Soren Kierkegaard

he added this comment: “In a review inForpostenI see it quite properly
pointed out that this tale is not called ‘A Seducer’s Diary,’ but ‘TheSeducer’s
Diary,’ which of course indicates that the main point is the method, not
the portrayals of Johannes or Cordelia.”
The critique inDen Frisindedewas harsher, however. Under the headline
“Episode from ‘The Seducer’s Diary’” was this rather sophomoric sugges-
tion: “One could be tempted to call upon the moral censors of the Society
for Freedom of the Press to excommunicate the author; one could ask that
the police morals squad confiscate the work and burn the unknown author
in effig y... ; but at the same time one must admit that in an ycase those
who read this book will scarcel ybe harmed b yit.” Kierkegaard underlined
this last sentence, the part about the diar ybeing harmless, which anno yed
him so much that he immediatel ydrafted a “Warning toDen Frisindede,”
in which, disguised as Victor Eremita, he pointed out to the anonymous
reviewer that it was impermissible to comment on the diarywithoutplacing
it in the context of the entire work. “When one finds, in a published work
entitledEither/Or, an article called ‘The Seducer’s Diary,’ one certainly does
not read it first, nor does one read it in isolation. After having read it in
isolation, one does not permit oneself to have an opinion of the work, or—
if one has such a quasi-opinion—to express it. Or if one absolutel ymust
express it, one does so quite softl yin one’s own room. Or, if one absolutel y
must share one’s views with others, one does so orally.” Then Kierkegaard
provided guidelines for the reviewDen Frisindedeought to have published,
which, in his view, should have begun with the following words: “A work
has been published that the average reader of this newspaper would scarcely
be able to understand.” These remarks were probabl yintended in all seri-
ousness, so it was a stroke of diplomac ywhen Kierkegaard left them in his
desk drawer. Instead—in his journal—he mounted the following omnibus
assault on all critics: “Absolutel yno reviews whatever, please. Because I
find reviewers as disgusting as the barbers who roam the streets, who come
running with their shaving water, which the yuse for all their customers,
and fumble about m yface with their clamm yfingers.”
Detailed discussion ofEither/Orcontinued on Ma y7 with the publica-
tion of the first of what would be three issues ofFædrelandet, all of them
entirel ygiven over to J. F. Hagen’s thirt y-two-column review ofEither/
Or. Hagen was a degree candidate at the theolog yfacult yand two years
later would earn the licentiat degree with his dissertationMarriage, Viewed
from an Ethical-Historical Perspective. He was thus no common journalistic
scribbler but a conscientious researcher who scrutinized the various sections
of the work, all the wa yfrom the “Diapsalmata” of the first part, through
“The Rotation Method” (which, Hagen asserted, contained something as