frequentl yventures into diffuse territor y, and since the author has to make
one fresh start after another, one often encounters tiresome tautologies. And
the overall idea is disturbed b ythe (in the long run, somewhat boring)
flirtatiousness that the ethicist directs at the aesthete, despite all his opposi-
tion to him.”
What Hagen is saying here, in his own gentle manner, is that now and
then Judge William’s two encouraging letters to Aesthete A can be pretty
dull, and that it is therefore unlikel ythat the ywill succeed in convincing
the already-skeptical fellow of the aesthetic validity of marriage, much less
of its affiliated bliss. Furthermore, the final sentence cited from Hagen con-
tains an insightful observation: It is in fact quite true that the ethicist flirts
with the aesthete, whose erotic escapades he of course condemns—even
while lavishing on them a lascivious curiosit ythat is unseeml yin a married
man of William’s type. Thus there are indications that Hagen sensed that
the ethicist, properl yunderstood, is a product of lip service onl y, a bit of a
caricature. Presumabl ybecause the author’s true element—as he had con-
fided to Boesen—was above all the aesthetic.
Literary Exile
On his walks with Hans Brøchner, Kierkegaard was capable of speaking
rather freel yabout the success ofEither/Or, dwelling in particular on “the
poetic element in the first part” or explaining in livel yfashion how “at
man ypoints the motif of a poem was indicated but purposel ynot carried
out.” Brøchner himself was enthusiastic about the book, and Kierkegaard
was most definitel ynot unreceptive to appreciative remarks: “One da yI
remarked that not since I had read Hegel’sLogichad an ybook set m y
thoughts going as hadEither/Or. He was obviousl ypleased b ythis remark.”
His disappointment at Heiberg’s reaction was great nonetheless, and H. P.
Holst, who was a frequent caller at the Heiberg home during these years,
related that a recurrent theme in the conversations he had with Kierkegaard
was the complaint that Heiberg “would never reall yinvolve himself with
his [Kierkegaard’s] writings or recognize him as a philosopher.” This is quite
believable—Brøchner also mentions Kierkegaard’s “displeasure” in this
connection—and the Heibergian “one” compulsivel yhaunted the journals
of the rejected suitor, awakening furious anger ever ytime: “He isn’t alone;
he has muses and graces—and to be on the safe side he has taken on a new
coworker, ‘one,’ an energetic coworker who demands no fee and puts up
with ever ysort of treatment.”
Heiberg’s description of “The Seducer’s Diary” as a piece of literature by
which one is disgusted, nauseated, and revolted naturall yhelped spur sales,