Kierkegaard's Writings

The Moment and Late Writings

Søren Kierkegaard, Howard V. Hong, Edna H. Hong, Howard V. Hong, Edna H. Hong

• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781400832415
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy of Religion

Kierkegaard, a poet of ideals and practitioner of the indirect method, also had a direct and polemical side. He revealed this in several writings throughout his career, culminating in The Moment, his attack against the established ecclesiastical order.
Kierkegaard was moved to criticize the church by his differences with Bishop Mynster, Primate of the Church of Denmark. Although Mynster saw in Kierkegaard a complement to himself and his outlook, Kierkegaard challenged Mynster to acknowledge the emptying and estheticizing of Christianity that had occurred in modern Christendom. For three years Kierkegaard was silent, waiting. When Mynster died, he was memorialized as "an authentic truth-witness" in the "holy chain of truth-witnesses that stretches through the ages from the days of the apostles." This struck Kierkegaard as blasphemous and inspired him to write a series of articles in Fædrelandet, which he followed with ten numbers of the pamphlet The Moment. This volume includes the articles from Fædrelandet, all numbers of The Moment, and several other late pieces of Kierkegaard's writing.

XXI [XIV 93]

That Bishop Martensen’s Silence Is (1) Christianly Indefensible; (2) Ludicrous; (3) Obtuse-Sagacious; (4) in More Than One Regard Contemptible132

1. That it, Christianly, is indefensible. It is, as an apostle also emphasizes, a Christian’s duty always to be willing to make a defense for the hope that is in him,133 that is, for his Christianity. And how very much in order that is; a Christian, this lover and follower of truth, should he not always be willing to answer for himself and his view, always be ready to witness for the truth and against untruth, and most of all detest sneaking into something or from something through silence!

And now a Christian bishop, and the country’s highest bishop! The country’s highest bishop—it is to him that the congregation looks, from him that it expects guidance, upon him that it puts its trust that he will witness against untruth and declare himself for the truth.

And how does this highest bishop of the country conduct himself? Somewhat like boys on New Year’s Eve, who, when they see their chance, use the occasion to toss a pot at people’s door and then take off by another street lest the police get hold of them. Similarly in the big hullabaloo on the occasion of my article about Bishop Mynster,134 Bishop Martensen saw his chance135 and threw a garbage can of insults and abusive remarks over me—and then took off. From that moment he observed the [XIV 94] deepest silence, although the matter really commenced to be earnest after that time, inasmuch as with each subsequent article in Fædrelandet the matter really became much more earnest than the issue of whether I actually had treated a dead man unfairly.

But Bishop Martensen observes the deepest silence, although he has been challenged to express himself.136 He did not reply to this challenge either, while on the other hand there appeared an anonymous article in the Berlingske Tidende advising Bishop Martensen not to reply to that challenge.137

And this (reminiscent of Leporello and his line: I answer not, no matter who it is138)—this is supposed to be defensible for a truth-witness, a Christian bishop, the country’s highest, upon whom the congregation can depend! No, a silence such as this is Christianly indefensible, and Christianly such lamentable behavior is far worse than if the bishop had become addicted to drink.

2. It is ludicrous. Wherever there is the ludicrous, so declares one of my pseudonyms, there is also a contradiction.139 It is the same with silence. A silence can have many different characteristics tending toward good or evil, but silence is ludicrous when it has the exasperating characteristic—that it speaks. This is very ludicrous: a silence that speaks, speaks very loudly, and says what it is concealing so that everyone can hear it, says precisely what [XIV 95] one wishes to hide with the help of silence. Just as when Countess Orsini says to Marinelli, “I want to whisper something to you”140 and then shouts very loudly what she wants to say—so also this silence shouts very loudly what it is hiding. Just like making oneself invisible by putting a white stick in one’s mouth,141 whereby all that is achieved is that one additional thing is seen, that one has a white stick in one’s mouth—so also this silence shouts more loudly than the most solemn declaration by the bishop: I am in hot water. It shouts it so clearly that not only the better informed can hear it but the people, the common man, can understand it, and shouts it so loudly that it can be heard in a neighboring country.142

3. It is obtuse-sagacious. It is not simply obtuse, no, it is obtuse in wanting to be sagacious, obtuse-sagacious. It is just as when there is something a teacher does not know—which of course can very well happen—and he does not directly say, “I do not know it” but sagaciously pretends as if he knew it, and then from it the pupils privately draw conclusions that subtract from his reputation. This silence is presumably very sagacious, but it is still an obtuseness, since with every day Bishop Martensen remains silent there is privately a subtracting from his reputation. Even if a silence does not have the damaging characteristic that it betrays what it hides, in order to be able to hold out it requires, unless the opponent is an altogether unimportant person, a reputation gained and maintained over many years. And here it is a beginner in the bishopric, and a beginner who began as unfortunately as Bishop Martensen did with his discourse in Berlingske Tidende; and the other party is at least on a fully equal footing with him, intellectually and literarily, except that I do not have, Christianly speaking, the ludicrous characteristic of being a councilor of conference with a salary in the thousands.

No, this silence is obtuse-sagacious. Even those who do not have the true criterion for what this silence means can see this.

Bishop Martensen and I are not, as they say, entirely unacquainted [XIV 96] with each other. For many years there has been, literarily, an unsettled account between us.143 But as long as the old bishop, who for better or for worse was such a friend of calmness, was living (also out of devotion to my late father), I took care from my side that it could go on quietly. Things went on very quietly with regard to the system, in which Bishop Martensen did not draw the longest straw. I refused to attack him by name—and Bishop Martensen maintained silence. Even when the person who for Bishop Martensen certainly must be regarded as the most dangerous person to say it, even when Prof. Nielsen in print gave him to understand that my pseudonym had disposed of him,144 which then for him the most dangerous person (next to Prof. Nielsen) to say it, Dr. Stilling, again in print gave him to understand,145 and which later was quite bluntly said to him in print146—Bishop Martensen maintained silence.

Then he believed that I had blundered by speaking about Bishop Mynster, that the mood was against me, and from his article it was apparent how he would like to drench me with abusive remarks, consequently how he would like to speak if only he believed that he could have the advantage.

And so he again wants to maintain silence! Indeed, as obtuse-sagacious silence, this silence deserves to be called Martensenian silence, different from the silence of a Brutus,147 of an Orange.148

4. In more than one regard, it is contemptible. I will single out only two points. If one is a man, it is contemptible not to behave like a man, not to look danger in the eye manfully, not to win or lose decisively but to sneak away from it. And it is doubly contemptible [XIV 97] if one allows oneself to be paid by the state to take a leading position, and perhaps in other ways to play the leader.

And this silence is contemptible because it seems to be calculated to be able to signify different things, all in relation to the outcome.

Worldly sagacity teaches, “Never become involved with a phenomenon.”* And I suppose I am to be classified under the category of phenomenon. I, of course, am one of the incongruities who have not made their efforts commensurate with a government position and the like.

So one is silent. If it turns out that the phenomenon prevails—oh, good heavens, of course one has said nothing, one’s silence was respect, or perhaps “Christian resignation”—which Prof. Nielsen unfortunately played into Martensen’s hands151 without even taking the precaution of at least having Bishop Martensen take back his abusive remarks. Otherwise the Christian resignation that maintains silence after having poured out all those abusive remarks is odd; resignation of that sort is somewhat like repentance for having stolen and then keeping the stolen goods.—But if it turns out that the phenomenon does not prevail—well, then one’s silence was superiority, which, as long as the outcome is critical, one tries the best one can to make it out to be in order to weaken the phenomenon.

How contemptible is this silence, which instead of acting wants to wait for the outcome in order to obtain fraudulently what one’s silence has signified!

S. KIERKEGAARD

POSTSCRIPT

This is, religiously, the matter I must pursue; therefore I must do what I am doing, whether it personally goes against the grain or not.

I am well aware that when someone as young as Bishop Martensen152 has been so fortunate (!)—indeed, when I think of the New Testament and the oath, it is quite satirical!—as to make [XIV 98] such a brilliant (!) career (!), I am well aware that one can then wish for tranquillity [Ro] (but the Christianity of the New Testament is precisely restlessness [Uro]) in order to enjoy (but the Christianity of the New Testament is to suffer) these worldly things: the ample income, the high esteem in society, the pleasantness of having influence on the welfare of many people. I am also well aware (and in one sense this of course does not diminish Bishop Martensen) that Bishop Martensen could not wish to be so bold as to declare publicly under his name and as bishop that the official Christianity is the Christianity of the New Testament or even a striving in that direction, and that thus far he was obliged (he did indeed at first make an attempt, extremely unfortunate for silence, to speak) to arrive at the conclusion that for him silence was the only way out or escape. But from this it does not follow that I dare to be silent to this silence or to what it, even though impotently, yet perhaps unashamedly, points to, that a person who was especially chosen very early by Governance and slowly brought up for a special task (and this is the case with me), a person who, with an unselfishness, strenuousness, and diligence that in our setting are almost unique, has willed only one thing, that such a person (perhaps also as a reward for his having honestly renounced aspiring to what, Christianly speaking, is questionable: profit, rank, title, decorations, etc.) should come to be regarded as a kind of loudmouth whom the high ecclesiastics did not consider worthy of a reply, so that the common man, trusting the high ecclesiastics, could feel justified in concluding that what this loudmouth says (surely what he says is Christianly perhaps the most justifiable objection ever raised!) is blather. An attempt to bring this about has already been made. It was in Dagbladet,153 an anonymous person—very likely a spiritual counselor! Even if he was so kind as to concede “great capabilities” to me, he nevertheless managed to say that to the common man what I say appears to be blather! Honorable, honest spiritual counsel: say that the common man says it—in order to get him to say it!

I am, however, of a different opinion, I who perhaps am also [XIV 99] acquainted with the common man. Is it not true, you common man, that you can understand it very well—I mean that you are the very one who can understand it much more easily and much better than demoralized pastors and a corrupted upper class—is it not true that you are well able to understand this, that it is one thing to be persecuted, mistreated, flogged, crucified, beheaded, etc. and that it is something else, comfortably situated, with a family, steadily advancing, to live off describing how someone else was flogged etc.—but this is also a difference between the Christianity of the New Testament and the official Christianity.

If now, prompted by Prof. R. Nielsen’s articles, there should again begin to appear in Berlingske Tidende, perhaps even from Norway,154 anonymous articles that advise Bishop Martensen not to become involved, then the people will no doubt gradually understand what such a thing means and be obliged to Bishop Martensen for the contribution he makes to public entertainment by way of the anonymous articles advising him not to become involved. Or if Bishop Martensen should choose (as I hear is the case with individual pastors here in the city) to say something or other in a church—then it is not my fault if it probably ends up with someone’s laughing in church, since, viewed comically, this method is a very valuable contribution to illuminating what “truth-wit...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Historical Introduction
• Newspaper Articles 1854–1855
• I. Was Bishop Mynster a “Truth-Witness,” One of “the Authentic Truth-Witnesses”—Is This the Truth?
• II. There the Matter Rests!
• III. A Challenge to Me from Pastor Paludan-Müller
• IV. The Point at Issue with Bishop Martensen, as Christianly Decisive for the, Christianly Viewed, Dubious Previously Established Ecclesiastical Order
• V. Two New Truth-Witnesses
• VI. At Bishop Mynster’s Death
• VII. Is This Christian Worship or Is It Making a Fool of God?
• VIII. What Must Be Done—It Will Happen either through Me or through Someone Else
• IX. The Religious Situation
• X. A Thesis—Just One Single One
• XI. “Salt”; Because “Christendom” Is: the Decay of Christianity; “a Christian World” Is: a Falling Away from Christianity
• XII. What Do I Want?
• XIII. On the Occasion of an Anonymous Proposal to Me in No. 79 of This Newspaper
• XIV. Would It Be Best Now to “Stop Ringing the Alarm”?
• XV. Christianity with a Royal Certificate and Christianity without a Royal Certificate
• XVI. What Cruel Punishment!
• XVII. A Result
• XVIII. A Monologue
• XIX. Concerning a Fatuous Pompousness in Regard to Me and the Conception of Christianity to Which I Am Calling Attention
• XX. For the New Edition of Practice in Christianity
• This Must Be Said; So Let It Be Said
• XXI. That Bishop Martensen’s Silence Is (1) Christianly Indefensible; (2) Ludicrous; (3) Obtuse-Sagacious; (4) in More Than One Regard Contemptible
• The Moment, 1–2
• What Christ Judges of Official Christianity
• The Moment, 3–7
• The Changelessness of God
• The Moment, 8–9
• Appendix: The Moment, 10
• Supplement
• Editorial Appendix