Soren Kierkegaard

in the book about Hans Christian Andersen; now, on the other hand, when
things are going better for philosophy, Kierkegaard is writing (here it comes
again) “badCorsairarticles,” as witnessed by his two pieces against Møller
inFædrelandet. Thus in his activities as a critic Kierkegaard was not a hair
better—indeed, an entire wig worse—than the crew on boardThe Corsair.
Møller continued, “Sometimes the author himself goes so far in his ‘passion
for the absurd’—for example, in the story about Doctor Stagleap (Hei-
berg)—that if Frater Taciturnus read it he would view it as a ‘revolting
Corsairattack on peaceable, respectable men, each of whom serve their
country, doing their jobs in honorable obscurity.’”
Møller’s tactics approach sheer genius. First, he maintains that Kierke-
gaard had always written in the style ofThe Corsair. Then, by citing the
indignant conclusion of Kierkegaard’s firstFædrelandetarticle, he employs
a deft backhand, playing Kierkegaard (alias Frater Taciturnus) off against
Kierkegaard (alias Climacus). And finally, he refers to thePostscriptstory
about a certain Doctor Stagleap, whom he quite correctly identifies with
Heiberg. Møller thus demonstrated the incredible naı ̈vete ́of Kierkegaard’s
tacit hope of forming an alliance with Heiberg—whom, despite everything,
Kierkegaard continued to regard as “the legitimate ruler of Danish litera-
ture.” But Møller went even further, making a similar move with respect
to Mynster, from whom Kierkegaard—once again, naively—had expected
some sort of official protest against the depraved conduct ofThe Corsair.
Møller wrote: “Next, we cannot approve of the grudge which the author
seems to harbor against the Honorable Very Reverend, now His Excel-
lency, Bishop Mynster. On the final page of the book Mr. Kierkegaard
thanks the bishop with much warmth because his ‘firm’ has praised him,
and he takes the opportunity to imply unmistakably that he, for his part,
admiresthe bishop.” Møller had been able to sense the coolness that lay just
beneath the surface of the great warmth with which Mynster had been
thanked. And it was precisely in thePostscriptthat the wordadmirehad
again and again been defined negatively as a merely aesthetic relation to
something aesthetic, a disinterested satisfaction indicative of a certain lack
of genuine commitment between the admirer and the person admired, and
thus, as thePostscriptput it, “admiration is a deceptive relation, or can easily
become that.” Thus Kierkegaard was also being deceptive when he declared
his admiration for Mynster, and Møller made his point with such agility that
the dialectical daring with which Kierkegaard had wanted to communicate
indirectly to Mynster fell to earth like a lead balloon. Quite understandably,
Mynster did not feel the least bit tempted to launch any torpedoes at the
nuisance represented byThe Corsair.