Soren Kierkegaard

must necessarily result in “the most dishonorable sort of bankruptcy for a
professor and a member of theFaculty of Philosophy.” If something like this
had taken place in Germany, the students would have boycotted his classes.
Martensen alsoattended abirthday celebrationfor W.H. Rothe, Dr.theol.,
parish pastor at Trinity Church. Nielsen had been invited as well, but as
Martensen wrote, “Naturally, I took absolutely no notice of him.” There
are true prophets and there are false prophets, and Martensen enjoyed the
privilege of never having any doubts about which were which.
In a letter dated March 15, 1853, Martensen finally found something to
be pleased about: “[Nielsen’s] product is making no headway and has won
no sympathy.” The previous day he had spoken with young Rothe, who
quoted Nielsen as having said that he“had high hopes that the whole matter
would come to a favorable conclusion and that he now had the most exqui-
site peace of mind,” harboring “the most charitable feelings” for Martensen.
For his part, Martensen termed Nielsen’s remarks “rather frightful rubbish”
and found it typical of Nielsen that he wanted to “argue away his own
words.” Martensen did insist, however, that he had “absolutely no feelings
of hatred toward Nielsen,” whose natural talents he had always acknowl-
edged; but it went without saying that it was impossible for Martensen “to
respecthim, particularly after this latest piece of villainy.”
In his conversation with Rothe, Nielsen had intimated that if Martensen
wouldspeakwith him about their personal disagreements and display the
requisite respect, he would not only view himself “as someone personally
vanquished,” but he would also “make apublicstatement to this effect, by
which the scholarly question would be absolutely separated and set aside as
an open matter for future discussion.” The notion of such a statement might
well call to mind the admission that Kierkegaard would demand from Mar-
tensen a little more than a year later, but Martensen had absolutely no plans
to do any such thing. “But isn’t this quite obviously the Devil’s own non-
sense?” he remarked to Gude, at the same time taking the opportunity to
encourage Gude to criticize Nielsen, who as a “scoundrel” really “needs to
be taken to task.” Gude ought to criticize Nielsen in writing and in the
formof “directcommunication,”somethingthatshouldreally“beregarded
as a work of love,” because, despite everything, Nielsen was “too good to
lose.” But, Martensen also insisted, if Gude wrote in this connection he
would have to do so in such a manner that Nielsen “would not be able in
anywaywhatever.. .toseeinitanyindirectcommunicationfrommyself.”
On May 23 Kierkegaard encountered Martensen on the street, and ac-
cording to Martensen, Kierkegaard utterly “disavowed” Nielsen. Shortly
after this encounter, Martensen expressed his fervent desire to be able to
pay a visit to Mr. and Mrs. Gude down in his “beloved Lolland” for a few