KRUPP, FRIED.

A Paris, 1815. 8vo. Cont.full calf. Gilt back. Corners bumped. (8), 400, (10) pp. and 51 engr.plts., some folded. (Numb. l-51), No. 19 double and 41 not here, and not called for in the text.

Leipzig, Friderici Lancksii, 1693. 8vo. In contemporary full vellum with title in contemporary hand to spine. Annotations in contemporary hand to front free end-paper. Previous owner's name crossed out on title-page. Binding with wear and miscolouring. Internally nice and clean. (14), 1086, (132) pp. + frontispiece. Rare first edition of this work containing extracts from historical anecdotes, emblematic and apologetic narratives, allegories sententiae and similes, from both from sacred and secular sources. The collection was intended to function as a handbook for students and preachers, designed to provide moral and illustrative material for sermons and orations.

(København), 1842. Large 4to (32 x 24, 8 cm). 2 columns to a page. Columns (7545)-7252, all containing Kierkegaard’s article. 2 ff. The exceedingly scarce original printing of the leaves of The Fatherland that contain Kierkgaard’s first publication in the paper, in which he would print all of his other newspaper-articles. AABENBART SKRIFTEMAAL is Kierkegaard’s first article in the paper Fædrelandet (The Fatherland), a paper that will later become of seminal importance to him and to Danish polemics in general. It also constitutes his fifth newspaper article, the first to appear after his earliest publications in Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post, which were published before any of his books, and the first article pertaining to his pseudonymity. Kierkegaard kept returning to Aabenbart Skriftemaal, eg. in an unpublished article that he wrote in 1843, Opfordring, and also several years later, in his Journal (NB6:16), where he denotes Aabenbart Skriftemaal as a “signal shot” – a signal shot for the forthcoming period of his authorship, the pseudonymous period, that begins with Either-Or. Though the present paper is among Kierkegaard’s earliest writings, we already witness the distinct attitude to his authorship that would become so defining for his career. His earliest articles, although pseudonymously published, had been attributed to Kierkegaard, and he uses the present paper to refuse taking ownership of papers he had not published in his own name. “Thus “Public Confession” is noteworthy because it indicates just how early Kierkegaard shaped his authorial purpose.” (D. Anthony). “...I beg the good people who show an interest in me never to regard me as the author of anything that does not bear my name” (from Aabenbart Skriftemaal). Fædrelandet – litterally translated as ”The Fatherland” – was a Danish newspaper that was founded in 1834 and existed until 1882. In the beginning it appeared weekly, but in 1839, it began appearing daily. With its cultural and political contents, it soon became the leading paper of the national liberal opposition. The paper was the most important paper in Kierkegaard’s time and the one that more than any other influenced public opinion. During the first years of its existence, the paper had numerous different publishers and editors. It also ended up in numerous controversies with the censorship authorities, resulting in many trials and fines. From May 1841, the editors of the paper were Carl Ploug and J.F. Giødwad. The latter would come to play an enormous role in Kierkegaard’s authorship, as would The Fatherland itself. Giødwad was one of the very few people that Kierkegaard has ever characterized as a “personal friend” (SKS 21 214,10). It is very likely that this friendship was initiated in 1842, when Kierkegaard published his first paper in The Fatherland, Aabenbart Skriftemaal. We know that from the Christmas of 1842, Giødwad helps with the proof reading of Either-Or and is thus clearly one of the most trusted people in his life. As we shall see later, it was also Giødwad, who represented Kierkegaard in dealings with publishers and printers, when it had to do with the pseudonymous writings, thus protecting Kierkegaard’s pseudonymity and shielding him from the public. Giødwad himself said that Kierkegaard initially got a favourable impression of him when at some point he had dismissed a reader, who wished to know who was behind an anonymous paper published in The Fatherland (see A.D. Jørgensen’s statement from 1885 in Kirmmsee, Søren Kierkegaard truffet, p. 88). Kierkegaard trusted Giødwad completely, and thereby also The Fatherland. Apart from his four earliest papers in Kjøbenhavnsposten (see nr. 1 above), The Fatherland was the only paper Kierkegaard would publish in. During its entire existence, The Fatherland would be published in ca 2.000 copies, making it of the utmost scarcity today. Almost all copies of it have been destroyed, thrown out, worn, etc., and it is extremely rare on the market. The few issues we have at the moment are the only ones from this period that we have ever seen for sale. Himmelstrup: 15

(København), 1843-1845. 1) 4de Aarg. Nr. 1162. Mandagen den 27. februar 18432) 4de Aarg. Nr. 1168. Søndagen den 5. Marts 18433) 4de Aarg. Nr. 1236. Tirsdagen den 16. Mai 18434) 6te Aarg. Nr. 1883. Fredagen den 9. Mai 1845 All 4 articles in large 4to (33 x 24,5 cm – 4) measuring 33 x 25). 2 columns to a page. 1) 2 pp. Columns 9325-9332. Kierkegaard’s article: Columns 9330-93322) 2 pp. Columns 9373-9380. Kierkegaard’s article: Columns 9373-93763) 2 pp. Columns 9917-9924. Kierkegaard’s article: Columns 9921-99224) 2 pp. Columns 15089-15096. Kierkegaard’s article: Columns 15093-15096. Marginal dampstaining A magnificent set of all Kierkegaard’s four articles on his own authorship and pseudonymity, all in the exceedingly scarce original printings of The Fatherland. During its entire existence, The Fatherland would be published in ca 2.000 copies, making it of the utmost scarcity today. Almost all copies of it have been destroyed, thrown out, worn, etc., and it is extremely rare on the market. The issues we have at the moment are the only ones from this period that we have ever seen for sale. Kierkegaard’s play with the pseudonyms is a fundamental part of his authorship. Either-Or is a prime example of how these pseudonyms interact and how they represent different parts of Kierkegaard and his thought. Merely a week after the publication of Either-Or, Kierkgaard publishes an article entitled Who is the Author of Either-Or. The background for the publication is, not surprisingly, the many immediate reactions that followed the publication of his magnum opus. The article was published in The Fatherland on February 27th, 1843 and is the second paper pertaining to Kierkegaard’s pseudonymity and the first paper pertaining to the reception of Either-Or. As we know, Either-Or initiated Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous authorship, and the work caused quite a sensation, not only due to its massive length, which was very unusual at the time, but also due to the interest in the authorship of the work. The article Who is the Author of Either-Or makes use of this interest and is itself also published pseudonymously. At no point does it mention the name Kierkegaard. He states that there is no consensus as to the authorship of the work and even posits various theories on the authorship based on external and internal evidence, finally concluding that the identity of the true author is immaterial. As Kierkegaard owned up to the authorship of Either-Or in Unscientific Concluding Postscript, so he did to that of the present article, admitting there that he is indeed also the A.F. that has authored Who is the Author of Either/Or. When Nielsen collected and published Kierkegaard’s newspaper articles posthumously, in 1857, he apparently was not aware that Kierkegaard was also the author of Who is the Author of Either- Or and did not include it in his publication. Following Who is the Author of Either-Or is another paper on the same subject, printed merely a week after the first, namely on March 5, 1843, also in The Fatherland. It is entitled A Word of Thanks to Professor Heiberg and is also written under a pseudonym. This time the pseudonym is Victor Eremita, who was the pseudonymous name for the editor of Either-Or. This article is written as a reaction to Heiberg’s review of Either-Or and constitutes the second of the four papers that Kierkegaard writes on the immediate reactions to and reception of his magnum opus. Heiberg had written his review of Either-Or, without knowing the identity of the author, in Litterær vintersæd, which was published in Intelligensblade (of which Heiberg himself was the publisher). Some of Heiberg’s criticism consisted in Either-Or being ridiculously long. But the review also clearly shows that Heiberg had not understood the work. Which is exactly what Kierkegaard points out in A Word of Thanks to Professor Heiberg. Hidden under a veil of irony, he nods to the importance of Heiberg’s review, but at the same time pointing out that Heiberg has misunderstood the work and is not susceptible to finer dialectic. A couple of months after the article on Heiberg’s review, namely on May 16, 1843, Kierkegaard publishes his third article on his own authorship, also in The Fatherland. The article is called A Little Explanation and is published under Kierkegaard’s own name. The article is a reaction to the reception of Either-Or, but more specifically a dismissal of the persistent rumors that connected Kierkegaard’s name with it. Although the paper was published on May 16, 1843, Kierkegaard must have finished it no later than May 8, as he left for Berlin that day, only to return on May 30th. In Either-Or, towards the end, there is a sermon, which, according to contemporary rumors in Copenhagen, was so similar to a trial sermon that Kierkegaard had held in the winter semester 1840-41 after having entered the Royal Pastoral Seminary, that people concluded that Kierkegaard must be the author of Either-Or. In the present paper, A Little Explanation, Kierkegaard, in his own name, attempts to explain that the sermon he held in the Winter 1841-42 (possibly misdated in order to confuse the readers further) bears no resemblance to the sermon in Either-Or, adding sarcastically how wonderous it is that someone in the audience has paid so well attention that he was able to recall the sermon more than a year later and adds ridiculous silly logic to the conclusion of the rumor mongers. Thus, by portraying the absurdity in comparing the two sermons, Kierkegaard “proves” how preposterous the notion that he should be the author of Either-Or is. Two years later, on May 9, 1845, also in The Fatherland, Kierkegaard publishes his fourth and final article on his own authorship and pseudonymity. Also published in his own name, this article, entitled An Explanation and a Little More, is a response to a review of his work Three Discourses on Imagined Occasions from 1844, in which the author attributed several of the pseudonymous works to Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard distances himself sharply from the article, which was printed in Berlingske Tidende. In the beginning of this short article, he states the obvious point that “If I am not the author of these books, then the rumor is a falsehood. However, if I am the author, then I am the only one authorized to say that I am so” (column 15094), using sophistic logic to prove that the rumor can only be untrue. Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms not only play a pivotal part in his authorship and his thought in general, they are also part of an endeavour to focus the readers’ minds on the works themselves rather than on the author, freeing them from the person who wrote them. Also, his pseudonyms all have their own distinct personalities and all represent their own distinct views, be they authors of articles, parts of books, books themselves, or editors. They are not merely there for play or for hiding the identity of the author, they are also there to let us, the readers, understand the works in certain way. Also in this regard Kierkegaard is a trailblazer. His authorial philosophy anticipated modern literary theory by a century. Himmelstrup 43a, 44, 47, 83

London, Richard Bentley, 1847. 8vo. Uncut in the original somewhat worn printed paper binding. Boards rubbed. Rebacked in white cloth, with the remnant of the original spine pasted on. Title page printed in red. Year of publication removed from title page. Internally clean. Housed in a recent clamshell box. IV,(2),100 pp. The rare first printing of Andersen's 'Christmas Greeting'. Upon his visit to England in 1847, Andersen issued the present publication to express his gratitude towards his English friends. In the short preface, addressed to Charles Dickens, Andersen states that he produced seven short stories during his visit (five of which were printed here for the first time): "Whilst occupied with a greater work, there sprung forth - as the flowers spring forth in the forest - seven short stories." Of the seven short stories contained in the volume, the following appear here for the first time: "The Old House" ("Det gamle Huus"), "The Drop of Water" ("Vanddraaben"), "The Happy Family" ("Den lykkelige Familie"), "The Story of a Mother" ("Historien om en Moder"), "The False Collar" ("Flipperne"). The present copy belonged to the Danish writer Elias Bredsdorff (1912-2002), Reader in Scandinavian Studies at the University of Cambridge. Bredsdorff passed on the copy to the renowned Andersen collector Erik Dal.

Kjøbenhavn, P.G. Philipsens Forlag, 1841. 8vo. (4), 350 pp., 1 f. (blank), 2 pp. (advertisements). Completely uncut and partly unopened in the original brown cardboard binding. Rebacked with paper perfectly matching that of the boards. Corners restored. Title-page evenly browned and a few leaves with a bit of brownspotting, but overall in unusually nice condition, clean, fresh, and bright. Completely unmarked. A fabulous copy of the first edition of Kierkegaard’s dissertation, here in the original binding, which is of the utmost scarcity. We have only seen it in this state once before. And of all the copies we have handled of the Irony over the last decades, we have only once before come across a copy with the advertisement-leaf in the back. This is virtually never present. This completely uncut copy is approximately 1 cm taller and wider than regular copies. The spines of the original Kierkegaard cardboard bindings are always just thin paper directly glued on the block, making them extremely fragile, especially on the thicker volumes. If one finds these original bindings, the spines are almost always more or less disintegrated. Kierkegaard's dissertation constitutes the culmination of three years’ intensive studies of Socrates and “the true point of departure for Kierkegaard’s authorship” (Brandes). The work is of the utmost importance in Kierkegaard’s production, not only as his first academic treatise, but also because he here introduces several themes that will be addressed in his later works. Among these we find the question of defining the subject of cognition and self-knowledge of the subject. The maxim of “know thyself” will be a constant throughout his oeuvre, as is the theory of knowledge acquisition that he deals with here. The dissertation is also noteworthy in referencing many of Hegel’s theses in a not negative context, something that Kierkegaard himself would later note with disappointment and characterize as an early, uncritical use of Hegel. Another noteworthy feature is the fact that the thesis is written in Danish, which was unheard of at the time. Kierkegaard felt that Danish was a more suitable language for the thesis and hadto petition the King to be granted permission to submit it in Danish rather than Latin. This in itself poses as certain irony, as the young Kierkegaard was known to express himself poorly and very long-winded in written Danish. One of Kierkegaard’s only true friends, his school friend H.P. Holst recounts (in 1869) how the two had a special school friendship and working relationship, in which Kierkegaard wrote Latin compositions for Holst, while Holst wrote Danish compositions for Kierkegaard, who “expressed himself in a hopelessly Latin Danish crawling with participial phrases and extraordinarily complicatedsentences” (Garff, p. 139). When Kierkegaard, in 1838, was ready to publish his famous piece on Hans Christian Andersen (see nr. 1 & 2 above), which was to appear in Heiberg’s journal Perseus, Heiberg had agreed to publish the piece, although he had some severe critical comments about the way and the form in which it was written – if it were to appear in Perseus, Heiberg demanded, at the very least, the young Kierkegaard would have to submit it in a reasonably readable Danish. “Kierkegaard therefore turned to his old schoolmate H. P. Holst and asked him to do something with the language…” (Garff, p. 139). From their school days, Holst was well aware of the problem with Kierkegaard’s Danish, and he recounts that over the summer, he actually “translated” Kierkegaard’s article on Andersen into proper Danish. The oral defense was conducted in Latin, however. The judges all agreed that the work submitted was both intelligent and noteworthy. But they were concerned about its style, which was found to be both tasteless, long-winded, and idiosyncratic. We already here witness Kierkegaard’s idiosyncratic approach to content and style that is so characteristic for all of his greatest works. Both stylistically and thematically, Kierkegaard’s and especially a clear precursor for his magnum opus Either-Or that is to be his next publication. The year 1841 is a momentous one in Kierkegaard’s life. It is the year that he completes his dissertation and commences his sojourn in Berlin, but it is also the defining year in his personal life, namely the year that he breaks off his engagement with Regine Olsen. And finally, it is the year that he begins writing Either-Or. In many ways, Either-Or is born directly out of The Concept of Irony and is the work that brings the theory of Irony to life. Part One of the dissertation concentrates on Socrates as interpreted by Xenophon, Plato, and Aristophanes, with a word on Hegel and Hegelian categories. Part Two is a more synoptic discussion of the concept of irony in Kierkegaard’s categories, with examples from other philosophers. The work constitutes Kierkegaard’s attempt at understanding the role of irony in disrupting society, and with Socrates understood through Kierkegaard, we witness a whole new way of interpreting the world before us. Wisdom is not necessarily fixed, and we ought to use Socratic ignorance to approach the world without the inherited bias of our cultures. With irony, we will be able to embrace the not knowing. We need to question the world knowing we may not find an answer. The moment we stop questioning and just accept the easy answers, we succumb to ignorance. We must use irony to laugh at ourselves in order to improve ourselves and to laugh at society in order to improve the world. The work was submitted to the Philosophical Faculty at the University of Copenhagen on June 3rd 1841. Kierkegaard had asked for his dissertation to be ready from the printer’s in ample time for him to defend it before the new semester commenced. This presumably because he had already planned his sojourn to Berlin to hear the master philosopher Schelling. On September 16th, the book was issued, and on September 29th, the defense would take place. The entire defense, including a two hour long lunch break, took seven hours, during which ”an unusually full auditorium” would listen to the official opponents F.C. Sibbern and P.O. Brøndsted as well as the seven “ex auditorio” opponents F.C. Petersen, J.L. Heiberg, P.C. Kierkegaard, Fr. Beck, F.P.J. Dahl, H .J.Thue og C.F. Christens, not to mention Kierkegaard himself. Two weeks later, on October 12th, Kierkegaard broke off his engagement with Regine Olsen (for the implications of this event, see the section about Regine in vol. II). The work appeared in two states – one with the four pages of “Theses”, for academics of the university, whereas the copies without the theses were intended for ordinary sale. These sales copies also do not have “Udgivet for Magistergraden” and “theologisk Candidat” on the title-page. The present copy is one of the sales-copies without theses. Himmelstrup 8