Per Caritatem

Søren Kierkegaard is well known for his use of pseudonyms; however, his purpose in utilizing this literary device is often overlooked and has resulted in wrongly attributed views to Kierkegaard that he himself would reject. In various texts, Kierkegaard expressed his view that an author’s personal experience is only properly manifest in his works in a transmuted fashion, i.e., as the “universally human, not as personal disclosure.”[1] In other words, Kierkegaard by means of indirect communication purposely distances himself from the views of the various personae he created.[2] For example, Johannes de Silentio, the author of Fear and Trembling, clearly states in the Preface that he is not a philosopher, but is rather a poet who cannot understand Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, though he deeply admires Abraham’s faith act. Time and again throughout the work, we read that Johannes, by his own admission, lacks the faith of Abraham, for he (Johannes) is merely the poet who immortalizes the hero while not claiming to be what the hero (Abraham) is. In other words, Johannes can only look upon Abraham with awe since he himself lacks the (“absurd”) faith that made Abraham great.

In the epigraph we are given another clue pointing to Johannes’ status as an outsider who is incapable of giving a full account of faith. Here we read, “Was Tarquinius Superbus in seinem Garten mit den Mohnköpfen sprach, verstand der Sohn, aber nicht der Bote. [What Tarquinius Superbus said in the garden by means of the poppies, the son understood but the messenger did not].” This quotation is taken from a story in which Tarquinius Superbus’ son, having taken control of the city of Gabii, sends a messenger to his father to ask for further instructions. Tarquinius, because he did not trust the messenger, responded by walking through his garden and cutting off the tallest poppy flowers. The “answer” was inexplicable to the messenger; however, when he informed the son as to his father’s actions, the son immediately understood that his father was instructing him to weaken the city by killing its key citizens [3]. Thus, as C. Stephen Evans points out, it seems plausible to understand Silentio as the “messenger” who communicates that which he in reality does not truly (or fully) grasp [4].

[1] Howard and Edna Hong in the “Historical Introduction” to Fear and Trembling. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983, p.x.

[2] Howard and Edna Hong make this observation in the “Historical Introduction” to Fear and Trembling. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983, p.x. The editors also cite several passages from Two Ages, pp. 98-99, KW XIV (SV VIII 91-92) and Concluding Unscientific Postscript, KW XII (SV VII [545]) to support this claim (pp. ix-x).

[3] The epigraph argument is discussed and presented by Evans’, Kierkegaard’s Ethic of Love: Divine Commands and Moral Obligations. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 63.

[4] C. Stephen Evans. Kierkegaard’s Ethic of Love: Divine Commands and Moral Obligations. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 63.