Soren Kierkegaard

ness, but that was precisely the point and thus was not, as Møller—ambitious
as he was for a professorial appointment—would have it, the problem. In a
detailed footnote Kierkegaard explained that the book was an experiment,
neither more nor less than that, and the book itself makes this so unmistak-
ably clear that no one who is evenreasonablycapable of reading ought to
have even a second’s doubt about it. After this solid drubbing and a series
of sarcastic remarks of the most slanderous sort, Kierkegaard ended by ex-
claiming, “Would only that I might soon appear inThe Corsair. It is really
difficult for a poor author to be singled out like this on the Danish literary
scene, so that he (assuming that we pseudonyms are all one) is the only
one who is not abused there. If I am not mistaken, my superior, Hilarius
Bookbinder, has been flattered inThe Corsair. Victor Eremita even had to
endure the disgrace of being immortalized—inThe Corsair! And yet I have
of course already been there, becauseubi spiritus, ibi ecclesia: ubi P. L. Møller,
ibi ‘The Corsair.’ ”
With the clever Latin expression—“Where the Spirit is, there is the
Church: Where P. L. Møller is, there isThe Corsair”—Kierkegaard went
beyond the pale in more ways than one. In literary circles it was certainly
an open secret that Møller was involved withThe Corsair, but to trumpet
this fact so bluntly inFædrelandetwas in the view of many a major breach
of etiquette. The great wave of indignation on Møller’s behalf also took
Kierkegaard by surprise: He had only added the Latin slogan more or less
in passing—it was penciled in as a marginal addition to the manuscript.
Thank goodness that Møller had been foolish enough to have informed
T. H. Erslew’sEncyclopedia of Authorsthat he had been (as Kierkegaard puts
it) “both... lyrically and satyrically active onThe Corsair,” so passing on
this information to a larger audience could hardly be called an indiscretion.
Nonetheless Kierkegaard had had to curb his emotions quite firmly. Indeed,
he had to summon up powerful religious motives to justify the assassination
of Møller: “The article against P. L. Møller was written with much fear and
trembling. I wrote it on religious holidays and as a regulating check, I ne-
glected neither to attend church nor to read my sermon.” This was Kierke-
gaard at his worst.
At first the tactic looked as though it was succeeding. Perceptibly shaken
by Kierkegaard’s reaction, Møller replied inFædrelandettwo days later, De-
cember 29, 1845, writing in conciliatory tones that he had discussed a num-
ber of literary works inGæaand thus did not wish to single out any individ-
ual work for debate. He absolutely denied that Hauch’s house in Sorø was
supposed to be the location where the literary conversations had taken
place. At the same time he pointed out that everyone who publishes a book
risks being reviewed in a less than complimentary manner. And he added: