THE New KIERKEGAARD EDITED BY ELSEBET JEGSTRUP INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS BLOOMINGTON & INDIANAPOLISPabicon of his book it mae pose in pr withthe asiance of a Challenge Gra om the National Endowment for he Hm, adel gency hat sxpporte reach, educa, and pe eogamming inde mans, ‘This book pubion of Tana Unive Pest 01 Nord MortsaSest Blorsngon, Inns 4404-3797 USA ‘nop iupessindins eda ‘iphone aden 80-$42-6796 Borondee 8124855-7931 Ones by ema iaporder@indiacs. eda (© 2004 by Indians Univesity Pree A ight reserved No prof thi book my be epodsed orien ay farm or by any means, eletonse or mechanic, ning hotocopyhig and recording or by any informa storage an rete ss, without pein a wetng om the publiher The ASocistian of American Univeity Peer ‘Reotion on Permisions conics the ou excepon 0 ‘his prodbion ‘Th paper sed in hs pableon mes the sins ‘eqiremens of Ameren Naina Sunde fe Information Scienes—Permanence of apr fr Printed Liery Maris, ANS 23548-1984, Menuferred in the United Ses of Ameen Library of Congress Caalogig-in-Publcation Data “The now Kietkeganl/ ete by Base Jogi. P. cmu—(Saus in Contin hough nce ibiogrglicalefrence and index. ISBN 0-253-34284-8 (lk. paper)—ISBN 0-253-21603-0 (08 ak pape 1. Kicked, Sve, 1813-1855 Jogrup, Eee, dhe I Sei, ‘BASTING 2004 1989421 2o03012812 4123.45.09 0807 6 05 oF13 KIERKEGAARD ON HAMLET Between Ant ann RELIGION Richard Kearney Part One Kivekecaann’s REFLECTIONS oN HAMLET are not as fequent as one might ‘expect given their common destiny 35 introspective melancholy Danes. But the reflections that do exist are tantalizing, if characteristically oblique. Over half of these are to be found in an appendix to the fourth and Final par of ‘Sages on Lifes Hiiy (1845), aleady a multi-layered work composed by mul- tiple pseudonyms (William Afiam, A Married Man, Frater Taciturnus) and published by yet another pseudonymous character called “Hilarius Book- bind” More exactly, the appendix on Hamlet is part of a supplementary test to the main concluding part, “Guilty?’/Not Guiley?: A Story of Sui= fering—An Imaginary Psychological Construction,” by Frater Taciturnus ‘The supplement 4 called a “Leter to the Reader.” and the appendix on Halet therefore is relly more of an appendix to an appendix. Its exact title reads “A Side-glanice at Shakespeare’ Home." The text in question thus lies coiled like the inner seam of & multi-layered Danish pastry. My hypothesis in what fllows is that if every text, as the hermeneutic model suggests. involves someone talking about something to someone, then this one is, when closely decrypted, nothing more nor less chan Kieckegaard talking about Kierkegaard to himself, “To make matters even more intriguing, the "side-gance” 3 Honma is itself preficed by two bref allusions co Hamler within che "*Guilty?//Not Guilty" text itself The firt of these hints that “if ie so happens that an individual who was great by virte of his inclosing reserve offers himself as subject for poetic treatment... we sneak up to admire." Though Kier- kegaatd does not mention Hanalet by name here, a note by the editors and ttanstors, Hong and Hong, leaves us in litle doubs that itis Hamlet who tsbeing refered to, Later in dhe tex, but sil before we get to the appends proper. Kierkegaard makes his first explicit, albei sil indireet, pronounce nent oni Hamlet: “The esthetic hero must have his opposition outside hit- “That this is mot the case in Hamlet is perhaps precisely self; no in humselKierkegaard ot Horvlet 25 te snomaly—more on that later"* And Kietkeguard wil remain tue to kis, promise. The appendix when it does come Inter, in however cusory and lapidary form, wil indeed make much ofthe fit that Hamlet fil at an cemthetic hero precisely because the opposition within, rather thn oubsie Of, himself. But before proceeding to a detailed texual analysis of what ‘Kicrkeguard acauly doer ofr in his “side-glance” at Hani, let me fist take a look at one or avo other brief references that Kierkegaard makes to Ihis Danith predecesor in some of is other works, in particular The Crepe, Of Dread and Concading Unsionfc Posts, oth also writen in the mide 1840s. Jn the Concept of Dread (1844), where we might expect to find the most elaborate references to Hamlet—given his fimousy melancholic dtpesition— ‘we must content ourselves with a single allusion, {t comes in the context of Kierkegaard’s own quas-autobiogrphics! discusion {via the pseadonym of Vigilius Haunienss) of the relationship between what he cals "shut-up” characters and “revelation,” In “poetic exstences"—auch as his own and Hamlet's—we ate told thatthe “most subele contradiction” of "shue-upnes” manifests itself asa will to revelation which goes incognito. On the surfce, shut-upness operites demonically to cansform “revelation” into a “mystic ceation”’—even as it may continue surteptitiousy to will it, Bat this leads to ‘a second contradiction in that the very form of expression that one wes to expose the inner secrets and subterfuges of the shut-up poctic existence is that of “monologue” or “toliloquy”—someone talking to him/herself To break the silence of shur-upnes is to make these inandible sl-to-self speeches audible, “For its tall” says Kierkegaard, “is precisely monologue, land hence when we would characterize a shutup we say that he talks to himself. But here I essay only to give everything an undestanding but no tongue,’ as said the shut-up Hlamlet waeningly to his ewo fiend.” And yet the irony is unavoidable, isi not? Both Kierkegaard and Hamlet were shut-up soliloquizess whose respective published soliloquies are considered among the most celebrated of modera eters! For Kierkegaard the dilemma is the folowing: eter to respond demo~ niacally to revelation (by remaining shut-up; orto respond authentically (Oy “assuming the responsibilty forit in feedom”) In the case ofthe former— chats, che demoniacal—the revelation will outin ay case, general through Wwoluntary glanee, lpsus, ot gesture: what Kierkegaard calls the “sud- Indeed, Kierkegzard—or at least his pseudonym Vigil Hauiensis— ‘comes very close here to anveipating Freud description of unconscious parapraris, He describes the “sudden” as a symptom of “peyhie unfee- dom," And ironically the more the wil 1 shubxpness (or what he aso calls “elose reserve") wins out over the wil to ream, the more certain iti226 Tue New KrerkeGaaro wwe ave told, that this demonizeal repression wil result in an ouebust of Lunwilled “ventriloquist”: an uncontrolled lapse of self-exposure atthe least expected moment, The demoniacal thus expresses itself as the “sudden” ex- posure of the inner secret, the degree of suddenness being proportional to the prior degree of suppresion. The opposite of such shut-upness and sud- denness is “communication” and “continuity.” which the author insists are the idioms of “salvation.” The demoniacal—ike the sudden, tersble, almast insane outbursts that express itis, we are told, “dread ofthe good." ‘So the question one can handly resist here is this: Is Hamlet an authentic character in whom the will go salvation wins out over shut-up “close reserve” and “entrenchment in ehe ego"? Oris he a demoniacal characte condemned to paychie untieedom and dread? In Kieskegaards ovo subsequent texts that refer to Hamlet —Condhing [Gnacenife Poearigs (1846, by Jobannes Climaeus) and, more importantly, in Sues on Lies Hiiy (1845, published by the Hilrius Bookbinder)—ve find some hints of a solution. In the former work, the author fist asumes whac seents ike an add position in associating Halet with comic rather than tragic conteadiction. He detines the difference between the two as Follows: te erage is sfléing contradiction, and the comic is painles contadiction."* ‘And he then yoes on to ite Hamlet “swearing by the fie cons” as an ‘example of the commie insofir as there i contradiction between the solent- nity of the oath aud dhe reference—slut is, to the inane fire tongs—that annuls the oath But Kierkegaard reverts to a more tragic understanding of Hamlet’ i= aude to contradiction when he comments on his fnous existential question, to be of sot to be." The analysis here i dense and ditfcul, but vey telling. Ie goes like this, Whereas from an objeite or purely scientific point of view the question af existence is “ialiferene” and "leads aeay fom the subjective individual.” Hamlet shows us thar “exivence and non-existence have only subjective existence.” Which pro pts the following surmise: ‘Accs asin, this way will ead to 2 conteaietion, and to the extent hat the subyet doesnot heconie rol aniffrent to hie hii merely an inlcaton that his objective avin isnot objective eng At 8 mai ‘num, all ed tothe contradiction chat only objeccity has come about, ‘whereas subjectivity has gone out, that i, tbe extn subjecting tha has nade an attempt to become what in the abstract sane i eed subjectivity the abwrart form of a abract objectivity. And yet, viewed sjectvey dhe cbyetiviy that fs came about i a 1s maximum either a hypothess or an Spproximation, because all tema dscsion is ooted specifically subjeciv= Kierkeguind goes on 10 science lays cam to a that the objective way of mathematics and saty” chat is tally incompatible with heeregaard on: Hlarler uestion of "what it means to exist" And because of this the objective cay thinks it has saved off “madnes” dhs lies in constant wait fr the subjective way.” since the latter is incapable of diinguishing between in- tacy and truth as expresions of “inwardnes." “This does not, ofcourse, seop Kierkegaard from rejoining thatthe deter- ination of our “objective sge” c get rid of inwatdaes and existence may ‘self involve its own kind of “lunacy” One may sate something tht is sbjectively rue and sill be a lunatic, Kirkegaard brazenly eminds vs! ‘But peshps Kierkeguard’s mos telling comment on Hamlet in Conaing Uninc Pesarpe cores when the autor claims that “to pray i jos at ‘ical to play the ole of Hale." An etriguing statement! Jost athe areatest of actors can spend their entire lives trying to gee tis ole sgh, too lkaring to become subjective, that i, Jesening to exist and to know svat it means to dic, are tasks chat demand, not an instant, not 2 week, aon, or yeat, but a itime. “To be finished with ie before if is finished “with one i not to finish the task at all" Which is why the cue greatest cof a tragic hero is that he/she does aot die until the final act when death thas had time to gain “infinite realcy im pathos." The greatest ero isthe one who can wai, keep vig, procratinate. And though Kierkegnar docs rot explicdy mention Hamlet here itis imposible not to suppose that he is sil teasing oue the analogy made two pages eater between (3) paying, {b) exiting, and (c) playing the role of Hamlet! In all hee cases, the read ines is all. But the matter isnot, a we shll see, quit as simple a i seems, Its, no doubs, in Stage on Lie Wy that Kierkegaard comes clean—or at least as lean ae he ever comtes—on his trade co Hamiet. This work, as the McKinnon Concoscnce sows, contains over balf of all Kierkegaaeds references to Hamlet (en out of twenty, tobe precise). In the “Side-glice” appendix mentioned eater, Kieskeguards nanator, Fier Tacturn, coo fees thathe is “engrossed” by the chim that “Hamlet isa Chstin drama.” This claim is ataibuted to a certain Bémne who shares the deverminaton, ia common with ewo of bis contemporasics, Heine and Feverbach, to have nothing to do with the “religious.” Bue precisely because ofthis, says Tae- jrummus, hese thinkers ofa unique insight into the religious. The author plays with a curious analogy here: jst 25a jealous lover cam know as much bout the erotic as a happy one, so those offended by the religous can be Jost as insighfal about it 8 believer, And in an age where great believers are few and fir between, we should, sys the author, be grateful that we have ac lest “a few relly clever people who ae offended (by celigion."* ‘Afcr this mischievous preparatory remark, Kierkegards pseudonym cones to his main statement on the matter: “Bémne says of Hamlet: i a ‘Christian drama.’ ‘To my mind this a most excelent comment [substitate208 Tue New Kierkecaarn only che word a “eligious’ drama, and then declare its fale vo be not chat, it is that but that ie did not become chat oF, rather, chat it ought no t0 be drama at all Once unpacked, this dense formulation seems to be stying that Hamlet should be considered a Jailed religous drama, Or t0 be more precise, Hamlet is a work that should have been properly wigous, and therefore not an asthetie dram at all, Or else, it should have been properly esthetic and therefore not a regions work at all, The fact is, however, tat it is neither. It fills between the religious and aesthetic stools and so, ws T.S. Fliot would fimously pronounce a half century later, Hamlet i dramatic Julure, This is not, of course, to deny that i i the most fascinating drama lever written. Harle,as both Kierkegaard and Bliot were aware isthe literary character who most fascinates modern minds. And neither, I suspect, would hhave been surprised by the statistic chat Hamlet is the most written about person in Western civilization afte Jesus and Napoleon. Kierkegaands pseudonym spells out his evaluation of Hamlet as a filed religious drama as follows, UFShakespeare deprives Hamlet of religious pre- suppositions and doubts that conspite against him and prevent him fom acting, then he is merely a “vaciltor” in a comedy. In other words, if Hamlets not paralyzed with genuinely eligiows visions and misgivings, there is no good reason for him not to proceed with the summons to avenge bis fathers murder and restore Denmark to its Former state. But Kierkegaard {does not think that Shakespeate does make Hamlet religious inthis manner, and so the play fils to be the great religious drama it ought 0 have been 1 could have been ‘So how should Shakespeare have written this play according tothe author of the "Side-glance"? Well, itst, Hamlets grandiose plan to become the avenger to whom vengeance belongs should have been confronted from the stare with the religious prohibition on revenge killing, A reference to Ro= mans 12.19 is cited ina note: "Never try to get revenge: leave that 00 Retribution. As Seripeure says “Vengeance is mine—t wall pay them back "IE your enemy is thirsty give him something to drink, ....o not be ‘mustered by evil, but master evil with good.” But since one docs not see Hamlet “sink religiously under (his revenge) plan,” his conscience stricken ‘by such biblical prohibitions, one expects quick action ain a normal revenge tragedy where one deals only with external” obstacles. Abs, hovvever, in the case of Hamlet there seem to be neither internal subjective regious doubs nor external objective obstacles to action—yet Hamlet fails €0 act, ‘Ancl as a result the whole vacilaing, procrastinating drama becomes one huge inteonpective psychodrama whece Hanulet’s misgivings take om a purely pychological form of “dialectical repentance”-—a non-religious and ulti- imately unfounded repentance tha, in Taciturnts’ reckoning, aly." Ava result, Hamlet comes aceoss as simply “morbidly reflective.” Returning to the guiding ides of a Revenge Plan that Hamlet sets himselfKiekegaard on Hamlet 229 bu fils to resize, Tacivernus argues as follows: “If the pln remains fxed, then Hamlee isa kind of oiterer who does not know how to ac if the plan does not emai fixed, he ita kind of selécorearor who torment hil for and with wanting to be something great. Neither of these involves the tragic.” In short, without the presence ofthe religious, Hamlet simply de- ‘generates into (@) a revenge hero who cannot live up to his porpote, or (6) a reflective melancholic with no red! purpose a all who analyzes himelf 0 death in the name of some empty (Le, ateligius, s¢mona) imago. ‘Taciturnus then goes on to repeat his arguments on the basis ofthe eter esthetic or religious model, conehiding once agin, for s second time, that Hassle is neither propesly esthetic nor properly religious. (Antcipations of Derridean aporetics perhaps?) Hants kepe in purely eth categorie, then wht one want to sei that he has the demonic power o cary out sich x esohson. His misgivings have no interest whatever: his procrastination and eemporizing, his pos ‘poning and hisself-deuding enjoyment in the renewed orton theme fine as there is no outside hindance merely diminish his, so dat he doc fot become an exthetc hero, and then he becomes a noneniy ‘On the other hand, “i he i eligiowtly oriented, his misgivings are exterely inceresting, because they give asurance that he isa religious hero." But this, were ic che case, would ot lea to good drama cither becsuse it would belong to the order of the “interior being” where alone suc religions mis- sivings could have thei “esertal significance.” In short, trying to make a food drama out of the religous steugules of subjective inwards is like taying co make a sll purse from a pig eat. I simply cannot be done. IF it could be done, Kierkegaard seems to be saying (va his pseudonym) that he, S. K., might well have tried his hand st eligius drama himself! But religious drama is, according tothe above logic, a contradiction in terms—at less for our modem age of Reformed Christianity where the religous gnv- itates inward toward subjective solitude and away fom externa action, (Fra~ ter Tacturnus contrat this to medieval Catholicism whee zealous believer ‘ould become “a tragic hero forthe sake of the Church jst asthe Roman tid for his country” that is, sl observing the “esthetic categories of At- iotelian drama as the “imitation of an action.” In other words, for pre- modern Rroman Catholics the idea of being 2 militant actor on behal of a religious messianic poitice—that is, a sinly agitator, erunder, misionary, ‘or martye—was sill a possibilty. But for modernity this is no longer a re- alisie option) Tn sum, cither Hamlets dilemma is rigious, and therefore inappropriate for dramatic action, oF i it esthetic, and therefore appropriate for dramatic aetion, It cannot be both at once. ‘That Shakespeare tied to achieve the imposible—by seeking to compose a religious dram—i to his credit. But it does not and cannot take fiom the inevitable flue ofthe entezprive.230 Tue New KisrKsGaarp ‘Yet Taciturmus has not totally given up. In che same “Side-glance” ap- pendix, he resolves on a third tack, What, he ass, ifShakespeare had allowed ‘Hamlet to cary out his plan of action—in keeping withthe dramatic demand of the esthetic model—and then, having murdered Claudius (and pechaps Gertrude too), realized hs sin and collapsed back into an atticude of genuine religious repentance after the even? Tn som, fist the evil action, then the good introspection and revelation. Fitst the esthetic (imitation of an action), then the religious (pardon and peace). ‘Bat this thicd scenario is aso impossible, for no matter how subtly di- alectical one tries to manage such 2 move, it would ultimately make for a ‘monlizing-sermonizing tract where the esthetic action of revenge is used ‘merely to make @ religious point. In that instance, the drama would be no ‘more than a means toward an end, a pre-text for a pre-established doctrine, ‘the moral of the story having been set ftom the start—rendering the action ‘ofthe drama entitely redundant. In short, the only way such a scenario could ‘work would be as religious propagands—a prospect almost as unpalatable for Kierkegaard, it seems, a5 politcal propaganda. (Incidentally, tis just such a religious reading that René Girard proposes in Shakesware: Les Feu de envi) Tt could thas be argued that Hamlet exposes the folly of mimetic dese and sacrificial revenge in fivor of a true Christan revelation: No to revenge, yes to providence and peace! ‘This is how Kierkegaard has his pseudonym, Tacitarnus, tease out his final, ye sl self-defeating auempt to save Hamlet as religious drama: If Fhamle is tobe interpreted religion, one mut ether allow him to have conceived the pln, and then the religious doubs dives him of i, ot do ‘what to my mind heter laminates the religious (fr inthe fie case there ‘could possibly be some doubt as to whether he was capable of carrying out his plan)—and give him the demonie power reoltely ad masterly to ‘carey ut is plan and then let him collapse nto hittlf and ino he seligiot ‘until he finds peace thee. A drama, of course, ean never come fom hit poet cannot use this subject, which should begin with the lst and let the fist shine out trough it ‘So it would seem that, for Kierkeguard, Hanne i neither a religious hero nor an esthetic (agic) hero but something in between, Neither fish nor fowl A hybrid creature. In short an esthetic-religions iss. Perhape not ‘unlike Kierkegaard himself In the piece immediately following the “Side-ghance at Shakespeare’ Ham,” Tacituenus makes a supplementary and usefil distinction between the «wo kinds of hero. By way of trying to get a final ix Gf that wereKiekegaerd on Harslet, at possible) on what Kiker is ely geting at I think it might be worth= ‘while beating, with Tacieuraus on this ostensibly labored point. So lth ake ‘one lst spin of the dislecte whee. "The trices hr it, we ae now told, great by slfecing in such 2 way that he conquer in the exteral—what “upliis the spectator wile he sweeps for the dying one.” As such the sufering ofthe magic hero “ust rouse fear and cleanse the pussons,” provoking the spectators sympathis, which difée within the vious views ofthe workd® No sopriseshere— standare Aristotelian poetics ‘Now, by contrast, the rpious how is great by aueting witht congieing Inthe external, and therefore without inviting the spectator tobe purified as ‘Aristotle pu if) through pity and fear. Tae religious hero, in ober words, js someone “emancipated from exteznas” and from the tage weed of ac- tions and passions, But precisely aus ofthis, he is uniquely capable ofthat Siqualiative qualification dt is reserved for the religous, whee a fithing js worth just 2s much as Kingdoms and counties"® One thinks ert not only of the Gospel allusions tothe widow and her Gxthing or the kingdors Of heaven as 2 musta seed, but ako ofthe pasages in Hal ite where the lero observes how important it is “to find quae in straw” (44.55) for to realize “when our dep pot do pl i” that “ther a divinity that Shapes our ends,/ Rough-hew them how we wil” (62.9-19) But, Kler~ ikeguard insists, Hamlet doesnot ultimately pus mer when it comet the religious category. Why? Because as we Iseen fom a Journal entry of {1844 (deleced fom the “Sideglnee” appendix to Stage on Lift Wy: "The mistake in Shakespeare is precisely thar Hamlet docs aor hve religions Joubs, If he does not have them, then its sheer noosense and indecson, ifthe does not sete the mater sight away." tae Because (according to Kieskegard) Hamlet does not have religions doubs, he does not qualify 28 religous hero; and borause he dots notte the matter straight away in a dramatic act he does not qualify os tagic Frero, So what, we might ak atts pont, is Hamlet to Kierkegird tht he should weep for itn? Apart fom the fc chat bods axe morbidly telstive Daner_cnough perhaps in ise to justly the conaection—ihere would seem to be other, less avowed, reasons. Fit, it would seem obvious that Kiekegand himself had kee conezrs ding the writing of Stages on Les Hy in 1844-45 abst hi own voeion sea waigiovs individual Indeed his view of himself probably aot much iesene than thst of Hants nazely,ehat he i (2) 00 interior, ebjers, Shut-up, and inactive co be propel tape, provoking sympathy and fein his sede; and ()t00 fll of mosbid retin ever to be able to make & proper Tap of fl tn short, Kleksiad ec inhi compatot Ham 2232 Tus New Kierkscaarp symptomatic embodiment of the in-between condition he once confessed to-nately, being too religions to fit nto the esthetic category of Climacus ‘but not religious enough to meet the religious category of Anti-Climacus. Second, Kietkeguand appeats to identify with Goethe’ remark about Hamlet that in “telation to his body his soul was an acorn planted in a flower pot which at lat breaks the container” The Dane of Copenhagen seems to have shared with the Dane of Elsinore a deep sense not only of being ill fied for his ask in life, incapable of heroic action or passionate love, but ao of being shackled with 2 summons to amend! a wrong that cannot be atoned for. (Lam thinking here of Kierkegaard fither’s cursing of God and misbehavior with his maid; and of Hamlets fathers “foul deed done in his days of nature” and his mother’s incestuous relation with Claudius) Indeed, “Kierkegsatd must have been facinated by the way in which Hamlet i caught in the paralyzing bind of his fther’s double injunction: remember me/I cannot tell you what to remember. And he must have been equally intrigued by the second double injunction of the ghost-fither, namely: a) prevent the bed of Denmark fiom becoming a foul place of incest; but (b) “contrive aginst thy mother naught.” In short, you must act, but you can act! Indeed it could be sai that tis isnot entirely dissimilar to Kierkegaard’s cown pessonal seuse of paralysis and paradox following his famous Easter convension experince of 1848: he initially believed he had received a direct summons from God to “speak out’—only to revert subsequently to the esthetic and pseudonymous ploys of "indirect communication.” Reflecting upon the event afterward, Kierkegaard was horsfied by his own demonic hubris ar sppsing himselfto be a chosen martyr of God —like the medieval hhero-martyss he considers so anachronistic in “Side-glance." This citical reflection was liter to be cortborited by hit disspproval of the sel proclamation of Pastor Adler as chosen advocate of divine mision, recorded at length i the pages of Authority and Revelation (1848), Kierkegard’s ult mate sentiment seems to have been that ofthe spectator of tragic aberration: “there but for the grace of God go I...” ‘The fact, moreover, that for both Kierkegaard and Hamlet the legacies of their heavenly father and their ghostly father were at times so ciabolically intermixed (Dertida might say “contaminated”) made their language, and theic lives, a process of inevitable and ineluctable deconstruction, ‘Third and finally it is almost certain that Kierkeguard saw in Hamlet's relationship to Ophelia a mirror image of his own lationship to Regine ‘Obsen. The vehemence of Kierkegaard criticism of Hamlet in this egaed— 28 filing to live up to his “secret” religious mission by distracting himself with Ophelia and loving her almost by default—surely betrys a veiled erit- ism of his own behavior. The analogy between Kierkegaard-Regine and Hamlet-Ophelia is not explicily mentioned in Sigg on Lifes Wie, but itKierkegard on Hamlet, 233 surfices in the following entry in his Journal. Let us read the pasage delib- ‘rately in light of our above hypothesis: Haniet and Ophelia, Hamlet cannot be regarded 2 relly being in love with ‘Ophelia, fe must nat be interpreted in this way, even ehough puyehologcally its quite true that 2 person who is going about hatching » gest plan i the very one who needs momentary relation and dherefoe can well wea love allt. Yet T do not believe that Hamlet isco be interpreted tis wy. No, ‘what is indefensible io Horse is dha, intriguing in grand ye te i, he tues a relationship to Ophels to take the attention sway Goin what be tualy is keeping hidden. He misses Opheba. This it how i should be terpreted, nd one can also 2dd that precisely because he i so overtained he almost goes so far chat momensrily he actus ein love. ‘And yet in spite ofall, and especially in spite of Kieskeguards complaint about how “incredible” he finds it that “Goethe has taken such great pains to uphold Ham Kieskegaard himself feels compelied to conclude his ‘own published "Side-glance” with this admision: “On a specific point, one may have a doubt. .and yet agree on the one opinion thar has been the opinion of one and two and three centuries—that Shakespeare stinds n= rivaled, despite the progres the world will make, that one can always learn fiom him, and the more one reads him, the more one leares."® That this final admission is ostensibly inconsistent with all che ccticisms of Handet cha precede it is typical of Kierkegaard’ own deeply contradictory, not to say aporetic, approach to this play of plays, Part Tivo: Some Notes on a Deconstuctive Reading Since this volume is pecially concerned with continental and deconstruc- tive readings of Kirkegaard let me conclude with some remarks on Der- da allusions to Hanlin Spaces of Mare~and se wha elevance, fay, they might have for our above analysis use the term “allusions” advised. Derrida at no point ofr consistent argument about Hamlet, Yer his Spacer of Mare opens with several direct quotations fom the pay, makes pasing references throughout, bears men- Bion of the “work of mourning” in its sbeile, end actaly caries (in it English edition) a front-cover representation of Hamlet confronting his ‘Bhose-ther, And of couse, both Halt and Spaces of Monae concerned ‘with “specues. that is, the influence ofthe returaed dead (ls roma) on the living. For Hamlet, the specter in question was his own finer. For Deri, its the less personal surrogate fcher-gare of Marx (nd by his- torical extension, Shakespeare himsell).234 Tue New Kiernecaarp In spite of this obvious diference, the logic of posthumous influence i, Derrida suggest, similar in both eases, It is, as he says in the “Exordiom,” the “non-coutemporancty with itself of the lei presen," One is prompted, in the light of our above analysis of Kierkeyaants “side-plance,” to dink here of what the latter had to say about the out-of-klter temporality of Shake- spear’ file atempe a a teligous drama (sere che end informs the be jpnning: or ayain, of Kierkegaard ancoguing references to “ventloguisn dnd the “sudden a the eruption of on-contnueNs ‘ue before teasing out scl matters, let see what Derrida himself has to say about this spectral temporality —or what he call, “spectropoeti.” The context is that of trying to do justice € those who are no longer—or yet—part of the “ving present"; and the passage a question culminates, tellingly for our purposes, wich a citation fiom Hamer a be jut beyond the being present am general —aned beyond ts sample negative reverul A sete momcut, a moment that longer blogs to fame, if one wnderstans by ths word the kang of nodal presents past rosetta preset 0.” fture present) We are questioning sn eis fintant, we are sking ours sot this anstane chat we ce to tne ‘ahit we wal ne, Furtve ar yntinely ehe appaninon of the pecic does no belong to that ane, does oot ave te, "Ente the phn, ext dhe got e-enter the phot” Eamle Dern’ tise chapter, embed “Inunetiom of Mars.” then apens with an cexplien cram front act 1, seene 9 of Hamlet The pasage in question concert the ¢psoe ehene Hanlet ann his vornpan boy the ghost, yet we ki snatter wall not rest there: Though Hamer dacs alee adnonsh hs ua, And sail your fingers on your lippes, F pray.” he oes on to mediately state his deep unease at the fact dur while he 18 not respon tr what has occurred he 1s obliged nonethelew to “set senght” The vorce fom the past {summoning hin to bis future, "The tte as out of unt: Oh cursed spite. That ever f eas born to set at ght” Dereud then proccess to mivoke the opening reference to another xhont, this ume an Mars’s Communist Maniesto"A specter is haunting Europe the specter of comumunsns” He suggest the following analogy between the two kinds of ghar fp sconce mpsticnt, anxious, and Encanated the thing ‘ellen up comang The rocant 1 gratg €9 how tong tt taking Sell more precy. cverythang bryan the ‘he spect ab pure fo the int tame othe pay *Kierkegaard on Hamlet 235 Dertids does not hesitate to suggest tat “inthe shadow ofa fil mem ‘ory Shakespeare will hive offen inspired Marxian theaticalization."" A steange use of the furue anterior cense herel Or at he pus it, invoking ‘Valery’ famous text on the “European Hamlet,’ Shekespese qui genuit Mare (ond a few othen)."™ (We are inclined to include Kierkegaard and Der- tida himself ofcourse, among these ther few, but more of that anon ) What the specter represents for Hames, as later for Mars and others is a “Thing that isnot a thing.” Or as Derrida says: “One does not know wht i i." (One does not know ifit corresponds toa namie o an essence or any specific identity; and yet this invisible thing looks us even though we cannot look at it, “The Thing meanwhile looks at us and sees us not see it even when it is there. A spectral axymmetry interrupes here all specularty. Te de- synchronizes, it recalls us v0 anachrony."* Derrida call this the “visor effect,” namely, the impresion that “we do not see who looks at us." Or more specifically inthe ease of Hamlets father, ““Bven though in his ghost the King looks like himself (As thou art to chy self says Horatio), that does not prevent hime from looking without being seen: his apparition makes him appear sil invisible beneath hie armor’! Derrida claims that this definition of the visor eet will be presupposed by everything he, Derrida, has to say on the subject of the specter in general ‘And as will become more obvious later in the book, what i a issue is not just Marx and Marxism but the whole “spectropoctics” of mesianicity in general, that i, the very religious structure of existence as “religion without religion.” Now repli the sects of Hat or Marc withthe Holy Ghar of smessianic Christianity, and we are no longer a million miles away from Kiet Kegnard. Indeed, ifwe compare (a) what Kierkegaard has to say about Hamlet not being sufciently “religious” in his doubs, with (b) Kierkegaard con- eating analysis of his true religious hero, Abraham, in Fer and Tienbling, ‘we can read the entre analysis of spectal logic in a more evidently Kier- keguardian light. The following description by Derrida of Hanser’ response to his ghostly father could, { submit, as easly have been written about Abra- ham’ response to the voice of the angel in Fear and Tremiling (or, for that ‘matter, about Levinas’ eeligious response to the sommous of the infinite Other): "This spectral someone other looks at us, we fee! ourselves being looked at by it, ouside of any synchrony, even before and beyond any look on our part, according 0 an absolute antriority ...and asymmetry, according £0 an absolutely unmasterable disproportion”"® More specifically, we might consider the relevance of this analysis forthe notion of mesianic commit- ‘ment or summons—the very thing that, according to Kierkegnard, Hamlet ‘would have hal to be more struck by iFhe were to be a propery religious character:236 Tus New Krierkecaard ‘Here anachrony niakes the lw To feel ourselves seen by 2 look which it ‘vil always be imposible co cross, that isthe ny qt om the bass oF which ‘re inherited fiom the lav. Since we do not see the one who sees ws and Ywho makes the law, who deliver: dhe injunetion (whieh i, moteover, 2 ‘ontadietory injunction), since we do not see the one tho onder “wea” icin all certiney, we mst all back om its voice. The fone wo says “I am hy Father’ Spe” can only be taken a his wo, An ‘sseteally blind submsion 40 bis sere, eo the seeet of is origin: this i fist obedience to the injunction. Ie will condition all the other. ft may always be a case of ill someone che, Another can aways i, he can disguise himself as 4 ghost, another ghost may aso be passing funself of for chi Im short, how ean we ever be sure which kind of ghost, holy or unholy, is hhete before us if, as Derrida says elsewhere, “every other is every other” out ave est tout wire)? And the simple answer i: we cat be sure ‘Moreover, this question of the undecidabilty of the spectra injunetion is in usa related, for Derrida, to the dilemma of mourning. Nothing it ‘worse for the work of mourning, notes Derrida, than confision about the identity of the one deal and gone, "One has to know who is buried where— and itis necessary (G0 kasow—to make certain) that, in what remains of hit Iie main there, Lec hin stay there and moe no more."** Or as the colloquial expression goes whea someone is finally buried: mguiscat i pa. May they rest in peace! Now Hanilet, as we know, is notorious as someone whe cannot properly mourn his dead father precisely because he cannot propery wentify his father’s nature oF his past (¢4, “those foul deeds conumitted in [hs] days lof nature whose very tale would harrow up [his, Hamlet] soul” ete). Its fof course, true for anyone who has lost a loved one a sea or in some natural duster fo want to “recover and idenafy* the body so that the work of rmowening can take place. But this is experienced as an even deeper anxiety bby Hamlet, for not only has he nus his fathers burial (he was “too Iate™ od from Wittenberg) but he cant even be sure tha the paternal spec ter who is summoning him to murder his wnce is really is father at all— ‘or atleast che fither he thought he knew! Hamlet, like the ghost who confronts him, sven with undecidabiity— and so is unable to mourn (his ther, to love (his mother). to desire (phe lia), or to act (by taking revenge on Claudius) But, in Kierkegaard readn this undecidabilty i even more accentuated. For we recall, by Taciturmuss account, that Hamlet is not only confused by the undecidable vison of an wisible ghost—a thing thats nothing: he is doubly confused in that he has ‘no real eligious experience of a Gord who forbid revenge (eg. "Vengeance ts mune says the Lol!), In shore, Kierkeyaand Hamlet is deprived of both an earthly father and a divine one, And the same might-—who knows? have even been true of Kierkeguard hirelf im cert eligous” moments of viallstion, inaction, or tuthlewnes—moments almost (00Kierkegaard on Hamlet 237 distarbing to be admitted or acknowledged. For remember, not only did Kierkegaard have a most troubled relation with his own father (who cursed ‘God and crushed his own son), but he himself experienced moments of deep hesitation and confusion—especially prior to his famous Easter conversion of 1848, (An experience during which he felt summoned by God to speak cout and write directly in his own name and voice. And why, one might legitimately ask, was it a “conversion” if he was already converted?) ‘Buc there i, I think, another key point at which the Kietkegnardian and Derridean readings of Hamlet ovetap. Derrida conclides the second chapter of his Marx book by stating thatthe “deconstructive procedure” he practices attempts to put into question our inherited “onto-theological” notions of historical cime by way of thinking another kind of temporality of “historic- i.” This, says Derrida, would allow us to think “another opening of event- ress as historicity that permitted one not to renounce, but on the contrary te open up access to an affirmative thinking of the mesic and emanci- patory promise as promise." As promi, insisg Dettida and “not as onto- theological or teleo-eschatological program or design." Decrida’s decon- szructive thinking seeks to preserve this very promise by inscrbing the “possibility of the reference to the other, and thus of radical alterity and heterogeneity” (Le, of différn); and eis in turn signals the impossibility of the present ever being filly contemporaneous or identical with itselZ So doing, deconstruction maintains the indestrutblty of “emancipatory de- sie,” which is, Dersida concludes, the very condition of “re-politiciation,” ‘or pethaps even of “another concept ofthe politial.”™* In light of this rather “upbeat” deconstrucive reading of Hamlet un- ‘eciabiy, we can, I submit, reinterpret Kieskegaard!s verdict on Hamlet in a variety of ways, Let me outline, by way of conclsion, at lst thee. Firs hypothesis: Kierkegaard was incapable of moving from a traditional Christian understanding of the religious to a deconstructve undertanding of religion-without-relgion as “mestanicity”—~and so he was unable to ap- preciate the positive implications of Hamlet ale aa “religious hero” (in the traditional sense) In other words, the problem with Kierkepsted, on this account, would be that he hadn't read Dersida. Or to put it more plainly, he wasn't deconstructive enough—that, sufficiently to reaie that Hamlets undecidable reflectivenes: is actually a very good and profoundly religious thing, once one accepts the notion of “eligion without religion.” Second hypothesis: Kierkegaard filed to move beyond the old alterna- tives of the esthetic versus the religious to embrace a new category of the lial, There is not one mention of the political in all of Kierkegaard references to Hamlet. Contrariwise, one might note that there s not one of Derrida’s references to Hamlet in Species of Mars that is not poll, Had238 Tus New KisrkeGAaarp Kicrkegaatd espoused such a new concept of the politcal, he might have been able to escape the paralyzing either/or of esthetic versus religious op- tions to which he condemns Hamlet. “Third hypothesis: Kierkegaard is also anticipating, in his “Side-glance” at Homlet and other vets, Derrida rethinking of the religious and the political. ‘Read in this manner, in sine with commentators ike Caputo and Dol Kierkegaard may be construed as a “radical hermeneut” whose deconstruc= tive reading of Hamlet as iter esthecc mar religions in strict sens is aleady ‘opening op a new sense ofthat very “eventoness a historicity” that Derrida sces as the precondition of emancipatory desire." By this account, Inks of Lave and other signed works may be seen as prefiguring the possibilty of jue such a new polities ‘Such a new polities might, I suggest, signal the following ss: Features: 1. a comunitnient to action in fear and trembling—that is, in tolerance and vigilance: 2. away of acting and suffering in the world so that the inwardly sub- jective and reflective is never sacrificed co the dictates of the purely “abyective” and inspersonal imperatives ofthe global techno-capitalst network: 3. a way of reflecting and acting “eligiously"—that is, “messianically” in Derrida’ terms, of “in Tight of the Kingdom” in Kierkeyaands terms-—so that the imposible tasks of justice, pardon, and hospitality (these three great works of love) become more and more possible m cach instant of decision and commitment; 4. a deconsructive-existental hermeneutic that tempers our instinctive rush to judgment and condemnation in favor of more refined and dliscerning judgments; 4 new political practice based! on Hamlet’ insight that “memory” is indispensable and that amnesty can never be founded upon ames: for the “story” of the fither needs to be told, che adversary’ “rghis ‘of memiony” need to be honored, so that the repetitive cycles of mix metic desire and revenge may be overcome; and {6 an acknowledgment, finally thatthe best kind of polities i one open to endlew responsibility and dhe surpnse of the unexpectedthe pose sibility of the ampossble. ‘Read im chs proto-deconstructive way, Kierkegaard may be concerved 3, a kind of Denna arant la fete, Maybe. Its possible. But I'm not absolutely ‘certain. The ghost of Hamlet that migrated into Kierkegaard’ reading. of Hummer 1s ot, Ltbink, wlentical to the one that migrated into Derrida however similar on questions of non-synchronous time, undecidabui, and wc of the spectral, For when x comes to specters and sprit as Derrida xls us, “there 1 mone than one of them and hey are heterogeneous."Kierkegead on Hamlet 239 “This inedible heterogeneity of ghost is perhaps itself goarnte ofthe Ieterogenity of Kierkegardian and Dersdean readings. ‘That question emsine open, But one thing is sue: new concepts of the “eligi” and the “polica” wegently aeed to be opened up and thought throug in our postmodern age of growing indifference an incferentation And if either Kierkegard ( read ehrogh Derrida) or Derrida es read hrough Kierkegaer) ea help usin this nk, which T spec they can, we rust be gratfl Notes 1. Kierkegaard, Stages on Lifes Wi, ed. and cans. Howard V, Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), 230. 2. Ibid, 407. 3. Kieskegnard, The Concept of Dread, ans. Walter Loweie Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Pres, 1954), 114. Henceforth CDL 4 Ibid. 5. bid, 116 6. bid. 7. bid, 115 8. Kierkegaard, Conduding Scentfic Posse, trans. David Swenson and Wal- ter Lowrie (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1941), 514 (my italics). Henceforth CUPI. 9. Ibid, 193. 10. Bid, 194. AL Bid, 12 Bid. 13, This is also relevant, of course, to the basic heemeneatic distinction —s0 sportant to Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer—berween Vente and Earn, and more generally, between Geltwisensaf and Natunvisseshaf 14. CUI, 163 15. bid, 164, 16, Boi. 165. 17, SLW, 453. 18. tid, 452. 19. bid. (my emphasi). 20, Ibid, 453. 21. tid, 22. Ibid, 454 23, René Girard, Shaespeare: Las Pec de Veavie Pars: Grasset, 1990), 331. 24, SLW, 454 (aay emphasis 25, Tbid., 455. 26. Ibid, 454, 636. 27. Ii, 455. 28. Quotations come from The Tragedy of Hamlet, Princ of Dank, ed. Sy- van Barnet (New York: New American Library, 1963).240 Tue New Krerkecaarp 29, JP 1561, n.d, 1844, Kieckegaad is here referring to Réucher, Hegelian “systematician” who in Kierkegitd’ view interpreted Hamlet "righ" as being. “morbidly teflective,” and wat utimaely obliged in his analysis of che “psychical evelopment of ehetic characters” tous “exstental categories such asthe leap” (SEW, 635-36; from the draft co the "Side-glance” passe). Inthe ime Journal ‘entry, JP 1861, entitled “R&ticher,” Kierkeprard agin cites Boe’ “en pasa” remati hat Henle isa “Chrvian Tragedy” In the section on "The Rostantic ‘Arw in hie Lerures on Aesteis, trans, J, M, Knox (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), with which Kierkegaard would have certainly been famine, Hegel Aliscustes Hamlet a bis contrast between Greek and modern tragedy. He points bot that Hamlet’ characteris rooted in a colsion similar to that treated by eo Greek tragediant—Aeschylus inthe Choephai and Sophocles in Eleane—naely, the fither is murdered and the mother as marred the munferet. Bu the bi dliference is that while the Greek deamas portray the tragic actions as “ethical,” Shakespeare's drama does not. fa the case of Hail the plot is purely penonal It isa play not about social or etical action but about arbitrary intexnal conict— indeed, the inability to take action “Wheres in the Greek poet the King death does have an ethical jostificacion, in Shakespeare i simply and solely an atrocious crime and “Hamlets mother is gules oft, Consequently the son has to wreak his revenge oily on the fatecide King in whom he ses nothing really worthy ‘of respect. Thecefore the collision tums sicly here not on the son's par- suing an ethically jorified revenge and being forced in the process to violate che ethical order, bt en Hamlets pesonal chara. Fis noble soul 1 not ace for this kind of energetic activity; and Fall of disgust with the ‘world and life, what with decsion, poof, aangerents for cttying out his resolve, and being bandied from pillar to post, he eventually perishes ‘owing to his own hesitation and 2 complication of external circumstances (echo, 1225-26) In short, if we were to use Kiorkegeand categories here, we would sy that for Hegel chee is no real ethical basi tp Hamlet’ predicament, nor 2 religions basis for that matter, but a purely subjective one. ‘The concern of Haniel, as of many other modern tragedies, is that of “char- acters” and thei inner "confcs." The greatness of clasical Grek tragedy, for Hegel, is that its heroes were confonted by circumstances in which, having, solidly identi themselves “with the one ethical ‘pathos’ hat alone corresponds to theie own already established naar, they mecesarly com into confit with the opposite but equally justified ethical power” (Aesthetics, 1226). By contrast, moder romantic character Uke Hamlet ate placed from the outset in 2 vast “field of more o lst accidental circumstances and conditions within which ii ‘posible o actin this way orn that (tha sin an arbitrary rather than necesary fashion). As a reslt, says Hegel, “the confit, for which the external circum stances do of course provide the occasion, ls essentsly i the character to which the individual adhere in their passion, nor because of any substantial justification but because they are what they are once ad for al” (bid.). Modern heros likeKierkegaard on Hamlet 241 Hamlet donot act out of an “inherendy ethical pathos” but rather Gom “chance”; and they make theie decisions azonding to thie own wishes aud needs. And since the ins and motivation ofthe “inner skjecive ie” ae all partcular—eater tan wnveral sin Greek drama—ethicl consideration sre not an “essential” or “objective” pat ofthe dana. But wien it comes tothe por trayal of “ireedy present ifé and inner gates of soul," cms Hegel, Shake- speare’scarcters are incomparable, Even Gosthe and Schiller, he nai, cannot achieve anything lke the “inner force and height of pasion” of Shakespeares heroes ‘The lever of modern omntic tages, Heyel goes on suc, s what he cab the “peronal wagedy of inner discord” (Aetetis, 1229). “Indecision,” ‘acillion,” “weakness of icesolution,” “pepleiry about the reasons that are to guide decision,” “the switheting of refecon.” and so on, These are all char- actersies ofthe moder romnsc eto left o bis own devies and deprived of the external necessity ofstion (Side) In modern as opposed to dase! tragedy, Hegel explains “ich dithering gures generally appear by being them selves inthe grip ofa twofold pasion which dives them fom one deckion ot one deed to another simultaneously.” And to pu this vailaton and discord ino the same character most alvays involve, deems Hegel, “much awkqardnes” (ibid). Why? Because, in Hegel’ considered view, “mental dation into op- posed increas has is source parly ina vagueness and swpidty of mind, pay in wealmess and imnmturity” (ibid). Bue worst ofall, says Hep, i when the ‘modern dramatist portays such indecision of the whole character "as a sort of perverse and sophistial dialecie and then... makes i¢ che main theme of the fntre rama, «0 chat erth Hs supposed to consist precisely in showing that no characteris inwardly fm: and selC-assured” (Acsthetis, 1229). Now while Hees f0ss on to invoke Shakepeare asa modem dramatise who awis such ports of acing characte inwardly divided agin chemselves” (ibid), its almost imposible not to see Shekespearet Homlet 2s a perfect example of such a por mayal Hegel goes on to ty and revive Shakespeare’ main ape chats, it~ cluding Hamlet and Romeo and Julie, as somehow reflecting some “necestary Correspondence” berwsen inner conflicts and outer circumstances, But his ex planation i 0 my ind, Jess dhancouvincing, Here is how he contrasts normal oder tagedy (which he holdin low exzem) with the Shakespearean excep- tion to the rule: In modern rage, he writes, the tagic denouement is displayed as purely the effect of unfortunate circumstances and external accidents which might have turned out oth= ceewise and produced a happy ending. In this case the ole spectacle offced to us is that the modern individual with the non-unirenal nature of bis character, his cisamstances, and the complications in which he is in- volved, is necessrly surrendered to the fragility of all that is mundane and must endure dhe fte of finitude. But ths mere action is empty, and, in particular, we aze confionted by purely horrible external necessry ‘hen we see fine minds, noble in themselves, pering in such a bate242, Tue New Krerxecaarn against the misfortune of entirely extemal cicumstances. Such 4 history ‘may touch us acutely, and yet it seems only dreafil and we feel presing, demand for a necesacy corespondence between the extern cium- stances and what the inner nature of those fine characters realy is. [is ‘only fiom cis poine of view that we can fee] cuselves reconciled in the fite of Hamlet or Juliet Looked 2t ftom the outside, Hamlets death teem to be brought about accidentally owing to the fight with Laettes land the exchange of rapiers, But death lay fom the beginning in the background of Hamlet’ mind, The snds of ime do not content him, tn his melancholy and weakness, his worry, his dggst a all the airs of ie, ‘we sense fiom ehe start that in all his ternible surroundings he is lost ‘man, almost consumed sleady by an inner disgst before death comes to bite fiom outside, (Aesthetis, 1231-32) But even if we credit Hegels positive reading of Ham, we a ill ft wth hisconclsion tht even thi nodera tragedy leaves us eng « woe thats only “a gievous reconliation, an unhappy bls in mioreane™ (id). In shor, he types! emotion of the lst, beausfil, unhappy sul “The main difeence, we may conclude, eoween Kicrkeguds and Hegel reading of Hamlet is thatthe former consid it both a religous and exheic flue (without any explicit mention of i ethical Santon), wheres Hegel paises ies an esthetic succes, albeit fr removed fom the ei catharsis and neces of Gree raged and no et abl to offering ez the now-ievous reconcilaton of Chitin providence and peice. 530. Kirkegurd, Eithr/Oy vol. 1, tans, David Swenson and Lilian Marin Swenson (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univesity res, 1959), 208, 3. JP, 2:1562, nd, 1854. Moreover, in ight ofthis Joureal entry we might revead a cris passage from the sketch tothe secon onthe eligiows and egie heroes cited above fon Stages on Lie Wy, a page not iciued inthe pub- Tse text bot entded, telingly, "Wtf to bes her?” lt ishard wot to read this unpublished pasage without thinking of () Kierkegaard’ imaginary male charicter (uo Bis wo be + peopelyeigiou her) as 2 version of himself and (@ ofhisinnginnry female characte (who fi tobe a propery esthetic heroine) 28 4 version of Regine (SEW, 637). OF hs imagiary filed hero, the author wwrtes: “If he, my characte, had been hao ia the ordinary sense, he would Tave had to Become that demonicly by saying: Tce that my idea of exience requires tat she most go, ergo, and tha thi roa ovr her lsd me wo ny gat goa, On the other hand, he mest not convenly dha for hi he main point twas that he should safer more dan she. That religious her. He is the ‘estes heo who wins the most-—He tthe greatest hero who ses he mas {Reverb in Ween des Christe i seandained at Pascal if tha tsa story ofslferng.«.)." Ofhis imaginary filed heroine, Kieskogeard wites“She ako could have become a heroin, but only extheicaly. U have not wished to keep her that way, for anew igh shold fll upon his sympathy how pins him chat she Bretks with ee ida.” To which the autor adds thi seemingly confessional wile: "I she had becore & heraine, I would have bowed beforeKierkegsard on Holet 243 het (although the esthesc interests me les) for there és nothing I would rather ddo than bow; would to God that there were someone to bow before; most people, however, belive that there is a great deal to stoop for in the world.” ‘Then we saumle upon this self-disparaging and somewhat mock-heroic obser- vation: “I am poetic e alsganter Gn a poetic and refined way) a street inspector; {think of the two chamberlins who opened the door for Napoleon and ssi ‘The Emperor. Anyone could be made 2 hero if he will coafide in me. [shall bring him into mortal danger; then it will tn out al right. Baggeven’ lines fit most people che majority): Our Lord took a piece of sausage meat and ssid: Become 2 man Become sausage-witted and sausage-happy.” (SLW, “Seleced Entries from Kierkegaarts Journals and Papers Pertaining co Suge on Lifes Way,” 636-37) 132, See "Selected Entries” in SL, 63, 3, SLU, “Side-ghnce," 454 34 Jacques Dervida, Specs of Mars, tans. Peggy Kamat (London: Rost- ledge, 199). 35, "Exondium,” in bid, se 36. Ibid, 4 37. bid, 5. 38 Ibid 39. bid, 6 40. bi, 7. 41 tbid, 42 Ii Ibid, 8-9. bid, 8. tbid, 7-75, ibid 47d 48. Ibid 48.See Joli Caputo, “Repetition and Kine: Kierkegurd on the Fouder- ing of Metaphysics," in Radial Hemtenelr (Bloomington: Inciana Univesity Press, 1987), 11-35. See aso Matk Dosey, The Pals of Eeadu (New Yor: Fordham University Pres, 2001) 50. Deeida, Spetes of Mrs, 7. Bare