Soren Kierkegaard

separate and independent sequences, completed and delineated b yCon-
stantin Constantius and the Young Man, respectively. But now we are to
understand that Constantin Constantius invented the Young Man in order
to shed light on the psychological bases and factors that lead a person to
become a religious exception. “The Young Man, whom I have called into
being, is a poet,” Constantin Constantius writes, ostensibl ywithout blink-
ing, and then he adds this dry, technical detail: “My project has been for
me an exclusively aesthetic and psychological activity.”
At this point Constantin Constantius makes the transition from being
one of two narrators in the tale to being the author of the tale itself. Thus
it was he, and not the Young Man, who wrote the letters from Stockholm.
So it was not entirel yaccidental that these letters occasionall ybordered on
parody, referring back to the book’s baroque opening section and to the
trip to Berlin. Nonetheless, Constantin Constantius believes that the Young
Man did not grasp the concept of repetition and still lacked a deeper, reli-
gious sounding board for the “dithyrambic joy” that he expressed, particu-
larl yin his final letter. But had he had a more solid religious foundation he
would have had the “seriousness” that makes it possible to disdain “all the
childish pranks of actuality.”
Yet Constantin Constantius does not stop at the simple revelation that
he has invented the Young Man. He goes a step further and blankl ycon-
fesses, “I have included myself in it.” The full meaning of this confession is
not clear, but it is plain that in his postscript Constantin Constantius wants
to seal a pact both in blood and ink with his own unfortunate creation,
the Young Man, for whom Constantin Constantius—according to his own
report—has always had great affection. He willingly admits that things
might have looked a bit otherwise now and then, but this was merel ya
“misunderstanding” that he “caused” in order to illustrate the Young Man
as a type. “Every move I have made has had the sole purpose of illuminating
him. I have always had him in mind. Every word I have spoken either was
ventriloquism or was spoken with reference to him....SoIhave done
what I could for him, just as I am now making an effort to serve you, dear
reader, b ybeing yet another person.”
At this point it is probabl yhigh time to lodge a protest or at least to
register a bit of skeptical disapproval. However much charm and refinement
Constantin Constantius attempts to summon up, his postscript disturbs the
fundamental concept of the work in a manner that does not seem particu-
larl yproductive. We ma ybe able to forgive him for revealing himself to be
the poetic author of the Young Man, even though, in so doing, he verges
on abolishing the distance between the work’s first, overtl yparodic section
and its second, ostensibl yserious part. But what is much worse is that he