The Corsair, then it would be a difficult task that not a single person in a generation could take upon himself—and even he (the philosopher) would not dare to do it.90 But also these words were garbled and twisted in the Corsair article! also in the article “short and sweet,” which Kierkegaard wrote in his Journal NB on march 9, 1846, he mentions a conversation with goldschmidt. Kierkegaard here in his own name recounts that goldschmidt, at a critical point in his life, came to him, and that Kierkegaard “tried indirectly to help him negatively” to give up The Corsair. “it was my desire to snatch, if possible, a talented man from being an instrument of rabble barbarism, but i certainly had no wish to be shamefully rewarded by being immortalized by a paper of contemptibility which ought never exist and by which i can only wish to be abused.”91 when Kierkegaard here, as the thankless reward for his efforts, mentions that The Corsair made him immortal, he refers to an article from november 14, 1845, where The Corsair declared en passant that Kierkegaard’s pseudonym victor eremita would never die.92 it was this compliment that Frater taciturnus rejected when he, on December 27, identified The Corsair with p.L. møller and asked to be ridiculed in the paper. thus, the conversation must have taken place before november 14, 1845. to what extent there is talk here of one, two or perhaps three conversations cannot be determined from the drafts of Kierkegaard’s articles in the Corsair controversy. similarly, one cannot really recognize the conversations within the Corsair articles, where they are supposed to appear in garbled form, or in goldschmidt’s autobiography. presumably due to lapses of memory and other distortions based on the personal investments of the parties involved, there is so little overlap between Kierkegaard’s, The Corsair’s, and goldschmidt’s accounts that it seems futile to attempt to piece together an objective picture. instead we will attempt to follow the traces in Kierkegaard’s journal entries from the following years, knowing well that in this way it is Kierkegaard’s relation to goldschmidt that we are describing rather than the relation between goldschmidt and Kierkegaard. By combining the journal entries nB10:20 (from February 1849) with nB3:20.b -20.b.a (from november 1847) one comes to the result that the conversation about the idea of The Corsair must have taken place well before victor eremita was made immortal in the paper on november 14, 1845. Kierkegaard mentions in February 1849 that he once in all politeness let goldschmidt know that if there was any idea behind The Corsair, then it had to be absolutely negative. the irony of the paper had to direct itself against everyone, not only against the government but also against the ibid. see further Pap. vii–1 B 18, p. 188, and vii–1 B 23. Pap. vii–1 B 23. 91 SKS 20, 19, nB:7 / JP 5, 5888 / COR, supplement, pp. 213–14. see also SKS 21, 280, nB10:45, February 1849 / JP 6, 6351 / COR, supplement, pp. 236–7. 92 The Corsair, no. 269, column 14 / COR, supplement, p. 96. 89 90

130

Johnny Kondrup

opposition.93 this kind of total irony could well be thought as a modern phenomenon (he is writing in 1847), but it demanded of its practioners both personal courage, enormous good nature, and heroic purity of will and character. even Kierkegaard himself did not dare take on the task.94 the advice got goldschmidt, for a time, to attack the opposition, and in this way there came to be at least a small idea behind The Corsair. But then it all went wrong again; the paper lost itself in miserable personal attacks—and it declared Kierkegaard immortal.95 since the conversation is thus supposed to have provided the occasion for a change in The Corsair’s line before november 14, 1845, it is not at all likely to assume that Kierkegaard refers to the conversation which concerned A Jew, which appeared only eight days previous. what looks like a single conversation in Pap. vii–1 B 22 and 23 is thus here split into two. But in general we are on thin ice, for Kierkegaard’s claim about The Corsair’s change(s) of course is not only in conflict with the paper’s program, which precisely declared war on both the government and the opposition (cf. the motto: “His hand will be against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him”). the claim is also lacking any foundation in The Corsair’s true line, which did not show such swings in relation to the political opposition.96 Kierkegaard must either before the Corsair controversy have interpreted the paper’s line in a wholly one-sided manner or some years later come to have rationalized the situation significantly. However, Kierkegaard continues in november 1847, the goal with his advice was not to evoke the total irony; the intention was “to save goldschmidt from the whole stinking mess, but always dialectically, in order to give him the chance to become open.”97 this recalls the formulation from the draft to an article entitled “short and sweet” from march 1846, where Kierkegaard wrote: “i tried indirectly to help him negatively” in order to tear him away from rabble barbarism, but not to be made immortal.98 the indirect, negative support thus shows itself to have been the advice about the idea behind The Corsair, the total and demanding irony. in the Journal NB10 from February 1849 Kierkegaard writes further that when The Corsair fell back to its pointless personal attacks and made him immortal, he decided to ask to be ridiculed in the paper. ergo he wrote the article in Fædrelandet on december 27, 1845. in relation to goldschmidt the intention was to put him to the test. either goldschmidt, by ridiculing an author whom he had previously praised, had to show that there was no consistency in him, or he had to say, i cannot ridicule an authorship which I previously admired: I am satisfied with attacking the article in Fædrelandet. Finally, he could say, no, i can attack Kierkegaard under no conditions (and abandon The Corsair). in the latter case Kierkegaard would have seen to it that

SKS 21, 266, nB10:20 / COR, supplement, p. 233. SKS 20, 255, nB3:20.b.a / COR, supplement, p. 224. 95 SKS 21, 266, nB10:20 / COR, supplement, p. 233. 96 Cf. Borchsenius, “m. goldschmidt og Korsaren,” p. 238 and pp. 245–6. presentday scholars such as Uffe Andreasen and Peter Tudvad confirm that Kierkegaard’s view was unfounded. 97 SKS 20, 255, nB3:20.b / COR, supplement, p. 224. 98 SKS 20, 19, nB:7 / JP 5, 5888 / COR, supplement, p. 213. 93 94

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

131

goldschmidt received a position as aesthetic journalist at a respectable paper; he could in this capacity be a useful helper to Kierkegaard.99 in this connection Kierkegaard also recounts that he was stopped in the street by a perplexed goldschmidt on the same day that the article about p.L. møller and The Corsair was published or the day after—that is december 27 or 28, 1845. the intent was clear: Kierkegaard was supposed to tell goldschmidt privately what he ought to do.100 But Kierkegaard said nothing, and thus Goldschmidt chose the first solution: to pour the trashcan of The Corsair out upon him. then—“a day after,” it must have been at the beginning of January 1846—they met in the street, and Kierkegaard stopped goldschmidt. Kierkegaard said that it should now be clear that his friendliness towards goldschmidt until now was not due to fear of appearing in The Corsair. then he repeated seriously and directly what he had said before: that goldschmidt should get away from The Corsair. the easily moved goldschmidt answered with tears in his eyes: “You can criticize everything i do in this manner and not say a word about my having any talent.”101 that was their last conversation. in the compact account of the conversation nothing is mentioned about A Jew, and so it is uncertain whether Kierkegaard—the reliable person with the frightfully thin legs—had used the occasion to say something about goldschmidt’s novel, or whether it happened in a previous conversation.102

SKS 21, 266–7, nB10:20 / COR, supplement, pp. 233–4. see also SKS 21, 280–1 / JP 6, 6351 / COR, supplement, p. 237. 100 SKS 21, 267–8, nB10:20 / COR, supplement, p. 235. see also SKS 22, 251, nB12:178 from september 1849 / JP 6, 6498. Cf. further SKS 23, 280, nB18:44.a from may 1850 / JP 6, 6621, where Kierkegaard refers to goldschmidt as having said that Frater taciturnus’ article was completely destructive for p.L. møller. moreover, goldschmidt was astonished that Kierkegaard would support Fædrelandet with his article since its editors, Carl ploug and J.F. giødwad, were not much better than goldschmidt himself. 101 SKS 21, 268, nB10:20 / COR, supplement, p. 235. 102 goldschmidt’s autobiography refers to a conversation, which concerned particularly En Jøde, but it did not take place on december 27 or 28, 1845. However, the conversation is dated in a contradictory fashion, so that it is difficult to base anything on the description there. on the one hand, the conversation is supposed to have taken place before Kierkegaard identified P.L. Møller and The Corsair (that is, before december 27, 1845); on the other hand, it is supposed to have taken place after Fædrelandet had published its criticism of the novel (which happened on January 11, 1846). Cf. goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, p. 371 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, pp. 198–9) / COR, supplement, p. 143.—poul Behrendt in “det tidsforskudte tanke-Ærinde” thinks that the conversation which goldschmidt describes must have taken place after En Jøde was reviewed, that is, after January 11, 1846. this would certainly be correct—if the conversation which is recounted by goldschmidt is conceived of as being a single conversation. Behrendt does not explore the possibility that goldschmidt, in the faded light of memory, might have brought together several different conversations. 99

132

Johnny Kondrup

VII. After the Corsair Conflict For Goldschmidt the conflict with Kierkegaard was the occasion for him to depart from The Corsair. it was a decision which gradually became ripe since goldschmidt had for years felt that it was unsatisfying to be consigned solely to the field of comedy without being able to find an outlet for his serious or sensitive sides.103 But the conflict with Kierkegaard, whom Goldschmidt nourished admiration for, intensified his dissatisfaction, and in the middle of everything he realized that Kierkegaard was right from a higher point of view. the decisive moment happened when Kierkegaard in the postscript to the Concluding Unscientific Postscript (published on February 27, 1846) eliminated the pseudonymity, which until then had given the conflict an impersonal character. immediately afterwards, when goldschmidt met Kierkegaard on the street, he got “an intense, very bitter glance,” which in a way was comic but at the same time testified to the elevated and ideal aspect which was in Kierkegaard’s personality: there was something about that intense, wild glance that drew the curtain, as it were, away from the higher right that Kierkegaard had asserted earlier and that i had not been able, rather, was unwilling, to see, although i did indeed suspect it. it accused and depressed me: The Corsair had won the battle, but i myself had falsely become the no. 1 in the class….On my way home I decided that I would give up The Corsair.104

There is, however, presumably an element of a lapse of memory or direct falsification of history in this account. The Corsair was only sold in october 1846, that is, a half year after the described meeting, and in the months from march to July the paper continued its satire of Kierkegaard, including his trouser legs of unequal length.105 as noted earlier, goldschmidt traveled abroad immediately after having sold The Corsair. in the fall of 1847 he was again at home, and at the end of december appeared the first issue of North and South. it is interesting to see how Kierkegaard, even while the former editor of The Corsair was abroad, drafted an analysis of goldschmidt which comes very close to the latter’s own later self-understanding. in august 1847 Kierkegaard wrote in his Journal NB2 that he himself was the only one whom goldschmidt genuinely respected and admired.106 this admiration, which constituted the better side of Cf. goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, p. 275 and p. 408 (morten Borup’s ed., vol. 1, p. 157 and p. 215) / COR, supplement, p. 139. 104 goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, vol. 1, pp. 428–9 (Breve fra og til Meïr Goldschmidt, ed. by morten Borup, vol. 1, pp. 223–4) / COR, supplement, p. 149. 105 Cf. Bredsdorff, Corsaren, Goldschmidt og Kierkegaard, p. 99. Bredsdorff gives the additional argument for Goldschmidt’s “falsification of history,” that Kierkegaard’s name is never mentioned in the published letters to and from goldschmidt in the years prior to the Corsair controversy or immediately thereafter. this claim, however, is not correct. Kierkegaard’s name appears in the letters in 1849 and several times in 1851; cf. Breve fra og til Meïr Goldschmidt, ed. by morten Borup, vol. 1, p. 207; p. 256; p. 258 and p. 299. 106 SKS 20, 197, nB2:138 / JP 5, 6044. Cf. also Pap. vii–1 B 58, p. 245 / COR, supplement, p. 196. 103

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

133

goldschmidt, was, however, harmed when he, with the help of the mob which he disdained, was victorious over Kierkegaard: [H]e is victorious–at the head of and with the help of those he despises, and with their help he wins over the only one he respects. thanks for the victory! and goldschmidt understands this himself. He is like a person who despairs over being ejected from the exclusive, cultured, noble circle where he longs and craves to be, and who is now admired in a public dance hall—that is, by those whose opinion he despises. i believe that only a Jew could endure this; for in a Jew there is once and for all certain despair.107

But although Kierkegaard can acutely point to his opponent’s shame at having been victorious on a false basis, nonetheless at the same time he underestimates goldschmidt’s moral strength, his will to use “despair” productively to raise himself above his previous standpoint. even when this will receives a positive expression in the program for North and South, Kierkegaard refuses to recognize it. at the new year 1847–48 he writes on a loose sheet of paper under the heading “goldschmidt” that the author of North and South’s program reminds him of a confirmation student, who is to be examined and has the entire lesson at his fingertips. But the content is banalities in a fashionable language.108 Kierkegaard writes that in an entry which is saturated by sarcasm and mockery goldschmidt, who was so brazen before, has now become well-behaved and at a loss like a child whom one can no longer recognize. with reference to the european correspondents which North and South has announced it will make use of, Kierkegaard writes with disdain about Goldschmidt’s fine connections, and the editor is reduced to the grandiloquent barber gert westphaler, a humorous figure from Danish national literature.109 seen objectively, the program for North and South is a manifesto of sobermindedness and moderation, far from The Corsair’s irreconcilable line. the distance between the journals is already evident by the fact that the editor chooses to explain what he is for, and not what he is against. His program sums up with the words: “to attach oneself to the present, make use of the good that one finds there and always strive to achieve more goods.”110 the slow and gradual movement forward to the people’s freedom is regarded as the correct way to this end, while the sudden change of society is regarded as unjustified. Even the democratic constitution, which the national liberal opposition demands is regarded by the editor of North and South SKS 20, 197, nB2:138 / JP 5, 6044, pp. 402–3. poul Behrendt claims that goldschmidt’s erroneous memory or historical falsification is “a platitude in Kierkegaard research,” and draws attention to the fact that goldschmidt in his autobiography expressly states that he chose to postpone the sale of The Corsair due to financial reasons (“Det tidsforskudte TankeÆrinde,” pp. 172–3, note 49). However, Behrendt gives no reasonable explanation for the fact that the journal continued its satire against Kierkegaard in the months from march to July 1846. 108 Pap. viii–1 a 655, p. 303 / JP 5, 6099. Kierkegaard uses the word “graduate student prose” (“Candidat-prosa”). 109 He is the main character in Ludvig Holberg’s (1684–1754) comedy Mester Gert Westphaler eller Den meget talende Barbeer (1722). the foolish barber plagues everyone around him with his tedious chit-chat. 110 Nord og Syd: et Maanedsskrift, vol. 1, January–march, 1848, p. 30. 107

134

Johnny Kondrup

as not absolutely necessary, if only the state’s administration becomes more and more democratic in practice. and this had been happening since the introduction of the advisory estates assembly in the 1830s, and Christian viii had expressly committed himself to reforms in the administration. that should be enough.111 But Kierkegaard would not hear anything about goldschmidt’s change in politics. in an unpublished article from the same time, “denmark’s inner misfortune actually its only one,” he exclaims, with obvious reference to North and South’s program: “alas, wretched goldschmidt! For six years goldschmidt, hidden behind frontmen, has insulted people, and now he suddenly wants to be a respectable author. this is like a woman who, after living six years as a whore, suddenly wants to be virtuous.”112 it is as if goldschmidt is to be kept at any price in contemptibility and “despair.” in his autobiography goldschmidt, doubtless under the inspiration of Kierkegaard’s authorship, portrays the shift from The Corsair to North and South as a leap from the aesthetic to the ethical stage of life. one might believe that there was an element of retrospective projection in the use of Kierkegaardian categories due to the fact that they only became relevant for goldschmidt, when he, in the 1860s, came under the ethical influence of Kierkegaard.113 But this does not seem to be the case. the idea that he with this shift proceeded from one stage of life to another was already formulated by Goldschmidt in the first volume of North and South,114 where he, moreover, had printed a critical settling of accounts with p.L. møller. the pretext was a review of møller’s literary works, but the focus of the article was clearly an existential one. møller is here designated as an “aesthetician in the broadest sense of the word,” and goldschmidt objected that an undertaking that aimed at “the beautiful without the good, the aesthetic without the ethical,” was condemned to be barren and in vain.115 But Kierkegaard rejected goldschmidt’s shift of stages with all his energy. on a loose paper from 1848 he points out that what Goldschmidt calls his “first stage”

the passages in the program which have given Kierkegaard occasion to call Goldschmidt a confirmation student, who has his entire lesson on his fingertips are doubtless some pages with a sweeping historical perspective on the idea of freedom. it is anchored (in a wholly unjewish way, one must say) in Christianity, and especially after the reformation it is thought to proceed in a straight line via the French revolution to the democratic breakthrough of the 1830s. Cf. Nord og Syd: et Maanedsskrift, vol. 1, 1848, pp. 13–19. 112 Pap. viii–2 B 185, pp. 290–1. 113 Cf. Helge toldberg, “goldschmidt og Kierkegaard,” in Festskrift til Paul V. Rubow, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1956, pp. 211–35; especially p. 234. 114 goldschmidt, “svar til ‘Fædrelandet,’ ” Nord og Syd: et Maanedsskrift, vol. 1, January–march, 1848, pp. 209–55; pp. 226–7. Here it is said that the purely negative form of The Corsair ultimately became intolerable to goldschmidt. “[The Corsair] stood in the way of goldschmidt’s development, and therefore he left it” (footnote). see also Nord og Syd: et Ugeskrift, vol. 3, march 8, 1850, p. 276. 115 goldschmidt, “p. L. møllers værker,” Nord og Syd, vol. 1, January–march, 1848, pp. 166–176; quotations p. 167. 111

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

135

was one of the blind-alleys which leads nowhere.116 the former deprivation was too great to form the basis for improvement. in an unpublished article, “an ethical Judgment on stud. goldschmidt’s Later activity or his transition to the Later activity,”117 dated by the editors of the Papirer to 1849–51, Kierkegaard further develops his train of thought in the form of a series of demands: if one is supposed to take goldschmidt’s transition seriously, it must be ethical, that is, the sinner above all must make a public apology. second, the apology must be printed for a half year every eighth day, as far as possible in all of denmark’s papers. third, goldschmidt must try to pay back some of the large amount of money which he earned on The Corsair: “even Judas himself was so honest that he gave back the money.”118 these (never published) demands for public humiliation were of course unrealistic and only served the goal of keeping goldschmidt in the demonized position. that Kierkegaard was prepared to use all means, even the ones that were too easy, is evident in an entry in the Journal NB17 from march 1850, where goldschmidt’s development is rejected with reference to—Hegel’s aesthetics.119 according to this text, the comic stage cannot come first, but ought to be the last! A possible comparison with Kierkegaard’s own stages is avoided, since he claims never to have practiced the comic. right from the start he was an edifying author, and the comic was left to the pseudonyms. a consequence of this unwillingness to recognize goldschmidt’s transformation is when Kierkegaard, behind the obvious differences between The Corsair and North and South, wants to find the common denominator. For example, he writes at the beginning of February 1849 that when goldschmidt now wishes to win a public for North and South, it is because he is equal to himself: self-reprehensible, despairing, avaricious, and lacking in character.120 to be sure, he is able to gain subscribers, but his life never wins an idea, Kierkegaard writes further.121 goldschmidt is, in other words, vacillating, an opportunist. He will do anything at all to win popularity and money, and the only strange thing with his transformations is that he is the same behind the facade.122 at the end of november 1849 Kierkegaard writes sarcastically: “if there suddenly were to be a strong upsurge of interest in religion, i imagine that goldschmidt, always the business man, would eventually initiate a devotional magazine for home use, Christian anthologies, and the like. i would bet four shillings on it.”123 Pap. iX a 494 / JP 4, 4452. see also the journal entry nB10:20 from February 1849 (SKS 21, 268 / COR, supplement, pp. 235–6.). 117 “en ethisk dom over stud. goldschmidts senere ell. om hans overgang til det senere.” 118 Pap. X–6 B 251; quotation p. 414. see also the journal entry nB9:67 from around February 1, 1849 (SKS 21, 241 / JP 6, 6321); nB11:16 from may 1849 (SKS 22, 16) and nB17:42 from march/april 1850 (SKS 23, 192). 119 SKS 23, 185, nB17:32 / JP 6, 6602. 120 SKS 21, 241, nB9:69 / COR, supplement, p. 232. 121 SKS 21, 267, nB10:20 / COR, supplement, p. 234. 122 SKS 24, 284–5, nB23:163 (presumably February 1851) / JP 6, 6743. 123 SKS 22, 376, nB14:54 / JP 6, 6546. 116

136

Johnny Kondrup

VIII. The Disappointment about Bishop Mynster Kierkegaard continued by writing about The Corsair and his conflict with the paper for the rest of his life. in the nB journals there are frequent entries, where he interprets the events anew; further, they are discussed on loose papers and in drafts of articles. There are several, sometimes self-contradictory fixed points in his interpretation: First, he had achieved something great by seeking out a confrontation with The Corsair and, as a single man conquering the paper. He is proud to have fought against the depravation which the paper represented, and is himself surprised at his results: goldschmidt became paralyzed, gave up The Corsair and travelled abroad to return home as (pseudo)respectable. His helper p.L. møller was as good as silent and also travelled out of the country.124 Concerning the paper itself, it “never became a full person again.”125 indeed, Kierkegaard in fact believed that around april 1, 1849, when he felt weak and near death, that he had found and achieved his life’s task in the controversy with The Corsair.126 now he could die in peace. second, Kierkegaard maintains that the editor of The Corsair was a weak boy and a wretched worm. He was a boy because he only let his paper ridicule Kierkegaard (the adult), when he himself gave it permission to do so.127 He was a worm because he was at first afraid of Kierkegaard and idolized him, but then let himself be induced to attack him.128 that Kierkegaard’s own great achievement is diminished in this way does not seem to have occurred to him. a particular expression of goldschmidt’s abjectness is that he constantly seeks sympathy. in A Jew he did this by presenting himself as the one who from childhood had suffered from injury, and with every insult which he incurs today, he brings the action before the court of his public, that is, the readers of North and South. goldschmidt thus places himself in a boyish or juvenile relation to the public, but it ensures his success.129 a new aspect entered into Kierkegaard’s considerations in march 1851, when the Bishop of the diocease of zealand, Jakob peter mynster (1775–1854), published a short piece with the wooden title Further Contributions to the Negotiations about the Ecclesiastical Situation in Denmark.130 in this book, which is a defense of the existing (people’s) church against, among other things, the grundtvigian demand for SKS 21, 344, nB10:173 from april 1849 / COR, supplement, p. 240. see also SKS 22, 389–90, nB14:77 from around december 1, 1849 / JP 6, 6548. 125 SKS 22, 205, nB12:110 from august 1849 / JP 6, 6474, p. 204. see also SKS 23, 147, nB16:77 from around march 1, 1850. 126 SKS 21, 337–8, nB10:166 / JP 6, 6382. 127 SKS 22, 122–3, nB11:199 from June 1849. see also SKS 23, 109, nB16:24 from February 1850. 128 SKS 22, 206, nB12:111 from august 1849. 129 SKS 24, 332, nB24:25 (ca. may 1, 1851). Cf. also SKS 21, 267, nB10:20 from February 1849 / COR, supplement, p. 234; SKS 21, 321, nB10:127 from around march 1849 / JP 6, 6377; Pap. X–6 B 251, p. 415 (unpublished article, 1849–51). 130 J.p. mynster, Yderligere Bidrag til Forhandlingerne om de kirkelige Forhold i Danmark, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851 (the book appeared on march 13, 1851). 124

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

137

freedom, mynster closes his considerations by quoting an article by Kierkegaard. the article which Kierkegaard had published in the newpaper Fædrelandet a few weeks previous was a protest against the danish-german theologian andreas Gottlob Rudelbach (1792–1862), who in a book on registry-office weddings tried to enlist Kierkegaard among the advocates of the division between church and state.131 mynster quotes with approval Kierkegaard’s protest against any form of faith that what was needed was such an external change. this kind of faith is called by Kierkegaard an unholy confusion of Christianity and politics—with the approval of mynster, who further refers to Kierkegaard as “[t]he gifted author” and lets him have the final word in the book: “That Christianity, which has life in itself, is supposed to be aided by the free institutions—this, according to my understanding, is a complete misconception of Christianity, which, where it is true in true inwardness, is infinitely higher and infinitely freer than all institutions, constitutions, etc.”132 regarded objectively, it is a very honorable role that Kierkegaard occupies in mynster’s piece—as the one who expresses the bishop’s opinion better than even he himself could have done and this, moreover, in the emphatic closing words. when Kierkegaard nonetheless became furious, the reason for this was that mynster introduced the section in question in the following manner: “among the happy appearances—we take up this word following one of our most talented authors— which we have seen during these discussions is the resonance that a voice has found, which recently…” and he continues with the words which introduce the quotation from Kierkegaard’s article.133 and the most talented author, who has created the word “appearance” (“Fremtoning”) is none other than goldschmidt!134 another circumstance which contributed to prodding Kierkegaard was the fact that mynster, at the beginning of his piece, quoted a French author to the effect that there is nothing more honorable than a nation that defends its own customs. there a.g. rudelbach, Om det borgerlige Ægteskab. Bidrag til en alsidig, upartisk Bedømmelse af denne Institution, nærmest fra Kirkens Standpunkt, Copenhagen: otto schwarz 1851 (ASKB 752). Kierkegaard’s reply “an open Letter prompted by a reference to me by dr. rudelbach” (“Foranlediget ved en Yttring af Dr. Rudelbach mig betræffende”), was published in Fædrelandet, no. 26 (January 31) 1851 (reprinted in SV1, Xiii, 436–44 / COR, 51–9). 132 mynster, Yderligere Bidrag til Forhandlingerne om de kirkelige Forhold i Danmark, p. 44; cf. SV1, Xiii, 440 / COR, 54–5. 133 mynster, Yderligere Bidrag til Forhandlingerne om de kirkelige Forhold i Danmark, p. 44. 134 Ordbog over det danske Sprog (vol. 5, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1923) shows mynster to be right since under “Fremtoning” one reads: “foreslaaet af goldschmidt 1849 (ses goldschmidt nsm.v.143) som gengivelse af Fænomen og ty. Erscheinung ved tilknytning til tone, vise sig, og Fortoning” (column 1301). goldschmidt presented his suggestion, dated december 11, [1848], in Nord og Syd, vol. 5, 1849, pp. 143–4. moreover, mynster had already publicly called goldschmidt talented. this was in a speech at the Constitutional assembly, on april 12, 1849 (where mynster argued against the Jews being granted the same political rights as other citizens). He mentioned goldschmidt as “the talented editor of North and South” (Cf. Beretning om Forhandlingerne paa Rigsdagen, no. 322, 1849, column 2544). Kierkegaard laments this in the journal entry nB11:146 from may/June 1849 (SKS 22, 85). 131

138

Johnny Kondrup

was nothing wrong with the words, but mynster thanked the editor of North and South for having made him aware of them!135 goldschmidt, who as editor of The Corsair for six years had done his best to break down the country’s customs by wanting to introduce a republic in accordance with the French model, was thanked by mynster for a sober, conservative quotation!136 the reading of mynster’s piece gave Kierkegaard the occasion to write a stream of journal entries and drafts to articles, which yielded nothing to his entries on the Corsair controversy. the journal entries about mynster and goldschmidt are most concentrated in 1851 (10 entries) and 1852 (6 entries), but continue in 1853 (4 entries) and 1854 (3 entries). the unpublished articles, which are often preserved in several versions and with drafts, fill more than 140 printed pages in Søren Kierkegaards Papirer, that is, 40 per cent more than the drafts to the articles in the Corsair controversy.137 immediately after reading the short piece, Kierkegaard grew suspicious that mynster, as a representative of the status quo, wanted to be done with him. until then the establishment had been able to use Kierkegaard as a tool against the mob or the masses, but now it wished to get rid of him, and this was done—in such a calculated manner—by emphasizing the representative of the mob, goldschmidt, at his expense (!).138 the moor had done his job, the moor could go. this interpretation soon faded to the advantage of another more durable one, according to which Bishop mynster was simply an opportunist, who, after the democratic constitution had been introduced in 1849, wished to be in good standing with the masses and therefore “embraced” their representative, the journalist goldschmidt.139 Continuous with this, mynster and goldschmidt simply merge together in Kierkegaard’s view: mynster is a journalist!140 mynster shows himself to be “more or less synonymous with The Corsair’s goldschmidt.”141 (note that goldschmidt, after having published North and South for four-and-a-half years, is still referred to as the editor of The Corsair.) mynster has “made himself = goldschmidt.”142 when one considers that mynster is himself supposed to have placed this equal-sign because he mentioned goldschmidt on the same page as—Kierkegaard—the reasoning seems, to put it mildly, not entirely logical. although Kierkegaard quickly abandons his conspiracy theory, he still supposes that Bishop mynster had evil intentions. the equating of goldschmidt

135

p. 5.

mynster, Yderligere Bidrag til Forhandlingerne om de kirkelige Forhold i Danmark,

Pap. X–6 B 171, p. 256 (1851) / JP 6, 6748, p. 391. Pap. X–6 B 175, p. 284 (1851). Pap. X–6 B 171–236, pp. 255–396. Only the most significant of the drafts have been printed and only a few of the articles are translated, see JP 1, 825; JP 3, 3580; JP 6, 6748–51; 6833; 6842. 138 SKS 24, 299, nB23:197 (around march 1851) / JP 6, 6753. 139 SKS 24, 384, nB24:104 (July 1851) / JP 6, 6773. see also SKS 24, 405, nB24:130 (august 1851). 140 SKS 25, 12-14, nB26:6. 141 SKS 25, 40, nB26:33. 142 SKS 25, 260, nB28:55. 136 137

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

139

and Kierkegaard was an insult and a crime against the latter,143 committed in indomitable anger, indeed, spite against Kierkegaard, whom mynster had long wished to force out of Copenhagen, out into a priesthood in the country.144 when one recalls how honorably mynster in fact discussed Kierkegaard in his little piece, this interpretation can only be conceived as inverted and willfully distorting, indeed, as a crime against the Bishop. And it is not some thoughtless or fleeting idea which arose immediately after reading mynster’s piece; it was written down a year-and-a-half later. even in august 1854, almost three-and-a-half years after the publication of the piece, Kierkegaard could write in his journal that mynster’s trick with goldschmidt was a criminal action. it was revenge for Practice in Christianity, revenge which could only serve to raise the forces of falsehood, the mob, and coarseness, against Kierkegaard.145 one circumstance, which undoubtedly contributed to increasing the pain at seeing mynster recognize goldschmidt, was the fact that Kierkegaard, just a year before, had written a dedication to Bishop mynster. among Kierkegaard’s papers from 1850 there are three or four versions of this dedication to “His excellency / the right reverend Bishop dr. mynster...in / profound veneration.”146 the dedication is anticipated in each case by a more personal appeal, where Kierkegaard explains that he has inherited from his deceased father a deep veneration and reverence for mynster. From the beginning of his authorship Kierkegaard has wished to express these feelings in a public dedication, and now, at the end, it will finally be serious— which it never became. one can ask whether it would have been serious under any circumstances, but in any case Kierkegaard now in his journals explains that the plans of, so to speak, laying the entire authorship at mynster’s feet have been made impossible by the bishop’s words of recognition for goldschmidt.147 although Kierkegaard never published any of the articles which he wrote in reaction to Bishop mynster’s piece, he could not help letting the bishop know of his disapproval. on two occasions—may 2 and august 9, 1851—he visited mynster and gave him to understand that he was dissatisfied with the bishop’s referring to

SKS 24, 434, nB24:170 (loose paper from april 1851) / JP 6, 6746 and Pap. X–5 a 167, p. 197 / JP 6, 6747 (loose paper, which the editors of Pap. dated 1851–53; originates presumably from 1851). see also SKS 24, 401, nB24:125 (august 1851) / JP 6, 6778, p. 424. 144 SKS 25, 130-3, nB27:16. see also Pap. Xi–2 a 307, p. 332 (loose paper from 1854) and Xi–3 B 15 / JP 6, 6854 (unpublished article from 1854). 145 SKS 25, 480-1, nB30:116. according to mynster’s son-in-law, court priest J.H. paulli (1809–65), the bishop was very bitter about Practice in Christianity (1850) which he called “a profane game with holy things” (“en vanhellig Leeg med det Hellige”) (SKS 24, 72, nB21:121, around october 22, 1850 / JP 6, 6691). mynster expressed himself to Kierkegaard in person in considerably milder terms, although he thought that the first half of the book was an attack on Hans Lassen martensen (1808–84), and the second on himself (ibid.). 146 Pap. X–6 B 164 / JP 6, 6639. the dedication material covers the numbers Pap. X–6 B 162–70 and is partly translated in JP 6, 6637–41. 147 Cf. SKS 24, 401, nB24:125 (august 1851). see also SKS 25, 59, nB26:54.c. 143

140

Johnny Kondrup

goldschmidt as “talented.”148 He explained that his dissatisfaction arose partly because it could be conceived as a concealment of goldschmidt’s reprehensible past as editor of The Corsair and partly because mynster’s own reputation could suffer from the fact that he recognized goldschmidt. mynster ought, according to Kierkegaard, to have demanded that goldschmidt publicly renounce his past, and Kierkegaard even suggested to the bishop the following possible retreat: mynster could write an article in which he announced that his recognition of goldschmidt was put forth with a view of evoking a renunciation, but then since it did not come, one should not take the bishop’s words at face value.149 mynster did not go along with this suggestion; he maintained that goldschmidt had not attacked anyone for a long time.150 moreover, mynster defended himself by saying that he had called Kierkegaard “gifted,” which was much more than “talented.”151 the numerous articles will not be treated in detail since they do not add many new aspects to the picture of goldschmidt, who continues to be maintained in his role as editor of The Corsair. with reference to goldschmidt’s engagement in “the society of Land owners,” Kierkegaard writes, for example, that even if he now pretends to be a fine, noble aristocrat, who associates with dukes and barons, he does not have a past in common with these people; “He has namely the past of The Corsair,” which no noble or bourgeois family would be associated with.152 By contrast, Kierkegaard amused himself with sketching goldschmidt’s points of commonality with Bishop mynster. they share in common, for example, the opinion that the seriousness of life is profit, while to work free of charge, indeed even for ingratitude is fanatical idealism.153 their alliance means for goldschmidt that he at last receives the social recognition, which he as a Jewish child has so violently aspired to.154 the alliance means that he, instead of a front-man or a cad who helped and covered for him when he edited The Corsair, now has zealand’s bishop, who, so to speak, places his hand on him, giving him his blessings.155 or with an exotic stamp of a cheap thriller: Goldschmidt is like an Italian hitman, whose Mafia backer is the prelate, the eminence, the cardinal, who provides the church’s blessing for his actions.156 One notices in this final description that Kierkegaard has enjoyed driving the situation to its utmost limit. in general it is characteristic for the many articles that they try out in what keys the relatively few motifs can be played or how much the individual situation can take. the pain caused by mynster’s words was doubtless the point of departure, but then as the constellation mynster–goldschmidt is run through SKS 24, 334–6, nB24:30 (around may 2, 1851) / JP 6, 6757–9 / COR, supplement, pp. 258–61 and SKS 24, 398, nB24:121 (august 9, 1851) / JP 6, 6777, p. 422. 149 SKS 24, 335, nB24:30 / JP 6, 6777, p. 406 / COR, supplement, p. 259. 150 ibid. 151 SKS 24, 336, nB24:30 / JP 6, 6777, p. 407 / COR, supplement, p. 260. 152 Pap. X–6 B 176, p. 285 (1851). 153 Pap. X–6 B 222, p. 356 (1852). 154 Pap. X–6 B 208, p. 326 (unpublished article, 1851). 155 Pap. X–6 B 179.8, p. 290 (1851). 156 Pap. X–6 B 213, p. 339 (1852). 148

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

141

linguistic experiments again and again, one notices how it is overlaid with delight at being able to place the shading perfectly and make the points precisely.157 in the course of time—more precisely during the year 1852—goldschmidt for the most part disappears from the articles and mynster remains with his deceptive relation to Christianity. For Bishop mynster, Christianity is not an existential matter but a mundane one; the preaching of self-denial and renunciation are here made into a career, a way to the enjoyments of life. in a generalized form, this becomes an attack on career priests—or the priests as “tradesmen.” it is clear that we are on the road to the attack on the Church. goldschmidt became, by virtue of mynster’s innocent remark at the beginning of 1851, an important ferment in Kierkegaard’s development toward that conflict with Christendom. IX. The Unanswered Polemic By reading Kierkegaard’s numerous sensitive outpourings on occasion of Bishop mynster’s words about goldschmidt, one easily comes to think of H.C. andersen’s fairy tale The Princess and the Pea. Here the real princess is revealed by the fact that she cannot fall asleep and gets black and blue bruises all over her body because she can feel a little green pea through 20 matresses and 20 eiderdown blankets. Kierkegaard was a real princess! Concerning goldschmidt himself, in retrospect, he must be noted for a positive point since he apparently did not attempt to make use of Bishop mynster’s protection against Kierkegaard—“on the contrary, he rather attempted to make it good again; i recall this and will not forget him for it.”158 unfortunately, we do not know what goldschmidt did to mend the damage. this limited recognition, however, does not mean that Kierkegaard deviates from his previous judgment of goldschmidt and The Corsair. this is clear from an unpublished article from the beginning of 1855, “The Corsair’s goldschmidt on his relation against me.”159 the article was evoked by a passage in North and South for 1855, where goldschmidt had found an occasion to give his version of the beginning of the Corsair conflict. Goldschmidt had written that the conflict arose due to Kierkegaard; partly because he incorrectly identified P.L. Møller as the editor of The Corsair and partly because he had requested to be ridiculed. Concerning Goldschmidt’s role, he only reluctantly entered into the conflict under compulsion but, by contrast, carried it out with zeal. while it was going on, he constantly listened to what Kierkegaard was writing and saying; he therefore became aware of The

it is in this context that one must understand an unexpected statement such as that in Pap. X–6 B 210, p. 331: “G., whom I…never wanted to hurt or harm, I am glad to see receive such an encouragement; I am happy for the signficant change for the better as it is: from The Corsair to N.[orth] and S.[outh].” the statement should be read as a stylistic experiment, which did not tempt Kieregaard to further development. 158 Pap. Xi–3 B 26, p. 57, note (“et Følgeblad” to an unpublished article, “Blot et ord om Biskop mynster,” march 1854). see also Pap. Xi–3 B 40, p. 84. 159 Pap. Xi–3 B 9. 157

142

Johnny Kondrup

Corsair’s limitations and soon after took his leave of the paper.160 this description now gives Kierkegaard occasion once again to condemn The Corsair in violent words. the paper’s giggler-tyranny was, he writes, a cruelty worse than physical torture, and its editor was a naughty, angry, kicking, spitting boy, sticking out his tongue.161 But above all, Kierkegaard’s article is a refusal to get involved in a discussion with goldschmidt, as long as he has not renounced his past. in one sentence of which there are many variants, he writes, “For me g.[oldschmidt] is morally dead as long as he has not in regret reputed his six-year public activity with The Corsair, and especially his relation against me.”162 In the same article the issue of Mynster and Goldschmidt gets its final, tragicomic expression when Kierkegaard throws out the suspicion that goldschmidt’s selfdefense in North and South is a commissioned work—commissioned by a highstanding clergyman in order to distract attention from the attack on the Church which Kierkegaard had just then begun by attacking mynster’s successor, H.L. martensen, for having called the deceased mynster “a witness to the truth.”163 the italian hitman appears again in the wings. goldschmidt himself cannot be to blame for the mental agitations and pains which Kierkegaard felt because mynster mentioned them on the same page in his piece. But in the same year that the piece appeared, goldschmidt in fact challenged Kierkegaard as author. it is only strange that Kierkegaard, who otherwise was so oversensitive and on guard against any form of criticism or insult, not least of all from goldschmidt, seems to have entirely ignored this challenge. the occasion was a novel in the form of letters, which appeared on december 18, 1850: Clara Raphael, Twelve Letters.164 allegedly the letters were written by the main character to her friend, mathilde, but in reality the author was mathilde herself, that is, the only 20-year-old private tutor, mathilde Fibiger (1830–72). she had managed to get Johan Ludvig Heiberg to write a foreword to the book, in which the conservative intellectual aristocrat came to put his stamp of approval on the first literary classic of the Danish women’s movement. For Clara Raphael’s goal was precisely women’s emancipation. Her letters develop, on the one hand, a sharp criticism of the opportunities for the intellectual development of women—the poor schooling, the raising of girls to vanity—and, on the other hand, an idealist doctrine of the necessity of renunciation. in her struggle for the cause of women, Clara is prepared to sacrifice her personal happiness, and when she falls in love with the young baron axel, the solution is a cohabitation with the renunciation of sexual union. to be sure, they will get married, but within the framework of marriage they will live like brother and sister.165 goldschmidt, “redacteur C. s. a. Bille,” Nord og Syd: ny Række, vol. 7, 1855, pp. 161–200; especially pp. 196–200. the article is dated February 6, 1855. 161 Pap. Xi–3 B 9, p. 20 and pp. 16f. 162 Pap. Xi–3 B 9, p. 15. see also ibid., p. 16 and p. 19, note. 163 Pap. Xi–3 B 9, pp. 18f. see also Pap. Xi–3 B 35, p. 75. 164 [mathilde Fibiger], Clara Raphael, Tolv Breve, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851 (ASKB 1531). 165 Cf. ibid. 160

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

143

the novel set off a brief but violent debate, which clearly showed that it hit a sensitive nerve with its criticism of the situation of women. goldschmidt appeared among the critics with his review of the work in North and South for January 1851. His criticism was directed, on the one hand, against the demand for a special liberation of women—they did not have interests which were any different from those of humanity in general—and, on the other hand, against the idealism of the author, which he found hysterical. instead of sexual abstinence, he referred—with words which could have been taken from Judge william’s letter on the aesthetic validity of marriage—women to their natural calling as housewives and mothers and, moreover, to inspire the men to great deeds.166 Clara Raphael evoked a series of other novels in the form of letters which supported mathilde Fibiger’s ideas, and in a later article in the march issue of North and South goldschmidt gives a review of this literature.167 this is where Kierkegaard comes into the picture. goldschmidt thinks that the common point of inspiration for the “Clara literature” is to be found Stages on Life’s Way, more precisely, in the first part, “in vino veritas.” all the complaints about women’s meaningless lives and laughable status which are presented in the emancipation novels are anticipated by the participants in the Kierkegaardian banquet—only with the difference that the female authors speak with touching seriousness, while in Kierkegaard the speeches take place under a philosophical category.168 One even finds the idea of women’s sexual renunciation expressed by victor eremita at the banquet.169 although goldschmidt does not directly make Kierkegaard responsible for the young women’s hysterical ideas, he does so indirectly: oh no, i do not want to offend magister Kierkegaard. Here there is only one very permissible effect with impermissible misunderstandings. the situation is such that in that book [sc. Stages on Life’s Way] there runs a higher, advising, far-reaching thought over the various standpoints and makes them appear like subordinate moments, while the subsequent authors [sc. the women] each stand at their standpoint as at an absolute one, stand like a pin on a map or like a mile-marker, showing the way, which another has gone.170

the tone of goldschmidt’s mention of Kierkegaard is benevolently jocular. at the end he extends his hand further by saying that Kierkegaard’s book has anticipated even his own remarks about women’s inspiring influence on men in the review of Clara Raphael.171 nevertheless there is a challenge in portraying Kierkegaard as being the indirect originator of a collection of hysterical young women’s gospel of [m. goldschmidt], “Clara raphael,” Nord og Syd: et Ugeskrift, vol. 6 (January-march) 1851, pp. 14–33; especially p. 28. according to the journal’s colophon, the issue in question appeared on January 31. 167 [m. goldschmidt], “Clara-Literaturen,” Nord og Syd: et Ugeskrift, vol. 6 (Januarymarch) 1851, pp. 321–8. according to the journal’s colophon, the issue in question appeared on march 28. 168 ibid., pp. 325f. 169 ibid., pp. 326f. 170 ibid., p. 327. 171 ibid., p. 328. 166

144

Johnny Kondrup

asceticism. in this connection, one likewise cannot ignore the fact that Kierkegaard himself, as everyone knew, had renounced love and marriage for the sake of the idea. If this aspect is sufficiently emphasized, there is even a straightforward element of coarseness in goldschmidt’s association.172 Kierkegaard himself reviewed Clara raphael’s twelve letters, albeit not publicly. He wrote his review in the Journal NB22 at the end of december 1850, that is, only a few days after the book had appeared and before goldschmidt’s review had been published. Kierkegaard conceives of Clara’s resistance to marriage as a result of a desire to be original, and the idea of women’s emancipation, with which she grounds her resistance, is according to his view only a pretence, a rationalization. The review is saturated with sarcasm, in part against the figure of Clara and in part against the editor of the book, J.L. Heiberg, who in the preface has described her asexual marriage as the protestant form of asceticism. in Kierkegaard’s view, the whole thing is an aesthetic flirt in the field of religion, which should not be allowed to stand without contradiction.173 in addition to the review, Kierkegaard mentions Clara Raphael a single time in his journal. it is in a very short entry from around January 20, 1851, where he remarks that she was not so much a neuter as a shabby common gender.174 But with this, his occupation with mathilde Fibiger’s book also seems to be over. neither goldschmidt’s review nor his later article on the “Clara literature” left any trace in his papers. It is difficult to imagine that Kierkegaard did not read Goldschmidt’s articles on Clara Raphael. His journals and papers bear witness to the fact that he was an avid reader of North and South, and here what is at issue is, moreover, a book which he himself bought and reviewed.175 why did goldschmidt’s remarks about victor eremita and “in vino veritas” leave no trace in Kierkegaard’s entries? when one further considers what literature Bishop mynster’s innocent references to goldschmidt and Kierkegaard could give rise to, it is almost incomprehensible that Kierkegaard could have ignored goldschmidt’s polemical remarks.176

Helge toldberg, who treats the episode in the article, “goldschmidt og Kierkegaard,” pp. 227–9, does not have an eye for this personal element in goldschmidt’s teasing. 173 SKS 24, 136–8, nB22:63 / JP 6, 6709. 174 SKS 24, 192, nB22:160. 175 the fact that Kierkegaard actually read another article in the issue of Nord og Syd, in which the article about the “Clara literature” is printed, is clear from his postscript to an (unpublished) polemical article against Adresseavisen from 1851. Here he refers to a discussion in Nord og Syd, vol. 6, 1851, p. 344 (march 28, 1851); cf. Pap. X–6 B 256 with the editors’ note. 176 it is a part, not of Kierkegaard’s story, but of goldschmidt’s that mathilde Fibiger later entered into a personal relation with her critic. in september 1853 she asked for the experienced author’s help in publishing the novel, Minona (1854). goldschmidt visited her in her lodging, and the tenderness which he immediately felt for her childlike, anxious person, quickly developed in the direction of love. But she declared that she was unable to offer him anything beyond friendship, and they parted ways at the turn of the new year 1855. Cf. Breve fra og til Meïr Goldschmidt, ed. by morten Borup, vol. 1, pp. 21–4. 172

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

145

X. Conclusion as will be recalled, during the Corsair conflict Kierkegaard distinguished between the contemptible editor of the paper and the promising author of the novel, A Jew. therefore, it can be interesting by way of conclusion to see how Kierkegaard judged Goldschmidt’s first novel after A Jew, the long Bildungsroman Homeless. the novel began to appear in North and South in April 1853 and was finished in 1857, only after Kierkegaard’s death. Kierkegaard certainly read the novel’s first part (“At Home”), which appeared in 1853, and book 1 of the second part (“Homeless”), which appeared in 1853–54. By contrast, he could not have read the second and third book of part two (1856) or the third part (“Back Home,” 1857). in all Kierkegaard could have read around 600 pages of the novel’s altogether 1,600 pages, that is, more than a third. The novel was Goldschmidt’s first great attempt in an artistic form to make probable the faith in order and continuity in existence which he had arrived at under the influence of, among others, Goethe. But Kierkegaard does not seem to have given this book any special attention. the only place in his papers which evidence a reading of Homeless is a journal entry from november 1, 1854. under the heading “symptom,” Kierkegaard draws attention to the regularity (which one probably knows best from Hegel’s remark about the Owl of Minerva which begins its flight at the outset of dusk), that when something disappears from life or actuality, it receives a flowering in philosophy, aesthetics or art: thus it is characteristic of our age that a more and more common theme for novels (here among us even goldschmidt) is the struggle of the genius with actuality. this indicates that no one ever thinks of realizing these things in actuality (goethe, for example, openly adulterated his genius into talent). But just the same, we have to have the struggles of genius around, and the novels supply them. shortsighted people make the mistake of thinking that it nevertheless is always a good thing that something is introduced this way; they even believe that in this manner it comes nearer to us or that we draw closer to it—ah, they are mistaken, this mode signifies that the actuality is becoming more distant. Thus the more artistically finished the novel becomes, the less it enters into life, the more it merely pampers and coddles people by dealing enjoyably with such things in the realm of the imagination.177

it becomes an enjoyment in fantasy or aesthetics which leads away from the existential, that is, from the sphere where the mind is transformed and what is experienced receives expression in one’s life. with this reasoning Kierkegaard regards goldschmidt’s Bildungsroman virtually as contentiously as is possible: while the novel wishes to convince the reader of the order, which both demands and makes possible the transformation of the personality—through development, recognition, inhibition and sublimation—Kierkegaard conceives it as an aestheticizing, a weakening of the same phenomena. even with the caveat that Kierkegaard only knew 600 pages of the novel, it is a strikingly negative judgment. and one must suspect that in what he did read he was able to get some sense of the basic structure of the Bildungsroman, 177

SKS 26, 165, nB32:65 / JP 1, 827.

146

Johnny Kondrup

which he knew from, among other things, goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre. His entry indeed also mentions goethe. if one reads the remark about goethe as a sub-text to the words about goldschmidt’s novel, then the entry says the following: goldschmidt has now so thoroughly betrayed the genius which he showed in A Jew, that, like goethe, he can write a Bildungsroman, where he astheticizes the person’s development and transformation instead of practicing it himself.178 By way of summary, one can sketch Kierkegaard’s relation to goldschmidt thus: goldschmidt played little or no role for him prior to the Corsair conflict, which he himself caused by requesting to be ridiculed. the request was due in part to a general uneasiness with the paper, and in part to a constantly held view that p.L. møller was its driving force.179 therefore, møller’s criticism of “ ‘guilty’/‘not guilty’ ” was the occasion for the conflict, even if it did not appear in The Corsair, and although Kierkegaard already beforehand had considered asking to be ridiculed. at the beginning of the conflict Kierkegaard maintained a kind of fundamental respect for goldschmidt, as the author of novels, and in conversations with him on the streets asked him both directly and indirectly to give up The Corsair as well as to distance himself from p.L. møller. But when goldschmidt in october 1846 complied with the requests and traveled abroad, it was too late. Kierkegaard had in the interim become so embittered that he refused to recognize the objective change. For the rest of his life he held on to the picture of goldschmidt as the editor of The Corsair, the incarnation of contemptibility. the development in goldschmidt’s personality which North and South represented, Kierkegaard rejected with all means at his disposal, insisting on regarding the new journal as an opportunistic cover for a person lacking character. For himself—but never publicly—he presented the unrealistic demand that goldschmidt humiliate himself publicly and renounce his former work with The Corsair. it is worth noting that while at the onset of the Corsair conflict P.L. Møller was, for Kierkegaard, the main enemy, after its conclusion, it is goldschmidt who remains as the focus of his anger. Kierkegaard’s bitterness towards goldschmidt took on a new dimension, when Bishop mynster in 1851 referred to goldschmidt positively and, in addition, on the same page as he mentioned Kierkegaard himself. Yet, the bitterness was directed especially at mynster, and the bishop’s positive words about goldschmidt became a part of the ferment in Kierkegaard’s development towards the attack on the Church. By contrast, Kierkegaard apparently overlooked or ignored the challenge which goldschmidt made to him in 1851 by making victor eremita indirectly responsible for being the leader of the women’s movement, including mathilde Fibiger’s (Clara raphael’s) hysterical ideas about sexual asceticism. the constantly held picture of goldschmidt as the editor of The Corsair apparently also prevented Kierkegaard from recognizing the positive qualities of the Bildungsroman Homeless. He read it against the grain as an aestheticizing 178 in all fairness it should be said that the ill-will about goldschmidt’s novel was not only due to the fact that it was written by goldschmidt. at this late point in his life, Kierkegaard had developed a general mistrust for poetry, which he regarded as as a fraud for genuine Christian life. 179 Cf. Helge toldberg, “goldschmidt og Kierkegaard,” pp. 218–24 and p. 233.

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

147

falsification of the existential demand for personal change. In this way, it was only a very limited part of goldschmidt’s being which was visible to Kierkegaard, and even if it is in part due to the fact that around a half of goldschmidt’s life (almost 32 years) played itself out after Kierkegaard’s death, this is not the entire explanation. If, finally, we turn the perspective around and ask about Goldschmidt’s relation to Kierkegaard, especially after the latter’s death, then it can be described as increasingly positive—until 1872. after having had his reservations about the idea of erotic renunciation (which he thought was central for Kierkegaard) in the time period from 1846 to 1855, goldschmidt, in part due to personal experiences and in part due to his ideas about nemesis, came closer and closer to an understanding of this point.180 His admiration for Kierkegaard, which had been great at the time before the Corsair conflict, returned based on a deeper foundation. But in 1872 the third volume of Kierkegaard’s Efterladte Papirer or Posthumous Papers appeared, where Goldschmidt could read the genius’ entries from the year of the conflict, 1846. goldschmidt did not speak publicly about the papers, but in a private letter to the author otto Borchsenius he wrote some years later: His unquenchable hatred and resentment astonished me. He was a “Christian-religious genius” and could not even forgive a conflict in which nothing defamatory was said about him and nothing private brought forth. that i cast The Corsair away was not enough for him; he demanded that i lay my neck under his foot, and his bitterness seemed even to increase. the Christians seem to regard this kind of indian hatred without wondering about it. i am afraid to say something pharisaical, and yet i must say that he who has caught a glimpse of the idea of nemesis can no longer hate.181

Translated by Jon Stewart

ibid., pp. 233–4. Letter to otto Borchsenius, dated avignon, march 25, 1878. published in Breve fra og til Meïr Goldschmidt, ed. by morten Borup, vol. 2, pp. 207–10; quotation p. 209. 180 181

Bibliography

182

I. Goldschmidt’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library meyer, adolph [meïr goldschmidt], En Jøde. Novelle, ed. by m. goldschmidt, Copenhagen: m. goldschmidt 1845 (ASKB 1547). meyer, adolph [meïr goldschmidt], Fortællinger, ed. by m. goldschmidt, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB u 43). II. Works in the auction Catalogue that Discuss Goldschmidt none. III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Goldschmidt andreasen, uffe, “efterskrift” to the photomechanical reprint of Corsaren 1840–46, vols. 1–7, Copenhagen: det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab / C.a. reitzel 1981, vol. 7, pp. 9–64, especially pp. 32–43. Behrendt, poul, “det tidsforskudte tanke-Ærinde. en rekonstruktion af sammenstødet mellem søren Kierkegaard, p.L. møller og meïr goldschmidt 1845–46,” in Tænkesedler. 20 fortællinger af fædrelandets litteraturhistorie. Festskrift til Flemming Lundgreen-Nielsen, ed. by Henrik Blicher, merete K. Jørgensen, and marita akhøj nielsen, Copenhagen: universitets-Jubilæets danske samfund & C.a. reitzel 2007, pp. 151–75. Borchsenius, otto, “m. goldschmidt og Korsaren,” in Fra Fyrrerne. Literære Skizzer, vol. 2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel & otto B. wroblewsky 1880, pp. 231–325. Bredsdorff, elias, Corsaren, Goldschmidt og Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: Corsarens Forlag 1977, especially pp. 77–118. Brøndsted, mogens, Meïr Goldschmidt, Copenhagen: gyldendals uglebøger 1965, especially pp. 58–84. From the forgoing, it is clear that Kierkegaard read both The Corsair (1840ff.) and North and South (1848ff.) as well as the parts of the novel Homeless which were published before his death. But none of the journals were found in Kierkegaard’s book collection, when it was auctioned away in april 1856. The Auction Catalogue, strictly speaking, contains only a single book by goldschmidt: A Jew from 1845 (ASKB 1547). moreover, a preserved bill from C.a. reitzel’s booksellers shows that in september 1846 Kierkegaard bought goldschmidt’s Fortællinger from the same year (ASKB u 43). He could not have bought more of goldschmidt’s literary works since he did not publish any more of them before Kierkegaard’s death in 1855. But what happened to the journals? and what about the Fortællinger? 182

Meïr Goldschmidt: The Cross-Eyed Hunchback

149

garff, Joakim, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 2005, especially pp. 375–422 and pp. 668–73. Jørgensen, Carl, Søren Kierkegaard. En biografi med særligt henblik paa hans personlige etik, vols. 1–5, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag 1964, vol. 2, pp. 130–67. Kirmmse, Bruce H. (trans. and ed.), Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1996, pp. 65–88. Kyrre, Hans, M. Goldschmidt, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: H. Hagerup 1919, especially vol. 1, pp. 88–93. rubow, paul v., Kierkegaard og hans Samtidige, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1950, pp. 34–46 (“Corsaren”). toldberg, Helge “goldschmidt og Kierkegaard,” in Festskrift til Paul V. Rubow, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1956, pp. 211–35. tudvad, peter, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politiken 2004, pp. 377–90 passim.

thomasine gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s appreciation of the everyday stories and Two Ages Katalin nun

perhaps the most important danish female author of the golden age was thomasine gyllembourg (1773–1856). Between 1827 and 1845 she wrote 24 novels and stories, in addition to numerous plays, most of which are completely unknown to modern readers outside scandinavia. the book Two Ages (1845),1 madame gyllembourg’s last novel, can in some ways be seen as a kind of summing up of her authorship or her general view of life. it is a story about the changes which took place in everyday life, customs, and values from the time of the French revolution (“the age of revolution”) until the 1840s (“the present age”). a couple of months after the appearance of the book, Kierkegaard published a long review of it, which appeared in the form of an independent monograph, and which was entitled A Literary Review. “Two Ages,” a Novel by the Author of “A Story of Everyday Life.”2 this review has been translated into english thus making madame gyllembourg’s name and the title of her novel familiar to anglophone readers, even if not much else is known about her or the work.3 in addition to A Literary Review, Kierkegaard also devotes a few pages to thomasine gyllembourg’s thomasine Christine gyllembourg-ehrensvärd, To Tidsaldre. Novelle af Forfatteren til “En Hverdags-Historie,” ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845 (ASKB 1563). (reprinted in Skrifter af Forfatteren til “En Hverdags-Historie,” vols. 1–12, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851, vol. 11, pp. 1–198; Samlede Skrifter af Forf. til “En Hverdags-Historie,” Fru Gyllembourg-Ehrensvärd, vols. 1–12, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1866–67, vol. 12, pp. 1–243; and thomasine gyllembourg, Drøm og Virkelighed, To Tidsaldre, ed. by anni Broue, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: Borgen 1993, pp. 71–230.) 2 En literair Anmeldelse. To Tidsaldre. Novelle af Forfatteren til “En Hverdags-Historie,” udgiven af J.L. Heiberg. Kbhv. Reitzel 1845, anmeldt af s. Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846; SKS 8, 5–106 / TA, 9–112. 3 The Present Age and Two Minor Ethico-Religious Treaties, trans. by alexander dru and walter Lowrie, London and new York: oxford university press 1949; A Literary Review. ‘Two Ages,’ a Novel by the Author of ‘A Story of Everyday Life,’ published by J.L. Heiberg. Copenhagen: Reitzel 1845. Reviewed by S. Kierkegaard, trans. by alastair Hannay, Harmondsworth: penguin Books 2001; and the translation by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong in TA. 1

152

Katalin Nun

stories in his literary début From the Paper of One Still Living.4 Finally, one can also mention a few journal entries, where Kierkegaard briefly refers to the everyday stories and their author.5 when Kierkegaard writes about thomasine gyllembourg’s stories, the tone is very positive throughout. He appreciates both the everyday stories and their author’s mature and coherent view of life. that madame gyllembourg had a mature view of life can be explained by the simple fact that she was already 54 years old with the experiences of a lifetime behind her, when she wrote her first novel in 1827. In what follows I will first give brief overview of Thomasine Gyllembourg’s life and works. The body of this article is then divided into three parts: in the first part, i will give an account of Kierkegaard’s short analyses of mme gyllembourg’s everyday stories in From the Paper of One Still Living. then i will treat in detail thomasine gyllembourg’s last work, that is, Two Ages, and Kierkegaard’s lengthy review of it. given the general aim of this series, the main question is what kind of influence Thomasine Gyllembourg exerted on Kierkegaard’s thought and writings. with this investigation i wish to show that although one cannot speak of a direct influence of Mme Gyllembourg’s stories on Kierkegaard’s thinking, nevertheless, the everyday stories played an important role for him. as we will see, the everyday stories served for Kierkegaard as an important point of departure for developing his own ideas in, above all, A Literary Review. Furthermore, Kierkegaard showed a consistent appreciation for the everyday stories, because, in his eyes, they embody a supreme unification of the ideal and the concrete. I. Thomasine Gyllembourg’s Life and Works thomasine gyllembourg (née thomasine Christine Buntzen) was born in 1773 in Copenhagen as the youngest of four daughters of a wealthy Copenhagen middleclass family. she was not yet 17 years old when she married peter andreas Heiberg (1758–1841), 15 years her senior. Heiberg, a well-known poet and translator, was condemned to lifelong exile in 1799 as a result of his political liberalism. in 1800 he left denmark for paris, where he was to live the rest of his life, while his wife and their 8-year-old son, Johan Ludvig remained in Copenhagen. at the time of peter andreas’ banishment, thomasine gyllembourg had already fallen in love with the exiled swedish baron Carl Frederik gyllembourg-ehrensvärd (1767–1815). in september 1801 thomasine gyllembourg wrote her “lettre remarquable” to her husband in paris asking him to consent to a divorce because of the changed circumstances.6 He refused and applied to the danish authorities for permission to From the Papers of One Still Living was a review of H.C. andersen’s novel Kun en Spillemand. Original Roman i tre Dele, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1837. (english translation: Only a Fiddler. A Danish Romance, trans. by mary Howitt, London: H.g. Clarke and Co. 1845.) 5 see, for example, the two entries from 1836, Pap. i a 201 / JP 4, 4923 and Pap. i a 244 / JP 5, 5162. 6 see thomasine gyllembourg’s “Lettre remarquable,” which is Letter no. 16 in Johanne Luise Heiberg, Peter Andreas Heiberg og Thomasine Gyllembourg, vols. 1–2, 4th 4

Gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s Appreciation of the Everyday Stories and two ages 153

return to denmark. the crown eventually refused his petition and granted his wife’s request for divorce. she married gyllembourg in the same year. thomasine gyllembourg’s only child Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860) became one of the most important literary figures of the Danish Golden Age. He was a poet, dramatist, and the leading literary critic of the time. He translated several plays, in addition to penning works on various other topics including philosophy and the natural sciences. in 1831 Heiberg married Johanne Luise pätges (1812–90), almost 20 years his junior, who became the leading actress of the royal theater until her retirement in the 1850s. Heiberg himself held the position of playwright and later director at the royal theater. thomasine gyllembourg lived together with her son and daughter-in-law after their marriage, and their home became an important center of contemporary intellectual life. the three knew most of the famous personalities of the age; they regularly hosted poets, philosophers, and theologians, and their home was regarded as something of a literary salon on the French model.7 thomasine gyllembourg died in 1856, at the age of 83.8 Thomasine Gyllembourg’s literary debut was a series of fictional letters in her son’s periodical Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post.9 this story later received the title The enlarged and revised ed. by aage Friis and Just raabek, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1947, vol. 1, pp. 103–11. 7 For further reading on the Heibergs in english, see Henning Fenger and Frederick J. marker, The Heibergs, new York: twayne 1971. (in danish as Familien Heiberg, Copenhagen: museum tusculanum press 1992.) 8 For further reading on thomasine gyllembourg, see Benedicte arnesen-Kall, Fru Gyllembourg og hendes Værker i Forhold til vor Tid, Copenhagen: rudolph Klein 1875; arthur aumont, J.L. Heiberg og hans Slægt paa den danske Skueplads, Copenhagen: Jørgensen 1891; steffen auring, “thomasine gyllembourg: en Hverdags-Historie, 1827,” in Analyser af dansk kvindelitteratur. Leonora Christina, Thomasine Gyllembourg, Amalie Skram, Erna Juel-Hansen, Thit Jensen, Olga Eggers, Agnes Henningsen, ed. by Birgit abild andersen, Copenhagen: eksskolens trykkeri 1980 (Litteratur og Samfund, vol. 31), pp. 30–58; F.J. Billeskov Jansen, Thomasine Gyllembourg. Et mindeportræt, Copenhagen: gæa 1977; anni Broue Jensen, Penge og Kærlighed. Religion og socialitet i Thomasine Gyllembourgs forfatterskab, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1983; Julius Clausen, Omkring det Heibergske Hus, Copenhagen: Bianco Luno 1934; Johanne Luise Heiberg, Peter Andreas Heiberg og Thomasine Gyllembourg, ed. by aage Friis and Just raabek, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1947; Johannes grønborg, P.A. Heiberg og hans Hustru, Copenhagen and aarhus: Bayer 1915; elisabeth Hude, Thomasine Gyllembourg og Hverdagshistorierne, Copenhagen: rosenkilde og Bagger 1951; H. Jæger, En gammel Kjærlighedshistorie, Kristiania: omtvedt 1891; John Christian Jørgensen, Litteraturen og hverdagen: nye realismeessays, Copenhagen: Borgen 1979; grethe Kjær, “thomasine gyllembourg, author of ‘a story of everyday Life,’ ” in Early Polemical Writings, ed. by robert L. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1999 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 1), pp. 87–108; 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. 272–97; Klaus p. mortensen, Thomasines oprør, Copenhagen: gads 1986. 9 anonymous [thomasine gyllembourg], “et Brev, som enhver bedes at læse, da redactionen ikke veed, hvem der angaaer,” Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post, nos. 4, 1827 [pp.

154

Katalin Nun

Family Polonius.10 in 1828 she published A Story of Everyday Life,11 which is perhaps her best-known novel due to the fact that her stories and novels from then on were subtitled “a story from the author of A Story of Everyday Life,” which effectively served the function of a pseudonym. Johan Ludvig Heiberg’s name appeared on the title page as the editor. thomasine gyllembourg’s identity as the author was never revealed during her lifetime. The reason for this is that during the first half of the nineteenth century in Denmark being a writer or other public figure was regarded as inconsistent with a woman’s vocation. madame gyllembourg herself shared this opinion, and it would have been unpleasant for her if she had been forced into the limelight by virtue of her literary work. although a couple of close friends of the family knew with certainty and many others guessed who the author of these novels was, thomasine gyllembourg nevertheless insisted on keeping her anonymity. Her “Literary testament,” which officially revealed her identity, was published posthumously in 1862 by Johanne Luise Heiberg as a part of Johan Ludvig Heiberg’s collected works.12 thomasine gyllembourg’s stories are all set in the Copenhagen of her day, and her characters are taken from the real life of the time. the protagonist is usually a young woman. Her stories concern everyday life of the Copenhagen middle class of the danish golden age. thus, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that thomasine gyllembourg’s novels and stories give a reliable picture of the bourgeois culture and mentality of the danish capital of the 1830s and 1840s. madame gyllembourg was a master at developing the intrigues and psychology of her characters. Her novels evidence an unusual talent for psychological observations and an extensive knowledge of human nature. madame gyllembourg was a leading exponent of modern danish prose which started to appear in the 1820s. this was due primarily to a new realism with which she portrayed everyday life. But it was also due to the popularity of her novels and stories which were written in clean and uncomplicated but polished and lively Danish, and had therefore an important influence on the development of a literary danish language. this is understandable when one considers that modern danish 25–8]; the continuation of the story was published in Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post, no. 6 [pp. 34–5], 1827; no. 9 [pp. 47–8], 1827; nos. 12–19 [pp. 57–9; pp. 61–4; pp. 65–7; pp. 69–71; pp. 73–5; pp. 77–80; pp. 81–3; pp. 85–8], 1827; nos. 42–3 [pp. 177–80; pp. 181–2], 1827; and nos. 58–9 [pp. 241–4; pp. pp. 246–8], 1827. the page numbers in square brackets refer to the photomechanical reprint of Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, vols. 1–4, Copenhagen: C.a: reitzel 1980–84 (dansk sprog- og Litteraturselskab). 10 [thomasine gyllembourg], “Familien polonius,” in Samlede Skrifter af Forf. til “En Hverdags-Historie,” Fru Gyllembourg-Ehrensvärd, vols. 1–12, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1866–67, vol. 1, pp. 45–160. 11 anonymous [thomasine gyllembourg], “en Hverdags-Historie,” Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post, nos. 69–76 [pp. 285–8; pp. 289–92; pp. 293–5; pp. 297–300; pp. 301–2; pp. 305–7; pp. 310–12; pp. 313–15], 1828. (reprinted in Samlede Skrifter af Forf. til “En Hverdags-Historie,” Fru Gyllembourg-Ehrensvärd, vols. 1–12, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1866–67, vol. 1, pp. 161–218.) 12 [thomasine gyllembourg], “Fru gyllembourg’s Litterære testament,” in Breve fra og til Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1862, pp. 217–22.

Gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s Appreciation of the Everyday Stories and two ages 155

was just beginning to develop at this time, and the use of the mother tongue, for example, in academic circles was by no means a matter of course.13 II. Kierkegaard on Thomasine Gyllembourg A. From the papers of one still Living It is well-known that Kierkegaard’s first literary production was a short review of Hans Christian andersen’s (1805–75) novel Only a Fiddler (1837).14 this review was entitled From the Papers of One Still Living: Published Against His Will by S. Kierkegaard and appeared in 1838. the main message of his rather convoluted analysis in this work is that andersen lacks a coherent view of life, which comes to expression in the figure of the protagonist of the novel, Christian. Then, in this context, Kierkegaard compares andersen with the anonymous author of the everyday stories, that is, thomasine gyllembourg. Here, he gives evidence of a deep appreciation of the stories of everyday life. the reason for his positive judgment is that, in contrast to andersen’s novel, the everyday stories are written “out of consideration for the life view contained therein, which just as surely has had its corresponding element in existence for its presupposition as it has also an aroused element as its effect….”15 Here Kierkegaard underlines the importance of having a life view, which is based on one’s authentic experiences in life. then, Kierkegaard continues for a few pages by discussing the various positive qualities of the everyday stories. But his appreciation applies not only to the novels, but also to their author. about the latter Kierkegaard writes that “he”16 gives evidence of “the sublimate of joy in life,” and that “he” possesses “the battle-won confidence in the world.”17 in other words, Kierkegaard appreciates very much, when an author is able to transfer into fiction his experiences, which he has gained through life’s struggles and which give him self-reliance. However, not only the struggles, but also the joy of life, should be perceptible in the novel or short story. thanks to these qualities, the everyday stories possess “a fullness, a divine spark, which, carefully tended, can make the whole life glow,”18 continues Kierkegaard as an example, one can here mention that søren Kierkegaard’s On the Concept of Irony (1841) was only the third dissertation to be written in danish (with a special permission of the king), while the language of the previous ones was Latin. see Kierkegaard’s “petition to the King” in B&A, vol. 1, pp. 17–18 / LD, document 15, pp. 23–5; Cf. also SKS K1, 129–32. 14 andersen, Kun en Spillemand. 15 SKS 1, 21 / EPW, 65. 16 since thomasine gyllembourg published her works anonymously, her contemporary critics referred to her as a male author, regardless of whether or not it was clear for them who the real author actually was. søren Kierkegaard, for example, knew in all probability that thomasine gyllembourg was the author of the “everyday stories,” but for the sake of discretion he also refers to her as “he.” 17 ibid. 18 SKS 1, 21 / EPW, 65-6. 13

Katalin Nun

156

in his analysis. this means, in Kierkegaard’s eyes, that these stories give evidence of “the verified congruence of youth’s demands and announcements with life’s achievements.”19 and this is “not demonstrated ex mathematica pura,” continues Kierkegaard, “but is illustrated de profundis by the entire inner boundlessness of a rich temperament and presented with youthful earnestness—all this gives these stories an evangelistic tinge that inevitably must assure them great importance.”20 thus, Kierkegaard welcomes warmly the fact that the author of the everyday stories has managed to unify the expectations of youth with the experiences of middle age. at the same time, he underlines the importance of a literary construction, which not just makes claims but much more organically derives from a deep, but at the same time youthful, personality. in Kierkegaard’s eyes all these qualities make the reading of the everyday stories “a truly upbuilding study.”21 according to Kierkegaard, while they also have some minor shortcomings, “the spirit” which runs through the stories “in union with the objective attitude conditioned by artistic virtuosity, is nevertheless…gratifying....”22 at the end of his short account of the everyday stories, Kierkegaard considers who might possibly be interested in reading these stories: “these short novels must seek their truly sympathetic readers in the older generation, whose life view is the premise for their coming into existence.”23 thus, a mature view of life is not only a requirement for writing these stories, but it is also necessary in order to understand them correctly. “Yet,” Kierkegaard continues, “among the younger generation that still stands making up its mind about the world, these short novels will also find attentive and grateful…readers.”24 we can thus conclude that these few pages by Kierkegaard demonstrate a genuine appreciation of both the everyday stories and of the abilities of their author. the most important thing is, for Kierkegaard, to recognize the mature life view of the author, which is evidenced by the ability to write stories of such a high quality. He underlines, furthermore, that the key to the success of the novels can be found in the fact that the stories unify actuality and ideality, and consistently maintain high aesthetic standards. B. The Novel two ages the novel Two Ages can in many ways be seen as a kind of summing-up of thomasine gyllembourg’s authorship with regard not only to the characters and the plot but also to the author’s general view of life. First, the theme of the similarities and differences between the two ages, that is, that of the French revolution and that of

19 20 21 22 23 24

ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. SKS 1, 22 / EPW, 67. SKS 1, 23 / EPW, 68.

Gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s Appreciation of the Everyday Stories and two ages 157

the 1840s, also appears in many of her other novels and stories.25 while, in her other novels, this theme serves merely to help define her characters, in Two Ages the plot is built around it. second, while the portrayal of everyday life is a guiding element of this novel, as in most other stories by madame gyllembourg, it receives its most systematic exposition in Two Ages. Finally, the choice of a young woman as the chief character of the story is characteristic of her works. The novel is divided into two main sections: the first is devoted to the “Age of revolution,” while the second deals with the “present age.” the “age of revolution” refers to the first few years after the French Revolution. The “Present Age” represents the period when the novel was written, that is, the 1840s. it would, however, be an oversimplification to say that the novel is a straightforward contrast between the period of the revolution and that of the restoration. although the emphasis is on the comparison of these two ages, the novel makes two additional comparisons: the two ages are not merely compared with each other, but in the first part of the novel, the age of revolution is also compared with the 1770s, that is, the ancién regime, and similarly, the second part contains references to the 1810s and 1830s. the idea of culture (“Dannelse”) is a central theme not just of Two Ages but of many stories by thomasine gyllembourg. this concept is of particular importance not only in madame gyllembourg’s texts, but also, for example, in the works of her son, Johan Ludvig Heiberg.26 The determining influence for the development of this idea in denmark was above all the concept of Bildung and Erziehung of the classical period of german literature, in particular the works of Johann wolfgang von goethe (1749–1832) and Friedrich schiller (1759–1805).27 this in turn was clearly influenced by the ancient Greek conception of the ideal educated and cultivated human being. this was understood, in short, as a harmonious and general education of human beings, the perfect development of the physical, intellectual, emotional, and social competences which result in an inner perfection and an outward beauty and grace. thus, this concept of a general education consists in the education of the intellect, the emotions, the strength of will, the sense of taste, social competence and the body. the education of the sense of taste, that is, the sense of aesthetics, see, for example, Familien Polonius (1827), Extremerne (1835–36), Montanus den Yngre (1837), Nær of Fjern (1841) or Korsvejen (1844). 26 see Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid. Et Indbydelses-Skrift til en Række af philosophiske Forelæsninger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1833, p. 15; p. 53. (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), p. 94; p. 118.) see also Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Indlednings-Foredrag til det i November 1834 begyndte logiske Cursus paa den kongelige militaire Højskole, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1835, p. 5; p. 35. (english translation: Heiberg’s Introductory Lecture to the Logic Course and Other Texts, trans. and ed. by Jon stewart, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2007 (Texts from Golden Age Denmark, vol. 3), p. 44; p. 67.) 27 For more on this, see, for example, thomas Fauth Hansen, “the expression of Infinity: Reflections on Heiberg’s View of Contemporary Culture,” in Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Philosopher, Littérateur, Dramaturge, and Political Thinker, ed. by Jon stewart, Copenhagen: museum tusculanum press 2008 (Danish Golden Age Studies, vol. 5), pp. 449–70. 25

158

Katalin Nun

is especially emphasized by the ancient greeks and their modern disciples. this concept of education was likewise appropriated by many educational reformers of the enlightenment, including Johann Heinrich pestalozzi (1746–1827) and JeanJacques rousseau (1712–78). madame gyllembourg’s use of this conception in Two Ages and her other works has two main aspects, namely, the aesthetic and the ethical “Dannelse.”28 this means specifically that a person who is educated both aesthetically and ethically is able to arrange the external aspects of everyday life with taste and to bear the burdens of life in both good and bad fortune. in the person of Claudine, the main character of the first part of the novel, for example, this conception of “Dannelse” is manifest in her ability both to organize the external aspects of her everyday life while living alone with her child and to maintain an inner ethical strength of character. in short, the ethical and the aesthetic “Dannelse” are required for a person to manage his or her everyday life in an aesthetic as well as an ethical way. C. Kierkegaard’s Review of Thomasine Gyllembourg’s two ages thomasine gyllembourg’s novels were well known and in fact very popular among contemporary readers. the stories were often followed by diverse reviews in the newspapers and periodicals of the time. in addition to Kierkegaard’s review, there were two other reviews of Two Ages that are worth mentioning. The first is a shorter critique in the periodical, Almindelig dansk og norsk Literatur- og BoghandelsTidende;29 the other is a longer analysis in the periodical Den Frisindede.30 the two articles are in agreement about the importance of the author’s contribution to danish literature generally, and both also note that many elements of the author’s other works can be found in “his” latest story. However, both reviews are otherwise rather critical with regard to some of the details of the text. The first emphasizes the lack of real intrigue and excitement and, in addition, accuses the author of subordinating an idea to character development and plot; the second review stresses grammatical deficiencies and criticizes the images invoked in the text as sentimental or illogical.31 Kierkegaard’s extended review of the Two Ages differs from these two analyses in its length and purpose. while the two other critical pieces are reviews in the proper sense of the word, that is, they give an account of the text itself, Kierkegaard analyzes thomasine gyllembourg’s novel primarily to explore and develop his For this concept in thomasine gyllembourg’s other works, see, for example, “drøm og virkelighed,” in Samlede Skrifter af Forf. til “En Hverdags-Historie,” Fru GyllembourgEhrensvärd, vol. 3, pp. 16–49 passim. or “mesalliance,” in Samlede Skrifter af Forf. til “En Hverdags-Historie,” Fru Gyllembourg-Ehrensvärd, vol. 3, pp. 103–32 passim. 29 [anonymous], “novelleliteraturen,” Almindelig dansk og norsk Literatur- og Boghandels-Tidende, no. 2, november 15, 1845, pp. 1–2. 30 [anonymous], “to tidsaldre,” Den Frisindede, vol. 11, no. 139, november 27, 1845, pp. 553–5. 31 For further commentaries to thomasine gyllembourg’s literary works by her contemporaries, see, for example, C.L.n. mynster, Nogle Erindringer og Bemærkninger om J.P. Mynster, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1877, p. 16. 28

Gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s Appreciation of the Everyday Stories and two ages 159

own assessment of his own age. These considerations were influenced by two main factors, one biographical and one theoretical. First, it will be useful to explore a few biographical facts which played a role in the origin of the Literary Review and are reflected in its contents. Second, Kierkegaard’s analysis is based upon theoretical categories which he developed in other works before ever reading madame gyllembourg’s novel. thus, although Kierkegaard’s work on the surface is a review of thomasine gyllembourg’s novel, his text cannot be understood on the basis of the novel itself but only in the context of his life and his own world of ideas. it was no accident that Kierkegaard selected Two Ages for review. as he mentions at the end of the long introduction to his piece, with this book he comes back to his earlier interest in the “everyday stories.” we have seen above that Kierkegaard in From the Papers of One Still Living devotes a few appreciative pages to these stories.32 as is well known, he regarded Either/Or as the beginning of his authorship,33 and at least for a time, the Postscript as the end of his authorship. Thus his first publication, From the Papers of One Still Living, which was written before Either/Or, and the Literary Review, which was written after the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, both lie outside the authorship, thus defined, and both are literary reviews with regard to genre. this presents an interesting symmetry in which the Review is a kind of repetition which constitutes a part of the frame surrounding Kierkegaard’s formal authorship. Kierkegaard began to write the Review while he was waiting for the proofs of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript in winter 1845–46. in The Point of View for My Work as an Author he designates the Postscript is as the turning-point in his authorship.34 He writes in a journal entry dated February 7, 1846 that he was considering giving up writing in favor of becoming a priest.35 as another entry two days later demonstrates, writing reviews appeared to Kierkegaard to be an interim solution to his dilemma about his future as a writer: up to now i’ve served by helping the pseudonyms become authors. what if i decided from now on to do in the form of criticism what little writing i can allow myself? i’d SKS 1, 20ff. / EPW, 64ff. see SV1 Xiii, 521 / PV, 30. 34 SV1 Xiii, 542 / PV, p. 55. First, the Postscript lies between Kierkegaard’s “aesthetic” (pseudonymous) and religious (signed) works, and is conceived as bringing these two parallel authorships together. (Cf. niels Jørgen Cappelørn, “the retrospective understanding of søren Kierkegaard’s total production,” in Kierkegaard. Resources and Results, ed. by alastair mcKinnon, montreal: wilfred Laurier university press 1982, pp. 18–38.) second, Kierkegaard was convinced that he would die at the age of 33, and planned therefore to complete his authorship before reaching the age of 34. (Cf. SKS 20, 272, nB:210 / PJ, 260–1.) in this plan the Postscript was to be the final work; thus in this light, the word “concluding” takes on a second meaning, that is, it was not just the conclusion to Philosophical Fragments but also the concluding work of the authorship as a whole. 35 “my idea is now to qualify myself for the priesthood[.] For several months i have prayed to god to help me along, for it has long been clear to me that i ought not to continue as an author, which is something i want to be entirely or not at all. that’s also why i haven’t begun anything new while doing the proofreading, except for the little review of Two Ages, which is, once more, concluding.” SKS 18, 278, JJ:425 / KJN 2, 260; cf. also LR, x–xi. 32 33

160

Katalin Nun then commit what i have to say to reviews in which my ideas developed out of some book or other, so that they could also be found in the book. at least i’d escape being an author.36

this passage helps to explain Kierkegaard’s intention with the review. what is especially significant is the phrase “my ideas developed out of some book.” this implies that madame gyllembourg’s text was the welcome opportunity for Kierkegaard to write, without, however, the necessity of being an author in the proper sense of the word. as he says in “a First and Last declaration” from the Postscript, part of his motivation for writing under pseudonyms was to undermine any authority that the reader might wish to ascribe to him as an author.37 Kierkegaard was of course interested in writing and in exploring philosophical, literary, and theological ideas, but had no desire to impose his ideas on others and did not want his readers to adopt his ideas on the strength of his authority. the use of the pseudonyms thus effectively distanced him from the ideas presented in his works. the passage quoted above seems to indicate that Kierkegaard regarded writing a book-review as serving more or less the same function since, although the review appeared under his own name, the ideas discussed in it were ostensibly not his but those of the author of the book under review. this seems to imply that after the planned completion of the authorship and the “First and Last declaration,” Kierkegaard was experimenting with a new kind of authorship which, although not pseudonymous, would nevertheless undermine attempts to ascribe any substantial authorial authority to him. apart from its introduction, the Literary Review is divided into three main parts. The first is a very short overview of the content (“Prospectus of the Contents of Both parts”),38 while the second constitutes an analysis of the text (“an aesthetic reading of the novel and its details”).39 the last part (“the results of observing the two ages”),40 which constitutes half of the total text, contains abstract descriptions of some aspects of the two ages based on some of the central categories from Kierkegaard’s own world of ideas. Kierkegaard does not analyze the novel by starting from the premises of the text itself; on the contrary, he works with his own already developed theoretical categories. He explores these by means of the story in a way that draws attention to the elements of the novel which are useful for his own purposes. thus, although he does analyze the characters and story in the second part of his review, he does so in terms of the ideas which he then explores and develops in the last part, which can clearly be regarded as a more independent piece of writing. Kierkegaard frequently employs conceptual pairs which are dialectically related. the most important of these in this context is the contrast between “passion” and “reflection.” He claims that in his own age people are overly reflective instead of being active. He thus defines his own age as a reflective one, which he considers a negative designation. In Kierkegaard’s eyes, the contrasting term to reflection is 36 37 38 39 40

SKS 18, 279, JJ:419 / KJN 2, 258; cf. also LR, pp. x–xi. SKS 7, 569–73 / CUP1, 625–30. SKS 8, 26–32 / LR, 21–6. SKS 8, 33–58 / LR, 27–52. SKS 8, 59–106 / LR, 52–101.

Gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s Appreciation of the Everyday Stories and two ages 161

passion, and he describes the age of revolution as a passionate one.41 He discusses not only the contrast between the two ages in terms of their being passionate or reflective but also the contrast between a passionate, that is, an inward religious, and a reflective, passionless view of life of an individual.42 He then uses these concepts as a starting point from which to deduce further categories in order to describe the two ages. He thus argues that the consequences of passion include “inwardness” and “an immediacy of reaction,” and that an age which is passionate “essentially possesses culture.”43 By contrast, he claims, the consequences of being reflective include lack of inwardness and an immediacy of reaction.44 if one looks at Kierkegaard’s other works, such as Either/Or (1843), Fear and Trembling (1843) or the Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846), it is not difficult to find the conceptual pair of passion–reflection used in connection with historical ages and with a general view of life. In the “Diapsalmata,” from the first part of Either/Or Kierkegaard’s aesthete laments that the age is passionless. He writes: “Let others complain that the times are evil. i complain that they are wretched, for they are without passion.”45 He continues: “people’s thoughts are as thin and fragile as lace, and they themselves as pitiable as lace-making girls. the thoughts of their hearts are too wretched to be sinful….Their desires are staid and dull, their passion drowsy.”46 Finally, he compares his passionless age with other more passionate ones: “that is why my soul always turns back to the old testament and to shakespeare. there one still feels that those who speak are human beings; there they hate, there they love, there they murder the enemy, curse descendants through all generations—there they sin.”47 Like those written two years later for the Review, these passages contrast and judge different ages on the basis of their having or lacking passion. in the preface to Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous author claims that he is “by no means a philosopher. He has not understood the system, whether there is one, whether it is completed.” He then writes: “He easily envisions his fate in an age that has crossed out passion in order to serve science.”48 Reflection is here understood specifically as philosophy or system. Later in the same book the concept of passion appears as the condition of a movement of infinity, illustrated by the following story: “a young lad falls in love with a princess, and this love is the entire substance of his life, and yet the relation is such that it cannot possibly be realized, cannot possibly be translated from ideality into reality.”49 However, the hero of this story decides for his love in spite of the fact that it will be never consumated. this decision represents the “movement” which “requires passion.” Kierkegaard’s pseudonym concludes: “Every movement of infinity is carried out through passion, and no reflection can produce a movement....what our generation lacks is not 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

SKS 8, 67; 66 / LR, 58; 53. SKS 8, 83 / LR, 72. SKS 8, 63; 60 / LR, 57–8; 54. SKS 8, 74–5 / LR, 68–9. SKS 2, 36 / EO1, 27. ibid. SKS 2, 36 / EO1, 28. SKS 4, 103 / FT, 7. SKS 4, 137 / FT, 41.

Katalin Nun

162

reflection but passion.”50 Thus, passion and reflection are again contrasted, and Kierkegaard’s age is again condemned for being overly reflective. Finally, in the Postscript, in the appendix to part two (“a glance at danish Literature”) Kierkegaard’s pseudonym writes about the other pseudonymous works published prior to the Postscript, including Either/Or, Fear and Trembling, and Repetition. He complains that the age has become very sensible and no longer knows what it means to exist and to have inwardness. He writes, “what happens? during the same time, i receive a book from reitzel titled Repetition. it is not didactic, far from it, and it was precisely what i wished, since in my view the misfortune of the age was that it had come to know too much and had forgotten to exist and what inwardness is.”51 as in the Review, the present age is characterized as reflective and lacking in passionate inwardness. Later, in the conclusion of this work we read: “psychologically, it is ordinarily a sure sign that a person is beginning to relinquish his passion if he wants to treat the object of his passion objectively. it is ordinarily the case that passion and reflection exclude each other.”52 these and other passages from Kierkegaard’s earlier works make it clear that he had developed his views on the passion–reflection dichotomy which the Review uses to evaluate Two Ages well before he actually read the novel. the review imposes these categories on thomasine gyllembourg’s novel and examines the characters by means of them. in other words, Kierkegaard uses the characters and the plot of the novel as concrete examples to illustrate his abstract ideas, as far as these support his claims. For example, while analyzing the second part of the Review, Kierkegaard says that practically all of the characters of the first part “are in a state of passion,” and “essentially possess the passion of an ideal.”53 From this statement he concludes that the characters of the second part of the novel appear much more clearly than the figures of the first part, who are “more hidden in the inwardness of a more universal passion.”54 these categories, however, appear nowhere in madame gyllembourg’s text. what is at issue for her is not passion and reflection but the contrast between true love in the age of revolution and the coquetterie and superficiality of the present age. another category Kierkegaard explores in the Review is “leveling” which appears as the consequence of various elements which characterize a reflective and passionless age. one of these elements is “envy,” which Kierkegaard regards as the “negative unifying principle” of a reflective and passionless age, in contrast to “enthusiasm,” which is the unifying principle of a passionate age. envy, which has gained a foothold in a passionless age, is, in Kierkegaard’s eyes, synonymous with leveling. As he writes, “In the end, the tension of reflection assumes the status of a principle and, just as in a passionate age enthusiasm is the unifying principle, so envy becomes the negatively unifying principle in a passionless and

50 51 52 53 54

SKS 4, 138 / FT, 42. SKS 7, 268 / CUP1, 262–3. SKS 7, 554 / CUP1, 611. SKS 8, 35 / LR, 30. SKS 8, 35 / LR, 30.

Gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s Appreciation of the Everyday Stories and two ages 163

very reflective age.”55 He continues, “this self-establishing envy is leveling, and while a passionate age accelerates, raises and topples, extols and oppresses, a reflective, passionless age does the opposite—it stifles and impedes, it levels.”56 thus, leveling receives in this context a very negative character as “hindering,” “repressing” or “restraining.” Kierkegaard then writes about two other concepts connected with leveling: the “public” and the “press.” He claims the public is an abstract thing which can only develop in a passionless age by means of the equally abstract press, since in a passionless age nothing concrete happens. in a passionate age, by contrast, there is no abstract public, because such an age has concrete parties and events.57 Finally, illustrating his theory about the process of leveling, Kierkegaard writes: anyone who has read the ancient authors knows the number of things an emperor could think up to make time pass more quickly. the public in the same way keeps a dog for its amusement. this dog is literary contempt. if someone superior appears, even someone of distinction, the dog is prodded and the fun begins. the snapping dog tears at his coattails, indulges in all sorts of unmannerly rudeness—until the public tires of it and says, “that will do now.” the public has then levelled.58

these parts of Kierkegaard’s review can be regarded as a theoretical description of the way the press, the public, and leveling are connected with each other and collectively function in a modern age. these criticisms are obviously motivated by his well-known conflict with The Corsair. this is supported not only by the allusions to The Corsair which can be found in the passages quoted but by a draft of an unpublished article. Here Kierkegaard writes: The Corsair’s position Leveling good-natured envy (its elevating quality) contemptible envy a desire to tear down the great—with the help of a contemptible person so that there is nothing left.59

Like the conceptual pair of passion–reflection, the categories of leveling, the public, and the press appear nowhere in thomasine gyllembourg’s text and in fact have nothing to do with it. after its publication in march 1846, Kierkegaard sent two copies of the Review to Johan Ludvig Heiberg; one was intended for Heiberg himself, as the editor of the book and the other for the author.60 a couple of weeks later, on the april 26, 1846, thomasine gyllembourg wrote a letter to Kierkegaard, signed The Author

55 56 57 58 59 60

SKS 8, 78 / LR, 72. SKS 8, 80 / LR, 74. SKS 8, 86 / LR, 80–1. SKS 8, 90 / LR, 84. Pap. vii–1 B 43 / COR, supplement, p. 176. B&A, vol. 1, p. 151 / LD, Letter 134, pp. 191–2.

164

Katalin Nun

of “A Story of Everyday Life,” and sent by her son.61 after having expressed her gratefulness for Kierkegaard’s Review, thomasine gyllembourg writes: A dual feeling has filled me on this occasion: I feel myself elevated by the honor you have shown me and embarrassed because it is greater than my literary merits could hope. on the other hand, it is a great recommendation for my little work that it has been the cause of a book like yours; but, on the other hand, when i compare my novel with your book, so richly equipped with such profound, such apt, and such witty observations, then my work appears to me a simple romance from which a poet has taken the subject and wrought a drama.62

these words suggest thomasine gyllembourg herself thought Kierkegaard used her text as a springboard for his own concerns. the phrase to take “the subject and write a drama” describes exactly what Kierkegaard does: he takes the issues of the novel and develops them into something completely different. as we have seen, madame gyllembourg writes about two concrete ages, the age of her youth and that of the 1840s. Her concern is not to characterize the ages in abstract terms but to illustrate how they influenced the concrete aspects of everyday life, customs, and behavior. even if her characters have a representative function and even if behind the story there is also a general view of life, she concentrates throughout on concrete lives and on concrete existential problems. Kierkegaard is primarily interested in his own theoretical categories, most of which he developed prior to Two Ages. these are explored in the Review, but the novel itself serves only to illustrate these categories. thus, thomasine gyllembourg’s novel provided a welcome opportunity for Kierkegaard to be able to write in a difficult phase of his life when he, on the one hand, could not help but continue writing, but, on the other hand, did not know in what form he should do so. as mentioned above, writing reviews generally appeared to him at this time as one possible method for continuing his authorship. this genre served as a kind of pseudonym by making it possible for him to hide himself and his ideas behind the text he was writing about. By making his reader believe that the ideas he wrote about in his review were from the book under analysis, he hoped to prevent the reader from making any connection between these ideas and himself as author. Kierkegaard’s strategy seems to be misleading since the results of the present investigation show that the primary goal of his Review is in fact to develop his own ideas rather than explore those set forth in Two Ages. although he wants the naive reader to ascribe the ideas treated in the review to the author of the novel, they clearly have their origin in Kierkegaard himself and not the work under review. at the same time, one has to emphasize that although Kierkegaard primarily used thomasine gyllembourg’s stories as a springboard for developing his own ideas, he nevertheless recognized the value of these stories on their own terms. as we have seen, he appreciated that the stories represent a kind of unification of ideality, that is, the author’s life view, with something concrete, that is, the stories’ literary construction. indeed, he also regarded this latter as being of the highest quality. 61 62

B&A, vol. 1, pp. 154–7 / LD, Letter 138, pp. 196–8. B&A, vol. 1, p. 155 / LD, Letter 138, p. 196.

Gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s Appreciation of the Everyday Stories and two ages 165

From this analysis we can see that although Kierkegaard cannot be said to have used thomasine gyllemborg’s novel Two Ages extensively as a source for his own thinking, this novel, and mme gyllembourg’s everyday stories generally, did nonetheless play an important role in the development of Kierkegaard’s work at a specific point in time during the period of the “turning-point” in the authorship.

Bibliography I. Gyllembourg’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library [Forfatteren til “en Hverdags-Historie”], “til Herr Celestinus,” Kjöbenhavns flyvende Post, Interimsblade, nos. 1–100, 1834–36, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, no. 31, 1834 (ASKB 1607). To Tidsaldre. Novelle af Forfatteren til “En Hverdags-Historie,” ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845 (ASKB 1563). Nye Fortællinger af Forfatteren til “En Hverdags-Historie,” vols. 1–3, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1835–36 (ASKB u 46). “Castor og pollux. novelle af Forfatteren til ‘en Hverdags-Historie,’ ” in Urania. Aarbog for 1844, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: H.i. Bing & söns Forlag 1843, pp. 215–81 (ASKB u 57). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Gyllembourg [møller, poul martin], “recension af: Nye Fortællinger af Forfatteren til en Hverdagshistorie, udgivne af J.L. Heiberg. andet Bind: Extremerne. Kbhavn 1835,” in Efterladte Skrifter af Poul M. Møller, vols. 1–3, ed. by Christian winther, F.C. olsen, and Christen thaarup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839–43, vol. 2, pp. 126–58 (ASKB 1574–1576). III. Secondary Literature on Søren Kierkegaard’s Relation to Gyllembourg Bukdahl, Jørgen, “the Coteries of the Cultivated,” in his Søren Kierkegaard and the Common Man, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, grand rapids, michigan: eerdmans 2001, pp. 55–69. (originally as “dannelsen og dens koterier,” in his Søren Kierkegaard og den menige mand, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1961, pp. 52–64.) Fenger, Henning, “Kierkegaard—a Literary approach,” Scandinavica, vol. 3, 1964, pp. 1–16. Fenves, peter, “Chatter.” Language and History in Kierkegaard, stanford, California: stanford university press 1993, see pp. 195–207. Hansen, søren gorm, “den vellykkede dannelsesroman eller den etiske roman,” in his H.C. Andersen og Søren Kierkegaard i dannelseskulturen, Copenhagen: medusa 1976, pp. 149–64.

Gyllembourg: Kierkegaard’s Appreciation of the Everyday Stories and two ages 167

Kjær, grethe, “thomasine gyllembourg, author of A Story of Everyday Life,” in Early Polemical Writings, ed. by robert L. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1999 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 1), pp. 87–108. Kühle, sejer, “søren Kierkegaard og den Heibergske Kreds,” Personalhistorisk Tidsskrift, vol. 68, series 12, vol. 2, 1947, pp. 1–13. nun, Katalin, “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, new York and Berlin: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 272–97. pattison, george, Kierkegaard, Religion and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2002, pp. 19–20; p. 31; p. 37; p. 50–64; pp. 68–9; p. 92; p. 222. rohde, peter, Søren Kierkegaard: An Introduction to his Life and Philosophy, trans. by alan moray williams, London: george allen & unwin 1963, see pp. 108– 110. (originally as Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: thaning & appel 1960.) rubow, paul v., Kierkegaard og hans Samtidige, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1950, p. 13.

Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic george pattison

amongst his many other distinctions and accomplishments, Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860) was a literary critic of outstanding significance in Danish letters in the latter part of the golden age. with regard to Heiberg’s work as a critic, p.m. mitchell’s history of danish literature refers to him as the “pontifex maximus” (High priest) of the age.1 in his own way Kierkegaard too acknowledges this, when—albeit in sarcasm—he remarks on Heiberg’s presumption that he has the right to sit in judgment on the world of literature and compares this to Xerxes’ presumption in bringing along the scribes who were to record his victory over greece.2 we shall return to Kierkegaard’s break with Heiberg, but in order fully to understand its importance, we must first look more closely at Heiberg himself as critic and at the ways in which Kierkegaard himself takes Heibergian ideas and motifs into his own authorship. the material thus divides itself into three main sections: i. Heiberg as Critic; ii. Kierkegaard’s appropriation of Heibergian criticism; iii. Kierkegaard’s break with Heiberg. I. Heiberg as Critic Heiberg’s literary criticism can be contextualized in the overall strategy of his work in the theater and his aspiration to give a new direction to danish theatrical life. at its simplest, this can be seen as the attempt to reorient the danish stage away from germany and scandinavia and towards paris. Heiberg himself translated 38 French plays, including 21 by augustin eugène scribe (1791–1861), europe’s most commercially successful dramatist, and, from the 1820s onwards, he also produced many of his own vaudevilles (light musical comedies) that echoed the French style. Amongst its other elements, this campaign involved a fierce critical war against Adam oehlenschläger (1779–1850), a playwright of the preceding romantic generation whose work often drew on scandinavian historical themes, especially of a tragic nature. nor did Heiberg’s efforts stop at the theater. in four essays from the 1820s and 1830s (in his collected prose writings collectively referred to as “Contributions philipp marshall mitchell, A History of Danish Literature, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1957, p. 135. 2 Pap. iv B 41. 1

170

George Pattison

to an Aesthetic Morality”) he sought to exercise an analogous influence on the whole of public manners, from theater-going to food, clothes, and domestic mores. again and again it is paris, “the capital of the nineteenth century,” towards which Copenhagen is to aspire. Heiberg’s case rests on the belief that morals and culture stand in the most intimate relationship, and that the improvement of culture in all its many dimensions is therefore central to improving moral life. elsewhere he will go so far as to argue that danish is more closely related to the romance languages than to german, despite popular prejudice to the contrary.3 in the context of his relation to Kierkegaard, this may seem somewhat counterintuitive. For his appearance in Kierkegaard’s texts is normally seen as hinging on his role as one of the principal promoters of Hegelianism in denmark: that is, as a conduit for German rather than for French influence. This is certainly not false, and it is indeed Heiberg the Hegelian philosopher and logician whom Kierkegaard has in his sights in Prefaces or when he mocks the “conversion” to Hegelianism of one prof. Hjortespring in Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Yet Heiberg was no less important to Kierkegaard as a literary and critical model, even if (and quite apart from the bitter fluctuations of their personal relationship) Kierkegaard’s own literary values meant breaking the Heibergian mould and taking danish (and modern) writing into new and uncharted waters. in cultural terms, this would set Kierkegaard as decisively against the Frenchifying tendency in danish life and letters as he was against the German “scientific” spirit in philosophy and theology. already by the time of his seminal critical essays of the late 1820s, Heiberg had undergone his Hegelian conversion, and it is undoubtedly the case that Hegelianism provided him with a way of systematizing his thoughts on literature into a coherent critical philosophy. at the same time, his would prove a highly idiosyncratic Hegelianism. with regard to criticism, this could hardly be otherwise, since his whole program has fundamentally different aims. Hegel’s lectures on art are expressly given for the sake of developing a philosophical approach to art, and he eschews any pretensions to offer detailed critical judgments: in all these respects art, considered in its highest vocation, is and remains for us a thing of the past….What is now aroused in us by works of arts is not just immediate enjoyment but our judgment also, since we subject to our intellectual consideration (i) the content of art, and (ii) the work of art’s means of presentation, and the appropriateness or inappropriateness of both to one another. the philosophy of art is therefore a greater need in our day than it was in days when art by itself as art yielded full satisfaction. art invites us to intellectual consideration, and that not for the purpose of creating art again, but for knowing philosophically what art is.4

Johan Ludvig Heiberg, “Considérations sur la langue danoise,” in his Prosaiske Skrifter, vols. 1–11, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1861–62, vol. 11, pp. 371ff. 4 georg wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, in Sämtliche Werke. Jubiläumsausgabe, vols. 1–20, ed. by Hermann glockner, stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann verlag 1970, vol. 13, pp. 25–6. (english translation: g.w.F. Hegel, Aesthetics. Lectures on Fine Art, vols. 1–2, trans. by t.m. Knox, oxford: Clarendon press 1998, vol. 1, p. 11.) 3

Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s Use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic

171

Heiberg, however, writes as a critic, dramatist and man of the theater and in the heat of the literary debates of his day. in these terms, his criticism is driven by two interlocking goals: to promote what he is for, and to attack what he is against. the “system” he develops out of Hegel enables him to integrate these into a single allencompassing schema. On Vaudeville, his first major critical essay, sets out to show what he is in favor of—and what he is in favor of turns out, unsurprisingly, to be the kind of musical comedies known as vaudevilles that he himself wrote and staged. what he needs to show is that vaudeville is not mere entertainment or an undigested ensemble of comedy and song but that it is a genre in its own right and with its own place in the overall scheme of artistic genres. not that his work has been unappreciated. on the contrary, he sets out from the premises of the success which his vaudevilles have earned, but now he takes upon himself the task of educating his audience in the true meaning of the work—and who better to do this than the poet himself, “for he must indeed understand his art better than the public does, for otherwise the public would be a better poet than he is?”5 nor is this special pleading, since the same situation prevails in other disciplines such as medicine, philosophy, and politics. each of these has its dilettantes (a vice that in the following pages is especially associated with german theater), but it is precisely dilettantism that genuine criticism is to drive out. genre is a key to much of Heiberg’s critical theory, since, as he sees it, it is genre that in each case determines the more precise relationship between content and form. it is typical of dilettantes, not least german dilettantes, entirely to miss the point in this regard. Heiberg illustrates the point with reference to the genre of Opéra comique, as staged in France and misunderstood in germany (and, via germany, in denmark). Failing to understand the integrity of the idea of Opéra comique, germans (and danes) regard it as “a combination of opera and comedy” such that this “new form of poetry is thus an opera mixed with dialogue.”6 a result of this lack of discernment is the kind of obtuseness illustrated by a dane who, newly arrived in paris, is asked by a Frenchman whether he is going to see Beaumarchais’ Figaro at the Théâtre français: “no,” replies the dane, “i’ve already seen it,” meaning mozart’s opera.7 what the dane fails to see is that although these works may have the same subject, they are entirely distinct artworks. this dilettantism is also what Heiberg calls “materialism” and even “atheism” in art. the same tendency is observable in the belief that one can take material from epic or other narrative sources and simply turn it into a drama. when material is translated from the epic to the dramatic sphere, however, there occurs what Heiberg calls “a dialectical metamorphosis, in which the elements transmute into their opposites, as when intuition is transmuted into the concept, nature into spirit.”8 it is for this reason that greek tragedians were correct in never employing material directly taken from 5 Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Om vaudevillen og andre kritiske artikler, ed. by Hans Hertel, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1968, p. 8. 6 ibid., p. 24. 7 ibid., p. 25. 8 ibid., p. 26.

George Pattison

172

Homer’s epics, and Calderón never adapted don Quixote. epic material—such as dreams, premonitions, and other supernatural elements—is often simply unusable on the stage, for whilst “the epic form only addresses the listener’s imagination, in which the supernatural has its legitimate place...the material actuality and sensuous reality of the theater make every spectator (since, in the theater, he is not merely a listener) into a skeptic.”9 the issue is one of taste: but this does not merely mean, as many suppose, “a subjective opinionating that swings to and fro” but also “the knowledge of something objective,” the “norms and rules” that govern art,10 and the individual’s “subordination” under its “scepter.”11 in this sense “taste in art is like what the ancients called Pietas in family life, like faith in religion, like justice and good citizenship in the state.”12 with regard to the closer understanding of vaudeville, what is needed is not so much information about the “accidental circumstances” in which it originated, but its “philosophy,” and the specific balance of dramatic and musical forces that are peculiar to it. But to understand this, one must understand its concept, and this leads Heiberg into a short statement of his aesthetic system. this “system” is dialectical in the sense that it is structured by means of a sequence of polarities that are integrated in more and more complex wholes. the basic polarity determining the whole process is that of time and space, a polarity that is manifested in aesthetics as the distinction between musical and plastic forms of art. poetry combines both of these and is thus “art’s art” in a sense parallel to that in which logic is “philosophy’s philosophy.” the musical aspect of poetry is to the fore in lyrical poetry, the plastic in epic. drama unites the two and is thus “poetry’s poetry.”13 the musical element predominates in character, the plastic in situation, since character involves development in time, whereas situation is “momentary, at least at its highest point.”14 This same duality is reflected in the two forms of tragedy and comedy, the former being more akin to the musical, character-related aspect of poetry, the latter to spatial and situational elements. This leads Heiberg into the specific way in which vaudeville synthesizes these polarities, and the difference between vaudeville and the various other ways of combining music and drama, such as opera, and the musical. The specific distinction of vaudeville is described as follows: vaudeville “is a play hinging on situation, with loosely suggested characters, in which song takes the place of dialogue wherever this reaches its most interesting points.”15 with regard to situation it has, indeed, infinite possibilities. As such it is essentially comic, and demands achieving a perfect balance and integration of music, character, and dialogue. not everyone understands this, however, and the word “vaudeville” is often treated as a synonym of farce and, as such, incapable of producing masterworks. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

ibid., p. 29. ibid., p. 31. ibid., p. 32. ibid. ibid., p. 36. ibid. ibid., p. 41.

Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s Use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic

173

this is erroneous, however, since a work does not become a masterwork by virtue of the kind of work it is, but by virtue of the manner in which it fulfils the demands of its specific genre: “every work which answers to the requirements of the type of poetry to which it belongs is good, and if it perfectly accords with its concepts it is masterly.”16 on this basis, Heiberg proceeds to justify the presentation of vaudevilles at the royal theater (whilst also expressing the view that it would be ideal if Copenhagen had three national theaters: for opera and ballet; for serious drama; for light comedy) and a defense of his own vaudevilles in particular. Heiberg not only used his poetic system to defend his own work: he also used it to attack works he regarded as no longer answering to the demands of the age. a principal target was the great danish romantic poet adam oehlenschläger, and the latter’s play The Vikings in Byzantium was the occasion for Heiberg to give his ideas polemical employment. the key to this criticism is precisely that oehlenschläger, renowned as a lyric poet, has overstepped the limits of his genius by venturing into areas of dramatic art whose rules he does not understand. thus, his reliance on monologue betrays an undeveloped lyrical element that has not been adapted to the requirements of drama. in plays such as Aladdin, which have a rather free and indeterminate form and which do not require the mutual interpenetration of lyrical and epic elements (or, in Heiberg’s terminology, represent “drama’s original, immediate form”17), this is not so important, and such works can therefore succeed. But when oehlenschläger turns to tragedy, it becomes clear that, on “detailed analysis,” “far from answering to their concept, all these works, like the others, remain on the immediate level.”18 an illustration of this is the excessive use of “music, pageantry, and processions,” which underlines the point that his genius is more lyric-epic than truly dramatic.19 oehlenschläger’s offended response receives a sharper rebuff from Heiberg. oehlenschläger says that one should not look at a poem’s form but at its spirit, but, Heiberg says, “he must be told that it is precisely the form by which we come to know the spirit…and the spirit which does not reflect itself in some form does not exist in our perspective.”20 similarly, oehlenschläger’s plea that “immediate grief and laughter teach us more than an hundred cold demonstrations,” Heiberg concedes, is what a poet must say—but it cannot be allowed to pass as a critical argument.21 oehlenschläger is a genius, but his genius “stands on the level of immediacy, and has thus still not awoken to that struggle with the external world which is called reflection.”22 this question—of the kind of genius a poet possesses—is crucial, since:

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

ibid., p. 43. ibid., p. 118. ibid. ibid., p. 120. ibid., p. 130. ibid., p. 131. ibid., p. 142.

174

George Pattison if one only knows the level on which a particular poet’s poetic genius stands, then one will be able to predict the type of poetry in which he will be able to produce a masterwork and the type in which he will not—and with the same certainty with which certain data allow one to predict the course of a planet.23

Although lyrical poetry is the first form of poetic art, the fact that it depends on the poet’s self-awareness as a distinct, individual subject means that the poet himself must be capable of reflection. It is only in certain kinds of epic poetry, such as the romance or “tale” (the danish term is eventyr, the title of H. C. andersen’s “tales,” only problematically translatable as “fairy-tales”) that a purely immediate genius (such as Oehlenschläger) will be able to find success. In the case of drama, a purely immediate drama will be no more than the staging of a romance, a tale enacted rather than told. such is the sanskrit drama Śakuntala, goethe’s Faust, tieck’s Puss-inBoots, and oehlenschläger’s Aladdin, as well as shakespeare’s historical plays. it is at this level that oehlenschläger, as we have seen, is given some credit by Heiberg. However, this is far from being what the present age requires, or, indeed, what genuinely theatrical drama requires. For “modern theatrical drama” depends on the principle of illusion, and is therefore essentially comic.24 the sheer technicality of contemporary theatrical production places it in complete opposition to the original religious origins of drama: it is a thoroughly reflective, conscious, human performance. even where the modern dramatist produces tragedies, his tragedies are “a flower on comedy’s great tree,” as is the case with Shakespeare.25 But this further means that irony is essential to modern drama, but irony, unlike immediate genius, is no gift of nature, “it is on the contrary an acquired good with which the genius endows himself by his own efforts.”26 In its totality, comedy is a combination of immediate whimsy, reflective irony, and humor, in which whimsy and irony are synthesized. this is contrasted with ancient greek tragedy, which “was still a kind of divine worship, in which irony was held back by an absolute power.”27 only in modern drama, for example, shakespeare and goethe, does irony come into its own, with each of the powers at work in a play given their own relative legitimacy. this is the principle of modern comedy, of which tragedy itself is merely a flower. Of course, as we have seen, irony itself is not absolute, but must be mastered. ten years on from these critical writings, Heiberg found in the young theologian Hans Lassen martensen a sympathetic theorist who offered one further task for the contemporary dramatist, beyond exploiting the infinite situations of which vaudeville was capable. this would be to write a “speculative comedy,” whose subject matter would be, simply, “self-conscious freedom, the spirit” and would be set not on “the tumultuous stage of events in the outer world, but the quiet realm of thought.”28 ibid., p. 145. ibid., p. 163. 25 ibid., p. 165. 26 ibid., p. 166. 27 ibid., pp. 167–8. 28 Hans Lassen martensen, “Betragtninger over ideen af Faust,” Perseus, Journal for den Speculative Idee, vol. 1, June 1837, p. 96. 23 24

Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s Use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic

175

this project was adumbrated in an article in Heiberg’s own journal Perseus, and, six months later, Heiberg would stage his own speculative comedy, Fata Morgana. as a celebration of the rationality and freedom from superstition of modern life, it was, appropriately, staged in honor of the King’s birthday. in 1841, Heiberg’s New Poems would continue the theme, and, in turn, receive a confirmatory review from martensen: “it is in fact the spirit of the new age under whose guidance these poems are composed…what philosophy has long since whispered in the ears of its disciples, poetry now begins to preach from the roof-tops.”29 at this point we can, in retrospect, see how Heiberg’s Francophile theatrical aims and his (German) Hegelian philosophy finally meet: both serve him as means of presenting an essentially modern and contemporary program for art, society, and culture, for creating a world in which reason and good form determine the shape of the public sphere, of which the theater is a pre-eminent institution and instrument. II. Kierkegaard’s Appropriation of Heiberg that the young Kierkegaard aspired in some degree to the patronage of Johan Ludvig Heiberg has long been recognized.30 several references in the early journals and papers indicate his knowledge of Heiberg’s aesthetic system.31 at one point, he copies out in diagrammatic form the schematization of comedies found in Heiberg’s early critical writings.32 Perhaps more importantly, his first published work appeared in Heiberg’s Copenhagen’s Flying Post in December 1834, and his first book, From the Papers of One Still Living, had originally been offered for publication in Heiberg’s Perseus. the treatment of Hans Christian andersen in this work itself strongly reflects Heiberg’s treatment of Oehlenschläger, as we shall see, but also in his other writings on art and poetry, Kierkegaard makes extensive use of Heibergian categories. Not the least significant of these is the essay “The Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an actress,” dedicated to Heiberg’s wife, Johanne Luise Heiberg, postdating Kierkegaard’s satirical attacks on Heiberg in, for example, Prefaces. we shall come to the question of Kierkegaard’s definitive break with Heiberg in the next section, but first I shall illustrate some of the ways in which Heiberg’s critical armory Hans Lassen martensen, “nye digte af J. L. Heiberg,” Fædrelandet, vol. 2, no. 398, January 10, column 3205. 30 see, for example, Frithiof Brandt, Den unge Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: Levin and munksgaard 1929, p. 126; Henning Fenger, Kierkegaard: The Myths and their Origins, new Haven, Connecticut: Yale university press, 1980, p. 42; teddy petersen in notes to his edition of Kierkegaards polemiske debut, odense: odense university press 1977, p. 112; george pattison, Kierkegaard: The Aesthetic and the Religious, Basingstoke: macmillan 1992; Joakim garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 2005 (e.g., regarding the fact that some readers thought Kierkegaard’s first published newspaper article was actually by Heiberg, garff (p. 64) writes: “Nothing could be more flattering than to be confused with Heiberg, whose attentions were the object of every new author’s wildest dreams”). 31 e.g., Pap. i a 225, where he discusses Heiberg’s treatment of the triadic relationship of lyric, epic, and dramatic forms. 32 SKS 17, 113, BB:23 / KJN 1, 107. 29

176

George Pattison

is deployed in Kierkegaard’s aesthetic writings. this is merely a survey of the most salient points, each of which would be susceptible of further analysis.33 From the Papers of One Still Living is, essentially, a review of H.C. andersen’s novel Only a Fiddler. as noted, it was originally offered to Heiberg for his journal Perseus. there is no conclusive evidence as to why it ended up as a free-standing publication: whether Heiberg rejected it (he could have had good reason to do so), whether Kierkegaard overran the deadline, or whether he had his own reasons for wanting it to appear independently are all possibilities.34 it is what might be called a “hatchet-job,” a demolition of andersen’s work as a novelist, and the methodological key is precisely Heiberg’s view that each poet has a genius of a distinctive type that enables him to produce only a particular type of poetry. so too the vocabulary and definitions in which this is worked out are distinctively Heibergian: the distinctions between immediate, subjective, lyrical poetry, on the one hand, and reflective, objective, epic poetry on the other, are pivotal. if Papers reflects Heiberg’s treatment of Oehlenschläger, Andersen comes off even worse. oehlenschläger was, after all, acknowledged as an immediate genius, but andersen is not even that, he is no “personality marked out by nature who has no other justification for his remarkable appearance and his remarkable claims on the world than nature’s imprimatur.”35 as for the epic quality that, according to Kierkegaard, should succeed the lyrical stage in a writer’s development, “andersen has leapt over his epos”36—in other words, he has not engaged with the demanding and challenging objectivity of life. at most, andersen has a certain kind of elegiac gift, but, by refusing the challenge of existence, this gift is transformed into “a kind of disaffection and bitterness towards the world.”37 This is reflected in the story of the novel, which concerns a young man who is supposedly a gifted violinist, but who is beset by various misfortunes and ends his days as “only a fiddler.” Had he had the recognition or opportunities his genius merited, things would have been otherwise— as andersen puts it in the novel: “genius is an egg which requires warmth, the fertilizing power of fortune, or else it will become a wind-egg.”38 Kierkegaard’s view is different: true genius springs forth full-armed, like athena’s birth from the head of zeus. Heibergian themes are also reflected in Kierkegaard’s dissertation On the Concept of Irony, especially in the section on “irony after Fichte,” where he takes schlegel and other romantic theorists and writers to task for giving absolute powers to irony. as i have to some extent attempted elsewhere, see, for example, george pattison, “søren Kierkegaard: a theater Critic of the Heiberg school,” in Kierkegaard and his Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, Berlin: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 319–29; i have also looked at Kierkegaard’s use of Heibergian elements in his critique of society in the review of the novel Two Ages—see george pattison, Kierkegaard, Religion and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Culture, Cambridge and new York: Cambridge university press 2002, pp. 64–71. 34 see the introduction to the text in SKS K1, pp. 68–72. 35 SKS 1, 25 / EPW, 70. (Translation modified.) 36 SKS 1, 26 / EPW, 70. (Translation modified.) 37 SKS 1, 29 / EPW, 73. (Translation modified.) 38 SKS 1, 36, note / EPW, 81, note. (Translation modified.) 33

Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s Use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic

177

However, he concludes, like Heiberg, that irony needs to be subordinated to a higher principle, namely humor. indeed, the dissertation commences with a reference to Heiberg’s New Poems and martensen’s review of them—although it is likely that this reference is itself ironic.39 more extensive are the Heibergian tropes spread through Either/Or, especially part one, where the aesthetic life is depicted with a wealth of references to art, poetry, and the theater. the essay on Don Giovanni, the first sustained essay in the book after the opening aphorisms entitled “diapsalmata,” is premised on the Heibergian notion that the key to judging a work of art is whether the work answers to the requirements of its genre or type: Only where the idea has been brought to repose and self-transparency in definite form can there be talk of a classical work....every classical work has this unity, this reciprocal indwelling, and one can easily see that every attempt to classify the various classics which takes as its point of departure a separation of matter and form, or idea and form must eo ipso go wrong.40

again in accordance with Heibergian principles, Kierkegaard depicts the genres of art as developing along a scale determined by the relationship between immediacy and reflection. The nub of his argument is that it is precisely the immediacy of music that makes it the most appropriate vehicle for dealing with the idea of don giovanni, who is the incarnation of immediately sensuous desire. it is striking in this connection that it was in January 1837 that Kierkegaard had copied out Heiberg’s schema of dramatic forms, in the same month that he first wrote extensive notes on mozart’s operas. similar Heibergian themes are apparent in the review of scribe’s The First Love. This contains some patently Heibergian reflections on the relationship between comedy and tragedy. thus he rejects the view that comedy is “more a thing of the moment than tragedy, [that] one laughs at it and then forgets it, whereas one often returns to the tragic to lose oneself in it.”41 For true comedy hinges on situation, and it is situation that most appeals to a truly contemplative nature. moreover, because it is based on reflection, it is potentially infinite: “the more one discovers, the more infinite the comic situation becomes within itself, as it were, and the dizzier one gets—yet one cannot help staring at it.”42 Such reflective appreciation, he suggests, is like that of a smoker watching the patterns of his smoke—and the comic situation is as intrinsically vacuous as these patterns: the curtain falls, the play is over, nothing remains standing, only the broad outline, in which the fantastic shadow-play of the situation, directed by irony, remains behind for contemplation. the immediately real situation is the unreal situation; behind this a new, no less topsy-turvy situation reveals itself, and so on, and so on.43 see pattison, “Food for thought,” Kierkegaard, Religion and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Culture, pp. 96–115 (Chapter 5). 40 SKS 2, 61 / EO1, 54. (my translation.) 41 SKS 2, 255 / EO1, 262. (my translation.) 42 SKS 2, 256 / EO1, 263. (my translation.) 43 SKS 2, 265 / EO1, 268. (my translation.) 39

178

George Pattison

The emphasis on the interconnection between the comic spirit and reflection is reiterated in a later, unpublished review of the actor phister in the role of Captain scipio in another contemporary French comedy. Juxtaposing the essay on The First Love with the earlier essay on ancient and modern tragedy, where Kierkegaard expresses the view also stated by Heiberg (though by no means unique to him) that ancient tragedy lacks the subjective quality of modern drama, one might infer precisely a Heibergian view that modern tragedy is essentially a product of comedy, in the sense of an ironic separation of the self from the substantive entities of state and family. Kierkegaard’s most polished piece of theatrical writing was undoubtedly the tribute to mme Heiberg in her role as Juliet, published as “the Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an Actress.” Once more the dialectic of immediacy and reflection plays a crucial part, since the review turns on the distinction between the immediate gifts that a young 18-year-old actress will bring to the part (as mme Heiberg did herself as an 18-year-old), and the thought and reflection that a mature actress will deploy. the public will be carried away by the girl who makes the same sort of splash as a successful debutante—and Kierkegaard’s negative portrayal of the mindlessly cheering public reflects many passages in Heiberg’s own writings. The genuine aesthetician, however, is interested only in the idea, and whether the performance appropriately represents the idea of the character. once more, this is a matter of the kind of genius the artist possesses. if the metamorphosis from youthful immediacy to mature reflection occurs successfully, then the actress “can now in full and conscious, in acquired and dedicated command over her essential powers truly be the servant of her idea, which is the essential aesthetic relation, and essentially different from the seventeen-year-old’s immediate relation to her own youth.”44 of course, mme Heiberg is hailed as an artist who has successfully accomplished this metamorphosis in a pre-eminent degree. although these are the most important examples of the presence of Heibergian themes, ideas, and analyses in Kierkegaard’s aesthetic writings, they are not exhaustive—but they do give a flavor of the extent and manner of his indebtedness to the senior critic. Yet, in 1844, in the work Prefaces, Kierkegaard would launch a sarcastic and even vitriolic attack on Heiberg, an attack that would be sustained in subsequent references in, for example, Concluding Unscientific Postscript. what was the issue, and how did it reflect Kierkegaard’s appropriation of Heiberg’s aesthetic ideas? III. Kierkegaard’s Break with Heiberg it is probable that Kierkegaard’s reservations about Heiberg developed early in his career. Already at the time of his first encounters with speculative philosophy, he seems to have had significant reservations about some of the claims made on its behalf. the situation was further complicated by his positive relation to poul martin møller (1794–1838), who, both in philosophy and aesthetics, took an independent 44

SV1 X, 341 / C, 322. (my translation.)

Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s Use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic

179

line vis-à-vis the new philosophy and who, in his writings on art, laid a far greater emphasis on the personal life view of the author and less on the formal qualities of his work.45 negatively, the relationship was complicated by the alliance forged in 1837 between Heiberg and martensen, the object of Kierkegaard’s personal and intellectual antipathy from early on—and, as i have suggested, the closing sentence of the dissertation on irony may itself be read as an ironic comment on this philosophical and aesthetic axis. it is also plausible to speculate that although Kierkegaard may have aspired to membership of the Heiberg circle, he was not warmly welcomed into it, as martensen would be and that his subsequent relation to Heiberg had an element of disappointed love in it. whatever the larger background, the immediate occasion for the appearance of a strongly hostile tone towards Heiberg was the latter’s mention of Either/Or in the critical article “Literary winter seed,” reinforced by later comments on Kierkegaard’s Repetition. Kierkegaard’s private rage at this literary rebuff is forcefully expressed in the pages of the journals and is partially reworked in Prefaces. no doubt much of this has a personal tone, yet it would be a mistake to see it merely in personal terms. in art as in philosophy, Kierkegaard early on developed an agenda that was, ultimately, irreconcilable with the kind of optimistic modernism championed by Heiberg. the literary discomfort that Heiberg expressed with regard to Either/Or was not without an ideological foundation. the cryptic and excessive polarities of Kierkegaard’s writing are themselves signs of interests and concerns with hidden or paradoxical dimensions of selfhood and existence that lay outside Heiberg’s purview. as Kierkegaard pressed beyond irony into the psychological realms of boredom, anxiety, and the demonic, he entered a territory that was strange to Heiberg, and alien to a literature that could find satisfaction in the production of vaudevilles, no matter how sophisticated and witty. this difference becomes even more striking if we look beyond these psychological explorations to the ultimately religious horizons of Kierkegaard’s thought. in a religious perspective, Heibergian aesthetics could at best satisfy only a small part of Kierkegaard’s agenda, and the fact that aesthetics could provide Heiberg with an existentially absorbing field of endeavor was already indicative of the final incompatibility of their views of life. Yet, i shall suggest, even in the wake of the decisive break of 1843–44 (i.e., following Heiberg’s comments on Either/Or and Repetition), Kierkegaard remained mindful of the debts he owed to Heiberg, and respectful of the latter’s achievements as critic and man of the theater. Heiberg’s remarks about Either/Or in “winter Literary seed” were certainly likely to strike a jarring note—and not merely to one who read them with the sensitivities of a young and ambitious author. although they contain some appreciative comments, there is already something odd about the way in which Heiberg introduces it: “recently, moreover, like lightning from a clear sky, a monster of a book has suddenly fallen into the literary world—i mean that work of two large, heavy volumes or 54

see pattison, Kierkegaard: the Aesthetic and the Religious, pp. 35–43; see also pattison, Kierkegaard, Religion and the Nineteenth Century Crisis of Culture, pp. 77–81.

45

George Pattison

180

large and closely printed arks of paper called Either/Or by ‘victor eremita.’ ”46 and, he adds: this great volume is a preliminary inconvenience, which one has to overcome. one thinks, “Have I time to read such a book, and what guarantee do I have that the sacrifice will be worth it?” one feels marvelously affected by the very title, so that one applies it to one’s own relation to the book and asks oneself, “shall i either read it, or let it be?”47

Heiberg then continues by describing how the reader will make progress with the book—or not. With regard to the first part, the “Either,” he comments: “It is an unpleasant, tasteless walk, on which one constantly has the feeling that one wants to get away from the person who is holding one by the arm.”48 such a reader will not even want to continue to the “or.” However, Heiberg then points out that all of this is simply the reaction of the person he describes as “one,” and he goes on to speak of those “individuals”49 who will also want to investigate the “or” and to discover the “organizing power that makes the whole into a real whole”50 and, scarcely able to put the book down, will discover behind it all a “rare and highly gifted spirit, who, from a deeply speculative source, presents them with the most beautiful ethical view.”51 such individuals will then return to the “either” “and read it carefully through. then they will arrive at a definite view of the meaning of the book as a whole and, finally, one individual amongst such individuals will share this view with the public.”52 even these relatively appreciative remarks are therefore finally ambiguous since, it is clearly implied, very few readers will really be able to understand what it is all about, and for the rest it will simply be an unpleasant and overwhelming experience. even the review of The First Love (which, as we saw, presupposed Heibergian principles) is dismissed in the following terms: “From a pretty little bagatelle he has wanted to make a masterwork and has ascribed to it an intention that is precisely the opposite of what scribe openly acknowledges.”53 Kierkegaard is, understandably, enraged. not the least of what annoys him is the role Heiberg gives to “one”: “He is not alone, has muses and graces—and for safety’s sake he has acquired a new co-worker: “one,” an energetic co-worker who demands no fee and accepts any treatment.”54 at one point, he plans an article “How does ‘one’ treat Either/Or?”55 other entries aim to puncture Heiberg’s pose as the pre-eminent authority in danish letters—as previously mentioned, one compares 46

p. 288.

Johan Ludvig Heiberg, “Litterær vintersæd,” Intelligensblade, no. 24, march 1843,

ibid., pp. 288–9. ibid., p. 289. 49 the term Heiberg uses, “enkelte,” is, strikingly, the term that Kierkegaard will come to use with particular emphasis to name “that individual” to whom he primarily addresses his religious writings. 50 Heiberg, “Litterær vintersæd,” p. 292. 51 ibid. 52 ibid. 53 ibid., p. 290. 54 Pap. iv B 42 / EO2, supplement, p. 402. 55 Pap. iv B 46 / EO2, supplement, p. 403. 47 48

Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s Use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic

181

him to Xerxes, when the latter brought with him the scribes who were to record the victory over greece (which, of course, did not happen as foreseen!).56 others compare Heiberg to a parade-ground horse, unfavorably contrasted with a young, wild stallion,57 to a rouged-up woman sitting “in the window of literature” and waving to the passers by (“especially if it was a smart looking man and he heard a little applause from the adjoining street”),58 and to a clerk in the literary bank59—and much, much more. Kierkegaard also turns his fire on Heiberg himself, and especially on the latter’s attempt at a speculative comedy (in cahoots, it will be recalled, with martensen): it will soon be two years since Herr professor changed from being the witty, jesting, hilarious vaudeville playwright who yet at times seemed somewhat astray in the faith, the victorious polemicist, the measured esthetician, and became denmark’s dante, the musing genius who in his apocalyptic poem peered into the secrets of eternal life….60

sarcastic as it is, this nevertheless suggests that even at this moment Kierkegaard has not forgotten what first drew him to Heiberg, nor the latter’s achievements as writer and poet. more polemics would follow, privately in the journals (in the wake of remarks about Repetition made by Heiberg), and then publicly in Prefaces. However, these polemics turn on more narrowly philosophical rather than aesthetic or critical issues, and i shall not pursue them more closely here. Yet even subsequent to the extreme sarcasm of Prefaces (where Kierkegaard’s pseudonym would certainly not have concealed from Heiberg, not even for a moment, the identity of the author) and the more general attack on Hegelianism in Concluding Unscientific Postscript (occasionally specifically directed at Heiberg), Kierkegaard did not forget his original respect for Heiberg as a man of letters. Clear evidence for this comes from a brief exchange of letters in 1846. the occasion was Kierkegaard’s publication of a review of the novel Two Ages by thomasine gyllembourg, Heiberg’s mother, published anonymously but with Heiberg named as editor. Kierkegaard had sent a copy to Heiberg as well as one to his mother. the review was laudatory, but, in the aftermath of Kierkegaard’s attacks, it was none the less magnanimous of Heiberg to write as he did: i myself have read your review with great pleasure. in our so-called critical (i.e., slashing, sneering, and scornful) times it has been utterly forgotten that criticism must be receptive at the outset before it can proceed to its productive task. this is put into practice here in a brilliant way. with generous self-denial the critic has subordinated himself to his subject. He seems to wish to be so receptive that he renounces all his own invention and work. Yet it is precisely here that he becomes genuinely constructive and productive to an eminent degree and thus avoids ending in the negative. i consider

56 57 58 59 60

Pap. iv B 41 / EO2, supplement, p. 402. Pap. iv B 37 / EO2, supplement, p. 401. Pap. iv B 49 / EO2, supplement, p. 406. ibid. Pap. iv B 46, p. 404.

182

George Pattison your description of the present age as contrasted with the preceding century a small masterpiece of penetrating and acute comprehension and pertinent satire.61

Kierkegaard’s reply confirms his continuing respect—within the limits of the aesthetic—for Heiberg: “thank you for your welcome note. when one has written a little esthetic review and he who possesses absolute esthetic authority deems it meritorious, it is of course always nice to be the one whom that distinguished person distinguishes.”62 In a small way, this note confirms what I have suggested above. Kierkegaard’s break with Heiberg was undoubtedly made more bitter as a result of Heiberg’s rather insensitive treatment of Either/Or. at the same time, Kierkegaard had from early on been skeptical in relation to the more philosophical and theological aspects of Hegelianism. Yet with regard to aesthetics, Heiberg remained an admired man of the theater and, in his critical work, both a model reviewer and the source of a critical vocabulary that Kierkegaard himself exploited at many points.

61 62

B&A, vol. 1, p. 151 / LD, Letter 135, p. 192. B&A, vol. 1, p. 152 / LD, Letter 135, p. 193.

Bibliography I. Johan Ludvig Heiberg’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid. Et Indbydelses-Skrift til en Række af philosophiske Forelæsninger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1833 (ASKB 568). “recension over Hr. dr. rothes treenigheds- og Forsoningslære,” in Perseus, vols. 1–2, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1837–38, vol. 1, pp. 1–90 (ASKB 569). “om den romantiske tragedie af Hertz: Svend Dyrings Huus. i Forbindelse med en æsthetisk Betragtning af de danske Kæmpeviser,” in Perseus, vol. 1, pp. 165– 264. “det logiske system,” in Perseus, vol. 2, pp. 1–45. “om malerkunsten i dens Forhold til de andre skjønne Kunster,” in Perseus, vol. 2, pp. 101–81. Digte og Fortællinger, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1834–35 (ASKB 1551–1552). Skuespil, vols. 1–7, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1833–41 (ASKB 1553–1559). Prosaiske Skrifter, vol. 3, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1843 (vol. 3, in Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Prosaiske Skrifter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1841–48), (ASKB 1560). Fata Morgana. Eventyr-Comedie, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1838 (ASKB 1561). Nye Digte, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1841 (ASKB 1562). “ ‘dagens’ anmeldelse af ’guldkorset,’ ” Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post. Interimsblade, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: J.d. Quist no. 83, 1836 (ASKB u 55). “Forhandlinger med redactionen af Maanedsskrift for Litteratur,” Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post. Interimsblade, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: J.d. Quist no. 113, 1837 (ASKB u 55). “tillæg til anmeldelsen af Ørkenens Sön,” Intelligensblade, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, vol. 2, no. 24, 1843, pp. 269–84 (ASKB u 56). “Litterær vintersæd,” Intelligensblade, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, vol. 2, no. 24, 1843, pp. 285–92 (ASKB u 56). “Lyrisk poesie,” Intelligensblade, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, vol. 3, nos. 25–6, 1843, pp. 25–72 (ASKB u 56). “stjerne-Calender for 1845, til orientering i Himmellegemernes Bevægelser og stillinger,” in Urania. Aarbog for 1845, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: H.i. Bing & söns Forlag 1844, pp. 1–88 (ASKB u 58).

184

George Pattison

Ulla skal paa Bal. En bellmansk Situation, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1845 (ASKB u 59). Valgerda. Lystspil i to Acter, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1847 (ASKB u 60). (ed.), Kjöbenhavns flyvende Post, Interimsblade, nos. 1–100, Copenhagen: J.d. Quist 1834–36 (ASKB 1607). (ed.), Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post. Interimsblade, no. 76; nos. 82–3; no. 87 and nos. 101–35, Copenhagen: J.d. Quist 1836–37 (ASKB u 55). (ed.), Intelligensblade, no. 24 and nos. 26–27, 1843, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843 (in Intelligensblade, vols. 1–4, nos. 1–48, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1842–44, vol. 2, pp. 269–92 and vol. 3, pp. 25–72 respectively) (ASKB u 56). (ed.), Urania. Aarbog for 1844, Copenhagen: H.i. Bing & sön 1843 (ASKB u 57). (ed.), Urania. Aarbog for 1845, Copenhagen: H.i. Bing & sön 1844 (ASKB u 58). (trans.), eugène scribe, Den förste Kjærlighed. Lystspil i een Act, trans. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1832 (ASKB u 98). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Heiberg adler, adolph peter, Populaire Foredrag over Hegels objective Logik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1842, p. 4; p. 12, note; p. 16; p. 78, note; p. 81; p. 165, note (ASKB 383). andersen, Hans Christian, En Comedie i det Grønne, Vaudeville i een Akt efter det gamle Lystspil: “Skuespilleren imod sin Villie,” Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1840 (ASKB u 14). Hagen, Johan Frederik, Ægteskabet. Betragtet fra et ethisk-historiskt Standpunct, Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1845, p. 7, note (ASKB 534). Hebbel, Friedrich, Mein Wort über das Drama! Eine Erwiderung an Professor Heiberg in Copenhagen, Hamburg: Bei Hoffmann und Campe 1843 (ASKB u 54). martensen, Hans Lassen, “Kirke-aaret,” in Urania. Aarbog for 1844, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: H.i. Bing & sön 1843, pp. 161–88 (ASKB u 57). —— Den danske Folkekirkes Forfatningsspørgsmaal, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851, p. 33 (ASKB 655). [møller, poul martin], Efterladte Skrifter af Poul M. Møller, vols. 1–3, ed. by Christian winther, F.C. olsen, and Christen thaarup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839–43, vol. 3, p. 268 (ASKB 1574–1576). mynster, Jakob peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852– 53 (vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57), vol. 1, p. 257; vol. 2, pp. 73– 94; p. 116; p. 127; p. 130; p. 385 (ASKB 358–363). nielsen, rasmus, Den propædeutiske Logik, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1845, p. 15; p. 88; p. 261 (ASKB 699). paludan-müller, Frederik, “abels död,” Urania. Aarbog for 1845, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: H.i. Bing & sön 1844, pp. 113–42 (ASKB u 58). thortsen, Carl adolph, Historisk Udsigt over den danske Litteratur indtil Aar 1814, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839, p. 160 (ASKB 970).

Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s Use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic

185

sibbern, Frederik Christian, Bemærkninger og Undersøgelser, fornemmelig betreffende Hegels Philosophie, betragtet i Forhold til vor Tid, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1838 (ASKB 778). —— Dikaiosyne eller Bidrag til Politik og politisk Jurisprudents for Danske, i statsretlig, kirkelig og historisk Henseende, vol. 1, Copenhagen 1843, p. 22; p. 24 (ASKB u 105). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Heiberg andersen, vilhelm, “søren Kierkegaard,” in his Tider og Typer af dansk Aands Historie, vols. 1–4, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1907–16, vol. 4, pp. 65–108. Brandt, Frithiof, “Kierkegaard og Heiberg-kredsen,” in his Den unge Søren Kierkegaard. En Række nye Bidrag, Copenhagen: Levin & munksgaard 1929, pp. 126–9. Bukdahl, Jørgen, “the Coteries of the Cultivated,” in his Søren Kierkegaard and the Common Man, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, grand rapids: eerdmans 2001, pp. 55–69. (originally as “dannelsen og dens koterier,” in his Søren Kierkegaard og den menige mand, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1961, pp. 52–64.) Caron, Jacques, “J.L. Heiberg,” in his Angoisse et Communication chez S. Kierkegaard, odense: odense university press 1992, pp. 39–46. Fenger, Henning, 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. ix; pp. 3–5; p. 11; pp. 17– 18; pp. 28–9; p. 32; p. 42; p. 65; pp. 70–1; p. 79; pp. 81–91; p. 116; p. 123; pp. 127–9; pp. 135–43; pp. 146–9; p. 169; p. 175; p. 177; p. 180; p. 215; p. 218; p. 220. (originally as Kierkegaard-Myter og Kierkegaard-Kilder. 9 kildekritiske studier i de Kierkegaardske papirer, breve og aktstykker, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976.) —— “Kierkegaard—a Literary approach,” 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. 301–18. Fenves, peter, “Chatter.” Language and History in Kierkegaard, stanford, California: stanford university press 1993, pp. 191–5; pp. 208–9; p. 217. Høffding, Harald, Søren Kierkegaard som filosof, Copenhagen, p.g. philipsen 1892, see pp. 16–17. Kjældgaard, Lasse Horne, “den hvilende handling. Heibergs billedkunstneriske ideal,” in his Mellemhverandre. Tableau og fortælling i Søren Kierkegaards pseudonyme skrifter, Hellerup: Forlaget spring 2001, pp. 48–57. —— “Kierkegaards tableau og Heibergs store fortælling,” in his Mellemhverandre. Tableau og fortælling i Søren Kierkegaards pseudonyme skrifter, Hellerup: Forlaget spring 2001, pp. 131–3. Kühle, sejer, Søren Kierkegaards Barndom og Ungdom, Copenhagen: aschehoug dansk Forlag 1950, see p. 92; p. 96; pp. 101ff.; pp. 110ff.; p. 113; pp. 123–7; p. 134; p. 150; p 152; p. 196; p. 203; p. 207.

186

George Pattison

pattison, george, “søren Kierkegaard: a theater Critic of the Heiberg school,” The British Journal of Aesthetics, no. 23, 1983, pp. 25–33. —— “søren Kierkegaard: a theater Critic of the Heiberg school,” 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. 319–29. —— “the initial reception of Either/Or,” in Either/Or Part II, ed. by robert L. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1995 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 4), pp. 291–305. politis, Hélène, “Kierkegaard: documents philosophiques,” in Kierkegaard. VingtCinq Études, 1989 (Le Cahiers de Philosophie, nos. 8–9), pp. 443–72. rasmussen, pin and inge Lise, “ros som modstand. det spændte forhold imellem søren Kierkegaard og Johan Ludvig Heiberg,” in Literature as Resistance and Counter-Culture. Papers of the 19th Study Conference of the International Association for Scandinavian Studies, ed. by andrás masát and péter mádl, Budapest: Hungarian association for scandinavian studies 1993, pp. 104–9. reuter, Hans, S. Kierkegaards religionsphilosophische Gedanken im Verhältnis zu Hegels religionsphilosophischem Systems, Leipzig: Quelle & meyer 1914 (Abhandlungen zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte, no. 23), see pp. 68–74. rubow, paul v., Kierkegaard og hans Samtidige, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1950, p. 12; p. 59. scopetea, sophia, Kierkegaard og græciteten. En kamp med ironi, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1995, p. 15; p. 32, note 20; p. 52; p. 82, notes 12–13; p. 92; p. 166; p. 169; pp. 235–8; pp. 240–7; p. 256, note 70; p. 371; p. 413, note 27; p. 446, note 113; p. 467. söderquist, K. Brian, “Kierkegaard’s Contribution to the danish discussion of ‘irony,’ ” 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. 78–105. stewart, Jon, “Perzeusz Heiberga a Z papierów jeszcze zyjacego Kierkegaarda” [“Heiberg’s Perseus and Kierkegaard’s From the Papers of One Still Living”], trans. by Bronislaw swiderski, in Tozsamosci Kierkegaarda, in Principia, tome XXiii, 1999, pp. 25–42. —— “Kierkegaard and Hegelianism in golden age denmark,” 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. 106–45. —— Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, Cambridge and new York: Cambridge university press 2003. thulstrup, niels, Kierkegaard’s Relation to Hegel, trans. by george L. stengren, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1980. (originally as Kierkegaards forhold til Hegel, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1967.) —— Commentary on Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. by robert J. widenmann, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1984. (originally as Søren Kierkegaard. Afsluttende uvidenskabelige Efterskrift udgivet

Johan Ludvig Heiberg: Kierkegaard’s Use of Heiberg as a Literary Critic

187

med Indledning og Kommentar af Niels Thulstrup, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1962.) tjønneland, eivind, Ironie als Symptom. Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Søren Kierkegaards Über den Begriff der Ironie, Frankfurt am main: peter Lang 2004 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Germanistik und Skandinavistik, vol. 54), see pp. 114–17. troelsen, Bjarne, “Biedermeier—Kierkegaard, H.C. andersen og Heiberg,” in Denne slyngelagtige eftertid. Tekster om Søren Kierkegaard, vols. 1–3, ed. by Finn Frandsen and ole morsing, Århus: slagmark 1995, vol. 3, pp. 431–49. —— “Hegel og Heiberg” and “Heiberg og ‘det interessante,’ ” in his Manden på Flydebroen. En fortælling om Søren Kierkegaard og det moderne menneskes tilblivelse, Frederiksberg: Forlaget anis 1997, pp. 52–7; pp. 78–82 respectively. vergote, Henri-Bernard, Lectures philosophiques de Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard chez ses contemporains danois. Textes de J.L. Heiberg, H.L. Martensen, P.M. Møller, F.C. Sibbern, F. Beck et S.A. Kierkegaard, paris: presses universitaires de France 1993 (Philosophique D’ajourd’hui).

Johanne Luise Heiberg: an existential actress Katalin nun

Johanne Luise Heiberg (1812–90) was the most famous danish actress of the nineteenth century. Her talent was generally recognized to be of the highest international standard, equal to the best of what could be seen on the stages of paris, Berlin, and vienna. Between 1826 and 1864, she played more than 250 different characters, most of which were leading roles. she was married to the leading theater man of the time, the polymath Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860), who was one of the most important cultural figures in Copenhagen during the period from the 1820s to the 1840s. However, Johanne Luise Heiberg, or Fru Heiberg as she was known to her contemporaries, is well-known not only for her career in the danish royal theater, but also for her four-volume autobiography, A Life Relived in Memories, which, since its publication in 1891–92, has been one of the most discussed works in danish literature.1 this book has been particularly important due to the extraordinary tableau it presents of the people and events of the danish golden age. thus, it is no exaggeration to say that, thanks both to her qualities as an actress and, it must be admitted, to her social position as Johan Ludvig Heiberg’s wife, Johanne Luise Heiberg was a central cultural figure of her time, who had a profound impact on her contemporaries in many different ways. it is well known that Kierkegaard had a keen interest in drama, and that, like Hans Christian andersen (1805–75), he regularly frequented the royal theater in Copenhagen. the theater served, however, not only as a general inspiration for some of his works,2 but he, at least in two places in his oeuvre, also deals in detail with Johanne Luise Heiberg’s scenic art specifically. One of his longer analyses is in the first part of Either/Or, where Kierkegaard presents the aesthete “a” as fascinated by Fru Heiberg’s performance of emmeline in eugène scribe’s (1791–1861) The First Love.3 the other piece is a longer study of her portrayal of Juliet in shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. this piece, entitled “the Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an

Johanne Luise Heiberg, Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, vols. 1–4, ed. by niels Birger wamberg, 5th ed., Copenhagen: gyldendal 1973 [1891–92]. 2 See, for example, some of the aesthetic essays in the first part of Either/Or, such as “the First Love” or “the tragic in ancient drama.” 3 see eugène scribe, Den förste Kjærlighed. Lystspil i een Act, trans. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1832 (ASKB u 98). 1

190

Katalin Nun

Actress,” was first published as an article in four installments in the newspaper Fædrelandet in 1848.4 the way in which Kierkegaard writes about Johanne Luise Heiberg’s dramatic art is positive throughout. He appreciates above all her ability to present the idea of a character by performing a concrete role on the stage. in his eyes, Johanne Luise Heiberg is “in the possession of all that is required for being unconditionally eminent.”5 His positive recognition of her talent did not go unnoticed; she quotes Kierkegaard in an appreciative way in her memoirs.6 this latter fact is even more interesting when one recalls that Kierkegaard and her husband, Johan Ludvig Heiberg, had a tense relationship, at least after 1843, when Heiberg’s negative review of Either/Or was published.7 In the first section of this article I will give an overview of Johanne Luise Heiberg’s life and her activity as an author of vaudevilles and the four-volume autobiography. The second section is divided into two parts. In the first part I will deal in detail with Johanne Luise Heiberg’s scenic art, based mainly on her extensive description of this in her memoirs. in the second part, i wish to examine the article which Kierkegaard wrote on Johanne Luise Heiberg’s performance of Juliet. in this context, i will also show what mme Heiberg’s reaction was to Kierkegaard’s analysis of her art as an actress. my thesis is that both for Kierkegaard and Johanne Luise Heiberg, the art of acting is a kind of existential process, but they understood this in slightly different ways. Kierkegaard talks about an idea, which the actress has to actualize on the stage. in the concrete case of shakespeare’s play, the idea which has to be actualized for the female leading role is “feminine youthfulness,” but this cannot be done by a young actress, but only by an older one, because only the latter has the necessary distance to youth. a key term for Kierkegaard is the “metamorphosis,” which means the fulfillment of the idea in reality. This is for Kierkegaard, in my interpretation, an existential process, in which the whole person of the actress has to be involved. For Johanne Luise Heiberg acting also means a “metamorphosis,” but she means by this a transformation from the person of an actress into the persona which she, as an actress, has to perform. Both Kierkegaard and Johanne Luise Heiberg were of the opinion that in the process of metamorphosis dialectical emotions like heaviness and lightness or tension and relaxation are involved.

inter et inter, “Krisen og en Krise i en skuespillerindes Liv,” Fædrelandet, vol. 9, no. 188, July 24, 1848, columns 1485–90; vol. 9, no. 189, July 25, 1848, columns 1493–1500; vol. 9, no 190, July 26, 1848, columns 1501–06; and vol. 9, no. 191, July 27, 1848, columns 1509–16; english translation in C, 303–25. 5 inter et inter, “Krisen og en Krise i en skuespillerindes Liv,” Fædrelandet, vol. 9, no. 189, July 25, 1848, column 1485 / C, 303. 6 see, for example, Johane Luise Heiberg, Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, 5th ed., vol. 2, pp. 172–6; vol. 3, p. 231. 7 see, Johan Ludvig Heiberg, “Litterær vintersæd,” Intelligensblade, vol. 2, no. 24, 1843, pp. 285–92. 4

Johanne Luise Heiberg: An Existential Actress

191

I. Johanne Luise Heiberg’s Life and Works Johanne Luise Heiberg, born pätges, was born on november 22, 1812.8 Her parents were immigrants from germany, who met in Copenhagen. Her father, Christian Heinrich pätges, originally came from the rhine area and was a wine dealer. the family of her mother, Henriette Hartwig or Hirschborn, was originally from Holland, but emigrated to Friedberg near Frankfurt am main. From here she came to denmark at a very early age. Johanne Luise Heiberg was the youngest of nine siblings, and the family lived for the most of the time in difficult financial circumstances.9 Johanne Luise Heiberg’s talent for the theater was evident at a very early age. Already as an eight-year-old girl, she received her first instruction in dance, and shortly thereafter she became a pupil in the dance school of the danish royal theater. additionally, she also had the opportunity to play smaller roles in dramatic pieces. in 1826, she had a part in Hans and Trine: A Scene in Rosenborg Garden,10 which was a dialogue written by the poet and philosopher poul martin møller (1794–1838). with this performance, she won great applause from the audience, among which was Johan Ludvig Heiberg. He was so fascinated by the young girl’s performance that he immediately wrote a play especially for her. this was a vaudeville, entitled The April Fools,11 which had its premiere in the very same theater season on april 22, 1826. Here, Johanne Luise Heiberg played the role of trine rar with such success that she was afterwards admitted as a pupil of drama at the Royal Theater with a fixed stipend. this marked the end of her days in the dance school of the theater. with her role in The April Fools, Johanne Luise Heiberg began a career which is difficult to compare with any other at the Royal Theater. She was an active actress For an account of Johanne Luise Heiberg’s life, see, for example (in chronological order): p. Hansen, “Johanne Luise Heiberg (1812–90),” in Dansk biografisk Lexikon, vols. 1–19, ed. by C.F. Bricka, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1887–1905, vol. 7, pp. 241–50; aage Friis and p. munch, Johanne Luise Heiberg og Andreas Frederik Krieger, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen and Kristiania: gyldendal 1914; robert neiiendam, Johanne Luise Heiberg: En Analyse, Copenhagen: v. pio 1917; Julius Clausen, Omkring det Heibergske Hus, Copenhagen: Bianco Luno 1934; Just rahbek, Omkring Johanne Luise Heiberg, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1948; elisabeth Hude, Johanne Luise Heiberg og Peter Simonsen, Copenhagen: gad 1959; Henning Fenger, The Heibergs, trans. by Frederick J. marker, new York: twayne 1971 (in danish as Familien Heiberg, Copenhagen: museum tusculanum press 1992); Bodil wamberg, Johanne Luise Heiberg: kærlighedens stedbarn, Copenhagen: gad 1987; vibeke schrøder, Dæmoni og dannelse. Johanne Luise Heiberg, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1995; Janne risum, “Johanne Luise Heiberg (1812–90),” in Dansk kvindebiografisk leksikon, vols. 1–4, ed. by Jytte Larsen et al., Copenhagen: rosinante 2000–01, vol. 2, pp. 66–9. 9 For more on this, see Hansen, “Johanne Luise Heiberg (1812–90),” pp. 241–2. 10 poul martin møller, “Hans og trine (en scene i rosenborghave),” in Gefion. Nytaarsgave for 1826, ed. by elisa Beyer, Copenhagen: n.p. [1826], pp. 154–9. (reprinted in Efterladte Skrifter af Poul M. Møller, vols. 1–3, ed. by Christian winther, F.C. olsen, and Christen thaarup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839–43, vol. 1, pp. 83–8 (ASKB 1574–1576).) 11 Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Aprilsnarrene eller Intriguen i Skolen, Copenhagen: F.a.C. printzlau 1826. (english translation: The April Fools or An Intrigue at School, trans. by peter vinten-Johansen, madison, wisconsin: wisconsin introductions to scandinavia (wits ii, number 9i), 1999.) 8

192

Katalin Nun

between 1826 and 1857 and then again from 1859 to 1864. it is by no means an exaggeration to say that in the course of these decades she played the entire spectrum of female characters: from the tragic destiny of Juliet in shakespeare’s drama to the passionate nordic female characters and to the charming young women of Heiberg’s vaudevilles. In 1867 she became stage director at the theater, an office which she held until 1874. it was her merit to introduce the works of two famous norwegian dramatists, Henrik ibsen (1828–1906) and Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson (1832–1910), to the danish stage. as her career on the stage rose, so also did her social status. with her marriage to Johan Ludvig Heiberg in 1831, she attained a higher social status than anyone in her family could ever have dreamt of. Johan Ludvig Heiberg was a poet, dramatist, and the leading literary critic of the time. He translated several plays, in addition to penning works on various other topics including philosophy and the natural sciences. He held the position of playwright and later of director at the royal theater. His mother, thomasine gyllembourg, née thomasine Christine Buntzen (1773–1856), was perhaps the most important danish female author of the golden age. thomasine gyllembourg lived together with her son and daughter-in-law, and their home became an important center of contemporary intellectual life. they knew most of the famous personalities of the age, regularly hosting poets, philosophers, and theologians, and their home was regarded as something of a literary salon on the French model. Johanne Luise and Johan Ludvig Heiberg’s marriage remained childless; however, shortly after the death of her husband in 1860, Johanne Luise Heiberg adopted three orphan girls, to whose upbringing and education she dedicated herself with energy and attention. in addition to her career as an actress Johanne Luise Heiberg also found time for her own literary activity. she wrote three vaudevilles: A Sunday on Amager (1848) The Monkey (1849), and A Sommer Evening (1853).12 The first of these vaudevilles premiered on march 5, 1848. it became a great success and was subsequently performed several times; in 1941, Emanuel Gregers even made a film on the basis of the story. the setting is amager, a small island near Copenhagen, and the story is about Lisbet and Jokum, who are in love and wish to marry. However, Lisbet’s father, a farmer, would rather see his daughter marry one of the two rich men who are competing for her hand. with the help of a man from Copenhagen, however, Lisbet and Jokum manage to be accepted as a couple, and the play finishes with their engagement. it is possible that the success of this work owes much more to the setting and the historical context than to the story itself. anton andersen writes in his study about Danish women writers in the nineteenth century that “regarding its artificial value, the content of this play in no way justifies the great success that it had. It is actually as inartistic as is possible. the work contains no real action. the whole thing is no more than a number of situations tied together in a loose, but clever way; anonymous [Johanne Luise Heiberg], En Søndag paa Amager. Vaudeville, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1848; anonymous [Johanne Luise Heiberg], Abekatten. Vaudeville i een Act, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1849; and anonymous [Johanne Luise Heiberg], En Sommeraften. Vaudeville i een Act, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1853.

12

Johanne Luise Heiberg: An Existential Actress

193

and the piece stands or fall with the melodies.”13 the island of amager, then a rural area, today a suburb of Copenhagen, is described as something “peculiar” with “a beautiful landscape” and with “vigorous and rich fields.”14 the people of amager are dressed in traditional clothes, and they sing popular and recognizable melodies. all this must have had a positive affect on the contemporary audience at the time. the natural dimension of the work must be seen in the context of the conflict that was arising in the border territories between denmark and prussia, which ultimately led to the First schleswig war (1848–51), and which started exactly in the days (march, 1848) when the play premiered. Johanne Luise Heiberg writes in her memoirs about the reception of the play, in which she herself played the leading female role, as follows: the new and peculiar thing with this play, namely, that it took place on amager, brought the audience, immediately after the rising of the curtain, into a high spirit. this found vent in old rosenkilde’s entering the stage in his amager costume, so that he was received with an echoing applause. regarding the impressions of this premiere generally, i would like to refer to overskou’s theater history.15 one can see from overskou’s account that A Sunday on Amager came at a moment which made it the spoilt child of fortune. i myself though, strangely enough, had not for a second had any doubts that the piece would be effective on the stage, while the piece was being rehearsed.16

this passage tells about a very conscious decision on the part of Johanne Luise Heiberg regarding her choice of topic and setting for this play. Like a Sunday on Amager, Johanne Luise Heiberg’s other vaudeville, The Monkey, was also performed several times at the royal theater in Copenhagen. this play premiered on may 12, 1849, and has its theme the relationship between animals and human beings. the third piece, A Summer Evening, premiered on march 30, 1853 and stands well behind the other two with respect to popularity and frequency of performance: after its premiere, it had only seven performances, all of them in the same theater season, that is, 1853. Johanne Luise Heiberg’s most important literary work was, however, her extensive autobiography A Life Relived in Memories. she started to work on it when she was 43 years old, but it was first published by the historian Adolf Ditlev Jørgensen (1840–97) shortly after her death, in 1891–92.17 this work is still regarded as one of the most see anton andersen, Danske Forfatterinder i det Nittende Hundredaar. Biografier og karakteristikker, Copenhagen: em. Laghoffs Forlag 1896, p. 53. 14 anonymous [Johanne Luise Heiberg], En Søndag paa Amager. Vaudeville, p. 6. 15 Johanne Luise Heiberg refers here to thomas overskou, Den danske Skueplads, i dens Historie, fra de første Spor af danske Skuespil indtil vor Tid, vols. 1–7, Copenhagen: samfundet til den danske Literaturs Fremme 1854–76, vol. 5, pp. 791–3 (vols. 6–7 were entitled Den kongelig danske Skuepladses Historie, fra dens Overdragelse til Staten i 1849 indtil 1874. Efter Forfatterens Død fuldført af Edgar Collin, 1874–76) (for vol. 1 see ASKB 1395). 16 Johanne Luise Heiberg, Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, 5th ed., vol. 2, p. 232. 17 Johanne Luise Heiberg, Et Liv, gjenoplevet i Erindringen, vols. 1–4, ed. by a.d. Jørgensen, 1st ed., Copenhagen: gyldendal 1891–92. 13

194

Katalin Nun

valuable pieces of denmark’s memoir literature. it gives important insights into the cultural life of denmark of the nineteenth century, with, of course, special emphasis on the theater. From it one can also gain a good impression of the everyday life of her husband Johan Ludvig Heiberg and her mother-in-law thomasine gyllembourg. moreover, one also meets in this work many of denmark’s famous personalities, such as Kierkegaard and Hans Christian andersen. However, when it was published, the book caused some controversy. there were many people, who disagreed with Johanne Luise Heiberg’s judgments regarding above all her husband’s activity as the director of the royal theater from 1849 to 1856. the above-mentioned literary historian, anton andersen, summarizes the controversial qualities of the work as follows: the author has not only had the intention of giving us her own view of life, but the task has to a large extent also been the following: to protect her husband’s memories, to cleanse this from any thinkable blemish, and at the same time to show to posterity that J.L. Heiberg was treated unjustly by his contemporaries. she had adored this man, which was not so strange, and she looked up to him and continued to remember him. But her love and admiration made her a less impartial judge, and her views on Heiberg, as one can expect, are very one-sided. we cannot endorse completely her judgments about other people either....but all these things are really trifles compared to her genuine intelligence and psychologically fine insights, which Fru Heiberg displays in this big work. it will keep its reputation, for a long time undiminished, as a highly valuable contribution to an important period of danish cultural history. Finally, it gives a picture of this extraordinarily great woman, who fascinates her readers, even when she repels them; a woman, whose rich life is like a fairy tale....18

this passage shows very well the complex effect which both Johanne Luise Heiberg’s autobiography and her person made on her contemporaries and posterity. this complexity consists of two important elements: on the one side, admiration and, on the other, a kind of irritation about her eagerness to keep up the fine image of herself and her husband, and to justify her husband’s decisions when he was the director of the royal theater. when talking about Johanne Luise Heiberg’s literary activity, one also has to mention her articles, which she wrote in different contexts, all of them anonymously. most of the articles were written in the 1850s and were a kind of response to some contemporary discussion, such as the emancipation of women or the education of young girls.19 one could expect that a woman like Johanne Luise Heiberg, who devoted her entire life to her career, would have progressive opinions about, for andersen, Danske Forfatterinder i det Nittende Hundredaar, p. 149. Johanne Luise Heiberg, “Qvinde-emancipation,” in Just rahbek, Omkring Johanne Luise Heiberg, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1948 [1851], pp. 90–9; anonymous, “om Qvindens huuslige Byrder og Lettelserne deri,” Flyve-Posten, February 5–6, 1857; en Huusmoder [Johanne Luise Heiberg], “ogsaa et ord om Qvindens huuslige Byrder,” Flyve-Posten, February 26–7, 1857; spectatrix [Johanne Luise Heiberg], “om Huusvæsenet og pigebørns opdragelse. Fra en dame til den, paa hvem det passer,” Ugentlige Blade, ed. by Henrik Hertz, nos. 16–7, 1859; en Huusmoder [Johanne Luise Heiberg], “ogsaa et ord om Qvindens huuslige Byrder,” Flyve-Posten, February 27, 1857. 18 19

Johanne Luise Heiberg: An Existential Actress

195

example, the emancipation of women. in fact, surprisingly, the opposite was the case, and her articles on this topic witness a rather conservative, indeed, reactionary attitude. thus, she was convinced that it would be a great misfortune for women to leave their places at home and to go out in the world and have occupations like men. according to her, both men and women have their natural dispositions, and the key to happiness lies in one’s ability to accept one’s natural male or female role.20 In the context of Johanne Luise Heiberg’s literary activity, it is finally worth mentioning her two-volume work on the story of her mother-in-law, that is, thomasine gyllembourg, and the poet and exiled statesman peter andreas Heiberg (1758–1841), Thomasine Gyllembourg’s first husband and the father of Johan Ludvig Heiberg.21 Thomasine Gyllembourg divorced her first husband after the latter’s banishment in 1799. But the story was more complicated, because she at the same time had a romantic relationship with the exiled swedish baron Carl Frederik ehrensvärd-gyllembourg (1767–1815), whom she subsequently married in 1801. many contemporaries disapproved of thomasine gyllembourg’s behavior in this case, which was generally regarded as the great scandalous affair of the age. the goal of Johanne Luise Heiberg’s work was to give a sympathetic portrayal and a kind of defense of her mother-in-law, which she based on the correspondence between thomasine gyllembourg and peter andreas Heiberg. II. Johanne Luise Heiberg’s Scenic Art and Kierkegaard’s View of It as mentioned above, Johanne Luise Heiberg played more than 250 roles in her long career as an actress. although she played the whole spectrum of female characters in the course of four decades, it was a common view that she was best in vaudevilles, comedies, and lyrical dramas and that tragedy was not really her genre.22 in spite of this fact, in the following i will concentrate on a tragic role performed by Johanne Luise Heiberg, namely, that of Juliet in shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, which she played first when she was 15 years old, and then again when she was 35. I will focus on this role for two main reasons: first, this will make it possible to show Johanne Luise Heiberg’s concepts of the scenic art both generally and concretely with regard to her acting. she writes in detail about this in her memoirs, and i will draw on this as a source. second, Kierkegaard discusses Johanne Luise Heiberg’s acting as Juliet in his aforementioned long review “the Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an actress.” this review is at the same time the most extensive and most important piece of writing in Kierkegaard’s oeuvre where he deals with Johanne Luise Heiberg.23 the see, for example, Johanne Luise Heiberg, “Qvinde-emancipation,” in Just rahbek, Omkring Johanne Luise Heiberg. 21 Johanne Luise Heiberg, Peter Andreas Heiberg og Thomasine Gyllembourg: En Beretning støttet paa efterladte Breve, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1883. 22 see, for example, Johanne Luise Heiberg’s own account on this in Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, 5th ed., vol. 2, p. 172. 23 another important piece of writing by Kierkegaard in this context is “the First Love” from the first Part of Either/Or. However, Kierkegaard’s emphasis here lies on scribe’s play, The First Love, itself and less on Johanne Luise Heiberg’s acting. He lets here “a” deal with 20

196

Katalin Nun

aim of my analysis is to bring Johanne Luise Heiberg and Kierkegaard into a kind of dialogue. this will make it possible to show the effect of Johanne Luise Heiberg’s acting on Kierkegaard, but at the same time it will also be possible to see the other side and to evaluate to what extent Kierkegaard’s account of Johanne Luise Heiberg is consistent with her own views. A. Johanne Luise Heiberg’s Scenic Art “in no dramatic work is the power of love made visible in such forceful and penetrating tones and at the same time with such an organic development as in shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet,” writes the german theater critic and theorist Heinrich theodor rötscher (1803–71) in an essay on the character of Juliet.24 then, he continues, “it belongs to one of the most interesting tasks to grasp the figure of Juliet by means of the various phases of her development in order to bring that wonderful nature to consciousness for us.”25 the quoted passages are from an anthology, where a series of essays on drama are collected, but rötscher also deals in other places in his writings with the figure of Juliet.26 rötscher’s works, which were also to be found in Kierkegaard’s library,27 had an impact on Johanne Luise Heiberg’s view of shakespeare’s dramas, among them, Romeo and Juliet. she writes in her autobiography as follows: everyone is presumably in agreement that among the aesthetic dramaturges rötscher occupies the first place and that in his writings one can truly find instruction for the this topic in only few sentences towards the end of the piece, where “a” writes, “Look at madame Heiberg; lower your eyes, for perhaps emmeline’s charm might become dangerous to you; hear the girl’s sentimental languishing in the voice, the childish and capricious insinuations, and even if you were dry and stiff like a bookkeeper, you still must smile. repeat these movements so quickly that they become almost simultaneous in the moment, and you will have a conception of what is being performed.” (SKS 2, 269 / EO1, 278.) 24 see Heinrich theodor rötscher, “Julia in shakespeare’s romeo und Julia,” in Dramaturgische und ästhetische Abhandlungen, ed. by emilie schröder, Leipzig: Fischer 1867, p. 149. 25 ibid. 26 see, for example, Heinrich theodor rötscher, “romeo und Julia,” in his Abhandlungen zur Philosophie der Kunst, Berlin: wilhelm thome 1842, pp. 1–117. 27 Heinrich theodor rötscher, Die Kunst der dramatischen Darstellung. In ihrem organischen Zusammenhange, vols. 1–3, Berlin: wilhelm thome 1841–46, vol. 1, 1841 (ASKB 1391); and Heinrich theodor rötscher, Die Kunst der dramatischen Darstellung. In ihrem organischen Zusammenhange, vols. 1–3, Berlin: wilhelm thome 1841–46, vol. 2, Der Kunst der dramatischen Darstellung Zweiter Theil, welcher das Gesetz der Versinnlichung dramatischer Charaktere an einer Reihe dichterischer Gestalten wissenschaftlich entwickelt [also entitled Cyclus dramatischer Charactere. Nebst einer einleitenden Abhandlung über das Wesen dramatischer Charactergestaltung], 1844; vol. 3, Der Kunst der dramatischen Darstellung Dritter Theil, welcher eine neue Reihe dramatischer Charaktere entwickelt [also entitled as Cyclus dramatischer Charactere. Zweiter Theil. Nebst zwei Abhandlungen über das Recht der Poesie in der Behandlung des geschichtlichen Stoffes und über den Begriff des Dämonischen], 1846 (ASKB 1802–1803).

Johanne Luise Heiberg: An Existential Actress

197

person who can read and understand his profound thoughts. His analysis of shakespeare’s works, of the individual figures in them, is largely instructive and interesting; but of all his statements about the individual characters, the one about Juliet seems to me to be the most outstanding proof of his ability. i then wholly occupied myself with his conception of Juliet since it seemed to be an expression of my own heart.28

Although these are reflections from Johanne Luise Heiberg’s memoirs, they nevertheless say much about her approach to her scenic art as an active actress, which can be characterized as highly intellectual and reflective. Rötscher’s aesthetic works of course serve here only as examples; the point is to show Johanne Luise Heiberg’s intellectual interest and reflection on dramaturgy. In the course of her reflections about the role of Juliet, Johanne Luise Heiberg emphasizes the importance of giving one’s mind completely to the acting, while preparing for a role and while performing it on the stage. she writes: It is an extremely difficult thing in the life of an artist to be moderate in one’s artistic interest and not to place the artistic goal as the highest task of our life, and not to completely abandon oneself to one’s art; for no person has the right to do this. we are referred to a higher goal, a greater spiritual struggle than the artistic one, which often leads us in an entirely different direction and destroys—precisely when we come victorious from some artistic task—the most important thing of all, our individuality, since this is so easily lost in the artistic self-adoration. and yet! if an artist should attain such a height, how can it can happen if it is not something burning in him, if he does not cast away everything else except just this one thing, which fills his soul, indeed, fills it to such a degree that the vessel sometimes is in danger of overflowing with the fermenting wine, indeed, in order to be honest and to say the full truth, it fills our heart so much that one forgets god and his angels and has no interaction with them but only lives and breathes.29

Here we can see that the demand of giving one’s mind to acting completely is full of conflicts. In Johanne Luise Heiberg’s opinion, an artist has to be careful to control her or his ambition and to refrain from giving one’s whole soul to acting, because human beings have a higher purpose in life than this. in her eyes, it can easily happen that exactly in the moment when an actress or an actor has performed a role successfully, she or he subsequently loses the most important thing, namely, his or her identity. thus, acting appears as a highly existential task, because it requires one to have two identities: the identity of an actor or an actress and that of the role which he or she plays. then, she closes these thoughts and writes, “we human beings can achieve nothing except when we entirely devote ourselves to what we want, and we cannot do this in turn without running the danger of losing ourselves; it is our earthly life’s greatest challenge to bring into harmony these two demands. what endurance, what abstinence, what wealth of energy are needed to walk this path!”30 according to this passage, there is no solution to the conflict. The only thing an actor or an actress can 28 29 30

Johanne Luise Heiberg, Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, 5th ed., vol. 2, pp. 163–4. ibid., p. 164. ibid.

Katalin Nun

198

do is to accept these contrasting demands, that is, the demand to keep one’s identity and the demand to perform a role properly. regarding her concrete task of playing the role of Juliet, Johanne Luise Heiberg writes as follows: “How i was captivated by this poet and his Juliet, which i had played in my 16th year without an inkling of what i was really doing, but which now, around 20 years later, filled my entire soul so much that I thought that the execution of this role was the real calling of my life.”31 this is a very important passage because it shows that in Johanne Luise Heiberg’s eyes there was a qualitative difference between her performance of Juliet as a 15-year-old and as a 35-year-old. this difference can be captured in the degree of consciousness: as a 15-year-old girl, she played the role of Juliet without knowing what she was doing. By contrast, when she prepared herself for this role 20 years later, she devoted her whole soul to the task. about the difference in the role of Juliet as a 15-year-old and as a 35-year-old, Johanne Luise Heiberg writes as follows: “one will recall that Juliet had been one of my first larger roles, which I was rehearsing at the same time as I went to the pastor to be confirmed, that is, in my 16th year. although i do not think, like the famous poet tieck, that one is only able to play the role of Juliet when one is 40 years old, it is nonetheless certain that one cannot play her when one is 16.”32 in this passage, Johanne Luise Heiberg points out that it is simply not possible for an actress to perform Juliet’s role appropriately, if the actress is only in her teenage years, although Juliet in the play is in fact a teenager. then she explains this statement, when she writes: Juliet appears in the First Act of the tragedy as a child 14 years of age….In the Fourth act she stands there as a completely developed woman, forceful and energetic. she knows what she wants, and she carries out her will with a heroic courage that does not hesitate even at death’s door. The first part of the role can be played excellently by a very young girl, but never the last, the most important part of the task. an older actress can present the first part by means of art so that an illusion can be created, but the young girl cannot by means of art create the impression of a fully developed woman, for here what is required is maturity in the artistic development, a true artiste, in possession of as good as everything that time, experience, and education has to offer: all the nuances of a lover, the entire scale right from the first immediate surrender to the height of demonic passion. For the person portraying Juliet it would not do only to know human passions from books; some experience, drawn from reality, must also be present, and a very young girl cannot have this.33

the point is here to emphasize how important it is to be a mature, cultured woman and to have enough experience in order to be able to play the role of Juliet. the role of Juliet is namely very complex since it includes an entire spectrum of contradicting and difficult emotions, which span from an immediate devotion to the loved one to a demonic passion, which makes her even capable of suicide. to perform a 31 32 33

ibid. ibid., p. 163. ibid.

Johanne Luise Heiberg: An Existential Actress

199

complicated state of mind like this, an actress must thus have experienced the reality of life for a while. after these considerations, Johanne Luise Heiberg treats some general questions of acting, such as the role of inspiration for a dramatist, on the one side, and for an actor, on the other. she writes: i was happy at the rehearsals with the joy which one has when one dares to express the wonderful lines [sc. of the poet], when one dares to surrender oneself to the powerful moods, when one dares to let oneself be raised up above the petty worries of daily life, when one dares, so to speak, attach oneself to the matchless poet’s spirit and feel and sense what he has felt and sensed, and, if it does not sound too bold, perhaps to feel it more strongly than when it streamed into him himself by means of inspiration, where the poet, so to speak, receives the best for nothing. this is not the way it is with the actor; certainly one can say that he also receives the best by means of inspiration, a gift from the gods on high, but after an actor by means of inspiration has grasped the picture in its entirety, he must meticulously, so to speak, like with a mosaic, add stone to stone, and get these infinitely many small things, which the presentation consists of, to fit together with each other in order for an entirely living image to emerge from it and have an effect on the audience.34

Here, Johanne Luise Heiberg writes more generally about how an actor should work with a role. the work of both a dramatist and an actor presupposes inspiration. But in contrast to the dramatist, the actor needs inspiration to be able to grasp the play as a whole, in order afterwards to be able to build up every single scene one by one. she summarizes this way of working of an actor as follows: “only when the entire picture is determined, living, and certain, can one begin to concentrate on all the small features that are connected to this, and only then does one make the poet’s words one’s own, the poet’s feelings, his joys, his pains into one’s own joys and pains.”35 i am aware of the fact that these short passages show only a very small part of the whole picture regarding Johanne Luise Heiberg’s ars poetica as an actress. she writes about it extensively in her autobiography, for example, in some long chapters in all four parts of the work, such as “is the art of acting Legitimate regarded from the point of view of ethics?” or “my seven-Year Long activity as a stage director.”36 However, the emphasis in the present article lies on the question of how Johanne Luise Heiberg as a person and her acting were influential on Kierkegaard and his writings. in order to be able to concentrate on this question, i have chosen to deal only with a few, in my eyes, relevant aspects of madame Heiberg’s scenic art. thus, i have omitted a treatment of Johanne Luise Heiberg’s acting in, for example, vaudevilles and comedies.37 ibid., p. 166. ibid. 36 see, Johanne Luise Heiberg, “er skuespilkunsten en moralsk berettiget kunst?” and “min syvårige virksomhed som sceneinstraktrice,” in her Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, 5th ed., vol. 4, pp. 209–62 and pp. 262–81 respectively. 37 For a general overview of Johanne Luise Heiberg’ activity as an actress, see vibeke schrøder, “Johanne Luise Heiberg som skuespillerinde,” in her Dæmoni og dannelse, pp. 96–192. 34 35

200

Katalin Nun

B. Kierkegaard’s View of Johanne Luise Heiberg’s Scenic Art and Her Reactions to It it is well known that the theater played an important role for both Kierkegaard as a person and for his writings. He frequently uses passages from theater pieces in order to explain or illustrate his points. as a well-known example, here one can recall the above-quoted piece, “the First Love” from the First part of Either/Or, which is a long analysis of scribe’s play with the same title. although Kierkegaard did not read english very well, he nonetheless knew shakespeare’s works and very much appreciated them.38 He owned shakespeare’s collected works in different german and danish translations.39 evidence for Kierkegaard’s extensive knowledge of shakespeare’s works and his positive estimation of them can be found both in his published works and in his journals and notebooks. thus, in Fear and Trembling Kierkegaard lets his pseudonym refer to the poet as “the great shakespeare”;40 in Stages in Life’s Way he is “immortal shakespeare”;41 while he is “the poet’s poet” in The Sickness unto Death.42 in the present context, the most important thing is to mention the fact that Kierkegaard was especially keen on shakespeare’s ability to show human passions in their complete and undiluted form. His pseudonym in Stages on Life’s Way, Frater taciturnus, says, for example, the following: “shakespeare knows how to speak fluently the language of passion.”43 there are two things which are important in this passage: first, there is Kierkegaard’s appreciation of Shakespeare’s skills in presenting human passion, and, second, it is well known that Kierkegaard often emphasized the importance of passion in human life as such (not least of all in connection with Christian faith), very often together with its conceptual partner “reflection.” In the “Diapsalmata,” from the first part of Either/Or, Kierkegaard’s On Shakespeare’s influence for Kirkegaard’s works, see, for example, Joel D.S. rasmussen, “william shakespeare: Kierkegaard’s post-romantic reception of ‘the poet’s poet,’ ” in Kierkegaard and the Renaissance and Modern Traditions, tome 3, Literature, Drama and Music, ed. by Jon stewart, aldershot: ashgate 2009 (Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources, vol. 5), pp. 185–213; michael g. Bielmeier, Shakespeare, Kierkegaard, and Existential Tragedy, Lewiston et al.: the edwin mellen press 2000; villads Christensen, Søren Kierkegaard i Lyset af Shakespeares Hamlet, Copenhagen: rosenkilde & Bagger 1960. 39 Kierkegaard owned the following works by shakespeare: Dramatische Werke, vols. 1–8, trans. by ernst ortlepp, stuttgart: L.F. rieger 1838–39 (ASKB 1874–1881); Shakspeare’s dramatische Werke, trans. by august wilhelm von schlegel and Ludwig tieck, vols. 1–12, Berlin: g. reimer 1839–40 (ASKB 1883–1888); William Shakspeare’s dramatiske Værker, vols. 1–9, trans. by peter Foersom and peter Frederik wulff, Copenhagen: n.p. 1825 (ASKB 1889–1896); Macbeth, Tragedie i fem Akter, trans. and interpreted by n. Hauge, Christiania: Johan dahl 1855 (ASKB 1897); and William Shakspeare’s dramatiske Værker, vols. 1–11, trans. by peter Foersom and p.F. wulff (vols. 6–11 ed. by offe Høyer), Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1845–50 (ASKB u 103). 40 SKS 4, 155 / FT, 61. 41 SKS 6, 205 / SLW, 220. 42 SKS 11, 174 / SUD, 171. 43 SKS 6, 206 / SLW, 221. 38

Johanne Luise Heiberg: An Existential Actress

201

aesthete laments, for example, that the age is passionless. He writes: “Let others complain that the times are evil. i complain that they are wretched, for they are without passion.” He continues: “people’s thoughts are as thin and fragile as lace, and they themselves as pitiable as lace-making girls. the thoughts of their hearts are too wretched to be sinful….Their desires are staid and dull, their passion drowsy.”44 Finally, he compares his passionless age with other more passionate ones: “that is why my soul always turns back to the old testament and to shakespeare. there one still feels that those who speak are human beings; there they hate, there they love, there they murder the enemy, curse descendants through all generations—there they sin.”45 in addition to emphasizing how important it is to have passion in one’s life, this passage also tells us where one has to look for real passions, namely, in the old testament and in shakespeare’s plays. But the concept of “passion” also plays a very important role in Kierkegaard’s review of Johanne Luise Heiberg’s performance of Juliet in the piece “the Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an actress,” which i wish to elaborate on in the following. the thesis of this review is basically the same as what we already have seen from Johanne Luise Heiberg herself, namely, that it is impossible for a teenage girl to perform the role of Juliet appropriately.46 Kierkegaard’s point is that it is impossible, because “in order to represent Juliet an actress must essentially have a distance in age from Juliet.”47 as we have seen, Johanne Luise Heiberg says more or less the same thing, when she underlines that an actress has to have maturity, experience, and a distance in time in order to be able to give an authentic performance of Juliet. However, for Kierkegaard’s point in his review it is very important that he speaks of one concrete actress, namely, Johanne Luise Heiberg, who possesses some qualities, which make it possible for her to perform the role of Juliet. though Kierkegaard never mentions Johanne Luise Heiberg by name in the review, there is nevertheless clear evidence which makes it unquestionable that he is writing about her acting. the most important document in this context is a journal entry by Kierkegaard from 1848. Here he writes: i have been thinking these days of having the little article “the Crisis in the Life of an actress” printed in Fædrelandet. the reasons for doing it are the following. there are some minor reasons, but they have persuasive power, and therefore I must first subject them to a critique. i believe i owe it to mrs. Heiberg, partly also because of the piece about mme nielsen at one time.48 i would like to poke Heiberg a little again....49 and then the main reason that argues for it: i have been occupied now for such a long time exclusively with the religious, and yet people will perhaps try to make out that i have SKS 2, 36 / EO1, 27. SKS, 2, 36 / EO1, 28. 46 see, for example, inter et inter, “Krisen og en Krise i en skuespillerindes Liv,” Fædrelandet, vol. 9, no. 191, July 27, 1848, columns 1511–12 / C, 321. 47 ibid. 48 Cf. SKS 6, 123, note / SLW, 131–2, note. 49 Kierkegaard refers here to the polemics which he engaged in with Johanne Luise Heiberg’s husband. For more on this, see Jon stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, Cambridge and new York: Cambridge university press 2003, pp. 419–47. 44 45

Katalin Nun

202

changed, have become earnest (which i was not previously), that the literary attack has made me sanctimonious; in short, they will make my religiousness out to be the sort of thing people turn to in old age. this is a heresy i consider extremely essential to counteract. the nerve in all my work as an author actually is here, that i was essentially religious when i wrote Either/Or. therefore, i have thought that it could be useful in order once again to show the possibility. i regard this as precisely my task, always to be capable of what the vanity and secular-mindedness of the world hanker after as supreme, and from which point of view they patronizingly look down on the religious as something for run-down subjects—always to be capable but not essentially to will it….An article in a newspaper, particularly about Mrs. Heiberg, creates much more of a sensation than big books.50

Here, Kierkegaard tells about the reasons for why he intended to write an article on mme Heiberg’s acting. thus, he mentions that he felt that he owed it to Johanne Luise Heiberg, because he already had written on mme nielsen, that is, anna Helene Brenøe nielsen (1803–56), who was the only actress comparable to Johanne Luise Heiberg at the time. But Kierkegaard seems also to have had another reason, which has not so much to do with mme Heiberg herself. He tells about the necessity of writing an aesthetic piece after so many religious works. that Kierkegaard wrote the article about Johanne Luise Heiberg is also proven by the fact that he sent his work On My Work as an Author with a dedication and a letter to her. in the letter, one can read the following: to

that happy artist whose perception and determination were nonetheless —happily once again!—exactly equal to her happiness, mrs. Heiberg with admiration from the author it is not, even remotely, my intention with this to persuade you in any way to read a little book that in the final analysis, and perhaps long before then, would probably be boring and exhausting. no! But somewhere in the book mention is made of a small essay on aesthetics by a pseudonymous Inter et Inter, “the Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an actress,” Fædrelandet (1848), no. 188–91. if by any chance you happened to notice this article at the time, it would please me if i might tell myself that you, mrs. Heiberg, were aware that this article belongs among my works, as will be evident from this book.51

this letter speaks for itself and makes unquestionable whom the article was written about. However, if one reads this letter further, it will be clear that it was not only written about mme Heiberg, but it was also written for her:

50 51

SKS 21, 20–1, nB6:24 and nB6:24.a / JP 6, 6209. B&A, vol. 1, pp. 306–7 / LD, Letter 283, pp. 389–90.

Johanne Luise Heiberg: An Existential Actress

203

if you did not notice this article at the time, then it is the author’s wish that you might find some idle hour that could be filled by reading it. For if you—I request this only for a moment and on behalf of this subject—if you will permit me to say this in all sincerity, that little article has special reference to you. whether it was read at that time by many or only by a few—if you did not read it, then it is the author’s opinion that it has not reached its destination. But, on the other hand, if you have read it—if it was then found to be, if not perfect, yet in happy accord with your thoughts on that subject, then it is the author’s opinion that it has indeed reached its destination.52

This passage testifies to Kierkegaard’s sincere and genuine appreciation of Johanne Luise Heiberg as an actress. one can otherwise hardly imagine why he would have written an entire article devoted only to her scenic art in the role of Juliet. Johanne Luise Heiberg quotes this letter in her memoirs, where she explains that she was almost certain about who was behind the pseudonym inter et inter. she writes, “of course, before Kierkegaard sent this treatise, i had read and reread it and felt happy and strengthened by it….It is with a strange sense of surprise that a practical artist reads what the inspired theoretician is able to express clearly and determinately and what one largely felt without being able to find the words which clarify and elucidate this feeling.”53 This is a clear identification on Johanne Luise Heiberg’s part with Kierkegaard’s analyses of her performance as Juliet. if we now turn back to the article itself, it is essential for Kierkegaard’s argumentation that he speaks of the concrete scenic art of Johanne Luise Heiberg. according to him, she possesses qualities which presuppose that she is able to play the role of Juliet perfectly. moreover, in Kierkegaard’s eyes, she played this role perfectly the second time, that is, when she was 35 years old, and not as a teenager. The word “perfectly” means here that Johanne Luise Heiberg managed to fulfill the idea of female youthfulness and to make it concrete in Juliet’s role. By doing this, she carried out a “metamorphosis,” which is the central idea of Kierkegaard’s article. The paradox is here that, in Kierkegaard’s eyes, she could fulfill the idea of the female youthfulness only when she had passed her thirtieth birthday, and not when she was actually young. the reason for this is remembering, which presupposes the distance in terms of time and an inwardness, which one can only obtain when one is older. according to Kierkegaard, Johanne Luise Heiberg, as an actress, also has to possess some particular, but indefinite qualities, in order to carry out a metamorphosis.54 Nevertheless, Kierkegaard tries to define these indefinable qualities. First, it means in his eyes “good fortune”; and he says that Johanne Luise Heiberg has this quality.55 For Kierkegaard, however, “good fortune” does not mean that mme Heiberg would have good friends, important connections, or that she would be engaged by the theater with advantageous conditions.56 He defines this concept rather as follows: B&A, vol. 1, p. 307 / LD, Letter 283, p. 390. Johanne Luise Heiberg, Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, 5th ed., vol. 2, p. 174. 54 inter et inter, “Krisen og en Krise i en skuespillerindes Liv,” Fædrelandet, vol. 9, no. 189, July 25, 1848, column 1493 / C, 308. 55 ibid. 56 ibid. 52 53

Katalin Nun

204

“good fortune itself is at her beck and call...she is as if possessed by good fortune— to such a degree that it accompanies her where she walks and stands, in everything she undertakes, in the slightest motion of her hand, in every intimation of her eyes, in every toss of her head, in every turn of her body, in her walk, in her voice, in her gestures.”57 in other words, Johanne Luise Heiberg possesses in Kierkegaard’s eyes everything which is needed to be an actress, and this is her “good fortune.” The second “indefinable something” which Johanne Luise Heiberg possesses is youthfulness.58 However, this youthfulness has, in Kierkegaard’s view, nothing to do with mme Heiberg’s real age. it has much more to do with the “restlessness of the youth,” as Kierkegaard formulates it.59 then, he explains: Restlessness, in the sense of the hubbub of finitude, soon palls; but restlessness in the pregnant sense, the restlessness of infinity, the joyous, robust originality that, rejuvenating, invigorating, healing, stirs the water is a great rarity, and it is in this sense that she is restlessness. Yet in turn this restlessness signifies something very great; it signifies the first fieriness of an essential genius. And this restlessness does not signify anything accidental.60

Here again, we are concerned with a paradoxical concept since “restlessness” does not mean a disturbed state of mind. on the contrary, it is a kind of controlled restlessness which shows itself in an opposite effect. in Kierkegaard’s words, “it does not mean that she cannot stand still; on the contrary, it signifies that even when she is standing still one has an intimation of this inner restlessness, but, note well, in repose.”61 The third “indefinable something,” which Mme Heiberg possesses is “expressiveness of soul—that in the mood of immediate passion she is attuned to idea and thought, that her as yet unreflective inwardness is essentially in harmony with ideality….”62 Here, we can turn back to the concept of passion, which has already been mentioned at the beginning of this section. passion is here the necessary condition for being able to realize and show the idea of a drama concretely on the stage. The last, and maybe most important, “indefinable something” in Johanne Luise Heiberg’s possession is “that she is in proper rapport with the onstage tension.”63 this means that mme Heiberg is able to deal with the tension of performing a role on a stage while hundreds of people are looking at her. tension shows itself in the forms of anxiety and nervousness. But, “every tension can affect in a twofold way…. it can make the exertion manifest, but it can also do the opposite; it can conceal the exertion, and not only conceal but continually convert, transform, and transfigure it to

57 58 59 60 61 62 63

ibid. ibid., column 1495 / C, 309. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid., column 1498 / C, 311. ibid.

Johanne Luise Heiberg: An Existential Actress

205

lightness.”64 Here we are concerned with a dialectical pair of concepts: an actress has to have tension in order to be able to have lightness. However, it is necessary that the actress feel this tension before entering the stage and not on the stage. Kierkegaard explains further that “the onstage illusion and all those eyes are an enormous weight that is laid upon a person. therefore, where this fortunate rapport is lacking, not even proficiency to an ever so high degree can entirely conceal the weight of the burden, but where this fortunate rapport is present, the weight of the burden continually transforms itself into lightness.”65 Johanne Luise Heiberg quotes this passage in its full length in her autobiography and comments on it as follows: these statements from someone who was not an actor were what i was amazed about. they are entirely correct, and i have felt it many times, precisely as it is described here. Behind the scene one feels the entire weight of anxiety, but when one enters the stage after rehearsing then one feels as light as a bird. it happens differently for those people who at bottom are not or should not be actors. off the stage they say, undisturbed, “what should i be anxious about?” But no sooner do they come on stage, than anxiety comes to them like a monster. it is therefore a fact that young debutants rarely have anxiety the first time they perform; but year for year the anxiety grows stronger, just as the artistic burden placed on them becomes heavier and heavier. How little an audience knows of all this is shown best by the fact that it is always touched and tenderly disposed towards the person who shows his anxiety on the stage, without considering that this visible anxiety is the best sign of the fact that the actor is not able to entirely get into the performance so that one is another person and not oneself as in private life.66

the point is here that, according to Johanne Luise Heiberg, performing is ultimately an existential question, and it demands from the actor or actress that he or she be able to deal with contradictory tasks. in order to perform a role, an actor or an actress has to transform himself or herself into this other person completely. this can, however, only be done with lightness, but this can only be attained when the actor or actress feels the weight of performing, which is nothing other than anxiety. He or she must, though, not feel anxiety on the stage, but only before entering the stage. we can conclude that Kierkegaard’s relationship to Johanne Luise Heiberg can be described best as mutual appreciation. as we have seen, Kierkegaard talks about Johanne Luise Heiberg’s scenic art without exception in positive terms. He acknowledged her attitude to perform a role in the theater, that is, her theoretical approach to her art as an actress and her ability to transform the idea of a role in a concrete performance on the stage. in addition, Kierkegaard also appreciates mme Heiberg’s performance regarded from a more technical point of view, that is, how she concretely performs a role, how she uses her mimic and her voice, how she gesticulates, and so on. as a whole, one can say that Johanne Luise Heiberg’s scenic art was a great inspiration for Kierkegaard.

64 65 66

ibid., column 1499 / C, 312. ibid. Johanne Luise Heiberg, Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, 5th ed., vol. 2, p. 176.

206

Katalin Nun

at the same time, Johanne Luise Heiberg in turn appreciated Kierkegaard’s article on her acting. as mentioned above, she was astonished at how precisely Kierkegaard’s theoretical analyses matched the way she thought about the art of performing. we have also seen that Kierkegaard and Johanne Luise Heiberg worked with some similar ideas and concepts. one of the most important similarities is here in connection with the process of preparation and acting, which is an existential problem for both of them. For both Kierkegaard and Johanne Luise Heiberg, the art of acting has to do with the dialectical pair of concepts of heaviness and lightness, with tension and relaxation, and in the end with metamorphosis. in Kierkegaard’s eyes, while Johanne Luise Heiberg was performing Juliet’s role the second time, a metamorphosis took place because she managed to fulfill the idea of female youthfulness. moreover, this metamorphosis could only take place when mme Heiberg was 35 years old, because the distance in time to her own real youth is a necessary presupposition for the process of transformation. For mme Heiberg, metamorphosis means a changing of an actress’ identity, that is, a transformation from the real person of the actress into the person, which she has to play on the stage. as we have seen, both Kierkegaard and Johanne Luise Heiberg connected the process of metamorphosis with anxiety, which the actor or actress necessarily has to feel, but, before the performance and not while standing on the stage.

Bibliography I. Johanne Luise Heiberg’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library En Söndag paa Amager. Vaudeville, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1848 (ASKB u 61). II. Johanne Luise Heiberg’s performances referenced by Kierkegaard (arranged in the order of the first performance in Copenhagen) scribe, eugène, Les Premiers Amours, 1825 (comedy), in danish as Den Første Kjærlighed, trans. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg (Johanne Luise Heiberg’s role in the piece: emmeline). shakespeare, william, Romeo and Juliet, written between 1591 and 1595 (tragedy), in danish as Romeo og Julie, trans. by p. Foersom og a.e. Boye (Johanne Luise Heiberg’s role in the piece: Juliet (1828, 1847)). sheridan, richard Brinsley, The School for Scandal, 1777 (comedy), in danish as Bagtalelsens Skole. Comedie i fem Acter, trans. by n.v. dorph, Copenhagen n.p. 1841 (ASKB U 104); this translation of the piece was first performed in Copenhagen in 1846 (Johanne Luise Heiberg’s role in the piece: Lady teazle). III. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Johanne Luise Heiberg nielsen, rasmus, De speculativa historiæ sacræ tractandæ methodo commentatio, Copenhagen: tengnagel 1840, p. 138, note (ASKB 697). IV. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Johanne Luise Heiberg Bukdahl, Jørgen, “the Coteries of the Cultivated,” in his Søren Kierkegaard and the Common Man, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, grand rapids, michigan: eerdmans 2001, pp. 55–69 (in danish as “dannelsen og dens koterier,” in his Søren Kierkegaard og den menige mand, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1961, pp. 52–64). povlsen, steen Klitgård, “Kvinden som påskud. om Johanne Luise Heiberg og søren Kierkegaard,” Nordica, vol. 16, 1999, pp. 19–32. risum, Janne, “towards transparency: søren Kierkegaard on danish actresses,” in Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark,

208

Katalin Nun

ed. by Jon stewart, new York and Berlin: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 272–97. smith, steve, “Kierkegaard, Johan Ludvig og Johanne Luise Heiberg. en analyse af ‘Krisen og en Krise i en skuespillerindes Liv,’ ” Den danske Tilskuer, no. 5, 2005, pp. 87–137; pp. 196–201.

Carsten Hauch: a map of mutual misreadings poul Houe

I. Prelude the relationship between Kierkegaard and Carsten Hauch (1790–1872)—a respectable but not ingenious natural scientist and man of letters: lyric poet, dramatist, novelist, and professor of aesthetics, all in the time-honored vein of danish romantic idealism—was initially tangential and characterized, it seems, by mutual, albeit distant respect (1837–47). a turning point occurred in 1849, however, when Kierkegaard published the second edition of Either/Or and Hauch on the very same day—may 14—issued his new drama The Sisters of Kinnekullen. in response to a dedicated copy of the volume he sent to Hauch, Kierkegaard received almost immediately—on may 17— a sincerely written letter of praise and gratitude. nevertheless, the reply that Hauch’s drama elicited from Kierkegaard, at some later point in 1849, was neither personal nor deferential; included among Kierkegaard’s papers, it had in fact the form of a scathing critique and ultimate dismissal of Hauch’s intellectual and artistic abilities. Subsequently, years ensued without any significant evidence of contact between the two authors. But then in 1855, the year when Kierkegaard’s call for honesty in church affairs spearheaded his attacks on the danish church institution and he literally fought his one man battle to the death, Hauch did not mince words about this unlawful combatant, now on his deathbed. in concert with the poet Bernhard severin ingemann (1789–1862), his old colleague at the sorø academy (an institution Kierkegaard had always viewed with suspicion), Hauch now unreservedly condemned what he had earlier but noted about Kierkegaard’s mental makeup: his sophistic and dialectical manipulation of the truth, and his brilliant but impertinent, intolerant, and heartless understanding of Christianity and god. although Kierkegaard’s and Hauch’s readings of one another are sketchy and asymmetrical maps of misreadings, they are relevant, nonetheless, to any probing of the basic fault lines in nineteenth-century danish aesthetic, religious, and intellectual history.

210

Poul Houe

II. Carsten Hauch (1790–1872) Johannes Carsten Hauch was born on may 12, 1790 to Frederik and Karen Hauch. His father was a prominent general and civil servant, stationed as chief administrative officer in the Østfold county of southeastern Norway at the time of his son Carsten’s birth. raised and receiving his early education surrounded by mighty norwegian mountains, valleys, and fjords, Hauch was likely predisposed for an interest in the natural sciences and for a romantic and pantheistic outlook. at the age of 13 he followed his parents to Copenhagen where his father had been promoted to other high offices and was to be highly decorated by the king. During the English bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807, Carsten showed remarkable personal bravery, and when he entered the Copenhagen university law school a year later, it was to combine his national and historical instincts with an education in line with the careers of his parental ancestry. soon, however, young Hauch fell under the spell of noted scientists such as Hans Christian Ørsted (1777–1851), whose romantic natural philosophy inspired him to change his educational direction in favor of a degree in that discipline (with zoology as his specialty). at the same time a literary dispute between the older poet Jens Baggesen (1764–1826) and the young adam oehlenschläger (1779–1850) caught his fancy and made him intervene in the strife on oehlenschläger’s side. His own attempts at literary production fell short of oehlenschläger’s approval, however, and so he returned to complete his scientific studies instead. Granted a travel fellowship, Hauch went to paris and southern France where he pursued postdoctoral studies in comparative zoology and botany, a pre-Darwinian field of inquiry on the border between nineteenth-century religious idealism and modern science. while abroad, an accident which ultimately led to the amputation of his right leg below the knee eventually proved decisive for his course of life. Crippled yet surviving suicidal distress, he found god as he never had before and added comfort to his faith during a stay with the danish colony of artists in rome. Back in denmark he resumed his natural science vocation and settled with his young progressive wife as a teacher at the sorø academy. His 25 years at sorø were marked by scholarly publications on various anatomical and physiological subjects. But in addition to these treatises on natural history, Hauch revived the artistic and aesthetic ambitions of his youth and began to labor assiduously in the fields of poetry, drama, and fiction. Like his colleagues at sorø he remained a faithful member of the oehlenschläger camp and produced a considerable body of works in all of these genres plus three volumes of Aesthetic Treatises and Reviews (1855–69),1 penned during his tenure as oehlenschläger’s successor as professor of aesthetics at Copenhagen university (1851–71), a post he obtained after a brief stint as professor of nordic languages and literature at the university of Kiel (1846–48). as noted by Finn Hauberg mortensen, whose recent literary biography of Hauch forms the basis for the above overview of his life and work, “Hauch was too much 1 Carsten Hauch, Æsthetiske Afhandlinger og Recensioner, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1855–69 (vol. 1, 1855; vol. 2, 1861; vol. 3, 1869).

Carsten Hauch: A Map of Mutual Misreadings

211

of a civil servant to be able to pose as a sharp literary critic....in both their merits and demerits, Hauch’s aesthetic studies and lectures were closely connected to his fiction.”2 And indeed, Hauch’s writing of fiction extended beyond his years at Sorø, including such a lengthy novel as Robert Fulton. A Historical Novel (1853)3 and such modestly successful lyrical dramas as The Sisters of Kinnekullen (1849).4 the latter was performed at the royal theater in whose affairs and direction Hauch even otherwise played a major role in various capacities alongside his tenure at the university, almost until the time of his death in rome in march 1872. While Hauberg Mortensen in his up-to-date treatment of Hauch chiefly credits the author with some moderate innovations of a narrative technique still beholden to the artistic forms and genres of the early nineteenth century’s romantic and Christian idealism, the young georg Brandes (whom Hauch unsuccessfully recommended to succeed him as professor) in the first extensive characterization of Hauch’s life and work (written shortly after the poet’s death) makes a special point of his fighting spirit, nationally, existentially, and artistically speaking.5 nothing came to Hauch easily, but he always heeded his calling and strived to perform his duty to the best of his limited ability. His struggling spirit even manifested itself within his personality as a tug of war between more northerly rational inclinations and more southerly opaque and mystical attractions. ultimately this meant a clash between german Romantic depth and dexterous French superficiality (epitomized by Baggesen) from which aftershocks reverberated in wider and wider concentric circles. it is a cosmology that is alchemical at its core and astronomical in its perspectives. as the philosopher’s stone is wrestled out from the darkest bottom of the psyche, the stars on the firmament stand (out) as supernatural symbols and eternal evidence of the subterranean mystery. Yet for all its essential spirituality, this elevation to heavenly proportions of psychological secrets is largely a bloodless abstraction at odds with its own underlying emotive sensibility. not only is Hauch not a sharply critical spirit, as Hauberg mortensen pointed out; he is fundamentally uncritical, according to Brandes. it is obvious from Brandes’ discussion that Hauch’s respect for things subtly incomprehensible (in the german sense) rather than things clearly understood or understandable (in the French sense) conflicts with Brandes’ own intellectual priorities. the poet’s biographical motivations for cultivating pain rather than joy and for projecting his inner reality and longing for the otherworldly in a world otherwise below his dignity are launched as a longing for freedom but viewed by Brandes as actually fettered to a need for self-denial. Having said as much in Hauch’s disfavor, Brandes is still prepared to admit the dichotomy, or borderline nature, of Hauch’s Finn Hauberg mortensen, “Carsten Hauch,” in Danish Writers from the Reformation to Decadence, 1550–1900, ed. by marianne stecher-Hansen, detroit: thomson gale 2004, pp. 220–7, see especially p. 226. 3 Carsten Hauch, Robert Fulton. En Fortælling, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1853. 4 Carsten Hauch, Søstrene paa Kinnekullen. Et dramatisk Eventyr i 3 Akter, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849. 5 georg Brandes, “Carsten Hauch,” in Danske Digtere. Charakterbilleder, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1877, pp. 1–103. 2

212

Poul Houe

position. His spiritual self-denial is denounced by his actual attitude to life as he personally resists the pathos of his own art, a gesture which may not dispense with this romantic pathos, but may well turn it tragic. while Brandes has an ax to grind with Hauch’s example, his pertinent assessment of the ambiguity underlying this poet’s studied spontaneity, strenuous artistic fare and critical misfortunes may be better validated on the basis of a closer reading of one of Hauch’s major works. Brandes praises Robert Fulton for being beautiful, significant, and perhaps its author’s most heartfelt novel; but he basically discusses it for its fictional display of its author’s troubles with his critics. With all due respect to Brandes’ findings, I find the fundamental dichotomy in Hauch’s novel better addressed the way i suggested in my conclusion to a recent article on this text and its image of america: it may be no wonder to witness a modern american reality surpass, if not transgress, the imagination of an elderly european aestheticist; but it is still worth pondering that the latter after all had the artistic wherewithal to unmask his tacit misgivings about this reality so constructively as to enable his “othering” thereof to transgress the confines of the appropriated artistic paradigm. How come? divergent dreams—or ideologies— seem here curiously to converge. the american dream and the european Bildungsroman are both totalizing categories and in that sense ideological conceptions of experience. But at the same time, they both refuse to totalize at the expense of experience, and are therefore also anti-ideological.6

the indelible ambiguity of the vision at issue can be said to occasion a division of labor between an american dream that erases this vision’s boundaries and a Bildungsroman that respects them. america’s robert Fulton is danish Carsten Hauch’s indispensable other: all but impossible for the aestheticist to be without, all but impossible for him to represent—from within. there is no denying that Carsten Hauch during his lifetime was typically met with both justified and unjustified critical and public disapproval. Georg Brandes was the first major critic to rectify the situation and do the author critical justice, albeit noticeably on strikingly Brandesian premises. in the latest discussion of Hauch, by Hauberg mortensen, both the plusses and minuses emerging from Brandes’ critical assessment are toned down, and a soberly impartial account has emerged in their stead. in light of the fact that opposition to Hauch in his own times has been replaced by almost complete indifference today, it seems worthwhile to revisit some of the Brandesian frontlines criss-crossing the poet’s oeuvre while keeping in mind 6 poul Houe, “steamy dreams—or merely dreams of steam? Carsten Hauch’s america in His novel Robert Fulton (1853),” American Studies in Scandinavia, vol. 36, no. 1, 2004, pp. 88–9. For elaborations on ideology along these lines see, for example, alain Finkielkraut, In the Name of Humanity: Reflections on the Twentieth Century, new York: Columbia university press 2000 [1996]. the totalizing aspect of ideology is attributed to Hannah arendt’s criticism of “this way of thinking, which is emancipated from all experience by its power to explain everything” (p. 60). By contrast, ideology as a concern for the integrity of experience, according to Finkielkraut, is espoused by roland Barthes as “the recognition of an irreducible excess of being in thought, the affirmation of the noncoincidence of the real and the rational and the renunciation by humanity of having complete control over its destiny” (p. 61).

Carsten Hauch: A Map of Mutual Misreadings

213

a horizon of understanding that was presumably not shared by either Brandes or Hauch—or Kierkegaard for that matter. a question to be posed from the present point of view is historical all the same and concerns whether the influences and exchanges between the latter two men may in some way foreground the present day supremacy of one over the other. to arrive at an answer, I turn, first, to a series of summary, if not chance, encounters between them, secondly to a head-on collision (occasioned by Kierkegaard), and thirdly to a belated but predictable aftermath (attributable to Hauch). III. Tangential Respectfulness: Kierkegaard and Hauch (1837–47) in the decade leading up to The Corsair affair, Kierkegaard merely brushes on works and actions by Hauch. In his papers for August–September 1837, we find, without commentary, an excerpt of wilhelm Lund’s review in Maanedsskrift for Litteratur (1831) of Hauch’s dissertation, first published in Naples 1827 and now reworked “with the encouragement of Ørsted” as “short survey of some rudimentary organs, of their Function in nature, along with a systematic sequence of development that Could partially Be Based on these” for Miscellanea from Sorø (1831).7 it is interesting, though not surprising, given his biography, that it is Hauch the natural scientist who first claims the attention even of a humanist like Kierkegaard. In fact, it took six more years before the first reference to a work of art by Hauch occurred in Kierkegaard’s writings. discussing musical expressions in wolfgang amadeus mozart’s The Magic Flute, the pseudonymous author of Either/Or, part i (published in Copenhagen on February 20, 1843) probably alludes to Hauch’s “mountain maiden” in Lyric Poems (1842).8 and a few pages later a discussion of versions of Don Juan includes the statement: “professor Hauch has also produced a Don Juan that is on the verge of falling within the category of the interesting.” To which an excerpt from Kierkegaard’s final draft adds that this Don Juan “is less related to molière,” and that “we shall see later how successful the poet was.—”9 Hauch was clearly in Kierkegaard’s ready reserve for literary allusions and references; and he was also visibly, if marginally, part of the cultural sphere that had Kierkegaard’s attention. in 1843–44 the philosopher typically comments on Johan

SKS 17, 238, dd:47 / KJN 1, 229. see Carsten Hauch, “Kort oversigt over en deel rudimentariske organer, over deres Bestemmelse i naturen, samt over en systematisk udviklingsfølge, der tildeels paa disse kunde bygges,” Blandinger fra Sorøe. Et Tidsskrift, vol. 1, 1831; mortensen, “Carsten Hauch,” p. 224. 8 SKS 2, 88 / EO1, 83. see Carsten Hauch, “Bjergjomfruen,” in Lyriske Digte, Copenhagen: C. steens Forlag 1842, pp. 164–70. 9 SKS 2, 109 / EO1, 105. Pap. iii B 172:2, p. 188 / EO1, supplement, p. 537. Hauch’s Don Juan was published in Gregorius den Syvende og Don Juan. To Dramaer, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1829 (vol. 2 in Carsten Hauch, Dramatiske Værker, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1828–30), pp. 137–270. 7

214

Poul Houe

Ludvig Heiberg’s (1791–1860) shortcomings as a polemicist, “even in the dispute with Hauch.”10 in 1845 Hauch played an indirect role in Kierkegaard’s warming up to his notorious strife with The Corsair. a favorable review, published in meïr aron goldschmidt’s (1819–87) satirical magazine on november 14, of Hauch’s novel The Castle on the Rhine11 had praised Kierkegaard’s victor emerita pseudonym at the expense of the politician orla Lehmann (1810–70). this move prodded Kierkegaard to challenge, albeit not publicly, The Corsair to attack him instead of lauding him. perhaps his (caustic) reaction explains why The Castle on the Rhine was the only book by Hauch he had in his library; but it cannot have diminished his curiosity that the novel also included a caricature of the very Hans Christian andersen (1805–75) that had been the target of Kierkegaard’s first critical work.12 about a month later (december 22), the anti-Kierkegaardian critic peder Ludvig møller (1814–65) published in the aesthetic journal Gæa a lengthy article about “a visit to sorø,” or more precisely to the home of Hauch, in whose living room was allegedly held an evening party at which Møller reflected on the literature of the day, including recent works by Kierkegaard. of the aesthetical part i of Either/Or he spoke approvingly, whereas the ethical part ii along with Stages on Life’s Way (and Kierkegaard’s own odd personality!) received his thumbs down. Only five days later Kierkegaard paid his critic back in his own coin—and broke with The Corsair (which he suspected was edited by møller). then (on december 29) it was møller’s turn to reply, this time in the daily Fædrelandet, but only with a minor correction of a small inaccuracy regarding Hauch’s role as host of—and participant in—the controversial literary soiree. Kierkegaard, in turn, replied to this in his journals and papers, while Møller finally drafted another article on the matter, now for publication in The Corsair. in passing it deserves mention that møller would later aspire to succeed adam oehlenschläger as professor of aesthetics at Copenhagen university, but that Hauch was the one who received the coveted appointment (in september 1851).13 as intimated earlier, and merely underscored by Kierkegaard’s verbal gymnastics on the occasion of møller’s visit to sorø, Hauch continues to be a peripheral presence in Kierkegaard’s universe. it is not until the implied distance between the two somewhat diminishes, after the Corsair affair, that the signs of mutual respect yield to tensions and evidence of incompatibility. as Joakim garff recounts: when Pap. iv B 103, p. 256 / FT, supplement, p. 282. the referenced dispute with Hauch was part of Heiberg’s attack on adam oehlenschläger in whose defense Hauch acted. 11 Carsten Hauch, Slottet ved Rhinen, eller De forskiellige Standpunkter. En Roman, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845 (ASKB 1550–1550a). 12 Cf. COR, supplement, pp. 96–104; Joakim garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 2005, pp. 378–9; Hans Christian andersen, Mit Livs Eventyr, vols. 1–2, revised edition by H. topsøe-Jensen, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1975 [1855], vol. 1, pp. 195–6. 13 garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. 390–4. Pap. vii–1 B 29–31, pp. 200–1 / COR, p. xix; pp. xxviii–xxix; p. xlv; p. 38; pp. 40–3; pp. 96–108; Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1996, p. 63; p. 288; p. 291. 10

Carsten Hauch: A Map of Mutual Misreadings

215

Kierkegaard was received in audience by King Christian viii (on october 3, 1847) and was asked if a post at sorø academy would not be to his liking, the visitor, who thought of sorø and Hauch as hubs for p.L. møller conspirators, was noticeably unmoved by the king’s suggestion.14 the actual climate at this academy is well described by vilhelm Birkedal in texts included in Bruce Kirmmse’s anthology of Encounters with Kierkegaard; it is useful to bear his description in mind as background for a letter of thanks, dated december 27, 1847, from Hauch to Jakob peter mynster for a recent collection of the bishop’s sermons. Hauch uses the occasion to compare the volume at hand with Kierkegaard’s upbuilding discourses which might have been excellent pieces, were it not for their dialectical mazes and shortage of noble mynsterian simplicity.15 no great love seems lost between Kierkegaard and Hauch at this point. IV. Turning Point: Kierkegaard Versus Hauch (May 1849) A. may 14, 1849 saw the publication of Either/Or’s 2nd edition, and much to their surprise both Hauch and Hans Christian andersen received a dedicated copy, for which they both wrote the author letters of gratitude (andersen on may 15, Hauch two days later). Hauch was especially elated and even praised the volume he was given as one of the few he would bring with him, were he to go to prison! nevertheless, when his own lyrical drama, The Sisters of Kinnekullen, published the same day as Kierkegaard’s gift, reached the philosopher’s desk, he did not pay back the poet’s tribute to him in kind.16 rather, his “review” of the play in his journals is a model, if not a map, of misreading. Both this metaphor and the title of the present article, which it has informed, should be taken with a grain of salt. Lifted from a famous book title by Harold Bloom, an orthodox application would be beholden to Bloom’s entire “extravagant theory of literary creation for which all authors were locked in oedipal combat with some mighty predecessor,” to cite terry eagleton.17 But nothing could be further from the truth than to claim that the old danish romantic Carsten Hauch was a “mighty predecessor” with whom Kierkegaard was “locked in any oedipal combat.” indeed, Hauch must have been nigh the antithesis of a “ ‘strong’ precursor” over whom the young philosopher “sought to triumph” by rewriting his—Hauch’s—text as his—Kierkegaard’s—own.

garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 482. Encounters with Kierkegaard, p. 63; p. 288; p. 291; garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. 619–20. 16 garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 574; B&A, vol. 1, p. 228 / LD, Letter 207, pp. 289–90. 17 terry eagleton, “Harold Bloom,” in his Figures of Dissent: Critical Essays on Fish, Spivak, Zizek and Others, London & new York: verso 2003, p. 168; the immediately following quotations are from the same source and page.

14 15

216

Poul Houe

Nevertheless, “the anxiety of influence,” which allegedly drives such a process of “creative misreading of earlier efforts” in Bloom’s theory, seems in operation even in Kierkegaard’s response to Hauch’s drama The Sisters of Kinnekullen. this could be construed as though Kierkegaard was feigning a dramatic tension between himself and the playwright in order to test the validity of his own outlook and insight on a contrasting background—an appropriate task to be designated for execution in a journal entry. or it could be construed as testimony to the power of Bloom’s theory if indeed it holds water even when its conditions of possibility are barely in evidence. whatever the case may be, Kierkegaard in his deconstructive treatment of Hauch’s play affords a pretext for reconstructing and repositioning his own dialectics of stages as part of an intertextual polemic suited to challenge one of “these poets who assume the pose of being so profound!” as the final lines of his entry read.18 B. the dearth of interpersonal contacts between Hauch and Kierkegaard may account for the latter’s harsh critique of the former’s 1849 drama. But the nature and quality of the text under scrutiny obviously matters as well. For all his diverse achievements as an ageing and experienced practitioner of universal romanticism, Hauch remained a writer with limited success to his credit, and his dramatic endeavors in particular had met with minimal approval if not been directly consigned to oblivion. The Sisters of Kinnekullen, published (first anonymously!) and performed in the spring of 1849, was, as mentioned earlier, one of few exceptions to this rule and the one which became his popular breakthrough as a playwright. Criticism—of its lack of formal integrity and dramatic verve—remained in ample supply, though; even a dramatic satire, blatantly titled The Boring Drama, saw publication in its wake.19 while Hauch’s text per se may seem insufficient to warrant the kind of piercing response that Kierkegaard confided to his journal, the play’s unexpected popularity and euphonic religiosity may well have been the right, if not the imperative, occasion for him to protest against the pervasive dumbing down culture that persistently and demonstrably favored Christendom over true Christianity. By no means capable of triggering a grand Oedipal rebellion, and noticeably too episodic and insignificant to be critiqued in public, The Sisters of Kinnekullen still was a challenge too significant for Kierkegaard to ignore entirely. with their aptness for important experimental exercises to be undertaken without further ado, the journals and papers would enable him to hit both ways: honing his own conceptual and categorical skills and criteria on an insufficiently accomplished work of art, while disparaging a culture that found such a work sufficiently appealing.

Kierkegaard’s text (SKS 22, 46–8, nB11:79 / JP 6, 6410) is cited from SLW, supplement, pp. 658–60. 19 see Carsten Hauch, Søstrene paa Kinnekullen, in Hauch, Udvalgte Skrifter, vols. 1–3, ed. by poul schjærff, Copenhagen: Holbergselskabet af 23. september 1926–29, vol. 3 (Poetiske Arbejder), see pp. iv–v. subsequent page references refer to this edition; the translations are mine. 18

Carsten Hauch: A Map of Mutual Misreadings

217

C. while The Sisters of Kinnekullen apparently warrants Kierkegaard’s attention, the gist of his remarks is that Hauch should have written another play, in fact written it the way Kierkegaard would have done it. to arrive at this position, our critic begins by charging the book before him with existential and artistic wrongdoings which its author never committed. First, Kierkegaard rightly seizes upon an ambiguous statement in Hauch’s preface, which claims that the idea of the drama was neither borrowed, nor the author’s own. But secondly, and whatever the provenance of the ambiguity, our critic commences a misreading of its implementation. two young girls, daughters of an old peasant and both betrothed to honorable young men, set out on different courses in life. one—Johanna—is generous and considerate and gladly accepts her fiancé’s hand in marriage. The other, named Ulrikka, is greedy and selfish and challenges the spirit of the mountain to fulfil her putative need of material wealth. Before doing so, the spirit warns her against her avarice, but to little avail. once the ferociously spinning woman has moved from her father’s sitting room to a cave at the center of the mountain, and her yarn has been replaced by threads of gold, she becomes entirely absorbed in toil to no end. Meanwhile, her otherwise patient groom-to-be finally opts out of his perpetual waiting, and only too late does his aged beloved realize how she wasted both his and her own life in pursuit of spiritless riches. it is hardly an accident that the king and spirit of the mountain direct the insatiable sister to follow him “down into the intestines of the mountain” to continue her obsessive spinning at its lifeless, gilded epicenter.20 Yet, Kierkegaard asserts that she “sits upon the mountain and spins gold” (italics added). it is as though he cannot wait to extend his disapproval of the playwright’s ambiguousness to encompass even his artistic superficiality. In no way must the wayward woman be associated with an essential, albeit misplaced, station in life. according to Kierkegaard, it is Hauch’s contention that “lost in something abstract (or the like)” she—and many like her— “actually do not live but merely waste their lives. the idea is that there is an abstract life that means simply to lose life.”21 it soon becomes clear that Kierkegaard objects to this idea. For one thing, it is not what he actually finds articulated in Hauch’s text, and besides, an abstract life, properly understood, to Kierkegaard means not to lose one’s life, but to gain it. so, small wonder that his opening move against the playwright’s allegedly misconstrued abstraction is made to correlate it with a patently discrediting property, namely, superficiality. But it is Kierkegaard’s contention, not Hauch’s, be it in the latter’s preface or in his text proper, that “the avaricious maiden’s defect” is identical with “abstract life.” What Hauch identifies it with is rather an external and one-sided industry as opposed to an internal and spiritual calling. ulrikka believes that she and the king of the mountain have a striving in common, which the king elaborately confirms, but only to take his confirmation out of Ulrikka’s mental reach and into the

20 21

ibid., p. 60; p. 64. SKS 22, 46–8, nB11:79 / SLW, supplement, pp. 658–9.

218

Poul Houe

realm of romantic universalism, which she admits is inaccessible (“gaadefuld[t]”) to her.22 in the mountain king’s words, man is governed by the same spirit as everything else in the universe, the element and its spirits. the spirit’s propellant force is mysterious and defies intelligible exposition (“selsom...som selv den Øverste blandt dem der skabtes, / Ei ret forstaaer”).23 Yet, its ingredients are as contradictory as love and hatred, and the result of their conflictual interaction is a striving towards redemption within increasingly higher forms of consciousness, and thus a striving appreciated by everyone fortunate enough to realize its goal. For someone like ulrikka, the sum total of such spiritual processes clearly defy the imagination; yet to label her relative shortcoming as either concrete or abstract is missing the holistic configuration of which she falls short. romantic universalism of the kind expounded by the king of the mountain in Hauch’s drama was to remain part and parcel of its author’s Bildung (as illustrated by his preface). But by mid-century this original mode of romantic thinking and feeling was both dated and bypassed by a later romanticism’s (romantismes) disparities and dissonances, and by an irony and intellectual disillusionment to which Kierkegaard had at least some affinity. Still, for all his conceptual disdain for the woolly wholesomeness and unproblematic cohesion of his counterpart, it is not inconceivable that at least the authorial intent behind Hauch’s archaic imagery kept a hold on Kierkegaard’s sentiments. At the same time, it undoubtedly unnerved him and confirmed his worst misgivings to find the already platitudinal spirituality before him further discounted by its token wedding to Christian idealism. the protestant hymn and chorus used to unlock ulrikka from her spellbound toiling in the golden mountain are offspring of this mésalliance. they are her complimentary tickets to harmonious concord with her senescent fiancé on the day of her sister’s happy silver wedding, and they also admit her to her niece’s exemplary conversion from an attitude of avarice like ulrikka’s to one of atonement like her own mother’s. Both push and pull factors in Hauch’s drama vie for Kierkegaard’s attention and criticism. D. Kierkegaard’s principal objection to Hauch’s scheme of things is the alleged confusion of abstract and concrete—and the disregard for Kierkegaard’s stages on life’s way: the aesthetical, the ethical, and the religious. what ulrikka purports to show, according to her author, is the falsity of abstract life. But what she does show, according to his critic, may be false all right, but only concretely so: avarice. “thus the author has picked a wrong example.”24 Based on this falsehood, Hauch merely adds harm to injury by unduly extending the reach of his case: that is, by making “a universal of the particular.”

22 23 24

Hauch, Søstrene paa Kinnekullen, p. 59. ibid. SKS 22, 46–8, nB11:79 / JP 6, 6410.

Carsten Hauch: A Map of Mutual Misreadings

219

if one were to “validate the concrete life in contrast to the abstract,” says Kierkegaard, the proper procedure must be carefully restricted. For, contrary to popular perception, the authentically concrete is distinct from the authentically religious, which is the abstract life of suffering and sacrifice. To demarcate this line, the ethical is indispensable, which Hauch sorely fails to realize. the point he misses is that the ethical, properly construed, is a universal concreteness. on the one hand, it is superior to the illegitimate, abstract life of the aesthete—to say nothing of the illegitimate, concrete life of ulrikka discerned by Kierkegaard underneath the false abstraction which he insists her author makes her personify—but, on the other hand, it is inferior to the legitimately abstract life of the religious. the Kierkegaardian pseudonyms, according to the journal entry, span this entire range of dialectics—from the invalid concrete life to the valid abstract life. the important milestones here are the “esthetic eccentric whose very defect is an erroneous abstract life, without being patently sinful,” and the ethicist, whose orientation, again, points away from this inauthenticity and to the authentically abstract life of the religious. “this is the process in all the pseudonyms’ endeavors.” Kierkegaard even calls it “such a grand endeavor” that in itself it “is probably also an abstract life,” which in turn explains why the muddled Hauch has been unable to grasp it and instead turned “the whole thing wrong,...[and] confuse[d] all the spheres.”25 incapable of articulating true, religious abstraction, all he could manage was to make an abstraction from the most trivial concreteness imaginable and after that pyrrhic victory enjoy a short-lived success “as a profound thinker.”26 Having with one principal gesture both deconstructed and debased the old Romantic poet, Kierkegaard makes specific reconstruction of his drama the next logical step. referring to the aesthete in Either/Or who “divides men into two classes, those who work in order to live and those who do not need to,” Kierkegaard is able to establish the self-contradiction of the former position, “since the purpose of living, after all, cannot be to produce the prerequisites for living.”27 ulrikka’s obsessive self-destruction in other words has found an otherwise missing logical footing in Kierkegaard’s hermeneutics, though without becoming either more or less self-destructive for that matter. more important is the journal entry’s reconstruction of the religious. as i alluded to earlier, in The Sisters of Kinnekullen ulrikka is endowed with her religious redemption within the cultural episteme or paradigm of universal romanticism, or within Christendom, if we take into account the marriage of cultural convenience between this ideology and Christian idealism as Kierkegaard saw it. and while Either/Or admittedly fares no better at first glance, as “the ethicist rounds off life with marriage,” Kierkegaard makes the obvious point that “the whole work is also only an element in the endeavor,” namely “to point out the religious,” which responsibility The Sisters of Kinnekullen on his view has so blatently shunned. to remedy this fallacy, a third sister would be needed, “a Christian ‘mary’: then perhaps

25 26 27

ibid. ibid. ibid.

220

Poul Houe

the play would have had value.”28 a marginal note indicates: “or an ‘anna’ (patience in expectancy) in order to show the abstraction of the religious life to be the true abstraction.”29 we are obviously light-years from the befuddled abstraction said by Hauch— in Kierkegaard’s reading—to be the predicament of the ulrikkas of this world. But Kierkegaard’s proposition goes beyond a formal distinction between his own categorical rigor and Hauch’s holistic placebos. not only are we told not to be mistakenly “waiting for fantasies and wasting life,” as the “esthetically eccentric” would do. with effectful repetition we are reminded that “behind the ethical emerges the religious again: that to live abstractly (ideally) is to live. only one man has lived absolutely ideally abstractly in this way: the god-man.”30 Notwithstanding the journal entry’s more informal genre specifications, it shows no shortage in calculated discourse and style, variegated iteration, emphatic summation and poignant condensation, climatic credo. the very process of abstraction is enacted before our eyes—over against “these poets who assume the pose of being so profound!” but who are only profoundly in error and ignorance. so, the “absolutely ideally abstractly”31 has the nature of an evocation: not of this world, and certainly not of Carsten Hauch’s; rather, and truly poetically, if insufficiently, it hints at the god-man himself. the rewriting of Hauch’s text as if it were Kierkegaard’s is all but complete, as is the dethroning of the former author. E. still unaccounted for, however, is the fact that any deconstruction hits the deconstructor as well as the deconstructed. poetic truth in Kierkegaard is always already deferred because its unobtainable condition of possibility is a truth profoundly beyond its reach and one to which it can but passionately aspire and testify. the more truthful the poetic truth-saying, the more apparently the real: that is, the ideal, truth eludes the poetic. its own realm of being is secular history, while its truthful target belongs to sacred history. as a well-known passage from Works of Love puts it: “Christianity certainly knows far better than any poet what love is and what it means to love. For this very reason it also knows what perhaps escapes the poets, that the love they celebrate is secretly self-love, and...[t]his foolhardiness pleases the poet beyond measure; it is music to his ears; it inspires him to song. ah, but Christianity teaches that this is blasphemy.”32 Kierkegaard in his Hauch entry from the journals singles out “Quidam of the imaginary psychological construction” as the one who “has the great merit of making clear that ‘the wish’ must be preserved in suffering.”33 implied in this statement is that suffering in and of itself holds no assurance against aesthetic or other eccentric 28 29 30 31 32 33

ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. SKS 9, 27 / WL, 19. SKS 22, 46–8, nB11:79 / JP 6, 6410.

Carsten Hauch: A Map of Mutual Misreadings

221

reductions of its “absolute, ideal, abstract” scope. the quotation aligns the entry to which it belongs rather precisely with the part of Stages on Life’s Way in which Quidam, a certain man, and Quædam, a certain woman, both products of Frater taciturnus’ “psychological construction” or experiment, are unhappy lovers equally stranded in a suffering congenial to their male and female characteristics, respectively. of Quidam we know from this work that he is “demonic in a religious direction from the start” and never finds his self, but remains on dialectical edge, stuck in his feeling of guilt, circling around it.34 on the one hand, he cannot realize his love, on the other he cannot put it behind him.35 But unlike “the young man in Repetition, a poet, [who] lacked the religious sensibility,” Quidam is a man whose “demonic behaviour is behaviour that can be explained as a more or less, and even unconscious, shunning of some ideal which nevertheless cannot lose its hold.”36 stranded in his humanity, he keeps the religious in view, or the “wish” intact in his suffering. another way of putting this is to say that Quidam is aporia incarnate. the deferment of truth, which poetry and poets like the young man in Repetition would wish to overcome but can only imagine, has embodied itself in Quidam and his “wish” for the “absolutely ideally abstract[ly]” life. the experiment of which this indeterminate man is part does not allow him to overcome the condition of human secularity either, but at least he can incessantly seek to reach beyond it, persistently articulating the “wish” for the religious ideal. As demonic, Quidam remains left to his own devices because he defies the kind of self-realization through which man can surrender his self to a higher power. Yet his “wish” for this power clearly points beyond himself. thus he epitomizes “Kierkegaard’s gigantic revolt against romanticism, indeed the entire bourgeois individualism,” which “ultimately results in returning man to his limits, where he is at the mercy of a reality he doesn’t control,” but which he nonetheless “may receive as a pure gift from the god for whom all is possible.”37 as the authors of the book just quoted, Søren Kierkegaard og romantikerne, put it in their concluding remarks: “Kierkegaard’s authorship can be seen as an allencompassing revolt against the romantic idea of the subject without limits and as a definitive rejection of all attempts to find the meaning of life in our immediate existence.”38 Quidam in his particular tension between, or dual attraction to, secular immediacy and sacred abstraction is a pivotal figure in this battle for truth and freedom. Cf. søren Kierkegaard, Værker i Udvalg, vols. 1–4, ed. by F.J. Billeskov Jansen, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1950, vol. 4, pp. 82–3. 35 Cf. Finn Frandsen, “Constantin Constantius, Hilarius Bogbinder, william afham, Frater taciturnus, Quidam—og Kierkegaard,” in Kierkegaard—pseudonymitet, ed. by Birgit Bertung, paul müller, and Fritz nolan, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1993, pp. 128–9. 36 alastair Hannay, Kierkegaard: A Biography, Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2001, p. 270 (emphasis added). 37 Kjeld Holm, malthe Jacobsen, and Bjarne troelsen, Søren Kierkegaard og romantikerne, Copenhagen: Berlingske Forlag 1974, p. 139. (translations from this book are mine.) 38 ibid., p. 138. 34

222

Poul Houe

Fittingly, Kierkegaard’s site for reflecting on this ideal—and Quidam’s ordeal—is a journal entry. Here the reflection of the central stages on life’s way is enhanced by an antithetical romantic image, an undeservedly popular drama by Hauch. Altogether, the entry qualifies for the ultimate site of aporia: the site where an author’s misreading of a colleague’s work forms the backdrop for his own production and serves to advance the latter’s progress towards a truth above and beyond any work of man. V. Postlude: Hauch Versus Kierkegaard’s Final Struggle (1855) as Kierkegaard in the last year of his life was causing public scandal by pouring out his journalistic acrimony against Danish church officialdom—and reiterating his demand for honesty in church affairs in no uncertain terms—Hauch, who so praised the second edition of Either/Or, by contrast, seems to have been rescinding whatever good will he might have preserved for the man behind The Moment. instead, his correspondence shows him in agreement with ingemann’s condemnation of Kierkegaard’s behavior and disrespect of the late Bishop mynster’s posthumous reputation. Hauch especially laments his opponent’s verbal tampering with the truth, which the young generation seems to deem ingenious.39 And when finally Kierkegaard is on his deathbed, Hauch in a letter to ingemann (dated october 6, 1855) pulls out all stops and calls the dying polemicist a brilliant mind, yet an “icecold spirit whose words are sharp as icicles” and “a false prophet” to boot; a man with “great gifts” but “a heart so hollow” as to single-mindedly and self-righteously proclaim that “Christ himself is...in error” and that “god hates people.”40 obviously unaware of the acerbic critique of The Sisters of Kinnekullen that Kierkegaard had committed to his private papers, Hauch cannot be accused of having responded tit for tat. His misreading of Kierkegaard’s last endeavors rather affirms, from his point of view, what Kierkegaard had earlier demonstrated from his, namely, that these two men of danish golden age culture and letters represented deeply incongruent strands of thought and sentiment. Both of them were trained in adversity, but the Christianity to which Hauch looked for redemption was as harmonic a fixture as a shining star, whereas for Kierkegaard any such continuum between the hardships of mundane existence and god’s grace was a falsehood to be unmasked at all cost.

39

p. 103.

garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. 748–9; Encounters with Kierkegaard,

garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 784; Encounters with Kierkegaard, pp. 117–18. 40

Bibliography I. Hauch’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Hauch, Carsten, Slottet ved Rhinen, eller De forskiellige Standpunkter. En Roman, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845 (ASKB 1550–1550a). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Hauch zeuthen, Ludvig, Humanitet betragtet fra et christeligt Standpunkt, med stadigt Hensyn til den nærværende Tid, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1846, p. 69 (ASKB 915). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Hauch Kirmmse, Bruce H. (trans. and ed.), Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1996, p. 63; p. 103; pp. 117–18; p. 291, note 10. Joakim garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 2005, p. 492; pp. 574–5; p. 590; p. 748; p. 784.

Johan nicolai madvig: the master of Latin in Kierkegaard’s parnassus Jesper eckhardt Larsen

søren Kierkegaard is known as the master of irony in more than one sense. His only academic work on a larger scale was his thesis On the Concept of Irony with Constant Reference to Socrates, and recent readings of Kierkegaard tend to suppose a constant tone of irony in the whole production. But this reading does not seem fully just. or one could say that the manifest string of irony running through Kierkegaard had to have isles of non-irony for him to survive it mentally. these islands were at least twofold. Firstly, his edifying discourses on questions of faith were cleansed of irony, an activity testified by Kierkegaard in his journals. Secondly, an array of authorities on different matters served as a parnassus of seriousness beyond the immediate scope of irony. or to phrase it another way, Kierkegaard could be said in his writings to type-cast a number of what he once called his witnesses of truth. and such an authority not to be questioned was Johan nicolai madvig (1804–86) professor of the Latin language at Copenhagen university. I. “The Bornholmian Genius” at the time when Kierkegaard entered Copenhagen university in 1830, madvig was a brilliant young Latin philologist of 26. madvig had taught the Latin language at Copenhagen university since the age of 22, and was appointed full professor in this field at the age of 25. As a student he was known as the “Bornholmian genius,” whom the professors expected to have a promising career. madvig’s childhood was spent in a quite modest and remote end of the kingdom, on the island of Bornholm, in the town svaneke. His father poul anthoni madvig (1764–1816) was the local town clerk—a legal position with the right to perform simple legal operations on sales of property and the writing of wills. His mother margrethe Benedicte Kofoed was of a somewhat richer family, but still the home of Johan nicolai was quite simple in social terms. it was only with the help of a rich Bornholmian woman that the promising child was sent to a grammar school in north zealand, just north of Copenhagen where the castle of Frederiksborg is situated. madvig’s extraordinary talent was cultivated here by his teacher Bendt Bendtsen (1763–1830), a classical humanist who had studied under the tuteledge of Christian gottlob Heyne (1729– 1812) in göttingen.

226

Jesper Eckhardt Larsen

the almost haphazard rate of madvig’s career led to a severe personal crisis in 1832. the young man had traveled an enormous distance in social standing and position, and now felt first, that he could not cope with the demands of “dannelse,” or cultivation, expected of a full professor, and second, that the whole concept of dannelse was fully absurd and without practical relevance. He took some time alone, away from his wife and children, to recover from this crisis. the result was a thorough scrutiny of the concept of dannelse and its “higher practicality.” His position as a philologist was from then on one of modernization and modesty. the position of the Latin language in the educational system could, found madvig, only be upheld on grounds of historical learning and cultivation. this was far from the unwarranted idolization of antiquity by other humanists and philologists at the time such as wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835).1 madvig’s position was that of a mastodon. His command of the Latin language and of greek too was extraordinary even when measured by international standards. His writings on Latin philology, and not least his learned critique of his fellows was a cause of fear among prestigious german scholars. His knowledge of ancient history was renowned. in addition to critical publications of, for instance, Cicero’s De finibus, his works included a well-known text on state constitutions in antiquity and a number of writings on philosophy of language. He has been labeled a predecessor of saussure and Breal by stressing the nature of language as a system of signs.2 madvig’s personal crisis also led to a broader and more practical engagement in public life. He formed part of the national Liberal party as a young professor, and when constitutional democracy was introduced in denmark in the years 1848–49, he became a member of the Constitutional assembly. in november 1849 he was appointed minister for Cultural affairs, including education and church matters. in this position he carried out a reform of the grammar school system that was built on the concept of “almendannelse” or what in the english-speaking world would be called “liberal education.” II. Kierkegaard’s References to Madvig Kierkegaard’s second published book, his thesis on The Concept of Irony from 1841, does not contain any explicit reference to madvig. nevertheless madvig had one year before written a thorough analysis of the ancient state constitutions, considering among other subjects the greek turn to subjectivity manifested in socrates.3 the inspiration from g.w.F. Hegel on this piece is clear, but it is also clear that madvig had his own personal opinions. He was, for instance, more positive in his historical judgment of rome, and some readers state that madvig was actually better informed Jesper eckhardt Larsen, J.N. Madvigs dannelsestanker. En kritisk humanist i den danske romantik, Copenhagen: museum tusculanum 2002. 2 Brigitte seidensticker Hauger, Johan Nicolai Madvig (1804–86): The Language Theory of a Classical Philologist, Investigated within the Framework of 19th-Century Linguistics, georgetown: georgetown university 1990. 3 J.n. madvig, Blik paa Oldtidens Statsforfatninger med Hensyn til Udviklingen af Monarchiet og en omfattende Statsorganisme, Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1840. 1

Johan Nicolai Madvig: The Master of Latin in Kierkegaard’s Parnassus

227

about his subject than Hegel was.4 a close reading of any hidden references to this text of madvig in Kierkegaard’s thesis might possibly show more resemblances between the two. That in the field of ancient history Kierkegaard trusted Madvig more than any of his other professors is testified by the fact that Kierkegaard handed Madvig large parts of his manuscript before turning in the final version. Madvig was impressed by the “intellectual liveliness and fresh thought” in the piece.5 He found that Kierkegaard showed testimony of “multifaceted studies, both of the greek literature and of modern philosophy and aesthetics.”6 Madvig was as an official examiner together with his colleague Frederik Christian sibbern (1785–1872) the two most positive in the judgment of Kierkegaard’s thesis. the only problem that madvig found, which was bound to the personality of the writer, was that the thesis is burdened with a certain free and easy carelessness of composition, but even its exposition of concepts lacks scholarly order, form, and firmness. This is particularly clear in the arrangement of the dissertation’s two principal parts and the connection between them. The exposition suffers from a self-satisfied pursuit of the piquant and the witty, which not infrequently lapses into the purely vulgar and tasteless….7

However, Madvig did not wish to make this a crucial point, first, because it would require a tedious negotiation about a large number of selected places in the thesis, but second, because he did not expect Kierkegaard to accept any changes whatsoever in his manuscript. this last judgment turned out to be true. Kierkegaard did not make any of the suggested changes to his thesis. madvig thought he might criticize the thesis at the oral defense as an opponent ex auditorio, but in the end not did have time for this. if one judges from Kierkegaard’s reference to one of madvig’s texts on philosophy of language, it is clear that Kierkegaard’s reading of Madvig in this field was only sporadic. in The Concept of Anxiety published in June 1844, there is an implicit reference to madvig’s text on the origins of language from 1842. in the manuscripts these references were explicit. The note in the final version reads: If one were to say further that it then becomes a question of how the first man learned to speak, i would answer that this is very true, but also that the question lies beyond the scope of the present investigation. However, this must not be understood in the manner of modern philosophy as though my reply was evasive, suggesting that i could answer the question in another place. But this is certain, that it will not do to represent man himself as the inventor of language.8

Povl Johannes Jensen, “Madvig som filolog,” in Johan Nicolai Madvig et Mindeskrift, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1955–63, vol. 2, pp. 1–209, see p. 29. 5 Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1996, pp. 29–30. 6 ibid., p. 31. 7 SKS K1, pp. 129ff. / Encounters with Kierkegaard, pp. 29–31. 8 SKS 4, 353, note / CA, 47. 4

228

Jesper Eckhardt Larsen

in his journals Kierkegaard elaborates on the idea that man himself should have invented language, “or as Professor Madvig so finely has expressed it in a program: that human beings made a contract on which language they would speak.”9 and in the margin Kierkegaard noted “with unending irony.”10 Kierkegaard seems here to suggest a divine origin of language of which he could find references in the literature, for instance in the two germans, Johann georg Hamann (1730–88) or the knight Christian von rosencreutz (b. 1378).11 But madvig did in fact suppose a purely human origin of language in his text. what he suggested in 1842 was just that the origin should not be understood in terms of a contract. madvig criticized Humboldt’s view of the origin of language as “growing out of the spirit” and preferred to see it as a “result of action” (not “Emanation des Geistes” but “Erzeugniss der Thätigkeit”). madvig even stated that only a language that man had made could be understood by man.12 Kierkegaard seems to have misunderstood madvig, who, as a spinozist agnostic, did not want to warrant any historical developments that required direct divine interventions. a large number of references to madvig in Kierkegaard’s writings do not consider the content of madvig’s thoughts or works but rather the sheer quality and excellent scholarship in his production. as stated above, madvig was seen as a true authority in his field, and Kierkegaard thus appealed to him as a contrastive type in certain arguments. in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments Kierkegaard refers twice to madvig as a scholarly authority. First, the purpose of madvig’s scholarly authority is contrasted to that of biblical scholarship: when, for example, a philologist publishes a book by Cicero and does it with great acumen, with scholarly apparatus in noble obedience to the supremacy of the mind; when his ingenuity and his intimate knowledge of antiquity, obtained by indefatigable diligence, help his ferreting sensibility to remove difficulties, to prepare the way for the process of thought amid a confusion of variant readings, etc.—then it is safe to abandon oneself to admiration, for when he has completed his work, nothing follows from it except the admirable feat that through his skill and competence an ancient text has been made available in the most reliable form. But it in no way follows that i am now supposed to build my eternal happiness on this book, because i certainly admit that with regard to my eternal happiness his amazing acumen is too little for me; i certainly admit that my admiration for him would be downcast rather than cheerful if i thought he had something like that in mente. But that is precisely what critical theological scholarship does; when finished—and until then it holds us in suspenso, but with this very prospect in mind—it concludes: ergo, now you can build your eternal happiness on these writings.13 Pap. v B 53, 12. ibid. 11 Hamann, “zwo recensionen nebst einer Beylage, betreffend den ursprung der sprache” (1772) and “des ritters von rosencreutz letzte willensmeynung über den göttlichen und menschlichen ursprung der sprache” (1772), in [Johann georg Hamann], Hamann’s Schriften, vols. 1–8, ed. by Friedrich roth, Berlin: g. reimer 1821–43, vol. 4, pp. 1–20 and pp. 21–36 respectively (ASKB 536–544). 12 J.n. madvig, Om Sprogets Væsen, Udvikling og Liv. Første Stykke, Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1842, pp. 7–10. 13 SKS 7, 33 / CUP1, 25–6. 9

10

Johan Nicolai Madvig: The Master of Latin in Kierkegaard’s Parnassus

229

From this comment it is clear that Kierkegaard by no means is ironical towards true scholarship but is certainly ironical towards the existential presumptuousness of some types of theological scholarship. and madvig serves as the typecast contrast in this argument. Later in the same work Madvig appears again as a true teacher in his field, again to serve as a contrast to the fields of insight that lacked such a master: as i see myself, i have developed so much just by my independent thinking, have been educated so much by reading, internally oriented so much by existing that i am in a position to be an apprentice, a learner, which is already a task. i do not pretend to be more than capable of beginning to learn in a higher sense. if only the teacher were to be found among us! i am not speaking of the teacher of classical learning, because we do have such a person, and if this were what i supposed to learn, i would be helped as soon as i had gained the prerequisite knowledge to be able to begin. i am not speaking of the teacher of historical philosophy, in which i certainly lack the prerequisites, if only we had the teacher….No, the teacher of whom I speak and in a different way, ambiguously and doubtfully, is the teacher of the ambiguous art of thinking about existence and existing.14

one could consider the question if Kierkegaard himself aspired in his writings to a mastery of his field, as Madvig had in his. Thereby the Parnassus of true authorities served as role models and father figures in Kierkegaard’s self-educational process. this parnassus of respected men appears again in newspaper articles. in 1845 Kierkegaard refers to the people from whom a true praise can be enjoyed. among the “men of distinction” madvig is regarded.15 From him praise would not be unwarranted, but rather the positive judgment of a man like him would certainly have value. Kierkegaard seems to have valuable people in his world, and truly unvaluable ones as well, from whom praise would be considered fully unwarranted: “unwarranted recognition is just as objectionable as an unwarranted attack.”16 a longer list of these authorities follows in a newspaper article published in 1854: i maintain that from the pulpit to represent Bishop mynster as a truth-witness, one of the holy chain, wrongs to the highest degree every other remarkable and well-deserving man in the country. a jurist like privy Councilor Ørsted, a poet like Heiberg, a scholar like madvig, a physician like Bang, actors like nielsen, rosenkilde, and phister, and so on in many contexts, all these men who while they live can by no means be said to have a more rewarding situation, to receive more of the world’s benefits and enjoyments than Bishop mynster received, on the contrary must be said to have a far less rewarding situation—all such men have altogether the same entitlement as Bishop mynster to be buried as truth witnesses.17

Here again the effect is one of contrast. there are people of excellence, and there are plain people, and Kierkegaard would not have any confusion among the two. 14 15 16 17

SKS 7, 565 / CUP1, 622. SV1 Xiii, 421 / COR, 26. ibid. SV1 Xiv, 17–18 / M, 11.

230

Jesper Eckhardt Larsen

the references to madvig as an authority to be praised and respected are numerous in the Nachlaß. when most authors wrote only for a national audience, madvig was the “pride and honor” of denmark writing in foreign languages setting “a european standard for his work.”18 in the same vein madvig was compared to Lessing’s position in germany.19 madvig was respected by Kierkegaard as a true judge of taste in his position as a literary critic.20 madvig was mentioned by Kierkegaard in passing as the author of his internationally known Latin grammar.21 madvig was included among the true authorities who had “unhappy lovers”: that is, other minor scholars who make a living in the literary world by criticizing a selected authority. madvig had in this respect the writer torkil Baden (1765–1849) as such an unhappy lover.22 in another place Kierkegaard considers the position of Baden to madvig to be one resembling the cads who follow the merchants in the marketplace, to see if there is a penny to be made: When the merchants come to the market, then each cad finds himself a wagon, where he thinks there can be something to earn. And in the same way the literary cad finds himself an author, on whom something can be earned, in that the author’s name guarantees that the public will read—something nasty about him.23

at more than one point some of the members of the parnassus were rejected by Kierkegaard. the best-known example of this process was Kierkegaard’s struggle against Bishop mynster, whom he had once respected as one of his authorities. But as late as 1849–1850 Kierkegaard made a note on the effects of his own writings on some figures in his Parnassus. While Heiberg and Martensen had become “foppish,” mynster and madvig “shall stand unchanged” in Kierkegaard’s writings.24 a few years later it seemed as though only madvig was standing unchanged. III. Personal Contacts and Gifts of course, Kierkegaard and madvig met each other often at the time of Kierkegaard’s studies at Copenhagen university. as mentioned, they had conversations about his thesis in advance of Kierkegaard’s public defense. Kierkegaard’s respect for his former teacher madvig was expressed in a way quite common at the time: in dedicated copies of Kierkegaard’s writings. Kierkegaard liked to give dedicated copies of his books to people he knew. a person like mynster received almost every book Kierkegaard ever published. apart from him, only Heiberg seems to have received so many. to date nine copies of Kierkegaard’s writings have been found with personal dedications to madvig. this supposes that madvig was one of the select few to whom Kierkegaard wanted to show his respect and dedication. it is very probable that madvig received 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Pap. iv B 117, p. 280. Pap. vi B 16. Pap. vi B 133, p. 221. Pap. vii–2 B 274, p. 17. Pap. vii–1 B 87, p. 285. SKS, 18, 294, JJ:463 / KJN 2, 272f. Pap. X–6 B 116, p. 151.

Johan Nicolai Madvig: The Master of Latin in Kierkegaard’s Parnassus

231

even more, for instance, a copy of the thesis, since he was an official examiner. In this respect it is striking that Kierkegaard’s library at his death did not contain any of madvig’s books whatsoever. it is not completely impossible that he could have had copies of his books at an earlier stage, but it does not seem likely that madvig dedicated any copies of his books to his former pupil.25 Kierkegaard seemed for quite a long time to have flirted with the idea of taking a real job. in march 1849 he gathered enough resolve to actually apply for a position as a teacher in the pastoral seminary. at this time madvig was minister of Cultural affairs and a key person to see in such matters. therefore, Kierkegaard at one point paid a visit to Madvig’s office, without meeting him there.26 at a later point he met madvig, who then seemed odd to Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard judges that his peculiar mood stemmed from his conversations with mynster about him.27 as mentioned, the relationship between Kierkegaard and madvig was mostly one of admiration. madvig was the excellent scholar of Latin to Kierkegaard—no more, no less. the few places where Kierkegaard seems to refer directly to the content of Madvig’s writings, the reading is either superficial, as in the case of Madvig’s philosophy of language, or not prevalent, as in the case of madvig’s ancient history. therefore, the position of madvig must mostly be considered in terms of his position as a figure in the psychology of Kierkegaard. As suggested in the above quotations, madvig served as the authority who would stand through any literary attack. as an unquestioned authority in his field, he could serve as a contrast to superficial or foppish intellectuals at the time. the extent of Kierkegaard’s acceptance of authority, although not acknowledged in the literature, nevertheless obviously served Kierkegaard as a pillar of security in a sea of irony. Kierkegaard needed father figures, and he was not the only one to choose Madvig as such. Madvig stood as the unquestioned authority for many of his contemporaries, especially in the educational field. a certain resemblance between the two must be mentioned in this context. at the turn of the nineteenth century, the danish philosopher Harald Høffding (1843– 1931) tried to sum up a stream of thought in danish nineteenth-century philosophy. this included niels treschow (1751–1833), sibbern, poul martin møller (1794– 1838), and Kierkegaard. Common to these thinkers was a “sense of and interest in psychology, priority to experience, stress on individuality and the importance of individual differences, critical sober-mindedness faced with speculation.”28 a closer reading of madvig’s contributions to philosophy of language and educational philosophy shows him to be true to this danish tradition. But Kierkegaard was obviously not aware of this brother in arms. For Kierkegaard, madvig alone was the unquestioned master of Latin.

My thanks to Gert Posselt for the kind help in finding this information. See also Niels Jørgen Cappelørn, gert posselt, and Bent rohde, Tekstspejle. Om Søren Kierkegaard som bogtilrettelægger, boggiver og bogsamler, esbjerg: rosendahls Forlag 2002, pp. 79ff. 26 SKS 22, 116, nB11:193. 27 SKS 24, 399-401, nB24:125. 28 Harald Høffding, Danske Filosofer, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1909, p. 118. 25

Bibliography I. Madvig’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library the minutes of speeches made by madvig: “Hvorledes bliver ‘Folkekirkens’ stilling? (Forhandlinger paa rigsdagen d. 11 og 12 avril 1849,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 4, no. 189, 1849 [for the minutes of madvig’s speech], see columns 537–9 and column 543 (ASKB 321–325). “Hvorledes bliver ‘Folkekirkens’ stilling? ii. Forhandlinger paa rigsdagen den 2 og 3 maj,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 190, 1849 [for the minutes of madvig’s speech], see column 565. “om religionsfriheden udenfor den danske Folkekirke. et uddrag af rigsdagsforhandlingerne den 12. apr. samt 3. og 5. mai,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 192, 1849 [for the minutes of madvig’s speech], see columns 598–600 and vol. 4, no. 193, 1849, columns 612–14. “Folketingets Forhandlinger om religions- og samvttighedsfrihed,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 268, 1850 [for the minutes of madvig’s speech], see columns, 983–8 and vol. 5, no. 269, columns 1013–14. II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Madvig none. III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Madvig Jensen, Povl Johannes, “Madvig som filolog,” in Johan Nicolai Madvig. Et mindeskrift, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1955–63, vol. 2. pp. 1–209. spang-Hanssen, e., “madvig og Københavns universitet,” in Johan Nicolai Madvig et mindeskrift, vol. 2, pp. 211–73.

Christian molbech: proverbs and punctuation: the inspiration of a danish philologist Kim ravn

each month the bad Baggesen awaits us in Danfana with wickness, mixed with something humorous and some rubbish.... in bitterness i almost tore the issue in half when i read it. Christian molbech1

I. Christian Molbech: Short Biography the danish historian, philologist, and librarian Christian molbech was born on october 8, 1783 and died on June 23, 1857. when molbech was 13 years old he was supposed to travel to india with a danish family in order to learn the trade of a businessman. But he never managed to make it that far; in elsinor, about three hours by boat to the north of Copenhagen, he had to leave the ship in part due to seasickness and in part due to homesickness. in 1802 he entered the university and began immediately thereafter to study law. But he soon abandoned this and never took his student examination. in 1804 he began work on a volunteer basis at the royal Library, and the following year in 1805 he was named “amanuensis.” in 1823 King Frederik VI (1768–1839) appointed him first library secretary, the second highest post at the library, a position which he held until his death in 1857. His tasks included recommending for purchase specific books from foreign literature in modern languages and binding books. the appointment was a reward for molbech’s journey to sweden together with rasmus nyerup (1759–1829) and rasmus rask (1787–1832), where the three under cover of a scholarly pretext were supposed to gain information about the political climate for the danish government due to the tense relation with sweden as a result of the napoleonic wars. denmark’s defeat, due to the disastrous alliance with France, led to denmark, in 1814 at the peace of Kiel, being obliged to give up norway to sweden, which itself had lost Finland to russia. the royal Library became the point of departure for molbech’s literary and scholarly production, which consisted of both poetry, accounts of journeys, Christian Molbechs Brevveksling med svenske forfattere og videnskabsmænd, vols. 1–3, ed. by morten Borup, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1956, vol. 1, p. 144.

1

234

Kim Ravn

dictionaries, and works on themes related to history or library science. molbech thus made a name for himself as a literary critic and in 1829 became professor of Literature at the university of Copenhagen. it is, however, his work with the danish language which has endured as his most significant scholarly achievement. On the basis of handwritten medieval manuscripts, he produced printed editions of, among other things, The Danish Rhymed Chronicle (1825)2 and Henrik Harpestreng’s Danish Manual of Medicine (1826).3 Further, his extensive work on a danish dictionary had fundamental significance for the 28-volume Dictionary of the Danish Language (1919–56).4 His pioneering works were Danish Dialect Lexicon (1841)5 and, as a tool for reading medieval texts, his Danish Glossary (1857–66).6 with, among other things, his Youthful Journeys in the Land of My Birth (1811),7 molbech contributed to forming the golden age’s view of denmark’s nature and history. in 1839 he took the initiative to create the danish Historical society and from 1840 to 1854 he edited the society’s (still existent) Historisk Tidsskrift, to which he himself contributed several articles on both political and cultural history. His main work is generally designated simply as the Danish Dictionary.8 as the labor of a single man, the dictionary took a long time to produce. the work was demanding; molbech complained in a letter from 1831 to the later Bishop Jakob peter mynster (1775–1854) about being attacked by the “dictionary disease.”9 there are similar remarks about the toilsome work in the introduction of the dictionary. the publishing house gyldendal commissioned the dictionary from molbech in 1813; it took him 10 years to collect the necessary materials and another 10 years to write the book. molbech alone read the proofs for altogether some 1,400 doublecolumned pages. the book was published in 1833 in two volumes. in his long Christian molbech (ed.), Den Danske Riimkrönike efter Gotfrid af Ghemens Udgave af Aaret 1495, trykt paa ny, med afvigende Læsemaader i sildigere Udgaver, og Ordfortolkninger, Copenhagen: thiele 1825. 3 Christian molbech (ed.), Henrik Harpestrengs danske Lægebog fra det trettende Aarhundrede første Gang udgivet efter et Pergamentshaandskrift i det store Kongelige Bibliothek, Copenhagen: thiele 1826. 4 Ordbog over det danske Sprog, vols. 1–28, established by verner dahlerup, ed. by det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1919–56. 5 Christian molbech, Dansk Dialect-Lexikon, indeholdende Ord, Udtryk og Talemaader af den danske Almues Tungemaal i Rigets forskiellige Landskaber og Egne, forsaavidt som de ere fremmede for Skriftsproget og almindelig Sprogbrug, med Forklaring og Oplysninger, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1841 (ASKB 1033). 6 Christian molbech, Dansk Glossarium eller Ordbog over forældede danske Ord af Diplomer, Haandskrifter og trykte Bøger fra det 13de til det 16de Aarhundrede, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1856–66. 7 Christian molbech, Ungdomsvandringer i mit Fødeland, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1811–15. 8 Christian molbech, Dansk Ordbog indeholdende det danske Sprogs Stammeord, tilligemed afledede og sammensatte Ord, efter den nuværende Sprogbrug forklarede i deres forskiellige Betydninger, og ved Talemaader og Exempler oplyste, af Christian Molbech. Med en kort Oversigt af det danske Sprogs Historie, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag 1833 (ASKB 1032). 9 morten Borup, Christian Molbech, Copenhagen: rosenkilde & Bagger 1954, p. 207. 2

Molbech: Proverbs and Punctuation: The Inspiration of a Danish Philologist

235

foreword, he formulates his goal clearly and concisely: the goal of the dictionary is “to be an interpreter for correct usages of the pure, the cultivated written language in our present age.”10 this means that entirely “barbaric” words like, for example, “Geburtsdag” are omitted, although linguistic usages which were entirely normal at the time were replaced by a more danish, but at the time much less common word, namely, “Fødselsdag.”11 Contrary to molbech’s expectations, but entirely in harmony with his innermost hopes, the dictionary sold out in 1853, and, in spite of his many complaints, he managed to prepare a “second, expanded and improved edition,” which was published in 1859, less than two years after his death. the second edition appeared in one volume and was considerably larger than the first edition.12 molbech became a member of the royal theater’s board of directors in 1830 when he replaced the deceased Knud Lyne rahbek (1760–1830). molbech was not a suitable choice for this position. He did not know much about drama, and he almost never went to the theater. it did not take long before his relation to the playwrights and actors became strained. in particular, he received a bad name for an overly zealous calculation of the honorariums for the playwrights, and he therefore chose the censor as his most important work at the theater. Kierkegaard gives witness to his obstinate nature in the journal entry nB:18 from april or may 1846: one day Councillor molbech was here. He congratulated me on my eccentricity, on my strange way of life, because it benefited my work. “I would like to do the same,” he said, then he went on to say that the same day he had to go to a dinner and “there i have to drink wine, which i cannot tolerate, but one cannot get out of it, for then begins the: ah, just one glass, Councillor; it will do you good.” i answered: “nothing is easier to prevent. do not say a word about not being able to tolerate wine, for then you yourself egg on the foolish sympathy. sit down at the table; when you are served wine, smell of it and then express with a look that the wine is not good. then the host will become angry and will not press you.” to which molbech answered: “no, i cannot do that; why should I fall out with people?” I answered: “In order to get your own way. Is that not sufficient molbech, Dansk Ordbog, vol. 1, p. vii. Borup, Christian Molbech, Borup’s extensive biography follows molbech through the diverse scholarly fields in which he developed his skills. Borup’s biography is stamped by a veneration for both the man and his work, which cannot be said of the portrait presented by p.L. møller (1814–65). He begins his sketch with the following description: “C. molbech is descended (according to erslev’s literature lexicon) on his fathers’ side, from a saddlemaker, and this fact does not seem to be wholly irrelevant for the leathery toughness with which he to a certain degree worked all of literature’s fields and won a name for himself almost for the quantity of his works.” “Christian molbech (født 1783.) et Litteraturbillede,” in p.L. møller, Kritiske Skizzer fra Aarene 1840–47, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1847, vol. 2, p. 127. 12 The second edition has the same title as the first edition and contains 3,136 columns along with a preface of 68 pages. the second edition was published by molbech’s son, the poet C.F.K. Molbech (1821–88). This second edition corrects direct errors in the first edition and increases the number of literary quotations; these stem partly from older authors and partly from newer ones who appeared after 1833. in the introduction, nothing is said about which new authors have been included. 10 11

236

Kim Ravn reason?” But so it goes: first of all to chatter about it to me for an hour and make a fool of me with all that wind, then go to dinner and chatter about it—and drink, then go home and feel bad from it—and chatter about it all night long with his wife: this is living and being interesting.13

on the whole molbech’s intercourse with other people was generally problematic and full of conflict. As a rule he appeared at the Royal Library right before closing time and stayed there until very late. molbech conceived the library as a museum, whose objects, that is, the books, should be protected against the public, that is, the library’s users. II. Christian Molbech’s Authorship although molbech was an autodidact, his authorship ranges over a considerable number of disciplines. this is also in evidence in the numerous overviews from his hand on fields such as history, literature, philology, and the Soranians. His correspondence with swedish scholars and authors has been made the object of study for a Habilitation thesis.14 From The Auction Catalogue of søren Kierkegaard’s library one learns that at Kierkegaard’s death there were several works by molbech in his private book collection. these are, among others, Contribution to a History and Linguistic Analysis of the Danish Bible Translations,15 Analects, Literary, Critical and Historical,16 On the Nature and Character of Old Danish Folk Songs,17 Danish Proverbs, Maxims and Rhymed Apophthegms,18 King Christian V’s Diaries,19 The Dukedom of Schleswig in SKS 20, 29, nB:18 / JP, 5 5897. For an account of molbech as historian, see, for example, Johannes steenstrup, Historieskrivningen i det nittende Aarhundrede, Copenhagen: selskabet for udgivelse af Kilder til dansk Historie 1921 and ellen Jørgensen, Historiens Studium i Danmark i det 19. Aarhundrede, Copenhagen: Københavns universitets Fond til tilvejebringelse af Læremidler 1943. 15 Christian molbech, Bidrag til en Historie og Sprogskildring af de danske Bibeloversættelser fra det XVIde Aarhundrede, særdeles Christian den Tredies Bibel af 1550. Et Indbydelsesskrift til Reformationshøitiden ved Kiøbenhavns Universitet i Aaret 1840, Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1840 (ASKB 34). 16 Christian molbech, Analekter, literaire, kritiske, historiske, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB 973–974). 17 Christian molbech, Om de gamle danske Folkevisers Beskaffenhed og Forhold, deres Skikkelse i Haandskrifter og trykte Udgaver, og om Grundsætninger for deres Udgivelse, Copenhagen: Bianco Luno, Kgl. Hof-Bogtrykkeri 1848 (ASKB 1482). 18 Christian molbech (ed.), Danske Ordsprog, Tankesprog og Riimsprog af trykte og utrykte Kilder, Copenhagen: samfundet til den danske Literaturs Fremme 1850 (ASKB 1573). 19 Kong Christian den Femtes egenhændige Dagbøger for Aarene 1689, 1690, 1691 og 1696, udgivne efter Originalerne, med en Indledning, og et Tillæg af utrykte Bidrag til denne Konges Historie, m.m., Copenhagen: trykt hos Kgl. Hofbogtrykker Bianco Luno 1848 (published originally, in Nyt historisk Tidsskrift, udgivet af den danske historiske Forening, ved Selskabets Bestyrelse, ed. by C. molbech, vol. 1, 1847, pp. 469–530) (ASKB 2014). 13 14

Molbech: Proverbs and Punctuation: The Inspiration of a Danish Philologist

237

its Relation to Denmark and Holsten,20 and the above already mentioned Danish Dictionary and Danish Dialect Lexicon.21 III. Molbech in Kierkegaard’s Writings molbech does not occupy many pages in søren Kierkegaard’s authorship, but he can be followed all the way through his writings. the most frequent direct references concern molbech’s Lectures on Modern Danish Poetry, Especially on the Works of the Poets Ewald, Baggesen and Oehlenschläger (1832).22 the most frequent indirect references concern molbech’ collection Danish Proverbs, Maxims and Rhymed Apophthegms (1850). the two types of references are also distributed through the published works, in which the most frequent allusions are to Danish Proverbs, Maxims and Rhymed Apophthegms, while the journals and notebooks contain excerpts and quotations from molbech’s lectures on danish poetry. The first reference to Molbech in Kierkegaard’s authorship is indirect and is found in the part of the Journal AA which was presumably written during the summer of 1835. in the entry aa:12 Kierkegaard quotes in a footnote the proverb, “You shall hear the truth from children and the insane.”23 this proverb is registered as number 3003 in molbech’s Danish Proverbs, Maxims and Rhymed Apophthegms, which, as mentioned, Kierkegaard had in his library. the date 1850 makes it clear that he did not quote it from molbech’s collection of proverbs. But there is more to it than this. The proverbs functioned as a kind of rhetorical or narrative semi-finished products, which are without any actual source and yet circulate in the language and function on the strength of their utterability in virtually any context. that means that they can be applied and repeated in every conceivable context, as concluding rhetorical elements. the extensive use of or allusion to stock phrases and proverbs found in Kierkegaard’s authorship therefore cannot be ascribed to a primary source. in the Journal BB there are two allusions to proverbs which are registered in molbech’s collection. The first appears in entry BB:37 and reads as follows: “what one learns in youth one does not forget in old age.”24 the second appears in entry BB:38 and reads as follows: “are thoughts then not duty-free?”25 these proverbs are registered in molbech as numbers 1240 and 3474, respectively. Christian molbech, Hertugdømmet Slesvig i dets Forhold til Kongeriget Danmark, og til Holsten. En kort historisk Skizze, Copenhagen 1848 (offprint of an article published with the same title in Nyt historisk Tidsskrift, udgivet af den danske historiske Forening, ved Selskabets Bestyrelse, ed. by Christian molbech, vol. 1, 1847, pp. 261–418) (ASKB 2015). 21 molbech, Dansk Ordbog; Dansk Dialect-Lexikon. 22 Christian molbech, Forelæsninger over den nyere danske Poesie, særdeles efter Digterne Ewalds, Baggesens og Oehlenschlägers Værker, parts 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1832. 23 SKS 17, 28.31–2, aa:12 / KJN 1, 22, note: “Af Børn og Afsindige skal man høre Sandheden.” 24 SKS 17, 131, BB:37 / KJN 1, 125: “Hvad man i Ungdommen nemmer, man i Alderdommen ei glemmer.” 25 SKS 17, 133, BB:38 / KJN 1, 125: “ere da Tankerne ikke Toldfrie.” 20

238

Kim Ravn

the Journal JJ contains more than 100 entries, which in various ways furnished Kierkegaard with material for the books he wrote during the period from may 1842 to december 1846. in this journal there is a single entry which refers to a proverb; the entry JJ:26026 is introduced with the words “to exchange the temporal for the eternal,” a proverb registered by molbech in the Danish Dictionary.27 the earliest direct reference in Kierkegaard’s authorship is found in the Journal BB and in Notebook 3 and is to molbech’s Lectures on Modern Danish Poetry from 1832. The work falls into two parts and consists of altogether 26 lectures; the first part contains lectures 1–12 and the second, lectures 13–26. molbech’s lectures treat “danish poetry from our age and that immediately preceding it, regarded partly from a historical and partly from an aesthetic-critical standpoint.”28 Kierkegaard excerpted the first part of the lectures in Notebook 3, in entry not3:18, which was written in March 1836, while the first entry in the Journal BB, which is dated march 24, 1836, contains an excerpt from the second part of molbech’s lectures. the excerpt from the first part is concentrated on lectures 1 and 9–11. The first lecture outlines the historical and aesthetic conditions, which were the presupposition for the following lectures, and which indirectly will be their subject matter. the 9th and 10th lectures treat the poet Johannes Ewald (1743–81), and finally the 11th lecture concerns the poet Jens Baggesen (1764–1826). the excerpt from the second part of molbech’s lectures is concentrated on lectures number 13 and 16–17, which treat Jens Baggesen, along with the 21st lecture which is a presentation of “romantic” poetry, which “is assumed to distinguish itself from previous poetry” that is regarded as “constituting its own province in the kingdom of art.”29 in the Journal FF, which was written between september 1836 and september 1838, several references to molbech’s lectures on poetry can be found in entry FF:70. the entry was presumably written between may and october 1837, and it refers to the 21st lecture, which concerns “the romantic.” in this lecture molbech emphasizes that although “the romantic” seems to be a radical break with the past and thereby with its historical presuppositions in “the classic,” it is not possible to imagine an “insurmountable boundary…between the old and the new in art—or assume it to be impossible to find something of that which one understands by Romanticism in the poetry of the ancients.”30 in other words, molbech emphasizes the historical continuity between different periods of literature, even if they might hardly seem so different. IV. Molbech’s Dictionary if there is a special reason for emphasizing molbech’s dictionary here, apart from the fact that it is his main work, it is due to the fact that Kierkegaard himself assigns a place of central importance to the work. in a longer entry from 1847, nB:146, 26 27 28 29 30

SKS 18, 222, JJ:260 / KJN 2, 204: “At omskifte det Timelige med det Evige.” molbech, Dansk Ordbog, vol. 2, p. 114. molbech, Forelæsninger over den nyere danske Poesie, vol. 1, p. vii. ibid., vol. 2, p. 180. ibid., p. 181.

Molbech: Proverbs and Punctuation: The Inspiration of a Danish Philologist

239

from the first of the 36 NB journals which Kierkegaard wrote during the period from 1847 to 1855, he writes the following under the heading, “something about my punctuation”: with respect to spelling i submit unconditionally to authority (molbech); it never occurs to me to want to rectify it, because i know that i am not equipped in that sphere, and therefore i readily admit that just about any danish author is perhaps more meticulous in his spelling than i am.31

the rest of the long entry, however, concerns Kierkegaard’s punctuation and how it plays an essential rhetorical role in his writing. He then also admits that he is not particularly careful or attentive to his orthography—punctuation plays a wholly decisive role in Kierkegaard’s texts, one different from that of orthography. molbech’s dictionary is organized according to the normative academy principle. in other words, it includes only those forms which the editor thinks can be contained within the realm of decorum, that is, words which do not strike one as disagreeable in relation to a cultivated linguistic disposition. in the preface to the dictionary molbech expresses his academy principle as follows: this is a dictionary of the danish language in its living form, with careful consideration of the written language, but also containing everything that belongs to language in the common and cultivated linguistic usage (whose authority in every doubtful case is given preference to the language teachers’ arbitrary rules)…but also with the exclusion of everything inessential, irrelevant to the plan: everything ought to be able to be found in a general dictionary of the danish language as it appears in writing and cultivated speech….32

the dictionary therefore does not give an accurate picture of the current state of the language and how the language was used; molbech writes “words from the vulgar language, or words from the countryside [Landskabsord, i.e., words from local dialects] can least of all be found in this dictionary; very seldom have such words been included.”33 also new words are included only very sparingly, just as poetic neologisms “are passed over with diligence” either because they “are not felicitously formed on their own terms” or because they “have come into existence in a single specific context.”34 although the limitations caused by the academy principle are evident, nonetheless molbech’s realization or application of the principle in the dictionary is successful on three essential points. First, he supports his examples of the words’ use and meaning both with examples which he himself has made and with quotations from actual literature or as he himself calls them, “Skriftsteder.” on page XX in his preface molbech gives a list of some 50 authors who have provided quotations for the dictionary. these cover a period of time of around 300 years, beginning with Christiern pedersen (1510–34) and finishing with Christian Olufsen (1763–1827). In addition to this, there are “the ones 31 32 33 34

SKS 20, 98, nB:146 / JP 5, 5981. molbech, Dansk Ordbog, vol. 1, p. iX. ibid., p. iX. ibid., p. Xi.

240

Kim Ravn

still living,” of which 14 in all are mentioned directly by name. many of the names have been forgotten today, but this underscores molbech’s empirical and practical application of the academy principle. second, and presumably as a result of its empirical point of departure, the dictionary gives excellent and precise explanations of the meaning of the individual words. this means that the dictionary from the point of view of the present gives insight into changed or forgotten meanings (an invaluable help for philologists and translators). third, which has nothing to do with the academy principle, molbech gives many good examples of phraseology, that is, examples of fixed expressions and locutions. V. Kierkegaard’s Use of Molbech as mentioned, Kierkegaard’s use of proverbs which are registered in molbech’s Ordsprog, Tankesprog og Riimsprog cannot be traced directly back to molbech as Kierkegaard’s original source since molbech’s collection was only published in 1850. A proverb expresses in an anonymous form, in fixed and pregnant images, certain explanations or evaluations of recognizable human situations, and, as such, has no real clearly defined source.35 the excerpts from molbech’s lectures in the Journal BB and Notebook 3 are thus the first time that Kierkegaard directly refers to Molbech in his authorship. Both excerpts are quite short; the excerpts from the first and second part of the lectures take up three pages in the manuscript to Notebook 3, and not quite four manuscript pages in the Journal BB. in both places Kierkegaard proceeds in the same fashion: first he quotes, almost verbatim, a passage from Molbech, which is subsequently briefly commented upon. In the entry Not3:18 Kierkegaard comments on a passage from the first lecture, which treats “the universal” [det almene], and lectures 9 and 10 on Johannes ewald, and lecture 11, which is dedicated to Jens Baggesen. molbech writes about “the universal” that the work of art is just as accessible to everyone regardless of “whether the beholder is a spaniard or an englishman.”36 Kierkegaard objects that there will always be a distance or gap between the viewer and the work of art, namely “the national individuality [det folkelige-Individuelle] by which the poet was essentially nurtured.” moreover, “a certain historical aspect is more prominent—which consists in contemplating that such and such was the case with that people.”37

see iver Kjær, “gode ord er bedre end guld. om ordsprogs art og brug,” in Gode ord er bedre end guld. Ordsprog i perspektiv, ed. by Henrik Blicher, Copenhagen: rundetårns Forlag 1993 (exhibition catalogue published on occasion of the exhibition Den blinde høne— og andre ordsprog in the round tower), pp. 11–19. 36 SKS 19, 119, not3:18 / JP 5, 5134. molbech’s lectures are quoted here from Kierkegaard’s excerpt in Notebook 3. 37 ibid. 35

Molbech: Proverbs and Punctuation: The Inspiration of a Danish Philologist

241

the next commentary to molbech concerns his description of the relation between form and content in ewald’s singspiel, The Fishermen,38 a description which apparently meets with Kierkegaard’s approbation. according to molbech, the Singspiel is not about a realistic description of the fishermen. Ewald’s intent was quite different; the work had “a poetic aim which could not but raise evald’s spirit, inflamed by love of the fatherland, to a more lofty lyrical enthusiasm than that required by a merely idyllic-emotional subject.”39 the remaining three comments on molbech in Notebook 3 are all almost verbatim quotations with references to where in the Lectures on Modern Danish Poetry the quotation has been taken. The first of the three passages treats the romance “little gunvert,” the second remarks about “how the prose of ordinary life [Borgerlivets Prosa] has been used in poetic rendering,” and the last gives a description of the connection between Jens Baggesen’s life and poetry. the remarks on molbech’s lectures in entry BB:1, concern lectures 13 and 16– 17, which are all concerned with Baggesen, and lecture 21, which concerns “the romantic.” the entry is introduced with a quotation from page 15 in the second part of the lectures, where molbech discusses the difference between the ancient and the modern elegy’s form and content. The second and final remark stems from the 21st lecture, where molbech discusses “the romantic.” Kierkegaard quotes here and there from pages 181 to 198 of the lectures, and weaves his sporadic commentaries into the quotations—commentaries which, on the whole, are in agreement with Molbech’s various definitions. the entry about Kierkegaard’s punctuation, nB:146, which takes its point of departure in molbech’s dictionary, is followed by four further entries, nB:147–50, in which Kierkegaard writes more about his characteristic punctuation and orthography. in nB:146, which is introduced with a word of recognition of molbech’s authority and an admission that he, that is, Kierkegaard, is not especially careful with his orthography, continues with a detailed description of the meaning of punctuation for Kierkegaard’s writing. He writes, “it is quite different with punctuation. Here i yield to absolutely no one.”40 Kierkegaard distinguishes between scholarly and rhetorical works. at the general level, punctuation in the two types of writing is distinguished decisively from the general norm, however, most clearly in the rhetorical writings. However, what is important for grammarians in both cases is that “i do not by any means presume to submit my books to school boys and very young men as formal patterns of punctuation.”41 after this there follows a detailed account of the use of the

Johannes ewald’s singspiel, Fiskerne. Et Syngespil i tre Handlinger: en Prisdigt (Copenhagen: Christian gottlob prost 1779) is based on actual events. on november 19, 1774 five fishermen from Hornbæk (some 50 km north of Copenhagen) tried to rescue the crew of a wrecked english ship. they only managed to save the captain. ewald knew of these events from ove malling’s Store og gode Handlinger af Danske, Norske og Holstenere, Copenhagen: gyldendals Forlag 1777. 39 SKS 19, 120, not3:18 / JP 5, 5134. 40 SKS 20, 98, nB:146 / JP 5, 5981. 41 ibid. 38

242

Kim Ravn

colon, semicolon, and period, and the significance of “the architectonic-dialectical” element and also of the voice “if one reads aloud.”42 the next, rather short entry, nB:147, concerns the use of the question mark. Kierkegaard writes: “generally speaking the question mark is fatuously misused.”43 the reserved use is due to the fact that it is “rhetorically correct” and since “one cannot bear reading numerous questions aloud.”44 the next two entries are likewise short, nB:147 and nB149. in nB:148 Kierkegaard describes his general use of the dash in the context of its use as a mark of division, where a new section would represent too great of a break in the text.45 the colon is also an important punctuation mark for Kierkegaard. in nB:149 he describes the extensive function which he ascribes to the colon and the dash.46 the entire entry reads as follows: “ethical accent, pithiness of concept, antithesis, lucidity of two parts of a figure on one line, rhetorical emphasis, etc.: for all this i use a colon and dash, especially for the ironical in order to make it clear. —as a rule i use the colon for speech.”47 The last entry in the series of reflections on the connection between punctuation and rhetoric, nB:150, has the heading “My Future Punctuation.” the entry continues where nB:149 left off, namely, with the discussion of the colon but now in a more conceptual perspective. at the beginning of nB:150, Kierkegaard writes that in the future he will use quotation marks only in connection with quotations and will not, as previously, use both the colon and quotation marks. the colon is reserved “to form the conclusion” and to express “that two clauses are placed on a par with one another in a total context.”48 the colon thus sets two sentences or phrases in a parallel relation, grammatically and conceptually, and in order to underscore this point, Kierkegaard avails himself of a figurative presentation. He writes,

SKS 20, 99, nB:146 / JP 5, 5981. SKS 20, 100, nB:147 / JP 5, 5983. 44 ibid. 45 SKS 20, 100, nB:148 / JP 5, 5984. 46 in Works of Love (1847) there is another example of the use of the dash as a rhetorical element. in “Love does not seek its own” from the “second series” Kierkegaard writes about the possibility of good deeds of which the recipient is unaware: “therefore: to stand by oneself—through another’s help! many authors use the dash [Tankestreg, thought-line] on every occasion of thought-failure; there are also authors who use the dash with insight and taste; but a dash has truly never been used more significantly and never can be used more significantly than in this little sentence—if used, note well, by someone who has accomplished it....But this other person’s help is hidden from him—the one who was helped? no, from the eyes of the independent one (for if he knows that he has been helped, then in the deepest sense he of course is not the independent one who helps and has helped himself); it is hidden behind the dash.” SKS 9, 273–4 / WL, 275. 47 SKS 20, 100, nB:149 / JP 5, 5985. 48 SKS 20, 100, nB:150 / JP 5, 5986. 42 43

Molbech: Proverbs and Punctuation: The Inspiration of a Danish Philologist

243

the colon does this, even makes it perceptible to the eye. –:– The colon establishes reflexivity, perspective, and transparency in the sentence in such a way, for example, that by the colon the antecedent clause is carried through the consequent clause and vice versa.49

the special grammatical function of the colon, the establishing of a parallelism or equality of two phrases, is also true of “two ideas in one clause (for example, antitheses).” 50 Kierkegaard concludes nB:150 with an example of this parallelism in an epistemological context: it is one thing to say: what double-mindedness fears is to suffer punishment; it is a quite different thing to say: what double-mindedness fears is: to suffer punishment. this punctuation expresses that to fear punishment is constitutive of double-mindedness, is the definitional mark of double-mindedness, precisely because in it is contained a self-contradiction, a vacillation, a doubleness, which are characteristic of doublemindedness.51

Although only the first section of the entry NB:146 is directly concerned with Molbech, it is clear that the rest of NB:146 and the subsequent reflections in NB:147– 50, were set into motion by the remarks about molbech. although there are not many references to molbech in Kierkegaard’s authorship, the journal entries nB:146 and nB:147–50 are especially interesting since here Kierkegaard offers some reflections about the “oral” dimension of his texts. Translated by Jon Stewart

49 50 51

ibid. SKS 20, 101, nB:150 / JP 5, 5986. ibid.

Bibliography I. Molbech’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Bidrag til en Historie og Sprogskildring af de danske Bibeloversættelser fra det XVIde Aarhundrede, særdeles Christian den Tredies Bibel af 1550. Et Indbydelsesskrift til Reformationshøitiden ved Kiøbenhavns Universitet i Aaret 1840, Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1840 (ASKB 34). Analekter, literaire, kritiske, historiske, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB 973–974). Dansk Ordbog indeholdende det danske Sprogs Stammeord, tilligemed afledede og sammensatte Ord, efter den nuværende Sprogbrug forklarede i deres forskiellige Betydninger, og ved Talemaader og Exempler oplyste, af Christian Molbech. Med en kort Oversigt af det danske Sprogs Historie, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1833 (ASKB 1032). Dansk Dialect-Lexikon, indeholdende Ord, Udtryk og Talemaader af den danske Almues Tungemaal i Rigets forskiellige Landskaber og Egne, forsaavidt som de ere fremmede for Skriftsproget og almindelig Sprogbrug, med Forklaring og Oplysninger, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1841 (ASKB 1033). Om de gamle danske Folkevisers Beskaffenhed og Forhold, deres Skikkelse i Haandskrifter og trykte Udgaver, og om Grundsætninger for deres Udgivelse, Copenhagen: Bianco Luno, Kgl. Hof-Bogtrykkeri 1848 (ASKB 1482). Kong Christian den Femtes egenhændige Dagbøger for Aarene 1689, 1690, 1691 og 1696, udgivne efter Originalerne, med en Indledning, og et Tillæg af utrykte Bidrag til denne Konges Historie, m.m., Copenhagen: trykt hos Kgl. Hofbogtrykker Bianco Luno 1848 (originally in Nyt historisk Tidsskrift, udgivet af den danske historiske Forening, ved Selskabets Bestyrelse, ed. by Christian molbech, vol. 1, 1847, pp. 469–530) (ASKB 2014). Hertugdømmet Slesvig i dets Forhold til Kongeriget Danmark, og til Holsten. En kort historisk Skizze, Copenhagen 1848 (offprint of an article published with the same title in Nyt historisk Tidsskrift, udgivet af den danske historiske Forening, ved Selskabets Bestyrelse, ed. by Christian molbech, vol. 1, 1847, pp. 261–418) (ASKB 2015). Haand-Ordbog til Retskrivnings og Sprogrigtigheds Fremme med Grundtræk af den danske Retskrivningslære, Copenhagen: F. Brummer 1813 (ASKB a ii 9). Fortællinger og Skildringer af den danske Historie. Udgivet af Selskabet for Trykkefrihedens rette Brug, vols. 1–2 (in four pieces), Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1837–40 (ASKB a ii 201–204). Julegave for Børn. 1835, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel [1835] (ASKB u 81).

Molbech: Proverbs and Punctuation: The Inspiration of a Danish Philologist

245

(ed.), Danske Ordsprog, Tankesprog og Riimsprog af trykte og utrykte Kilder, Copenhagen: samfundet til den danske Literaturs Fremme 1850 (ASKB 1573). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Molbech mynster, Jakob peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: den gyldendal 1852–53 (vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: den gyldendal 1855–57), vol. 2, p. 392; p. 395; pp. 403–4 (ASKB 358–363). steenstrup, mathias g.g., Historisk-kritisk Oversigt over Forsögene paa at give en Historiens Filosofi, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1854, p. 2; p. 137, note (ASKB 792). thortsen, Carl adolph, Historisk Udsigt over den danske Litteratur indtil Aar 1814, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839, p. 141; p. 147; p. 151 (ASKB 970). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Molbech Fenger, Henning, 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. 5; p. 55; p. 192. (originally as Kierkegaard-Myter og Kierkegaard-Kilder. 9 kildekritiske studier i de Kierkegaardske papirer, breve og aktstykker, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976.)

peder Ludvig møller: “if He Had Been a somewhat More Significant Person…” K. Brian söderquist

Peder Ludvig Møller belongs to a group of figures whose name has survived in Kierkegaardian scholarly circles first and foremost because of his personal relationship to Kierkegaard. His independent contributions to danish intellectual life as a poet and romantic author are negligible—even in all-inclusive historical studies of the literature of the danish golden age. Because, however, he served as co-editor of the popular newspaper The Corsair when Kierkegaard first makes an appearance in its pages, møller appears among the cast of characters named in Kierkegaard biographies. Kierkegaard speaks of The Corsair at length in his journals, but his assessments of møller there focus almost exclusively on what he takes to be the unjustified personal attacks in its pages. He is uninterested in Møller’s poetic or academic work as such. It thus seems most fitting to place Møller alongside characters such as regine olsen, søren’s father michael Kierkegaard, and his friend emil Boesen, who all play leading roles in Kierkegaard biographies, but little or no role as scholars. in keeping with the goals of this publication, this article asks if there are any academic and poetic texts by Møller that have influenced Kierkegaard’s thought. the results are modest: of all the passages in Kierkegaard’s authorship that refer to møller, none of them offers a serious assessment of his work, and it is unclear that he even read any of it. in short, Kierkegaard’s response to møller as a scholar or poet is so insignificant that it is difficult to speak of Møller as an intellectual influence at all, even if his role as editor of a tabloid newspaper is an occasion for Kierkegaard to reflect autobiographically. I. Peder Ludvig Møller’s Life and Works peder Ludvig møller was born on april 18, 1814 in aalborg in northern Jutland, where his father was an unsuccessful small businessman.1 He received a scholarship to study at the Cathedral school in aalborg and, after graduating in 1832, moved to Copenhagen, where he was formally enrolled at the theology department at the Frithiof Brandt, “p.L. møller. modellen til Johannes Forføreren?,” in his Den unge Søren Kierkegaard. En række nye bidrag, Copenhagen: Levin & munksgaard 1929, p. 183. 1

248

K. Brian Söderquist

university of Copenhagen. Like Kierkegaard, he spent some of his early years at the university studying other disciplines as well, including medicine and literature. He was admitted to regensen College, where he lived from 1834 to 1837 and was known as a provocative participant in internal college affairs.2 when his scholarship had come to an end at regensen, he moved across the street into elers College, where he lived until 1839. møller had begun to compose poetry during his early student years, and published a collection entitled Lyriske Digte in 1840. during the 1830s, he also published a host of short articles on literature and theater.3 Møller never finished the requirements for a theology degree, but in 1841 he submitted to the university a long treatise on French poetry in conjunction with an academic competition. He was awarded a so-called “gold medal” for his treatise, which put him in position to apply for an appointment at the university. in order to enhance his chances, in the early 1840s he began publishing his own literary periodical entitled Gæa. møller solicited contributions from many of the major names in danish intellectual circles, including the pseudonymous editor of Either/ Or, victor eremita (who declined).4 it is in the pages of Gæa that Møller took his first real public shot at Kierkegaard by mocking the writer of Stages on Life’s Way. after a typically sarcastic response from Kierkegaard, møller responded with a short open letter to mr. Frater taciturnus, Kierkegaard’s pseudonym, and then continued his side of the “debate” in the pages of The Corsair, which he also edited at the time. Kierkegaard published one last short article against møller a few days later, but continued his bitter polemic in private for many years. I will return briefly to this infamous public exchange below. Just over a year later, in 1847, møller republished many of his newspaper and journal articles in a volume entitled Kritiske Skizzer,5 and much of his early poetry was included in a book called Billeder og Sange.6 møller continued as co-editor of The Corsair until he left denmark later that year, never to return. He worked abroad as a journalist, mostly in paris, writing several articles with a more serious political tone. in 1858, he published one more major work on French and danish theater.7 He continued his journalistic work until died abroad in 1865. II: Kierkegaard on Møller’s Authorship: Nothing Demonstrable though møller is known among Kierkegaard biographers for his role in the Corsair controversy, there have been individual scholars who have suggested that møller’s poetic works influenced Kierkegaard before the Corsair affair erupted. the most ibid., p. 183. see thomas Hansen erslew, Almindeligt Forfatter-Lexicon for Kongeriget Danmark med tilhørende Bilande, fra 1814 til 1840, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: Forlagsforeningens Forlag 1843–53, vol. 2, pp. 405–7. 4 see Howard and edna Hong’s “Historical introduction,” COR, xii. 5 p.L. møller, Kritiske Skizzer fra Aarene 1840–47, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1847. 6 p.L. møller, Billeder og Sange, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1847. 7 p.L. møller, Det nyere Lystspil i Frankrig og Danmark, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1858. 2 3

Peder Ludvig Møller: “If He Had Been a Somewhat More Significant Person…” 249

extensive and well-researched example of this argument is found in Frithiof Brandt’s psychobiography, Den unge Søren Kierkegaard. En række nye bidrag. Brandt’s thesis is that Kierkegaard’s “Johannes the seducer” from Either/Or (1843) is not merely a “fictional” character but is likely based on the “real” characteristics of a living person, namely, P.L. Møller. In his own terms, Brandt wants to find a “foundation in reality”8 for the Johannes figure. Brandt admits that there is nothing in Kierkegaard’s or møller’s papers that proves any influence. Kierkegaard does not mention Møller in either his journals or his published works before The Corsair controversy begins to unfold in late 1845, which is more than two years after the publication of Either/Or. møller does not mention Kierkegaard at all in his extant posthumous papers, and there is nothing in møller’s published works before the composition of “the seducer’s diary” that suggests a literary connection.9 Brandt himself writes that “one can feel disappointed” when looking for documented evidence of Møller’s influence on Kierkegaard in møller’s published works.10 Brandt turns instead to møller’s private unpublished letters and manuscripts in search of thematic similarities between møller and Kierkegaard’s Johannes. The best fit, he suggests, is a never-published poem cycle about love, longing, and sensual desire that møller composed in the 1830s. given the fact that p.L. møller and Kierkegaard crossed paths frequently during their student years, it is at least possible, he argues, that Kierkegaard could have read møller’s manuscript when it was in the hands of a common acquaintance, and that this in turn could have inspired him as he wrote “the seducer’s diary.”11 it is at least possible, he says, that pseudonym a’s claim that he stumbled upon Johannes’ manuscript and copied it without his knowledge is not completely fictional, but rather has a “foundation in reality.” Brandt himself is the first to admit that this kind of argument relies on circumstance and that the aim of the argument is to open up the possibility that Kierkegaard read møller’s unpublished manuscript. and his work has indeed created room for speculation. that being said, there are so few similarities between the manuscript in question and “the seducer’s diary,” and the circumstances are so speculative, that it is difficult to move beyond the sphere of possibility and conclude that Møller’s poetic work influenced Kierkegaard at all. The textual evidence suggests agnosticism at best. interestingly, in the course of Brandt’s story, he does make a persuasive case for just the opposite: Kierkegaard’s influence upon Møller.12 what is clear from textual evidence is that Kierkegaard read møller’s newspaper articles that started the Corsair controversy. a short overview of møller’s role in the controversy will set the stage for what Kierkegaard has to say about møller.13 as we Brandt, Den unge Søren Kierkegaard, p. 161; p 163; p. 167; p. 183; p. 204; p. 231. ibid., p. 206. 10 ibid., p. 231. 11 ibid., pp. 202–4. 12 see, for example, ibid., pp. 214–18. 13 a perusal of biographical secondary literature on Kierkegaard reveals a history of taking sides on moral grounds or at least an interest in mining The Corsair for its tabloid 8 9

250

K. Brian Söderquist

will see, Kierkegaard’s interpretation of møller’s personal motivations as editor of The Corsair overshadow anything else he writes as a poet or scholar. III. Møller, Kierkegaard and the Corsair the relationship between Kierkegaard and The Corsair began several years before the bad feelings emerged. Kierkegaard’s work had been the object of interest for The Corsair as early as their playful review of his dissertation, On the Concept of Irony, where an anonymous reviewer pays his highest compliments to his “irony against the university.”14 The Corsair’s interest in his pseudonymous works continued when møller joined meïr goldschmidt (1819–89) as co-editor in 1842. goldschmidt15 reports that both were impressed by Either/Or, so much so that, as a playful gesture of their appreciation, they sent an invitation to victor eremita, the pseudonymous editor of Either/Or, to enjoy a bottle of fine wine with them in celebration of his publication.16 the public provocation begins with an article møller wrote and published in his own journal, Gæa, in December, 1845, where he presents a fictional conversation among denmark’s literary elite.17 in the course of the conversation, Stages on Life’s Way and other pseudonymous works become the focus. while the participants compliment Kierkegaard’s wit and intellect and never doubt his poetic fervor, they question whether he will ever master his talent and create organically unified works. using Kierkegaard’s criticism of Hans Christian andersen (1805–75) from From the Papers of One Still Living against him, they suggest he lacks the authorial overview necessary to manage a work, and he is needled for putting his own psyche on display for everyone to see. one character remarks: entertainment value; and perhaps the relationship between Kierkegaard and p.L. møller is best described as tabloid material: it consists of short, sarcastic exchanges—ostensibly about literature—between two well-educated men who had honed the skills of needling each other in a public forum. and while it is unclear what møller thought of the whole exchange, Kierkegaard kept a careful eye on the reaction and verdict of the reading public, and reflected on its significance for years. See, for example, Elias Bredsdorff, Goldschmidts “Corsaren”: Med en udførlig redegørelse for striden mellem Søren Kierkegaard og ”Corsaren,” aarhus: sirius 1962; rikard magnussen, Søren Kierkegaard set udefra. Efterskrift: Det særlige kors, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1942. 14 see Corsaren, no. 51, october 22, 1841, Copenhagen: n.p. morthensen 1841, p. 7. (photomechanical reproduction of Corsaren by det danske sprog- og Litteraturselskab, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1977, vol. 1, 1840–41, p. 422.) 15 in addition to Kierkegaard’s side of the story from his own journals, we also have an account given in the memoirs of the other editor of The Corsair, meïr goldschmidt, written decades after the fact; see meïr goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer og Resultater, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1877; see also Johnny Kondrup’s article on goldschmidt in this volume. 16 goldschmidt, Livs Erindringer, p. 318; see also elias Bredsdorff, “the Corsair,” in Kierkegaard as a Person, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1983 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 12), pp. 128–42, here pp. 131–2. 17 p.L. møller, “a visit to sorø. miscellany,” in Gæa: Æsthetisk Aarbog, 1846, pp. 144– 87 / COR, supplement, pp. 96–104 (partial translation).

Peder Ludvig Møller: “If He Had Been a Somewhat More Significant Person…” 251 what i have against all these books (which in form and content adequately betray a common source) is that every time one feels able to surrender to pure literary enjoyment the author gets in the way with his own personal ethical and religious development, which no one is really asking about…[He] commits the same error for which the poet andersen has been taken to task, for exposing his whole inner development to the public eye.18

Kierkegaard’s rhetoric is also lamented. one participant remarks: “He moves about in the language as an english clown, walking on his hands and turning somersaults in it, but he has no style, for he uses superfluous words and says everything that comes into his head.”19 Just a few days later, Kierkegaard responded with a typically dismissive pseudonymous article, “the activity of a traveling aesthetician and How He still Happened to pay for the dinner,”20 published in the journal Fædrelandet. Here, the tone becomes even more personal. Kierkegaard’s contempt for well-educated contemporaries of his own generation is apparent as he avoids any critical discussion and responds instead to what he takes to be møller’s attempt to climb the social ladder. Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Frater taciturnus complains that møller made a private conversation public, and did so to flatter himself because he keeps company with “famous men.”21 the critique is not interesting in itself, taciturnus writes, but becomes interesting only because it takes place in the home of a distinguished man.22 In short, he arrogantly refuses to respond to Møller’s specific criticism because, as he sees it, møller is not important enough: “if only p.L. møller had been a somewhat more significant person and it really was certain that he had read the book, I would have turned the phenomena to account and argued on that basis.”23 as a parting shot, taciturnus directs attention away from møller’s academic journal, Gæa, and towards møller’s tabloid, The Corsair, by sarcastically asking møller to write something about him in the latter. the implication is clear: even though møller would like to keep company with the most respected men of Copenhagen by publishing a serious journal, Gæa, in Kierkegaard’s mind, he belongs among the least respected, as is evident in his involvement with The Corsair. møller’s response, published in Fædrelandet two days later, was short and sweet. He writes that, as a matter of fact, the essay was not a transcript of an actual conversation at all; it was fiction.24 the goal seems to be to show that taciturnus’ ad hominem attack, focused on the idea that møller wanted to impress the world by 18 19 20

38–46.

møller, “a visit to sorø,” p. 176 / COR, supplement, pp. 98–9. møller, “a visit to sorø,” p. 178 / COR, supplement, pp. 100–1. Fædrelandet, no. 2078, december 27, 1845 (reprinted in SV1 Xiii, 422–31) / COR,

Fædrelandet, no. 2078, december 27, 1845 (SV1 Xiii, 425) / COR, 40–1. Fædrelandet, no. 2078, december 27, 1845 (SV1 Xiii, 425–6) / COR, 41. 23 Fædrelandet, no. 2078, december 27, 1845 (SV1 Xiii, 429) / COR, 44. 24 Fædrelandet, no. 2079, december 29, 1845; see COR, supplement, pp. 104–5. møller had indeed had conversations with Carsten Hauch, a respected critic in sorø. Hauch was apparently also aware of møller’s project: he sent møller a letter giving his permission to use his observations in the article. see COR, xii. 21 22

252

K. Brian Söderquist

publishing a private conversation with the literary elite, was misguided since møller made the whole thing up. with this, the exchange between møller and Kierkegaard ceases to deal with literature or literary critique. and this is the last we hear from møller directly. He does not publish anything against Kierkegaard in his own name—though he does write a witty review of the Postscript under a pseudonym a few years later25—nor does he mention the Corsair controversy in any of his extant posthumous papers. indirectly, however, møller continued the feud by complying with Kierkegaard’s wish to be in The Corsair: Kierkegaard’s name and caricatured figure began to show up there regularly. How much of this was møller’s decision and how much was goldschmidt’s, however, is not clear. Kierkegaard, for his part, made one of his last public statements about The Corsair just over a week later in Fædrelandet, again as Frater taciturnus. He says he feels compelled to protest against being praised in a tabloid like The Corsair, for the praise suggests some affinity between the two. He argues it would be more fitting for him to be abused there.26 IV. Kierkegaard’s Unpublished Reaction though Kierkegaard no longer responded publicly to the articles that continued to appear in The Corsair, he composed bitter retorts in private. as alluded to already, the journal passages about møller deal with his role as editor of The Corsair rather than his work as a scholar or poet—with one exception. when møller’s Critical Sketches was sent to him from his bookstore, C.a. reitzel, he writes the following: “p.L. møller has had the audacity to publish all his newspaper articles (from Kiøbenhavnsposten, Flyveposten, Figaro, etc.) in two volumes. of course i promptly sent them back to reitzel.”27 some of the other entries about møller are drafts to articles that were never published, and others are retrospective justifications for why he got involved with The Corsair at all.28 a closer examination of the passages themselves is out of place in an article which aims to locate Møller’s influence as a scholar, but to take one characteristic example, Kierkegaard explains why he felt obligated to challenge him: then came p.L. møller’s brilliant Gæa. among other things it contained a little attack (after praising the pseudonyms) on one of the pseudonyms. usually i pay no attention to such things, but this was different. Mr. P.L. Møller is sufficiently well-known to Danish literature, and for that reason i knew very well that i would make some people happy see Kjøbenhavsposten, nos. 73–4, march 26–7, 1846; see also COR, xxiv–xxv. see “the dialectical result of a Literary police action,” Fædrelandet, no. 9, January 10, 1846; see COR, 47–50. 27 SKS 20, 266–7 / JP 5, 6080. 28 see SKS 20, 15–19, nB:7 / JP 5, 5587. SKS 20, 79, nB:101 / JP 5, 5957. SKS 20, 182, nB2:104 / JP 5, 6031. SKS 21, 337–8, nB10:166 / JP 6, 6382. SKS 22, 204–5, nB12:110 / JP 6, 6474. SKS 22, 389–90, nB14:77 / JP 6, 6548. SKS 23, 277–80, nB18:44.a / JP 6, 6621. 25 26

Peder Ludvig Møller: “If He Had Been a Somewhat More Significant Person…” 253 by challenging him—therefore the article in Fædrelandet included the lines: “obtrusive as he (p.L.m.) is and known to many, i really believed i would be doing some people a service by challenging him for once.” it is so seldom that p.L.m. shows his true colors that i could not let the opportunity pass. so, far from being an article responding in selfdefense to an attack, it was a service i wanted to do for others. the main point of the article was to get mr. p.L.m. out of literature and the respectable company of famous danish authors into the dance hall of The Corsair, to which, according to an article he himself revised for the Who’s Who of Authors, he has already contributed both poetry and satire.29

perhaps Kierkegaard did indeed succeed in driving møller out of respectable company; and it might also be the case that møller managed to drive Kierkegaard out as well. møller did indeed play an important role in Kierkegaard’s life: his activity as an editor and Kierkegaard’s dislike for him as a person must be included in Kierkegaard’s biography; but there is only circumstantial evidence that møller’s scholarly or poetic work exerted any influence on Kierkegaard’s authorship. Perhaps that would not have been the case if, in Kierkegaard’s eyes, he had been a somewhat more significant person.

Pap. vii–1 B 69 / JP 5, 5863; see also SV1 Xiii, 549–52 / PV, 63–5. SV1 Xiii, 577–9 / PV, 92–3. 29

Bibliography I. Møller’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Kort Fremstilling af Bogtrykkerkunstens Historie, Copenhagen: Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri 1841 (ASKB a ii 211). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Møller Hebbel, Friedrich, Mein Wort über das Drama! Eine Erwiderung an Professor Heiberg in Copenhagen, Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe 1843, p. 12 (ASKB 454). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Møller andersen, Børge, Et vendepunkt i Søren Kierkegaards liv. Artikler af P.L. Møller og Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1977. andersen, K. Bruun, Søren Kierkegaard og kritikeren P.L. Møller med særligt hensyn til Frithiof Brandt: Den unge Søren Kierkegaaard, 1929, Copenhagen: munskgaard 1950. Brandt, Frithiof, “p.L. møller. modellen til Johannes Forføreren?,” in his Den unge Søren Kierkegaard. En række nye bidrag, Copenhagen: Levin & munksgaard 1929, pp. 160–304. Bredsdorff, elias, “the Corsair,” in Kierkegaard as a Person, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1983 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 12), pp. 128–42. — Goldschmidts “Corsaren”: Med en udførlig redegørelse for striden mellem Søren Kierkegaard og ”Corsaren,” aarhus: sirius 1962, pp. 91–139. Bukdahl, Jørgen, “reality: trial by Fire,” in his Søren Kierkegaard and the Common Man, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, grand rapids, michigan: eerdmans 2001, pp. 81–110. (in danish as “virkelighedens ildprøve,” in his Søren Kierkegaard og den menige mand, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1961, pp. 74–99.) Fenger, Henning, 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, pp. 171–254 (originally as KierkegaardMyter og Kierkegaard-Kilder. 9 kildekritiske studier i de Kierkegaardske papirer, breve og aktstykker, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976).

Peder Ludvig Møller: “If He Had Been a Somewhat More Significant Person…” 255

garff, Joakim, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 2005, see pp. 375–408. magnussen, rikard, Søren Kierkegaard set udefra. Efterskrift: Det særlige kors, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1942, pp. 33–60. poole, roger, “søren Kierkegaard and p.L. møller: erotic space shattered,” in The Corsair Affair, ed. by robert L. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1990 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 13), pp. 141–62. scopetea, sophia, Kierkegaard og græciteten. En kamp med ironi, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1995, see p. 48, note 50; p. 85, note 33; p. 186, note 6; p. 239, note 23; p. 410, note 1. suances marcos, manuel, Sören Kierkegaard, vols. 1–2, madrid: universidad nacional de educación a distanca 1997 (Vida de un filósofo atormentado), vol. 1, pp. 201–9. tudvad, peter, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politikens Forlag 2004, pp. 378–86. vilhelm, sinding, “note biographique sur un héros de Kierkegaard: Le modele du séducteur [p.L. møller],” Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, vol. 74, 1969, pp. 106–15.

adam oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the treasure Hunter of immediacy Bjarne troelsen

In the first half of the nineteenth century Adam Gottlob Oehlenschläger (1779–1850) won the undisputed position as denmark’s national prince of poets, whose work set the standard for what was understood as desirable in poetry in denmark for several generations. with a unique linguistic musicality, he experimented with verse forms and rhyme patterns, which liberated theretofore unknown rhythmic resources of sound in the danish language. He thus created a supple, sonorous, and sensual artistic language, which at the same time through a return to words and morphologies from previous epochs, especially the danish ballad of the middle ages and the renaissance, endowed the language with a poetic loftiness which was free from pathos and self-importance. this special oehlenschlägerian style was an outstanding tool for the expression of the mild and harmony-searching tendency which is so characteristic of the danish form of romantic idealism, and it thus became the literary artistic language, which was adopted in a more or less modified form by virtually everyone who expressed themselves poetically in danish in the entire nineteenth century and much of the twentieth. this is also true of søren Kierkegaard, who, at the end of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript mentions “the teacher of the beautiful art of poetry and its secrets of language and taste, because such an initiate we do have, and i know, and i hope i shall forget neither him nor what i owe to him.”1 the most notable thing in this recognition of inheritance and debt is that oehlenschläger’s name is not even mentioned; so unquestioned was his position that Kierkegaard could assume that every contemporary reader would know whom he was talking about. SKS 7, 565 / CUP1, 622. Here Kierkegaard speaks as a thankful disciple. elsewhere in the same work (SKS 7, 260, note / CUP1, 285, note) it is rather the self-confident competitor who speaks. it is at the end of the Postscript’s first part where Kierkegaard writes the review of his authorship up to that point, which he did not believe others were able to write. Here he imagines in a note, how the reading public would react if, for example, oehlenschläger were to write a new Axel and Valborg with the same characters, with the same action, and “only erotic love’s deliciousness in the expression on valborg’s lips would be new, new as a new blossoming of flowers—well, even if ever so many would find it boring, I would presume to find it amazing.” Nevertheless he thinks that he has accomplished a work of art in this direction in writing Stages on Life’s Way as a new Either/Or. 1

258

Bjarne Troelsen

I. adam oehlenschläger came from a humble bourgeois milieu: his parents had been footservants in the service of Count adam gottlob moltke (1710–92), whom they named their son after, and who helped his father to obtain a humble position as organist in Frederiksberg Church. Later he became the steward of Frederiksberg Castle, where the boy adam grew up. Frederiksberg Castle was the royal family’s summer residence, and so adam had a front row seat from which he could follow the fairy tale and colorful court life, just as the romantic Castle gardens had previously played a role in giving his fantasy life its direction. after his initial schooling, adam tried his luck as an actor at the royal theater, but abandoned this course of life after only two years. in the interim he had made the acquaintance of other of the period’s gifted and ambitious young men, including the brothers Hans Christian Ørsted (1777– 1851) and anders sandøe Ørsted (1778–1860), Jakob peter mynster (1775–1854), the later bishop of Copenhagen, and his brother, the medical doctor ole Hieronymus mynster (1772–1818), and he had begun to pay visits to the Bakkehus in valby, where the professor of literature Knud Lyne rahbek (1760–1830) and his wife Kamma rahbek (1775–1829) had created a milieu which gathered the age’s young artists, poets, and beautiful souls around readings and literary and philosophical discussions and general social gatherings. From this period come oehlenschläger’s first poetic attempts, some of which were published in the age’s literary journals. after the shipwreck of his dream of becoming an actor, good friends helped the young oehlenschläger to begin to study for his university entrance examination, and in 1800 he was enrolled as a student of law at the university of Copenhagen, a course of studies which he never completed. the decisive event in oehlenschläger’s youth was the meeting with the natural scientist and philosopher Henrich steffens (1773–1845), who in the summer of 1802 returned home from several years in Germany, where he had experienced firsthand and participated in the development of the fledgling German Romanticism’s revolutionary attempt to think natural science, philosophy, art, religion, and history together in a daring idealistic synthesis. in Jena he had become friends with, and worked together with, young Germany’s most prominent and significant geniuses: the philosophers Fichte and schelling, the theologian schleiermacher, the poets tieck, novalis and the brothers schlegel, and in nearby weimar he had made the acquaintance of goethe and schiller. This charismatic firebrand ignited the youth of Copenhagen with his lectures at elers College about the new fermenting intellectual movement in germany. steffens’ nature-romantic preaching enthused oehlenschläger and gave him a new vision of himself as the chosen artistic genius, through whom spirit spoke, and it set loose his creative abilities in a flurry of productivity, whose immediate result was a series of epic-lyric poems (so-called romances) and the romantic drama Midsummer Day Play2 which he published at the end of 1802 under the title Poems with the year

2 adam oehlenschläger, Sanct Hansaften-Spil, ed. by F.L. Liebenberg, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsens Forlag 1885.

Adam Oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the Treasure Hunter of Immediacy

259

1803 given on the title page.3 Here for the first time an entirely new tone sounds in danish literature; here there are experiments in verse forms and mixtures of genres and stylistic dissonances and contrasts of moods which surpass and confront all traditional classical aesthetics. His next publication was the two-volume Poetic Writings, 1805,4 which contains such different things as a comedy, Freya’s Altar; two romance cycles, Langeland Journey and a rewriting of parts of the new testament in a style of a religion of nature, The Life of Jesus Christ Repeated in the Annual Cycle of Nature; the sagainspired story, Vaulundur’s Saga, and the oriental adventure with material from 1001 Nights, entitled Aladdin, or the Wonderful Lamp. This publication firmly engraved Oehlenschläger’s name as a poet and won him public support for an educational journey in europe, which would come to last the better part of four years. it brought him to Halle, at whose university steffens was then professor, to Berlin and weimar—where he made the personal acquaintance of Goethe—Dresden, Paris, Switzerland, and, finally, Italy, and during this journey he wrote a series of works some of which were published in 1807 under the title Nordic Poems, namely, the tragedies Hakon Jarl the Mighty and Baldur the Good and the mythological verse epic Thor’s Journey to Jotunheim. other central works from his years of travel are the tragedies Palnatoke and Axel and Valborg, and the tragedy, in german, Correggio, which represented for him a convincing poetic breakthrough in germany. it is, above all, this vigorous youthful poetry that forms the basis of oehlen-schläger’s reputation as a poet. He remained for the rest of his life tremendously productive, but his youthful inspiration to some degree left him, and he was subject to sharp and qualified criticism, not least of all from the next generation’s powerful writer, Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860). However, this did not decisively shake the position he had won on the danish parnassus with his earlier production, a position which in the interim had also spread to the other scandinavian countries: in 1829 he was given an honorary doctoral degree by the university of Lund in sweden, and the swedish poet, esaias tegnér (1782–1846), on the same occasion, crowned him as the poetic king of scandinavia. some years later the Norwegian academics confirmed this same honor on him during a visit to Kristiania (now oslo). after his return from his long educational journey, oehlenschläger was named professor of aesthetics at the university of Copenhagen, and in 1831–32 and 1846– 47 he was the rector of the university. in 1844 he became honorary member of the academy of arts, and in 1834 he received the title of Councilor of state and in 1847 royal advisor.

adam oehlenschläger, Digte, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1803. Adam Oehlenschlägers Poetiske Skrifter, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: J.H. schobothe 1805 (ASKB 1597–1598). 3 4

260

Bjarne Troelsen

II. there is nothing in søren Kierkegaard’s posthumous writings which so much as hints at any personal meetings or conversations between him and oehlenschläger, even if it is difficult to imagine that none ever took place. Oehlenschläger occasionally appeared at the student union with readings during the years that Kierkegaard frequented it. on the whole oehlenschläger had the attention of the academic youth, and on diverse occasions they honored him in various ways.5 Kierkegaard would have had the opportunity to attend professor oehlenschläger’s lectures at the university on, among other things, shakespeare and goethe,6 but we do not know whether he did so. Copenhagen was a small town, and the circle of writing, reading, and discussing intellectuals was quite small, and so it is improbable that the two never exchanged a word with each other. But everywhere that oehlenschläger is mentioned in Kierkegaard’s works and papers, it is as “the poet” or in the form of direct or indirect quotations and allusions to oehlenschläger’s works, and everywhere in a form which does not distinguish itself in the slightest from the way he discusses distant or dead classics such as, for example, goethe, shakespeare, or Holberg. the sole note where Kierkegaard even indicates that oehlenschläger is a contemporary, living, and present poet is an entry from 1849 in the Journal NB11, where Kierkegaard mentions that he has sent the recently published second edition of Either/Or to “the poets here at home,” and more precisely, “as far as oehlenschläger and winther are concerned, i was happy to send them copies, for i admire them.”7 thank-you letters from Frederik paludan-müller (1809–76), Hans Christian andersen (1805–75), and Carsten Hauch (1790–1872) survive, but there is nothing from oehlenschläger, and we do not know anything about Kierkegaard’s possible dedication in oehlenschläger’s copy. From The Auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s library we learn that he owned a copy of oehlenschläger’s Poetic Writings, 1805,8 Nordic Poems, 1807,9 the epic poem, Gods of the North from 1819,10 and the nine-volume edition of Oehlenschläger’s Tragedies from 1841–44,11 but not Poems, 1803.12 with regard to the latter, there are only two poems, Valravnen and The Treasure Hunter, which Kierkegaard quotes from or alludes to.

5

p. 206. 6 7 8 9

1599).

peter tudvad, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politikens forlag 2004, p. 202; ibid. p. 177; p. 179. SKS 22, 58, nB11:103 / JP 6, 6413. Adam Oehlenschlägers Poetiske Skrifter. adam oehlenschläger, Nordiske Digte, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1807 (ASKB

adam oehlenschläger, Nordens Guder. Et episk Digt, Copenhagen: paa Forfatterens Forlag 1837 (ASKB 1600). 11 Oehlenschlägers Tragødier, vols. 1–9, Copenhagen: J.d. Quist 1841–44 (ASKB 1601–1605). 12 oehlenschläger, Digte. 10

Adam Oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the Treasure Hunter of Immediacy

261

III. a long series of references to oehlenschläger’s works in Kierkegaard consists of direct or indirect quotations of quite short passages, often only a few words, which have been worked into Kierkegaard’s texts or of allusions to generally well-known aspects of the plot in the given work. For example, one could mention a passage in the essay “Shadowgraphs” from the first part of Either/Or, where there appear a few words from Aladdin: “so, then, don giovanni has seduced elvira and has forsaken her; this is speedily done, as quickly ‘as the tiger breaks a lily.’ ”13 one might also mention this allusion to Aladdin from “in vino veritas” in Stages on Life’s Way: who has experienced the happy moment, who has comprehended its sensuous pleasure, and has not sensed the anxiety that something might suddenly happen, the most trifling thing that nevertheless is powerful enough to upset everything! who has held the lamp in his hand and yet has not felt the dizziness of sensuous pleasure because all one needs to do is to wish!14

in passages like this Kierkegaard makes only a purely rhetorical use of oehlenschläger’s work. Quotations and allusions function as means to create a degree of intimacy with the reader, who is thus brought into a commonality with those who have the same educational background and are familiar with and love the same classics and even share the same tastes and views. this is a prominent characteristic of Kierkegaard’s style; again and again he thus uses world literature from plato and biblical writings to shakespeare, goethe, Holberg and right up to then contemporary danish poets such as poul martin møller (1794–1838), Heiberg, and thus—not least of all—oehlenschläger. other quotations and allusions appear more prominently and often serve in a more essential sense to clarify or illustrate an idea. For example, Kierkegaard dedicates particular attention to a few places in the tragedy Palnatoke due to their pregnant imagery. this is the spectacular act Four, where King Harald Bluetooth lets himself be persuaded by his servant, skofte, to show himself in all his royal magnificence, dressed in the royal robes, but in the dark he makes a mistake and instead puts on his funeral shroud. Kierkegaard plays on this passage in the eighth of the fictitious prefaces to unwritten works, which constitutes con amore the book Prefaces by the pseudonym nicolaus notabene from 1844. this eighth preface purports to be a preface to a philosophical journal, which, in opposition to all other philosophical journals, which address themselves to the many clever minds of the age, who philosophize about everything between heaven and earth, instead addresses itself to the ignorant, who ask out of their ignorance about the simplest things which they do not understand: I do not belong to the mighty who live on confidential terms with philosophy and associate with it as their equal; i am like a lowly slave in the princely palace who sees his royal majesty every day, even though a chasmic abyss separates me from him. Yet, 13 14

SKS 2, 188 / EO1, 191–2. SKS 6, 32–3 / SLW, 27.

262

Bjarne Troelsen like the slave in Palnatoke, i have only one wish: to see it in all its glory. Could this not happen? philosophy does not walk in the dark like Harald Bluetooth; it does not make a mistake; it does not take the shroud instead of the royal robes. would this not happen? when does philosophy appear more glorious than when it makes itself comprehensible even to the unwise? But if one will admit that he is such, philosophy cannot appear in this way either.15

the other place is from palnatoke’s speech from act 5, where palnatoke says: my Honor once was like a mirrored shield of polished steel, which with redoubled glance, Reflected back the sun’s bright rays; but now that shield is rusted with a bloody spot! By day, by night i rub it, still ’tis there!16

Kierkegaard has Johannes in “The Seducer’s Diary” in the first part of Either/Or quote the final lines from this exchange in an imprecise quotation as an admission of his irrational irritation at having received a black tooth: “i am rubbing it by day, by night / But cannot wipe out that black shadow.”17 Johannes then continues, “Life does indeed have extraordinarily much that is enigmatic. such a little circumstance can disturb me more than the most dangerous attack, the most painful situation.”18 In the first actually critical piece in the first issue of The Moment, from 1855, which concerns the necessity of “producing something decisive,” the mirrorlike shield is used as a symbol for the absolute and the decisive, which stands in opposition to the age’s and reflection’s “to a certain degree”: Believe me, i am all too well acquainted with the defect of the age, that it is lack of character, everything to a certain degree. But just as “a mirror-bright shield of polished steel,” so bright “that when the sun’s rays fall it reflects the sun with double brilliance,” just as such a shield fears most of all even the least little spot, since even with the least little spot it is no longer itself—just so does something decisive fear every contact by and with this “to a certain degree.”19

a clear quotation from the romance The Treasure Hunter from Poems, from 1803, also appears in several central passages in the work. it is, however, not the poem’s actual motif—the story of the young, unhappy lover, who has lost his mind over the death of his beloved—which interests Kierkegaard, but rather a passage from

SKS 4, 513 / P, 52–3. oehlenschläger, Palnatoke. Et Sørgespil, in Oehlenschlägers Tragødier, vol. 2, p. 298: “Min Ære var tilforn et speilglat Skiold, / Af slebent Staal;—hvor Solens Straale faldt, / Der blinkte den med dobbelt Glands tilbage.— / Nu staaer en Plet af blodig Rust paa Skioldet; / Jeg gnider den ved Dag, ved Nat—og kan / Ei faae den ud!” english translation quoted from Palnatoke. A Tragedy in Five Parts, trans. by John Chapman, London [privately printed] 1855, p. 57. 17 SKS 2, 414–15 / EO1, 427. 18 ibid. 19 SV1 Xiv, 107–8. / M, 93–4. 15 16

Adam Oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the Treasure Hunter of Immediacy

263

the poem’s introduction, where the poet tells of a peasant family who are enjoying themselves indoors during the cold winter night by listening to fairy tales: and old Hans tells a story at the oven’s fire; what would one rather hear than such adventures. “But father, is it true! and is there a treasure which is given to one person or another when the subterranean sphere wants to?” “Yes son! when the rooster crows then one should fetch it, but if you speak a word, it disappears again!”20

it is this notion from folk belief that the treasure should be retrieved in silence which fascinates Kierkegaard, and which he returns to several times. the treasure, which “the subterranean” people give to us, is clearly in Kierkegaard’s interpretation a symbol for what is original, primitive, and immediate in human beings, in relation to which the task, according to Kierkegaard, is to raise it and bring it in under the determination of spirit, in the poem symbolized by the rooster, who warns that the light and the day are coming. Language is the medium of consciousness and reflection, and in speech, the one speaking transcends his inwardness and communicates it with others; he makes the inner the outer, and he makes the subjective universal. the idea that the treasure disappears “if you speak a word,” indicates folk belief’s—and oehlenschläger’s—intuitive insight into the difficulty in this matter. the quotation from The Treasure Hunter is used in Either/Or by Judge william in his first letter to the young Romantic and aesthete, “The Aesthetic Validity of Marriage,” which treats precisely the difficulties in the relation between “the first love” and marriage as a public institution, constituted by linguistically fixed rituals, agreements, duties, and vows. wilhelm imagines that the aesthete has surmounted the difficulty by expressing “the first love” in ethical and religious categories, that is, as absolute duty, entered into “for god” and extending “until death do we part.” all of this can always be united with the inwardness of love: then, alone with her whom you loved, you would humble yourself and your love under god. You are really gripped and moved, but now watch out—i say just one word, “the congregation,” and at once, as it says in the ballad, everything vanishes again. i do not think you will ever be able to ignore the category of inwardness.21 oehlenschläger, “skattegraveren,” in Digte, p. 28: “Og gamle Hans fortæller / ved Ovnens muntre Fyr; / Hvad hörer man vel heller, / end slige Eventyr. / “Men Fader, er det Sanden! / og er der Skatte til, / som gives een and anden, / naar Underjordisk vil?” / “Ja Sön! naar Hanen galer / da skal man hente den, / men hvis et Ord du taler, / forsvinder den igjen!” 21 SKS 3, 101 / EO2, 99. 20

264

Bjarne Troelsen

in the unpublished work on adolph peter adler (1812–69), Kierkegaard discusses the situation that a pastor had come to the standpoint that the oath of office which he had sworn was indefensible, whereby he is brought into opposition with “the existing,” that is, the institution (the state Church), to which he had obliged himself. Here we find again the conflict between the subjective and the universal. But now, the matter is somewhat different for Kierkegaard, for “the existing” or “the universal” apparently dwells on something primitive and original, a hidden “treasure,” which is its obscure source of life, and therefore it nevertheless cannot ever be serviceable to the state or the state Church to have its first principles subjected to discussion very frequently. every life, every existence has its hidden life, its root life, in its basic presuppositions, in its basic principle, from which the vital energy proceeds to give growth. From physiology it is well known that there is nothing more injurious to digestion than continual reflection on digestion; similarly, also in the realm of the spirit, it is most injurious when reflection too often makes a mistake and, instead of serving in the transaction that discloses the hidden work of the secret life, it falls upon the basic principles themselves. If a marriage were to reflect continually on the reality of marriage, it would eo ipso become a mediocre marriage, since the energy that should be used for carrying out the tasks of the married life would be used by reflection to waste away the foundation. If a man who has chosen a specific occupation were to reflect continually on whether this occupation was the right one, he will eo ipso become a poor partner. Therefore, even if the state or the state Church has sufficient soundness to discharge the revolutionary, it is nevertheless harmful that reflection is occasioned. of everything that should be secret and hidden it holds true, as the ballad says: “if you speak only one word.” it is easy enough to say such a fateful word, but the harm it can cause it incalculable….22

IV. Behind this use of quotations and allusions lies a romantic conception of “the poet” as the immediate genius, who intuitively has access to profound truths about the basic conditions of human existence and the ability to formulate this insight in pregnant images and situations. the connection between the immediate and the poetic, especially in the young Kierkegaard, is reflected in an intense occupation with mythology, folk poetry, fairy tales, and sagas, and with the great mythological figures, who seem created by the Middle Ages’ anonymous and collective popular fantasy—figures such as Ahasverus, Faust, Don Juan. Several early journal entries circle around this theme, including the following from 1837: there must be a stage in the development of mythology which corresponds to that whole period in childhood when the individual is so minimally separated from the whole that he says: me hit the horse—the stage in which the individual is so minimally separated from the whole that he comes to view only in fleeting moments….23

22 23

Pap. vii–2 B 235, pp. 35–6 / BA, 145. Pap. i a 319 / JP 4, 4394.

Adam Oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the Treasure Hunter of Immediacy

265

in humanity’s spiritual history of development, one can, according to this line of thought, distinguish an early period, where the individual does not understand himself as individual, but merges together with the community. it is this period, the linguistic impact of which one finds in folk poetry and mythology. But also the history of development of the single individual knows this kind of phase in early childhood, where the individual hardly distinguishes between himself and his surroundings. this is evident in, among other things, the grammar of the child’s language, which does not yet include a personal pronoun in the nominative and thus contains no grammatical subject. in our context, it is interesting that Kierkegaard a few days later added the following note to the above consideration: “i see that Heiberg has argued for something similar with respect to Oehlenschläger in flyv[ende] P[ost] for 1828 st: no 3 from his response to oeh: 2 page, 1ste column, top.”24 the reference to Heiberg’s journal, Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post 1828, refers to Heiberg’s long, and important article “response to mr. oehlenschläger’s publication, ‘on the Criticism in Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, concerning the The Vikings in Byzantium,’ ”25 where Heiberg attempts to work out a scholarly (that is, philosophically) grounded aesthetics, which can raise criticism up to an objective and reflective level. Heiberg’s main thesis is that a poetic work is successful to the degree that it unfolds its genre’s idea, for which reason the first task of aesthetics is to establish a system of genres, which shows how the individual genres are developed from and relate to “the idea of poetry.” Heiberg’s point of departure is Hegel’s logic, which treats the laws for the development of concepts (and ideas) in a dialectical play of opposites. the idea of poetry contains the opposition of immediacy and reflection: the poetic is fundamentally an immediate outpouring of the human emotional life, but in order to become art, this outpouring must be given form in language. thus, one could say with Kierkegaard (and Oehlenschläger) that the poet’s difficult and risky task is to bring the treasure out into the light without it disappearing, “when one speaks a word.” In Heiberg’s aesthetics, the dialectical tension between immediacy and reflection gives the occasion for the development of various genres in accordance with the level of development of the two moments and their mutual relation and strength. what is interesting, however, is that immediacy and reflection are first and foremost categories of consciousness and thus can be used in descriptions of both the collective and the individual development of consciousness, as indicated above. to the immediate in the life of consciousness (the subjective, feeling) corresponds the lyric in poetry, and to the reflective corresponds the epic, due to the fact that the epic genres have the Pap. i a 320. Johan Ludvig Heiberg, “svar paa Hr. oehlenschlägers skrift: ‘om Kritiken i Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, over væringerne i miklagard,’ ” Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, 1828 (i, no. 7, January 25, [pp. 37–40]; ii, no. 8, January 28, [pp. 41–4]; iii, no. 10, February 4, [pp. 50–2]; iv, no. 11, February 8, [pp. 54–6]; v, no. 12, February 11, [pp. 59–60]; vi, no. 13, February 15, [pp. 61–4]; vii, no. 14, February 18, [pp. 65–8]; viii, no. 15, February 22, [pp. 69–72]; iX, no. 16, February 25, [pp. 73–6]). (reprinted in Heiberg’s Prosaiske Skrifter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1841–43, vol. 1, pp. 279–381; Prosaiske Skrifter, vols. 1–11, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1861–62, vol. 3, pp. 194–284.) 24 25

266

Bjarne Troelsen

surrounding world and its events as their subject matter. the epic genre presupposes, in other words, the ability of consciousness to distinguish between the surrounding world (the objective) and the self (the subjective), which this surrounding world reflects in itself. But, as we have seen, this ability can be unfolded in various degrees in different individuals and in different historical epochs. thus, it is true for the poet-individual that the stage he has come to in his personal development becomes decisive for the question of which genre will be able to best present his talent. For Heiberg, there is thus a hierarchy of genres in the sense that some genres are more developed than others, but this should not be understood normatively in the sense that some genres are more valuable than others. the normative dimension comes in through the evaluation of whether a poet keeps himself within the genres in which his poetic genius can best unfold itself, and a poet’s genius is determined by the way in which he, in his personal life, has managed the opposition between immediacy and reflection. Heiberg’s point is thus that Oehlenschläger’s poetic genius finds itself at the first level of development, almost at the level of pure immediacy, which is evident from the fact that he is strongest in the lyric-epic genres—above all the romance, which is a narrative poem in a lyric framework, where the lyric and the epic are still not separated or distinguished from one another, as happens in the purely lyric poem and in epic. the place in Heiberg’s article which Kierkegaard refers to runs as follows: Lyrical poetry is, with respect to the idea of poetry, the first, but in time it is hardly the first; for the genius in his immediacy turns to the external world, not to himself, seeing that self-observation is only a product of reflection. The genius has this in common with consciousness which likewise in its immediacy (for example, as with a child) is a consciousness of objects before it becomes self-consciousness. But just as this awakening objective consciousness, even in its characteristic as objective, is incomplete, because being clearly conscious of objects demands that one is conscious of oneself, without which one still cannot limit them (only with the limit, with the distinction from my “i,” do they become determinate), so also the poetic genius is, in his immediacy, unfit for the highest peak of objective presentation and for the utmost point of subjective apprehension. the immediate genius is thus neither epic nor lyric, but is lyric-epic.26

all indications are that Kierkegaard for the most part shared Heiberg’s conception of oehlenschläger as poet (a conception, which oehlenschläger incidentally was far from being in agreement with). For Kierkegaard, the moods and feelings of immediacy were the actually poetic, and poetry was the medium in which immediacy objectified itself in an adequate form, which made itself accessible for observation and reflection. All indications are that Kierkegaard’s explicit admiration for oehlenschläger is related to the fact that he conceived of him as a modern poet who created the work of art in order to preserve a connection to the original and immediate, which was just as unbroken and alive as in the anonymous folk poetry of Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Prosaiske Skrifter, vols. 1–11, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1861–62, vol. 3, pp. 218–19. 26

Adam Oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the Treasure Hunter of Immediacy

267

the past. such primitiveness, cast in one piece, fascinated Kierkegaard. this is clear from an entry from June 30, 1837 in the Journal DD: How close the immed. expression often lies to ironic, yet how far from e.g. oehlenschlaeger o bloom, just as with thee, with me the very same. a poor poet like a wild poppy stands there in shame. the nourishing corn he merely impedes— He to what avail, etc. it is the same immediacy, though much more profound, that makes Xt’s sayings and the n.t. as a whole lack the ironic or humorous stamp, while just a single stroke would straightaway imbue the expression with the very strongest shade of irony and humor.27

Irony and humor presuppose reflection. Keeping free from reflection and thus hitting the immediate cleanly, as, in Kierkegaard’s opinion, takes place successfully in the quoted strophe from Morning Walking Tour from Langeland Journey (1803), brings oehlenschläger’s poetry into a category with nothing less than imitations of Jesus. V. therefore, it is not surprising that the focus of Kierkegaard’s occupation with oehlenschläger is the fairy-tale drama Aladdin, or the Wonderful Lamp from Poetic Writings (1805), which is a straightforward praise of the genius of immediacy, personified by a good-for-nothing who wins all the world’s glories, including the beautiful princess, almost without moving a finger. In Fear and Trembling one reads: From the external and visible world there comes an old adage: “only one who works gets bread.” Oddly enough, the adage does not fit the world in which it is most at home, for imperfection is the fundamental law of the external world, and here it happens again and again that he who does not work does get bread, and he who sleeps gets it even more abundantly than he who works. in the external world, everything belongs to the possessor. it is subject to the law of indifference, and the spirit of the ring obeys the one who has the ring, whether he is an aladdin or a noureddin, and he who has the wealth of the world has it regardless of how he got it. it is different in the world of the spirit.28

the genius of immediacy is the ability to grasp happiness in a changeable world without rules, and happiness loves and favors the person who thus grasps out for it in the safe and unreflected conviction that he deserves it. Aladdin is just such a genius of immediacy: 27 28

SKS 17, 224, dd:17 / KJN 1, 216. SKS 4, 123 / FT, 27.

268

Bjarne Troelsen Aladdin is so very refreshing because this piece has the audacity of the child, of the genius, in the wildest wishes. indeed, how many are there in our day who truly dare to wish, dare to desire, dare to address nature neither with a polite child’s bitte, bitte, nor with the raging frenzy of one damned? How many are there who—inspired by what is talked about so much in our age, that man is created in god’s image—have the authentic voice of command? or do we not all stand like noureddin, bowing and scraping, worrying about asking too much or too little? Or is not every magnificent demanding eventually diminished to morbid reflecting over the I, from insisting to informing, which we are indeed brought up and trained to do.29

This comes from A’s “Diapsalmata” in the first part of Either/Or, in a passage which Kierkegaard has taken almost word for word from the Journal EE from June 1839.30 as it well known, Kierkegaard tried, with little success, to play this game of chance: among the many different roles he tried in relation to regine olsen during their engagement is also the aladdin role. a short letter from october 28, 1840 ends with a direct order to the spirit of the ring in the form of a quotation, fitted for the occasion, from the end of act 4: take at once my letter on its long journey! genie of the ring: thou never hadst such quick conveyance!31

But one year later, after the break-up with regine, he lost control over the ring and instead had become its impotent slave. in one of the literary exercises with which Kierkegaard sought to digest his painful experiences, he wrote in Notebook 8, “a cabin shaken by the double movements of the steamship.”32 this was written during the journey to Berlin, which resembled a flight, in October 1841. He quotes directly from Aladdin, which he took with him on the journey: why do you rub so vehemently see, i obey your very hint if you need me and call i come like lightning. not alone, my r., but every other genie of the ring. please note that by the various genii of the ring i mean all the various willing servants within me that respond to your beck and call, a servant for your every wish, and if possible ten for every one; but all these are collected within me in one genie of the ring, who, unlike the one who appeared before aladdin, is not linked to you by an external and accidental bond, but with the longing of

29 30 31 32

SKS 2, 30 / EO1, 22. SKS 18, 34, ee:91 / KJN 2, 29. B&A, vol. 1, p. 52 / LD, Letter 20, p. 66. SKS 19, 225, not8:2 / JP 5, 5507.

Adam Oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the Treasure Hunter of Immediacy

269

my whole soul, for did i not myself bring you the ring i obey. in another sense both you and i united together are the genie of the ring.33

regardless of what went wrong in the relationship with regine, in any case according to Kierkegaard’s own interpretation, it concerned the difficult dialectic between immediacy and reflection, a dialectic which presents itself as a task for every human being, and precisely for this reason aladdin is interesting: as oehlenschläger portrays him, he manifests himself immediately in ideal form and thus becomes a figure which one can use to think further. This happens most extensively in Judge William’s second treatise on marriage, “Some Reflections on Marriage in Answer to objections,” which constitutes the second part of Stages on Life’s Way. the point of departure is the same as in a’s diapsalm, quoted above: what makes aladdin great is his wish that his soul has the inner strength to desire. if in this respect i were to make any criticism of a masterpiece—which then would be only infatuated envy—it would be this, that it is never sufficiently clear and emphatic that Aladdin is a justified individuality, that to wish, to be able to wish, to dare to wish, to be rash wishing, resolute in seizing the initiative, insatiable in aspiring, that this is a genius comparable to any other. we perhaps do not believe this, and yet in every generation there perhaps are not ten young men who have this blind courage, this vigor in the unlimited. Leave out the ten and give everyone else full authority to wish, and in his hand it will nevertheless become more or less a begging letter; he will grow pale around his nose; he will want to think about it. He wants to wish, all right, but now it is matter of wishing for the right thing—in other words, he is a bungler and not a genius like aladdin, who is the genie’s favorite because he is exorbitant.34

Aladdin is fulfilled by the immediate life-desiring natural force, which in itself is unconditioned and absolute, independent of whether it is fulfilled or not: “No, even if no wish were fulfilled for Aladdin, he assumes rank with his wish, with this mightiness of demand which ultimately is worth more than any fulfillment.”35 this limitless passion, this wealth of feeling makes him a poet: aladdin is altogether immediate; therefore his wish is such that in the next moment he is able to be a poet. all that occupies him is that “cherished, long desired wedding night” that will assure him the possession of gulnare, and thus the palace, the wedding hall, the wedding. For me a lovely wedding make, night darkness turn to day, with incense torches ’round the spacious hall. Have sybil chor’sters lead a graceful dance, while others sweetly sing and cithers play. aladdin himself is almost overwhelmed; he is about to faint in anticipated delight.36

33 34 35 36

SKS 19, 225–6, not8:3 / JP 5, 5509. SKS 6, 99 / SLW, 104. SKS 6, 100 / SLW, 104. SKS 6, 99 / SLW, 103.

270

Bjarne Troelsen

this lyrical enthusiasm of feeling is pure subjectivity, pure inwardness, and is allowed to unfold itself as such in the drama without meeting any significant opposition from the outside world and without breaking with reality. (Kierkegaard is not concerned with the crisis into which aladdin throws himself in the drama’s last two acts, when he for a time loses the lamp.) He remains in the poetic moment and never looks at the whole: great is aladdin; he celebrates the wedding, quite true, but he does not marry. truly, no one can wish him more happiness or be more sincerely happy for him than i, but if i were able, just as the poet gives him the genie of the lamp, to give him something comparable, if by daily intercession i were able to provide him with the only thing i believe he lacks, a genie of resolution that in vigor and concretion would correspond to what his wish is in immoderation and abstraction (for his aspiring is certainly unlimited and is burning like the desert sand)—oh, what a married man aladdin could have become!37

without the genie of resolution, aladdin’s immediacy cannot be saved in the concretion of actuality and the continuity of history, and when it is over with immediacy (and it is!), there is hardly any more of a future for aladdin than for that of the seducer. as Kierkegaard in the treatise “the immediate erotic stages” from the first part of Either/Or regards Cherubino as a young don Juan, one can perhaps say that he interprets oehlenschläger’s aladdin as a young Johannes the seducer. VI. the dream which is unfolded in Aladdin is the natural human being’s age-old dream of the imagined happiness by means of the ownership of a means with which one can fulfill all one’s wishes and satisfy every desire. If one could imagine this dream realized, not only in the theater but in life, would it be a perfect life? Kierkegaard poses this question in an entry from 1848 and mentions several conditions which would have to be fulfilled for such a thing: one would have to have someone to share one’s happiness with; the happiness would have to be secured against the vicissitudes of the future; death would not suddenly put an end to everything before one managed to enjoy one’s happiness fully. all of this is granted to the dreamer without limitation, and again the question is repeated: “what are you lacking now?” ultimately, the answer is: “You lack having god and his governance to wonder over, because, after all, you are the architect of your own fortune, you are your own providence.”38 Here the difference is marked between the immediacy, which strives and fights for its happiness, and religiosity’s receiving the existence of good or evil from god’s hand—the difference between poetically creating oneself [at digte sig selv] and letting oneself be poetically created [lade sig digte], as it is expressed elsewhere. Here Kierkegaard returns to aladdin and poeticizes further on an odd detail in Oehlenschläger’s drama: when Aladdin has the spirit of the lamp build a magnificent

37 38

SKS 6, 100 / SLW, 104. Pap. viii–1 a 678 / JP 2, 1511.

Adam Oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the Treasure Hunter of Immediacy

271

palace for him and gulnare, he orders the genie to let a single window remain unfinished as a proof for his veneration and love for the sultan, Gulnare’s father: and if it pleases you, my father, you may finish it, and thus the building also would be obliged to you and thank you for its completion.39

Kierkegaard ends the entry thus: Look, there was one window lacking in that covetous young man’s palace. the view from all the others was enchanting—but he correctly understood that he could not complete this window (let us imagine it thus)—and the view from this window was to god, to god’s providence. o, is it not true that if we turn the whole thing around, you are still better off: instead of that enormous palace with the twenty-three windows you nevertheless have nothing less than a palace; you still have a small room with only one window and even that is not altogether completed—but it is through this window that you see out to god.40

But in order to reach this view, Kierkegaard must poeticize an entirely different Aladdin than oehlenschläger’s. Translated by Jon Stewart

oehlenschläger, Aladdin eller den forunderlige Lampe, in his Poetiske Skrifter, vol. 2, act 3, alladin’s palads: “At I, min Fader! Kunde lægge, / Den sidste Haand derpaa, saa Bygningen, / Var nødt til, ligesom, at takke Eder / For sin Fuldendelse.” english translation quoted from Aladdin or the Wonderful Lamp, trans. by Henry meyer, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1968, p. 148. 40 Pap. viii–1 a 678 / JP 2, 1511. 39

Bibliography I. Oehlenschläger’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Adam Oehlenschlägers Poetiske Skrifter, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: J.H. schobothe 1805 (ASKB 1597–1598). Nordiske Digte, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1807 (ASKB 1599). Nordens Guder. Et episk Digt, Copenhagen: paa Forfatteren Forlag 1837 (ASKB 1600). Oehlenschlägers Tragødier, vols. 1–9, Copenhagen: andr. Fred. Høst 1841–44 (asKB 1601–1605). Digtekunsten. I Poesier, Copenhagen: andr. Fred. Høst 1849 (ASKB u 87). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Oehlenschläger adler, adolph peter, Theologiske Studier, Copenhagen: i Commission hos universitets-Boghandler C.a. reitzel 1846, p. 43; p. 57, note (ASKB u 12). Baggesen, Jens, Breve til Adam Øhlenschlæger (I Anledning af En Reise af en Dito), 2nd ed., Copenhagen: paa Forfatterens Forlag 1818 (ASKB u 16). 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. 45 (ASKB 568). —— “om den romantiske tragedie af Hertz: svend dyrings Huus. i Forbindelse med en æsthetisk Betragtning af de danske Kæmpeviser,” in Perseus, vols. 1– 2, ed. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1837–38, vol. 1, pp. 165–264, see p. 190; p. 196; p. 199; p. 219; p. 259; p. 261 (ASKB 569). —— “Lyrisk poesie,” in Intelligensblade, vol. 3, nos. 25–26, 1843, pp. 25–72, see p. 44; p. 54; pp. 57–59 (ASKB u 56). —— “oehlenschlägers rolf Krage,” in Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Prosaiske Skrifter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1841–43, vol. 3, pp. 43–78; see also p. 322; p. 326 (ASKB 1560). 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 1837–38, vol. 1, pp. 91–164, see p. 116, note (ASKB 569). —— Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849, p. 270; p. 391 (ASKB 653). [møller, poul martin], Efterladte Skrifter af Poul M. Møller, vols. 1–3, ed. by Christian winther, F.C. olsen, and Christen thaarup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839–43, vol. 3, p. 268 (ASKB 1574–1576).

Adam Oehlenschläger: Kierkegaard and the Treasure Hunter of Immediacy

273

mynster, Jakob peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852– 53 [vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57], vol. 1, p. 185; vol. 2, p. 366; vol. 3, p. 190; pp. 349–54 (ASKB 358–363). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, Copenhagen: C.g. iversen 1854, pp. 394f. [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). steffens, Henrich, Was ich erlebte. Aus der Erinnerung niedergeschrieben, vols. 1– 10, Breslau: Josef max und Comp. 1840–44, vol. 1, p. 362; vol. 2, p. 65; p. 113; vol. 5, pp. 24–9; p. 63; p. 87; p. 90; p. 95; pp. 159–63; vol. 6, p. 250; pp. 259–61; vol. 9, pp. 265–6; vol. 10, p. 354; p. 423 (ASKB 1834–1843). 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: wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1843, p. 5; p. 34; p. 89; p. 101, note; p. 131 (ASKB 1390). thortsen, Carl adolph, Historisk Udsigt over den danske Litteratur indtil Aar 1814, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839, pp. 152ff. (ASKB 970). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Oehlenschläger Billeskov Jansen, F.J., “oehlenschläger,” in Kierkegard Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9), pp. 91–111. Fenger, Henning, 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. 74; p. 79; p. 82; p. 84; p. 88; p. 105; p. 113; p. 120; p. 122; p. 183; p. 194 p. 199; p. 219. (originally as KierkegaardMyter og Kierkegaard-Kilder. 9 kildekritiske studier i de Kierkegaardske papirer, breve og aktstykker, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976.) tjønneland, eivind, Ironie als Symptom. Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Søren Kierkegaards Über den Begriff der Ironie, Frankfurt am main: peter Lang 2004 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Germanistik und Skandinavistik, vol. 54), pp. 111–4; pp. 222–30; pp. 268–70.

Joachim Ludvig phister: The Great Comic Actor of Reflection and thoughtfulness william Banks

among the most celebrated actors of the nineteenth-century danish stage, and certainly its most prolific, Joachim Ludvig Phister was born in Copenhagen on may 23, 1807, shortly before the British bombardment of the city.1 the fourth of ten children born to the schoolteacher Ludvig Harboe phister (1779–1863) and Christine Maria Zahrtmann (1777–1863), Joachim Ludvig first exhibited a flair for theatrics in his youthful efforts to imitate his father, whose command of the various rural dialects of Jutland and zealand was well known and much appreciated in local circles. after a brief and undistinguished performance in grammar school, phister was, at the behest of his liberal-minded father and despite the objections of his mother and eldest brother, enrolled in may 1817 at the royal Ballet school, where his classmates included the later internationally renowned choreographer august Bournonville (1805–79). still restless, the young dancing school pupil longed for the chance to display his already recognized vocal talents. this opportunity would finally materialize on the evening of May 15, 1819, when his performance in a small role as a peasant boy in thomas thaarup’s (1749–1821) Singspiel, The Harvest Festival, simply stole the show, thereby thoroughly enchanting, among others, the playwright royal song master Ludvig zinck (1776–1851), and King Frederik vi himself. not long thereafter Ferdinand Lindgreen (1770–1842), director of the royal theater’s acting school, requested his transfer, and thus began a 56-year journey which would bring phister to the very heights of the small and insular and yet remarkably accomplished danish theater world. any attempt at a survey of the life’s work of one so ceaselessly productive as phister necessarily involves omission; indeed, the contemporary commentator can only marvel at a work ethic and consistent standard of excellence which perhaps may belong exclusively to an earlier age. the list of his roles, more than 600 long, reads much like the nineteenth-century european repertoire itself, with particularly celebrated performances including saganarelle in molière’s Don Juan, don For a comprehensive account of the life of phister, see otto zinck, Joachim Ludvig Phister. Et Teaterliv, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1896. For a critical treatment of the actor’s stagework, see edvard Brandes, Dansk Skuespilkunst. Portrætstudier, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1880, pp. 287–316. 1

276

William Banks

Basilio in rossini’s The Barber of Seville, as well as nearly every male character in sheridan’s The School for Scandal.2 with respect to his native land, phister was no less integral on the contemporary stage; many of the roles in the vaudevilles of Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860), as well as those of Henrik Hertz (1798–1870) and Jens Christian Hostrup (1818–92), were written with his particular talents in mind. and yet it is most certainly as an interpreter of Ludvig Holberg (1684–1754), father of danish theater, that phister reached the crest of his comedic genius. in this respect phister can be seen to be at the very center of danish theater history, for he was the proper inheritor of the tradition of Holberg-acting inaugurated by adam gielstrup (1773–1830), passed on through Lindgreen to phister, who would himself eventually give way to his own pupil, olaf poulsen (1849–1923). phister’s particular contribution to this tradition involves his performances in the role of Henrik, an omnipresent figure in Holberg’s comedies not at all unlike Cervantes’ Sancho Panza: one part scheming rogue, one part faithful servant, and yet always the superior of his master with respect to common sense and practical wisdom. His most memorable performance, however, must by all accounts be reserved for that of Jeppe, the lowly peasant turned king-for-a-day in Holberg’s Jeppe of the Hill, a text whose centrality to its native literary tradition remains without parallel in the literatures of the larger european lands. georg Brandes (1842–1927), himself the father of modern literary studies in scandinavia, describes phister as “Jeppe’s true defender,” in that the actor was the first to bring out in the main character that measure of naiveté and basic decency necessary for an understanding of the text in accordance with the received view of Holberg as a purveyor of enlightenment optimism.3 an appreciation of phister’s extraordinary productivity becomes all the more astounding when one considers that which his critics almost universally agree to be his chief virtue as an artist: “correctness,” or, to employ Kierkegaard’s term, “diligence.” in a review of the 1855 royal theater season, contemporary critic Meïr Goldschmidt (1819–87) praises the fluidity and liveliness, but above all the “proficiency” that is everywhere evident in Phister’s performance.4 Hostrup, himself the author of numerous works in which phister acted, similarly remarks on his remarkable “command,” which “never permits him to be lured across a certain line” and therefore “always to remain within the proper boundaries.”5 phister’s official biographer and lifelong associate Otto Zinck (1824–1908) provides a similar testimony, describing the “unflagging perseverance” with which the actor prepared for his roles.6 goldschmidt again concurs here, voicing the widely held view that Phister’s first performance of a role constituted the polished and fully-developed finished product: “After the passing of many years one can again see him in the For an exhaustive list of phister’s repertoire, see zinck, Et Teaterliv, pp. 221–34. Brandes’ review, originally published in the april 5, 1868 edition of Illustreret Tidende, is reprinted in Kritiker og Portræter, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1885, pp. 132–41. 4 Nord og Syd: Et Ugeskrift, ed. by meïr goldschmidt, new series, vol. 2, 1856, p. 156. 5 Jens Christian Hostrup, Erindringer fra min Barndom og Ungdom, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1891, p. 208. 6 zinck, Et Teaterliv, p. 117. 2 3

Phister: The Great Comic Actor of Reflection and Thoughtfulness

277

same piece—and forget that time has passed.”7 writing a generation later, georg Brandes would reaffirm much of this appraisal. In contrast to the other great actor of his era, Christian niemann rosenkilde (1786–1861), who himself represents what Brandes defines as the “subjective” actor, who “every time he played the same role always brought something new forth,” Phister is best qualified as a more “objective” artist, as “correctness itself.” echoing Kierkegaard’s own unpublished commentary, Brandes observes that while Rosenkilde’s improvisational flourishes may very well carry away a particular production, phister’s more studied and exacting approach is far less likely to stray from the “concepts” inherent in the text.8 perhaps the most measured and sophisticated appreciation of phister’s art, however, is to be found in edvard Brandes’ (1847–1931) 1880 commentary. Here the emphasis is shifted more toward the actor’s transformative capacity, toward his ability to assume a “lifesized mask, behind which phister’s own individuality vanished.”9 and yet Brandes’ commentary ultimately proves to be commensurate with that of his colleagues, for his portrait of phister is every bit that of the thinking man’s actor: “i will in short say that that human faculty which phister has eminently mastered is understanding...that word ‘passion’ on the whole has no place in phister’s art.”10 with regard to his personal affairs, phister’s life is characterized by all of the usual awards and honorifics which the Scandinavian countries bestow upon their celebrated artists. He married three times, first to the young actress Charlotte oehlenschläger (1811–35), daughter of the poet and playwright, then to the opera singer Christiane Holst (1816–41), and finally to the equally accomplished stage actress Louise petersen (1816–1914), opposite whom he starred in many celebrated productions into their twilight years together. By and large staying clear of the larger cultural and political affairs of his time, Phister did become involved in that conflict which commenced upon the ascension of Johan Ludvig Heiberg to the directorate of the royal theater in 1849, shortly after the transition from absolutist to constitutional government. while that sometimes painful feud did indeed have its roots in broader ideological differences—in particular those between the aging and conservative Heiberg and a new generation of actors and playwrights eager to push the theater in a more naturalist, perhaps more democratic direction—its actual conduct appears to have rather quickly devolved into the kind of petty squabbling which in many ways seems endemic to the world of show business, most certainly up to the present day. phister’s own involvement—as an opponent of Heiberg—was in his own words motivated far more by a concern for the well-being and smooth-functioning of the royal theater itself than any more serious and substantive intellectual disagreement. the feud did, however, result in the single published work by phister, a 30-page refutation authored three years before his death in 1896 of alleged inaccuracies in the

this brief commentary by Kierkegaard’s long-time nemesis offers an interesting counterpoint to Kierkegaard’s own writing on phister. Cf. Nord og Syd: Et Ugeskrift, ed. by meïr goldschmidt, new series, vol. 1, 1858, pp. 143–5. 8 georg Brandes quoted in zinck, Et Teaterliv, p. 216. 9 Brandes, Dansk Skuespilkunst: Portrætstudier, p. 288. 10 ibid., p. 289. 7

278

William Banks

third volume of the memoirs of Heiberg’s wife, the celebrated actress Johanne Luise Heiberg (1812–90), which had first appeared in 1892.11 the extent of personal relations between Kierkegaard and phister remains largely a matter of speculation; although it is apparent that the two men lived in the same building for a time at the end of the 1840s, Kierkegaard’s papers make no mention of direct interactions, while phister’s authorized biography, a work replete with references to contemporary danish cultural luminaries, contains nary a single mention of Kierkegaard. given the rather cozy nature of the Copenhagen cultural elite, it is nonetheless doubtless that the magister and the actor were at the very least familiar with one another, although the likelihood must here be admitted that the latter was much more familiar with the former rather than vice versa. whatever public notoriety Kierkegaard may have garnered from the Corsair affair and the later campaign against the state Church must be kept in proper perspective when compared to the extraordinary attentions with which the golden age danes showered upon their favored celebrity actors. that Kierkegaard himself was not averse to this kind of adulation is everywhere evident in the two surviving letters written to Phister, the first of which was intended to accompany an 1848 review of an earlier phister performance in the role of Captain scipio in the comic opera Ludovic by Jules Henri vernoy de saint-georges (1799–1875).12 writing as an anonymous admirer, Kierkegaard’s rather sheepish efforts at self-deprecation here are indeed very much evocative of the typical fan letter, for he speaks of “flattering himself” with the hope that he might “possibly please” the actor with his “little manuscript,” and he is further at pains to establish that he dare not liken himself to the recipient, as if the author himself “were as competent as he.”13 the second letter, dated new Year’s eve 1850, and intended to accompany a copy of the second edition of Either/Or in which the name of Phister is mentioned, finds Kierkegaard up to his usual pseudonymous mischief.14 playing the part of the pseudonymous editor while of scant interest to Kierkegaard scholars, phister’s brief exegesis does provide an insider’s view of the danish theater world toward the end of Kierkegaard’s life. Cf. Joachim Ludvig phister, Et Nødværge, Copenhagen: philipsen 1893. Fru Heiberg’s publisher would, however, ensure that she would have the last word, even from beyond the grave. Cf. adolf ditlev Jørgensen, Prof. Phisters og Fru Sødrings Kritik af Fru Heibergs Erindringer, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1893. 12 the full text of the unpublished review, which will shortly be discussed at length, may be found at Pap. iX B 67–73, pp. 381–407 / C, 327–44. 13 B&A, vol. 1, p. 218 / LD, Letter 193, pp. 276–7. 14 Kierkegaard’s only published references to phister are to be found in the review of eugène scribe’s (1791–1861) The First Love in the first part of Either/Or. Here Kierkegaard glowingly describes phister, along with Fru Heiberg, peter Jørgen Frydendahl (1766–1836) and Johan adolph gottlob stage (1791–1845) as constituting the “four-leaf clover” of the danish stage. SKS 2, 233 / EO1, 239. Later in the review, Kierkegaard offers an evaluation of Phister in the role of Charles which in some ways seems to prefigure his later commentary on Scipio: “Look at Phister; it almost hurts when you fix your eyes upon the infinitely insipid stupidity that is stamped on his face. and yet this is not a spontaneous stupidity; his look still has an enthusiasm that in its foolishness calls to mind a past. no one is born with such a face; it has a history.” SKS 2, 270 / EO1, 279. 11

Phister: The Great Comic Actor of Reflection and Thoughtfulness

279

victor eremita to the hilt, Kierkegaard/eremita suggests that he had in fact planned on sending off the book when it had first appeared the previous year, but had been prevented by the reservations of a certain magister then also living at rosenborggade 156—the real Kierkegaard—who had taken it into his head that eremita “should not be allowed to send it as long as you were both living in the same building.”15 Clearly, then, Kierkegaard’s apparent reluctance to engage directly (neither letter was signed nor sent) with phister seems at least to suggest certain elements normally associated with the adulation of show business celebrities, and yet, as is evidenced from an earlier article on Fru Heiberg, Kierkegaard can hardly be said to be an advocate of such unqualified and unreflected praise.16 even in as gushing a document as the 1848 letter meant to accompany the review of Ludovic, already Kierkegaard is laying the foundation for a far different kind of appreciation, for here he invokes the concept of the “single reader” so familiar to readers of his larger authorship: “For if i had the essay printed, and if in that case it were read by everybody, still it would not have found its reader if you had not read it.”17 this groundwork is fully articulated in the essay on “phister as Captain scipio,” in which Kierkegaard imports categories equally familiar to readers of the aesthetic authorship—those of immediacy and reflection—into the domain of stagecraft. The principal axis of the distinction, as is to be expected, largely revolves around self-consciousness on the part of the actor as well as, to a certain extent, the critic. the immediate actor, because he lacks a complete understanding of the role as “a thoroughly reflected totality,” in some sense requires the interpolating activity of the critic, for the actor himself may very well be unaware of the entire content of the performance.18 georg Brandes’ characterization of rosenkilde as a “more subjective actor” seems to correspond more or less with Kierkegaard’s notion of the actor of immediacy, for Brandes again places emphasis on the improvisational or perhaps “unfinished” quality of the typical Rosenkilde performance, on how each time “he plays the same role, something new always comes forth.”19 while Kierkegaard does indeed speak favorably of rosenkilde’s abilities in other places, he is in this essay clear to establish the art of the immediate actor as the aesthetic inferior to that of the reflective, which is in accordance with the generally Heibergian nature of his aesthetics.20 Unlike the more cultivated reflective B&A, vol. 1, pp. 295–7 / LD, Letter 274, pp. 376–7. in his July 1848 article “the Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an actress” in The Fatherland, Kierkegaard had railed against the manner in which the public had raced to elevate Fru Heiberg’s first performance as Juliet—at the tender age of 15—to the level of the sublime. Such premature qualification is for Kierkegaard symptomatic of a profoundly underdeveloped aesthetic sensibility, for the true (and, of course, exceedingly rare) breed of cultivated aesthete understands that it is in her 1847 reprise of the role, as a 34-year-old fully developed artist, that true genius is to be found. Cf. SV1 X, 323–44 / C, 301–25. 17 B&A, vol. 1, p. 218 / LD, Letter 194, p. 277. 18 Pap. iX B 68, p. 385 / C, 330. 19 Brandes quoted in zinck, Et Teaterliv, p. 216. 20 it is curious to compare the draft versions of Kierkegaard’s dedications to rosenkilde and Phister. While Rosenkilde is as well as described as “Denmark’s greatest,” his specific qualification as “humor’s inestimable, not to say priceless, comic actor,” clearly establishes the personal preference of the author for phister, who is characterized as “the great comic actor 15 16

280

William Banks

actor, the province of the immediate actor is that of the mob, for “just because he has no self-awareness,” he urgently craves the unqualified and unconditional bravissimo of the multitude.21 while Kierkegaard never outright names rosenkilde as the exemplar of immediate genius on the stage, he is very specific in the essay on Captain Scipio to identify the particular strength of Phister’s artistry as reflection. The reflective actor, in contrast to the immediate, is defined by his “diligence,” which in turn manifests itself in the extraordinary degree of “study” exhibited in each of his performances.22 Because of the heightened measure of self-consciousness present in the reflective performance, the reflective actor demands a radically different relationship with the critic than the immediate actor, who, as has been said, requires of the critic both interpretation and interpolation. Because the typical phister performance constitutes, once again, a “thoroughly reflected totality,” already worked out to the finest detail, the critic’s role is fundamentally that of understanding. the basic procedure of the reflective critic is thus not that of “explaining” the performance to a mass audience— this Kierkegaard consigns to the ordinary “local critic”—but of disassembling its manifold of small details and then reassembling them according to the manner in which the actor himself composed them, a process which Kierkegaard appropriately likens to “undergoing an examination.”23 that conventional notions of appreciation are thoroughly dispensed with in this is a fact not at all lost on Kierkegaard, who himself remarks on how “inhuman” it would be to a typical “admirer.” Between the reflective actor and the reflective critic, says Kierkegaard, there exists “the infinite remoteness of ideality,” in which “the most dignified De prevails.”24 in spite of the observation that in some sense “there is no admiration in the relation between reflection and reflection,” that “the account balances,” Kierkegaard’s theory of reflective criticism should likely not be taken as a precursor of later efforts to situate the activity of criticism on a plane equal to or even above that of the creative artist. indeed, as should be apparent, Kierkegaard’s conception of criticism, if anything, appears to strengthen the notion of authorial intent, for he is clear that all of the central hermeneutic elements are already present in the fully developed reflective performance, and need only be retrieved by the equally reflective and thorough analysis of the reflective critic. It is in this sense that Kierkegaard may be seen to offer a new kind of critical appreciation. of reflection and thoughtfulness”—no meager words of praise given Kierkegaard’s general order of values. B&A, vol. 1, p. 344 / LD, dedication 14, p. 437. For more on Kierkegaard’s debt to Heiberg, see george pattison, “søren Kierkegaard: a theater Critic of the Heiberg school,” in Kierkegaard and his Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, Berlin: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 319–29. 21 Pap. iX B 68, p. 387 / C, 333. 22 Pap. iX B 68, p. 384 / C, 330. 23 Pap. iX B 68, p. 388 / C, 333. 24 the danish personal pronoun “De” is used in formal address, while the informal is “du.” Pap. iX B 68, p. 387 / C, 332. Kierkegaard’s rather extreme notion of critical distance is directly evidenced in his choice of “procul”—Latin for “at a distance”—as pseudonym for the review.

Phister: The Great Comic Actor of Reflection and Thoughtfulness

281

After laying out the basic components of reflective acting and criticism, Kierkegaard proceeds to offer an analysis of phister as Captain scipio accordingly distinguished by a particularly tender attention to detail. as george pattison has demonstrated, Kierkegaard, as fundamentally an adherent of Heibergian aesthetics, locates the essence of comic effect in self-contradiction.25 From this it follows that the greater the comprehension of the contradictions in a given role, the more sophisticated and multi-layered these contradictions are, the more reflective is the performance. with respect to scipio, a captain in the papal police, the essential contradiction is to be found in the conflicting demands of a dignified military bearing and those of the ordinary busybody public official, who among other mundane tasks “perhaps supervises the keeping of the sewers and gutters freely flowing.”26 Here is a role almost intended for Phister, for the task of the reflective actor is to represent simultaneously both sides of the captain—the military and the civilian—the one at every moment undermining the other and vice versa, and yet neither ever acquiring the upper hand. The reflective genius in Phister’s performance is revealed in the most minute details which serve to manage this delicate contradiction, identified in particular emphasis here as the captain’s mockery of stomach in and chest out military stance (phister is noticeably potbellied), as well as his decidedly non-martial “extremely bustling, half-skipping, sideways gait.”27 and yet there is more to undermine scipio’s elevated standing as a military man: he is also a drunk, or, rather, “continually a little tipsy.”28 in the section appropriately entitled “the Lord only knows whether Captain scipio actually drinks or not,” Kierkegaard obliges us with a particularly concrete illustration of the distinction between the art of the reflective and of the immediate actor. While even the most mediocre of immediate actors is up to the task of playing a drunk, phister as the supreme man of reflection senses that the captain in spite of his dandyism nevertheless is responsible enough to understand the need to conceal his drinking. the role thus demands that the actor must never directly reveal the captain’s drunkenness, but that instead this is to be communicated “telegraphically, in surreptitiously betraying the secret expressly by what the Captain does to conceal the true situation.”29 this is by any measure a tall order, this attempt to portray drunkenness not by drunken behavior itself but by the character’s carefully disguised efforts to hide it, and yet it is a task which phister pulls off with consummate grace, from the frequent fanning of his head, which could be an effort to refresh himself after offstage exertion or perhaps an attempt to dispel alcoholic vapor, to the repeated covering “from” his mouth with his hand, which could very well be a flirtatious blowing of a kiss or maybe then an effort to suppress a belch. while one must always be wary of comparing the judgments of the directly engaged contemporary critic to those of posterity, it is perhaps useful here to address georg Brandes’ 1868 commentary on phister’s most famous role, that of the most famous of danish drunkards, Jeppe of the Hill. while Brandes is possessed 25 26 27 28 29

pattison, “a theater Critic of the Heiberg school,” p. 327. Pap. iX B 68, p. 390 / C, 335. Pap. iX B 68, p. 393 / C, 338. Pap. iX B 68, p. 395 / C, 339. Pap. iX B 68, p. 396 / C, 340.

282

William Banks

of a (political) agenda very different from that of Kierkegaard, he does frame the performance in essentially the same manner: the effective Jeppe-player must seek to impart a degree of dignity on the admittedly hapless and hopelessly irresponsible peasant; he must portray him as “lovable” and yet not “moving,” “comic” but still not “hideous.”30 recalling Kierkegaard’s commentary on scipio, Brandes asserts that the genius of phister’s interpretation of Jeppe is to be located in the manner in which he preserves a measure of the poor peasant’s dignity, even after the drinking is well under way, for “as phister casts his vagaries into the drinking pot, one understands, that Jeppe’s downcast humor restores his equilibrium, even as his legs begin to lose it.”31 that Brandes could so closely echo Kierkegaard’s impressions a full generation later goes a long way in establishing the depth of Kierkegaard’s insight as theater critic. Kierkegaard concludes his review of “phister as Captain scipio” with the somewhat startling acknowledgment that it constitutes a “recollection,” that it has been “many years” since he has seen the play.32 this curious admission could be interpreted as an effort to bolster a stronger conception of dramatic criticism, in that the author is suggesting that the necessary distance as well as the inordinate amount of reflection demanded by such a distance requires a much greater amount of time than is normally permitted the typical theater critic, and indeed Kierkegaard does speak rather disapprovingly of the ordinary reviewer who proceeds as if a single opening night performance were enough for substantive critique. and yet one must always be wary when approaching Kierkegaard’s (always pseudonymously authored) aesthetic musings, and even here he seems to undermine the entirety of the project by offering the further admission that it is the product of the author’s “scantily measured and only rarely granted leisure time.”33 pattison has done well to identify the considerable spirit of dandyism in this essay, recalling Kierkegaard’s earlier likening in the essay on The First Love of aesthetic contemplation to the cigar smoker admiring his clouds of smoke.34 there can be no doubt that, in Kierkegaard’s estimation, Phister has reached the heights of possibility with respect to reflection, and for this he has earned the author’s lifelong and undying admiration. and yet in another sense Kierkegaard’s relation to phister serves to throw light on the very limits of reflection, and its respective life-sphere, the aesthetic, for it remains in the final estimate incapable of addressing the much larger issues of human being, issues which Kierkegaard reserves for the ethical and, in the end, the religious.

Brandes, Kritiker og Portræter, p. 132. ibid., p. 134. 32 Pap. iX B 68, p. 399 / C, 343. Ludovic was performed regularly at the royal theater from 1834 to 1841, and then one more time in 1846. 33 Pap. iX B 68, p. 400 / C, 344. 34 pattison, “a theater Critic of the Heiberg school,” p. 328. 30 31

Bibliography I. Phister Performances Referenced by Kierkegaard (arranged in the order of the first performance in Copenhagen) scribe, eugène, Les Premiers Amours, 1825 (comedy), in danish as Den Første Kjærlighed, trans. by Johan Ludvig Heiberg, first performed in Copenhagen in 1831, afterwards a regular part of the repertoire until 1849, again from 6 may 1855 long after Kierkegaard’s death (phister’s role in the piece: Charles). —— Le Dieu et la Bayadère, 1830 (singspiel), music by daniel-François-esprit auber, in danish as Brama og Bayaderen, trans. by Thomas Overskou, first performed in Copenhagen in 1833, afterwards a regular part of the repertoire long after Kierkegaard’s death (phister’s role in the piece: olifur). vernoy de saint georges, georges-Henri, Ludovic, 1833 (singspiel), music by Louis Joseph Ferdinand Hérold and Jacques François Fromental elie Halèvy, in danish as Ludovic, trans. by Thomas Overskou, first performed in Copenhagen in 1834, afterwards a regular part of the repertoire until 1841 and once more in 1846 (phister’s role in the piece: Captain scipio). sheridan, richard Brinsley, The School for Scandal, 1777 (comedy), in danish as Bagtalelsens Skole, trans. by adam gottlob thoroup (performances from 1784 to 1835) and niels vinding dorph (performances after 1846), the translation by Niels Vinding Dorph first performed in Copenhagen in 1846, afterwards a regular part of the repertoire until Kierkegaard’s death (Kierkegaard saw this first performance in 1846–47) (phister’s role in the piece: snake). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Phister none. III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Phister Crites, stephen, “introduction” to his translation Crisis in the Life of an Actress and Other Essays on Drama, trans. by stephen Crites, London: Collins 1967, pp. 7–63. pattison, george, “søren Kierkegaard: a theater Critic of the Heiberg school,” in Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, Berlin: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 319–29.

Christian winther: Kierkegaard as Lover and reader nathaniel Kramer

Kierkegaard rarely wrote his name in the books he owned. He did, however, sign two books he purchased during a trip to Berlin,1 and one other. Christian winther’s Sketches appears to have had especial significance for Kierkegaard. Not only did he sign his name in the book, but as nicolaj Bøgh (1843–1905) tells us, Kierkegaard often carried it in the inner pocket of his coat.2 one can, of course, only speculate on the apparent significance this particular book had for Kierkegaard, but the first poem in the collection is particularly interesting in light of Kierkegaard’s relationship to regine olsen. the poem is titled “two Lovers” and describes the faithfulness of a young woman to a young man despite his eventually abandoning her. the poem does not tell us why the young man leaves but suggests in his sitting quietly next to her during his clandestine visits that there is something profound that both draws him to her and forces his inexplicable leave-taking. if there is something reminiscent in the poem of the relationship between Kierkegaard and regine olsen, winther’s poetry in general seems to have touched Kierkegaard at a deep and personal level. while Kierkegaard never openly claimed such intimate value for Sketches, the connection of winther’s poetry to regine’s and Kierkegaard’s relationship occurs repeatedly throughout the journals and his writings. Winther’s poetry appears to be significant not only for Kierkegaard and his feelings for regine but also for his feelings for his father. in the series of entries that accompany the journal entry dubbed “the great earthquake,” where Kierkegaard describes the impact his father’s death had on him, two lines from winther’s poem “the new Year” stand just under a quotation from goethe and just before twelve lines from shakespeare’s King Lear. the selection from winther’s poem reads “Beg?—we will not! / Youth on the road of life, / Forcefully seizes its treasure.”3 the significance of the lines as well as the other citations from Goethe and Shakespeare there is a discrepancy in the number of books Kierkegaard actually signed. in a note to Stages on Life’s Way, the number is set at five books. See SLW, supplement, p. 701. the auction catalogue has three. see The Auctioneer’s Sales Record of the Library of Søren Kierkegaard, ed. by H.p. rohde, Copenhagen: the royal Library 1967, pp. lv–lvi. i have not been able to verify which is correct. 2 nicolaj Bøgh, Christian Winther. Et Livsbillede, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1893–1901, vol. 3, p. 73. 3 Pap. ii a 803 / JP 5, 5428. (Translation modified.) 1

286

Nathaniel Kramer

are rich with suggestion but obscured in part because the textual history of the entries has been rather confused.4 still, the association of winther by Kierkegaard with what by all accounts was a defining moment in his life as well as positioning Winther amongst Goethe and Shakespeare suggest the significance of Winther’s poetry for Kierkegaard. although Kierkegaard and winther moved in similar circles, Kierkegaard’s association with winther seems to have been primarily from a reverential distance. they did belong to the student association (of which winther was a founding member), and both frequented the home of the actors nicolai peter nielsen (1795– 1860) and anna nielsen (1803–56), a popular gathering place for Copenhagen’s literati. Peter Tudvad finds evidence that Kierkegaard was also present at a reading of poems given by winther at the nielsen’s summer home in sommerlyst.5 still, there are few direct encounters mentioned in the biographies, letters, and literary histories. Kierkegaard’s journals, however, indicate the high regard he had for winther. Kierkegaard calls winther his “preferred poet” and dedicated the second edition of Either/Or to winther, sending both him and adam oehlenschläger (1779– 1850) a copy. the dedication to winther reads in winther’s copy “to Christian winther, the poet with grateful respect and admiration.”6 to give further credence to such admiration one need look no further than a note found in Kierkegaard’s papers giving instructions to the printer of Three Discourses on Imagined Occasions. the note reads “to be printed in the same format and in the same type as Christian winther’s Sagn og Sang.”7 this instruction to mimic the typography and format of winther’s collection of poems was never carried out but in itself further suggests the affinity Kierkegaard had for Winther and his work. Whatever the direct and indirect connections, winther was a poet and an author that Kierkegaard greatly admired, even revered. in his admiration for winther, Kierkegaard was not alone. winther stands as one of the most important lyrical poets of the danish golden age whose popularity extends from his own lifetime to the present.

see Joakim garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 2006, pp. 131ff. for a good introduction to the editorial problems of this journal entry in particular. 5 see peter tudvad, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politikens Forlag 2004, p. 308. 6 B&A, vol. 1, p. 340 / LD, dedication 10a, p. 431. 7 Pap. vi B 125:2 / TD, supplement, p. 127. 4

Christian Winther: Kierkegaard as Lover and Reader

287

I. A Biographical Sketch of Rasmus Villads Christian Winther rasmus villads Christian winther was born on July 29, 1796 in Fensmark near næstved in southern zealand.8 winther’s father, Hans Christian winther (1759–1808), was a vicar and his mother, Johanne dorothea Borchsenius (1767–1830), was herself the daughter of a priest. winther’s childhood was relatively happy and comfortable. there is a story winther himself tells about his childhood wherein his mother, on his fifth birthday, woke young Christian before dawn and with him climbed a hill near their home. they sat together in the early morning and watched the sun rise over the countryside. in relating the story, winther mentions seeing a star in the heavens, and that star he would never forget. this story has been used to explain the impact the danish landscape and in particular zealand was to have on winther and his poetry. winther’s father was in ill health for much of Christian’s early childhood and died in 1808. Johanne remarried in 1811 to rasmus møller (1763–1842), the father of poul martin møller (1794–1838) who would one day become a professor of philosophy at the University of Copenhagen and be enormously influential on his prize pupil, søren Kierkegaard. winther entered the university of Copenhagen in 1815 and began studying theology with the apparent intent of following in both his father’s and stepfather’s footsteps. However winther’s theological pursuits never culminated in his becoming a vicar. winther was far more interested in the intellectual and social life of Copenhagen than his theological studies. He finally did complete his degree in 1824 but was hired as the private tutor of the daughter of a wealthy merchant in Copenhagen by the name of müffelman. the money, as well as the proximity to the intellectual life of Copenhagen, allowed winther to pursue the connections he had established earlier at the student association and the Bakkehus salon as well as to cultivate his reputation as a well-dressed, romantic bohemian around Copenhagen. During his tenure in the Müffelman home, Winther debuted with his first collection of poems in 1828. titled simply Poems, the collection was an instant success.9 Foremost among the poems stands the cycle titled “woodcuts.” these were especially popular and would come to consolidate winther’s reputation as a poet. Written in the style of the pastoral idyll, the cycle of ten poems is the first to reveal winther’s preoccupation with the danish landscape, a theme that would come to be characteristic of his best poetry and would mark him as a poet of the second generation of danish romantics. also apparent in these poems is the tendency toward realistic description, another characteristic of winther and the second generation poets. set presumably in southern zealand, the home of his youth, each of the titles of the individual poems bears a woman’s name and a man’s name and generally treats the For further information on winther’s life and work nicolaj Bøgh’s three-volume biography is considered the standard but is only available in danish. For biographical information in english, see michael Krarup, “Christian winther,” in Danish Writers from the Reformation to Decadence, 1500–1900, ed. by marianne stecher-Hansen, Farmington Hills, michigan: thomson gale 2004 (Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. 300), pp. 494–9. another danish introduction to winther’s life is p. Hansen’s entry in the Dansk biografisk leksikon, vols. 1–19, ed. C.F. Bricka, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1887–1905, vol. 19, pp. 72– 88. 9 Christian winther, Digte, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1828. 8

288

Nathaniel Kramer

young lovers as being in conflict with civic and religious institutions that threaten their love in one way or another. Ultimately these conflicts are resolved, and the lovers are reunited. “woodcuts” remain to this day part of winther’s most important contribution to danish literature. winther was apparently an attractive man and cultivated a romantic persona. Contravening many of the accepted standards of the day, winther entered into several relationships which often concluded under painful circumstances. The first of winther’s relationships coincides with the writing of Poems during which winther became interested in his 15-year old pupil, alvide. indeed, some have speculated that the poetry was largely inspired by alvide. the feelings winther had for her were, however, not mutual. although the parents of alvide were encouraging of the relationship, winther left his employment in 1830. the success of Poems as well as a substantial inheritance enabled winther to leave Copenhagen and travel to europe. winther also undoubtedly felt that the relationship with alvide was at an impasse though he continued to fan from abroad whatever attraction was there through his letters to her. winther left Copenhagen in september 1830 and spent a year abroad traveling, staying for extended periods in italy as well as germany and switzerland. His substantial inheritance, measured against others who had received similar sums, should have allowed winther to live comfortably for the rest of his life. He, however, frittered away much of his inheritance on his trip abroad as well as his immediate return and would come to spend the rest of his life in debt and in flight from his creditors. the economic straits that plagued winther from the beginning of his career would pursue him throughout his life. Apparently Winther’s financial problems were something of common knowledge but often served to emphasize winther’s bohemian and unconventional nature. Kierkegaard also apparently knew of Winther’s financial problems, commenting at one point that “it was a shame that [winther] was never rich. He should have been so because with his characteristic charm, he generously spread his money around.”10 shortly after his return from abroad and aware that his relationship with alvide was never to become anything more, winther took an interest in sophie Hansen. His interest in sophie was relatively short-lived, discouraged by many of his close friends and even encroached on by the poet Carl Ludvig emil aarestrup (1800–56). winther became increasingly ambivalent in his feelings for her, and, pressed to make up his mind about her, he ultimately broke off the engagement in 1832. in 1836, winther was introduced to Julia Constance werliin (1813–81) who was to become the great love his life. at the time of their introduction, however, werliin was married to the theologian Christian werliin (1804–66). winther would wait until he was 52 to marry her.11 The marriage was in some sense surprisingly stable given the difficulties with which it began. werliin’s husband discovered the relationship developing between his wife and Winther which led to an emotionally difficult and stressful divorce in Bøgh, Christian Winther. Et Livsbillede, vol. 2, p. 379. Kierkegaard seems to have personally known Julia werliin and been an invited guest to winther’s and her wedding. the letter sent by Kierkegaard to werliin is rather cryptic but appears to be a response to werliin’s request of Kierkegaard to attend the wedding. see B&A, vol. 1, p. 190 / LD, Letter 171, p. 240. 10 11

Christian Winther: Kierkegaard as Lover and Reader

289

1847. The financial strains placed on the marriage from Winther’s past also added a considerable burden. Furthermore, Julia’s daughter, ida, who was diagnosed as a “hysteric,” made living in Copenhagen difficult. The Winther’s were often forced to spend much of their time traveling to find cures and provide for Ida’s health. Still, both before their engagement and after, Julia provided a muse-like inspiration to winther. in 1835 winther published two more collections of poems. winther also embarked on a prose work titled Two Stories which was published in 1839.12 the mark of italian poetry as well as Ludwig Tieck (Winther’s foremost influence) and Heinrich Heine was obvious to those who were familiar with the german and italian works. during this period, however, the influence of Walter Scott and more significantly Lord Byron began to be evident. the critics and public alike noted a Byronic melancholic tone that began to permeate much of winther’s poetry during this period. this darker tone was evident both in his choice of subject matter and in winther’s execution. there were also other reasons for the darker aspect of winther’s poetry. Because he could not find a suitable position, Winther’s financial worries increased. Already in debt and running from his creditors, winther was forced to borrow from friends. some relief was forthcoming when in 1841 he was given the honorary title of professor by Christian viii and was sent to neu-strelitz to tutor the princess of mecklenburg, crown prince Frederik’s betrothed. during this time winther also embarked on another series of poems that would be published beginning in 1843 as well as a collection of novellas. while the critics were in the main critical of the novellas, the reaction to the poetry collection was quite positive. the center of the collection was a series of poems that would come under the title “to the one.” the “one” referred to here is, at one level, most certainly Julie Constance werliin. the subject is the changing emotions associated with love set against winther’s customary portrayal of the danish landscape and its alterations with the shift in seasons. these poems are considered to be Winther’s finest love poems. winther’s crowning achievement came late in his career. The Flight of the Stag, published in 1856, is arguably winther’s greatest poem.13 an epic story of the power of forbidden love, the poem is a complex narrative weaving together numerous stories and characters. The central conflict in the poem is the banishment of Strange and ellen, the former a knight and the latter an attendant to the queen, who have fallen in love with one another. ellen is imprisoned somewhere in Jutland, and strange is bound to a stag and driven into the forest. the poem is structured by the recovery of strange and ellen led by Folmer, a minstrel to the queen. the presence of Folmer as a poet serves as an anchoring device in the web of narratives binding all of them together but also underscoring the power of poetry to liberate the captive. Indeed poetry as it is embodied in the figure of Folmer, is freedom itself. Folmer, though begged by strange and ellen to remain, cannot stay since he must follow his poetic call.

Christian winther, To Fortællinger. Et Reise-Æventyr, Hesteprangeren, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839. 13 Christian winther, Hjortens Flugt. Et Digt, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1856.

12

290

Nathaniel Kramer

the subject matter of the poem as well as its style virtually encapsulates winther’s entire artistic production. From the medieval setting to winther’s emphasis on the landscape and his characteristic sense of realistic depiction to the influence of Italian literature, particularly that of ariosto’s epic Orlando furioso, the epic narrative brings together into one poem winther’s entire career. winther also returned to the metrical patterns of his “woodcuts” in his use of the nibelung strophic form (socalled because the same pattern was used in the german medieval epic poem, the Nibelungenlied) for The Flight of the Stag. georg Brandes remarked that what set winther apart from his contemporaries, and this poem in particular, is winther’s mastery of the language and his eye and ear for poetic form and meter. in general, this has been the assessment of winther by his contemporaries as well as those that have come after him: winther’s strong sense for the lyrical, musical, and metrical qualities of language. As Winther neared 60 years of age, the first symptoms of a weakening of mind began to appear. He became blind after a time, and due to ida’s continuing ill health, the winthers moved to paris in 1875. Christian winther died in paris on december 30, 1876. II. Kierkegaard’s Use of Winther it may not be too much of a stretch to suggest that Christian winther provided a real life exemplum of the romantic poet for Kierkegaard as well as a touchstone for his analysis of the aesthetic individual. as with so many of the Copenhageners, Kierkegaard may very well have been interested in the various turns the life of Christian winter took. From his entry onto the Copenhagen literary scene with the publication of Poems to the more melancholic tone taken in his later poems, to the virtual domestication of winther as he settled into a rather conventional bourgeois lifestyle with his marriage to Julia werliin, winther provided a fascinating portrait of the occupation of the poet in all of its complexity. But it was not just from neutral distance that Kierkegaard may have felt some connection to winther. Kierkegaard after all repeatedly declared that he too was a poet of sorts. whatever Kierkegaard’s interest in Christian winther and his work, the presence of winther’s poetry in Kierkegaard is slight but suggestive. two letters from Kierkegaard’s exchanges with regine olsen reveal both the personal connection Kierkegaard had to winther and his poetry as well as some of Kierkegaard’s own philosophical and aesthetic preoccupations. in a late undated letter to regine (the only time indicated is a tuesday evening–wednesday morning), Kierkegaard quotes from winther’s romantic ballad “Henrik and else.” the stanza, found in the latter part of the poem, reads “no more will i tempt you, for now i know your mind; / Christ grant that every maiden were of your faithful kind. / reward you—that i will: you spoke in pleasing way. / god’s peace! Farewell! tomorrow dawns another day.”14 The ballad was first published in Poems and was one of the “woodcuts” that made winther’s reputation. in the ballad, as the Hongs tell us, King wolmer or valdemar attempts to seduce a young country girl, else. she refuses wolmer’s 14

B&A, vol. 1, p. 62 / LD, Letter 33, p. 79.

Christian Winther: Kierkegaard as Lover and Reader

291

advances which end in the King’s renunciation and her reunion with Henrik, her true love. Although it is difficult to place since the letter is undated, one cannot help but think of the fateful break Kierkegaard initiated with regine. winther’s phrase “no more will i tempt you, for now i know your mind” suggests that the relationship between Kierkegaard and regine is rapidly coming to an end. still, if we assume too close of a connection between the poem and Kierkegaard’s life, the equation of Kierkegaard and regine with the characters in the poem complicates, perhaps even confuses, the reasons behind the broken engagement. within the letter itself, Kierkegaard is interested less in equating himself with wolmer and regine with else than in understanding the nature of the promised “reward” that wolmer offers else because of her faithfulness. in his more psychological reading of the poem, Kierkegaard suggests that King wolmer and Henrik may in fact be one and the same: “Hence poetic balance is not achieved until we assume that King wolmer and a certain other person are basically identical.”15 Henrik, in Kierkegaard’s reading, might be the reward promised by wolmer to else. Kierkegaard’s reading of the poem reveals both his interest in aesthetic formal structure as well as an interest in the psychological complexity of character and the conflicting forces that make up an existence. in light of the ambiguity that surrounds the reasons for Kierkegaard’s break with regine, it may be also that Kierkegaard is suggesting he is both wolmer and Henrik, both the sensualist and the faithful one together. while the reference to winther’s poem and Kierkegaard’s reading of the potential dual figure of Wolmer as seducer/ Henrik as faithful lover, provides no simple understanding of the motives for the break, it does, however, serve to suggest the conflicting duality and ambivalence in Kierkegaard’s own mind. the repetition of wolmer’s “tomorrow dawns another day” in the latter part of the letter, rather than suggesting hope for Kierkegaard’s and Regine’s relationship, is flatly denied by Kierkegaard, making the finality of the break poignant and tragic. Kierkegaard’s references to winther’s poems also provide an allusive connection not just between the world of poetry and his own personal world but also to his philosophical thought. one of these concepts is the notion of a secret communication that takes place between author and reader. in another undated letter, though presumably written prior to the one discussed above, Kierkegaard asks regine if she remembers the poem “the Fiddler at the Fountain.”16 the poem is from winther’s 1840 collection Songs and Sagas and is about a musician poet who, stopping by a spring, calls nature to bear a message away to his beloved. Kierkegaard writes: Much of it [the poem] is very beautiful, but what appeals to me most is that he confides only in “the light dancer of the woods”: the fish, the bird, the mouse, etc. Of course, i know that this is not really in the poem, and that if some people were to see these lines, they would accuse me of having read much more into the poem than was there originally.17

15 16 17

ibid. B&A, vol. 1, pp. 51–2 / LD, Letter 19, pp. 65–6. B&A, vol. 1, p. 51 / LD, Letter 19, p. 65.

Nathaniel Kramer

292

winther’s poem, however, becomes not just an occasion for Kierkegaard’s own reading and interpretation but the mechanism by which to engage the beloved beyond the matters of the poem itself. the poem becomes an occasion to establish an intimacy that lover and beloved alone share. if people accuse Kierkegaard of reading into the poem, he writes, then: [s]o be it. why should that concern me as long as you understand me, as long as we have a secret bond that remains a mystery to everyone else, not only because it is confided mutely, but because it speaks a language that you alone understand, and i, when you have understood me.18

this “light dancer of the woods” thus carries not only the message of love but the possibility of a secret bond, a bond that unites the lovers via the poem. the poem functions not just as a call to interpretation but to secret and intimate communion. a secret communication, a communication that transcends the apparent meaning of words, is a persistent trope in the Kierkegaardian oeuvre. while this is bound up in the pseudonymous authorship in terms of indirect communication, nothing is indirect about such a bond. the secret bond between reader and author, between lover and beloved is the fundamental purpose of the poem or text itself. Further illustrative of such communication, and again in the context of Christian winther’s poetry, is the second preface in Kierkegaard’s collection of prefaces published in 1844. Here Kierkegaard writes: to be an author in denmark is almost as troublesome as having to live in public view and is especially tortuous for a lyrical author who, even though as a person he is the very opposite, yet qua author is always a little shy, escapes from all the vociferousness, just as much whether it is praise or blame, and devotes himself in solitude to the refreshing, cozy, sweet infatuation that here or there sits a secret reader who offers a cordial reception, who, speaking purely esthetically, shuts his door and speaks with the author in secret.19

the hypothetical lyrical author is most likely Christian winther, one of the foremost lyrical poets of his age. the repetition of the phrase “in secret” itself, according to the new commentary in Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter, is a typical expression found in the folktales and was often used by winther in his romances.20 this phrase “in secret” in the second preface suggests an unspoken obligation on the part of the reader to the author and vice versa. too often, according to Kierkegaard in his preface, this relationship is waylaid by a noisy and too-easilysatisfied public that contents itself with advance notices of the book, other’s reviews of the work, and reading simply for the sake of entertainment. in the preface, it is the reviewer and his or her intrusion between author and reader that bears the brunt of Kierkegaard’s criticism: perhaps you think that a reviewer is to be looked upon as a police inspector in the service of good taste. You are mistaken. a reviewer is a conspirator, a worthy member of the 18 19 20

ibid. SKS 4, 479 / P, 15. SKS K4, 579.

Christian Winther: Kierkegaard as Lover and Reader

293

intemperance association. when he has heard what he wants, he then rushes home, and while the empty chatter is still rattling in his head, he writes a review.21

the vitriol displayed here is of course connected to Johan Ludvig Heiberg’s review of Kierkegaard’s own Either/Or. the hardly veiled criticism of Heiberg extends to a much broader critique of the obligations of reading. such an intrusion into the tranquil, even intimate, setting described by Kierkegaard between author and reader goes far deeper than merely failing to read. such an intrusion interrupts the possibility of real, even life-changing understanding. in the context of winther and his presence in the Kierkegaardian corpus, it may not be too much to suggest that the communication that takes place between reader and author “in secret” is similar to the bond that holds between lover and beloved. reading in such a view therefore becomes itself an act of love, of secret and private communication that establishes a bond of understanding. in both, the understanding supersedes the apparent and obvious and reaches toward the transcendent. the close connection between author and reader and beloved and lover (as well as the identification between the two pairs) formed by the engagement with a text suggests the importance of the idea of love in general for Kierkegaard. itself a persistent theme running through so much of what Kierkegaard has written, love and its related concepts such as passion and the erotic form a central conceptual framework in Kierkegaard’s work that knits the personal and the philosophical together. amy Hall, in her book-length study of Kierkegaard and love, writes: [i]t is up to my own dear reader to discern whether Kierkegaard’s depiction of love was his own evasion—whether, due to fear of intimacy, he increased the requirement beyond his own and our possible reach. the evidence of his failed attempt to love not only seeps in around the edges, but overtly structures the questions he continually asks.22

one need not only look at the relationship of Kierkegaard and regine to see love’s importance for Kierkegaard, but also from the folkloric references to princes and princesses and mermen in Fear and Trembling to the young poet in Repetition and on to Judge william of Either/Or, to say nothing of the figure of the seducer. Love and the questions it raises about self-identity and the relation to those around us are ubiquitous in the Kierkegaardian corpus. while Christian winther certainly is not the only figure alluded to in these myriad explorations nor perhaps even the most significant, it is itself telling that every reference to Winther in Kierkegaard is linked to the idea of love. SKS 4, 480 / P, 16. it is worth noting in this context that Kierkegaard had originally planned to divide the preface into two parts. The first part was to be a description of the role of the reviewer and the second was to be a review itself. Kierkegaard never finished the second part, but it was apparently intended to be a review of one of winther’s works, probably Four Novellas. this work, according to the commentary in Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter, was a departure from the poetry of winther’s younger days and a foray into prose. winther’s prose efforts would have been of particular importance for Kierkegaard who became one of golden age denmark’s foremost prose stylists. 22 amy Hall, Kierkegaard and the Treachery of Love, Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2002, p. 10. 21

294

Nathaniel Kramer

although the theologian Karl Barth complained that Kierkegaard had love “tracked down to its last hiding-place, examined, shown to be worthless and haled before the judge!,”23 Hall suggests that the idea of love is much more nuanced than Kierkegaard is often given credit for. she suggests: “For Kierkegaard, it is our continued detection and prayerful confession of self-delusion, acquisition, and usurpation that repeatedly returns us to the only context wherein love can draw breath, a relation of infinite debt.”24 Such infinite debt to the beloved opens up a fundamental vulnerability in the self, and such vulnerability becomes a source of anxiety and conflict. Running the gambit of fear and the demonic need to possess to the attitude of penitence and sacrifice, the encounter with an actual other, a flesh and blood human being, complicates the relationship of the self to itself. such an encounter, while potentially leading to redemption may well spiral downward into the pathological. it is the latter that inspires the last two instances of winther’s poetry in Kierkegaard. as noted above, winther’s poetry collection from 1835 marks a departure from his previous works. oluf Friis in his book-length study of The Flight of the Stag suggests that whereas winther’s poetry of the 1820s had been essentially “naïve,” Winther in the mid-1830s had become reflective, modern and “interesting.”25 Largely under the influence of Byron as well as his own personal difficulties, Winther began to explore the demonic and its psychological qualities especially as these expressed themselves in the relationship with the beloved. in the case of winther, as Friis writes, the demonic did not mean the grotesque but rather the quiet, alluring, and captivating.26anyone familiar with Kierkegaard’s writing will recognize the characteristics of such a demonic personality. indeed, the fascination with the demonic as a psychological pathology was part of the age. Arguably, Kierkegaard’s most provocative figuration of the demonic personality is found in Either/Or. it is also here that recourse to winther’s poetry illustrates the demonic depths to which the seducer descends. in a late entry in “the seducer’s diary,” Johannes describes Cordelia’s transformation as a kind of ovidian metamorphosis. Johannes here alludes to the first line of Winther’s poem “Fly, bird, fly” from Winther’s first collection of poems: “The bond has broken—full of longing, strong, bold, divine, she flies like a bird that now for the first time is allowed to spread its wings. Fly, bird, fly!”27 the allusion to winther’s poem suggests that Cordelia has freed herself from the engagement to Johannes and has succeeded in cutting her ties with him. trapped as we are in the mind of Johannes as he savors the seduction of Cordelia, we cannot know for sure what has happened. Further in the entry Johannes relishes this moment of the broken engagement because, according Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vols. 1-4, edinburgh: t. & t. Clark 1967, vol. 4, part ii, p. 747. 24 Hall, Kierkegaard and the Treachery of Love, p. 4. 25 oluf Friis, Hjortens flugt. Bidrag til studiet af Christian Winthers digtning, Copenhagen: H. Hirschsprungs Forlag 1961, p. 115. Friis does spend some time connecting winther and Kierkegaard’s ideas and is one of the few places that treats the relationship between winther and Kierkegaard. 26 Friis, Hjortens flugt, p. 118. 27 SKS 2, 425 / EO1, 438. 23

Christian Winther: Kierkegaard as Lover and Reader

295

to him, such freedom is really its own kind of snare. “Light have i made her, light as a thought, and should then this thought of mine not belong to me!” Johannes believes he has transformed Cordelia into a sensual creature whose transformation is not only bodily but spiritual as well. Such poetic reverie is fitting for the demonic individual closed in on himself and unable to truly engage the other as other. the married man from Stages on Life’s Way also treats this demonic turn in “some Reflections on Marriage in Answer to Objections,” and Winther would again serve as a reference. in this particular section, the married man discusses the idea of falling in love. the question at hand is whether marriage is categorically excluded from the act of falling in love or not. this is to ask if the storms of emotion connected to those initial stages of love are fundamentally opposed to the dull domesticity of marriage. The married man claims, on the contrary, that marriage is rather the fulfillment of falling in love. it is at this point, however, that the married man discusses a kind of intermediate figure, a seducer who is not quite a seducer because he is actually in love. But such a figure is also not a lover from the perspective of the married man because he inevitably looks for a way out of the relationship. “But then, yes, then the ardor cooled; he had made a mistake; he goes away ‘in a courteous manner.’ ”28 the quotation in this passage is from winther’s poem “sorrow of the Heart” from his poetry collection Sketches (the book Kierkegaard often carried in his pocket). the allusion here suggests the utter disconnect of the lover from his former beloved. the storm of emotion is over, the falling-in-love phase has passed and the lover is anxious to move on. His polite manner reveals love grown cold. Later in Stages on Life’s Way, Kierkegaard references not just a single poem but one of winther’s collections of poetry, Songs and Sagas, and again in the context of failed love. Included in the reference are not only Winther’s “unhappy lovers… rewarded with renown”29 through winther’s immortalizing of them, but other famous tragic lovers like petrarch and Laura, abelard and Heloise, and romeo and Juliet. Here, Kierkegaard uses winther’s collection as well as the references to other famous lovers not only to buttress his arguments with examples from world literature but to evoke an entire poetic world of failed love. interested less in the actual or specific connections a poem might have to a philosophical idea, Winther’s poetry resonates on a much more general level here. thus winther’s poetry in Kierkegaard also functions as a rich and variegated poetic world peopled with characters and figures that serve to breathe life into the more philosophical problems Kierkegaard is describing. But the connection of these ideas to winther’s poetry is left to the reader to discover. in doing so, Kierkegaard also suggests another dimension of winther’s poetry that deserves attention: winther’s poetry is important to Kierkegaard not only for its narrative power but its lyrical, poetic qualities. an example of such a usage can be found in the married man’s discussion of the intermediate seducer. In the above-mentioned section of “Some Reflections on marriage,” the married man compares the demonic lover to a goat that never gets its fill of new growth. “Falling in love has always been much sought after, and some people grow no more weary of seeking (sit venia verbo [pardon the expression]) 28 29

SKS 6, 140 / SLW, 149. SKS 6, 377 / SLW, 407.

Nathaniel Kramer

296

and desiring the wonder of falling in love than ‘the nanny goat wearies of cropping green buds.’ ”30 the reference is to winther’s poem “King saul and the singer,” a poem that describes the war between israel and the philistines as well as the relationship between King saul and david. as such, there is little in the way of narrative connection between the philosophical discussion of demonic obsession with falling in love (versus the fulfillment of that love in marriage) to Winther’s poem. the allusion to the poem, however, can be seen as working at a different level of association; it functions to evoke the lyrical quality of the poem and its turn of phrase. in this case, it is precisely the expressive qualities of poetry to which the married man attends. this is marked by his parenthetical apology, “pardon the expression.” the reference to the poem therefore is less about a direct narrative connection or philosophical similarity than it is about the evocation of a poetic world and the lyrical qualities of that world. In the final analysis of Winther’s poetry and its place in the work of Søren Kierkegaard, there is a disjunction between the claimed importance of winther by Kierkegaard and the number of times winther appears in the corpus. still, the number of references may not be the best indicator of winther’s import. as Kierkegaard’s “preferred and admired” poet, Winther is, necessarily, significant. Furthermore, the value of winther’s poetry need not be measured by the personal alone. winther’s poetry resonates with many of the themes that would become part of Kierkegaard’s own thought. Central to these concerns is the concept of the lover. winther is best known, then and now, for his love poetry, and it is no surprise that Kierkegaard’s interest in winther is most apparent in Kierkegaard’s discussions of love. what is also apparent in Kierkegaard’s use of winther’s love poetry is the contiguity between it and the role of the reader, and it is here that the philosophical returns again to the personal: Kierkegaard is not only an admirer of winther’s poetry but, more significantly, a reader of it. Perhaps it is here in this aspect of the reader, especially with the reader as a kind of lover, that Winther’s real significance for Kierkegaard can be addressed. such a reader takes pleasure in the text: to read, to listen, and is devoted to the text as only a lover can be. Whatever the significance of Winther for Kierkegaard, like the copy of Sketches that Kierkegaard kept in the folds of his coat, Kierkegaard kept winther’s importance for him close to the heart.

30

SKS 6, 139 / SLW, 148.

Bibliography I. Winther’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Haandtegninger. Digte, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1840 (ASKB 1593). Lyriske Digte, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1840 (ASKB 1594). Nye Digte, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851 (ASKB 1595). En Student og en Jomfru. Marionet-Komedie, Copenhagen: e.g. iversen 1852 (ASKB 1596). (trans.) [with t. schorn], Hase, Karl, Kirkehistorie. Lærebog nærmest for akademiske Forelæsninger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1837 (ASKB 160–166). (trans.), schleiermacher, Friedrich, Prædikener om det christelige Huusliv, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1839 (ASKB 242). (trans. and ed.), [moritz, Karl philipp], Karl Philipp Moritz’s Guderlære, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1847 (ASKB 1946). (ed.), Danske Romanzer, Hundrede og fem, Copenhagen: H.C. Klein 1839 (ASKB 2196). (ed.), Hundrede Romanzer af danske Digtere, Copenhagen: thiele 1836 (ASKB u 112). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Winther Heiberg, Johan Ludvig, “Lyrisk poesie,” in Intelligensblade, vol. 3, nos. 25–6, 1843, pp. 25–72, see p. 60; pp. 62–3 (ASKB u 56). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Winther Friis, oluf, Hjortens flugt. Bidrag til studiet af Christian Winthers digtning, Copenhagen: H. Hirschsprungs Forlag 1961, p. 115.

index of persons

aarestrup, Carl Ludvig emil (1800–56), danish poet, 288. abelard, peter (1079–1142), French theologian and logician, 295. abraham, 38, 127. adam and eve, 100. adler, adolph peter (1812–69), danish philosopher and theologian, 33, 264. andersen, anton (1856–1911), danish author, 192, 194. andersen, Hans Christian (1805–75), danish poet, novelist and writer of fairy tales, 1–31, 45, 49, 53, 54, 87, 125, 141, 155, 174–6, 189, 194, 214, 250, 251, 260. andersen, Jens, 26, andersen, vilhelm (1864–1963), danish literature historian, 17. aschengreen, erich, 74. Baden, torkild (1765–1849), danish author, 230. Baggesen, Jens (1764–1826), danish poet, 33–48, 210, 211, 233, 237, 238, 240, 241. Bajer, Fredrik (1837–1922), danish author, 89, 90. Barth, Karl (1886–1968), swiss theologian, 293. Beck, Hans (1861–1952), danish ballet dancer, 71. Beckmann, Friedrich (1803–66), german actor, 41. Bendtsen, Bendt, 225. Billeskov Jansen, Frederik Julius (1907– 2002), danish literary scholar and author, 43, 44.

Birkedal, vilhelm (1809–92), danish pastor, 215. Bismarck, otto von (1815–98), german chancellor, 115. Bjørnson, Bjørnstjerne (1832–1910), norwegian playwright, 192. Blicher, steen steensen (1782–1826), danish author, 49–65. Blixen, Karen (1885–1962), danish author, 122. Bloom, Harold, 215, 216. Boesen, emil (1812–81), danish clergyman, 49, 247. Bøgh, nicolaj (1843–1905), 285. Borchsenius, Johanne dorothea (1767– 1830), 287. Borchsenius, otto (1844–1925), danish literary scholar, 147. Bournonville, antoine (1760–1843), French-danish ballet dancer and choreographer, 69. Bournonville, august (1805–79), danish ballet master and choreographer, 67–82, 275. Brandes, edvard (1847–1931), danish author and politician, 277. Brandes, georg (1842–1927), danish author and literary critic, 3, 17, 44, 45, 211, 212, 213, 276–82 passim, 290. Brandt Frithiof (1892–1968), danish philosopher, 249. Breal, michel Jules alfred (1832–1915), French philologist, 226. Bredsdorff, elias, 10. Bretteville, Fanny Lodovica le normand de (1827–59), danish woman of letters, 91.

300

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

Busk-Jensen, Lise, 89. Byron, george gordon noel (1788–1824), english poet, 78, 289, 294. Calderón de la Barca, pedro (1600–81), spanish dramatist, 172. Cervantes, miguel de (1547–1616), spanish author, 276. Christ, 222, 266. Christian viii (1786–1848), King of denmark from 1839–48, 108, 115, 134, 215, 289. Cicero, 226, 228. Collin, Jonas (1776–1861), financial director at the royal theater in Copenhagen, 6, 7, 12, 16. Cook, James (1728–79), english explorer, 37. denby, edwin, 71–3. dickens, Charles (1812–76), english author, 6. dreier, Frederik (1827–53), danish physician and social critic, 90. eagleton, terry, 215. eiríksson, magnús (1806–81), icelandic theologian, 92, 97. erslew, thomas Hansen (1803–70), danish literary historian, 113. eve, see “adam and eve.” ewald, Johannes (1743–81), danish poet, 38, 237, 238, 240, 241. Fenger, Henning (1921–85), danish literary scholar, 34, 35, 44, 60, 77. Fibiger, Adolph (1813–41), Danish officer, 87. Fibiger, ilia (1817–67), danish author, 86. Fibiger, Johan adolph (1791–1851), danish officer, 85. Fibiger, margrethe (1846–1927), danish author, 85, 92. Fibiger, mathilde (1830–72), danish writer, 83–103, 142, 144, 146.

Fichte, Johann gottlieb (1762–1814), german philosopher, 258. Frederik vi (1768–1839), King of denmark from 1808–39, 108, 233, 275. Frederik vii (1808–63), King of denmark from 1848–63, 115. Fulton, robert (1765–1815), american engineer and inventor, 212. galeotti, vincenzo (1733–1816), italian-danish ballet master and choreographer, 69. gardel, pierre (1758–1840), French ballet dancer, 70. gautier, théophile (1811–72), French poet, 79. gielstrup, adam (1773–1830), danish actor, 276, gilpin, Heidi, 72. goethe, Johann wolfgang von (1749–1832), german poet, author, scientist and diplomat, 76, 118, 145, 157, 174, 259–61, 285, 286. goldschmidt, meïr aaron (1819–87), danish editor and author, 90, 91, 105–49, 214, 250, 276. goldschmidt, oliver (1728–74), english poet, 52, 58–9, 96. green, ronald m., 127. gregers, emanuel (1881–1957), danish actor and director, 192. grahn, Lucile (1819–1907), danish ballet dancer, 70. grundtvig, nikolai Frederik severin (1783– 1872), danish poet and theologian, 42, 92, 127, 136. gustav iii (1746–92), King of sweden from 1771–92, 69. gyllembourg-ehrensvärd, Carl Frederik (1767–1815), swedish baron and politician, 152, 153, 195. gyllembourg-ehrensvärd, thomasine Christine (1773–1856), danish author, 18, 49, 151–67, 181, 192, 194, 195.

Index of Persons Hamann, Johann georg (1730–88), german philosopher, 39, 55, 228. Harald i, also called King Harald Bluetooth (ca. 935–985/986), King of denmark and norway, 261. Hauberg mortensen, Finn, 210–12. Hauch, Carsten (1790–1872), danish poet and dramatist, 112, 209–23, 260. Hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich (1770– 1831), german philosopher, 25, 26, 41, 72, 80, 93, 94, 127, 135, 145, 171, 226, 227, 265. Heiberg, Johan Ludvig (1791–1860), danish poet, playwright and philosopher, 5, 7, 8, 14, 18, 22, 24, 25, 34–6, 49, 52, 58, 70, 86, 93, 94, 99, 102, 124, 142, 144, 152–7 passim, 163, 169–87, 189–95 passim, 201, 213, 229, 230, 259, 261, 265, 266, 276, 277, 281, 293. Heiberg, Johanne Luise, born pätges (1812–90), danish actress, 7, 153, 154, 175, 178, 189–208, 278. Heiberg, peter andreas (1758–1841), danish author, 152, 195. Heine, Heinrich (1797–1856), german poet and author, 6, 289. Henning Fenger, (1921–85), danish literary scholar, 34. Henry, Louis (1784–1836), French ballet dancer, 70. Herder, Johann gottfried (1744–1803), german philosopher, 51. Hertz, Henrik (1797–1870), danish poet and dramatist, 24, 25, 35, 276. Heyne, Christian gottlob (1729–1812), german philologist, 225. Høedt, Frederik Ludvig (1820–85), danish ballet instructor, 68. Høffding, Harald (1843–1931), danish philosopher, 231. Holberg, Ludvig (1684–1754), danishnorwegian dramatist and historian, 34, 36, 44, 56, 260, 261, 276.

301

Holst, Christiane (1816–41), danish opera singer, 277. Homer, 172. Horace, 43. Hostrup, Jens Christian (1818–92), danish poet and pastor, 276. Humboldt, Karl wilhelm von (1767–1835), german Baron, diplomat and linguist, 226, 228. ibsen, Henrik (1828–1906), norwegian playwright, 192. ingemann, Bernhard severin (1789–1862), danish poet, 6, 15–17, 222. ingemann, Lucie (1792–1868), danish painter, 6. Jacobi, Friedrich Heinrich (1743–1819), german philosopher, 74. Jacobsen, Jens peter (1847–85), danish author, 53. Jensen, Jørgen Bonde, 18. Jesus, see “Christ.” Jørgensen, adolf ditlev (1840–97), danish historian, 193. Jowitt, deborah, 79. Jürgensen, Knud arne, 67, 70, 71. Kant, immanuel (1724–1804), german philosopher, 56, 127. Kierkegaard, michael pedersen (1756– 1838), søren Kierkegaard’s father, 54, 64, 247, 285. Kierkegaard, peter Christian (1805–88), danish theologian (the brother of søren Kierkegaard), 54. Kierkegaard, søren aabye (1813–1855), “another defense of woman’s great abilities” (1834), 93, 94. The Battle between the Old and the New Soap-Cellars (ca. 1837). From the Papers of One Still Living (1838), 1, 10–20 passim, 23, 25, 49, 57, 123, 152, 155–6, 159, 175, 176, 250.

302

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

The Concept of Irony (1841), 67, 123, 176, 225, 226, 250. Schelling Lecture Notes, i.e., Notebook 11 (1841–42). Either/Or (1843), 7, 26, 40–2, 54, 56, 58, 62, 63, 79, 83, 99, 110, 159–62, 177–81 passim, 189, 190, 200, 201, 209, 213–15, 218, 222, 248–50, 260–3 passim, 268, 269, 278, 286, 293, 294. “a word of thanks to professor Heiberg” (1843), 99. Repetition (1843), 41, 72, 81, 162, 179, 181, 221, 293. Fear and Trembling (1843), 12, 13, 38, 40, 41, 72, 127, 161, 162, 200, 266, 293. The Concept of Anxiety (1844), 75–80 passim, 227. Prefaces (1844), 41, 87, 99, 170, 175, 178, 179, 181, 261. Stages on Life’s Way (1845), 33, 42, 111, 143, 200, 214, 221, 248, 250, 261, 269, 295. Three Discourses on Imagined Occasions (1845), 286. “the activity of a traveling esthetician and How He still Happened to pay for the dinner” (1845), 124, 251, 252. Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846), 43, 81, 94, 113, 132, 159–62, 170, 178, 228, 257. A Literary Review of Two Ages (1846), 151, 158–65, 181. “the dialectical result of a Literary police action” (1846), 122, 124. Works of Love (1847), 220. “the Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an actress” (1848), 175, 178, 189, 195, 201, 202, 203. The Point of View for My Work as an Author (ca. 1848), 122, 159. The Sickness unto Death (1849), 94, 200.

Practice in Christianity (1850), 139. On My Work as an Author (1851), 202. “an open Letter prompted by a reference to me by dr. rudelbach” (1851), 136. The Moment (1855), 43, 122, 222, 262. Journals, notebooks, Nachlaß, 11, 33, 55, 58, 60, 61, 95, 96, 100, 123–32 passim, 135, 137, 139, 143–5, 152, 159, 181, 201, 213–18 passim, 222, 225, 228, 235, 237, 240–2, 245, 252, 260, 266, 268. Kirmmse, Bruce, 127, 215. Klæstrup, peter (1820–82), danish artist and cartoonist, 112. Krætzmer, andrea (1811–89), danish ballet dancer, 70. Kühle, sejer, 17. Læssøe, signe, 26. Lamothe, Kimerer L., 72–5 passim, 80. Langballe, Jesper, 59, 61, 63. Lessing, gotthold ephraim (1729–81), german writer and philosopher, 74, 230. Levin, david michael, 71. Lindgreen, Ferdinand (1770–1842), danish actor and theater director, 275. Lund, peter wilhelm (1801–80), natural scientist, søren Kierkegaard’s brother-in-law, 213. macpherson, James (1736–96), scottish author, 52. madvig, Johan nicolai (1804–86), danish philologist, 225–32. martensen, Hans Lassen (1808–84), danish theologian, 99, 102, 142, 174, 175, 177, 179, 181, 230. mcKinnon, alastair, 75. metternich, Klemens wenzel Count of (1773–1859), austrian statesman, 114. mill, John stuart (1806–73), english philosopher, 89.

Index of Persons milon, Louis (1766–1845), French ballet dancer, 70. mitchell, philipp marshall, 169. molbech, Christian (1783–1857), danish historian and literary scholar, 16, 17, 22, 36, 38, 233–45. molière, i.e., Jean Baptiste poquelin (1622– 73), French dramatist, 213, 275. møller, peder Ludvig (1814–65), danish critic, 110–14 passim, 117–19, 124, 125, 129, 131, 134, 136, 141, 146, 214, 215, 247–55. møller, poul martin (1794–1838), danish poet and philosopher, 17, 123, 178, 191, 231, 261, 287. møller, rasmus (1763–1842), danish bishop, 287. montesquieu, Charles-Louis de secondat (1689–1755), French author and philosopher, 44. mozart, wolfgang amadeus (1756–91), austrian composer, 40, 56, 60, 79, 171, 177, 213. mylius, Johan de, 1, 4, 9. mynster, Jakob peter (1775–1854), danish theologian and bishop, 68, 127, 136–46 passim, 215, 222, 229–31, 234, 258. mynster, ole Hieronymus (1775–1854), danish physician, 258. nathanson, mendel Levin (1780–1868), danish merchant, 126. nickels, sara, 41. nielsen, anna (1803–56), danish actress, 201, 202, 286. nielsen, nicolai peter (1795–1860), danish actor, 229, 286. nielsen, rasmus (1809–84), danish philosopher, 123. novalis, Baron Friedrich von Hardenberg (1772–1801), german lyric poet, 258. noverre, Jean georges (1727–1810), French ballet master and choreographer, 69.

303

nyerup, rasmus (1759–1829), danish literary historian and linguist, 233. oehlenschläger, adam (1779–1850), danish poet, 24, 35, 36, 39, 41, 58, 110, 124, 169, 173–6 passim, 210, 214, 237, 257–73, 286. oehlenschläger, Charlotte (1811–35), danish actress, 277. olsen, Frederik Christian (1802–74), danish philologist, 22, 23. olsen, regine (1822–1904), 38, 42, 83, 111, 247, 268, 285, 290, 291, 293. Øllgaard, nicolai esmark (1775–1863), danish bishop, 128. olufsen, Christian (1790–1827), danish author, 239. Ørsted, anders sandøe (1778–1860), danish jurist and statesman, 258. Ørsted, Hans Christian (1777–1851), danish scientist, 2, 6, 210, 213, 258. overskou, thomas (1798–1873), danish author and dramatist, 193. paludan-müller, Frederik (1809–76), danish poet, 260. pattison, george, 281, 282. paulli, Holger simon (1810–91), danish composer, 68. pedersen, Christiern (1510–34), danish author and translator, 239. pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich (1746–1827), swiss educational reformer, 158. petersen, Louise (1816–1914), danish actress, 277. petit, Baptiste, 70. petrarch, Francesco (1304–74), italian scholar and poet, 295. phister, Joachim Ludvig (1807–96), danish actor, 178, 229, 275–83. plato, 261. pope, alexander (1688–1744), english poet, 52. poulsen, olaf (1849–1923), danish actor, 276.

304

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

rahbek, Karen margrethe (1775–1829), danish cultural person, 258. rahbek, Knud Lyne (1760–1830), danish literary scholar, 235, 258. rask, rasmus (1787–1832), danish linguist, 233. reitzel, Carl andreas (1789–1853), danish publisher and bookseller, 49, 87, 162, 252. rosencreutz, Christian von, 228. rosenkilde, Christen niemann (1786– 1861), danish actor and dramatist, 213, 229, 277, 279, 280. rossini, gioachino (1792–1868), italian composer, 276. rothschild, Benjamin, 116. rötscher, Heinrich theodor (1803–71), german theater critic and theorist, 196, 197. rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1712–78), French philosopher, 158. rudelbach, andreas gottlob (1792–1862), danish theologian, 136. saint-georges, Jules Henri vernoy de (1799–1875), French dramatist, 278. saussure, Ferdinand de (1857–1913), swiss philologist, 226. schelling, Friedrich wilhelm Joseph von (1775–1854), german philosopher, 258. schiller, Johann Christoph Friedrich von (1759–1805), german poet, 157. schlegel, august wilhelm von (1767–1845), german critic, 128, 258. schlegel, Friedrich von (1772–1829), german romantic writer, 176, 258. schleiermacher, Friedrich (1768–1834), german theologian, 258. schubothe, Johan Heinrich (1761–1828), danish publisher and bookseller, 51. scott, walter (1771–1832), english author, 3, 52, 289.

scribe, augustin eugène (1791–1861), French dramatic author, 169, 177, 180, 189, 200. shakespeare, william (1564–1616), english dramatist, 56, 78, 161, 174, 189, 190, 192, 195–7, 200, 201, 260, 261, 285, 286. shelley, percy Bysshe (1792–1822), english poet, 78. sheridan, richard Brinsley (1751–1816), irish playwright, 276. sibbern, Frederik Christian (1785–1872), danish philosopher, 76, 227, 231. skautrup, peter, 44, 45. sneedorff, Jens schelderup (1724–64), danish author, 44, 45, 46. socrates, 33, 39, 226. sonne, Johanne (1825–1900), 116. sørensen, villy (1929–2001), danish author, 17, 18. steffens, Henrik (1773–1845), norwegiandanish philosopher, 119, 258, 259. sterne, Laurence (1713–68), english novelist, 34. tasso, torquato (1544–95), italian poet, 37. tegnér, esaias (1782–1846), swedish poet, 259. thaarup, thomas (1749–1821), danish author, 275. thorvaldsen, Bertel (1768–1844), danish sculptor, 6. thulstrup, niels (1924–88), danish theologian, 17. tieck, Johann Ludwig (1773–1853), german poet, 174, 198, 258, 289. tudvad, peter, 9, 76, 77, 286. vestris, marie-Jean-augustin (1760–1842), French ballet dancer, 69. voltaire, i.e., François-marie arouet (1694– 1778), French philosopher, 34, 44. weber, Carl maria von (1786–1826), german composer, 59–60.

Index of Persons werliin, Christian (1804–66), danish theologian, 288. werliin, Julia Constantia (1813–81), 288–90. wessel, Johan Hermann (1742–85), danish poet, 34, 35. wieland, Christoph martin (1733–1813), german poet, 34. wilster, Christian Frederik emil (1797– 1840), danish poet, 20, 21. winther, Hans Christian (1759–1808), danish pastor, 286.

305

winther, Christian (1796–1876), danish poet, 260, 285–97. worm, pauline (1825–83), danish author, 91. wulff, Henriette (1804–58), 2. wulff, peter Frederik (1774–1842), danish naval officer, 6, 15. Xerxes, 169, 181. zinck, Ludvig (1776–1851), danish composer, 275. zinck, otto (1824–1908), danish actor, 276.

index of subjects

advisory estates assembly, 108, 128, 134. aesthetics, 97, 110, 135, 145, 157, 172, 178, 179, 182, 209, 210, 214, 227, 259, 265, 279, 281. agnes and the merman, 12, 38. ahasverus, see “wandering Jew.” aladdin, 267–71 passim. anti-semitism, 106, 126–8. anxiety, 77, 179. attack on the Church, the, 33, 68, 114, 142, 146, 209. aut-aut, 43. Bakkehus, 258, 287. ballet, 67–82, 173. Berlingske Tidende, 90, 92, 109, 126. Bible, genesis, 108. Job, 59. Bildung, see “culture.” Bildungsroman, 19, 21, 23, 105, 115–19 passim, 144–6, 212. boredom, 179. Borgervennen, 85. Christianity, 56, 88, 101, 107, 114, 127, 137, 140, 209, 216, 220, 222. Clara Raphael controversy, the, 84–92 passim, 142–4. comedy, 87, 131, 171–8 passim, 181, 199, 259. speculative, 174, 175, 181. comic, 281. common man, 123. constitution, the danish (1849), 95, 106, 114, 115, 133, 138, 226.

Copenhagen Flying Post, see “Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post.” Corsair, The, 26, 105–14 passim, 123–41 passim, 144–7 passim, 163, 213, 214, 247–53 passim, 278. culture, 157, 158, 218, 226. danish Historical society, the, 234. Danskeren, 92. demonic, the, 77–81 passim, 179, 294. despair, 78, 83, 94, 95, 133, 134. dilettantism, 171. don Juan (don giovanni), 264. don Quixote, 172. drama, 39, 67, 70, 76–8, 119, 170–8 passim, 189– 208, 209–11, 215–22 passim, 235, 258, 267, 269, 275–83. earnestness, 38. education, 88, 101, 114, 115, 157, 194, 226, 231. elers College, 248, 258. emancipation of women, the, 83–103, 142, 144, 194, 195. enlightenment, the, 158. epic, 19, 23, 36, 37, 45, 171–6 passim, 258–60, 265, 266, 289. Faust, 11, 76, 78, 79, 264. Fædrelandet, 24, 109, 112, 123, 130, 136, 190, 201, 202, 214, 251–3. fairy tales, 1–5 passim, 11, 12, 21, 45, 174, 262, 264. faith, 72–5 passim, 137. Figaro, 252. form and content, 241, 251. Frederiksberg Castle, 258.

308

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

freedom (see also “subjective freedom”), 77, 88. French revolution (1789), 44, 151, 156, 157. French revolution (July 1830), 108. Gæa, 111, 112, 120, 214, 248, 250, 251, 252. genius, 20, 21, 24, 25. genre, 171, 173, 265, 266. gert westphaler, 133. god-man, 220. great earthquake, the, 285. grace, 63, 222. gyldendal publishing House, 234. Hegelianism, 81, 170, 175, 181, 182. higher lunacy, 39. Historisk Tidsskrift, 234. humor, 44, 55, 177, 266. immediacy (see also “immediacy and reflection”), 18, 112, 161, 173, 177, 178, 221, 226, 267, 269, 270. immediacy and reflection, 177, 178, 265, 266, 279. immortality, 40, 41. inclosing reserve, 77. indirect communication, 292. inner/outer, 80, 120, 263. inspiration, 199. Intelligensblade, 40. inwardness, 161, 162, 203, 263, 269. irony, 38–41, 44, 67, 68, 122, 129, 130, 174, 176, 177, 179, 218, 225, 228, 231, 250, 266. Jeppe of the Hill, 276, 281, 282. Judaism, 94, 106, 107, 117, 126–8. Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, 24, 93, 96, 153, 175, 252, 265. Kjøbenhavnsposten, 37, 92, 252. knight of the infinite, 73, 74. Königsstädter theater, 41, 81.

language, 79, 80, 227, 228, 231, 234, 239, 263, 265. leap, the, 72–81 passim. leveling, 162, 163. literary criticism, 169–87. literature, 1–31, 105–49, 151–67, 209–23, 233–45, 247–55. love, 263, 289, 292–6 passim. lyric, 4, 19–23 passim, 34, 59, 63, 172–6 passim, 195, 209, 211, 215, 241, 258, 265, 266, 286, 290, 292, 295, 296. Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, 7, 85, 213. marriage, 83, 98, 99, 101, 263, 264, 269, 295, 296. martyrdom, 114. melancholy, 55, 59. middle ages, 52, 58, 257, 264. modern breakthrough, 89. movement, 72, 80, 81, 161. music, the musical, 79, 172, 173, 177. music association, 10. mythology, 264, 265. naturalism, 105. natural science, 258. nemesis, 119, 120, 147. Nord og Syd, 91, 96, 114–16, 132–8 passim, 141–6 passim. North and South, see “Nord og Syd.” opera, 69, 70, 171–3, 177. orthography, 239, 241. pantomime, 78. passion, 33, 160–3, 198–204 passim, 269, 277, 293. Perseus, 14 175, 176, poetry, 33–48, 172, 173–7 passim, 210, 221, 233, 238, 241, 248, 253, 257–73, 285–97. press, 163. protestantism, 56. public, 163.

Index of Subjects punctuation, 239–43 passim. redemption, 77. reflection (see also “immediacy and reflection”), 20, 61, 112, 160–3, 173, 174, 177, 178, 200, 263–7 passim, 279–82 passim, 294. regensen College, 248. repetition, 72, 80. rhetoric, 242. romanticism, 36, 37, 39, 52, 55, 60, 70, 71, 105, 110, 119, 120, 169, 173, 176, 195, 209–12 passim, 216, 218–22 passim, 238, 241, 247, 257, 258, 263, 264, 287, 290. royal Ballet school, 275. royal danish Ballet, 69, 70, 71. royal Library, 233, 236. royal military College, 87. royal theater in Copenhagen, 9, 10, 12, 40, 68, 71, 76, 87, 153, 173, 189–94 passim, 211, 235, 258, 276, 277.

309

salvation, 77. schleswig war, First (1848–51), 88, 115, 193. seduction, 83. sorø academy, 20, 209, 210, 215. stages, 218, 222. student association, 10, 20. suffering, 114. system, the, 171, 172. theater, 169–87, 189–208, 235, 275–83. tragedy, 177, 195. university of Copenhagen, 51, 93, 110, 210, 214, 225, 230, 234, 248, 258, 259, 287. university of Kiel, 210. vaudeville, 169, 171–4 passim, 179, 181, 190–2, 195, 199, 276. wandering Jew, 127, 264.