A picture of life
and
a picture from life
Take the pupils in a class — which is most admired by his comrades? Is it the laziest? No, that is out of the question. Is it the most industrious? Not that either. Is it then the one who has the greatest gifts of mind? Not that either. But if there is one who has the shrewdness to know how to deceive the teachers, and does it so adroitly that he always comes out of it well, always has good marks, always stands high in the class, always is praised and cited for distinction — he is the admired one. And why? Because his comrades understand very well that he has a double advantage. He has the advantage which the lazy boy also has, that he really does nothing, has constantly plenty of time to play and to amuse himself — an advantage which the lazy boy has too, but he suffers punishment for it. And then he has also the advantage which the diligent student has, he is the admired one. Of him his comrades say admiringly, "Ludvigsen, Ludvigsen, he's the very devil of a man." — "But Frederiksen is more industrious." — "Oh well, what good does that do him? Ludvigsen always has just as good marks, so Frederiksen has only one thing to the good — the trouble of studying." — "Yes, but Olsen after all has a much better head." — "Bah, a fig for that. That doesn't do him much good, it rather gives him more bother. No, Ludvigsen is the very devil of a man."
This was a picture of life. Now I go on to a picture from life.
In this world which is the most admired teacher of Christianity? Is it the shamelessly worldly man who sans phrase and without disguise admits that he seeks after the earthly, after money, power, etc., and succeeds in attaining it? No, that is out of the question. Is it then the truly pious man who takes Christianity seriously, therefore actually is without this world's goods and pleasures, so that his life is an exposition of the Apostle's saying, "If in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most pitiable"? No, not that either.
But if there is one who has the shrewdness to know how to deceive God, and in such a way that he always comes out of it well and wins (perhaps more surely than the shameless worlding) all worldly goods and pleasures, while constantly he is the pious man, the God-fearing man, the man of God, earnestness itself — he is the admired one. And why ? Because he wins a double advantage : worldly goods — and at the same time the glory, the halo of the saint, and the corresponding respect and deference.
And if he is able to do this with such infinite adroitness that nobody, nobody at all can see through it, then the game is in his hands, this is the veritable ne plus ultra, peerless, unique— especially for womenfolks, but also for men, too. But especially for womenfolks; for it cannot be denied that woman was so made once for all that if she is to relish anything thoroughly, in particular if she is to be exalted in admiration, adoring admiration, there must be a shiver of dread (Angst) mixed with it. And of that in this situation there is a tiny bit. In the midst of the most blissful exaltation, in the midst of the most heavenly rapture prompted by the admired one, there is afar off, but yet it is there, a dread whether after all it might not be . . . But no, that is impossible! And this composition produces...adoring admiration.
There is nothing so objectionable to God as hypocrisy. According to God's appointment the precise task of life is to be converted, transformed, because by nature every man is a born hypocrite.
There is nothing the world so much admires as the finer and finest forms of hypocrisy.
The finer and the finest forms of hypocrisy! In this connection, however, one must observe that these forms may sometimes occur in such a way that they are not always the most guilty qualities in the person concerned. Given great talents, extraordinary shrewdness and weak character, this combination will yield one of the finest forms of hypocrisy, whereas the person in question is perhaps not so guilty, before God not so guilty. On the other hand it is quite certain that precisely this form is for other men the most dangerous of all, that is to say to other men who are related receptively, as learners, to such a teacher.63
Translator's Footnotes
63The reader hardly needs to be told that S. K. had Mynster in mind.