Soren Kierkegaard

amusing as “the necessar yproph ylaxis against boredom”), to the “Ultima-
tum” of the second part. Like others, Hagen showed respect for the brilliant
material, modestl ylabeling himself a “dilettante” in aesthetic matters; none-
theless, he remarked perceptivel ythat Aesthete A repeats a series of conflicts
that Kierkegaard had discussed in his dissertation. Indeed, Hagen would in
fact note what Kierkegaarddidn’tmanage to write in his dissertation: “We
recall having read in a Catholic author that the iron ythat is proclaimed b y
an emancipated aesthetics is a logical consequence of the entire outlook
proposed b yProtestantism, and can therefore serve as a convincing argu-
ment against it: Because Protestantism sanctions doubt, iteo ipsosanctions
the iron ywith which doubt makes its case.”
If onl yHagen had not been named Hagen, but Heiberg, Kierkegaard
would certainl yhave been able to value this diagnosis in accordance with
its merits. True, as mentioned, Hagen was not an inspired critic. At times
he resorted to a paraphrased presentation of the work under review, which
was the mark of an amateur, but when it came to judging “The Seducer’s
Diar y,” Hagen was significantl ybetter than Heiberg and man ylater inter-
preters who have felt so called upon to point an accusing, moralistic finger
that the yhave been incapable of discerning the ps ychological and literar y
qualities of the seduction story. With an unfriendly recollection of Heiberg’s
infuriating critique of the diar yin mind, Hagen wrote: “All the while one
is reading it, one exclaims, ‘It isn’t possible. This practice of iron yis onl ya
postulate, a diabolical thought experiment....’Andyetthediar ycontains
nothing but the praxis that logicall ywould have to develop—ifthe aesthetic
view could completel yemancipate itself from the moral life and base itself
on itself as an independent life.” In reality, Hagen continued, Johannes the
Seducer is “much too intellectuall ydeveloped to be a seducer of the vulgar
sort. His seduction is a system. He wants to enjoy, but only in slow drafts.”
In like manner, Cordelia’s nature is “genuine, uncorrupted, feminine. But
she is also intellect, so here there is an infinit yof pleasure; here an interesting
relationship can develop. Here is a girl worth seducing because she has
something to surrender. Now the tactic will be to encase her ver ybeing
within a cocoon of fine, invisible threads, so that in the end she sees but one
purpose in her freedom, to surrender herself—so that she feels the whole of
her salvation in doing so.”
Diametricall yopposed to Heiberg, Hagen ranked the first part ofEither/
Orabove the second part, about which he wrote: “We ma yregret that
the lack of intellectual concentration which was quite characteristic of the
previous essa y(’The Aesthetic Validit yof Marriage’) also leaves its mark
quite clearl yin the present essa y(’The Equilibrium between the Aesthetic
and the Ethical in the Composition of the Personality’). The investigation