that they can discern his own human weaknesses all the more distinctly—
as if the question were, What sort of a person is Kierkegaard? and not, Am
I a Christian?”
“Therefore, Take the Pseudonymity Away”
What had begun as a conflict about the proper definition of the term “wit-
ness to the truth” soon developed into a wide-ranging critique of the inept
stewardship the clergy had displayed in discharging its responsibilities to
Christianity, which by now had become indistinguishable from the spirit-
lessly polite worldview of the bourgeoisie. On April 3, someone taking the
name “N-n” published a “Suggestion to Dr. S. Kierkegaard” inFædrelandet,
hoping to put an end to the debate that was now approaching the half-year
mark and that, in N-n’s view, ought to be “kept somewhat freer of paradox-
ical exaggerations and convulsive overexertions.” N-n was furthermore in-
dignant at the malicious virtuosity with which Kierkegaard hurled his male-
dictions at the church and its clergy: “Everything taught and preached by
the appointed servants of Christianity is lumped together and stamped as
anti-Christian.” Now it was time to speak constructively, so if Kierkegaard
wanted to do something more than merely “stir things up and tear things
down, disturbing and confusing, promoting anxiety and terror,” he ought
to “provide his fellow countrymen some guidance,an account, in clear, definite
outlines, of the doctrines of the New Testament in such fashion as, in his view,
would entitle them to bear the name ‘doctrines of the New Testament.’ ”If this
were provided, N-n believed, readers might perhaps be able to emerge from
the “foggy realm in which they are at present situated, with no other lights
than Roman candles and rockets,” for “nothing has been accomplished by
ringing the alarm and by shouting, by storm and rage, by thunder and light-
ning. This is not in the spirit of the prophets, much less in that of Jesus and
the apostles.”
On April 7, Kierkegaard replied, referring N-n to thePostscript,The Sick-
ness unto Death, and in particular toPractice, which was of course sold out,
but was just then “being printed in a new edition.” A couple of weeks later,
Dean Victor Bloch, a Grundtvigian, published his views inFædrelandet.He
had read N-n’s contribution with interest, and agreed with N-n’s presenta-
tion of the matter, though not with his conclusion, because in Bloch’s view
what the matter required was nottheologicalnegotiations, but anecclesiastical
decision. If Kierkegaard was to be taken seriously and the entire matter was
not merely to be regarded as a “coarse joke carrying a police truncheon,”
he would have to be confronted with the self-contradictions he is guilty of