The Aesthetic Validity of Marriage: Either/Or, Part II
τί γὰρ ὠφελήσει ἄνθρωπον ἐὰν κερδήσῃ τὸν κόσμον ὅλον, καὶ ζημιωθῇτὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ;
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?
— Mark 8:36
Naar blot Valget er sat, saa vender alt det Æsthetiske tilbage, ogDu skal see, at først herved bliver Tilværelsen skjøn, og at det først ad denne Vei kan lykkes et Menneske at frelse sin Sjæl og vinde den hele Verden, at bruge Verden uden at misbruge den.
Men hvad er det at leve æsthetisk, og hvad er det at leve ethisk? Hvader det Æsthetiske i et Menneske og hvad er det Ethiske? Herpaa vildejeg svare: det Æsthetiske i et Menneske er det, hvorved hanumiddelbar er det, han er; det Ethiske er det, hvorved han bliver det, han bliver.
If only the choice is posited, all the esthetic returns, and you will see that only thereby does existence become beautiful, and that this is the only way a person can save his soul and win the whole world, can use the world without misusing it.
But what does it mean to live esthetically, and what does it mean to live ethically? To that I would respond: the esthetic in a person is that by which he spontaneously and immediately is what he is; the ethical is that by which he becomes what he becomes.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 178
Så kaemper jeg for to Ting, den uhyre Opgave at vise, at Ægteskabet er den første Kjærligheds Forklarelse ikke dens Tilintetgjørelse, er dens Ven ikke dens Fjende... og [at vise] at mit ringe Ægteskab har havt denne Betydning.
I fight for two things: the enormous task of showing that marriage is the transfiguration of the first love and not its annihilation, is its friend and not its enemy... and showing that my humble marriage has had this meaning.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or, p. 31
A brief thematic sketch of the opposing life-views:
The Aesthetic (A, the young man):
Romantic love, ”first love,” courtship, seduction, pursuit, striving; the moment
Externality (battling opposition), abstract, immediate, illusory, aesthetic
The refusal to choose (as if this itself does not constitute a choice)
The Ethical (B, Judge William):
Reflective love, marriage, commitment, possession, the “slog” of temporality
Internal, concrete, reflective, real, ethical
The necessity of choice; the weight of the choice
An additional layer of dialogical complexity: Kierkegaard, through his pseudonym (Judge William), in a text framed by yet another pseudonym (its editor and publisher, Victor Eremita), is writing about something he has never experienced: marriage. Of course, in one sense, marriage is but one manifestation of the ethical, of an absolute commitment that takes the moment of decision seriously, and it seems that Kierkegaard chose to commit to his authorship (and ultimately to the religious) in breaking off his engagement with Regine, though this decision — like all serious ones — remains steeped in paradox and uncertainty. And yet his meditations on this choice (to marry or not to marry) seem to be the source of much of his insight into human experience; the theme of marriage returns over and over again throughout his work. He writes with astounding power and nuance about what it means to be married, though he himself had never experienced it. The theme of a pseudonym writing about something of which he has no direct experience also recurs — perhaps the best example is coming soon: in Fear and Trembling, Johannes de Silentio writes of a leap of faith of which he says that he himself is incapable. Speaking of dialogical complexity — in Either/Or, this motif is described by “A” when he writes of music despite no particular expertise in it:
Dersom jeg tænkte mig to Riger, der grændsede op til hinanden, afhvilke jeg var temmelig nøie bekjendt med det ene, og aldeles ubekjendtmed det andet, og det ikke tillodes mig at komme ind i hiint ubekjendteRige, hvormeget jeg end ønskede det, saa vilde jeg dog være istand tilat gjøre mig en Forestilling derom. Jeg vilde da vandre ud til det migbekjendte Riges Grændse, bestandig følge den, og idet jeg gjordedette, vilde jeg ved denne Bevægelse beskrive hiint ubekjendte Lands Omrids og saaledes have en almindelig Forestilling derom, skjøndtjeg aldrig havde sat min Fod deri... [det vilde] vel ogsaa stundomhændes, at idet jeg stod vemodig i mit Riges Grændse, og skuedelængselsfuldt ind i hiint ubekjendte Land, der var mig saa nært og dog saa fjernt, at en enkelt lille 73 Aabenbarelse blev mig til Deel.
If I imagined two kingdoms bordering each other, one of which I knew rather well and the other not at all, and if however much I desired it I were not allowed to enter the unknown kingdom, I would still be able to form some idea of it. I would go to the border of the kingdom known to me and follow it all the way, and in so doing I would by my movements describe the outline of that unknown land and thus have a general idea of it, although I had never set foot in it... It presumably would sometimes happen that as I stood with sadness at the border of my kingdom and gazed longingly into that unknown country that was so near and yet so far, I would be granted an occasional little disclosure.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part I, 66 (A, writing here concerning music).
B (Judge William) Reproaches A: The “Commendatore” comes for “Don Giovanni”
Naar jeg betragter Livet ethisk, betragter jeg det efter dets Skjønhed. Livet bliver mig da riigt paa Skjønhed, ikke fattigt derpaa, som det egentlig er det for Dig. Jeg behøver ikke at reise Landet rundt for at opdageSkjønheder, eller støve om efter dem i Gaderne, jeg behøver ikke at skjønneog vrage...
Har jeg da stundom en Time fri, saa staaer jeg ved mit Vindue og betragterMenneskene, og hvert Menneske seer jeg efter dets Skjønhed. Hanvære nok saa ubetydelig, nok saa ringe, jeg seer ham efter hans Skjønhed;thi jeg seer ham som dette enkelte Menneske, der dog tillige er det almeneMenneske, jeg seer ham som den, der har denne concrete Livs-Opgave; han er ikke til for noget andet Menneskes Skyld, om han saa end var den usleste Leietjener.
Han har sin Teleologi i sig selv, han realiserer denne Opgave – han seirer, det seer jeg; thi den Modige seer ikke Spøgelser, men derimod seer hanseirrige Helte; den Feige seer ikke Helte, men kun Spøgelser. Seire maa han, derom er jeg forvisset, derfor er hans Strid skjøn.
Ved denne Tro seer jeg Livets Skjønhed, og den Skjønhed, jeg seer, harikke det Veemodige og Tungsindige, som er uadskilleligt fra al Naturens ogKunstens Skjønhed, uadskilleligt selv fra de græske Guders evige Ungdom. Den Skjønhed, jeg seer, er glad og seirrig, og stærkere end hele Verden. Og denne Skjønhed seer jeg overalt, ogsaa der, hvor Dit Øie Intet seer.
When I look at life ethically, I look at it according to its beauty. Life then becomes rich in beauty for me, not impoverished in beauty, as it actually isfor you. I do not need to travel all over the country to find beauties or to rake about for them in the streets; I do not need to assess and sort out...
If at times I have a free hour, I stand at my window and look at people, and I see each person according to his beauty. However insignificant he may be, however humble, I see him according to his beauty, for I see him as this individual human being who nevertheless is also the universal human being. I see him as one who has this concrete task for his life; even if he is the lowliest hired waiter, he does not exist for the sake of any other person.
He has his teleology within himself, he actualizes this task, he is victorious — that I do see, for the courageous person does not see ghosts but sees conquering heroes instead; the coward does not see heroes, but only ghosts. He is bound to be victorious, of that I am convinced; that is why his struggle is beautiful.
With this faith, I see the beauty of life, and the beauty I see does not have the sadness and gloominess that are inseparable from the beauty of all nature and art, inseparable even from the eternal youth of the Greek gods. The beauty I see is joyous and triumphant and stronger than the whole world. And this beauty I see everywhere, also there where your eyes see nothing.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II
Du er altfor dreven i den Kunst, ganske i Almindelighed at kunne tale om Alt uden at lade Dig personligt berøre deraf... Det er Dig, der tales om, og Dig der tales til.
You are all too skilled in the art of talking in generalities about everything without letting yourself be personally involved... You are the one who is being discussed and you are the one who is spoken to.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or, p. 5
Du elsker det Tilfaeldige. Et Smiil af en smuk Pige i en interessant Situation, at attraperet Øjekast, det er det, Du jager efter, det er et Motiv for Din ørkesløse Phantasi. Du, som altid gjør Dig så stor af at vaere Observateur, Du må finde Dig i, at Du selv til Vederlag bliver Gjenstand for Iagttagelse.
You love the accidental. A smile from a pretty girl in an interesting situation, a stolen glance, that is what you are hunting for, that is a motif for your aimless fantasy. You who always pride yourself on being an observateurmust, in return, put up with becoming an object of observation.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or, p. 7
Dit Liv opløser sig i lutter sådanne interessante Enkeltheder.
Your life disintegrates into nothing but interesting details like these.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or, p. 11
Du vil slet ikke virke, Du vil experimentere... Virksomhed er altid Gjenstandfor din Spot.
You do not want to act at all; you want to experiment... Action is always the object of your ridicule.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or, p. 15
Overhovedet er Due utrættelig i at opstøve Illusioner, for at slåe dem itu... Imidlertid er Due ingenlunde kommen til det Sande. Du er bleven ståendeved at tilintetgjøre Illusionen, og da Du har gjort det i alle mulige tænkeligeRetninger, så har Du egentlig arbeidet Dig ind i en ny Illusion, den nemlig, at man kan blive stående herved. Ja, min Ven, Du lever i en Illusion og Du udretter Intet.
You are tireless in tracking down illusions in order to smash them to pieces... But you have by no means arrived at what is true. You stopped with destroying the illusion, and since you did it in every conceivable direction, you actually have worked your way into a new illusion — that one can stop with this. Yes, my friend, you are living in an illusion, and you are achieving nothing.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or, p. 78-9
Consequent må Du altså hade al Kjærlighed, der vil være en evigKjærlighed. Du må altså blive stående ved den første Kjærlighed somMoment.
To be consistent, you must... hate all love that wants to be an eternal love. You must therefore stop with the first love as a moment.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or, p. 126
Det er som Din Feil så og Din Ulykke, at Du overalt, og således og hvadKjærlighed angåer, tænker for abstrakt... Feilen er den, at Du ikke tæenkerhistorisk... Det er nu engang Tidens Betydning, og Menneskehedens ogIndividernes Lod at leve i den. Har Du derfor ikke Andet at sige, end at det ikke er til at holde ud, så kommer Du til at see Dig om et andet Auditorium.
Your mistake, and also your misfortune, is that you think too abstractly about everything, and thus also with respect to love... Your mistake is that you do not think historically... This is indeed the meaning of time, and it is the fate of humankind and of individuals to live in it. So if you have nothing else to say than that it is unendurable, then you had better look for another audience.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or, p. 128
[Det er] en dyb Spot over Dig, et sørgelig Beviis på, hvor ledeløs Din Sjæl er, at Din Livsanskuelse concentrerer sig i en eneste Sætning “jeg siger bare enten — eller.” Dersom det nu virkelig var Din Alvor, så var der Intet med Dig at udrette...
Livet er en Masquerade, oplyser Du, og dette er Dig et uudtømmeligt Stof til Moro, og endnu er det ikke lykkedes Nogen at kjende Dig; thi enhver Åbenbarelse er altid et Bedrag...
Ved Du da ikke, at der kommer en Midnatstime, hvor Enhver skalde masquere sig, troer du, at Livet altid lader sig spøge med, troer Du, at man kan liste bort lidt før Midnat for at undgåe det?
[It is] a profound mockery of yourself, a tragic proof of how flabby your soul is, that your view of life is concentrated in one single sentence: “I say simply Either/Or.” Now, if you actually meant that in all earnestness, then there would be nothing to be done with you...
Life is a masquerade, you explain, and for you this is an inexhaustible material for amusement, and as yet no one has succeeded in knowing you, for every disclosure is a always a deception...
Are you not aware that there comes a midnight hour when everyone must unmask; do you believe that life will always allow itself to be trifled with; do you believe that one can sneak away just before midnight in order to avoid it?
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, 159
Du skulde i Sandhed ikke spøge med, hvad der ikke blot er alvorligt, men rædsomt. I ethvert Menneske er der Noget, der til en vis Grad forhindrerham i at blive sig selv fuldelig gjennemsigtig... men den, der ikke kanåbenbare sig, kann ikke elske, og den, der ikke kan elske, han er den Ulykkeligste af Alle. Og Du gjør i Kådhed det Samme, Du øver Dig i den Kunst at blive gådefuld for Alle.
You really should not be so facetious about something that is not only earnest but is also dreadful. In every person there is something that up to a point hinders him from becoming completely transparent to himself... But the person who can scarcely open himself cannot love, and the person who cannot love is the unhappiest of all. And you flippantly do the same; you practice the art of being mysterious to everybody.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, 160
The Aesthetic Validity of Marriage: Earnestness and the Ethical Sphere
Das Christentum gab dem Eros Gift zu trinken – er starb zwar nicht daran, aber entartete, zum Laster.
Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die from this, be degenerated into vice.
— Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
At paastaae, at Christendommen har bragt Sandseligheden ind I Verden, synes dristig vovet… [man] vil indsee, naar man overvieier, at man ved at ponere Noget indirecte ponerer det Andet, man udelukker… Som Princip, som Kraft, som System i sig er Sandseligheden først sat vedChristendommen… under Bestemmelse af Aand er Sandseligheden førstsat ved Christendommen… Dette er ganske naturligt; thi Christendommener Aand, og Aanden det positive Princip, den har bragt ind I Verden.
To make the claim that Christianity brought sensuality into the world seems boldly venturesome… It will become evident upon reflection that in the positing of something, the other that is excluded is indirectly posited… Sensuality is posited as a principle, as a power, as an independent system first by Christianity… sensuality was placed under the qualification of spirit… This is quite natural, for Christianity is spirit, and spirit is the positive principle it has brought into the world.
— A, The Immediate Erotic Stages (Either/Or Part I), p. 61
Niech ludzie nie znający miłości szczęśliwej
twierdzą, że nigdy nie ma miłości szczęśliwej.
Z tą wiarą lżej im będzie i żyć, i umierać.
Let those who do not know true love
keep saying that there’s no such thing.
This belief will make it easier for them to live and die.
— Wisława Szymborska
I min Qvalitet af Ægtemand har [jeg] for Skik ved enhver Leilighed baademundtlig og skriftlig at hævde Kjærlighedens Realitet mod Dig
In my capacity as a married man I make it a practice on every occasion to affirm against you, both orally and in
writing, the reality of love.
— Judge William, Either/Or Part II, p. 192
[Ægteskabet] modner hele Sjælen, idet det på engang giver en Følelse af Betydning, men tillige Vægten af et Ansvar, man ikke kan bortsophistrere, fordi man elsker.
[Marriage] matures the whole soul by simultaneously giving a sense of meaning and also the weight of a responsibility that cannot be sophistically argued away, because one loves.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 66
Her seer Du igen, hvorledes det gåer med Dine Lovprisninger over Kjærligheden. Er Pligten Kjærlighedens Fjende, og kan Kjærligheden ikkebeseire denne Fjende, så er Kjærligheden ikke den sande Triumphator...
Du seer, dette er igjen Fortvivlelse, og det hvad enten Du føler Smerten, der ligger heri, eller Du i Fortvivlelsen søger at glemme den.
Når du ikke kan bringe dig dertil, at Du seer det Æesthetiske, det Ethiske, det Religiøse som de 3 store Allierede, når Du ikke veed at bevare Eenheden af de forskjellige Udtryk, Alt fåer i disse forskjellige Sphærer, så er Livet uden Mening, så må man fuldkommen give Dig Ret i Din Yndlingstheori, at man kan sige om Alt: gjør det eller gjør det ikke, Du vil fortryde begge Dele.
Here again you see what happens with your eulogies on love. If duty is the enemy of love, and if love cannot conquer this enemy, then love is not the true triumpher...
You see, this is again despair, whether you feel the pain that is in it or in despair you try to forget it.
If you cannot manage to see the esthetic, the ethical, and the religious as the three great allies, if you do now know how to preserve the unity of the different manifestations everything gains in these different spheres, thenlife is without meaning and one must completely agree with your pet theory that of everything it can be said: Do it, or do not do it — you will regret it either way.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 147
Hvor der derimod er Tale om indvortes Historie, der er hvert enkelt lilleMoment af yderste Vigtighed. Den indvortes Historie er først den sandeHistorie, men den sande Historie kæmper med det, der er Livs-Principet iHistorien – med Tiden, men naar man kæmper med Tiden, saa harderved netop det Timelige og ethvert lille Moment sin store Realitet. Overalthvor Individualitetens indre Blomstring ikke er begyndt, hvor Individualitetenendnu er lukket, der bliver der Tale om udvortes Historie. Saasnart derimoddenne saa at sige springer ud, saa begynder den indre Historie...
Den erobrende Natur er bestandig udenfor sig, den besiddende i sig selv, derfor faaer den første udvortes Historie, den anden indvortes.
When it is a matter of inner history, every single little moment is of utmost importance. Inner history is the only true history, but the true history struggles with that which is the life principle in history — with time — but when one struggles with time, the temporal and every single little moment thereby has its great reality. Wherever the individual’s inner blossoming has not yet begun, wherever the individuality is still closed up, it is a matter of outer history. As soon, however, as this bursts into leaf, so to speak, inner history begins...
The conquering nature is continually outside itself, the possessing nature is within itself; therefore the first gains an outer history, and the second an inner history.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 134-5
Den romantiske Kjærlighed lader sig ypperlig fremstille i Momentet, den ægteskabelige ikke; thi en idealiseret Ægtemand er ikke en, der engang i sit Liv er det, men som hver Dag er det. Naar jeg vil fremstille en Helt, der erobrer Riger og Lande, da lader det sig ypperligt fremstille i Momentet, men en Korsdrager, der hver Dag tager sit Kors op, lader sig aldrig fremstillehverken i Poesi eller Kunst, fordi Pointet er, at han hver Dag gjør det. Naarjeg vil tænke mig en Helt, der sætter sit Liv til, saa lader det sig ypperligconcentrere i Momentet, derimod ikke det at døe hver Dag, fordiHovedsagen er, at det skeer hver Dag. Mod lader sig ypperligt concentrere iMomentet, Taalmod ikke, netop fordi Taalmod strider mod Tiden.
Romantic love can be portrayed very well in the moment; marital love cannot, for an ideal husband is not one who is ideal once in his life but one who is that every day. If I wish to portray a hero who conquers kingdoms and countries, this can be done very well in the moment, but a cross-bearer who takes up his cross every day can never be portrayed in either poetry or art, for the point is that he does it every day. If I imagine a hero who loses his life, this can be concentrated very well in the moment, but the daily dying cannot, because the point is that it goes on every day. Courage can be concentrated very well in the moment; patience cannot, precisely because patience contends against time.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 135
Ægtemanden har som en sand Seierherre ikke dræbt Tiden, men frelst ogbevaret den i Evigheden. Den Ægtemand, der gjør det, han lever i Sandhedpoetisk, han løser den store Gaade, at leve i Evigheden og dog høre Stueuhret slaae, saaledes, at dets Slag ikke forkorter, men forlænger han sEvighed...
Og lader Sligt sig nu end ikke kunstnerisk fremstille, saa være det Din Trøst som det er min, at det Høieste og Skjønneste i Livet, det skal man ikke læse om, ikke høre om, ikke see, men om man saa vil, leve.
Like a true victor, the married man has not killed time but has rescued it and preserved it in eternity. The married man who does this is truly living poetically; he solves the great riddle, to live in eternity and yet to hear the cabinet clock strike in such a way that its striking does not shorten but lengthens his eternity...
And although this cannot be portrayed artistically, then let your consolation be, as it is mine, that we are not to read about or listen to or look at what is the highest and most beautiful in life, but are, if you please, to live it.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 138-39
[Den ægteskabelige Kjærlighed] er trofast, bestandig, ydmyg, taalmodig, langmodig, overbærende, oprigtig, nøisom, aarvaagen, varagtig, villig, glad. Alle disse Dyder have den Egenskab, at de i Individet ere Bestemmelser indefter. Individet kæmper ikke mod udvortes Fjender, men udkæmper sig selv, sin Kjærlighed af sig selv; og de have Bestemmelse af Tid; thi deres Sandhed bestaaer ikke i, at de ere engang for alle, men at de bestandig ere. Og ved disse Dyder erhverves ikke noget Andet, kun de selv erhverves. Den ægteskabelige Kjærlighed er derfor paa eengang, hvad Du spotviis ofte harkaldt den, den dagligdagske, og tillige den guddommelige.... og er den guddommelige derved, at den er den dagligdags.
[Marital love] is faithful, constant, humble, patient, long-suffering, tolerant, honest, content with little, alert, persevering, willing, happy. All these virtues have the characteristic that they are qualifications within the individual. The individual is not fighting against external enemies but is struggling with himself, struggling to bring his love out of himself. And these virtues have the qualification of time, for their veracity consists not in this, that they are once and for all, but that they are continually. And by means of these virtues nothing else is acquired; only they themselves are acquired. Therefore, marital love is simultaneously commonplace — as you have often mockingly called it — and also divine... and it is divine by virtue of being commonplace.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 139-40
Det er to Ting, jeg især må ansee for min Opgave, at vise Ægteskabets aesthetiske Betydning, og at vise, hvorledes det Æestetiske deri tiltrods for Livets mangfoldige Hindringer lader sig fastholde... at vise, at selv idagligdags Forhold er det muligt at bevare det Æsthetiske.
Dette er en langt dybere Betydning af det Tilfældige i Livet end den, Du er så enthusiastisk for.
There are two things that I must regard as my particular task: to show the esthetic meaning of marriage and to show how the esthetic in it may be retained despite life’s numerous hindrances... to show that it is possible to preserve the esthetic even in everyday life.
This attaches a much more profound significance to the accidental in life than that which you are so enthusiastic about.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or, p. 8-9
Det er Livets Alvor, og dog er det ikke koldt, uskjønt, uerotisk, upoetisk.
This is the earnestness of life, and yet it is not cold, unbeautiful, unerotic, unpoetic.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or, p. 10
Men som al Kjæerligheds Væsen er Eenhed at Frihed ogNødvendighed, således også her. Individet føler sig netop frit i denneNødvendighed, føler hele sin individuelle Energi deri, føler Besidelsen af Alt, hvad han er, netop heri. Det er derfor, at man umiskjendelig kan iagttagedet på ethvert Menneske, om han i Sandhed har været forliebt. Der ligger en Forklarelse, en Forgudelse deri, som bevarer sig gjennem hele hans Liv. Der er en Samklang i ham af alt det, som ellers er adspittet...
Vi ville lovprise denne første Kjærlighed som noget af det Skjønneste iVerden, men vi ville ikke mangle Mod til at gåe videre til at lade den forsøge sig...
Just as the nature of all love is a unity of freedom and necessity, so also here. The individual feels himself free in this necessity, feels his own individual energy in it, feels precisely in this the possession of everything he is. This is why it is unmistakably observable in every person whether he has truly been in love. There is a transfiguration, an apotheosis in it that endures throughout his whole life. There is a unison in him of everything that is otherwise dispersed...
We shall celebrate this first love as one of the most beautiful things in the world, but we shall not lack the courage to go further — to let it try itself.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 43
Idet den første Kjærlighed henføres til Gud, skeer dette således, at de Elskende takke Gud derfor... Idet [Manden] takker Gud, da ydmyger han sig under sin Kjærlighed, og det er i Sandhed langt skjønnere, at tage den Elskede som en Gave af Guds Hånd, end at have undertvunget al Verden for at erorbre hende...
Og skulde det glæde ham at erobre og erhverve hende, så vil han vide, at den daglige Erhverven gjennem et heelt Liv er passende, ikke en kortForliebelses overnaturlige Kraft.
In taking their first love to God the lovers thank God for it. Thereby an ennobling change takes place... When [the man] thanks God, he humbles himself under his love, and it is truly far more beautiful to take the beloved as a gift from God’s hand than to have subdued the whole world in order to make a conquest of her...
And if he should take delight in conquering and winning her, then he will know that the daily winning throughout a whole lifetime is appropriate, not a brief supernatural power of infatuation.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 57
Som Udbytte af denne Undersøgelse kan jeg her udhæeve, at det viste sig, at Ægteskabet for at være æstetisk og religiøst, intent endeligt “Hvorfor” måtte have; men dette war netop det Æesthetiske i den første Kjærlighed, og således ståer her atter Ægteskabet au niveau med den førsteKjærlighed. Og dette er det Æsthetiske i Ægteskabet, at det it sig skjuler enMangfoldighed af hvorfor, som Livet åbenbarer i sin hele Velsignelse.
As a result of this exploration, I can stress here that marriage, in order to be esthetic and religious, must have no finite “why,” but this was precisely the esthetic in the first love, and thus here again marriage stands au niveau [on a level] with first love. And this is the esthetic in marriage — that it hides itself in a multiplicity of “whys” that life discloses [reveals] in all its blessedness.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 88
Kan Kjærligheden bevares, og det kan den, såsandt hjælpe mig Gud, såkan også det Æsthetiske bevares; thi Kjærligheden selv er det Æsthetistke.
If love can be preserved — and that it can, so help me God! — then the esthetic can be preserved also, for love itself is the esthetic.
— Kierkegaard, Either/Or Part II, p. 125
