Christianity is and remains dead (only a semblance of life and something
imaginary), that not even he himself could become a Christian. An honest
man who said this candidly.”
Nielsen: A Demonic Scoundrel
The weeks following the publication of Nielsen’s underworld novel were
dramatic. Martensen did everything he could to avoid Nielsen, and he
thought even guttersnipes ought to do the same. Somewhere around town
Paulli had spoken with Kierkegaard, who (according to Martensen) “was
extremely critical of the product,” finding it “frightful that a person could
be so ‘thin-skinned’ that such a polemic could still pain him three years
later.” Martensen could report, further, that Kierkegaard claimed to have
providednoencouragementwhateverinsupportofNielsen’sattack:“Paulli
remains convinced that all this was honestly said. Of course, this is possible.
And as far as possible one ought to believe the best, particularly in this
matter. But it is nonetheless certain that Kierkegaard has assumed an arro-
gant, ambivalent, and equivocal posture throughout this entire affair.”
Gude had read the book and called it anti-Christian, which Martensen
thought was a quite appropriate description, because Nielsen had of course
“profaned Scriptural passages by weaving them into his persiflage.” Quite
simply, Nielsen had taken “what is holy” in vain; this was Martensen’s ver-
sion of Mynster’s remark that Kierkegaard’sPractice in Christianityhad been
“blasphemous toying with what is holy.” Nielsen was furthermore a
“scoundrel,” only a hairsbreadth removed from “something demonic.”
Thathecalledhimself “arag”wasonly“disgustingcynicism”;indeed,there
was “in general somethingcynicalrunning through the whole of that mon-
strous product.”
The day after writing these lines, Martensen was in church to hear Paulli
deliver an “edifying sermon” about Peter’s denial of Christ. It was Paulli’s
birthday, and Martensen spent most of the day with a “pleasant little group
of people at the episcopal residence in the company of our beloved bishop.”
On Monday,Fædrelandetcarried a rather harsh review, four columns long,
which Martensen found “relatively satisfying, inasmuch as it at least declared
the entire project flawed and also rebutted [Nielsen’s] shameless views.”
Naturally, Martensen would have preferred that the book be ignored to
death,with Nielsenreceivinga sounddrubbing sothatpeople wouldrealize
“what a coarse and wretched fellow he is.” What ought to have been made
clear was that “from now on [Nielsen] has lost all respect as ascholarand as
apublic teacherat the university,” because such an “attempted assassination”