There the matter rests!
December 28, 1854* S. Kierkegaard.
To represent from the pulpit Bishop Mynster as a witness to the truth, one of the genuine witnesses to the truth, to assign him a place in the holy chain, etc. — against this a protest must be raised. There the matter rests.
To represent him in this fashion is essentially to make him ridiculous. For I can easily put the thing in another way, attacking from another side. To represent a man who by preaching Christianity has attained and enjoyed in the greatest measure all possible worldly goods and enjoyments, to represent him as a witness to the truth is as ridiculous as to talk about a maiden who is surrounded by her numerous troop of children. But the fact is, as Luther would say, "Everything that has to do with lechery people in this sinful world know all about, you are promptly understood if you talk about it; but about the Christian concepts they are not so well informed." Hence it is that people do not understand, and therefore censor it, when a protest is raised against a witness to the truth who from a Christian point of view is just as ridiculous as that maiden.
There are lots of things which one can be "at the same time," and it is true particularly of all insignificant things that one can be a number of them "at the same time." One can be both this and that, and at the same time a dilettante violinist, member of a lodge, Schützenkönig, etc. The significant thing has precisely this characteristic, that just in proportion as it is significant it is less possible for a man to be that and at the same time something else. And the definition "witness to the truth" is a very domineering definition; strictly speaking, it can be combined only with being, apart from that, nothing at all. The term "witness to the truth" stands in relation to the fact that Christianity is heterogeneous to the world, wherefore the "witness" must always be recognizable by heterogeneity to this world, by renunciation, by suffering, and this is the reason why such a mode of being is so little capable of being something else at the same time. But to want to have all worldly goods and advantages (the witness to the truth being what he is precisely by renunciation and suffering), and then at the same time to be a witness to the truth — one might Christianly say, "The deuce of a witness that is! Such a witness to the truth is not merely a monster but an impossibility, like a bird which is at the same time a fish, or like an iron tool which has the remarkable peculiarity of being made of wood."
Such is the situation. But remember it was not I who began the thing of measuring Bishop Mynster's life by the scale of a witness to the truth. No, it is a friend, Professor Martensen, who has done the deceased this scurvy service and furnished the occasion for me to say that, viewed under the illumination provided by Professor Martensen, Bishop Mynster was "in a high degree a worldly shrewd man, but weak, self-indulgent, and great only as a declaimer" — this scurvy service which yet cannot perhaps be called entirely disinterested, for the possible successor to the see of Seeland, who at present is the successor, was indeed well served by the suggestion of such an easy way of being himself promoted up to the rank of a witness to the truth.
If there actually is in this land so little sense of what Christianity is that a man might be unable to understand with what justification I must protest against this forgery in the strongest terms, and by drawing the most glaring contrasts, I can put the protest in another form. I maintain that by depicting from the pulpit Bishop Mynster as a witness to the truth, one of the holy chain of witnesses, a wrong is done in the highest degree to every other distinguished and well-deserving man in the land. A jurist like Privy Counselor Ørsted, a poet like Heiberg, a scholar like Madvig, a physician like Bang, theatrical artists like Nielsen, Rosenkilde, Physter, and so on in so many professions — all such men, although it cannot by any means be said that in their lifetime they are more agreeably situated and get more of the earthly goods and enjoyments than Bishop Mynster got, but on the contrary may be said to be situated less agreeably, all such men have exactly the same claim as Bishop Mynster to be buried as witnesses to the truth.
But the Protestant clergy still continue to have a curious crotchet in their heads. Although they have
become in their "existence" entirely like men of every other class, who, without exceeding the limits
prescribed by civil law, seek to develop what gifts they may have, and thereby strive to attain earthly
rewards and pleasures like all the rest, nevertheless at the same time they want to be something more, to be
witnesses to the truth. And this came very clearly to evidence in the memorial address made by Professor
Martensen. Therefore a protest should be made as emphatically as possible, people's blood must be stirred,
passions set in motion — and that of course can be done only when a man is not afraid of the immediate
consequence, that many will become furious at him, which he ought not to fear but to understand, as a
surgeon understands that the patient will shriek and kick. A protest must be made, and the blow for the
provocation given should fall upon the head — and when the article came out Professor Martensen had long
been the head.
So it ought to be; so it was; there the matter rests!
. . ."also out of filial piety towards a deceased father I honored the false draft (the semblance of being a man of character which Bishop Mynster presented) instead of protesting it." There the matter rests.
If the friends of the deceased, his adherents and admirers, when they are a bit more composed, will not understand that at least I have not had any advantage from my relationship to Bishop Mynster — I pray them to examine the account — that in my relationship to him I have shown a resignation which very rarely is shown by a younger man to an elder, that I have done and borne what very seldom a younger man does and bears in relation to an elder — if they will not understand this, and understand also what is implied in it, that they owe me a debt of gratitude for the many years I have borne with the deceased — if they will not understand this, well, in God's name, it's their affair.
To the enemies of the deceased I would say, not to exult and rejoice as though they had gained something, which, as I see it, they have not gained. Their position, as I view it, is entirely unchanged; and, if the occasion were to present itself, it would not be impossible that I might still come forward in the usual way (precious memories — how gladly I did it!) to fight against his enemies in behalf of Bishop Mynster, the pastor of my deceased father.
In Denmark Bishop Mynster was unique in his kind; there is only one person who is in the right against him, and that is I. I have not condemned Bishop Mynster; no, but in the hand of divine governance I was the occasion for Bishop Mynster to pass judgment upon himself. His sermon on Sunday either he did not know on Monday, or he dared not or would not acknowledge it as his — for, ironically enough, I simple-mindedly was his own sermon on Monday; and if on Mondays Bishop Mynster had not with worldly shrewdness shirked the duty of assuming the logical consequence of his Sunday sermon, if he had put into effect a mode of existence and action which corresponded with the tenor of his Sunday address, instead of helping himself out with worldly shrewdness of various patterns, his life would then have taken on an entirely different aspect.
But such a judgment only an enemy can be in haste to pronounce as long as the man lives. He who is devoted to him says, "The judgment must be postponed until the very last; he might indeed even at the last moment avert the judgment and do an immense amount of good by a little word; and everything ought to be done that resignation is able to do in order to move him to utter this word."
So then, there the matter rests : also out of filial piety towards a deceased father I honored this false draft instead of protesting it.
"I was his own sermon on Monday," that I was; for by enduring year after year this provocation, and enduring it moreover with unaltered resignation as I did, I have become something different from what I was, or it became clearer and clearer to me what I was, "my life's misfortune by the love of divine governance turned out to my profit, became my good fortune." My relationship to Bishop Mynster during many years was a unity of a deeply laid purpose on my part which I pursued with the greatest solicitude, and of my own development by the cooperation of divine governance. It will be understood then that I cannot take account of what every anonymous writer, every "Aesculapius" [the signature in the Copenhagen Post] brings out in a newspaper, or what a serious-minded man from Nørrebro with all the seriousness of the Flying Post says to explain to people that I lack seriousness.
And as for the cry which is heard, this cry about attacking a dead man who cannot answer, etc., it may be said of this that it is a misunderstanding, also that it is chiefly a hubbub of women. I have told how the case stands: "God be praised that it could be postponed as long as the old man lived; at the end I was on the point of despairing of it."
Yes, God be praised that I was spared from being obliged to embitter in the most frightful measure the last years of an old man's life by showing that compared with the Christianity of the New Testament the Mynsterish preaching and ecclesiastical rule (if it would not make the admission, and make it as solemnly as possible, that it was not the Christianity of the New Testament) was an illusion of the senses, that all his "earnestness and wisdom" was, Christianly considered, lèse-majesté against Christianity, which scorns in its divine majesty to be served (as if it were politics, a kingdom of this world) by worldly shrewdness. Moreover, viewing the case from another side, I have neglected nothing which might be incumbent upon me as a duty towards the cause I have the honor to serve. Toward the end of his life I pressed upon the old man as closely as I could (but in an indirect way, by Training in Christianity) the question whether he would give battle. By what he did 7 I was to my sorrow convinced how weak he was. Out of consideration for him I concealed this from the contemporaries, and said it only to him personally, as emphatically as possible. However, since this fact of his weakness was a fact, I had to employ a little precautionary measure in view of the extremest eventuality. That was done in Self-Examination, in which, as one can see, I dissected him, but did it to be sure so hiddenly that not even his enemies have seen it, so hiddenly that newspaper articles have quoted this passage to my discredit, regarding it as a eulogy of him, whereas just there I had employed my precautionary measure in view of the ultimate which might occur, and said in effect: "Your Reverence is absolutely not in the character of your sermons." But I hid that. And why? Naturally because I always wished, if it were possible, to carry out my first thought, which was so dear to me: Mynster shall live out his days and be buried with full music. Privately I have talked emphatically enough to Bishop Mynster; in my writings I have carried out my task, and by my existence, my activity as an author, I am a constant attack upon the Mynsterish preaching of Christianity, yet in such a way that at any instant it was possible for Bishop Mynster by making an admission to come to an agreement with me, so that I would have been his defense. But I know very well how most people read, how thoughtlessly, and that therefore, if I wanted to do so (and that I did for several reasons, "also out of filial piety towards a deceased father"), by inserting a little compliment to him there was the charmant possibility of making most people believe that we were in agreement, so that my activity consequently had the effect of enhancing his prestige in the eyes of most people, and every sort of disturbance, scene, catastrophe, situations which were so distasteful to the old man, were happily avoided. About our unity the old man knew better, both because he read my works rather carefully, and because I talked to him in private, although he certainly never doubted my sincere devotion to him, even when it appeared to me most imperiled.
So then, God be praised that this was attained which was my first thought, my wish which was so dear to me, which toward the end I was so near despairing of, that Mynster shall live out his days and be buried with full music; the monument will also be erected in his honor — but then no further, and least of all must he go down in history as a witness to the truth, one of the genuine witnesses to the truth, one of the holy chain of witnesses. There the matter rests!
Kierkegaard's Footnote
*This article, as one will see, is of December 28, delivered to the Fatherland when I saw that same evening, to my surprise, in the Berlin News, No. 302, 5 that after all Bishop Martensen has not, as I was prepared to expect, the same idiosyncrasy in relation to short articles of mine as at one time he avowed he had in relation to "the prolix Kierkegaardian literature," 6 an idiosyncrasy which prevented him from making himself acquainted with it. This is what I saw, but what I neither saw nor see is what his article can accomplish, an article which properly does not require an explicit reply, since it does not alter the case in the least. Bishop Martensen maintains that I have identified the witness to the truth with the blood-witness, and that only thereby am I justified in denying that Bishop Mynster was a witness to the truth. That is not so. Neither in the article, where only at the last I point to the blood-witness (but surely the blood-witness too belongs to the witnesses to the truth, especially to the "genuine" witnesses to the truth, or what I have called "the first class according to the Christian protocol," which implies that I must have in mind many more witnesses to the truth than merely the blood-witnesses); so then, neither in the article nor in the notes appended to it — one can refer to them both — have I made the witness to the truth and the blood-witness identical, and in the notes I have quite distinctly pointed out the difference between preaching Christianity in such a way that the preacher is "a government official, a man of rank, and his preaching his own glittering career, rich in enjoyment," and on the other hand a "suffering witness to the truth," without maintaining in any way whatsoever that suffering must signify suffering unto death. And this difference is quite sufficient to prove that Bishop Mynster cannot be called a witness to the truth, one of the genuine witnesses to the truth, a link in the holy chain, etc. — On the other hand, as for the various matters about which Dr. Martensen speaks in defense of public morals, speaking presumably in his capacity as the duly elected Bishop of Seeland, but speaking also in the tone of a brawler and pugilist, bewailing the scandal occasioned by the step I have taken, talking about Jesuitism and the like, I may say that this makes absolutely no impression upon me. Partly (and this is the decisive point) because it rests upon a misunderstanding, and pardy because Dr. Martensen is too subaltern a person to overawe me, especially since he has begun to wear velvet. Certainly a domestic cannot overawe anybody by his livery, but in the clothes of his master, the noble lord, he is still less awe-inspiring. Besides I am so accustomed to stand a blow, and to stand it until several years later the majority have come over to my opinion (only they forget that I had to stand the blow); so I may as well stand this blow, too — for the sake of elucidating the Christian concepts. And the judgment expressed about Bishop Mynster, one of the genuine witnesses to the truth, a link in the holy chain, must be protested. There the matter rests!
Translator's Footnotes
5This was Martensen's reply to S. K., which he published in the Berlinske Tidende (a Copenhagen daily) on Dec. 28, 1854.
6In a brochure which Prof. Martensen published in 1850 he said of S. K.'s writings, "My acquaintance with this prolix literature is only very slight and fragmentary."
7 This is told in the Journal, X3 A 563 f., which may be read in my Kierkegaard, pp. 514 f. Cf. Article XX in the Fatherland.