PETTERSSON, O.

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

Kjøbenhavn, C. A. Reitzel, 1838. 8vo. X, (2), 79 pp. Lovely contemporary brown half calf with marbled paper over boards. Double gilt lines and gilt lettering to spine. Foot of spine with the gilt initials of H.P. Kierkegaard. A few brown spots to the margin of the first eight leaves, otherwise remarkably clean. An excellent, beautifully preserved copy. With the ownership signature of H.P. Kierkegaard to front fly-leaf. An exquisite copy of the first edition of Kierkegaard's first work, which has belonged to Kierkegaard’s disabled cousin, who was a great source of inspiration to Kierkegaard. The relationship between the two cousins was very touching, and they both benefitted greatly from the other. Søren drew inspiration from his cousin, who was lame and unable to walk, and he cared a great deal for him. Hans Peter was one of the very few who had a standing invitation to visit Søren. He felt that his cousin might lead a truer and more meaningful life than most other people, who do not face the same hardships. Hans Peter, on the other hand, was greatly comforted by his famous cousin and his edifying writings. Søren helped him feel that, in spite of his hardships, his life was not wasted – he helped him believe in God. All copies of Kierkegaard’s works belonging to his cousin denote a special significance, but it is especially lovely to find H.P. Kierkegaard’s copy of his cousin’s very first book. Kierkegaard's famous first work sews the seeds of his future career and initiates his philosophical production. It is in this famous review of Hans Christian Andersen as an author of novels, with a particular focus on his Only a Fiddler that Kierkegaard – the then 25 year-old theology student known only in a small academic circle, for his wit and sharp intelligence – puts forth his devastating criticism of Hans Christian Andersen – then 33 years old and already widely famous, Denmark’s other national hero and world-famous fairy tale-author. Even though the book is written as a polemic review, we already here witness Kierkegaard’s introduction of his emphasis on authentic individual existence will continue throughout his entire production; as thus, From the Papers of one Still Living serves as a highly important introduction to Kierkegaard’s philosophical-ethical production. Kierkegaard points out that Hans Christian Andersen has not yet found himself and therefore cannot be a good author. This emphasis on authenticity and on the necessary first stage of the epic becomes an introduction to Kierkegaard’s famous theory of stages that he develops in his later works. He rejects the notion that environment is decisive in determining the fate of genius – the genius is a shaping subject, not a passive one formed by circumstances. Not one that needs to be nurtured and sheltered in order not to perish. The work was originally meant to be published as an article in the literary periodical Perseus, of which Johan Ludvig Heiberg was the editor. But the article grew too extensive, and the intended columns in the periodical were given to H.L. Martensen instead. Martensen’s article took up 70 pages and was about the idea of Faust, which vexed Kierkegaard, who had wanted to write about that subject himself. Kierkegaard, Hans Peter (1815-62) is always referred to as Kierkegaard’s cousin, also by Kierkegaard himself, but if one is to be precise, he was Søren’s half-cousin. H.P. was the son of M.P. Kierkegaard’s (Søren’s father) cousin, M.A. Kierkegaard. H.P. was one of the few people Kierkegaard was personally very close to. As Søren writes in a letter to H.P. (SKS letter no. 27) “you are one of the exceptions”. He cared a great deal for his cousin, who was disabled. He was lame, completely paralyzed on one side of the body, and unable to walk. Intellectually, however, he was gifted, and the two cousins grew very close. Søren saw in him a purity that he did not see in other people, an ability to lead a truer and more meaningful life than others, who did not have to suffer in the same way. Søren was also a great comfort to H.P, who read the works of his famous cousin with enthusiasm. He probably owned every single work Kierkegaard wrote, and he drew great comfort from several of them. As Brøchner recalls in his recollections about Kierkegaard (Erindringer om Søren Kierkegaard – no. 43), H.P. “read his cousin’s writings with the greatest of interest, occasionally visited him in his home, and drew much spiritual awakening from these visits.” Brøchner continues to recall how he once told Kierkegaard what a great impression one of his works, Opbyggelige Taler i forskjellig Aand, had made upon H.P. In the confessional discourse, Søren portrays a person, who due to his bodily disposition is unable to practice anything physically or outwardly, and goes on to beautifully describe how this person too is subject to the same ethical demands as everyone else and what particular form this life-assignment takes on for him. To this, Søren replied “yes! To him, that work is a blessing”. And so it was. Reading his cousin’s upbuilding works provided the disabled Hans Peter with the power to overpower gloomy thoughts about his life having no meaning. Søren gave him, not only through his writings, but also through his meetings and conversations with him, the feeling of being as important as everyone else, as those who were physically blessed. There is no doubt that Kierkegaard drew inspiration from his admirable cousin, who had to overcome so much. And there is no doubt that H.P. was close to Søren’s heart. Apart from Boeson, H.P. was the only person who had a standing invitation. He writes how he admires H.P., who, reconciled with his fate, with patience and devotion solves a task that is just as great as the one everyone else has to solve, whether they do big business, build houses, write great books, etc. – “when all is heard, everything, after all, mainly comes down to fervor – and when all is forgotten, it also comes down to fervor” … “Do not forget the duty to love thyself… That you are somehow set outside of life… that in the eyes of a stupid world, you are superfluous, let that not rob you of the idea of yourself.” (Letter 27). Like his famous cousin, H.P. Kierkegaard was also a bibliophile and had a beautiful book collection. The books that surface from his library are usually in excellent condition and are often bound in beautiful bindings, much like those Søren had made for his books. Himmelstrup 6

Kjøbenhavn, C. A. Reitzel, 1838. 8vo. X, (2), 79 pp. Magnificently bound for Kierkegaard himself in a patterned silver cloth binding with green leaves. All edges gilt. Printed on vellum-paper. The copy is noticeably larger than other copies of the book. Old owner’s inscription to inside of front board and small ex libris (Theodor Find) to the green front free end-paper. First edition, Kierkegaard’s own copy (from his own book collection, sold after his death), splendidly bound for himself, of his first work, which sews the seeds of his future career and initiates his philosophical production. It is in this famous review of Hans Christian Andersen as an author of novels, with a particular focus on his Only a Fiddler that Kierkegaard – the then 25 year-old theology student known only in a small academic circle, for his wit and sharp intelligence – puts forth his devastating criticism of Hans Christian Andersen – then 33 years old and already widely famous, Denmark’s other national hero and world-famous fairy tale-author. Even though the book is written as a polemic review, we already here witness Kierkegaard’s introduction of his emphasis on authentic individual existence which will continue throughout his entire production; as thus, From the Papers of one Still Living serves as a highly important introduction to Kierkegaard’s philosophical-ethical production. Kierkegaard points out that Hans Christian Andersen has not yet found himself and therefore cannot be a good author. This emphasis on authenticity and on the necessary first stage of the epic becomes an introduction to Kierkegaard’s famous theory of stages that he develops in his later works. He rejects the notion that environment is decisive in determining the fate of genius – the genius is a shaping subject, not a passive one formed by circumstances. Not one that needs to be nurtured and sheltered in order not to perish. The work was originally meant to be published as an article in the literary periodical Perseus, of which Johan Ludvig Heiberg was the editor. But the article grew too extensive, and the intended columns in the periodical were given to H.L. Martensen instead. Martensen’s article took up 70 pages and was about the idea of Faust, which vexed Kierkegaard, who had wanted to write about that subject himself. A contemporary note to the front free end-paper of the present copy states that it belonged to Kierkegaard himself and that it was bought at the auction of his books. The auction-protocol lists two copies of the work, both elaborately bound and with gilt edges (2957-2057a). Only a few months after Kierkegaard died (11th of November 1855), at the beginning of April 1856, his books were put up for sale. The sale was an event which created stir among scholars all over Denmark, and the event drew large crowds. Everyone wanted a piece of the recently deceased legend, and bidding was lively. The average price for the single items was nearly a rix-dollar a very high price for that time. As the old Herman Lynge wrote in a letter on the 22nd of May (The Royal Library, Recent Letters, D.), to the famous collector F.S. Bang, “At the sale of Dr. Søren Kierkegaard’s books everything went at very high prices, especially his own works, which brought 2 or 3 times the published prices”.” (Rohde Auction Catalogue, p. LVIJ). Many authors, philosophers, and scholars were present in the auction room, which was completely full, as was the Royal Library, who bought ca 80 lots. “Many of the books, not only his own, were paid for with much higher prices than in the book shops” (In Morgenposten no. 99, 30. April 1856, written by “P.”, translated from Danish). "Some books were bought by libraries where they still are today, others were bought by private people, who sometimes wrote their names in the front of the books and thus, indirectly, stated that they came from Kierkegaard’s book collection… The edition (of the auction catalogue, 1967) registers all books from Kierkegaard’s book collection that it has hitherto been possible to identify – either in public or in private ownership… All in all, nearly a couple of hundred volumes – i.e. ca. 10 % – of the Kierkegaardian book collection is said to be rediscovered…" (Rohde). Thus, today, books from Kierkegaard’s library are of the utmost scarcity. Only very few are still possible to acquire, and they hardly ever appear on the market. Himmelstrup 6

Kjøbenhavn, P.G. Philipsens Forlag, 1841. 8vo. (8), 350 pp. Gift binding of plain brown full cloth with single gilt lines to spine. Printed on fine paper. Handwritten title to spine: “Kierkegaard / Om / Ironie”. Very neat, barely noticeable small restorations to capitals and to corners. A bit of browning and brownspotting, mostly to the first leaves. With the ex libris of Georg Nygaard to inside of front board and pencil annotation stating that the copy was bought at the auction of his collection in 1943, by bookseller Hagerup. Magnificent presentation-copy of Kierkegaard's dissertation, inscribed toverso of front fly-leaf to his previous Greek teacher, Bojesen: “Til / Hr. Professor Boiesen” (i.e. For / Mr. Professor Boiesen). The copy is with the Thesis, but neither the date nor the time has been filled in by hand as usual in the presentation-copies. This is presumably because he did not expect his previous teacher to show up to the defense. 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. 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. 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 first page of the theses always contains the day “XXIX” of September written in hand, and sometimes the time “hora X” is also written in hand, but not always. In all, 11 presentation-copies of the dissertation are known, and of these only one is signed (that for Holst), all the others merely state the title and name of the recipient. As is evident from the auction catalogue of his collection, Kierkegaard had a number of copies of his dissertation in his possession when he died. Five of them were bound, and two of them were “nit. M. Guldsnit” (i.e. daintily bound and with gilt edges). These two copies were obviously meant as presentation-copies that he then never gave away. The gift copies of the dissertation were given two types of bindings, both brownish cloth, one type patterned, the other one plain, and some of them have gilt edges, but most of the plain ones do not. There exist two copies on thick vellum paper – one being Kierkegaard’s own copy, the other being the copy for H.C. Ørsted, discoverer of electromagnetism and then principle of the University of Copenhagen. “As already implied, two works of the authorship stand out in the sense that Kierkegaard sent his presentation-copies to a special circle of people: The dissertation from 1841...” (Posselt, Textspejle, p. 91, translated from Danish). Most of the copies were given to former teachers and especially to people who, due to leading positions, personified the university. “For this circle of initiated we can now, due to registered copies, confirm that Kierkegaard gave copies with handwritten dedications to the headmaster of the University H.C. Ørsted (printed on thick paper), Kolderup-Rosenvinge and to J.L. Heiberg. It is granted that Sibbern, Madvig and F.C. Petersen were also given the dissertation as a gift,... but these copies are not known (yet).” (Posselt, Textspejle, pp. 93-94, translated fromDanish). (N.b. We have since handled the copy given to Petersen and can thus confirm that it exists). The presentation-inscriptions in the 11 registered copies of the Irony all follow a certain, strict pattern. “The wording could not be briefer. In the donation of his academic treatise, the otherwise prolific Kierkegaard sticks to name, titles, and the modes of address that goes with the titles.” (Tekstspejle p. 96, translated from Danish). When presenting his later books, he always signs himself “from the author”, sometimes abbreviated (i.e. “Forf.” In stead of “Forfatteren”), unless he is mentioned by name on the title-page as the publisher, not the author, as is the case with some of the pseudonymous works. In that case he signs his inscriptions “From the publisher”, always accompanied by “in deep reverence”, “with reverence”, “with friendship” or the like, adapted to the rank of the recipient and his place on Kierkegaard’s personal scale. An academic treatise, however, published before the oral defense took place – in the mind of Kierkegaard – required certain demands in relation to the donation of it. Thus, the brevity and rigidity in the inscriptions. Ernst Frederik Christian Bojesen (1803-64) was a philologist and school man. In 1820, Bojesen graduated as student from Borgerdydskolen, where he already the following year began teaching classical languages and soon became the principal’s right hand man. Here, he taught classical languages and was Kierkegaard’s teacher of classical Greek. He later became dr. Phil and professor at Sorø Akademi, where “in September 1841, he received, by post, a presentation-copy of the dissertation “On the Concept of Irony” by his previous disciple. (Tudvad, Kierkegaards København, p. 171). Himmelstrup 8

Kjøbenhavn, P.G. Philipsens Forlag, 1841. 8vo. (8), 350 pp. Gift binding of elaborately blindpatterned full cloth with single gilt lines to spine. All edges gilt and printed on thick vellum paper. A splendid copy in completely unrestored state with minimal edge wear. Slight sunning to upper 1 cm of front board and slight bumping to corners and capitals. Leaves completely fresh and clean. Pencil-annotation from the Kierkegaard archive of the Royal Library (nr. 83) and discreet stamp from the Royal Library of Copenhagen to inside of front board (with a deaccession-inscription) and to verso of title-page. With ownership signatures of P.S. Lund and Troels Lund to title-page. Inside of back board with previous owner’s pencil-annotations listing the entire provenance of the copy and explaining that this is one of two copies printed on thick vellum paper. Laid in is the original agreement for the exchange of real property between the previous owner and the Royal Library of Denmark, from which is evident that in 2003, The Royal Library and the previous owner legally agreed to exchange their respective copies of Om Begrebet Ironie – the present one for Ørsted, being one of two copies on thick vellum paper, and the copy on normal paper for Heiberg, which is now in the holdings of the Royal Library of Denmark. Arguably the best possible copy one can ever hope to acquire of Kierkegaard’s dissertation – one of two copies on thick vellum paper, being a presentation-copy from Kierkegaard to the discoverer of electromagnetism H.C. Ørsted. Inscribed to verso of front fly-leaf: “Til / Hans Magnificens / Universitetets Rector / Hr. Conferentsraad Ørsted. / C og D.M.” (For / His Magnificence / Principle of the University / Mr. [a high Danish title, now obsolete] Ørsted. / C (ommandør) (i.e. Commander) and DM (short for Dannebrogsmand, another honourable title) ). The copy is with the Thesis, and both the day and the time has been filled in by hand. As mentioned in the introduction to the Irony, Kierkegaard had two copies made on thick vellum paper –one for himself (which is in the Royal Library of Denmark), and one for H. C. Ørsted, a towering figure of the Danish Golden Age, one of the most important scientists that Denmark has produced, then principle of the University of Copenhagen. This copy is unique among the 11 registered presentation-copies of Kierkegaard’s dissertation and is without doubt the most desirable. It is approximately twice as thick as the other copies and stand out completely. THIS IS KIERKEGAARD’S dissertation, which 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 first page of the theses always contains the day “XXIX” of September written in hand, and sometimes the time “hora X” is also written in hand, but not always. In all, 11 presentation-copies of the dissertation are known, and of these only one is signed (that for Holst), all the others merely state the title and name of the recipient. As is evident from the auction catalogue of his collection, Kierkegaard had a number of copies of his dissertation in his possession when he died. Five of them were bound, and two of them were “nit. M. Guldsnit” (i.e. daintily bound and with gilt edges). These two copies were obviously meant as presentation-copies that he then never gave away. The gift copies of the dissertation were given two types of bindings, both brownish cloth, one type patterned, the other one plain, and some of them have gilt edges, but most of the plain ones do not. There exist two copies on thick vellum paper – one being Kierkegaard’s own copy, the other being the copy for H.C. Ørsted, discoverer of electromagnetism and then principle of the University of Copenhagen. “As already implied, two works of the authorship stand out in the sense that Kierkegaard sent his presentation-copies to a special circle of people: The dissertation from 1841...” (Posselt, Textspejle, p. 91, translated from Danish). Most of the copies were given to former teachers and especially to people who, due to leading positions, personified the university. “For this circle of initiated we can now, due to registered copies, confirm that Kierkegaard gave copies with handwritten dedications to the headmaster of the University H.C. Ørsted (printed on thick paper), Kolderup-Rosenvinge and to J.L. Heiberg. It is granted that Sibbern, Madvig and F.C. Petersen were also given the dissertation as a gift,... but these copies are not known (yet).” (Posselt, Textspejle, pp. 93-94, translated fromDanish). (N.b. We have since handled the copy given to Petersen and can thus confirm that it exists). The presentation-inscriptions in the 11 registered copies of the Irony all follow a certain, strict pattern. “The wording could not be briefer. In the donation of his academic treatise, the otherwise prolific Kierkegaard sticks to name, titles, and the modes of address that goes with the titles.” (Tekstspejle p. 96, translated from Danish). When presenting his later books, he always signs himself “from the author”, sometimes abbreviated (i.e. “Forf.” In stead of “Forfatteren”), unless he is mentioned by name on the title-page as the publisher, not the author, as is the case with some of the pseudonymous works. In that case he signs his inscriptions “From the publisher”, always accompanied by “in deep reverence”, “with reverence”, “with friendship” or the like, adapted to the rank of the recipient and his place on Kierkegaard’s personal scale. An academic treatise, however, published before the oral defense took place – in the mind of Kierkegaard – required certain demands in relation to the donation of it. Thus, the brevity and rigidity in the following inscriptions. With the exception of Kierkegaard Hans Christian Ørsted (1777-1851) is arguably the most famous and influential Dane ever to have lived, universally known for his discovery of Electro-magnetism in 1820, which led to new theories and discoveries that constituted the foundation of all later electro-technology. After this milestone of scientific discovery, Ørsted went on to write a number of important philosophical works on natural philosophy and empiricism, of which The Spirit in Nature is the most famous and the work he himself considered his main work. Both H.C. Andersen and Søren Kierkegaard admit to having been influenced by the writings of Ørsted. “He was an enthusiastic follower of the “Naturphilosophie” school in Germany, whose main object was the unification of physical forces, thus producing a monistic theory of the universe. It was to further this purpose that Oersted sought in actual phenomena the electro-magnetic identity of which he had already convinced himself on metaphysical grounds” (Percy H. Muir in Printing and The Mind of Man). “The natural scientist Hans Christian Ørsted was one of the most significant and influential personalities of his age and together with the sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen, the poet Hans Christian Andersen, and the thinker Søren Kierkegaard, constituted the small handful of figures from “The Danish Golden Age” who achieved international and even world fame.” (Troelsen in Kierkegaard and his Danish Contemporaries I: p. (215) ). In intellectual circles in Denmark at the time of Kierkegaard, Ørsted was inevitable. He influenced not only natural sciences profoundly, but also philosophy, literature, and Danish languages (coining more than 2.000 neologisms). He was furthermore rector of the university of Copenhagen, when Kierkegaard in 1841 submitted his master’s thesis On the Concept of Irony. Being the rector, Ørsted was the one who needed to pass the treatise, but having read it, he was simply not sure whether to do so or not and needed to consult other experts, before making his decision. He ended up allowing it to pass, but not without having first famously said about it (in a letter to Sibbern) that it “makes a generally unpleasant impression on me, particularly because of two things both of which I detest: verbosity and affectation.” (Kirmmmse (edt.): Encounters with Kierkegaard, p. 32). Kierkegaard makes several references to Ørsted’s Spirit in Nature and mentions him several times in his journals and notebooks. Although being of different generations and not particularly close on a personal level, the two intellectual giants would naturally be unavoidably connected in one way or the other. Ørsted was simply so centrally placed and so influential that there was no way around him for someone like Kierkegaard. Himmelstrup 8

Kjøbenhavn, 1834-1836. Large 4to. Interimsblade [i.e. Interim Papers] 1-100, with the joint title-page and the contents leaf, bound in a very nice contemporary brown half calf with gilt spine and marbled paper over boards. Spine with wear and hinges and corners bumped. Edges of boards with wear. Occasional brownspotting throughout, but all in all a fine and well preserved copy. Each “Interimsblad” takes up 4 pp. Kierkegaard’s contributions: I: ab. 1 p.; II: 2 3/4 pp.; III: 4 pp.; IV: 4 pp. Very rare first printings of Kierkegaard’s first four publications, including the very first publication in Kierkegaard’s own name, which constitutes a true milestone in the history of Kierkegaard’s opus, as does, of course, his very first publication. KIERKEGAARD’S VERY EARLIEST publications are the papers that he publishes in Kjøbenhavns Flyvende Post, before he publishes his famous first book, which is a polemic attack on Hans Christian Andersen. The first and fourth of these earliest periodical publications are arguably the most important, being the very first thing Kierkegaard publishes and the very first publication in Kierkegaard’s own name respectively; but all these four earliest papers (Himmelstrup 1,2,3, and 4) are significant, 2,3, and 4 dealing with contemporary press issues, primarily freedom of press. Danish politics in the 1830’es was dominated by the slow implementation of rules for election for and assembly of the Estates of the Realm. But as they were only advisory, the papers and periodicals were not allowed to publish their opinions. In response to this, a liberal opposition arose around the two polemic papers Kjøbenhavnsposten (The Copenhagen Post) and Fædrelandet (The Fatherland). The first point on the agenda for the Liberals was the fight for freedom of the press and the abolishment of censorship. This fight for freedom of the press was something that found resonance with Copenhagen academics, and it stirred up a lively activity in Copenhagen. In 1835, active Liberals had encouraged King Frederik VI to support freedom of press but had received an answer stating that he alone was able to evaluate what was truly the best for the people and the state. After this answer from the king, the “Society for the Correct Use of the Freedom of press” was founded by moderate liberals and young liberals, and at the end of the year almost 2.300 members had joined. It was in the midst of all this that the 21-year old Søren Kierkegaard, then a student of theology, had his debut, with political-literary articles in Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post, in Interimsbladende, which were published separately. But as opposed to the predominantly liberal views of almost all other contributors, Kierkegaard’s articles expressed distinctly conservative views. His first publication, Også et Forsvar for Qvindens høie Anlæg (Also a Defense of the High Abilities of the Woman) constitutes an unpolished ironic apology for the liberation of women. This article is published in December 1834 and is signed “A.”. As opposed to the following next three articles, this does not deal with freedom of press. Kierkegaard’s three following publications, however, all concern the question of freedom of press and constitute satirical polemics against the two liberal papers Kjøbenhavnsposten and Fædrelandet, against Orla Lehmann, the upcoming star of the liberal youth, and against all liberals in general. These three articles were published in February and April 1836. The two first are signed “B.”, and the third, signed “S. Kierkegaard”, constitutes the very first publication in his own name. As is well known, the names under which Kierkegaard later publishes come to play a significant role in his authorship and represent an extremely thorough and well-thought-out construction. The foundation of this play with the reader is thus laid in the present publications, in which he begins to develop the style for which he later gained worldwide renown. The “names” A and B, under which he here publishes, will most famously be used again in Either- Or, Part one of which consists in “A.’s Papers” and Part Two in “B.’s Papers, Letters to A.” Common for all four of his first publications is the attempt at polemic and satirical power, at literary elegance and at a masterful and ceremonious critique of the prose of the opponent – all dominant traits in his later writings. Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post (The Flying Post of Copenhagen) was one of the most important and most widely read cultural and literary periodicals of the period. It was edited and run by Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791-1860), arguably the most famous cultural person during the Danish Golden Age. He played a more significant role than any other author or thinker during this period and was the leading character of literature and philosophy in the 19th century. He introduced many German thinkers to Denmark, most importantly Hegel – who Kierkegaard would later oppose –, and he was part of almost all intellectual discussions of the Danish Golden Age. He was also a patron for many leading figures of the era. Interestingly, several people thought that the first of the articles on the freedom of the press was written by Heiberg. This was of dubious merit to Kierkegaard himself, as he was opposed to the circles around Heiberg and the Hegelian environment, but it was still this article – and this miscomprehension – that gave him a claim to fame. Another paper claimed that this “priceless” article had been written by Heiberg himself, who “had written many witty things, but never anything as witty as this.” Also Kierkegaard’s professor of philosophy, Poul Martin Møller, to whom Kierkegaard was very devoted and to whom he dedicated Begrebet Angest (the only person outside of his family that Kierkegaard ever wrote a printed dedication for), loved the article and assumed that Heiberg had written it. “He (Kierkegaard) had a lifelong antipathy toward the press, though he himself published reviews in various papers. His mistrust of the press as a legitimate organ of communication was based on several observations, one of which was that the press was the voice of the masses, rather than that of the individual. He viewed that voice with great skepticism and sarcasm in later years, averring that the crowd... even if technically correct... is wrong by the very fact of being the crowd. The truth can only be stated and practiced as individuals, especially as individuals before God. Admittedly, Kierkegaard’s view of the masses was not well developed at this juncture.” (D. Antony Storm). Himmelstrup: 1, 2, 3 & 4.