The Genesis of the

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

By Kim Ravn

Translated by Jon Stewart

Abstract

This paper, which is a brief summary of the critical account of the text to Concluding Un-
scientific Postscript, published in vol. K7 of Søren Kierkegaard’s Writings, will: 1. briefly
describe the manuscripts, 2. determine the period of its composition, 3. reconstruct Kier-
kegaard’s method of composition, and 4. point out some of the older material which has
been worked into Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Finally the paper will say something
about the (hermeneutical) relationship between the manuscripts and pesudonymity.

The Concluding Unscientific Postscript or, to give its complete title,

Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments. A
Mimical-Pathetical-Dialectical Compilation. An Existential Contribu-
tion, by Johannes Climacus. Edited by S. Kierkegaard, appeared on Feb-
ruary 27, 1846.
The goal of this essay is to isolate the Postscript from the rest of
Kierkegaard’s literary production during this period and to set forth
the way in which the book came into existence. This is a task which
raises at least three questions:
• First, the external chronology of the work, i. e., a determination of
the period of time in which the work was written; in short, when did
he write it?
• Second, an overview of the older material which was worked into
the book, i. e., the book’s connections to the rest of the authorship;
in short, what previous materials existed?
• Third, the work’s inner chronology, i. e., an account of the process
of composition itself insofar as it can be reconstructed from the ex-
isting manuscript material; in short, how did Kierkegaard write the
Postscript?
2 Kim Ravn

The last point presupposes an account of the physical manuscript ma-

terials, which in this case means a list or a description of the manu-
scripts. Since it will also be necessary to refer to the manuscripts in
connection with the other points, it will be useful to begin here, that is,
where Kierkegaard himself began.
The manuscript descriptions as they are formulated in the commen-
tary volumes in the new text-critical edition, Søren Kierkegaards
Skrifter, make use of highly formal prose and do not lend themselves
to this type of presentation. For this reason such a presentation will
not be given here. A detailed account of which sketches, drafts, and
clean copies to the Postscript are preserved, what paper they are writ-
ten on, what size the paper has, what watermarks, how the sheets are
paginated or foliated, etc., is also found in the so-called tekstrede-
gørelse or critical account of the text, which appears in the commen-
tary volume K7 in Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter. What follows has,
therefore, the character of a summary version of this critical account
of the text, which was written by Finn Gredal Jensen, Jette Knudsen
and the present author. This essay will thus use as a point of departure
the account of the genesis of the text and also attempt, by way of con-
clusion, to put some of the insights gained from this analysis in the
context of other parts of Kierkegaard’s thought.

I. The Material

The surviving manuscript material to the Postscript is kept at the Kier-

kegaard Archive at the Royal Library in Copenhagen. It is divided
into five categories: sketches, drafts, clean copy, proof sheets and fi-
nally Kierkegaard’s own copy of the Postscript. In all fairness, it ought
to be emphasized that precisely this division of the manuscript mate-
rial is absolutely critical since it is decisive for the determination of
the genesis of the text; however, this division is at the same time
grounded on very pragmatic and porous determinations of the limits
between the qualitatively different forms of the variants of the genesis
of the text. For example, what is the difference, be it material, seman-
tic or textual, between a “sketch” [udkast] and a “draft” [kladde]? It is
not always easy to say. Due to Kierkegaard’s manner of working, the
different categories cannot be clearly distinguished; sketches and
drafts appear with the same manuscript number. Similarly, a draft is
only rarely fully worked out, but instead usually incomplete with
many lacunae in relation to the completed text.
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 3

The manuscript material to the Postscript is extensive in accordance

with the nature of the matter, and the description of the manuscripts
is divided into twenty-eight numbers (each with further subordinate
numbers – all together 87 numbers and subordinate numbers). The
manuscripts contain around 850 sheets, 41 proof sheets and Kierke-
gaard’s own copy of the work – in all some 3,000 pages. A general cat-
egorization renders the following overview of the many numbers.
The first group of manuscripts, the drafts, are contained under a sin-
gle number, ms. 1, which is divided into only two subordinate numbers
or subdivisions. Ms. 1.1, which is an outline and diverse drafts of “Part
Two”, Section One, Chapter 1 and Section 2, Chapters 1 and 2 along
with an introduction, and it consists of two sheets in folio format,
which have been cut out. It is clear from the paper and the way in
which it has been cut out that the outline stems from unused material
to Philosophical Fragments. Ms. 1.2, which contains an outline with
eight points to “Part One” and the beginning of “Part Two,” consists
of two full signatures, in all four sheets.
The second group of manuscripts, which comprises in all twenty
numbers, ms. 2-22, contains sketches and drafts, and can be further di-
vided into two parts: the first, ms. 2-17, contains sketches and drafts to
the Postscript from “Part One,” including the very last section, which
is listed in the table of contents, “Appendix. An Understanding with
the Reader,” and the second, ms. 18-22, which contains a sketch and a
draft of the titlepage, preface and table of contents.
The third group is the clean copy, which consists of a main number,
ms. 23, and in all eighteen subordinate numbers. Regarded physically,
the clean copy is quite heterogeneous; it consists of both cut-out
sheets, folio sheets and notebooks for drafts, but narratively it is, of
course, very homogeneous, in part due to the continuity of the con-
tent, and in part due to the running pagination. The “Preface” is pagi-
nated from 1-6 with Arabic numerals, the table of contents from I-VI
with Roman numerals, while the rest of the clean copy is paginated
from 1-790 with Arabic numerals. In a few places in the clean copy
new sheets have been inserted between pages which have already
been paginated; for this reason these new sheets have been paginated
with numbers and letters in order to avoid their being confused with
the running pagination of the rest of the work.
The fourth group comprises two numbers, first, ms. 24, which con-
tains a sketch and draft of “A First and Last Explanation,” and, sec-
ond, ms. 25, which is the clean copy of the four concluding and unpag-
inated pages, which constitute the end of the Postscript.
4 Kim Ravn

The fifth group of manuscripts consists of the first and second cor-
rections to the first printing, which bear the numbers 26 and 27. The
entire first correction, 31 signatures (496 pages) has survived: the
preface and the table of contents have been paginated with Roman
numerals, after which follow six unpaginated pages: the first two are
blank, and the last four constitute “A First and Last Explanation.”
The remaining pages are paginated from 1-480 with Arabic numerals.
Ten signatures (160 pages) survive from the second corrections. Most
of the corrections have been made by Israel Levin, of course, with
Kierkegaard’s supervision. These contain corrections of punctuation
and orthography, along with replacements of individual words, dele-
tions and insertions.
The sixth and final group is Kierkegaard’s own copy of the book;
it contains five entries, five underlinings and thirteen corrections.
This last category cannot really be regarded as a version in the gen-
esis of the work since it was not a part of the genesis of the Post-
script, but rather it is a version in the genesis après la lettre. This
personal copy, however, constitutes a part of the textual sources and
has thus provided readings for the text presented in Søren Kierke-
gaards Skrifter.

II. The Dating

There are three datings in the manuscripts to the Postscript. The first
appears in the clean copy of “A First and Last Explanation”(ms. 25),
where Kierkegaard wrote at the end of the text, “Kiøb. i Febr. 1846.”
This dating is a registration of the time of publication and not of com-
position. The second dating is found in a draft to the title of the book
(ms. 18), where the title is still “Concluding Simple Postscript.” It
reads merely, “Kiøb. 1845.” Here too the time of publication and not
of composition is given; this was clearly written at a time when it was
thought that the book could still be published in 1845. The third and
final dating appears on the titlepage of the clean copy and was written
when the date of the publication was not yet ultimately determined.
This is clear from the fact that a space is left for the last digit in the
number for the year; thus, the dating in its incomplete form appears as
follows: “Kiøbenhavn 184.”
Since the rest of the manuscript material is not dated, the period of
time for the genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript must be
determined by indirect means.
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 5

In the Journal JJ, which Kierkegaard wrote in from May 1842 to

September 1846,1 he explores (in entry JJ:342) the dogma of the eter-
nity of punishment in hell. This issue is developed in an extended pas-
sage in the Postscript in the chapter “Possible and Actual Theses by
Lessing,” and several formulations are repeated almost word for
word.2 For example, in the Postscript, he writes,
…whoever can think the one eo ipso can think the other, indeed, has eo ipso thought
the other….
If time and a relation to a historical phenomenon within time can be decisive for an
eternal happiness, they are eo ipso thought for the decision of an eternal unhappiness.3

In JJ:342 this appears as follows:

If anyone is able to think the one (eternal happiness decided in time) then he has eo
ipso thought the other. If time is able to be an adequate medium for deciding an eternal
happiness, then it is also an adequate medium for deciding an eternal unhappiness.4

The entry JJ:342 is not dated, but it must have been written between
May 14 and June 10, 1845 since JJ:327 and JJ:354 are dated respectively
May 14 and June 10. Since this entry was worked into the draft to “Pos-
sible and Actual Theses by Lessing” (ms. 5.2), one must presume that
Kierkegaard began work on the book at a relatively short time before
this. This assumption is supported by the manuscript material, from
which it is clear that Kierkegaard worked “continuously,” i. e., quickly
began writing out the clean copy and tried to continue the text with
free hand until the further working out of the book could be continued.
He notes himself in the Journal NB that the preface to the Post-
script was written in May 1845:
The Concluding Postscript was delivered lock, stock, and barrel to Luno before I wrote
against P. L. Møller. Now in the preface to it (which, incidentally, was written in May of
1845)….5

The assumption that the preface was written in May 1845 seems to be
in agreement with the genesis of the text sketched above, which is
supported by the fact that Kierkegaard – long after the preface was
done and written out in the clean copy – during the composition of the
last part of the book, “Appendix. An Understanding with the Reader”
(ms. 16) remarks, “what if I here inserted the end of the preface pp. 5
and 6” (the page numbers refer to the clean copy).

1 Cf. the critical account of the text to the Journal JJ in SKS K18, 209-214.
2 SKS 7, 92ff.
3 CUP1, 94 / SKS 7, 92,33-34 and CUP1, 94f. / SKS 7, 93,18-20.
4 JP 3:3633 / SKS 18, 252,34-36.
5 JP 5:5887, p. 316 / SKS 20, 22-25, NB:7.
6 Kim Ravn

If one looks at Kierkegaard’s other activities in spring of 1845, there

are also reasons to think that the work on the Postscript presumably
began in April or May. Three Discourses on Imagined Occasions ap-
peared on April 29, and Stages on Life’s Way appeared on April 30.
Work on Stages on Life’s Way was completed in March of 1845, while
he presumably began the composition of Three Discourses on Imag-
ined Occasions in mid-February 1845. Completing these books and
reading the proofs for them must certainly have occupied Kierke-
gaard for most of March and the beginning of April.6
We do not know the exact date when the Postscript was delivered to
the printers, but it was presumably in mid-December 1845. H. P. Bar-
fod states in his edition of Kierkegaard’s Efterladte Papirer, vol. III, p.
269, that Kierkegaard, according to the statement from Bianco Luno’s
printers, ordered [bestilte] the Postscript on December 30. Kierke-
gaard even notes in Journal JJ, “The entire manuscript was delivered
to the printers, lock, stock and barrel in the middle of Dec. or around
1845.”7 Also in The Point of View for My Activity as an Author, he
writes (on p. 41) that “In December 1845 I was entirely done with the
mansucript to the Concluding Postscript.”
The date of the genesis of the Postscript can thus be determined
rather precisely as being the period from the beginning of April to
about the middle of December 1845, that is, a period of about seven
or at most eight months.

III. The Genesis of the Text

How did Kierkegaard get the idea for the Postscript?

From the way in which the paper has been cut in ms. 1.1 it is evident
that this ms. originally constituted a part of the outline to Philosophi-
cal Fragments, but since the material was not used there, Kierkegaard
moved it and used it as the outline for a part of the Postscript (see il-
lustration 5).8 It is clear from the drafts of Philosophical Fragments
that he originally planned for the book to include both a “first” and a
“second” position. This idea was abandoned, however, and a part of

6 Cf. the critical account of the text to Tre Taler ved tænkte Leiligheder in SKS K5, 381-
403, and to Stadier paa Livets Vei in SKS K6, 7-89.
7 JJ:414. The printing of the Postcript was complete on February 20, 1846.
8 The numbers refers to the illustrations in “The Critical Account of the Text to Afslut-
tende uvidenskabelig Efterskrift” in SKS K7, 7-94.
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 7

the first position (“historical costume”) together with the second posi-
tion were postponed until the Postscript, where they were developed
in “Part One” and the first chapters of “Part Two.”9
At the end of Philosophical Fragments Kierkegaard discusses the
possibility of a sequel:
…in the next section of this pamphlet [Philosophical Fragments], if I ever do write it, I in-
tend to call the matter by its proper name and clothe the issue in its historical costume.10

The idea of a “next section” is thus already sketched at the end of

Philosophical Fragments, but two years passed before the work on the
“next section” was begun. In the Introduction to the Postscript, whose
original title was “Post scriptum” and not “Efterskrift,” Kierkegaard
takes up the thread again:
In order to make my issue as clear as possible, I shall first present the objective issue
and show how it is treated. The historical will thereby receive its due. Next, I shall
present the subjective issue. That is really more than the promised sequel as a clothing
in historical costume, since this costume is provided merely by mentioning the word
“Christianity.” The first part is the promised sequel; the second part is a renewed at-
tempt in the same vein as the pamphlet, a new approach to the issue of Fragments.11

Presumably ms. 1.2 constitutes the point of departure for the work on
the Postscript, although we cannot determine a precise time for its
genesis. In this ms. one finds, along with the book’s original title,
“Logical Problems,” an overview of philosophical problems consisting
of eight points which are to be treated in the Postscript along with an
outline of “Part One” and the beginning of “Part Two”, an outline
which takes its point of departure from the unused outline to the con-
tinuation of Philosophical Fragments (ms. 1.1).12
The introduction, which, as noted, was first called “Post scriptum,”
was written with free hand without any preliminary draft (ms. 23.3, pp.
7-20a). “Part One” was likewise begun in free hand, but then
scrapped (ms. 2, pp. 21-83). Using the scrapped clean copy as a draft,
Kierkegaard wrote the present clean copy (ms. 23.5, pp. 21-42). This
9 Cf. the critical account of the text to Philosophiske Smuler in SKS K4, 175 and 188-194.
10 PF, 109 / SKS 4, 305,4-7.
11 CUP1, 17 / SKS 7, 26,20-27.
12 Parts of ms. 2 and all of ms. 3 (see the critical account of the text to this work in SKS
K4, 175) are drafts to Philosophical Fragments chapt. III, which Kierkegaard did not
use. Kierkegaard wrote up to and including chapt. V, while the drafted suggestion to
chapt. VI and VII was dropped, just as the draft in ms. 3 with the heading “II Position”
was likewise not used. It is clear from ms. 1.1 to the Postscript, mentioned above, which
originally constituted a part of the drafts to Philosophical Fragments, that the planned
chapter “An Expression of Gratitude to Lessing” was likewise not used here.
8 Kim Ravn

can be seen from the fact that the new clean copy on p. 21 begins in
the middle of a sentence as the immediate continuation of the text of
the clean copy at the bottom of p. 20a. On p. 20a the heading was orig-
inally “A.” Kierkegaard decided that this section should begin on a
new page, which he noted for the typesetter. At a later point in time in
the genesis of the book, when the headings “A” and “B” were
changed to “Part One” and “Part Two” respectively, he also changed
the pagination from 20 to 20a and eliminated the heading, the note to
the typesetter and the introductory text (see illustration 6). The text
was copied at the top of p. 21 at the same time as a new sheet (ms.
23.4, s. 20b-20c) was inserted with the new heading “Part One.”13
In the present clean copy there is a gap in the pagination from p. 43
to p. 57. The gap has arisen due to the fact that Kierkegaard scrapped
pp. 43ff. (ms. 3.1, pp. 43-49), which then constitutes the basis for a new
version (ms. 4.1, pp. 43-50), which, however, is also scrapped. Using
this manuscript (ms. 4.1) as a draft, Kierkegaard wrote the final clean
copy, ms. 23.6, p. 43, which now constitutes one page instead of the
eight pages in the scrapped versions. The scrapped pages contain a se-
ries of observations on Grundtvig, which Kierkegaard did not want to
use. The following pages (ms. 4.2, pp. 51-55) were originally written as
a continuation of ms. 3.1 but, after he rewrote this ms., were trans-
ferred to ms. 4.1, after which Kierkegaard continued in free hand (ms.
4.3, p. 57). But also mss. 4.2 and 4.3 were scrapped. Kierkegaard de-
cided instead to ultimately scrap pages 44-[56] along with most of p.
57, for which reason he eliminates what he had already written on p.
57 (ms. 23.7, p. 57). On the new p. 43 he, therefore, writes the follow-
ing note to the typesetter: “Go from here over to the bottom of p. 57,
below the line. Nothing is missing.”
The draft to “Part Two,” Section One is found in ms. 5. The introduc-
tory lines of Chapter 1 “An Expression of Gratitude to Lessing”14
come almost word for word from unused draft material to the intro-
duction to Philosophical Fragments.15 Both the draft and the clean
copy are written in notebooks with a cover of blue glossy paper with
the same title, “Logical Problems. / The Preface p.” Kierkegaard wrote
the clean copy up to p. 148 with the help of ms. 5, after which he contin-
13 Also the heading to “Part Two” was changed. This is evident from a crossing-out at
the bottom of p. 91 in the clean copy where Kierkegaard originally wrote, “B.” The
heading is cut, the pagination is changed to 91a, and a new sheet with the heading
“2den Deel” is put in (ms. 23.9, p. 91b-91c).
14 SKS 7, 65,5-16.
15 Cf. the critical account of the text to Philosophiske Smuler in SKS K4, 192.
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 9

ued in free hand without preliminary draft (ms. 23.11, pp. 149ff.). He
was not satisfied with the continuation, and from p. 155 he scrapped
what he had written (ms. 5.3, unpaginated), which constitutes the draft
to the end of the chapter, “Possible and Actual Theses by Lessing.” It is
evident in part from the way in which the paper has been cut out on pp.
149-154 that these have been cut out from ms. 5.3, and in part from the
title to ms. 5.3: “Logical Problems. / The Preface p. 149.”
The draft to “Part Two,” Section Two until Chapter 3 is found in ms. 6;
the draft was written continuously in five notebooks and ends as
sketches and drafts to most of the “Appendix. A Glance at a Contempo-
rary Effort in Danish Literature.” In the ms. 6.4 Kierkegaard notes, on
the one hand, that the text should be “significantly reworked,” and on
the other hand, “NB. Perhaps the whole thing could best be used on its
own with the title / ‘Attempt by an Unfortunate Author to be a Reader’
and in this one could work through the pseudonymous books.”16
Mss. 7 and 8 constitute reworked and expanded versions of parts of
ms. 6. After this Kierkegaard continued the clean copy until p. 366,
but scrapped what he had written from p. 346 (ms. 9, pp. 346-[384]; the
pagination only continues until p. 366), which then constitutes the ba-
sis for the present clean copy (ms. 23.16, pp. 346ff.). This is evident
from the fact that the new p. 346 begins in the middle of a sentence in
a manner that corresponds entirely to what happened in ms. 9.
Ms. 10 consists of three notebooks. In the third notebook (ms. 10.3)
the draft to the end of “Sectio I” ends, after which on sheets [2]-[5r]
there follows a longer piece of text, only a small part of which was
used in the Postscript.17 At the bottom of sheet [5r] there is an outline
to the continuation of the book, and then a blank page. It was presum-
ably around this time that Kierkegaard abandoned the title, “Logical
Problems” and changed the headings (cf. mss. 20 and 21). This as-
sumption is supported by the fact that the headings after this corre-
spond to the present headings; in ms. 10.3 no headings are given cor-
responding to § 3 in “Sectio I” and § 1 in “A. Det Pathetiske,” while
from ms. 11 one finds the present headings, for the first time in ms. 11
on sheet [5v]: “§ 2.”

16 Corresponding to SKS 7, 213f.

17 The piece was instead used as a disposition for three entries, written on two folio sig-
natures which have been stapled together. The heading here is: “From another
manuscript, but was not used there (Concluding Postscript),” printed as Pap. VI A
150-152.
10 Kim Ravn

Ms. 11 is a scrapped clean copy. Kierkegaard scrapped what he had

written from p. 538 (the first page in ms. 11), which instead is used as
the basis for the present clean copy (ms. 23.17, pp. 538ff.). The new p.
538 begins with the same formulation as ms. 11. On the outside of the
notebook with ms. 11 is written: “Concluding Postscript / p. 538.”
Mss. 12.1 and 14.1 contain drafts to the end of § 2 and § 3 in “A. Det
Pathetiske,” while the remaining mss.-numbers in 12 and 14 along
with ms. 13 consist in reworkings and insertions, among other things,
of footnotes, to mss. 12.1 and 14.1. Ms. 12.2 constitutes the scrapped
clean copy after p. [591] (cf. ms. 23.18); the new p. 592 begins in the
same way as ms. 12.2. In ms. 12.4, which contains insertions to ms.
12.1, Kierkegaard notes that what has been added to pp. 1 and 2 is
“from what has been written in the clean copy” (see illustration 7).
Mss. 15.1, 16.1 and 17.1 contain drafts to the rest of the book; the re-
maining mss.-numbers up to this point constitute reworkings and in-
sertions, which are partly written in with pencil and chalk in different
colors. In ms. 16.1 Kierkegaard notes on sheet [14v]: “What if I moved
the end of the preface on p. 5 and p. 6 to this page?”
Mss. 18 and 19 were written earlier in the genesis process than the
above mentioned mss. 11-16. Ms. 18 contains the title page, sketches
and drafts to the preface and is, moreover, titled, “Logical Problems.”
On sheet [1r] the same title is given, “Logical Problems,” while in a
later entry on the opposite side, the inner side of the cover, Kierke-
gaard wrote the title, “Concluding Simple Postscript” (see illustration
8). Ms. 19 constitutes a draft of the last part of the preface, which, as
mentioned, was used in the last part of the “Appendix. An Under-
standing with the Reader.” That both mss. 18 and 19, which were orig-
inally the title page and the preface, were written and written out
cleanly before the work on the mss. 11-17, which contain a draft from
the beginning of “A. Det Pathetiske” to the end of the book, is evi-
dent, on the one hand, from the the remark and the original title,
“Logical Problems” in ms. 18, and on the other hand, from the fact
that an insertion in ms. 19 seems to be worked into the clean copy to
the preface on p. 6, before Kierkegaard, while writing ms. 16, decided
to cut and move the last pages of the already cleanly copied preface to
the end of the book.
Ms. 20 and 21 constitute a sketch and a draft of the table of con-
tents, written respectively before and after Kierkegaard decided to
change the headings (see illustration 9). Ms. 20 must likewise have
been written before mss. 11-17. Originally, the chapters were entitled
“a),” “b),” while sections 1 and 2 were entitled, “§ 1” and “§ 2.” The
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 11

present sections with numbered paragraphs in chapter 3 were origi-

nally designated with Greek letters.
As shown above, the clean copy, ms. 23, was written while the book’s
parts were being written. The title “Logical Problems” is found on the
notebooks, which the clean copy is written in, until p. 185. The head-
ings up to chapter 4 have been changed, for example, “c)” has been
changed to “Cap. 3” on p. [389] and “δ” has been changed to “§ 4”on p.
[451]. The preface with the title, “Concluding Simple Postscript” and
the date of publication, “Kiøb. 184.” has been written out cleanly be-
fore mss. 11-17 was written. In addition to the mentioned changes and
rewritings, Kierkegaard made – especially in the last part of the book –
a great number of cuts and additions of larger or smaller size through
the entire clean copy (see illustration 10), which thus looks more like a
draft than a clean copy. And, as is evident from illustration 15, the re-
working also continues into the phase of the page proofs.
“A First and Last Explanation” was presumably finished shortly be-
fore Christmas 1845. Due to an error, it was placed after the table of
contents in the first proofs. This happened since it was only delivered
to the typesetter when the size of the book was known and the table
of contents could be typeset with the correct page numbers.18

The genesis of the Postscript thus shows a work process where the
borders between sketch, draft and clean copy cannot be determined
clearly and unambiguously – the different categories of manuscripts
overlap to some extent: the sketches clearly are the point of departure
for a more detailed draft. But the draft is not worked out in all its de-
tails and is not complete; instead, the clean copy is begun, and some
passages are written with a “free hand” without any preliminary
drafts, and thus cover lacunae or incomplete passages in the draft.
Sometimes things went wrong or ground to a halt, and a part of the
18 For a detailed account of the genesis of “A First and Last Explanation,” based on the
manuscripts, see Finn Gredal Jensen and Kim Ravn “The Genesis of ‘A First and
Last Explanation’” in Kierkegaard Studies: Yearbook 2003, ed. by Niels Jørgen Cap-
pelørn, Hermann Deuser and Jon Stewart, Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter
2003, pp. 419-452. A transcription of the various drafts and sketches to “A First and
Last Explanation” appears as an appendix to the article. For a detailed criticism of
“The Genesis of ‘A First and Last Explanation,’” see Poul Behrendt “Søren Kierke-
gaard’s Fortnight: The Chronology of the Turning Point in Søren Kierkegaard’s Au-
thorship. A Critique of the Critical Account of the Text to Concluding Unscientific
Postscript in SKS K7” in Kierkegaard Studies: Yearbook 2004, ed. by Niels Jørgen
Cappelørn, Hermann Deuser and Jon Stewart, Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter
2004, pp. 536-564.
12 Kim Ravn

clean copy was scrapped and put down afterwards as a draft, and the
clean copy was taken up again and completed perhaps using a point of
departure in new draft material. In other words, it was a very dynamic
and demanding work process, which all the while attempted to force
the writing over the lacunae from one incomplete level to a more
complete one, and where the process of writing manifested itself ma-
terially by the fact that the scrapped text fragments from one level
must be placed with the previous one.19 The writing and that which is
written are one and the same.

IV. The Older Materials

During the composition of the Postscript, Kierkegaard, to a significant

degree, made use of and in a few cases directly worked on material
from his journals and papers. This is true in particular of the Journal JJ
and individual entries from his loose papers. In addition to this, Kier-
kegaard’s philosophical studies from 1842-43, which are reflected in
Notebook 13 and in the entries associated with it in general, constitute
the basis for the thoughts which are developed in the Postscript.

A. The Journal JJ

Kierkegaard wrote in the Journal JJ from May 1842 until September

1846, i. e., during the entire period when the Postscript was being writ-
ten.20 At least fifty of the journal’s more than 400 entries from before
the publication of the Postscript were worked into the book; this is
also the case with many reflections and ideas from the years 1844-45.
It can be determined with certainty for a small number of entries
from JJ from the year 1844 that they were the source of inspiration to
passages in the Postscript. This is the case, for example, with the entry
JJ:249, which is used in Climacus’ graveyard scene.21 In the journal en-
try we find the soldier’s grave as a characteristic element:

19 Later this procedure is changed, for example, in A Literary Review (1846) and Chris-
tian Discourses (1848) where Kierkegaard writes an almost continuous draft, which
then was reworked while he was writing out the clean copy.
20 For the dating of the Journal JJ, see the critical account of the text in SKS K18, 209-
214.
21 SKS 18, 220; cf. SKS 7, 213ff.
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 13

My reader, it is very curious, but not everyone gets to become an author in this life – for
that various talents are required. Ah, but go out into the graveyard and look at the graves
and you will see that occasionally someone has become an author without even giving it
the slightest thought. Those brief inscriptions, a pious saying, an admonition – for exam-
ple, remembrance of the God-fearing is a benediction – out there everything preaches; for
just as nature declares God, so every grave preaches. There is a gravestone with the bust
of a young girl. No doubt she was beautiful at one time, and now the stone has sunk and
nettle has grown over the grave. She seems to has have had no family. Here is the grave of
a soldier; his helmet and sword lie upon the coffin and beneath it says that his memory
shall never be forgotten. Yet, alas, the top of the railing is already torn down and one is
tempted to seize his sword to defend him, since he is doing it no longer – and those who
mourned him thought that his memory would never be forgotten!22

In entry JJ:261 the law of identity and the law of contradiction are
treated, and the same issue is developed further in the Postscript.23 The
goal is to demonstrate that the Hegelian philosophy’s claim to have su-
blated the law of contradicition does not have any validity in existence:
“As long as I live, I live in contradiction, for life is contradiction. On the
one side I have eternal truth, on the other side manifold existence,
which human beings as such cannot penetrate, for then we would have
to be omniscient. / The uniting link is therefore faith.”24
Immediately after this in the journal in the entries JJ:262 and 264,
Kierkegaard discusses the dialectic of the beginning.25 In JJ:26426 one
reads, among other things, “A beginning is always a resolution, but a
resolution is really eternal…For example, I decide to study logic, I put
my whole life into it.” Similarly, in the Postscript he emphasizes the
importance of stopping reflection or speculation and making a deci-
sion: “only then is the beginning presuppositionless.”27 The theme of
someone obsessed with reflection is touched on in JJ:28128 with Ham-
let as an example: “They say that a person should doubt everything,
and when they write about Hamlet they are scandalized that Hamlet
had the disease of reflection but still had not even reached the point
of doubting everything – Alas! Alas! Alas! Siebenbürgen.”29 Here he
refers to the German philosopher and critic Rötscher, just as he does

22 JP 1:715.
23 SKS 18, 223; cf. SKS 7, 277ff. og 383f.
24 JP 1:705.
25 SKS 18, 223f.; cf. SKS 7, 108ff.
26 JP 1:912.
27 SKS 7, 110. The trilogy Slutning – Enthymema – Beslutning [Conclusion – En-
thymeme – Decision] is discussed in JJ:318; cf. below pp. 18-20, about the “Logical
Problems” (ms. 1.2) seen in relation to Notebook 13.
28 JP 2:1247.
29 SKS 18, 22; cf. SKS 7, 112.
14 Kim Ravn

in the Postscript, where he writes further, “reflection can only be

stopped by a decision.”30 The question of positivity and negativity is
taken up in the same entry where it is determined that “to the same
degree that a human being has positivity, he also has negativity,” and
the problematic is developed in the Postscript under the heading “In
his existence-relation to the truth, the existing subjective thinker is
just as negative as positive….”31
A part of the material from the Journal JJ was only used in the foot-
notes to the Postscript. This is the case with, for example, the entries
JJ:276 and 27732 about the tavern keeper and the prostitute, both of
which are included in the enormous footnote, where an attempt is
made to exemplify how “the comic lies in contradiction.”33 Another
example is the entry JJ:28634 about a cannonade versus silence, which
in the Postscript appears as follows: “It is well known that a cannon-
ade makes a person unable to hear, but it is also well known that by
perservering one can hear every word just as when all is quiet.”35

This covers the year 1844. In the following year, 1845, Kierkegaard in-
corporates more and more material from the Journal JJ.
In a small number of cases an overlap in theme or content is dis-
cernible between entries in the journal and some larger passages in
the Postscript. This is the case with the entry JJ:331 about the suffering
of the god-relation, which is treated in the Postscript, on pp. 402ff.36
Another entry, JJ:363 with the title, “A Possible Concluding Word to
all the Pseudonymous Writings by Nicolaus Notabene,” is a prelimi-
nary study to the episode in the Postscript where Climacus gives an ac-
count of how he became an author.37 In the sketch which is close to
the final version, one reads, among other things:
In a sense I had more or less loafed away some of my student years, reading and think-
ing, it is true, but my indolence had been thoroughly dominant. Then one Sunday after-
noon four years ago I was sitting in a café in Frederiksberg Garden, smoking my cigar
and watching the waitresses, and suddenly the thought overwhelmed me: You are wast-
ing your time and doing no good; all around you one first-rate genius after the other

30 Also in Stages on Life’s Way Rötscher’s analysis is incorporated into Frater Tacitur-
nus’ discussion of Hamlet, cf. SKS 6, 418f.
31 CUP1, 80ff. / SKS 18, 229; cf. SKS 7, 80ff.
32 JP 2:1741 and 1742.
33 SKS 18, 227f.; cf. SKS 7, 467,19ff.
34 JP 4:3980.
35 JP 4:3980 / SKS 7, 86,31-33; cf. SKS 18, 230f.
36 SKS 18, 245f.
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 15

pops up and makes life and existence and world-historical traffic and communication
with eternal happiness easier and easier – What are you doing? Should you not also hit
on some way of helping the age? Then it occurred to me – what if I were to settle down
to making everything difficult.38

Another entry, JJ:374,39 entitled “Lines for a Humorous Individual”

in the Postscript becomes the large section, which begins with the
words, “Let a humorist speak.”40 As a continuation of the same entry
one finds more “Lines,” JJ:375,41 which constitute the basis for a cor-
responding passage in the Postscript, which begins with the exclama-
tion: “Just as the sick man longs to cast off the bandages, so also my
healthy spirit longs to throw off this physical exhaustion.”42
The above mentioned lines are relatively short, and in general it is
also true that it is the shorter pieces from the journal which are inte-
grated into the Postscript. For example, a definition of irony is taken
over almost word for word from JJ:323.43 Sometimes one sees that
Kierkegaard, using an entry as his point of departure, develops a train
of thought or an idea covering a longer passage in the Postscript. Take,
for example, the dogma of eternal punishment in hell, pp. 92ff., cf.
JJ:342,44 or pp. 484ff. about the eternal memory of consciousness of
blame, where the picture of the prisoner who has run away is used, cf.
JJ:320.45 In the case of the entry JJ:358 about suffering and pain, the
connection between the Postscript, p. 403, and JJ is evident from a
scrapped clean copy, ms. 11.1, sheet [16v], where the following refer-

37 SKS 18, 259f.; cf. SKS 7, 170ff. Among the loose papers there are several entries
which constitute a point of departure for or are directly incorporated into the Post-
script. One of these entries contains the seed to the scene in Frederiksberg Garden,
where Climacus decides to make everything difficult. In the entry the decision to be-
come an author, however, is not that which makes everything difficult. The entry be-
gins thus: “It is three years now since I got the notion to try my hand at being an au-
thor. I remember it quite clearly, it was a Sunday; no, wait a minute – yes, that is pos-
itively right, it was a Sunday afternoon; I sat as usual in the café in Frederiksberg
Gardens and smoked my cigar….”; printed as Pap. V A 111.
38 JP 5:5828. Climacus’ indolent attitude until now recalls the esthete in Either/Or,
SKS 2, for example, p. 35: “I study myself; when I grow tired of it, I smoke a cigar to
pass the time and think God knows what our Lord has planned for me or what he
wants to bring out of me.”
39 JP 5:5837.
40 SKS 18, 264f.; cf. SKS 7, 409f.
41 JP 5:5840.
42 SKS 18, 265; cf. SKS 7, 404,15-24.
43 SKS 18, 242; cf. SKS 7, 456,16-18.
44 SKS 18, 252f. See also above pp. 3-5 in the section “Dating.”
45 SKS 18, 241.
16 Kim Ravn

ence appears: “I still want to emphasize a limit to the religious, a psy-

chological collision (cf. the Journal p. 209.).”46
A few of the entries in the Journal JJ are connected to the appendix,
“A Glance at a Contemporary Effort in Danish Literature” and are con-
cerned with Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous writings. The entry JJ:326
concerns generally “The Relation between Either/Or and the Stages.”47
In the entry JJ:35748 he notes about these two books that the latter re-
ceived less of a reception than Either/Or, but so much the better: “That
is fine; in a way it rids me of the gawking public who want to be wherever
they think there is a disturbance.”49 In the Postscript the argumentation
is the same, although it is formulated in somewhat milder statements (p.
259ff.). The entry JJ:362 touches on the review of Philosophical Frag-
ments in a German theological journal,50 and in the Postscript the criti-
cism is elaborated as a part of an exorbitant footnote (pp. 249-253).
The book’s longest footnote, however, is without doubt that about
the comic (pp. 466-472). In this note Kierkegaard has incorporated
some examples from JJ. Besides the aforementioned entries JJ:276
and 277, one can also mention JJ:39651 about Hamlet’s swearing by
fire-tongs and about the four schillings of gold on the binding of a
book.52 In another note a comic example in JJ:337 is borrowed from
Biblische Legenden der Muselmänner.53 Elsewhere a remark about
thieves and gypsies is taken up, JJ:356, cf. the Postscript p. 259,32ff.54
Here Kierkegaard himself makes a reference to JJ in the scrapped
clean copy to the Postscript, ms. 9, p. [369]: “cf. the journal 207.”
With greater frequency, however, Kierkegaard incorporates into the
main text itself a significant number of these shorter units which are
characterized by a certain pregancy or terseness, often in the form of
short images or stories. Here it is a matter of only a few lines, for exam-
ple, the entry JJ:333, which contains an “expression of madness” of So-
crates, which is incorporated, in lightly reworked form, in the Postscript:
…when the capitain has brought the traveler across the sea to his destination, he (the
capitain) calmly walks back and forth on the beach, accepts his pay, and still he cannot

46 SKS 18, 258.

47 JP 5:5804 / SKS 18, 243f.
48 JP 5:5824.
49 SKS 18, 258.
50 SKS 18, 259.
51 JP 4:3975.
52 SKS 18, 272; cf. SKS 7, 466,26-33.
53 SKS 18, 249; cf. SKS 7, 375, 27-30.
54 SKS 18, 257.
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 17

know whether he has done a good deed by doing this or it would have been better if the
traveler had lost his life at sea.55

In some cases there is a more significant reworking or stylistic honing,

for example, in JJ:374.b,56 which is a marginal addition to the afore-
mentioned “Lines for a Humorous Individual,” where the simple
statement “They come running with a passion such as no one had dur-
ing the bombardment” is expanded to read, “So one commences, puts
forward the best foot of the infinite, and plunges in with the most pre-
cipitous speed of passion. No man in the bombing attack could hurry
faster; the Jew who fell from the gallery could not fall headlong more
precipitously.”57
Finally, we will touch on some of the entries for the end of the Jour-
nal JJ where the Postscript is directly mentioned.58
In the entry JJ:411, which was written in late 1845, while the Post-
script was still being written, one notes that the title is still “Conclud-
ing Simple Postscript.” The entry is concerned with “The meaning of
the last section in the Introduction (or if it comes to be in the Appen-
dix)”59 and must thus have been written at a point in time when it was
not yet decided that the passage in question would be used in the “Ap-
pendix. An Understanding with the Reader.” Reference is made here
to the passage where Climacus says, “…if I may say so myself, I am
anything but a devil of a fellow in philosophy, called to create a new
trend. I am a poor individual existing human being with sound natural
capacities, not without a certain dialectical competence and not en-
tirely devoid of study either,”60 but that he forbids people from calling
him a teacher: “No, the teacher of whom I speak and in a different
way, ambiguously and doubtfully, is the teacher of the ambiguous art
of thinking about existence and existing.”61 In the entry JJ:41162 what
was “said often enough in the book” is made more precise, namely,
that no there is no such teacher:
With respect to existing, there is only the learner, for anyone who fancies that he is in
this respect finished, that he can teach others and on top of that himself forgets to exist

55 JP 4:4589, cf. SKS 7, 83,20-24 / SKS 18, 247.

56 JP 5:5839.
57 CUP1, 450 / SKS 18, 264; cf. SKS 7, 409,19-21.
58 Cf. the critical account of the text to the Journal JJ in SKS K18, 219, where the fol-
lowing entries are treated: JJ:411, 412, 414, 430, 435 and 439.
59 JP 1:1038.
60 CUP1, 621.
61 CUP1, 622 / SKS 7, 564f.
62 JP 1:1038.
18 Kim Ravn

and to learn, is a fool. In relation to existing there is for all existing persons one school-
master – existence itself.63

The entry JJ:414 (cf. illustration 13) stems from the time after the de-
livery of the Postscript to the printers and provides important infor-
mation about the genesis of, on the one hand, “A First and Last Expla-
nation,”64 and, on the other hand, the notes which were added later,
which Kierkegaard originally planned to incorporate into the Post-
script and are now only found in Kierkegaard’s personal copy.65 In the
entry Kierkegaard complains about baseness and gossip, among other
things, which was one of the reasons why he had considered omitting
“A First and Last Explanation” from the book.

B. Notebook 13

Also with respect to the entries from 1842-43 in Notebook 13, entitled
“Philosophica,”66 some points of contact can be seen; but in contrast
to the Journal JJ, from which much material was incorporated directly,
the connection with Notebook 13 can be seen to be a different one: at
a general level, many philosophical problems in Kierkegaard receive
their first more thorough formulation in this notebook, and later the
same thoughts are crystalized in the Postscript.67
Among the first sketches of the Postscript there is an overview com-
prising eight points with the heading, “Logical Problems” (ms. 1.2, see
illustration 11). The connection between this overview and the Post-
script comes to expression not merely in the fact that the same themes
are treated or set forth – in Philosophical Fragments and other pseud-

63 Se SKS 18, 277; cf. SKS 7, 565.

64 Cf. the critical account of the text to Afsluttende uvidenskabelig Efterskrift, SKS K7,
68-77, and especially p. 70.
65 Cf. the critical account of the text to Afsluttende uvidenskabelig Efterskrift, SKS K7,
86-90.
66 Concerning the dating of the notebook, see the critical account of the text to Notes-
bog 13 in SKS K19, 535. In addition there are three entries which are related to Kier-
kegaard’s study of Spinoza, Not13:37-39, written in March 1846, that is, after the
publication of the Postscript.
67 Taken as a whole, it is true of many of the entries from 1842-43 in Notebook 13 that
they can be regarded as preliminary studies to Philosophical Fragments. This is espe-
cially true of Not13:53, which is about the eternal truth which comes into existence in
time, the absolute paradox; this entry appears in the section “Problemata,” which is a
catalogue of philosophical problems which are made the object of investigation later
in the authorship. See also the critical account of the text to Notebook 13 in SKS K19,
535-541.
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 19

onymous writings one also finds the problems treated in different ways
– but first and foremost it is shown by the fact that “Logical Problems”
was the original title of the Postscript (cf. ms. 18).
As early as Notebook 13 several of these ideas are sketched in con-
nection with Kierkegaard’s philosophical studies. This is true of the first
logical problem: “What is a category and what does it mean that being
is a category,” which is explored in more detail in the entry Not13:41.68
In the Postscript itself there is not any more detailed discussion of the
fundamental ontological problem of what a category is, but the issue is
mentioned and played on indirectly in several contexts.
The second logical problem from the sketch, “Whether the histori-
cal significance of the category is an Abbreviatur [abbreviation],
which world history later gets rid of,” appears in some entries on a
piece of cardboard, which was used in connection with the note-
book.69 Here one finds two entries, which ask respectively, “What is
the historical significance of the category? What is a category?” and
“Should the category be deduced from thought or being?”70
The problems 3, 4 and 5 are “How does a new quality arise from a
continuous quantitative progress,” “On the leap” and “On the differ-
ence between a dialectical and a pathos-filled transition.” Similarly,
the question of quantitative and qualitative, pathetic and dialectical
transitions, including “the leap,” becomes a running theme in the
Postscript. The third problem is discussed specifically in, among oth-
ers, the entry about Leibniz, i. e., Not13:23 in the section which begins
“It is a very important remark which L[eibnitz]. makes in § 212 [in the
Théodicée] that inferring from quantity to quality is connected with
great difficulties, just as is inferring from the Identical to the Similar
[fra det Lige til det Lignende].”71 The “leap” figures in the aforemen-
tioned cardboard: “Can there be a transition from quantitative quali-
fication to a qualitative one without a leap? And does not the whole
of life rest in that?”72 Finally, problem number 5, concerning the pa-

68 SKS 19, 406. Cf. the critical account of the text to Notebook 13 in SKS K19, 536.
69 In SKS 20, 93, NB:132, p. [194], Kierkegaard notes the following and seems to refer,
among other things, to the aforementioned cardboard: “Something which has exer-
cised me from long ago is the entire doctrine of the categories, (The problems related
to this are found in my older entries on Quarto-cardboard).”
70 Printed as Pap. IV C 90-91.
71 SKS 19, 393; printed as Pap. IV C 37. The theory of the leap is developed in more de-
tail in the entries published as Pap. V C 1-9 and 12. Compare. JJ:266, SKS 18, 225.
72 Printed as Pap. IV C 87 / JP 1:261.
20 Kim Ravn

thos-filled and dialectical transitions is found treated in the marginal

note Not13:8a.73
The sixth logical problem, “All historical knowledge is only approx-
imation” also runs through the entire Postscript almost like a kind of
refrain. Similarly, the question of positive and negative knowledge is
touched on in Not13:45:
What is positive? What is negative?
Positive knowledge is infinite knowledge; negative knowledge is finite knowledge. In-
sofar as positive knowledge is negative, negative knowledge is positive. If I know that I
do not know, if I know that I am always wrong, this is a negative knowledge, and yet it
is positive.74

C. Loose Papers

Among Kierkegaard’s loose papers there are around 20 entries which

can be placed in connection with the genesis of the Postscript. It is true
of the greater part of these entries that a quotation, an image or a
story constitutes the point of departure for a similar passage in the
Postscript.
In an entry from 1845 with the heading “Three Moral Tales,” the
story is told laconically of a sailor:
Once does not count.
The one who fell from the mast – did it again, and so it was said: It is nothing at all.75

Without further elaboration, this story appears at the end of the ap-
pendix “A Glance at a Contemporary Effort in Danish Literature.”76
Among the loose papers there are several entries which constitute a
point of departure or are directly integrated into the Postscript. One
of these entries contains the essence of the scene in Frederiksberg
Garden where Climacus decides to make everything difficult. In the
entry it is, however, the decision to become an author, and not to be
an author, which makes everything difficult. The entry begins thus:
It is three years now since I got the notion to try my hand at being an author. I remem-
ber it quite clearly, it was a Sunday; no, wait a minute – yes, that is positively right, it was

73 SKS 19, 386. See also Not12:4, SKS 19, 375, where the concepts are used for the rela-
tion between the aesthetic and the ethical.
74 JP 2:2282 / SKS 19, 410; cf. also JJ:67, SKS 18, 161.
75 KA, A pk. 46; printed as Pap. VI A 142 / JP 5:5774, cf. SKS 7, 259,5-6.
76 In addition, there are a further 15 entries with a similar connection to the Postscript.
These are the entries Pap. IV C 92, IV C 99, V A 101, V C 2-3, V C 8, V C 13,4 og VI
A 145-147.
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 21

a Sunday afternoon; I sat as usual in the café in Frederiksberg Gardens and smoked my
cigar….77

In the section “A. Det Pathetiske” the relation between the path of
vice and the path of virtue is treated, where the pastor’s speech is re-
garded as an example of the contradictions in the rhetorical speech.
This happens with its point of departure in an entry with the heading,
“Something about Divine Eloquence.”78

D. Kierkegaard’s Personal Copy

In Kierkegaard’s personal copy Either/Or (1843) there are two en-

tries, which are connected to the beginning of the appendix “A Glance
at a Contemporary Effort in Danish Literature.” Here Climacus’ deci-
sion to become an author is discussed as well as how these plans were
constantly frustrated by the other pseudonymous authors. The first
entry79 describes how melancholy and despair constitute the central
theme in the first part of Either/Or, while the second entry emphasizes
the running plan in the entire work; it reads,
Probably no one suspects that Either/Or has a plan from the first word to the last since
the preface makes a joke of it and does not say a word about the speculative.80

V. Pseudonymity

The special relation between author and pseudonym which obtains in

the Postscript stems from the genesis of Philosophical Fragments.
Both are written “by Johannes Climacus” and “edited by S. Kierke-
gaard.” The same relation appears in The Sickness unto Death from
1849 and Practice in Christianity from 1850; these two works are both
written “by Anti-Climacus” and “edited by S. Kierkegaard.” What is
most interesting, however, is that when one looks at the clean copy of
the title page of both Philosophical Fragments and The Sickness unto
Death it is evident that Kierkegaard added the pseudonym at the very
last moment. First he had written “By / S. Kierkegaard,” but then it

77 KA, A pk. 45; printed as Pap. V A 111 / JP 5:5757, cf. SKS 7, 170,24-171,4. Cf. also the
later version JJ:363; see note 27.
78 KA, A pk. 46; printed as Pap. VI A 149 / JP 1:631, cf. SKS 7, 366,15-367,16.
79 KA, A pk. 44a; printed as Pap. IV A 213, cf. SKS 7, 229,33-230,20.
80 KA, A pk. 44a; printed as Pap. IV A 214 / JP 5:5627, cf. SKS 7, 229,15-20.
22 Kim Ravn

was changed, indeed at the last moment immediately before the

manuscript was delivered to the printer Bianco Luno.
Perhaps one can say that Philosophical Fragments, Concluding Un-
scientific Postscript, Sickness unto Death and Practice in Christianity
are not truly pseudonymous works. In any case, they are pseudony-
mous in a way that differs from, for example, Either/Or, Fear and
Trembling and The Concept of Anxiety – in these works Kierkegaard
has not signed his name as “editor.” However, this does not mean that
the pseudonymity in Philosophical Fragments and the other works in
this category are pseudonymous merely for the sake of form. As a
rule – and perhaps erroneously – the authorial attributions on the
cleancopy of the title pages to Philosophical Fragments and Sickness
unto Death are interpreted to mean that the pseudonymity of these
works is merely a matter of form or perhaps is nothing more than a lit-
tle literary whim, without any deeper significance.
It can be an accident that the two works, Philosophical Fragments
and the Postscript, appeared under a pseudonym. But it can also be
that the pseudonymity was so important, such a delicate matter, that
even Kierkegaard could not decide before the very last minute. Thus,
the matter appears wholly and completely the other way around. In a
reading of Philosophical Fragments Swedish scholar and author
Anders Olsson says, that, for Kierkegaard, to think “to change roles
and signatures”81 means that pseudonymity is tightly bound up with
his thinking. If there is something to this, then it means that the deter-
mination of the meaning of the pseudonymity also becomes a deter-
mination of Kierkegaard’s thought, both what he thought about and
how he thought about what he was doing. The changing of “roles” and
“signatures” happened on the manuscript of the titlepage, on what
constitutes the work’s “paratext.”82 The paratext is everything the
reader meets on the way to the “real” text: the cover of the book, the
signature of the author, the title, the dedication, the motto, the desig-
nation of genre, etc., that is, everything which emphasizes the illusion
of the reader’s neutral meeting with the text by assigning it to an au-
thorship, a work, a genre, a (literary) history, by letting the author, the
signature, the pseudonym, be the final guarantee of the meaning of
the work. But the paratext is also everything that at the same time de-

81 Cf. Anders Olsson läsningar av INTET, Stockholm 2000, pp. 103-121; p. 104.
82 See Finn Frandsen “Forord: Kierkegaards paratekst” in Denne slyngelagtige eftertid,
vols. 1-3, ed. by Finn Frandsen and Ole Morsing, Århus 1995; vol. 2, pp. 367-385. The
figure “paratext” is borrowed from Gérard Genette Seuils, Paris 1987.
 The Genesis of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 23

stroys the illusion of a direct meeting with the text, i. e., that the
reader on neutral ground begins his reading, precisely because with
the designations of genre, motto, etc., he attempts to fix the text’s
(hermeneutic) relations. Thus, the paratext – here the pseudonymity –
is naturally not only an innocent invitation to the text “itself,” but to
the same degree a preparation of the text’s and the the reader’s com-
mon fate of interpretation. That Kierkegaard was wholly aware of this
relation is clear from his book Prefaces from 1844, which plays on this
theme. Further evidence of this appears in “A First and Last Explana-
tion,” the four pages with which the Postscript ends, and where he ac-
knowledges that he is the author of the pseudonymous works. More
or less everyone in Copenhagen knew this, and thus this was not the
reason he did this; he did it in order, once again, to underscore that his
thought begins already on the title page, and in the pseudonymity. It is
not a secret but first and foremost a way of thinking.
This might be one possible explanation for why Kierkegaard origi-
nally decided for or against the pseudonym as late as we know he did
in several cases, and not because it did not really mean anything.

“A First and Last Explanation” treats this and much more, among
other things, the architectonic and genesis of the entire authorship.
But that is another story which will not be (re)told here.