Before she continued on to England, from which she journeyed further
to America, the popular authoress tried to arrange a meeting with Kierke-
gaard. Citing her status as a “recluse like yourself” she made application to
Victor Eremita, “in part to thank you for the heavenly manna of your writ-
ings, in part to speak to you about ‘Life’s Stages’ ”—and also to request an
interview with the magister the following Thursday, Ascension Day, right
after church. Kierkegaard apparently hesitated in replying to the request,
because a couple of days later she repeated her invitation, now addressed to
“Theological Graduate Mr. Søren Kierkegaard, Gammeltorv,” which was
the wrong address, inasmuch as the aforementioned theological graduate
had been a resident of Rosenborggade since April 1848. When Kierkegaard
finally pulled himself together and wrote a reply, it is clear that he would
be having none of this “recluse” who rubbed shoulders with anyone and
everyone. “It is my hope that I will not be misunderstood; it would very
much pain me if I were misunderstood; but even if that were the case, I
still cannot accept your invitation,” Kierkegaard wrote at the beginning of
a draft reply, in which his distress is revealed by countless deletions. In a
vain attempt to find a dialectical cadence that would endow his rebuff with
charm, Kierkegaard did, however, manage to write that it was surely not
“the Swedish authoress who was famous throughout Europe” who had
displayed recklessness in approaching him. “No, I know more about reck-
lessness—and I appeal most recklessly to your own reckoning. I dare to the
utmost in recklessness—I who say No to the invitation.”
And this—the part about it being reckless to decline an invitation from
Fredrika Bremer—would soon turn out to be true to a fare-thee-well.
Martensen’sDogmatics
WhileKierkegaardwassittingintheJulyheat,slavingovertheproofreading
ofThe Sickness unto Death, Martensen’sChristian Dogmaticswas being pub-
lished. The appearance of Martensen’s book had been anticipated with un-
usually great expectations, which the work did not disappoint. It was re-
viewed inFlyve-Posten, where it was described as “probably the most
significant work that has appeared in our theological literature.” The re-
viewer believed that the work would be “a blessing” both in theological
circles and in other circles where “modern negative speculation, borne
along by the spirit of the times, consciously or unconsciously has been
granted entrance, and has undermined the foundations of faith.” Mynster,
too, was delighted; he felt “great sympathy” for the work and made it the
object of much “attention,” employing it in his own dogmatic studies.