An Age of Reflection, Without Passion
Gyllembourg's novel sets the revolutionary 1790s beside the 1840s. Kierkegaard reads the contrast as a diagnosis: the age of revolution acted and answered for its acts, while the present age discusses everything and decides nothing.
The review begins as literary criticism and turns into a portrait of his own time. In the revolutionary age people were carried by passion; they acted, and so could be held to what they did. The present age has reflection instead, which is not the same as thinking: it is the endless weighing of possibilities that makes every decision premature and every commitment look naive. Nothing is forbidden and nothing is done. The target is not intelligence but the way reflection can become a place to hide from having to act.
- reflection
- passion
- action
- decision
- historical change
- modernity
- historical consciousness
- character
- characterization
- literary criticism
- literature
- aesthetics
- ideality
- fidelity
Enter a dialogue
- You picture skaters who race almost to the edge of safe ice and swerve in time, while onlookers gasp. What does this show about an age without passion?
- The revolutionary age you praise for its passion also filled the streets with violence. Why prefer it to an age that merely talks?
- A crowd follows an enthusiast toward danger, then turns into spectators pleased with their cleverness at having fooled him. What does this reveal about a reflective age?
- A reflective age lets institutions stand while knowing they are hollow, and calls that irony. Why do you say a true ironist is secretly an enthusiast?
- Where does careful reflection end and the reflection that hides from action begin, when both look like thinking?