Soren Kierkegaard

been reversed: The problem is now the sacrificed person’s right to permit
himself to be sacrificed and not, as earlier, the sacrificer’s right to sacrifice.
We are not told with certainty what befell H. H. in this connection, but
the subtitle of his essay is worth noting: “A Solitary Man’s Posthumous
[Literary] Remains.” This seems to imply that the question the essay treated
theoretically had been answered by H. H. in practice—in the form of his
own martyrdom! In particular, section C of the essay appears to indicate
this, stating: “Of the many ludicrous things in these foolish times, perhaps
the most ludicrous is the utterance I have often enough read, where it is
labeled ‘wisdom,’ and have heard spoken of admiringly as ‘fitting’: that in
our times a person cannot even become a martyr, that our times do not
even possess the energy to put someone to death.Sie irren sich![German:
“You are mistaken!”] It is not the times that must have the energy to put
someone to death or make a martyr of him; it is the martyr, the martyr-to-
be, who must have the energy to give the times the passion, in this case the
passionofindignation,toputhimtodeath.”Aswecansee,thereareindica-
tions that the provocation has succeeded and that the martyrdom has be-
come a reality: H. H. is dead.
The times took no notice of it, however. On Saturday, July 21, 1849,
when theTwo Essayswere finally reviewed in theDanish Church Times, the
review was brief and negative. The reviewer was of the opinion that they
must have been written by a “quite young author who has read Mag. Kier-
kegaard.” “Good, what critics!” was Kierkegaard’s disgusted reaction. After
his irritation had subsided a little, he considered coming to “the defense of
that ‘young person’ ” by announcing that he, Kierkegaard, “had read the
little book with quite unusual interest.” Indeed, perhaps he ought to come
right out and say: “Keep on writing, young friend. You are absolutely the
person I would entrust with the task of being my successor.” Kierkegaard
might have had fun with this “little amusement,” but he decided to look
the other way instead. After all, it could not be entirely ruled out that the
whole business had been a “little feint by the reviewer in order to lure me
out onto thin ice.” But it wasn’t.
Things were no better the following year when the book was reviewed
in theNew Theological Journal(under the heading “B”: “Doctrines of Faith
and Morals”!), where the reviewer wrote that the “unknown author makes
it clear that he is a disciple and an imitator of Mag. Kierkegaard.” In a
manner not exactly calculated to stimulate sales, the reviewer opined that
the subject of the first essay had been treated in “long-winded phrases.”
Nonetheless, the reviewer continued, the work bore evidence of “thought-
fulness and logical clarity,... and one might wish that these talents could
be employed on more promising subjects and in a more natural manner.”