Soren Kierkegaard

sions and innuendoes.” “Because,” as Beck explained, “what ma ybe pleas-
ing or acceptable in an informal chat or in a conversation while walking in
the street makes quite a different impression when it is expressed with the
pretensions that accompan ythe printed page. It certainl ycannot be denied
that it can be amusing—and it has indeed amused the present reviewer—
but it is not to the author’s advantage.” After Kierkegaard’s rejoinder, which
was a dialectical drubbing of the sort one does not easil yforget, the reviewer
was probabl yconsiderabl yless amused.
Kierkegaard took the opportunit yto direct attention to his own works.
And there was more of this sort of thing. There is a manuscript entitled
“Urgent Request,” which was signed “S. Kierkegaard, Magister Artium
[Latin: ‘master of arts’],” dated Februar y22, 1843 (thus with the date of
publication planned to follow immediatel yupon the appearance ofEither/
Or), and intended for the newspaperBerlingske Tidende. The “Urgent Re-
quest” was addressed to Victor Eremita, whom Kierkegaard begged to give
up his “pseudonymity so that I can once again live in peace and quiet.”
Kierkegaard had also planned for Victor Eremita immediatel yto publish a
repl yinFædrelandetin the form of an “Open Letter to Mr. Kierkegaard,
M.A.” in which he would express sympathy for the magister’s difficult posi-
tion which nonetheless, according to Victor Eremita, was Kierkegaard’s
own fault: “Are you completely certain that you have not been deceived
b y your mental state, b ythe sort of h ypochondria one often sees in learned
people? The more distraught a person becomes about his situation, the more
pleasure people take in teasing him.” For his part, Victor Eremita would
gladl ybe of assistance—that was not the problem. The problem was that
he, too, was ignorant concerning the identit yof the actual authors of the
book and was therefore unable to conclude with certaint ythat Kierkegaard
himself might “not be one of them.” The whole business was pure fiction
and was signed “the Magister’s respectful servant, Victor Eremita.”
Kierkegaard never published this scurrilous colloqu ywith himself. After
his death the two articles were found among his papers, neatl yfolded in
their respective envelopes. The seal on the envelope containing Kierke-
gaard’s “Urgent Request” had been broken; it contained a letter stating that
Kierkegaard’s servant was to return immediatel ywith the article if Na-
thanson, the editor ofBerlingske Tidende, could not run it in his newspaper
on the evening of that day. Apparently, Nathanson was unable to publish
the article immediately, so Kierkegaard left Victor Eremita’s reply (the
“Open Letter”) in his desk drawer, unsealed. And it was probabl yjust as
well, because everyone who could put two and two together would surely
have had no difficult yin arriving at the conclusion that Victor Eremita
claimed to be the editor of a work which in realit yhad been written b ya