Soren Kierkegaard

Gospels and Modern Consciousness, a 530-page clunker of a book, plodded
heavily into the literary world on May 19, 1849, the same day that Kierke-
gaard’sTwo Ethical-Religious Essaysappeared. Nielsen had had the idea—a
disastrous one, in Kierkegaard’s view—of “juxtaposing doubt and faith and
letting them debate.” But this sort of thing could not be done successfully
unless one had dialectical accuracy and absolute passion, virtues Nielsen
lacked. “This book appears to aim at being anEither/Or. It will perhaps
only become a neither/nor. It is fundamentally dependent upon Joh. Cli-
macus, and he is the only person who is not cited.” The further he read in
the volume, the more Kierkegaard saw that one idea after another had been
siphoned off: “The writings have been plundered in many ways; most of
all, of course, the pseudonyms, which he therefore never cites, perhaps
having made the clever calculation that they are the least read. And then
my conversations!”
All in all, it was an “unbelievable amount of petty copying, and bad
copying.” The whole of Nielsen’s enterprise consisted in “pasting together
a new structure that isessentiallyplagiarism.” And this was neither more nor
less than mediocrity, because there are “certain things concerning which
being ableis what is absolutely important,” and mediocrity consists precisely
in “sort of wanting to go along with something a little.” Furthermore, what
Nielsen did could not be done without violating the very form of commu-
nication that was essential to the pseudonymous writings: Nielsentaught
aboutKierkegaard, thereby making him doctrinaire. The consequences of
this error were dreadful: “The upshot will be to provide a heap of ecclesias-
tical drivelheads with a new apparatus with which to drivel up one page
and down the next.” Rasmus Nielsen had turned up at the rich fountain of
Kierkegaardian genius—with a teacup!
Kierkegaardlodgedaprotestatthefirstopportunity.Andindeedinoneof
two letters datedMay 25, 1849,Nielsen soundssubservient,almostbattered:
“Dear Mr. Magister! You are right, which is to say, I am wrong, and I
hereby beg your pardon. Last Thursday I did not yet have a clear idea of
what I must do. Yours, R. N.” In the second of the two letters, Nielsen
asked Kierkegaard more directly to recall that at their first meeting, what
Kierkegaard had to communicate was too “serious to be imparted during a
walk.” This was also the case with what Nielsen now wanted to impart, so
the implicitmessage was:We should meetprivately!After a“P. S.”in which
he expressed heartfelt thanks for the “godly discourses,” he had received,
Nielsen’s letter was signed, “Yours, R. N.” The next day Kierkegaard re-
plied, noting that such an arrangement could certainly have been made if,
that is, Nielsen had taken the trouble to keep their appointment last Thurs-
day and had shown up at the accustomed meeting place for their Thursday