And that was the end of the twelve short lines the reviewer had set aside
forthatbook.
If he had written in his own name, Kierkegaard would probably have
been spared this humiliating comedy of mistaken identities. On the other
hand, now that the damage had been done, he did not have to reveal his
identity. But he was nonetheless unable to resist the temptation to write a
long article, full of indignation because his works were neverreviewedin
theNew Theological Journalbut were merelylistedevery once in a while,
accompanied by a “note in which the reader is informed that the editors
had not received a free copy.” Kierkegaard concluded from this that “if the
editors do not receive a free copy, they do not review the book.” He wrote
a good deal more in this vein, but ended up consigning the result of his
rage to “the middle drawer of the desk.” If we think Kierkegaard was over-
reacting yet again, all we need do is flip back one page in theNew Theological
Journal, whereThe Sickness unto Deathwas in fact reviewed exactly as Kier-
kegaard described: The basic bibliographic data concerning the book are
indicated, plus the price, “1 rixdollar.” That was that. Not even the number
of pages in the book was indicated.
Apart from these incompetent reviews, the only reaction to H. H.’sEs-
sayswaswhenMynsterratherambivalentlymumbled“dearfriend,probably
six or seven times”—after Kierkegaard had finally been permitted to enter.
This was the “enormous hue and cry” H. H.’sEssayscaused. It was insuffi-
cient, but it was understandable, if for no other reason than that the action
H. H. proposed to take would only have made sense if it were to take place
outside the text, in the real world, perhaps right in the center of Copenha-
gen, in the middle of Amagertorv.
The Ventriloquist Who Said “I”
As the “work as an author” grew, the distance between “author” and
“work” diminished. As time passed, Kierkegaard realized how indissolubly
he was linked to his works, which turned out to be his own “upbringing”
and his “development”—as he put it inThe Point of View.
Up to and including H. H., the textual figures had appeared as “charac-
ters.” These characters had appeared in Kierkegaard’s stead; that is, since he
himself was unable to assume the character, he had a poetic “character” do
so instead. Kierkegaard increasingly came to view this arrangement as an
evasion of the requirement for existential self-actualization. This is clear
from the “excuse” he made in the first of his lectures on indirect communi-
cation, written in 1847 but never delivered: “I must probably make an