WORKS OF LOVE

 Kjerlighedens Gjerninger
Søren Kierkegaard
1847

https://tekster.kb.dk/text/sks-kg-txt-root


Works of Love 
Søren Kierkegaard 
Translated from the Danish by David F. Swenson and Lillian Marvin Swenson
1949

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.187384/mode/1up



O, evige Kjerlighed, Du, som overalt er tilstede, og aldrig uden Vidnesbyrd, hvor Du paakaldes, Du lade Dig heller ei uden Vidnesbyrd i hvad her skal tales om Kjerlighed, eller om Kjerlighedens Gjerninger. Thi vel er der kun nogle Gjerninger, som det menneskelige Sprog særligt og smaaligt kalder Kjerlighedsgjerninger; men i Himlen er det jo saaledes, at ingen Gjerning kan tækkes der, uden den er en Kjerlighedens Gjerning: oprigtig i Selvfornegtelse, en Kjerlighedens Trang og just derfor uden Fortjenstlighedens Fordring!

O Eternal Love! Thou who art everywhere present, and never without testimony in what may here be said about love, or about works of love. For it is certainly true that there are some acts which the human language particularly and narrow-mindedly calls acts of charity; but in heaven it is certainly true that no act can be pleasing unless it is an act of love: sincere in its selfabnegation, a necessity for love, and, just because of this, without claim or merit.


At bedrage sig selv for Kjerlighed er det forfærdeligste, er et evigt Tab, for hvilket der ingen Erstatning er hverken i Tid eller i Evighed.

To defraud oneself of love is the most terrible deception of all. It is an eternal loss for which there is no compensation either here or in eternity. 


Hvad er det nemlig, der forbinder det Timelige og Evigheden, hvad er det Andet end Kjerlighed, som just derfor er før Alt, og bliver naar Alt er forbi. Men netop fordi Kjerligheden saaledes er Evighedens Baand, og netop fordi Timeligheden og Evigheden ere ueensartede, derfor kan Kjerligheden synes Timelighedens jordiske Kløgt en Byrde, og derfor kan det i Timeligheden synes den Sandselige en uhyre Lettelse at kaste dette Evighedens Baand af sig.

What is it which connects the temporal and the eternal, what except love, which just for this reason is before everything, and which abides when everything else is past? But precisely because love is the bond of the eternal, and because the temporal existence and eternity are heterogeneous, for that reason love may sometimes seem burdensome to the earthly prudence of the temporal existence, and therefore in this existence it may seem a tremendous relief to the sensual man to cast off this bond of the eternal.


O, der tales i Verden saa meget om Forræderie og Troløshed, og Gud bedre det, at dette destoværre kun er altfor sandt, men lad os dog derover aldrig glemme, at den farligste Forræder blandt alle er den, ethvert Menneske har i sig selv.

Oh, there is so much said in the world about treachery and faithlessness, and, God help us, this is unfortunately only too true, but let us still never forget that the most dangerous traitor of all is the one every man has in his own breast.


"Du skal elske". Kun naar det er Pligt at elske, kun da er Kjerligheden for evig betrygget mod enhver Forandring; evig frigjort i salig Uafhængighed; evig lykkelig sikkret mod Fortvivlelse.

"Thou shalt love". Only when it is a duty to love, only then is love everlastingly secure against every change; everlastingly emancipated in blessed independence; everlastingly happy, assured against despair.


Evigheden er det Høiere; skal man sværge, da maa man sværge ved det Høiere, men skal man sværge ved Evigheden, da sværger man ved Pligten "at skulle elske".

Eternity is the higher; if one wishes to take an oath, then must one swear by the higher, but if one will swear by the eternal, then one swears by the duty of loving.


Naar Kjerligheden har undergaaet Evighedens Forandring ved at være bleven Pligt, da har den vundet Bestandighed, og det følger da af sig selv, at den bestaaer.

When love has undergone the change of eternity through having become duty, then it has gained immutability, and it follows as a matter of course that it exists.


Altsaa, kun naar det er Pligt at elske, kun da er Kjerligheden evig betrygget. Denne Evighedens Betryggethed jager al Angest ud og gjør Kjerlighed fuldkommen, fuldkommen betrygget.

Consequently, only when love is a duty, only then is love eternally secure. This security of eternity drives out all anxiety and makes love perfect, perfectly secure.


Den Kjerlighed derimod, der undergik Evighedens Forandring ved at blive Pligt, den kjender ikke Iversyge; den elsker ikke blot, som den bliver elsket, men den elsker.

On the other hand, the love which underwent the change of eternity through becoming duty, knows no jealousy; it loves, not only as it is loved, but it loves.


Men den Kjerlighed, der undergik Evighedens Forandring ved at blive Pligt, og elsker, fordi den skal elske, den er uafhængig, den har Loven for sin Tilværelse i selve Kjerlighedens Forhold til det Evige. Denne Kjerlighed kan aldrig blive i usand Forstand afhængig, thi det Eneste, den er afhængig af, er Pligten, og Pligten er det eneste Frigjørende.

But the love which underwent the change of eternity by becoming duty, and loves because it must love, it is independent; it has the law of its existence in the relation of love itself to the eternal. This love can never become in a false sense dependent, for the only one it is dependent upon is duty, and duty is the only emancipating power.


Saaledes frigjør dette "skal" Kjerligheden i salig Uafhængighed; en saadan Kjerlighed staaer og falder ikke med sin Gjenstands Tilfældighed, den staaer og falder med Evighedens Lov - men saa falder den jo aldrig; en saadan Kjerlighed afhænger ikke af Dette eller Hiint, den afhænger kun af - det eneste Frigjørende, altsaa er den evigt uafhængig. Med denne Uafhængighed kan ingen sammenlignes.

Thus this "shalt" sets love free in blessed independence; such a love stands and falls not by some accidental circumstance of its object, it stands and falls by the law of eternity - but then it never falls; such a love does not depend upon this or that, it depends only on - the one liberating force, consequently it is eternally independent. There is nothing comparable to this independence.


Denne Uafhængighed er kun afhængig af Kjerligheden selv ved Evighedens "skal", den er ikke afhængig af noget Andet, og derfor heller ikke afhængig af Kjerlighedens Gjenstand, saa snart denne viser sig at være et Andet.

This independence is dependent only on love itself through the "shalt" of eternity; it is not dependent on anything else, and therefore it is not dependent on love's object as soon as this appears to be something else.


Kun naar det er Pligt at elske, kun da er Kjerligheden evig lykkelig sikkret mod Fortvivlelse. 

Only when it is a duty to love, only then is love everlastingly secured against despair. 


At elske Næsten derimod er Selvfornegtelsens Kjerlighed, og Selvfornegtelsen jager just al Forkjerlighed ud ligesom den jager al Selvkjerlighed ud - ellers gjorde jo ogsaa Selvfornegtelsen Forskjel og nærede Forkjerlighed for Forkjerligheden.

To love the neighbor, on the contrary, is self-denying love and drives out all partiality, just as it drives out all selfishness - otherwise the self-abnegation would also make distinctions and feel partiality for partiality.


Overalt hvor det Christelige er, er ogsaa Selvfornegtelse, der er Christendommens væsentlige Form. For at forholde sig til det Christelige maa man først og fremmest blive ædru; men Selvfornegtelse er just den Forvandling, ved hvilken et Menneske i Evighedens Forstand bliver ædru.

Everywhere where Christianity exists there is also self-abnegation, which is Christianity's essential form. In order to live as a Christian, one must first and foremost become sober; but self-abnegation is exactly the transition through which a man, in the meaning of the eternal, becomes sober. 


Men Gud er Kjerlighed, derfor kunne vi kun ligne Gud i at elske, som vi ogsaa kun, efter en Apostels Ord, kunne være "Guds Medarbeidere i - Kjerlighed".

But God is love, therefore we can resemble God only in loving, as we also, according to the Apostle's word, can only be "God's fellow laborers in - love". 


Men den christelige Trøst kan aldrig siges at komme bagefter, thi da den er Evighedens Trøst er den ældre end al timelig Glæde; saasnart denne Trøst kommer, kommer den med Evighedens Forspring, og opsluger ligesom Smerten, thi Smerten og Glædens Tab er det Øiebliklige - selv om dette Øieblik var Aar - er det Øieblikkelige der druknes i det Evige.

But the Christian consolation can never be said to come too late, for since it is the consolation of eternity it i s older than all temporal happiness. And as soon as this consolation comes, it comes with the impulse of the eternal, and swallows up, as it were, the pain, for pain and loss of happiness are the momentary - even if this moment is prolonged into years - are the momentary which is swallowed up in the eternal. 


Christendommen lader alle Jordlivets Forskjelligheder bestaae, men i Kjerlighedsbudet, i at elske Næsten er netop indeholdt denne Ligelighed i at opløfte sig over Jordlivets Forskjellighed.

Christianity always allows the differences of the earthly life to persist, but this equality in rising above earthly differences is implicit in the commandment of love, in the loving one's neighbor.


Sandeligen kun ved at elske "Næsten", kan et Menneske udrette det Høieste; thi det Høieste er at kunne være et Redskab i Styrelsens Haand.

Truly, only through loving one's neighbor can a man accomplish the highest; for the highest consists in being capable of being used as an instrument in the hand of Providence. 


I at være Konge, Tigger, Lærd, Riig, Fattig, Mand, Qvinde o. s. v. ligne vi ikke hinanden, deri ere vi jo netop forskjellige; men i at være "Næsten" ligne vi ubetinget alle hinanden. Forskjelligheden er Timelighedens Forvirrende, der mærker ethvert Menneske forskjelligt, men "Næsten" er Evighedens Mærke - paa ethvert Menneske.

In being king, beggar, scholar, rich, poor, man, woman and so on, we do not resemble one another, for just therein lie our differences; but in being a neighbor we all unconditionally resemble one another. The difference is the confusion of the temporal existence which marks every man differently, but the neighbor is the mark of the eternal - on every man. 


Og saaledes er Næsten det fælles Mærke, men Du seer det kun ved Hjælp af Evighedens Lys, naar det gjennemlyser Forskjelligheden.

And so the neighbor is the common mark, but you see it only by the light of the eternal, when it shines through the differences.


Husk paa, at Den, som for i Sandhed at ville Eet valgte at ville det Gode i Sandhed, at han har denne salige Trøst: man lider kun eengang, men man seirer evigt.

Remember that he, who in truth chose the one thing needful, wished the truly good, he has this blessed consolation that one suffers but once, but one conquers eternally.


O, den sande Indvielse er dog den, at opgive alle Fordringer til Livet, alle Fordringer til Magt og Ære og Fortrin, alle Fordringer - men Elskovs og Venskabs Lykke er jo just af de største Fordringer - altsaa at opgive alle Fordringer, for at forstaae, hvilken uhyre Fordring Gud og Evigheden har paa En selv.

Oh, the true consecration is nevertheless the one which surrenders all claims on life, all claims to power and honor and advantage, all claims - but the happiness of love and friendship are indeed the strongest claims - hence which surrenders all claims, in order to understand what a tremendous claim God and eternity have upon one's self.


Hans Liv (Christus) var idel Kjerlighed og dog var hele dette hans Liv kun een eneste Arbeidsdag, han hvilede ikke før den Nat kom, da han ikke mere kunde arbeide; før den Tid vexlede hans Arbeide ikke med Dagens og Nattens Skifte, thi arbeidede han ikke, saa vaagede han i Bønnen. Saaledes var han Lovens Fylde. Og som Løn derfor fordrede han Intet, thi hans eneste Fordring, hans eneste Hensigt med hele sit Liv fra Fødselen til Døden var uskyldigt at offre sig selv - hvad end ikke Loven, naar den fordrer Sit til det Yderste, turde fordre.

His life (Christ) was pure love, and yet this whole life was only a single working day; He did not rest until the night came when He could no longer work; His labor did not cease with the changes of day and night, for when He was not working, then He watched in prayer. Thus was He the fulfillment of the law. And for a reward He demanded nothing, for His only requirement, His only purpose throughout His whole life from birth to death, was to sacrifice Himself as an innocent victim - which not even the law in its most extreme demand, dared to demand.


Christus var Lovens Fylde. Af ham skulle vi lære, hvorledes denne Tanke er at forstaae, thi han var Forklaringen, og kun naar Forklaringen er hvad den forklarer, naar den Forklarende er det Forklarede, naar Forklaringen er Forklarelsen, kun da er Forholdet det rette.

Christ was the fulfillment of the law. From Him we should learn how to understand this thought, for He was the explanation, and only when the explanation is what it explains, when the one who explains it is the thing explained, when the explanation is the transfiguration, only then is there the right relationship. 


Den verdslige Viisdom mener, at Kjerlighed er et Forhold mellem Menneske og Menneske; Christendommen lærer, at Kjerlighed er et Forhold mellem: Menneske - Gud - Menneske, det er, at Gud er Mellembestemmelsen.

Worldly wisdom believes that love is a relationship between man and man; Christianity teaches that love is a relationship between man-God-man, that is, that God is the middle term. 


Naar derimod Guds-Forholdet bestemmer, hvad der mellem Menneske og Menneske er Kjerlighed, saa forhindres Kjerligheden fra at standse i noget Selvbedrag, eller Sandsebedrag, medens rigtignok igjen Fordringen til Selvfornegtelse og Opoffrelse uendeliggjøres.

When, on the other hand, the God-relationship determines what love is between man and man, then love is kept from pausing in any self-deception or illusion, while certainly the demand for self-abnegation and sacrifice is again made more infinite. 


Gud forstaaer derimod ved Kjerlighed opoffrende Kjerlighed, i guddommelig Forstand opoffrende Kjerlighed, der offrer Alt for at skaffe Gud Plads, selv om det tunge Offer blev endnu tungere derved, at Ingen forstod det, hvilket dog i en anden Forstand hører med til den sande Opoffrelse, thi den Opoffrelse, der bliver forstaaet af Menneskene, har jo i Menneskenes Bifald sin Løn og er forsaavidt ikke sand Opoffrelse, som maa være ubetinget uden Løn.

On the contrary, God understands by love sacrificial love; in the divine sense, sacrificing love, which sacrifices everything in order to secure God a place, even if the heavy sacrifice became even heavier because no one understood it, which, however, in another sense, is proper for true sacrifice; for that sacrifice, which is understood by men, truly has its reward in their approbation, and insofar is not the true sacrifice which must unconditionally be without reward. 


Bedre er Verden ikke; det Høieste den anerkjender og elsker er, naar det kommer høiest: at elske det Gode og Menneskene, dog saaledes, at man tillige passer paa sin egen og nogle Andres jordiske Fordeel. 

The world is not better; the highest it recognizes and loves, when it aims highest, is: to love the good and men, but in such a way that one also secures an earthly advantage for one's self and some others. 


Kjerlighedens Inderlighed maa være opoffrende, og altsaa uden at fordre nogen Løn.

The inwardness of love must be sacrificial, and consequently must not demand any reward. 


Derfor kunde et Menneske heller ikke have Noget paa sin Samvittighed, dersom Gud ikke var til, thi Forholdet mellem den Enkelte og Gud, Guds-Forholdet er Samvittigheden, og derfor er det saa forfærdeligt at have end det Mindste paa sin Samvittighed, fordi man strax har Guds uendelige Tyngde med.
Kjerlighed er Samvittighedens Sag, og er saaledes ikke Driftens og Tilbøielighedens, eller Følelsens Sag, eller Forstands-Beregningens Sag.

Therefore a man could not have anything upon his conscience if God did not exist, for the relationship between the individual and God, the God-relationship, is the conscience, and that is why it is so terrible to have even the least thing upon one's conscience, because one is immediately conscious of the infinite weight of God.
Love is a matter of conscience, and hence is not a matter of impulse and inclination; nor is it a matter of emotion, nor a matter for intellectual calculation.


Verdslig Misforstaaelse trænger paa, for at faae det udtrykt i det Udvortes, at Kjerlighed christeligt er Aands Kjerlighed - ak, men dette kan ikke udvortes udtrykkes i nogen Udvorteshed, thi det er netop Indvorteshed.

Worldly misunderstanding is insistent to have it expressed in an outward way that Christian love is spiritual love - alas, but this cannot be expressed outwardly in any externality, for spiritual love is precisely inwardness.


Kjerlighed er Samvittighedens Sag, og maa derfor være af et reent Hjerte og af en uskrømtet Tro.

Love is a matter of conscience, and must therefore be of a pure heart and of an unfeigned faith.


Kun da er Kjerlighed af et reent Hjerte og af en uskrømtet Tro, naar den er en Samvittigheds-Sag.

Only when it becomes a matter of conscience is there love from a pure heart and from an unfeigned faith.


Det er en sørgelig Bagvendthed, som dog kun er altfor almindelig, idelig og idelig at tale om, hvorledes Kjerlighedens Gjenstand skal være, for at den kan være elskværdig, istedenfor at tale om, hvorledes Kjerligheden skal være for at den kan være Kjerlighed.
 
It is a distressing absurdity, which is, however, altogether too general, always to be perpetually talking about how the object of love ought to be, in order to be worthy of love, instead of talking about how love ought to be in order to be love. 


Men naar man først er indviet i Kræsenhedens Besmittelse, hvor vanskeligt at vinde det Tabte, den Godmodighedens, den Kjerlighedens Medgift, som Gud i Grunden har skjenket ethvert Menneske!

But after one has been infected with the taint of fastidiousness, how difficult it becomes to regain what he lost, the natural gifts of good nature and love, with which God has fundamentally endowed every man!


Vil Du vise, at Dit Liv er bestemt til at tjene Gud, saa lad det tjene Menneskene, bestandigt dog med Tanken om Gud.

If you wish to show that your life is dedicated to the service of God, then let it serve men, but always in the name of God. 


Nei, skal et Menneske fuldkomme den Pligt i at elske at elske de Mennesker, han seer, da maa han ikke blot blandt de virkelige Mennesker finde dem, han elsker, men han maa udrydde al Tvetydighed og Kræsenhed i at elske dem, at han i Alvor og Sandhed elsker dem som de ere, i Alvor og Sandhed fatter Opgaven: at finde den nu engang givne eller valgte Gjenstand elskelig.

No, if a man wishes to fulfill his duty in loving to love the men he sees, then he must not only find those he loves among actual men, but he must eradicate all doubt and fastidiousness in loving them, so that in earnestness and truth he loves them as they are; he must in earnestness and truth apprehend the task: to find the given or the chosen object lovable.


Naar det er Pligt i at elske at elske de Mennesker vi see, da er der ingen Grændse for Kjerligheden; skal Pligten fuldkommes, da maa Kjerligheden være grændseløs, det er uforandret, hvorledes end Gjenstanden forandres.

When in loving it is a duty to love the men we see, then is there no limit to the love; if the duty is fulfilled, the love must be limitless, that is, unchanged, however its object changes.


Christeligt forstaaet derimod er det at elske netop at elske det Menneske, man seer. Eftertrykket ligger ikke paa at elske de Fuldkommenheder man seer hos et Menneske, men Eftertrykket ligger paa det Menneske man seer, hvad enten man nu hos dette Menneske seer Fuldkommenheder eller Ufuldkommenheder, ja hvor sørgeligt end dette Menneske har forandret sig, da han jo ikke har ophørt at være det samme Menneske. Den, som elsker de Fuldkommenheder han seer hos et Menneske, han seer ikke Mennesket, og hører derfor op at elske, naar Fuldkommenhederne høre op, naar Forandringen indtræder, hvilken Forandring, selv den sørgeligste, dog vel ikke betyder, at Mennesket hører op at være til.

From the Christian standpoint, on the contrary, loving consists exactly in loving the man one sees. The emphasis lies not on loving the perfections one sees in a man, but the emphasis is placed on the man one sees, whether one now sees in this man perfections or imperfections, moreover, no matter how sadly this man has changed, since he still has not ceased to be the same man. He who loves the perfections he sees in a man, does not see the man, and therefore he ceases to love when the perfections cease, when a change enters, which change, even if distressing, still does not indicate that the man has ceased to exist. 


Men det christeligt at stige ned fra Himlen er grændseløst at elske det Menneske Du seer, saaledes som Du seer ham. Vil Du derfor vorde fuldkommen i Kjerlighed, saa stræb at fuldkomme denne Pligt, i at elske at elske det Menneske, man seer, at elske ham saaledes, som Du seer ham, med alle hans Ufuldkommenheder og Svagheder, elske ham, som Du seer ham, naar han ganske har forandret sig, naar han ikke mere elsker Dig, men maaskee ligegyldigt vender sig bort eller vender sig bort for at elske en Anden, elske ham, som Du seer ham, naar han forraader og fornegter Dig.

But from the Christian point of view to descend from heaven means to love infinitely the man you see, just as you see him. If you will, therefore, become perfect in love, then strive to perfect this duty, in loving to love the man you see; to love him just as you see him, with all his imperfections and weaknesses; to love him as you see him when he has completely changed, when he no longer loves you, but perhaps indifferently turns away to love another; to love him as you see him when he betrays and denies you.


En ædel Mand har sagt om Kjerlighed: "den tager Alt og den giver Alt". Hvo modtog vel ogsaa Mere end Den, der modtog et Menneskes Kjerlighed; og hvo gav Mere end Den, der gav et Menneske sin Kjerlighed!

A noble man has said about love: "It takes everything and it gives everything". Who indeed received more than the one who received a man's love? And who gave more than he who gave a man his love?


Naar det er Pligt at forblive i Kjerlighedens Gjeld til hverandre, da maa der tidligt og sildigt eller evigt vaages over, at Kjerligheden aldrig kommer til at dvæle ved sig selv, eller til at sammenligne sig med Kjerligheden i andre Mennesker, eller til at sammenligne sig med sine Gjerninger, som den har udført.

When it is a duty to remain in the debt of love to each other, then must there be eternal vigilance, early and late, so that love never comes to dwell upon itself, or to compare itself with the love in other men, or to compare itself with its own deeds which it has performed.


[…] Alt hvad der skal bevares levende maa bevares i sit Element; men Kjerlighedens Element er Uendelighed, Uudtømmelighed, Umaalelighed. Dersom Du derfor vil bevare Din Kjerlighed, da maa Du passe paa, at den ved Hjælp af Gjeldens Uendelighed, fangen til Frihed og Liv, bestandig bliver i sit Element, ellers sygner den hen og døer - ikke efter længere eller kortere Tids Forløb, thi den døer strax, hvilket just er et Tegn paa dens Fuldkommenhed, at den ene kan leve i Uendeligheden.

[…] everything which is to be kept alive must be kept in its own element. But the natural element of love is infinity, inexhaustible, immeasurable. If, therefore, you wish to preserve your love, then you must take care that by the aid of infinite indebtedness, ensnared by liberty and life, it constantly remains in its element, otherwise it sickens and dies - not after a longer or shorter time, for it dies at once, which is exactly the sign of its perfection, that it can only live in infinity.


Den, der virkeligt elsker, har bestandigt et Forspring, og et uendeligt Forspring; thi hver Gang den Anden har udgrundet, beregnet, opfundet en ny Yttring af Hengivenhed, har den Kjerlige allerede udført den, fordi den Kjerlige ingen Beregning behøver, og altsaa heller ikke spilder noget Beregningens Øieblik.
Men det at være og forblive i en uendelig Gjeld, det er netop et Udtryk for Kjerlighedens Uendelighed, saa den ved at blive i Gjelden bliver i sit Element.

He who actually loves always has a headstart, and an infinite headstart; for by the time the other has unearthed, computed and discovered a new expression of devotion, the friend has already carried it out, because the friend does not need to calculate, and hence wastes no time in doing so.
But the fact of being and continuing in an infinite indebtedness, is exactly an expression for the infinity of love, so that by remaining in debt, love remains in its element. 


Men naar hvad der er og skal være uendeligt søger Omgangens og Sammenligningens slette Selskab med det Endelige, saa er dette usømmeligt, uværdigt, saa er Nedværdigelsen forskyldt, selv om man indenfor Sammenligningen mener at være den første. Thi, om det saa og var sandt, sammenlignelsesviis at elske mere end alle andre Mennesker er: ikke at elske. At elske er at blive i den uendelige Gjeld, Gjeldens Uendelighed er Fuldkommenhedens Baand.

But when that which is and ought to be infinite seeks the evil companionship of intercourse and comparison with the finite, then this is unseemly, undignified; then is the debasement deserved, even if within the comparison one thinks to be the first. For even if it looked and were true, comparatively to love better than all other men, is not to love. To love is to remain in infinite indebtedness, the infinity of the debt is the bond of perfection.


For Uendelighedens Fordring er selv Din den største Anstrengelse et Barneværk, ved hvilket Du ikke skal kunne blive Dig selv vigtig, da Du just kommer til at forstaae, hvor uendeligt meget Mere der fordres af Dig.

In the sight of the infinite demand your greatest efforts are but a childish performance, and this fact should prevent your becoming self-important, since you will just begin to understand how infinitely much more is required of you.


Tag ikke mod Vilkaaret, som bydes Dig: for halv Arbeide at faae Verdens hele Beundring; bliv i Uendelighedens Gjeld, glad ved Vilkaaret: Verdens Modstand, fordi Du ikke vil tinge. 

Do not accept the terms offered you: the admiration of the whole world in exchange for half the labor. Continue in the debt of the infinite, happy in its terms: the opposition of the whole world because you will not bargain.


Saaledes veed Christendommen at tvinge Kjerligheden, og at lære den, at der i ethvert Øieblik er Opgave, veed at holde ud med Kjerligheden, saa denne ydmyget skal lære, at det er ingen Talemaade, intet Sværmerie med at ville blive i Gjelden, men Alvor og Sandhed.

So Christianity knows how to constrain love, and to teach it that at every moment there is a task; it knows how to bear with love so that love may humbly learn that wishing to remain in debt is not a mere form of words, not merely enthusiasm, but that it is earnestness and truth.


Det er Gud, der, saa at sige, kjerligt overtager Kjerlighedens Fordring; den Elskende kommer, ved at elske et Menneske, i en uendelig Gjeld - men igjen til Gud som Værge for den Elskede. Nu er Sammenligning gjort umulig, og nu har Kjerligheden fundet sin Mester.

It is God who, so to speak, kindly takes charge of the demand of love; by loving a man the lover comes into an infinite debt - but also a debt to God as guardian of the beloved. Now comparison becomes impossible, and now love has found its master.


Medens Kjerligheden i alle sine Yttringer vender sig ud ad mod Menneskene, hvor den jo har sin Gjenstand og sine Opgaver, veed den dog, at her er ikke Stedet, hvor den skal bedømmes, men at inderst inde, hvor Kjerligheden forholder sig til Gud, der er Dommen.

While love in all its own expressions turns outward toward men, where it has its object and its tasks, it still knows that this is not the place where it shall be judged, but that in its innermost being, where love lays hold on God, there is the judgment.


Den Enkelte er forpligtet i Kjerlighedens Gjeld til andre Mennesker, men det er hverken dette enkelte Menneske selv eller andre Mennesker, som skal bedømme hans Kjerlighed. Naar saa er, maa den Enkelte blive i den uendelige Gjeld. Gud har Sandhedens og Ufeilbarhedens uendelige Forestilling om Kjerlighed, Gud er Kjerlighed, altsaa maa den Enkelte blive i Gjelden - saa sandt Gud bedømmer det, eller saasandt han bliver i Gud, thi kun i Gjeldens Uendelighed kan Gud blive i ham.
Han bliver i Gjelden, og han erkjender tillige, at det er hans Pligt at blive i Gjelden, hans Pligt, at gjøre denne Tilstaaelse, der, christeligt, ikke er Sværmeriets, men en ydmyg, kjerlig Sjels. Det Ydmyge ligger i at gjøre Tilstaaelsen; det Kjerlige ligger i at være uendelig villig til at gjøre den, fordi det hører med til Kjerlighed, fordi der er Salighedens Mening og Sammenhæng i denne Tilstaaelse; det Christelige ligger i, slet ingen Ophævelse at gjøre derover, fordi det er Pligt.

The individual is bound by his debt of love to other men; but it is neither the individual himself nor the other men who shall judge his love. If this is true, then must the individual remain in the infinite indebtedness. God has the infinite conception of truth and of the infallibility of love. God is love, hence the individual must remain in debt - as God judges him, or as he abides in God, for only in the infinitude of debt can God abide in him.
He is in debt, and he also recognizes that it is his duty to remain in debt, his duty to admit this, which from the Christian standpoint is not the admission of a fanatic, but of a humble, loving soul. The humility consists in making the confession; the loving, as it were, consists in being infinitely willing to make it because it belongs to love, because there is the meaning and coherence of eternal happiness in this confession; the Christian meaning consists in simply not ceasing to do this, because it is his duty.


Den christelige Selvfornegtelses Tanke er: opgiv Dine selvkjerlige Ønsker og Attraaer, opgiv Dine egennyttige Planer og Hensigter, saa Du i Sandhed uegennyttigt arbeider for det Gode - og find Dig saa i, just derfor at være afskyet næsten som en Forbryder, forhaanet, bespottet, find Dig saa i, hvis det fordres af Dig, just derfor at blive henrettet som en Forbryder, eller rettere, find Dig ikke deri, thi det kan man næsten nødsages til, men vælg det frit. Dette veed nemlig den christelige Selvfornegtelse forud, at det vil hænde den, og vælger det frit. Christendommen har Evighedens Forestilling om hvad det er at opgive sine egennyttige Hensigter, den lader derfor den Christne ikke slippe for halv Priis. Man seer let, at den christelige Selvfornegtelse naaer Gud, og i Gud har sit eneste Tilhold.

The Christian self-denial thinks: give up your selfish wishes and desires, give up your selfish plans and purposes in order to work for the good in true disinterestedness - and then prepare to find yourself, just on that account, hated, scorned and mocked, and even executed as a criminal; or rather, do not prepare to find yourself in this situation, for that may become necessary, but choose it of your own free will. For Christian self-denial knows beforehand that these things will happen, and chooses them freely.
Christianity has the eternal understanding of what it costs to give up its own selfish purposes; therefore it does not let the Christian go for half-price. One can readily see that the Christian self-denial lays hold on God, and in God has its only stronghold. 


Det er menneskelig Selvfornegtelse, naar et Menneske fornegter sig selv, og Verden nu aabner sig for ham. Men det er christelig Selvfornegtelse, naar et Menneske fornegter sig selv, og han nu, just fordi Verden derfor lukker sig for ham, stødt tilbage af Verden maa søge Guds Fortrolighed. Dobbelt-Faren ligger jo just i at møde Modstand der, hvor han havde ventet at finde Bistand, saa han altsaa maa vende sig to Gange, istedenfor, at den blot menneskelige Selvfornegtelse kun vender sig een Gang. Al den Selvfornegtelse derfor, som finder Bistand i Verden, den er ikke christelig Selvfornegtelse.

It is human self-denial if a man denies himself, and the world now opens its arms to him. But it is Christian self-denial if a man denies himself, and then, just because the world for that reason closes its arms to him, repulsed by the world he now must seek confidence in God. The twofold danger lies in the fact that he met opposition just where he had expected to find help, and consequently he must turn twice, instead of as in human self-denial turning but once. No selt-denial, therefore, which is encouraged by the world, is Christian self-denial. 


Det er christelig Selvfornegtelse: uden Frygt for sig selv og uden Hensyn til sig selv at vove sig i den Fare, om hvilken de Medlevende, hildede og forblindede og medskyldige, ingen Forestilling have eller ville have, at der er Ære at vinde, saa det altsaa ikke blot er farefuldt at vove sig i Faren, men dobbelt farefuldt, fordi Tilskuernes Forhaanelse venter den Modige, ligegyldigt enten han seirer eller han taber.

Christian self-denial rushes into danger without fear of the consequences to itself, into a danger which the environment cannot understand will bring any honor to the victor, because the environment is itself blinded, entangled and guilty. Consequently, it is not only perilous to rush into the danger, but there is here a double danger because the contempt of the spectators awaits the hero, whether he wins or loses.


Christendommen kan kun anprises, idet paa ethvert Punkt Faren i eet væk gjøres aabenbar: hvorledes det Christelige er den blot menneskelige Forestilling Daarskab og Forargelse. Men ved at gjøre dette tydeligt og aabenbart, advares der jo. Saa alvorlig er Christendommen.

Christianity can only be recommended if at every point the possibility of the danger is constantly made manifest: that to the merely human understanding the Christian way is foolishness and offense. But by making this clear and explicit, the warning is given. So earnest is Christianity.


Men da Verden egentligen ikke veed af og vel ikke vil vide af, at denne Maalestok (Guds-Forholdet) er til, saa kan den ikke forklare et saadant Menneskes Adfærd uden som Særhed - thi at det er Christelighed kan naturligviis aldrig falde Verden ind, der som Christen dog vel selv bedst veed, hvad Christendom er. Det er sært, at et Menneske ikke er egennyttigt, det er sært, at han ikke skjender igjen, det er sært og flaut, at han tilgiver sin Fjende og næsten er bange for, om han ogsaa gjør nok for sin Fjende, det er sært, at han altid kommer an paa forkeert Sted, aldrig hvor det tager sig ud at være modig, høimodig, uegennyttig: dette er sært og søgt og halvfjantet, kort Noget til at lee lidt af, naar man da selv, ved at være Verden, er sikker paa som Christen at være i Besiddelse af det Sande og Saligheden baade her og hisset.

But since the world does not realize and does not wish to realize that this standard, the God-relationship, exists, hence it cannot explain such a man's conduct as anything except a peculiarity - for the fact that it is Christian conduct naturally cannot occur to the world, which as Christian certainly best knows what Christianity is. It is odd for a man not to be self-seeking; it is odd that he does not quarrel; it is odd and foolish in him to forgive his enemy, and to be almost afraid that he does not do enough for his enemy; it is odd that he always sticks at the wrong place, never where it appears to his advantage to be courageous, high-minded and disinterested: this is odd, far-fetched and stupid, in short, rather laughable, since one just by virtue of being in the world, is certain, as a Christian, to possess the true and eternal happiness both here and hereafter.

-

1 Cor. VIII, 1. Men Kjerligheden opbygger.

But love edifieth. - I Corinthians 8:1

[…] Kjerlighed er jo just villig til at dele med Andre, da den "aldrig søger sit Eget"

[…] love is precisely willing to share with others, since "it never seeks its own"

Saaledes seer man, at Kjerligheden i denne sin eiendommelige Egenskab ikke afsondrer sig, ei heller trodser paa nogen Selvstændighed og Forsigværen i Række med Andet, men ganske giver sig hen; det Eiendommelige er just, at den udelukkende har den Egenskab ganske at give sig hen.

Thus one sees that love in this, its own characteristic quality, does not isolate itself, or boast of independence and caution in comparison with others, but absolutely surrenders itself; its characteristic is exactly that it has the exclusive quality of absolutely sacrificing itself.

Overalt, hvor det Opbyggelige er, er Kjerlighed, og overalt, hvor Kjerlighed er, er det Opbyggelige. Derfor siger Paulus, at et Menneske uden Kjerlighed, selv om han talte med Menneskers og Engles Tungemaal, dog er som et lydende Malm og en klingende Bjelde.

Wherever the edifying is, there is love; and everywhere love is, there is the edifying. Therefore Paul says that a man without love, though he speak with the tongues of men and of angels, is like sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.

At opbygge er at opføre Noget fra Grunden af. I den ligefremme Tale om et Huus, en Bygning, veed Enhver, hvad der forstaaes ved Grunden og Grundvolden. Men hvad er nu, aandeligt forstaaet, Aands-Livets Grund og Grundvold, som skal bære Bygningen? Det er just Kjerlighed; Kjerlighed er Alts Ophav, og aandeligt forstaaet er Kjerligheden Aands-Livets dybeste Grund. I ethvert Menneske, i hvem Kjerlighed er, er, aandeligt forstaaet, Grundvolden lagt. Og Bygningen, som, aandeligt forstaaet, skal opføres, er atter Kjerlighed; og det er Kjerlighed, som opbygger. Kjerlighed opbygger og dette er: den bygger Kjerlighed op.

To edify is to build on some foundation. In the simple story about a house, a building, everyone knows what is understood by the ground and the foundation. But what is, spiritually understood, the ground and the foundation of the spiritual life which shall support the building? It is simply love; love is the origin of everything, and, spiritually understood, love is the deepest foundation of the spiritual life. Spiritually understood, the foundation is laid in every man in whom there is love. And the building which, spiritually understood, will be erected is again love; and it is love who does the building. Love edifies, and this means that love builds it up.

Det er Gud, Skaberen, som maa nedlægge Kjerlighed i ethvert Menneske, han, der selv er Kjerlighed.

It is God, the Creator, who must implant love in every man. He who is Himself love. 

[…] den Kjerlige forudsætter, at Kjerligheden er i det andet Menneskes Hjerte, og just ved denne Forudsætning bygger han Kjerligheden i ham op - fra Grunden af, forsaavidt han jo kjerligt forudsætter den i Grunden.

[…] the lover presupposes that there is love in the other man's heart, and just through this presupposition he builds up the love in him - on that foundation, insofar as he affectionately presupposes that it exists at bottom.

Thi Kjerlighed kan og vil kun behandles paa een Maade, ved at elskes frem; at elske den frem er at opbygge. Men at elske den frem er jo netop at forudsætte, at den er tilstede i Grunden.

For love can be and will only be treated in one way, by being loved forth; to love it forth is to edify. But to love it forth consists exactly in presupposing that it is basically present. 

Den Kjerlige arbeider saa stille og saa høitideligt, og dog er Evighedens Kræfter i Bevægelse; ydmygt gjør Kjerligheden sig ubemærket netop naar den arbeider meest, ja dens Arbeiden er jo som gjorde den slet Intet.

The lover works so quietly and so soberly, and yet the forces of eternity are in motion. Love humbly makes itself inconspicuous just when it is working hardest; aye, its labor is as if it did nothing at all.

Thi vanskeligere er det at beherske sit Sind end at indtage en Stad, og vanskeligere at opbygge, som Kjerlighed gjør det, end at udføre det meest forbausende Værk.

For it is more difficult to rule one's own spirit than to take a city, and more difficult to edify as love edifies, than to carry out the most marvelous undertaking.

Den, der elsker meget, ham tilgives meget; men jo fuldkomnere den Kjerlige forudsætter Kjerligheden at være, des fuldkomnere en Kjerlighed elsker han frem. Der er i al Verdens Forhold intet Forhold, hvor der saaledes er Lige for Lige, hvor det, der kommer ud, saa nøiagtigt svarer til hvad der blev forudsat.

The one who loves much, to him is much forgiven; but the more perfect the lover presupposes the love to be, the more perfect a love he loves forth. In no worldly relations is there found any relation where there is thus like for like, where that which results corresponds so exactly to what was presupposed. 

Kjerlighed er at forudsætte Kjerlighed; at have Kjerlighed er at forudsætte Kjerlighed hos Andre, at være kjerlig er at forudsætte, at Andre ere kjerlige.

Love is presupposing love; to have love is to presuppose love in others; to be loving is to presuppose that others are loving.

1 Cor. XIII, 7. Kjerlighed troer Alt.

Love believeth all things. - I Corinthians 13:7

Naar Kjerlighed nemlig troer Alt, da er det ingenlunde i samme Forstand som Letsindighed, Uerfarenhed, Troskyldighed, der paa Grund af Uvidenhed og Ukyndighed troer Alt. Nei, Kjerlighed er vidende trods Nogen, vidende om Alt, hvad Mistroiskheden veed, dog uden at være mistroisk, vidende om, hvad Erfaringen veed, men tillige vidende, at hvad man kalder Erfaring egentlig er hiin Blanding af Mistroiskhed og Kjerlighed.

When love, for instance, believes everything, it is by no means in the same sense as thoughtlessness, inexperience and credulity believe everything, which believe everything through ignorance and naivete. No, love is just as well aware as anyone of everything which mistrust knows, yet without being mistrustful; aware of what experience knows, but also aware that what we call experience is really that mixture of mistrust and love.

Vi Mennesker have en naturlig Frygt for at tage feil - ved at troe for godt om et Menneske. Den Vildfarelse derimod at troe for ondt om et andet Menneske, frygtes maaskee ikke, eller dog ikke i Forhold til den første. Men saa frygte vi jo ikke meest af Alt at være i en Vildfarelse, saa ere vi tvertimod i en Vildfarelse, ved at have en eensidig Frygt for en vis Art Vildfarelse.

All men have a natural fear of making a mistake - through believing too well of a man. The mistake, on the other hand, of believing too badly of another man, is perhaps less feared, at least not in comparison with the first. But then if we did not fear most of all being in error, then we are, on the contrary, in error through our one-sided fear of a certain kind of error.

Den Kjerlige derimod frygter i Sandhed for at være i Vildfarelse, derfor troer han Alt.

The lover, on the other hand, truly fears being in error, therefore he believes everything.

I samme Minut Du dømmer et andet Menneske, eller bedømmer et andet Menneske, dømmer Du Dig selv; thi det at dømme en Anden er i sidste Grund blot at dømme sig selv, eller selv at blive aabenbar.

At the very moment you judge another man, or condemn another man, you judge yourself; for the act of judging another man is, in the last analysis, merely to judge yourself, or to reveal what you are. 

Det kjerligt at troe Godt er dog vel ingen Feil, men saa feiler man altsaa heller ikke derved.

Charitably to believe the good is certainly not a mistake, but one makes a mistake by not doing so.

Kjerlighed troer Alt - og bliver dog aldrig bedragen. Forunderligt! Slet Intet at troe for aldrig at blive bedragen, det synes at lade sig høre; thi hvorledes skulde man kunne bedrage Den, som slet Intet troer! Men at troe Alt og derved ligesom kaste sig hen, et Bytte for alle Bedrag og alle Bedragere, og dog just derved at sikkre sig uendeligt mod ethvert Bedrag: det er besynderligt. Og dog, mon man, selv om man ikke bedrages af Andre, dog ikke bedrages, forfærdeligst bedrages, rigtignok af sig selv, ved slet Intet at troe, bedrages for det Høieste, for Hengivelsens, Kjerlighedens Salighed! Nei, der er kun een Vei til at sikkre sig mod aldrig at blive bedragen, det er kjerligt at troe Alt.

Love believes everything - and is never deceived. Wonderful! To believe nothing at all for fear of being deceived seems reasonable; for how could anyone deceive someone who believes nothing! But to believe everything, and in that way throw himself away, a prey to all deception and to all deceivers, and nevertheless just by so doing assure himself everlastingly against every deception: that is strange. And yet I wonder if the one, even if he is not deceived by others, is still not deceived, most terribly deceived, certainly by himself, through believing nothing at all; defrauded of the highest, of the resignation, of the blessedness of love! No, there is but one way to assure one's self against ever being deceived, that is charitably to believe everything.

Altsaa, den sande Overlegenhed kan aldrig bedrages, dersom den bliver sig selv tro. Men den sande Kjerlighed er i Forhold til Alt, hvad der ikke er Kjerlighed, altsaa i Forhold til ethvert Bedrag, ubetinget den Overlegne: følgelig kan den aldrig blive bedragen, naar den, ved at troe Alt, bliver sig selv tro, eller vedbliver at være den sande Kjerlighed.

Dette er vistnok saare let at indsee; Vanskeligheden er derfor en anden, at der er en lavere Forestillingskreds, som end ingen Anelse har om den sande Kjerlighed, om Kjerligheden i og for sig, og om dennes Salighed i sig selv; Vanskeligheden er, at en stor Mangfoldighed af Sandsebedrag vil holde Mennesket nede i den lavere Forestillingskreds, hvor Bedraget og det at bedrages betyder lige det Modsatte af hvad det betyder i den uendelige Forestilling om Kjerlighed. I denne betyder det at bedrages ene og alene at lade være at elske, at lade sig henrive til at opgive Kjerligheden i og for sig og derved forlise dens Salighed i sig selv. Thi i uendelig Forstand er kun eet Bedrag muligt, Selvbedraget; uendeligt behøver man ikke at frygte dem, som kunne slaae Legemet ihjel; at blive ihjelslaaet er, uendeligt, ingen Fare, ei heller den Art Bedrag, Verden taler om, nogen Fare. Og dette er atter ikke vanskeligt at forstaae. Det Vanskelige er at fuldkomme Opgaven, at erhverve den sande Forestilling om Kjerlighed, eller rigtigere, at vorde den sande Kjerlige; thi han værger sig just, ved at troe Alt, mod Sandsebedraget, kæmper for at bevare sig i den sande Kjerlighed. Men Sandsebedraget vil bestandigt paanøde sig, omtrent lige som det Sandsebedrag, der mener, at Solen bevæger sig, uagtet man dog veed, at det er Jorden.

Consequently the true superiority can never be deceived if it remains true to itself. But true love, in comparison with everything which is not love, hence compared with every illusion, is unconditionally superior: as a result it can never be deceived if, through believing all things, it remains true itself, or continues to be true love.

This is certainly very easy to understand; the difficulty must therefore lie elsewhere, in that there must be a lower range of ideas which does not even suspect what true love is, what love is in itself, and what this blessedness is in itself. The trouble is that there is a great multitude of illusions which tend to hold a man down in the lower range of ideas where the deception and the fact of being deceived signify exactly the opposite of what they signify in the infinite conception of love. This conception signifies that the only possibility of deception lies in refraining from loving, in submitting to giving up love itself and thereby losing its blessedness. For in the infinite sense the only deception possible is self-deception; infinitely speaking, one need not fear him who merely kills the body; to be killed is, from the infinite standpoint, not a danger, nor is the kind of deception the world talks about, any danger. And again this is not difficult to understand. The difficulty consists in carrying the task to completion, in acquiring the true conception of love, or, more correctly, in becoming the true lover; for just through believing all things, he guards against illusion, and fights to preserve himself in the true love. But the illusion will constantly obtrude itself, about like that illusion which believes that the sum moves around the earth, although we know that it is the earth that moves.

Den sande Kjerlige, som troer Alt, kan man ikke bedrage, thi at bedrage ham er at bedrage sig selv. Hvad er nemlig det høieste Gode og den største Salighed? Dog vel det, i Sandhed at elske; næst dette, i Sandhed at blive elsket. Men saa er det jo umuligt at bedrage den Kjerlige, som just ved at troe Alt bliver i Kjerligheden.

One cannot deceive the true lover who believes everything, for to decisive him is to deceive one's self. What really does constitute the highest good and the greatest happiness? In truth it is certainly loving; next to this is being truly loved. But then it is impossible to deceive the lover, who just by believing everything abides in love. 

Naturligviis skal Bedraget ligge deri, at han, medens den Kjerlige elsker ham, foruden at nyde dette Gode at blive elsket, tillige koldt og stolt og spottende nyder den Selvtilfredshed ikke at elske igjen. Det undgaaer ham naturligviis ganske (thi hvor skulde en Bedrager falde paa, at den sande Kjerlighed var til!), at han har med den sande Kjerlige at gjøre, som elsker uden at gjøre nogen Fordring paa Gjenkjerlighed, ja just sætter Kjerligheden og dens Salighed i ikke at forlange Gjenkjerlighed. Bedrageren har altsaa listigt faaet den Kjerlige til at elske ham - men det er jo netop hvad den Kjerlige saa uendeligt gjerne vil; Bedrageren har formeentligen narret ham ved ikke at elske igjen - men den sande Kjerlige anseer jo netop at fordre Gjenkjerlighed for en Besmittelse, en Nedværdigelse, og det at elske uden Gjenkjerlighedens Løn for den høieste Salighed.

Naturally the deception must lie in the fact that although the lover loves him, in addition to enjoying this good of being loved, he coldly and proudly and mockingly also enjoys the self-satisfaction of not loving in return. It quite naturally escapes him (for how could a deceiver realize that true love exists!) that he was dealing with the true lover, who loves without asking for any requital, who justly estimates the love and its eternal happiness by not asking any requital. Consequently, by the use of cunning the deceiver has led the lover to love him - but that is what the lover is so infinitely willing to do. The deceiver has presumably fooled him by not loving in return - but the true lover regards asking for a requital as a pollution, a debasement of love, and considers that loving without the reward of requited love, is the highest happiness.

Saaledes med den Kjerlige, som troer Alt. Det kan saa let forvexles med Indskrænkethed, og dog er Viisdommens Dyb i denne Eenfold; det kan saa let forvexles med Svaghed, og dog er Evighedens Kræfter i denne Afmagt; det kan saa let see ud som et stakkels priisgivent Menneske, hvem Enhver kan bedrage, og dog er han den Eneste, der evigt og uendeligt er sikkret mod at bedrages. 

So, too, with the lover who believes everything. This credulity can so easily be confused with incapacity, and yet there is the profundity of wisdom in this simplicity. It can so easily be confused with weakness, and yet the strength of eternity is in this impotence. The lover can so easily look like a poor, friendless man whom anyone can deceive, and yet he is the only one who is eternally and infinitely assured against deception.

Naar det at elske er det høieste Gode og den største Salighed; naar den Kjerlige just ved at troe Alt bliver i Kjerlighedens Salighed: hvor skulde han da, i Tid eller i Evighed, være bedragen! Nei, nei, der er i Tid og i Evighed kun eet Bedrag muligt i Forhold til den sande Kjerlighed, Selvbedraget, eller at opgive Kjerligheden.

When loving is the highest good and the greatest happiness; when the lover just by believing everything, abides in the happiness of love: how then could he, in time or eternity, be deceived! No, no, there is in time and eternity only one deception possible with respect to true love, the self-deception, or the renouncing of love.

1 Cor. XIII, 7. Kjærlighed haaber Alt.

Love hopeth all things. - I Corinthians 13:7

Saaledes med det at haabe Alt. Men det kjerligt at haabe Alt betegner den Kjerliges Forhold til andre Mennesker, at han i Forhold til dem, haabende for dem, bestandigt holder Muligheden aaben med uendelig Forkjerlighed for det Godes Mulighed. Han haaber altsaa kjerligt, at der i ethvert Øieblik er Mulighed, er det Godes Mulighed for det andet Menneske, denne det Godes Mulighed betyde nu herligere og herligere Fremgang i det Gode fra Fuldkommenhed til Fuldkommenhed, eller Opreisning fra Fald, eller Frelse fra Fortabelse og saaledes fremdeles.

So it is with hoping all things. But lovingly to hope everything indicates the relation of the lover to other men, so that in his relation to them, in hoping for them, he always keeps the door of possibility open with infinite preference for the possibility of the good. Hence, he lovingly hopes that at every moment there is the possibility, the possibility of the good for the other man; this, the possibility of the good, indicates the increasingly glorious progress in the good from perfection unto perfection, or the rising again after the fall, or salvation from perdition, and so on.

Dog med hvad Ret kalde vi Den en Fortvivlet, der opgiver et andet Menneske? Eet er det jo selv at fortvivle, et Andet, at fortvivle over en Anden. Aah, ja, men dersom det dog er sandt, hvad den Kjerlige forstaaer, og dersom det er sandt, at man, hvis man er den Kjerlige, forstaaer, hvad den Kjerlige forstaaer, at der i ethvert Øieblik er det Godes Mulighed for det andet Menneske: saa er altsaa det at opgive et andet Menneske som haabløst tabt, som var der intet Haab for ham, et Beviis for, at man ikke selv er den Kjerlige; og altsaa er man jo den Fortvivlede, der opgiver Muligheden. Ingen kan haabe uden at han tillige er kjerlig, han kan ikke haabe for sig selv uden tillige at være kjerlig, thi det Gode hænger uendeligt sammen; men er han kjerlig, saa haaber han tillige for Andre. Og i samme Grad, som han haaber for sig selv, ganske i samme Grad haaber han for Andre; thi ganske i samme Grad som han haaber for sig, ganske i samme Grad er han den Kjerlige. Og i samme Grad, som han haaber for Andre, ganske i samme Grad haaber han for sig; thi dette er det uendeligt nøiagtige, evige Lige for Lige, der er i alt Evigt. O, der er overalt, hvor Kjerlighed er med, noget saa uendeligt Dybsindigt. Den sande Kjerlige siger: "haab Alt, opgiv intet Menneske, thi at opgive ham, det er at opgive Din Kjerlighed til ham - hvis Du nemlig ikke opgiver den, saa haaber Du; men opgiver Du Din Kjerlighed til ham, da ophører Du selv at være den Kjerlige". 

Still, by what right do we call a man despairing who gives up another man? It is one thing to despair yourself; it is something else to despair about another man. Oh, well, but if that is still true which the lover understands, and if it is true that one, if one is the lover, understands what the lover understands, that at every moment there is the possibility of the good for the other man: then the giving up of another man as hopelessly lost, as if there were no hope for him, is a proof that one is not one's self the lover; and hence the one who gives up the possibility is the despairing man. No one can hope unless he also is loving; he cannot hope for himself without also being loving, for the good qualities hang infinitely together; but if he is loving, he also has hope for others. And to the same degree as he hopes for himself, absolutely to the same degree he hopes for others; and to the same degree as he hopes for himself, absolutely to that same degree he is the lover. And to the same degree as he hopes for others, absolutely to that same degree, he hopes for himself; for this is the infinitely precise, eternal like for like, which is in everything eternal.

Oh, everywhere where love is, there is something so infinitely profound! The true lover says: "Hope everything, give up no man, for to give him up is to give up your love for him - for if you do not give that up, then you have hope. But if you give up your love for him, then you cease to be the lover".

Thi den Kjerlige haaber Alt. Og det er sandt, hvad den Kjerlige siger, at der, efter hvad han kan forstaae, endnu i det sidste Øieblik er det Godes Mulighed, selv for den meest Fortabte, altsaa endnu Haab. Det er sandt og det vil være sandt for Enhver i hans Forhold til andre Mennesker, dersom han vil holde sin Indbildningskraft i Ro, uforstyrret og uomtaaget af ukjerlige Lidenskaber, med det evige Sigte paa det Eviges Gjenskin i Muligheden.

For the lover hopes all things. And that is true which the lover says, that, according to his understanding, even at the last moment there is the possibility of the good, even for the most disheartened, hence, there is also hope. It is true, and it will be true for everyone in his relations to other men, if he will hold his imagination in check, undisturbed and unobscured by unkind passions, with the eternal view of the reflection of the eternal in the possibility. 

Men naar alt Dette, denne Kløgt, denne Vrede og Forbittrelse, denne Misundelse, Skadefryd, denne feige, frygtagtige Smaalighed, dette verdslige forfængelige Sind, naar alt Dette eller Noget deraf er i et Menneske, og i samme Grad som det er der, saa er Kjerligheden ikke, og i samme Grad mindre i ham. Men er der mindre Kjerlighed i ham, saa er der ogsaa mindre Evigt i ham; men er der mindre Evigt i ham, saa er der ogsaa mindre Mulighed, mindre Sands for Mulighed (thi Mulighed fremkommer jo derved, at det Evige berører i Tiden det Evige i Mennesket, men er der intet Evigt i dette Menneske, saa bliver det Eviges Berøring forgjeves, der bliver ingen Mulighed); men er der mindre Mulighed, saa er der ogsaa mindre Haab, just fordi og ligesom der er mindre Kjerlighed, der kjerligt kunde haabe det Godes Mulighed. Men den Kjerlige haaber Alt; ingen Vanens Dvaskhed, ingen Forstandens Smaalighed, ingen Kløgtens Spidsfindighed, ingen Erfaringens Talstørrelser, ingen Aarenes Trevenhed, ingen onde Lidenskabers Bitterhed fordærve ham hans Haab eller forfalske ham Muligheden; hver Morgen, ja hvert Øieblik fornyer han sit Haab og forfrisker Muligheden, medens Kjerligheden bliver og han i den.

Selv om den Kjerlige ikke formaaede at gjøre det mindste Andet for Andre, slet ingen anden Gave formaaede at bringe: han bringer dog den bedste Gave, han bringer Haabet.

When then all this, this shrewdness, this wrath and indignation, this envy, this spitefulness, this cowardly, timorous pettiness, this worldly, vainglorious mind, when all this, or at least some of it, is in a man, and in the same degree as it is present in him: then there is no love, and in the same degree as all this is present in him, the love is correspondingly less. But if there is less of love in him, there is also less of the eternal; but if there is less of the eternal in him there is also less possibility, less sense of the possibility (for the possibility arises from the fact that the eternal touches in time the eternal in man; if there is nothing eternal in this man, the contact with the eternal is in vain, and there is no possibility); but if there is less possibility there is also less hope, just because and as there is less love, which might lovingly hope the possibility of the good. The lover, on the other hand, hopes everything; no indolence of habit, no pettiness of understanding, no sophistry of prudence, no amount of experience, no slackness of the years, no bitterness of evil passions corrupt his hope for him or falsify the possibility. Every morning, aye, every moment, he renews his hope and recreates the possibility, while love abides and he in it.

Even if the lover is not able to do anything else for others, even if he is not able to bring any other gift: he still brings the best gift, he brings hope.

Da paatog Kjerligheden, der dog er større end Haabet, sig det som sin Tjeneste og sin Gjerning at bringe Haabet.

Then love, although greater than hope, would assume it as its duty and its task, to bring hope.

Salig den Kjerlige, han haaber Alt; endnu i det sidste Øieblik haaber han det Godes Mulighed for den meest Fortabte. Det har den Kjerlige lært af Evigheden, men kun fordi han var den Kjerlige kunde han lære af Evigheden, og kun fordi han var den Kjerlige kunde han lære dette af Evigheden. Vee Den, som i Forhold til et andet Menneske opgav Haabet og Muligheden, vee ham, thi han tabte derved selv Kjerligheden.

Blessed be the lover, he hopes all things; even in the last moment he hopes the possibility of good for the most perverted. He learned it from eternity; but only because he was the lover could he learn from eternity, and only because he was the lover could he learn this from eternity. Woe to him who with respect to another man gave up hope and possibility, woe to him, for thereby he himself lost love!

I Evigheden skal Enhver nødsages til at forstaae, at det ikke er Udfaldet, som bestemmer Æren eller Skammen, men Forventningen i sig selv. I Evigheden skal derfor netop den Ukjerlige, som dog maaskee fik Ret i hvad han smaaligt, misundeligt, hadefuldt forventede om et andet Menneske, han skal staae til Skamme - uagtet hans Forventning jo gik i Opfyldelse. Men Æren tilhører den Kjerlige. Og der skal i Evigheden ingen travl Snakken høres om, at han dog tog Feil - det var maaskee ogsaa at tage Feil, at vorde salig. Nei, i Evigheden er der kun een Feiltagelse: at vorde, med samt sine opfyldte smaalige, misundelige, hadefulde Forventninger, udelukket fra Saligheden. Og i Evigheden skal ingen Spot saare den Kjerlige, at han var taabelig nok til at gjøre sig latterlig, ved at haabe Alt; thi i Evigheden høres ikke Spotterens Raab, endnu mindre end i Graven, fordi i Evigheden kun høres salige Røster. Og i Evigheden skal ingen Misundelse røre ved Ærens Krands, som den Kjerlige bærer med Æren, nei, saa langt rækker Misundelse ikke, hvor langt den end ellers rækker, den rækker ikke fra Helvede til Paradiis.

In eternity everyone will be forced to understand that it is not the outcome which conditions the honor or the shame, but the expectation itself. In eternity, therefore, it will precisely be the unloving one, who still perhaps was right in what he pettily, enviously, hatefully expected for another man, he will be put to shame although his expectation was fulfilled. But the honor belongs to the lover. And in eternity there will be no busy gossip heard about his having made a mistake - perhaps it would also be a mistake to become eternally happy; no, in eternity there is but one mistake: to be, together with his fulfilled, petty, envious, hateful expectations, excluded from eternal happiness! And in eternity no mockery will wound the lover because he was foolish enough to make himself a laughing-stock through hoping everything; for in eternity the cry of the mocker is not heard, even less than in the grave, because in eternity naught is heard but the voices of the blessed! And in eternity no envy will touch the wreath of honor which the lover bears with honor; no, envy does not reach so far. However far it reaches, it does not reach from hell to Paradise!

1 Cor. XIII, 5. Kjerlighed søger ikke sit Eget.

Love seeketh not its own. - I Corinthians 13:5

Nei, Kjerlighed søger ikke sit Eget, thi at søge sit Eget, er jo netop Selvkjerlighed, Egenkjerlighed, Selvsyge, eller hvad det ukjerlige Sind har for andre Navne.

No, love does not seek its own; for seeking its own is precisely selfishness, egotism, self-seeking, or whatever names the uncharitable mind may use to describe it.

Kjerlighed søger ikke sit Eget; thi i Kjerlighed er der intet Mit og Dit. Men Mit og Dit er blot en Forholds-Bestemmelse af "Eget"; er der altsaa intet Mit og Dit, saa er der heller intet Eget; men er der slet intet Eget, saa er det jo umuligt at søge sit Eget.

Love seeketh not its own; for in love there is no mine and thine. But "mine" and "thine" are only a determination of the relationship of "own"; if, consequently, there is no "mine" and "thine", then there is no "own".

Men Kjerlighed, den er ogsaa en Begivenhed, den største af alle, dog derhos den glædeligste; Kjerlighed er en Forandring, den mærkeligste af alle, men den ønskeligste - vi tale jo netop i fortrinlig Forstand om, at En, der gribes af Kjerlighed, forandres, eller bliver forandret; Kjerlighed er en Omvæltning, den dybeste af alle, men den saligste.

But love, it too is an event, the greatest of all, the most joyful of all; love is a change, the most remarkable of all, but the most desirable - we are not now speaking in a preferential sense about the fact that one who is affected by love is changed or becomes changed; love is a revolution, the most profound of all, but the most blessed!

Det er Forbandelsen over Forbryderen, at hans Mit gaaer ud, fordi han ganske vil afskaffe Dit; det er Velsignelsen over den sande Kjerlige, at Bestemmelsen "Dit" gaaer ud, saa Alt bliver den sande Kjerliges, som Paulus siger "Alt er Eders", og som den sande Kjerlige i en vis guddommelig Forstand siger: Alt er Mit. Og dog, dog skeer dette ene og alene derved, at han slet intet Mit har, altsaa: "Alt er Mit, jeg, som slet intet Mit har". Dog at Alt er Hans er en guddommelig Hemmelighed; thi menneskelig talt er den sande Kjerlige, den opoffrende, den sig offrende og i Alt sig ganske fornegtende Kjerlige, han er, menneskelig talt, den Forurettede, den meest af alle Forurettede, om han end selv gjør sig dertil ved ideligt at offre sig selv.

The curse that rests on the criminal is that his "mine" disappears because he has abolished the "thine". The blessing that rests upon true love is that the qualification "thine" is dropped, so that everything becomes the true lover's; as Paul says: "All things are yours", and as the true lover in a certain divine sense says: "All things are mine". And yet, yet this happened only once in that he simply had no "mine"; hence, "All things are mine, I, who have no 'mine' at all". But that all things are his is a divine mystery; for, humanly speaking, the true lover is the sacrificing lover, the self-sacrificing, the absolutely self-denying lover; he is, humanly speaking, the one wronged, wronged most deeply of all, even if he is himself responsible because of his own perpetual sacrifice. 

Men kun for Selvfornegtelsens Kjerlighed gaaer Bestemmelsen Mit ganske ud, og Forskjellen Mit og Dit hæves ganske. Naar jeg nemlig Intet veed, som er Mit, naar slet Intet er Mit, saa er jo Alt Dit, hvad det ogsaa i en vis Forstand er, og saaledes mener den opoffrende Kjerlighed det; men dog, Alt, ubetinget Alt kan ikke være "Dit", da "Dit" er et Modsætnings-Forhold, og i Alt er der ingen Modsætning. Men da skeer det Vidunderlige, hvad der er Himlens Velsignelse over Selvfornegtelsens Kjerlighed, at i Salighedens gaadefulde Forstand Alt bliver hans, hans, som slet intet Mit havde, han, som i Selvfornegtelsen gjorde alt Sit til Dit. Gud er nemlig Alt, og just ved slet intet Mit at have vandt Selvfornegtelsens Kjerlighed Gud og vandt Alt. Thi Den, der taber sin Sjel, skal vinde den. Men Forskjellen Mit og Dit eller Elskovs og Venskabs Dit og Mit er en Bevaren af det Sjelelige. Kun Aandens Kjerlighed har Mod til slet intet Mit at ville have, Mod til ganske at hæve Forskjellen Dit og Mit, derfor vinder den Gud - ved at tabe sin Sjel.

Only in the self-denying love does the category of "mine" completely disappear, and the distinction of "mine" and "thine" become completely abolished. When, namely, I know nothing which is "mine", when nothing at all is "mine", then is everything "thine", which it also is in a certain sense, and thus the sacrificing love thinks of it. Still, everything, unconditionally everything, cannot be "thine", since "thine" is a contrast-relationship, and in "everything" there is no possibility of contrast. Then the miraculous takes place, which is the blessing of heaven upon the self-denying love, that in the mysterious sense of the eternal happiness, everything becomes His, His who had no "mine" at all; His who in self-denial made all "His" into "thine". Since God is, in other words, everything, and just through having no "mine" at all, self-denying love gained God, and gained everything. For he who loses his soul shall gain it; but the discrimination "mine" and "thine", or the "thine" and "mine" of love and of friendship is the preservation of the soul. Only spiritual love has the courage to be willing to have no "mine" at all, courage absolutely to end the difference "mine" and "thine", therefore it gains God - through losing its soul. 

Nei, den sande Kjerlige forstaaer sig kun paa Eet: at blive narret, at blive bedragen, at give Alt hen, uden at faae det mindste igjen - see det er, ikke at søge sit Eget.

No, the true lover understands only one thing: to be fooled, to be deceived, to give everything without receiving the least reward - that is what it means not to seek his own. 

Kjerlighed søger ikke sit Eget; thi den sande Kjerlige elsker ikke sin Eiendommelighed, men elsker hvert Menneske efter hans Eiendommelighed; men "hans Eiendommelighed" er jo just det for ham Egne, altsaa søger den Kjerlige ikke sit Eget, lige modsat elsker han den Andens Eget.

Love seeketh not its own. For the true lover does not love his own characteristics; on the contrary, he loves every man according to his own characteristics; but the phrase "his own characteristics" is exactly the expression for his "own"; hence the lover does not seek his own; just the opposite, he seeks the other's "own".

Saaledes nu ogsaa i Kjerlighedens Forhold mellem Menneske og Menneske, kun den sande Kjerlighed elsker ethvert Menneske efter hans Eiendommelighed. Den Strenge, den Herskesyge, han mangler Bøielighed, og han mangler Føielighed til at opfatte Andre; han fordrer sit Eget af Enhver, vil, at Enhver skal omskabes i hans Form, studses til efter hans Snit paa Mennesker. 

So, too, with respect to the love between men, only the true love loves every man according to his own characteristics. The strict, the domineering man lacks flexibility, and he lacks adaptability in understanding others; he demands his "own" from everyone, wishes that everyone might be remodeled to resemble himself, might be pruned according to his knack for training men.

Om den Strenge og Herskesyge er anviist en stor Virkekreds, eller en lille, om han er Tyran i et Keiserdømme, eller Huus-Tyran i et lille Værelse paa Qvisten, gjør væsentligen ingen Forskjel, Væsenet er det samme: herskesygt ikke at ville gaae ud af sig selv, herskesygt at ville knuse det andet Menneskes Eiendommelighed eller pine Livet af den.

Whether the arrogant and imperious man is referring to some big thing or a small one, whether he tyrannically rules over an empire, or is a domestic tyrant in an attic, makes no essential difference; his nature is the same: imperiously not to be able to forget himself, imperiously to wish to crush the other man's individuality, or make his life miserable for him. 

Den Smaalige har aldrig havt Mod til dette Ydmyghedens og Stolthedens gudvelbehagelige Vovestykke: for Gud at være sig selv - thi Eftertrykket ligger paa "for Gud", da dette er al Eiendommeligheds Ophav og Udspring. Den, der har vovet det, han har Eiendommelighed, han har nemlig faaet at vide hvad Gud allerede havde givet ham; og han troer ganske i samme Forstand paa Enhvers Eiendommelighed. At have Eiendommelighed er at troe paa enhver Andens Eiendommelighed; thi Eiendommeligheden er ikke Mit, men er Guds Gave, ved hvilken han giver mig at være, og han giver jo Alle, og giver Alle at være.

The narrow-minded man never has had the courage for this divinely pleasing venture of humility and pride; being one's self before God - for the emphasis rests on "before God", since He is the origin and well-spring of all individuality. He who dares to do this, has individuality; he has learned to know what God had already given him; and he believes in entirely the same sense in the individuality of every man. To have individuality is to believe in the individuality of everyone else; for the individuality is not "mine", it is the gift of God through which He permits me to be, and through which He permits everyone to be.

Men Smaaligheden, der er paataget Væsen, har ingen Eiendommelighed, det er, den har ikke troet paa sin egen, derfor kan den heller ikke troe paa Nogens. Den Smaalige har klamret sig fast til en ganske bestemt Skikkelse og Form, som han kalder sit Eget; kun det søger han, kun det kan han elske.

Pettiness, on the contrary, which is an assumed nature, has no individuality, that is, it has not believed in its "own" individuality, therefore it cannot believe in that of anyone else. Pettiness has dung firmly to a definitely fixed shape and form which it calls its own; it seeks only that, can love only that. 

Men den sande Kjerlighed, den opoffrende Kjerlighed, der elsker ethvert Menneske efter hans Eiendommelighed, er villig til at bringe ethvert Offer: den søger ikke sit Eget.

But the true love, the sacrificing love, which loves every man for his own characteristics, is willing to make every sacrifice: for it does not seek its own.

Kjerlighed søger ikke sit Eget; thi den giver helst saaledes, at Gaven seer ud som var den Modtagerens Eiendom.

Love seeketh not its own; for it choses rather to give so that the gift looks as if the gift were the recipient's own possession.

Hvilken er altsaa den største Velgjerning? Ja, det er den, vi have nævnet, naar da, vel at mærke, den Kjerlige tillige veed at gjøre sig ubemærket, saa den Hjulpne ikke bliver afhængig af ham - ved at skylde ham den største Velgjerning. Dette vil sige, den største Velgjerning er netop: Maaden paa hvilken den eneste sande Velgjerning gjøres.

What consequently is the greatest benefaction? It is in truth the one we have mentioned, that is, please notice, if the lover also knows how to make himself inconspicuous, so that the one he helped does not become dependent on him - through being indebted to him for the greatest of all benefits. That is to say, the test of the greatest benefit is simply: the manner in which the only true benefit is conferred.

Saaledes er al den Kjerliges Arbeiden. Sandeligen, han søger ikke sit Eget, thi han giver jo netop saaledes, at det seer ud som var Gaven Modtagerens Eiendom. Saavidt den Kjerlige formaaer, søger han at hjælpe et Menneske til at blive sig selv, blive sin Egen. Men saaledes bliver paa en Maade slet Intet forandret i Tilværelsen, kun den Kjerlige, den skjulte Velgjører, puffet udenfor. Det er jo ethvert Menneskes Bestemmelse at blive fri, uafhængig, sig selv. Har den Kjerlige i denne Henseende været Guds Medarbeider, saa er dog Alt blevet - som det var efter Bestemmelsen. Mærkes det, at den Kjerlige har hjulpet, saa er Forholdet forstyrret, eller saa har Hjælperen ikke hjulpet kjerligt, den Kjerlige ikke hjulpet rigtigt.

This is the way with all the lover's work. Truly he does not seek his own, for he gives precisely in such a way that it looks as if the gift had been the recipient's possession. So far as the lover may, he seeks to help a man to become himself, to become his own. But in this way there is simply nothing changed in existence, except that the lover, the concealed benefactor, is thrust outside, since it is every man's destiny to be free, to be independent, to be himself. If the lover in this respect has been a fellow-laborer with God, everything has still become - like the fulfillment of the destiny. If it is noticed that the lover has helped then the relationship becomes confused, or then the helper has not helped lovingly, the lover has not helped in the right way.

Er den Kjerliges Liv da spildt, har han ganske levet forgjeves, siden der Intet, slet Intet er, der vidner om hans Virken og Stræben? Svar: er da det ikke at søge sit Eget, er det at spilde sit Liv? Nei, sandeligen, dette Liv er ikke spildt, det veed den Kjerlige i salig Glæde med sig selv og med Gud. Hans Liv er i en vis Forstand ganske ødslet paa Tilværelsen, paa Andres Tilværelse; uden at ville spilde nogen Tid eller nogen Kraft paa at hævde sig selv, paa at være Noget for sig selv, er han i Selvopoffrelsen villig at gaae til Grunde, det er, han er heel og holden forvandlet til blot at være en Virkekraft i Guds Haand. Deraf kommer det, at hans Virken ikke kan blive synlig. Hans Virken bestod jo just i, at hjælpe et andet eller andre Mennesker til at blive deres Egne, hvad de i en vis Forstand vare iforveien. Men naar virkeligen En ved en Andens Hjælp er bleven sin Egen, saa er det ganske umuligt at see, at det er den Andens Hjælp; thi seer jeg den Andens Hjælp, saa seer jeg jo, at den Hjulpne ikke er bleven sin Egen.

Is the love's life then wasted, has he absolutely lived in vain, since there is nothing, nothing at all, which witnesses to his work and striving? Answer: is, then, not to seek his own, is that to waste his life? No, truly, this life is not wasted; the lover knows that in his blessed joy in himself and with God. His life is in a certain sense quite wasted on existence, on the existence of others; without wishing to waste any time or strength in asserting himself, in being something for himself, he is in his self-sacrifice willing to perish, that is, he is wholly transformed into being merely an active power in the hand of God. Therefore his work cannot be made visible. His work consists simply in helping another man or other men, to become their own, which in a certain sense they were before. But when one actually has by another's help become his own, then it is absolutely impossible to see that it is by another's help; for if I see the other's help, then I see, too, that the one helped did not become his own.