# Fear and Trembling, Problema I

Frygt og Bæven · Søren Kierkegaard · Problemata

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/kierkegaard/problema-i. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/kierkegaard/problema-i.json.


Gives der en teleologisk Suspension af det Ethiske?  
Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?
> «teleologisk Suspension af det Ethiske» — teleological suspension of the ethical: The title-question of Problema I and one of Kierkegaard's most famous coinages. «teleologisk» (from Greek télos, end/goal) means 'for the sake of a higher end'; «Suspension» = a setting-aside or holding in abeyance. The phrase asks whether the ethical («det Ethiske») can be set aside for a higher purpose. Period spelling «Ethiske» (modern «etiske») and the capitalized noun «Suspension».

Det Ethiske er som saadant det Almene, og som det Almene Det, der er gjældende for Enhver, hvilket fra en anden Side lader sig udtrykke saaledes, at det er gjældende i ethvert Øieblik.  
The ethical as such is the universal, and as the universal that which is valid for everyone, which from another side can be expressed by saying that it is valid at every moment.
> «det Almene» — the universal: «det Almene» = the universal, the general — the term (echoing Hegel) for what holds for everyone and at all times. It is the keyword of Problema I: the ethical IS the universal, and faith will be defined against it as «Paradoxet», the single individual standing higher than the universal. Period orthography: «saadant» (modern «sådant»), «gjældende» (with «gj», modern «gældende»), «Øieblik» (modern «øjeblik»).

Det hviler immanent i sig selv, har Intet udenfor sig, der er dets 7s4oc, men er selv tsåoc for Alt, hvad det har udenfor sig, og naar det Ethiske har optaget dette i sig, da kommer det ikke videre.  
It rests immanently in itself, has nothing outside itself that is its télos, but is itself télos for everything it has outside itself, and once the ethical has taken this up into itself, it goes no further.
> «7s4oc», «tsåoc» — garbled Greek τέλος (télos): These mangled strings are the Greek word τέλος (télos, 'end / goal / purpose') as it survived OCR of the old printed edition, where the Greek type was misread. The argument is that the ethical is its own télos: it points beyond itself to nothing. Read every such string in this section as τέλος. Note «immanent» — the ethical 'rests immanently in itself,' a deliberately Hegelian formulation.

Umiddelbar sandselig og sjælelig bestemmet er den Enkelte den Enkelte, der i det Almene har sit 7sAog, og dette er hans ethiske Opgave, bestandig at udtrykke sig selv i dette, at ophæve sin Enkelthed for at blive det Almene.  
Immediately determined as a sensuous and psychical being, the single individual is the single individual who has his télos in the universal, and this is his ethical task: constantly to express himself in it, to annul his singularity so as to become the universal.
> «den Enkelte» — the single individual: «den Enkelte» = the single individual, the lone particular person — the great counter-term to «det Almene». Kierkegaard later made it his signature category (he asked that it be carved on his grave). The ethical demands that the individual «ophæve sin Enkelthed» — annul his singularity (note «ophæve», the Danish for Hegel's Aufheben) — to dissolve into the universal.

Saasnart den Enkelte vil gjøre sig gjældende i sin Enkelthed ligeoverfor det Almene, da synder han, og kan kun ved at anerkjende dette atter forsone sig med det Almene.  
As soon as the single individual wants to assert himself in his singularity over against the universal, he sins, and only by acknowledging this can he be reconciled again with the universal.
> «Saasnart … da» — verb-second inversion: After the fronted subordinate clause «Saasnart den Enkelte vil gjøre sig gjældende …», the main clause inverts to verb-then-subject: «da synder han» (then sins he). Danish keeps the finite verb in second position, so the resumptive «da» (then) is followed immediately by the verb. Period spelling: «Saasnart» (modern «Så snart»), «gjøre» (modern «gøre»), «anerkjende» (with «kj», modern «anerkende»).

Hver Gang den Enkelte, efterat have været traadt ind i det Almene, føler en Tilskyndelse til at gjøre sig gjældende som den Enkelte, da er han i Anfægtelse, af hvilken han kun arbeider sig ud, ved angrende at opgive sig selv som den Enkelte i det Almene.  
Every time the single individual, after having entered into the universal, feels an impulse to assert himself as the single individual, he is in spiritual trial, out of which he works his way only by repentantly giving himself up as the single individual within the universal.
> «Anfægtelse» — spiritual trial / temptation: «Anfægtelse» is a key term throughout Problema I: a spiritual trial or assault, the temptation that besets the believer — distinct from ordinary «Fristelse» (temptation to do wrong). The whole danger Kierkegaard tracks is that the paradox of faith «let kan forvexles med en Anfægtelse» (can easily be confused with a spiritual trial). Note «efterat have været traadt ind» — the older perfect-infinitive construction, and «arbeider» (modern «arbejder»).

Er dette det Højeste, der lader sig sige om Mennesket og om hans Tilværelse, saa har det Ethiske samme Beskaffenhed som et Menneskes evige Salighed, hvilken i al Evighed og i ethvert Øieblik er hans rs4os, da det vilde være en Modsigelse, at den skulde kunne opgives (2: teleologisk suspenderes) da den, saasnart den suspenderes, forskjærtses, medens hvad der suspenderes ikke er forskjærtset, men netop bevaret i det Høiere, der er dets 7s40s.  
If this is the highest that can be said of man and of his existence, then the ethical has the same character as a man's eternal blessedness, which in all eternity and at every moment is his télos, since it would be a contradiction that it could be given up (that is, teleologically suspended), because the moment it is suspended it is forfeited, whereas what is suspended is not forfeited but precisely preserved in the higher, which is its télos.
> «suspendere» vs. «forskjærtse» — the key distinction: Kierkegaard sharpens his term by contrast: to «forskjærtse» (forfeit, lose for good; modern «forskertse») is not the same as to «suspendere» (suspend). What is suspended is not lost but «bevaret i det Høiere» — preserved in the higher. The parenthetical «(2: …)» uses «2:» as a period abbreviation for «det er» / 'that is.' Eternal blessedness («evige Salighed») cannot be suspended in this way, which is why the ethical, if it is the highest, cannot be either.

Forholder det sig saaledes, da har Hegel Ret, naar han lader Mennesket i det Gode og Samvittigheden kun være bestemmet som den Enkelte, han har Ret i at betragte denne Bestemmethed som en ,moralsk Form af det Onde" (cfr. især Retsphilosophien), hvilken skal ophæves i det Sædeliges Teleologi, saaledes at den Enkelte, der forbliver i hiint Stadium, enten synder eller ligger i Anfægtelse: Hvad Hegel derimod ikke har Ret i, er at tale om Troen, Uret i ikke høit og lydeligt at protestere mod, at Abraham nyder Hæder og Ære som en Troens Fader, medens han burde hjemvises og udvises som en Morder.  
If that is how matters stand, then Hegel is right when he lets man, in the good and in conscience, be determined merely as the single individual; he is right to regard this determination as a 'moral form of evil' (cf. especially the Philosophy of Right), which is to be annulled in the teleology of ethical life, so that the single individual who remains in that stage either sins or lies in spiritual trial. What Hegel has no right to do, on the other hand, is to speak of faith — no right not to protest loudly and clearly that Abraham enjoys honor and glory as a father of faith, when he ought rather to be turned away and cast out as a murderer.
> «det Sædelige» — ethical life (Sittlichkeit): «det Sædelige» translates Hegel's Sittlichkeit — the concrete, customary ethical life embodied in family, civil society, and state — as against mere «Moralitet» (subjective morality). Kierkegaard treats «det Ethiske 9: det Sædelige» (the ethical, i.e. the ethical-life) as Hegel's candidate for 'the highest,' precisely the claim faith breaks. Note «hiint Stadium» (modern «hint Stadium», that stage) and «hjemvises og udvises» — turned away and expelled.

Troen er nemlig dette Paradox, at den Enkelte er højere end det Almene, dog vel at mærke saaledes, at Bevægelsen gjentager sig, at han altsaa, efterat have været i det Almene, nu som den Enkelte isolerer sig som højere end det Almene.  
For faith is precisely this paradox, that the single individual is higher than the universal — yet, mark well, in such a way that the movement repeats itself, so that he, after having been in the universal, now as the single individual isolates himself as higher than the universal.
> «Paradoxet» — faith as paradox: Here Kierkegaard gives faith its definition: «Troen er … dette Paradox, at den Enkelte er højere end det Almene» — the single individual is higher than the universal. This inverts the ethical, where the individual must dissolve into the universal. Crucially «Bevægelsen gjentager sig» (the movement repeats itself): the believer first enters the universal, then re-isolates as the individual on a higher plane. Period spelling «gjentager» (modern «gentager»), «altsaa» (modern «altså»).

Dersom dette ikke er Troen, såa er Abraham tabt, saa har Troen aldrig været til i Verden, netop fordi den altid har været til.  
If this is not faith, then Abraham is lost, then faith has never existed in the world — precisely because it has always existed.
> «Dersom … saa» — conditional refrain: «Dersom» = if (a formal alternative to «hvis»); the «Dersom … saa» pattern is a recurring drumbeat in this section. The paradoxical close — faith 'has never existed, precisely because it has always existed' — is one Kierkegaard repeats verbatim later as a deliberate refrain. Note the period/typographic «såa» and «saa» both standing for modern «så» (then/so).

Thi hvis det Ethiske 9: det Sædelige er det Højeste, og der intet Incommensurabelt bliver tilbage i Mennesket paa anden Maade, end at dette Incommensurable er det Onde 2: det Enkelte, der skal udtrykkes i det Almene, saa behøver man ikke andre Kategorier end hvad den græske Philosophi havde, eller hvad der ved en conseqvent Tænkning lader sig uddrage af disse.  
For if the ethical — that is, ethical life — is the highest, and there remains nothing incommensurable in man in any other way than that this incommensurable is the evil, that is, the singular that must be expressed in the universal, then one needs no other categories than those Greek philosophy had, or than what can be drawn out of them by consistent thinking.
> «Incommensurabelt» — the incommensurable: «det Incommensurable» — that which has no common measure with the universal, what cannot be reduced to ethical terms. Hegel can allow no positive incommensurable: anything left over in man must be «det Onde» (the evil). Faith insists there is an incommensurable that is good and higher. Note the abbreviation marks «9:» and «2:» both standing for «det er» (that is) — interchangeable period shorthand — and «conseqvent» (modern «konsekvent»), «græske Philosophi» (Greek philosophy).

Dette burde Hegel ikke have lagt Skjul paa; thi han har dog havt græske Studier.  
This Hegel ought not to have concealed; for he did, after all, have Greek studies behind him.
> «thi» — for (archaic causal): «thi» = 'for / because,' an older, elevated coordinating conjunction (cf. German denn) that Kierkegaard uses constantly to introduce a reason. Modern Danish has largely replaced it with «for». Note «havt» (modern «haft», had) and «lagt Skjul paa» — to have concealed / kept hidden.

Man hører ikke sjeldent Mænd, der, i Mangel af at fortabe sig i Studier, fordybe sig i Phraser, fortælle, at der over den christelige Verden skinner et Lys, medens der ruger et Mørke over Hedenskabet.  
Not seldom one hears men who, for lack of losing themselves in study, immerse themselves in phrases, telling us that over the Christian world there shines a light, while a darkness broods over paganism.
> «Hedenskabet» — paganism: «Hedenskabet» = heathendom / paganism, here the pre-Christian Greek world. Kierkegaard mocks the cliché that Christianity is light and paganism darkness; he holds rather that every serious thinker is rejuvenated by 'the Greek people's eternal youth.' Period spelling: «sjeldent» (modern «sjældent»), «christelige» (modern «kristelige»), and «Phraser» (modern «fraser», empty phrases).

Denne Tale har altid forekommet mig besynderlig, da endnu enhver grundigere Tænker, enhver alvorligere Kunstner forynger sig ved det græske Folks evige Ungdom.  
This way of talking has always struck me as strange, since to this day every more thorough thinker, every more serious artist, is rejuvenated by the eternal youth of the Greek people.

Et saadant Udsagn lader sig forklare af, at man ikke veed hvad man skal sige, men kun, at man skal sige Noget.  
Such a pronouncement can be explained by the fact that one does not know what one is to say, but only that one is to say something.
> «veed» — knows: «veed» is the period spelling of modern «ved» (knows, from «vide»), with the doubled vowel typical of the orthography of the day. The construction «lader sig forklare af» — 'can be explained by / lets itself be explained' — uses «lade sig» + infinitive for a passive-potential sense ('can be ...'), one of Kierkegaard's favorite turns.

Det er i sin Orden, at man siger, at Hedenskabet ikke havde Troen, men naar man derved skal have sagt Noget, da maa man være lidt mere paa det Rene om, hvad man forstaaer ved Troen, da man ellers synker tilbage i saadanne Phraser.  
It is quite in order to say that paganism did not have faith; but if by that one is supposed to have said something, then one must be a little clearer about what one understands by faith, since otherwise one sinks back into such phrases.
> «paa det Rene» — clear / settled: «at være paa det Rene om noget» = to be clear about / to have something settled (literally 'on the clear'). Kierkegaard's demand: do not use the word «Troen» (faith) unless you can say what it is. Period spelling: «forstaaer» (modern «forstår»), «saadanne» (modern «sådanne»).

At forklare hele Tilværelsen, Troen med, uden at have en Forestilling om hvad Troen er, er let, og den calculerer ikke slettest i Livet, der regner paa Beundring, naar han har en saadan Forklaring; thi det er som Boileau siger: un sot trouve toujours un plus sot, qui Vadmire.  
To explain the whole of existence, faith included, without having any conception of what faith is, is easy; and he does not calculate worst in life who counts on admiration when he has such an explanation — for it is as Boileau says: un sot trouve toujours un plus sot, qui l'admire.

Troen er netop dette Paradox, at den Enkelte som den Enkelte er højere end det Almene, er berettiget ligeoverfor dette, ikke subordineret, men overordnet, dog vel at mærke saaledes, at det er den Enkelte, der efter at have været som den Enkelte det Almene underordnet, nu gjennem det Almene bliver den Enkelte, der som den Enkelte er det overordnet; at den Enkelte som den Enkelte staaer i et absolut Forhold til det Absolute.  
Faith is precisely this paradox, that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal, is justified over against it — not subordinated, but superordinate — yet, mark well, in such a way that it is the single individual who, after having been as the single individual subordinate to the universal, now through the universal becomes the single individual who as the single individual is superordinate to it; that the single individual as the single individual stands in an absolute relation to the absolute.
> «et absolut Forhold til det Absolute» — an absolute relation to the absolute: The summit-formula of Problema I: faith is the single individual standing in «et absolut Forhold til det Absolute» — an absolute relation to the Absolute (God). The individual is not «subordineret» (subordinated) to the universal but «overordnet» (superordinate), having first passed through being «underordnet» (subordinate) to it. The triple play of subordinate/superordinate marks the repetition of the movement. Note «staaer» (modern «står»), «gjennem» (modern «gennem»).

Dette Standpunkt lader sig ikke mediere; thi al Mediation skeer netop i Kraft af det Almene; det er og bliver i al Evighed et Paradox, utilgængeligt for Tænkningen.  
This standpoint cannot be mediated; for all mediation takes place precisely by virtue of the universal; it is and remains for all eternity a paradox, inaccessible to thought.
> «mediere» — to mediate (Hegelian Vermittlung): «Mediation» / «at mediere» is Hegel's Vermittlung — the dialectical move by which opposites are reconciled in a higher unity. Kierkegaard's point is that the paradox of faith is unmediatable: since all mediation works «i Kraft af det Almene» (by virtue of the universal), and faith puts the individual above the universal, it stays «utilgængeligt for Tænkningen» — inaccessible to thought. The phrase «i Kraft af det Absurde» (by virtue of the absurd) names the same impasse from faith's side.

Og dog er Troen dette Paradox eller ogsaa (dette er de Conseqventser, som jeg vil bede Læseren have in mente paa ethvert Punkt, om det end vilde blive mig for vidtløftigt overalt at nedskrive dem) eller ogsaa har der aldrig været Tro til, netop fordi den altid har været, eller ogsaa er Abraham tabt.  
And yet faith is this paradox — or else (these are the consequences I would ask the reader to keep in mind at every point, even though it would become too long-winded for me to write them out everywhere) — or else faith has never existed, precisely because it has always existed, or else Abraham is lost.
> «in mente» — Latin: in mind: «in mente» = Latin 'in mind' (to keep in mind). The sentence lays out the stark trilemma that governs the book: «eller ogsaa … eller ogsaa … eller ogsaa» — either faith is this paradox, or it has never existed, or Abraham is lost. Note «Conseqventser» (modern «konsekvenser»), «vidtløftigt» (long-winded, rambling), «nedskrive» (write down).

At dette Paradox for den Enkelte let kan forvexles med en Anfægtelse, er vel sandt, men derfor bør man ikke skjule det.  
That this paradox can, for the single individual, easily be confused with a spiritual trial, is true enough; but that is no reason to conceal it.

At Manges hele Bygning kan være saaledes, at det støder dem fra sig, er vel sandt; men derfor bør man ikke gjøre Troen til noget Andet, for ogsaa at kunne have den, men hellere tilstaae, at man ikke har den, medens de, der have Troen, burde være betænkte paa, at opstille nogle Kjendetegn, at man kunde adskille Paradoxet fra en Anfægtelse.  
That the whole make-up of many people may be such that the paradox repels them is true enough; but that is no reason to make faith into something else in order to be able to have it too, but rather to admit that one does not have it — while those who do have faith ought to be intent on setting up some marks of recognition by which one could distinguish the paradox from a spiritual trial.
> «Kjendetegn» — marks of recognition: «Kjendetegn» (modern «kendetegn») = distinguishing marks, criteria. The honest demand: rather than redefining «Troen» (faith) down to something one can possess, either confess one lacks it, or — if one has it — produce «Kjendetegn» to tell «Paradoxet» (the paradox) from «en Anfægtelse» (a spiritual trial). Period spelling «gjøre» (modern «gøre»), «tilstaae» (modern «tilstå», to admit), «have Troen» (older plural verb «have», modern «har»).

Fortællingen om Abraham indeholder nu en saadan teleologisk Suspension af det Ethiske.  
The story of Abraham now contains just such a teleological suspension of the ethical.

Det har ikke. manglet paa skarpsindige Hoveder og grundige Forskere, der have fundet Analogier til den.  
There has been no lack of sharp minds and thorough scholars who have found analogies to it.
> Misplaced period in the source: The stray period after «ikke» («Det har ikke. manglet …») is a typesetting/OCR artifact of the old edition, not a real sentence break; the clause is one sentence, 'There has been no lack of …'. It is kept verbatim so the joined sources reproduce the chunk. Note «have fundet» — older plural verb form (modern «har fundet»).

Deres Viisdom løber ud paa den skjønne Sætning, at i Grunden er Alt det Samme.  
Their wisdom amounts to the fine proposition that at bottom everything is the same.
> «Viisdom» — doubled-vowel orthography: «Viisdom» (modern «visdom», wisdom) shows the period habit of doubling a long vowel — compare «Priis», «Beviis», «Viisdom» elsewhere in this section. «løber ud paa» = 'amounts to / comes down to.' Kierkegaard says it with a sneer: «den skjønne Sætning» (the fine/pretty proposition) that 'everything is at bottom the same' dissolves Abraham's singularity into bland analogy.

Naar man vil see lidt nærmere til, tvivler jeg meget paa, at man i den ganske Verden skal finde en eneste Analogi, undtagen en senere, hvilket Intet beviser, naar det staaer fast, at Abraham repræsenterer Troen, og at den normalt er udtrykt i ham, hvis Liv ikke blot er det mest Paradoxe, der lader sig tænke, men saa paradox, at det slet ikke lader sig tænke.  
When one looks a little more closely, I very much doubt that in the whole world one will find a single analogy, except a later one, which proves nothing, once it stands firm that Abraham represents faith and that faith is normatively expressed in him — whose life is not merely the most paradoxical that can be thought, but so paradoxical that it cannot be thought at all.
> «lader sig tænke» — can be thought: «lader sig tænke» = 'can be thought / is thinkable' (literally 'lets itself be thought'), the same «lade sig» + infinitive potential-passive seen above. Kierkegaard turns it on its head: Abraham's life is «saa paradox, at det slet ikke lader sig tænke» — so paradoxical that it cannot be thought at all. Note «see» (modern «se»), «staaer» (modern «står»).

Han handler i Kraft af det Absurde; thi det er netop det Absurde, at han som den Enkelte er højere end det Almene.  
He acts by virtue of the absurd; for it is precisely the absurd that he, as the single individual, is higher than the universal.
> «i Kraft af det Absurde» — by virtue of the absurd: «i Kraft af det Absurde» = 'by virtue of / on the strength of the absurd' — the signature phrase of Fear and Trembling. Abraham does not act on a calculation or a probability but on the absurd: he believes he will get Isaac back even as he raises the knife. It is faith's counterpart to the unmediatable paradox — what cannot be reasoned to, only believed.

Dette Paradox lader sig ikke mediere; thi saasnart han begynder derpaa, da maa han tilstaae, at han var i en Anfægtelse, og naar saa er, kommer han aldrig til at offre Isaak, eller hvis han har offret Isaak, da maa han .angrende vende tilbage til det Almene.  
This paradox cannot be mediated; for as soon as he begins to do so, he must admit that he was in a spiritual trial, and if so, he never comes to sacrifice Isaac, or if he has sacrificed Isaac, then he must repentantly return to the universal.
> «offre Isaak» — to sacrifice Isaac: «offre» (modern «ofre») = to sacrifice; the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22) is the act the whole book circles. To 'mediate' the paradox would force Abraham to confess he was merely in «en Anfægtelse» (a spiritual trial), and then either he never sacrifices Isaac or, having done so, must «angrende vende tilbage» — repentantly return to the universal as a penitent. The stray period before «angrende» is an OCR artifact, kept verbatim.

I Kraft af det Absurde faaer han Isaak igjen.  
By virtue of the absurd he gets Isaac back.
> «faaer han Isaak igjen» — gets Isaac back: «faaer» (modern «får», gets/receives) with «igjen» (modern «igen», again/back). This terse sentence is the whole movement of faith in miniature: not Abraham resigning Isaac forever (that would be infinite resignation), but receiving him back «i Kraft af det Absurde». Period orthography: doubled-vowel «faaer» and «igjen» with its «gj».

Abraham er derfor i intet Øieblik en tragisk Helt, men noget ganske Andet, enten en Morder eller en Troende.  
Abraham is therefore at no moment a tragic hero, but something altogether different — either a murderer or a believer.
> «tragisk Helt» — the tragic hero: «den tragiske Helt» (the tragic hero — Agamemnon, Jephthah, Brutus) is the foil to Abraham throughout this section: he too sacrifices a child, but always within the ethical, for a recognized higher ethical end (nation, vow, law). Abraham has no such mediating term, so he is «enten en Morder eller en Troende» — either a murderer or a believer, never merely a hero. Note «Øieblik» (modern «øjeblik»).

Den Mellembestemmelse, der frelser den tragiske Helt, har Abraham ikke.  
The intermediate determination that saves the tragic hero, Abraham does not have.
> «Mellembestemmelse» — intermediate determination: «Mellembestemmelse» = an in-between or mediating term (Mellem- 'between' + Bestemmelse 'determination/category'). It is the higher ethical end that lets the tragic hero's deed still be read ethically. Abraham lacks it: nothing mediates his act, which is why he cannot be understood, only admired «i en vis afsindig Forstand» (in a certain insane sense). The fronted object «Den Mellembestemmelse … har Abraham ikke» throws the missing thing to the front for emphasis.

Derfor er det, at jeg kan forstaae en tragisk Helt, men ikke forstaae Abraham, om jeg end i en vis afsindig Forstand beundrer ham mere end alle Andre.  
That is why I can understand a tragic hero, but cannot understand Abraham, even though in a certain insane sense I admire him more than all others.
> «afsindig Forstand» — an insane sense: «afsindig» = mad, insane, out of one's mind. The paradox of the narrator's stance: Abraham cannot be understood («forstaae», modern «forstå») — understanding works through the universal — yet he is admired beyond all others, but only «i en vis afsindig Forstand», in a certain insane sense, because admiration of him bursts the bounds of reason. «om … end» = even though / although.

Abrahams Forhold til Isaak er ethisk udtrykt ganske simpelt dette, at Faderen skal elske Sønnen højere end sig selv.  
Abraham's relation to Isaac is, ethically expressed, quite simply this: that the father shall love the son more than himself.

Dog det Ethiske har indenfor sit eget Omfang adskillige Gradationer; vi ville see, om der i denne Fortælling findes noget saadant højere Udtryk for det Ethiske, der ethisk kan forklare hans Adfærd, ethisk berettige ham til at suspendere den ethiske Forpligtelse mod Sønnen, uden dog derfor at bevæge sig ud over det Ethiskes Teleologi.  
Yet the ethical, within its own compass, has several gradations; we shall see whether in this story there is to be found any such higher expression of the ethical that could ethically explain his conduct, ethically justify him in suspending the ethical obligation toward the son, without thereby moving beyond the teleology of the ethical.
> «Gradationer» — gradations within the ethical: «det Ethiske har … adskillige Gradationer» — the ethical contains higher and lower expressions of itself (e.g. the tragic hero subordinates one ethical duty to a higher ethical end). Kierkegaard tests whether Abraham fits this: is there a higher ethical expression that justifies him 'uden … at bevæge sig ud over det Ethiskes Teleologi' (without moving beyond the teleology of the ethical)? The answer will be no — which is what makes his case a true teleological suspension. Note «ville see» (older plural verb, modern «vil se»).

Naar et Foretagende, der er et heelt Folks Bekymring, forhindres, naar en saadan Bedrift standses ved Himlens Unaade, naar den vrede Guddom sender et Blikstille, der spotter alle Anstrengelser, naar Spaamanden fuldkommer sin tunge Gjerning og forkynder, at Guden fordrer en ung Pige som Offer — da skal Faderen heltemodigen bringe dette Offer.  
When an undertaking that is the concern of a whole people is hindered, when such an enterprise is brought to a standstill by the disfavor of heaven, when the angry deity sends a dead calm that mocks all efforts, when the soothsayer carries out his heavy task and proclaims that the god demands a young girl as a sacrifice — then the father shall heroically bring this sacrifice.

Høimodig skal han dølge sin Smerte, om han end kunde ønske, han . var ,den ringe Mand, der tør græde," ikke Kongen, der maa handle kongeligt.  
Magnanimously he shall conceal his pain, even though he might wish he were 'the lowly man who dares to weep,' not the king who must act royally.

Og trænger Smerten end eensomt ind i hans Bryst, har han kun 3 Medvidere i Folket, snart skal det hele Folk være Medvider i hans Smerte, men ogsaa Medvider i hans Daad, at han for det Heles Vel vilde offre hende, Datteren, den unge deilige Pige.  
And though the pain pierces lonely into his breast, and though he has but three confidants among the people, soon the whole people shall be confidant of his pain, but also confidant of his deed — that for the good of the whole he would sacrifice her, the daughter, the young and lovely girl.
> «Medvider» — fellow-knower; «for det Heles Vel» — for the good of the whole: «Medvider» = one who knows along with another, a confidant (Med- 'with' + Vider 'knower'). The tragic hero's deed is public and shareable: the whole people can be «Medvider», can understand and weep with him, because he acts «for det Heles Vel» — for the good of the whole. This shareability is exactly what Abraham lacks. Note «eensomt» (modern «ensomt», lonely), «deilige» (modern «dejlige», lovely).

O Barm! o fagre Kinder, lysegule Haar (v. 68 7.).  
O bosom! o fair cheeks, light-golden hair (v. 687).

Og Datteren skal røre ham ved sine Taarer, og Faderen skal vende sit Ansigt bort, men Helten skal løfte Kniven.  
And the daughter shall move him with her tears, and the father shall turn his face away, but the hero shall raise the knife.

— Naar da Efterretningen derom naaer det fædrene Hjem, da skal Grækenlands skjønne Piger rødme af Begeistring, og hvis Datteren var Brud, da skal den Trolovede ikke vredes, men være stolt af at deeltage i Faderens Daad, fordi Pigen tilhørte ham ømmere end hun tilhørte Faderen.  
— When the tidings of it reach the ancestral home, then the fair maidens of Greece shall flush with enthusiasm, and if the daughter was a bride, then the betrothed shall not grow angry, but be proud to share in the father's deed, because the girl belonged to him more tenderly than she belonged to the father.
> «Faderens Daad» — the father's deed: «Daad» (modern «dåd») = a deed, an exploit, a noble act — a recurring word for the tragic hero's sacrifice, which others can admire and even take pride in sharing. The em-dash «—» opening the sentence continues the heroic tableau. Note «Efterretningen» (the tidings/news), «fædrene Hjem» (ancestral home), «Trolovede» (the betrothed), «deeltage» (modern «deltage», to take part).

Naar den kjække Dommer, der frelste Israel i Nødens Stund, i eet Aandedrag binder Gud og sig selv ved det samme.  
When the valiant judge who saved Israel in the hour of need, in one breath binds God and himself by the same.

Løfte, da skal han heltemodigen forvandle den unge Piges Jubel, den elskede Datters Glæde til Sorg, og hele Israel skal sørge med hende over hendes jomfruelige Ungdom; men enhver fribaaren Mand Frygt og Bæven.  
Vow, then he shall heroically transform the young girl's rejoicing, the beloved daughter's joy, into sorrow, and all Israel shall mourn with her over her maidenly youth; but every freeborn man Fear and Trembling.
> A printed running-head spliced into the text: The words «Frygt og Bæven» (the book's title) and, in the next sentence, «3. Udg. 5», are a running header and page signature from the printed 3rd edition («3. Udg.» = '3rd edition', «5» = a page/sheet number) that the cleaning swept into the prose mid-sentence. They are not Kierkegaard's words but are preserved verbatim so the joined sources reproduce the chunk. The real sentence runs «… enhver fribaaren Mand [skal] forstaae …» across this artifact. «Løfte» here resumes the vow from the prior sentence; «fribaaren» = freeborn.

3. Udg. 5 skal forstaae, enhver behjertet Qvinde beundre Jephtah, og enhver Jomfru i Israel skal ønske at handle som hans Datter; thi hvad hjalp det, at Jephtah seirede ved sit Løfte, naar han ikke holdt det, skulde da Seiren' ikke atter tages fra Folket?  
shall understand, every stout-hearted woman admire Jephthah, and every maiden in Israel shall wish to act as his daughter did; for what would it have availed that Jephthah triumphed by his vow, if he had not kept it — should not the victory then be taken from the people again?
> Keeping the vow — the ethical ground of Jephthah's act: The logic that keeps Jephthah inside the ethical: his vow («Løfte») bound the whole people's fate; not to keep it would forfeit the God-given victory («Seiren … tages fra Folket»). His sacrifice is therefore intelligible and admirable to all Israel — unlike Abraham's, which binds no one but himself. Note «behjertet» (stout-hearted), «Qvinde» (modern «kvinde», with period «Qv»), «seirede» (modern «sejrede»), «Seiren'» (with the apostrophe an OCR artifact, modern «sejren»).

Naar en Søn forglemmer sin Pligt, naar Staten betroer Faderen Dommersværdet, naar Lovene kræve Straffen af Faderens Haand, da skal Faderen heltemodigen glemme, at den Skyldige er hans Søn, han skal højimodigen skjule sin Smerte, men der skal ikke være en Eneste i Folket, end ikke Sønnen, uden at han beundrer Faderen, og hver Gang Roms Love blive fortolkede, skal det mindes, at Mangen fortolkede dem lærdere, men Ingen herligere end Brutus.  
When a son forgets his duty, when the state entrusts the father with the sword of judgment, when the laws demand punishment at the father's hand, then the father shall heroically forget that the guilty one is his son, he shall magnanimously hide his pain, but there shall not be a single soul among the people, not even the son, who does not admire the father; and every time the laws of Rome are interpreted, it shall be remembered that many interpreted them more learnedly, but none more gloriously than Brutus.

Hvis derimod Agamemnon, medeus en gunstig Vind fører Flaaden for fulde Seil til sit Maal, vilde have afsendt hiint Bud, der hentede Iphigenia, for at offre hende; hvis Jephtah, uden at være bunden ved noget Løfte, der afgjorde Folkets Skjæbne, vilde have sagt til Datteren: sørg nu i to Maaneder over Din korte Ungdom, da vil jeg offre Dig; hvis Brutus havde havt en retfærdig Søn, og dog vilde have kaldt ad Lictorerne for at henrette ham — hvo skulde da have forstaaet dem?  
If, on the other hand, Agamemnon, while a favorable wind bore the fleet at full sail to its goal, had sent off that messenger to fetch Iphigenia in order to sacrifice her; if Jephthah, without being bound by any vow that decided the people's fate, had said to his daughter: mourn now for two months over your brief youth, then I will sacrifice you; if Brutus had had a righteous son, and yet had called for the lictors to put him to death — who then would have understood them?
> «hvo» — who (archaic): «hvo» is the old, elevated form of «hvem» (who), surviving in proverbs and biblical Danish. The whole sentence runs three counterfactuals («Hvis … hvis … hvis …»): strip each hero of his public, ethical ground and the deed becomes incomprehensible. The point: it is precisely the mediating ethical end that makes the tragic hero understandable — Abraham has none. Note «medeus» (an OCR slip for «medens», while), «hiint Bud» (that messenger), «Lictorerne» (the Roman lictors, attendants who carried out punishments).

Hvis disse tre Mænd paa det Spørgsmaal, hvorfor de gjorde det, havde svaret: det er en Prøvelse, i hvilken vi forsøges, skulde man da have forstaaet dem bedre?  
If these three men, to the question why they did it, had answered: it is an ordeal in which we are being tested — would one then have understood them any better?
> «en Prøvelse, i hvilken vi forsøges» — an ordeal / test: «Prøvelse» = an ordeal, a trial, a testing (related to «prøve», to test). To answer 'it is an ordeal in which we are tested' would make the tragic heroes LESS intelligible, not more — because that answer points away from the universal. Yet this is exactly the category that fits Abraham: God's «Prøvelse» of his faith. The word returns below where Abraham's act is named «en Prøvelse, en Fristelse».

Naar Agamemnon, Jephtah, Brutus i det afgjørende Øieblik heltemodigen overvinder Smerten, heltemodigen har tabt det Elskede og blot skal fuldkomme Gjerningen i det Ydre, da skal der aldrig være en adelig Sjæl i Verden, uden at han har Medlidenhedens Taarer for deres Smerte, Beundringens for deres Daad.  
When Agamemnon, Jephthah, Brutus at the decisive moment heroically overcome their pain, have heroically lost what they loved and have only to carry out the deed outwardly, then there shall never be a noble soul in the world who has not tears of compassion for their pain, tears of admiration for their deed.
> «Medlidenhed» and «Beundring» — compassion and admiration: The tragic hero draws two responses from every noble soul: «Medlidenhedens Taarer» (tears of compassion) for his pain and «Beundringens [Taarer]» (tears of admiration) for his deed — the elliptical second «Beundringens» borrows «Taarer» from the first. Both responses presuppose that we understand him. Abraham, by contrast, can be admired only «i en vis afsindig Forstand». «det afgjørende Øieblik» = the decisive moment; «fuldkomme Gjerningen i det Ydre» = complete the deed outwardly.

Hvis derimod disse tre Mænd i det afgjørende Øieblik til det Heltemod, med hvilket de bar Smerten, ville føje det lille Ord: det skeer dog ikke — hvo skulde da forstaae dem?  
If, on the other hand, these three men at the decisive moment were to add to the heroism with which they bore their pain the little word: yet it will not happen — who then would understand them?
> «det skeer dog ikke» — yet it will not happen: The 'little word' that would make even the tragic heroes incomprehensible: «det skeer dog ikke» (modern «det sker dog ikke»), 'yet it will not happen' — i.e. they would carry out the sacrifice and still believe the loved one would not be lost. That double movement (giving up and yet expecting to receive back) is Abraham's faith «i Kraft af det Absurde», and it cannot be understood, only believed. «føje … til» = to add to.

Hvis de som en Forklaring tilføjede: det troe vi i Kraft af det Absurde, hvo skulde da bedre forstaae dem, thi hvo skulde ikke let forstaae, at det var absurdt, men hvo skulde forstaae, at man saa kunde troe det?  
If by way of explanation they added: this we believe by virtue of the absurd — who then would understand them better? For who would not easily understand that it was absurd; but who would understand that one could then believe it?
> «det troe vi i Kraft af det Absurde» — this we believe by virtue of the absurd: The crux of the chapter, put as a dilemma: anyone can understand that the thing is absurd; what no one can understand is how, knowing it absurd, one could still BELIEVE it. That impossible 'still believing' is faith. «troe» is the older spelling/plural of modern «tror/tro» (believe). Note the contrast: «forstaae» (to understand — works through the universal) versus «troe» (to believe — leaps the absurd).

Forskjellen mellem den tragiske Helt og Abraham er let iøinefaldende.  
The difference between the tragic hero and Abraham is easily evident.
> «iøinefaldende» — striking / conspicuous: «iøinefaldende» (modern «iøjnefaldende») = literally 'falling into the eye,' i.e. conspicuous, obvious, striking. The period spelling keeps «øi» where modern Danish writes «øj». «Forskjellen» (modern «forskellen», the difference) shows the «kj» orthography. This sentence pivots the argument from the tragic heroes back to Abraham.

Den tragiske Helt bliver endnu indenfor det Etliske.  
The tragic hero still remains within the ethical.
> «det Etliske» — a misprint of «det Ethiske»: «det Etliske» is a typo in the old edition for «det Ethiske» (the ethical) — kept verbatim per the source. The thesis it states is central: the tragic hero never leaves the ethical; his higher end is itself an ethical expression. Abraham, by contrast, steps wholly outside the ethical, which is what the 'teleological suspension' names.

Han lader et Udtryk af det Ethiske have sit z+4os i et højere Udtryk af det Ethiske, han nedsætter det ethiske Forhold. mellem Fader og Søn eller Datter og Fader til en Følelse, der har -sin Dialektik i sit Forhold til Sædelighedens Idee.  
He lets one expression of the ethical have its télos in a higher expression of the ethical; he reduces the ethical relation between father and son, or daughter and father, to a feeling that has its dialectic in its relation to the idea of ethical life.
> «Sædelighedens Idee» — the idea of ethical life: «Sædelighedens Idee» = the idea of Sittlichkeit (concrete ethical life — state, people, law). The tragic hero's télos («z+4os» is the OCR-garbled Greek τέλος again) stays inside the ethical: one ethical expression yields to a higher ethical expression, and the father-child bond is subordinated to the idea of ethical life. The stray period in «Forhold. mellem» and the stray hyphen in «-sin» are OCR artifacts, kept verbatim.

Der kan da ikke her være Tale om en teleologisk Suspension af selve det Ethiske.  
There can be no question here, then, of a teleological suspension of the ethical itself.

Med Abraham forholder det sig anderledes.  
With Abraham it is otherwise.

Han overskred ved sin Gjerning hele det Ethiske, og havde et højere rsios udenfor, i Forhold til hvilket han suspenderede dette.  
By his deed he overstepped the whole of the ethical, and had a higher télos outside it, in relation to which he suspended it.
> «overskred» — overstepped the whole ethical: «overskred» (past tense of «overskride», to overstep/transgress) names exactly what the tragic hero does NOT do: Abraham steps clean over «hele det Ethiske» (the whole of the ethical) toward a higher télos («rsios» = the garbled Greek τέλος) that lies OUTSIDE the ethical — namely his absolute relation to God. This 'higher télos outside' is the very thing the suspension requires.

Thi jeg gad dog nok vide, hvorledes man vil bringe Abrahams Gjerning i Forhold til det Almene, om der lader sig opdage nogensomhelst anden Berøring mellem det, Abraham gjorde, og det Almene end den, at Abraham overtraadte det.  
For I should rather like to know how one would bring Abraham's deed into relation with the universal, whether any other point of contact at all could be discovered between what Abraham did and the universal than this: that Abraham transgressed it.
> «Berøring» — point of contact; «overtraadte» — transgressed: «Berøring» = a touching, point of contact. Kierkegaard's challenge: Abraham's deed touches the universal at exactly one point — that he «overtraadte det» (transgressed it). There is no positive ethical relation to be found, which is why the deed is incommensurable. «jeg gad dog nok vide» = 'I should rather like to know' (a slightly ironic idiom); «nogensomhelst» = any whatsoever.

Det er ikke for at frelse et Folk, ikke for at hævde Statens Idee, at Abraham gjør det, ikke for at forsone vrede Guder.  
It is not to save a people, not to assert the idea of the state, that Abraham does it, nor to appease angry gods.
> What Abraham's act is NOT for: Kierkegaard lists, by negation, exactly the public ethical ends that justified the tragic heroes — saving a people (Jephthah), asserting «Statens Idee», the idea of the state (Brutus), appeasing angry gods (Agamemnon) — and denies every one of them to Abraham. With no such end, the act has no foothold in the universal. «forsone» = to reconcile/appease; «hævde» = to assert/uphold.

Kunde der være Tale om, at Guddommen var vred, da var han jo kun vred paa Abraham, og Abrahams hele Gjerning staaer i intet Forhold til det Almene, er et reent privat Foretagende.  
If there could be any question of the deity being angry, he was angry only with Abraham, and Abraham's whole deed stands in no relation to the universal — it is a purely private undertaking.
> «et reent privat Foretagende» — a purely private undertaking: The sharpest formulation of Abraham's isolation: his act «staaer i intet Forhold til det Almene» (stands in no relation to the universal) and is «et reent privat Foretagende» — a purely private undertaking, between him and God alone. This is scandalous from the ethical standpoint, where the private must always dissolve into the universal. «reent» (modern «rent») = purely; «staaer» (modern «står»).

Medens derfor den tragiske Helt er stor ved sin sædelige Dyd, er Abraham stor ved en reen personlig Dyd.  
While therefore the tragic hero is great by his ethical virtue, Abraham is great by a purely personal virtue.
> «sædelig Dyd» vs. «personlig Dyd»: The contrast in one line: the tragic hero is great through «sædelig Dyd» — ethical virtue measured by Sittlichkeit, by what he gives to the whole; Abraham is great through «reen personlig Dyd» — a purely personal virtue, his alone, answerable to God and not to the universal. «Medens» = while/whereas; «Dyd» = virtue.

Der er intet højere Udtryk for det Ethiske i Abrahams Liv, end dette, at Faderen skal elske Sønnen.  
There is no higher expression of the ethical in Abraham's life than this: that the father shall love the son.

Det Ethiske i Betydning af det Sædelige kan der slet ikke være Tale om.  
Of the ethical in the sense of ethical life there can be no question at all.
> «det Ethiske i Betydning af det Sædelige»: Kierkegaard distinguishes two senses of «det Ethiske»: the bare ethical duty (father shall love son) and «det Sædelige» — the ethical in the full Hegelian sense of Sittlichkeit, the customary life of people and state. For Abraham only the first applies; the second is wholly absent, because his act has no relation to any community. This is why no higher ETHICAL expression can justify him.

Forsaavidt det Almene var tilstede, var det jo krypt i Isaak, skjult saa at sige i Isaaks Lænd, og maatte da raabe med Isaaks Mund: Gjør det ikke, Du tilintetgjør Alt.  
Insofar as the universal was present, it lay hidden in Isaac, concealed so to speak in Isaac's loins, and would then have had to cry out with Isaac's mouth: Do not do it, you are destroying everything.
> «krypt i Isaak», «skjult … i Isaaks Lænd» — hidden in Isaac: If the universal had any voice in Abraham's case, it spoke only through Isaac himself — «krypt» (a Latinate form, 'hidden,' cf. crypt) and «skjult … i Isaaks Lænd» (concealed in Isaac's loins, i.e. in the unborn descendants Isaac carries). Its only message would be 'Do not do it, you are destroying everything.' Abraham must silence even this. «skjult» (period «skj»), «tilintetgjør» (modern «tilintetgør», destroy/annihilate).

Hvorfor gjør Abraham det da?  
Why, then, does Abraham do it?

For Guds Skyld og aldeles identisk hermed for sin egen Skyld.  
For God's sake, and, wholly identical with this, for his own sake.
> «For Guds Skyld» — for God's sake / for his own sake: The answer to 'why' collapses two motives into one: «For Guds Skyld» (for God's sake) and, «aldeles identisk hermed» (wholly identical with this), «for sin egen Skyld» (for his own sake). God demands the proof of faith, and Abraham must give it to be the one who has faith — the two are inseparable. «for … Skyld» = for the sake of; «aldeles» = wholly, entirely.

For Guds Skyld gjør han det, fordi Gud fordrer dette Beviis paa hans Tro, for sin egen Skyld gjør han det, at han kan føre Beviset.  
For God's sake he does it, because God demands this proof of his faith; for his own sake he does it, so that he can furnish the proof.
> «Beviis paa hans Tro» — proof of his faith: «Beviis» (modern «bevis», with the period doubled vowel) = proof; «føre Beviset» = to furnish/produce the proof. God demands a «Beviis paa hans Tro» (proof of his faith) — and «Tro», faith, is the book's master-word. The two clauses mirror s65: the same act is God's demand and Abraham's self-attestation, indivisibly.

Eenheden heraf er aldeles rigtigt udtrykt i det Ord, hvormed man altid har betegnet dette Forhold: det er en Prøvelse, en Fristelse.  
The unity of this is quite rightly expressed in the word by which this relation has always been designated: it is an ordeal, a temptation.
> «Prøvelse» and «Fristelse» — ordeal and temptation: The traditional word for Abraham's situation unites both motives: «en Prøvelse» (an ordeal/testing — God testing his faith) and «en Fristelse» (a temptation). The next sentences will turn «Fristelse» inside out: ordinarily temptation lures one AWAY from duty, but here «Fristelsen [er] selve det Ethiske» — the temptation is the ethical itself, holding Abraham back from God's will. «Eenheden» (modern «enheden») = the unity; «betegnet» = designated.

En Fristelse; men hvad vil dette sige?  
A temptation; but what does this mean?

Det, der ellers frister et Menneske, er jo det, der vil holde ham tilbage fra at gjøre sin Pligt, men her er Fristelsen selve det Ethiske, der vil holde ham tilbage fra at gjøre Guds Villie.  
That which otherwise tempts a person is precisely that which would hold him back from doing his duty, but here the temptation is the ethical itself, which would hold him back from doing God's will.
> «Fristelsen [er] selve det Ethiske» — the temptation is the ethical itself: The great inversion of Problema I: normally «Fristelse» (temptation) draws a person away from his duty; here the temptation IS «det Ethiske», the ethical itself — Abraham's love and duty toward Isaac — and it tempts him away from «Guds Villie», God's will. Duty and temptation have swapped places, which is precisely why a new category is needed to understand Abraham. «vil holde ham tilbage» = would hold him back; «Villie» (modern «vilje») = will.

Men hvad er da Pligten?  
But what, then, is duty?

Pligten er jo netop Udtrykket for Guds Villie.  
Duty is precisely the expression of God's will.
> «Pligten er … Udtrykket for Guds Villie» — duty is the expression of God's will: The resolution that breaks the ethical frame: if «Pligt» (duty) just means 'the expression of God's will,' then in Abraham's case duty points TO the sacrifice, not away from it — and the ethical (love of Isaac) becomes the temptation. Ordinary ethics, where duty and God's will coincide with the universal, cannot hold this; hence the closing demand for a new category. «netop» = precisely; «Udtrykket» = the expression.

Her viser Nødvendigheden sig af en ny Kategori for at .forstaae Abraham.  
Here the necessity shows itself of a new category in order to understand Abraham.
> «en ny Kategori» — a new category: The chapter's conclusion: to understand Abraham at all, «Nødvendigheden … af en ny Kategori» — the necessity of a new category — becomes plain, because the categories of Greek philosophy and of the ethical/universal do not reach him. That category is faith, the absolute relation of the single individual to the Absolute. The stray period in «.forstaae» is an OCR artifact, kept verbatim. «Nødvendigheden» = the necessity; «Kategori» = category.

Et saadant Forhold til Guddommen kjender Hedenskabet ikke.  
Such a relation to the Deity paganism does not know.
> «kjender» — knows (period spelling): «kjender» is the 1843 spelling of modern «kender» ('knows'); the «kj-» cluster (also «kjøber», «kjøbe» below) is a hallmark of the older orthography. Note too the inverted word order: the object «Et saadant Forhold» fronts the sentence, so the verb «kjender» comes before its subject «Hedenskabet» ('paganism').

Den tragiske Helt træder ikke i noget privat Forhold til Guddommen, men det Ethiske er det Guddommelige, og derfor lader det Paradoxe deri sig mediere i det Almene.  
The tragic hero enters into no private relation to the Deity, but the ethical is the divine, and therefore the paradox in it lets itself be mediated in the universal.
> «det Almene» — the universal: «det Almene» ('the universal') and «det Ethiske» ('the ethical') are core terms here: for the tragic hero the ethical is the highest, so his deed can be 'mediated' (mediere) — explained and justified — within the universal that everyone shares. Abraham, by contrast, cannot be mediated. «det Paradoxe» ('the paradoxical') anticipates the «Paradox» that defines faith.

Abraham kan ikke medieres, hvilket ogsaa kan udtrykkes saaledes: han kan ikke tale.  
Abraham cannot be mediated, which can also be put thus: he cannot speak.

Saasnart jeg taler, udtrykker jeg det Almene, og naar jeg ikke gjør det, saa kan Ingen forstaae mig.  
As soon as I speak, I express the universal, and when I do not, then no one can understand me.
> «gjør», «forstaae» — period spellings: «gjør» (modern «gør», 'do/does') again shows the «gj-» cluster; «forstaae» (modern «forstå», 'understand') shows the doubled «aa» for «å». «Saasnart … saa» ('as soon as … then') and «naar … saa» ('when … then') are correlative pairs that trigger verb-second inversion in the main clause: «udtrykker jeg», «kan Ingen».

Saasnart da Abraham vil udtrykke sig i det Almene, saa maa han sige, at hans Situation er en Anfægtelse, thi han har intet højere Udtryk af det Almene, der staaer over det Almene, han overtræder.  
As soon, then, as Abraham wants to express himself in the universal, he must say that his situation is a spiritual trial, for he has no higher expression of the universal that stands above the universal he transgresses.
> «Anfægtelse» — spiritual trial / temptation: «Anfægtelse» is a key religious term (cf. German «Anfechtung», Luther's word) for an assault of doubt or temptation upon faith — a 'spiritual trial'. From within the ethical, Abraham can only describe his own deed as an «Anfægtelse», because he has no expression for the higher to which he is obeying. «thi» = 'for' (causal), more archaic than «fordi».

Medens derfor Abraham vækker min Beundring, forfærder han mig tillige.  
While Abraham therefore awakens my admiration, he terrifies me at the same time.

Den, der fornegter sig selv og opoffrer sig for Pligten, han opgiver det Endelige for at gribe det Uendelige, han er sikker nok; den tragiske Helt opgiver det Visse for det endnu Vissere, "og Betragterens Øie hviler trygt paa ham.  
He who denies himself and sacrifices himself for duty gives up the finite in order to grasp the infinite — he is secure enough; the tragic hero gives up the certain for the still more certain, "and the beholder's eye rests securely upon him.
> «det Endelige» / «det Uendelige» — the finite / the infinite: «det Endelige» ('the finite') and «det Uendelige» ('the infinite') are the poles of resignation: the knight of infinite resignation surrenders finite goods to lay hold of the infinite. «opoffrer» (modern «opofrer», 'sacrifices') and «Øie» (modern «øje», 'eye') show the period spelling. A stray «"» opens before «og» in this edition with no closing mark.

Men den, der opgiver det Almene for at gribe noget endnu Højere, der ikke er det Almene, hvad gjør han?  
But he who gives up the universal in order to grasp something still higher that is not the universal — what does he do?

Er det muligt, at . dette kan være andet end en Anfægtelse?  
Is it possible that this can be anything other than a spiritual trial?

Og hvis det er muligt, men den Enkelte da greb feil, hvad Frelse er der for ham?  
And if it is possible, but the single individual then grasped wrongly, what salvation is there for him?
> «den Enkelte» — the single individual: «den Enkelte» ('the single individual') is the central category of the book: the one who, in faith, stands higher than «det Almene» (the universal) in an absolute relation to the Absolute. «greb feil» = 'grasped wrong, mistook'; «Frelse» = 'salvation'.

Han lider den tragiske Helts hele Smerte, han tilintetgjør sin Glæde i Verden, han forsager Alt, og maaskee tilspærrer han sig i samme Øieblik den ophøjiede Glæde, der var ham saa dyrebar, at han vilde kjøbe den for enhver Priis.  
He suffers the whole pain of the tragic hero, he annihilates his joy in the world, he renounces everything, and perhaps at the same moment he shuts himself off from the exalted joy that was so dear to him that he would buy it at any price.
> «tilintetgjør», «maaskee» — period spellings: «tilintetgjør» (modern «tilintetgør», 'annihilates') again shows «gj-»; «maaskee» (modern «måske», 'perhaps') and «Øieblik» (modern «øjeblik», 'moment') show period spelling. «ophøjiede» is a typeset slip for «ophøiede» ('exalted', modern «ophøjede»); «kjøbe» = 'buy' (modern «købe»).

Ham kan Betragteren slet ikke forstaae, ei heller trygt lade sit Øie hvile paa ham.  
Him the beholder cannot understand at all, nor securely let his eye rest upon him.

Maaskee lader det sig slet ikke gjøre, hvad den Troende intenderer, da det jo er utænkeligt.  
Perhaps what the believer intends cannot be done at all, since it is indeed unthinkable.
> «den Troende» — the believer: «den Troende» = 'the one who believes', the believer; «Tro» ('faith') is the book's central concept and the «Troens Ridder» ('knight of faith') its hero. «intenderer» ('intends') is a Latinate verb; «utænkeligt» = 'unthinkable'.

Eller om det lod sig gjøre, hvis den Enkelte havde misforstaaet Guddommen, hvad Frelse var da for ham?  
Or if it could be done, supposing the single individual had misunderstood the Deity, what salvation was there then for him?

Den tragiske Helt han behøver Taarer og han fordrer Taarer, og hvor var det misundelige Øie, der var saa ufrugtbart, at det ikke kunde græde med Agamemnon, men hvor var den, hvis Sjæl var saa forvildet, at han formastede sig til at græde over Abraham.  
The tragic hero, he needs tears and he demands tears, and where was the envious eye so barren that it could not weep with Agamemnon — but where was the one whose soul was so misled that he presumed to weep over Abraham?

Den tragiske Helt fuldkommer sin Gjerning i et bestemt Tidsmoment, men i Tidernes Løb gjør han, hvad der ikke er Mindre, han besøger den, hvis Sjæl er omspændt af Sorg, hvis Bryst ikke kan faae Luft for qvalte Sukke, hvis Tanker hænge betyngede over ham, svanger med Taarer, han viser sig for ham, han hæver Sorgens Trolddom, han løsner Snørelivet, han aflokker Taaren, idet den Lidende glemmer sine Lidelser i hans.  
The tragic hero completes his deed in a definite moment of time, but in the course of the ages he does what is no less, he visits the one whose soul is encompassed by sorrow, whose breast cannot draw breath for stifled sighs, whose thoughts hang weighed down over him, heavy with tears; he shows himself to him, he lifts the enchantment of sorrow, he loosens the corset, he coaxes out the tear, as the sufferer forgets his own sufferings in his.
> «qvalte», «faae» — period spellings: «qvalte» (modern «kvalte», 'stifled, choked') keeps the old «qv-» for «kv-»; «faae» (modern «få», 'get/draw') and «Taaren» show doubled «aa». «Snørelivet» = the laced corset — a homely image: the tragic hero's lament physically loosens the mourner's stays so grief can breathe.

Abraham kan man ikke græde over.  
Abraham one cannot weep over.

Man nærmer sig ham med en horror religiosus, som Israel nærmede sig Sinai-Bjerget.  
One approaches him with a horror religiosus, as Israel approached Mount Sinai.

— Hvis da den eensomme Mand, der bestiger Morija-Bjerget, der med sin Spidse rager himmelhøit over Aulis's Sletter, hvis han ikke er en Søvngænger, der gaaer trygt over Åfgrunden, medens den, der staaer ved Bjergets Fod og seer derpaa, skjælver af Angst, af Ærbødighed og Forfærdelse ikke engang tør kalde paa ham, hvis han bliver forstyrret i sig selv, hvis han havde taget Feil!  
— If, then, the solitary man who climbs Mount Moriah, which with its peak towers heaven-high over the plains of Aulis, if he is not a sleepwalker who walks securely over the abyss while the one who stands at the foot of the mountain and looks on trembles with anxiety, with reverence and dread does not even dare to call out to him — if he becomes deranged within himself, if he had taken the wrong way!
> «Angst» — anxiety / dread: «Angst» (also «Angest»; modern «angst») is the dread that grips the onlooker at the mountain's foot — the keynote of Kierkegaard's later «Begrebet Angest» (The Concept of Anxiety, 1844). «Åfgrunden» is a typeset slip for «Afgrunden» ('the abyss'); «eensomme» (modern «ensomme») = 'solitary', «gaaer» (modern «går») = 'walks'. Moriah is set against Aulis, where Agamemnon sacrificed.

— Tak! atter Tak! være en Mand, der rækker den, hvem Livets Sørger overfaldt og lode nøgen tilbage, rækker ham Udtrykket, Ordets Blad, hvormed han kan skjule sin Elendighed; Tak være Dig, store Shakespeare, Du som kan sige Alt, Alt, Alt netop som det er — og dog hvorfor udtalte Du aldrig denne Qval?  
— Thanks! again thanks! be to a man who reaches out to the one whom life's sorrows overcame and left behind naked, reaches out to him the expression, the leaf of the word, with which he can hide his misery; thanks be to you, great Shakespeare, you who can say everything, everything, everything just as it is — and yet why did you never utter this agony?

forbeholdt Du den .maaskee for Dig selv?  
did you reserve it perhaps for yourself?

som den Elskede, hvis Navn man end ikke kan taale at Verden nævner; ihi en Digter kjøber denne Ordets Magt til at udsige alle Andres tunge Hemmeligheder for en lille Hemmelighed, han ikke kan udsige, og en Digter er ikke en Apostel, han uddriver kun Djævle ved Djævelens Magt.  
like the beloved whose name one cannot even bear to have the world utter; for a poet buys this power of the word to speak out all others' heavy secrets at the cost of one little secret he cannot speak out, and a poet is not an apostle, he casts out devils only by the power of the devil.
> «Digter» vs. «Apostel» — poet and apostle: «Digter» ('poet') is sharply distinguished from «Apostel» ('apostle'): the poet can voice every grief but his own, and 'casts out devils by the devil's power' — an echo of the Gospel charge against Jesus (Matthew 12:24–27). «ihi» is a typeset slip for «thi» ('for'); «kjøber» = 'buys' (modern «køber»).

Men naar nu det Ethiske saaledes teleologisk er suspenderet, hvorledes existerer da den Enkelte, i hvem det er suspenderet?  
But when the ethical is thus teleologically suspended, how then does the single individual exist in whom it is suspended?
> «teleologisk … suspenderet» — the teleological suspension: 'Teleologically suspended' names the thesis of Problema I: the ethical («det Ethiske») is set aside (suspended) for the sake of a higher end (telos) — God's command. The ethical is not abolished but held in abeyance for the single individual who stands in absolute relation to the Absolute. «hvorledes» = 'how' (modern «hvordan»), «existerer» = 'exists'.

Han existerer som den Enkelte i Modsætning til det Almene.  
He exists as the single individual in opposition to the universal.

Synder han da?  
Does he sin, then?

thi dette er Syndens Form, seet i Ideen, saaledes, at om Barnet end ikke synder, fordi del ikke er sig sin Existents bevidst som saadan, saa er dets Existents dog seet i Ideen Synd, og det Ethiske kræver sig selv af det i ethvert Øieblik.  
for this is the form of sin, seen in the Idea, so that although the child does not sin, because it is not conscious of its existence as such, yet its existence, seen in the Idea, is sin, and the ethical demands itself of it in every moment.
> «Synd» — sin, seen in the Idea: «Synd» ('sin') here is structural rather than moral: to exist as «den Enkelte» over against «det Almene» has, 'seen in the Idea' (i.e. abstractly, in its concept), the form of sin — yet this is precisely how Abraham existed. «seet» (modern «set») = 'seen'; «del» is a typeset slip for «det» ('it').

Vil man negte, at denne Form lader sig gjentage saaledes, at den ikke er Synd, saa er Dommen fældet over Abraham.  
If one will deny that this form can be repeated in such a way that it is not sin, then the verdict has been passed on Abraham.
> «negte», «gjentage» — period spellings: «negte» (modern «nægte», 'deny') and «gjentage» (modern «gentage», 'repeat') show two different orthographic features. «gjentage» → «gentage» illustrates the «gj-» → «g-» reform (the concept below). The change «negte» → «nægte» is a vowel-quality shift (e → æ), not the silent-j pattern; these are distinct phenomena. «Vil man negte … saa er Dommen fældet» is a conditional without «hvis»: the fronted verb «Vil» carries the 'if' sense — 'should one deny … then the verdict is passed'. «Dommen … fældet» = 'the verdict (is) passed'.

Hvorledes existerede da Abraham?  
How, then, did Abraham exist?

Han troede.  
He believed.
> «Han troede» — he believed: The two-word answer is the hinge of the whole work: Abraham's mode of existence is «Tro», faith. «troede» is the past tense of «at troe» ('to believe', modern «at tro»). Everything that follows unfolds this single verb.

Dette er det Paradox, ved hvilket han bliver paa Spidsen, hvilket han ikke kan gjøre tydeligt for nogen Anden, thi Paradoxet er, at han som den Enkelte sætter sig i et absolut Forhold til det Absolute.  
This is the paradox by which he stays at the summit, which he cannot make clear to anyone else, for the paradox is that he, as the single individual, sets himself in an absolute relation to the Absolute.
> «Paradoxet» — the absolute relation to the Absolute: «Paradoxet» ('the paradox') is faith itself, stated here in its sharpest formula: «den Enkelte» (the single individual) stands in 'an absolute relation to the Absolute' — higher than «det Almene». Because it cannot be mediated into the universal, Abraham «kan ikke gjøre [det] tydeligt» — cannot make it intelligible to anyone.

Er han berettiget?  
Is he justified?

Hans Berettigelse er igjen det Paradoxe; thi dersom han er det, er han det ikke i Kraft af at være noget Almeent, men i Kraft af at være den Enkelte.  
His justification is again the paradoxical; for if he is justified, he is so not by virtue of being something universal, but by virtue of being the single individual.
> «dersom», «i Kraft af» — if; by virtue of: «dersom» = 'if' (conditional), the more formal alternative to «hvis». «i Kraft af» ('by virtue of, in force of') is Kierkegaard's signature phrase for the ground of faith — Abraham is justified «i Kraft af at være den Enkelte», by virtue of being the single individual, not the universal («noget Almeent»).

. Hvorledes forvisser da den Enkelte sig om, at han er berettiget?  
How, then, does the single individual assure himself that he is justified?

Det er nemt nok. at nivelleré hele Tilværelsen påa Statens Idee eller paa en Samfunds-ldee.  
It is easy enough to level the whole of existence onto the Idea of the State or onto an Idea of society.
> «nivellere» — to level: «nivellere» ('to level, flatten out') is a charged Kierkegaardian word for dissolving the individual into the crowd or the abstraction of the State. The source has typeset slips: a stray period in «nemt nok. at», an accent in «nivelleré», «påa» for «paa» ('onto'), and «Samfunds-ldee» for «Samfunds-Idee» ('Idea of society').

Gjør man det, saa kan man ogsaa let nok mediere; thi da kommer man slet ikke til Paradoxet, at den Enkelte som den Enkelte er højere end det Almene, hvilket jeg ogsaa betegnende kan udtrykke i en Sætning af Pythagoras, at det ulige Tal er fuldkomnere end det lige Tal.  
If one does that, then one can also mediate easily enough; for then one never comes to the paradox at all, that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal, which I can also tellingly express in a saying of Pythagoras, that the odd number is more perfect than the even number.

Forsaavidt man leilighedsviis i vor Tid hører et Svar i Retning af Paradoxet, da lyder det gjerne saaledes: det bedømmer man efter Udfaldet.  
Insofar as one occasionally in our time hears an answer in the direction of the paradox, it usually runs thus: one judges that by the outcome.
> «Udfaldet» — the outcome: «Udfaldet» ('the outcome, the result') is the target of the long polemic that follows: the cowardly habit of judging the great by their results rather than their beginnings. «leilighedsviis» (modern «lejlighedsvis») = 'occasionally'; «bedømme efter Udfaldet» = 'to judge by the outcome', the phrase Kierkegaard will hammer at repeatedly.

En Helt, der er bleven sin Samtids oxavdalov, i Bevidsthed af, at han er et Paradox, der ikke kan gjøre sig forstaaelig, tilraaber trøstig Samtiden: Udfaldet skal vel bevise, at jeg var berettiget.  
A hero who has become a scandal to his age, in the consciousness that he is a paradox who cannot make himself intelligible, confidently calls out to his contemporaries: the outcome will surely prove that I was justified.

I vor Tid hører man sjeldnere dette Raab; thi som den ikke frembringer Helte, hvilket er dens Brøst, saa har den det Gode, at den ogsaa frembringer faa Karrikaturer.  
In our time one hears this cry more rarely; for as our age produces no heroes, which is its defect, so it has this good, that it also produces few caricatures.
> «Brøst» — defect, failing: «Brøst» is an older word for 'fault, defect, blemish' (related to English 'burst' and German «Gebresten»). «sjeldnere» (modern «sjældnere») = 'more rarely'; «frembringer» = 'brings forth, produces'; «Karrikaturer» = 'caricatures'.

Naar man da i vor Tid hører disse Ord: det skal bedømmes efter Udfaldet, saa er man strax klar over, hvem man har den Ære at tale med.  
When, then, in our time one hears these words: it shall be judged by the outcome, one is at once clear about whom one has the honor of speaking with.

De, der tale saaledes, er et talrigt Folkefærd, som jeg med eet fælles Navn vil kalde Docenterne.  
Those who speak thus are a numerous tribe, whom I will call by one common name: the lecturers.
> «Docenterne» — the lecturers / docents: «Docenterne» ('the lecturers, the docents') is Kierkegaard's contemptuous name for the comfortable academic class — system-builders, secure in their posts, who judge the great from a safe distance. «Folkefærd» = 'a people, a tribe' (often slightly disparaging); «eet» (modern «ét») = 'one'.

De leve i deres Tanker betryggede i Tilværelsen, de have en fast Stilling og sikkre Udsigter i en velorganiseret Stat, de have Aarhundreder, eller vel endog Aartusinder mellem sig og Tilværelsens Rystelser, de frygte ikke for, at Sligt kan gjentages, hvad vilde ogsaa Politiet og Bladene sige?  
They live secured in their thoughts within existence, they have a fixed position and sure prospects in a well-organized State, they have centuries, or indeed even millennia, between themselves and the upheavals of existence, they do not fear that such a thing could be repeated — and what, besides, would the police and the newspapers say?
> «leve», «have» — old plural verb forms: «De leve», «de have», «de frygte» keep the old plural verb endings in «-e» that modern Danish has dropped (now «de lever», «de har», «de frygter»). «Aarhundreder» = 'centuries', «Aartusinder» = 'millennia'; «Sligt» = 'such a thing'. The deflating mention of «Politiet og Bladene» ('the police and the newspapers') skewers bourgeois security.

Deres Gjerning i Livet er at bedømme de store Mænd, og bedømme dem efter Udfaldet.  
Their life's work is to judge the great men, and to judge them by the outcome.

En saadan Adfærd mod det Store røber en besynderlig Blanding af Hovmod og Elendighed, Hovmod, fordi man mener sig kaldet til at bedømme, Elendighed, fordi man ikke føler sit Liv end ikke i fjerneste Maade beslægtet med de Stores.  
Such conduct toward greatness betrays a curious mixture of arrogance and wretchedness — arrogance, because one believes oneself called to judge; wretchedness, because one does not feel one's own life in the remotest degree akin to that of the great.
> «Hovmod» og «Elendighed» — arrogance and wretchedness: «Hovmod» ('arrogance, pride, hubris') and «Elendighed» ('wretchedness, misery') name the two faces of the lecturer's relation to greatness. «røber» = 'betrays, reveals'; «beslægtet med» = 'akin to, related to'; «de Stores» = 'the great ones'' (genitive plural).

Enhver, der er blot en Smule erectioris ingenii, han er dog ikke bleven et aldeles koldt og klamt Bløddyr, og idet han nærmer sig det Store, da kan det aldrig gaae ham af Sinde, at det siden Verdens Skabelse har været Skik og Brug, at Udfaldet kommer sidst, og at man, naar man i Sandhed skal lære noget af det Store, netop maa være opmærksom paa Begyndelsen.  
Anyone who is but a little of a loftier spirit has not become an utterly cold and clammy mollusk, and as he draws near to greatness it can never go out of his mind that, since the creation of the world, it has been the custom and the way that the outcome comes last, and that, when one is truly to learn something from greatness, one must precisely attend to the beginning.

. Dersom den, der skal handle, vil bedømme sig selv efter Udfaldet, saa kommer han aldrig til at begynde.  
If the one who is to act will judge himself by the outcome, then he will never come to begin.

Om da Udfaldet end kan glæde hele Verden, Helten kan det ikke hjælpe; thi Udfaldet fik han først at vide, da det Hele var forbi, og derved blev han ikke Helt, men han var det derved, at han begyndte.  
Even though the outcome may delight the whole world, it cannot help the hero; for the outcome he learned only when the whole thing was over, and it was not by that that he became a hero, but he was one by the fact that he began.
> «Om … end» — even though: «Om da Udfaldet end kan glæde» = 'even though the outcome may delight' — the «Om … end» frame is a concessive ('although, even if'). The point: the hero is constituted by his beginning («at han begyndte»), not by the outcome he learns only afterward.

Desuden er Udfaldet (forsaavidt det er Endelighedens Svar paa det uendelige Spørgsmaal) i sin Dialektik aldeles ueensartet med Heltens Existents.  
Besides, the outcome (insofar as it is finitude's answer to the infinite question) is in its dialectic utterly incommensurable with the hero's existence.
> «Endelighed» vs. «det Uendelige» — finitude and the infinite: «Endelighedens Svar paa det uendelige Spørgsmaal» — 'finitude's answer to the infinite question'. The outcome belongs to the finite order and so is «ueensartet» (modern «uensartet», 'heterogeneous, incommensurable') with the hero's existence, which is staked on the infinite. «Dialektik» = the dynamic structure of the concept.

Eller skal det kunne bevise, at Abraham var berettiget til at forholde sig som den Enkelte til det Almene, at han ved et Vidunder fik Isaak?  
Or is the fact that he received Isaac by a miracle supposed to prove that Abraham was justified in relating himself as the single individual to the universal?
> «Vidunder» — wonder, miracle: «Vidunder» = 'wonder, miracle' — here the restoration of Isaac. Kierkegaard's point is that this happy outcome cannot retroactively justify Abraham: the justification (or not) lies in the act of faith itself, not in its result. «forholde sig … til» = 'to relate oneself to'.

Hvis Abraham virkelig havde offret Isaak, skulde han derfor have været mindre berettiget?  
If Abraham had really sacrificed Isaac, would he therefore have been less justified?

Men Udfaldet er man nysgjerrig efter, som efter Udfaldet paa en Bog; Angsten, Nøden, Paradoxet vil man ikke vide Noget af.  
But the outcome one is curious about, as about the ending of a book; of the anxiety, the distress, the paradox one will know nothing.
> «Angsten, Nøden, Paradoxet» — anxiety, distress, paradox: This triad — «Angst» (anxiety/dread), «Nød» (distress, need, anguish), «Paradox» (the paradox) — recurs as a refrain through the rest of the chunk: it names exactly what the comfortable judge of outcomes refuses to face. «nysgjerrig» (modern «nysgerrig») = 'curious'.

Udfaldet lefler man æsthetisk med; det kommer ligesaa uventet men ogsaa ligesaa let som en Gevinst i Lotteriet; og naar man har hørt Udfaldet, da har man opbygget sig.  
With the outcome one flirts aesthetically; it comes just as unexpectedly but also just as easily as a win in the lottery; and when one has heard the outcome, one has been edified.
> «lefle æsthetisk» — to flirt aesthetically: «at lefle med» = 'to flirt, dally, trifle with'; «æsthetisk» (modern «æstetisk») = 'aesthetically'. To 'flirt aesthetically' with the outcome is to treat a man's faith as cheap entertainment, like a lottery win. «opbygget sig» = 'edified oneself' — a churchly word Kierkegaard turns ironic here.

Og dog er ingen Tempelraner, der arbeider i Bolt og Jern, saa nedrig en Forbryder, som den, der saaledes plyndrer det Hellige, og dog er Judas, der solgte sin Herre for 30 Secler, ikke foragteligere end den, der saaledes sælger det Store.  
And yet no temple-robber laboring in chains and irons is so base a criminal as the one who thus plunders the holy, and yet Judas, who sold his Lord for thirty pieces of silver, is no more contemptible than the one who thus sells greatness.

Det er min Sjæl imod, at tale umenneskeligt om det Store, at lade det dæmre i en uhyre Afstand i ubestemt Skikkelse, at lade det være Stort, uden at dog det Menneskelige deri kommer frem, hvorved det da ophører at være Stort; thi ikke Hvad der hænder mig, gjør mig stor, men hvad jeg gjør, og der er dog vel Ingen, der mener, at en Mand blev stor, fordi han vandt den store Gevinst i Lotteriet.  
It is against my soul to speak inhumanly of greatness, to let it loom in a vast distance in an indefinite shape, to let it be great without yet the human element in it coming forth, whereby it then ceases to be great; for it is not what happens to me that makes me great, but what I do, and surely no one thinks that a man became great because he won the great prize in the lottery.
> «det Menneskelige» — the human element: «det Menneskelige» ('the human') is what must come forth for greatness to be real and not a remote idol: greatness lies in «hvad jeg gjør» ('what I do'), not in «Hvad der hænder mig» ('what happens to me'). «umenneskeligt» = 'inhumanly'; «dæmre» = 'to loom, dawn dimly'; «Skikkelse» = 'shape, figure'.

Om et Menneske blev født i ringe Kaar, jeg fordrer dog af ham, at han ikke skal være saa umenneskelig mod sig selv, at han ikke skulde kunne tænke Kongens Borg uden paa Afstand og ubestemt drømme om dens Storhed, og påa eengang ville ophøie den og ophæve den derved, at han paa en nedrig Maade ophøjede den; jeg fordrer af ham, at han skal være Menneske til tillidsfuld og værdig at træde frem ogsaa der.  
Though a man was born in lowly circumstances, I still demand of him that he not be so inhuman toward himself that he could think of the King's castle only at a distance and dream vaguely of its grandeur, and at once want to exalt it and abolish it by exalting it in a base manner; I demand of him that he be human enough to step forward there too, trusting and worthy.
> «fordrer» — I demand: «jeg fordrer af ham» ('I demand of him') is the insistent first-person claim that runs through this passage. The King's castle figures greatness: one should approach it neither cringing nor with false flattery. The source has typeset slips — «påa» for «paa» ('at/on'), «eengang» for «een Gang» ('at once'), «ophøie»/«ophøjede» ('exalt').

Han skal ikke være Umenneske nok til uforskammet at ville krænke Alt, ved lige fra Gaden at ville storme ind i Kongens Sale, derved taber han mere end Kongen; tværtimod han skal finde en Glæde i at iagttage ethvert Sømmelighedens Bud med glad og tillidsfuldt Sværmeri, som netop vil gjøre ham frimodig.  
He shall not be inhuman enough impudently to want to violate everything, by wanting to storm straight from the street into the King's halls — thereby he loses more than the King; on the contrary, he shall find a joy in observing every commandment of decorum with a glad and trusting enthusiasm, which will precisely make him bold.
> «frimodig» — bold, frank, of good courage: «frimodig» (literally 'free-minded') = 'bold, candid, of good cheer' — the bearing Kierkegaard prescribes toward greatness: not impudent storming, but glad reverence that makes one free. «Sømmelighedens Bud» = 'the commandment of propriety/decorum'; «Sværmeri» = 'enthusiasm, fervor'; «tværtimod» = 'on the contrary'.

Dette er kun et Billede; thi hiin Forskjel er kun et saare ufuldkomment Udtryk for Aandens Afstand.  
This is only an image; for that difference is but a very imperfect expression for the distance of the spirit.
> «Aand» — spirit: «Aand» (modern «ånd») = 'spirit, mind' — the distance that matters is not social rank but «Aandens Afstand», the distance of the spirit. «hiin» = 'that, yonder' (archaic demonstrative); «saare» = 'very, exceedingly' (archaic); «Forskjel» (modern «forskel») = 'difference'.

Jeg fordrer af ethvert Menneske, at han ikke skal tænke umenneskeligt nok om sig selv, til at han ikke tør træde ind i hine Palladser, hvor ikke blot Mindet om de Udvalgte boer; men hvor de selv boe.  
I demand of every human being that he not think so inhumanly of himself that he dare not step into those palaces where not merely the memory of the chosen ones dwells, but where they themselves dwell.
> «de Udvalgte» — the chosen ones: «de Udvalgte» = 'the chosen, the elect' — the great spirits who, in Kierkegaard's image, still dwell in their palaces, not merely remembered. «hine» = 'those' (archaic); «Palladser» (modern «paladser») = 'palaces'; «boer»/«boe» are the old singular/plural forms of 'dwells/dwell' (modern «bor»).

Han skal ikke uforskammet trænge sig frem og paadutte dem sit Slægtskab, han skal være salig for hver Gang han bøier sig for dem, men han skal være frimodig og tillidsfuld og altid være noget mere end en Gangkone; thi vil han ikke være mere, da kommer han aldrig derind.  
He shall not impudently push himself forward and foist his kinship upon them, he shall be blissful each time he bows before them, but he shall be bold and trusting and always be something more than a charwoman; for if he will not be more, then he will never get in there.
> «Gangkone» — charwoman: «Gangkone» is an old word for a cleaning-woman or charwoman — one who enters the great house only to serve, never as kin. The point: approach greatness with bold reverence, as more than a servant. «paadutte» = 'to foist, palm off on'; «Slægtskab» = 'kinship'; «salig» = 'blissful, blessed'; «bøier sig» = 'bows'.

Og det, der skal hjælpe ham, er netop Angsten og Nøden, hvori de Store blive forsøgte, thi ellers vilde disse, hvis han har en Smule Marv i sig, blot vække hans retfærdige Misundelse.  
And what shall help him is precisely the anxiety and the distress in which the great are tried, for otherwise these — if he has a little marrow in him — would merely awaken his righteous envy.
> «forsøgte» — tried, tested: «blive forsøgte» = 'are tried, are put to the test' — it is the «Angst» and «Nød» of the great, their trial, that makes them approachable rather than merely enviable. «Marv» = 'marrow', i.e. inner strength, backbone; «retfærdige Misundelse» = 'righteous/just envy'.

Og hvad der kun kan være stort paa Afstand, hvad man ved Hjælp af tomme og udhulede Phraser vil gjøre til noget Stort, det tilintetgjør man selv.  
And whatever can be great only at a distance, whatever one would make into something great by the help of empty and hollowed-out phrases, one oneself annihilates it.

Hvo var stor i Verden som hiin benaadede Qvinde, Guds Moder, Jomfru Maria?  
Who was great in the world like that favored woman, the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary?
> «Hvo», «Qvinde» — who; woman (period spellings): «Hvo» is the archaic 'who' (modern «hvem»); «Qvinde» (modern «kvinde», 'woman') keeps the old «Qv-» for «Kv-». «benaadede» (modern «benådede») = 'favored, graced' — rendering the Gospel's 'highly favored' (Luke 1:28). Mary now becomes Kierkegaard's parallel to Abraham: greatness through anxiety, distress, and paradox.

Og dog hvorledes taler man derom?  
And yet how does one speak of it?

At hun var den Benaadede blandt Qvinder gjør hende ikke stor, og dersom det ikke traf sig saa besynderligt, at de, der høre, kunne tænke ligesaa umenneskeligt som de, der tale, saa maatte vel enhver ung Pige spørge, hvorfor blev ikke ogsaa jeg den Benaadede?  
That she was the favored one among women does not make her great, and if it did not happen so strangely that those who hear can think just as inhumanly as those who speak, then surely every young girl would have to ask: why did I not also become the favored one?

og hvis jeg ikke havde Andet at sige, da skulde jeg slet ikke afvise et saadant Spørgsmaal som dumt; thi ligeoverfor en Begunstigelse, abstrakt seet, er ethvert Menneske lige berettiget.  
and if I had nothing else to say, I should not at all dismiss such a question as stupid; for in the face of a favor, regarded abstractly, every human being is equally entitled.
> «Begunstigelse» — favor, preferment: «Begunstigelse» = 'favor, preferential treatment'. Seen «abstrakt» (abstractly, as bare favor), no one is more entitled to it than another — which is exactly why favor as such cannot be what makes Mary or Abraham great. «ligeoverfor» = 'in the face of, over against'; «lige berettiget» = 'equally entitled'.

Man udelader Nøden, Angsten, Paradoxet.  
One leaves out the distress, the anxiety, the paradox.

Min Tanke er reen trods Nogens, og den, der kan tænke Sligt, hans Tanke bliver nok reen, og han har ogsaa det Rædsomme at vente, hvis det ikke er saa; thi den, der engang har faaet disse Billeder frem, han kan ikke blive af med dem igjen, og synder han mod dem, da hævne de sig forfærdeligt ved stille Vrede, forfærdeligere end 10 glubende Recensenters Høirøstethed.  
My thought is pure, in defiance of anyone's, and he who can think such things, his thought will surely be pure, and he also has the dreadful to expect if it is not so; for he who has once brought these images forth can never be rid of them again, and if he sins against them, they avenge themselves frightfully with silent wrath, more frightfully than the loud-voicedness of ten ravening reviewers.
> «reen» — pure: «reen» (modern «ren») = 'pure, clean'; «trods Nogens» = 'in defiance of anyone's'. The «Billeder» ('images') of Abraham and Mary, once truly grasped, cannot be shaken off; to betray them brings a 'silent wrath' worse than any critic's noise. «Recensenters» = 'reviewers'', «Høirøstethed» = 'loud-voicedness'.

Vel fødte Maria Barnet vidunderligt, men det gik hende dog paa Qvinders Viis, og denne Tid den er Angstens, Nødens og Paradoxets.  
True, Mary bore the child miraculously, but it went with her nonetheless in the manner of women, and this time is the time of anxiety, distress, and paradox.
> «paa Qvinders Viis» — in the manner of women: «paa Qvinders Viis» = 'in the way of women' — Mary conceived miraculously, yet she bore and labored as any woman, in real «Angst» and «Nød». The genitive triad «Angstens, Nødens og Paradoxets [Tid]» = 'the [time] of anxiety, distress, and paradox'. «Vel … men» = 'true … but' (concessive).

Engelen var vel en tjenende Aand, men han var ikke en tjenstvillig Aand, der gik til de andre unge Piger i Israel og sagde: foragter ikke Maria, hende hændes det Overordentlige.  
The angel was indeed a ministering spirit, but he was not an obliging spirit who went to the other young girls in Israel and said: do not despise Mary, to her the extraordinary is happening.

Men Engelen kom kun til Maria, og Ingen kunde forstaae hende.  
But the angel came only to Mary, and no one could understand her.

Hvilken Qvinde blev dog krænket som Maria, og er det ikke ogsaa her sandt, at den, hvem Gud velsigner, forbander han i samme Aandedrag?  
What woman was ever so wronged as Mary, and is it not also true here that the one whom God blesses, he curses in the same breath?
> «velsigner … forbander» — blesses … curses: The paradox of election stated as an aphorism: «den, hvem Gud velsigner, forbander han i samme Aandedrag» — 'the one whom God blesses, he curses in the same breath'. To be chosen is to be set apart into anxiety and incomprehension. «krænket» = 'wronged, violated'; «Aandedrag» = 'breath'.

Dette er Aandens Opfattelse af Maria, og hun er ingenlunde, hvad der oprører mig at sige, men endnu mere, at man tankeløst og leflende har opfattet hende saaledes, hun er ingenlunde en Dame, der sidder paa Stads og leger med et Gudebarn.  
This is the spirit's conception of Mary, and she is by no means — what it outrages me to say, but still more that one has thoughtlessly and trivially conceived her so — she is by no means a lady who sits in her finery and plays with a divine child.
> «Aandens Opfattelse» — the spirit's conception: «Aandens Opfattelse» = 'the spirit's view/conception' — the true understanding, against the sentimental picture of a «Dame … paa Stads» ('a lady in her finery'). «ingenlunde» = 'by no means'; «leflende» = 'trifling, dallying' (cf. «lefle» in s51); «Gudebarn» = 'divine child'; «oprører» = 'outrages, revolts'.

Naar hun da desuagtet sagde: see jeg er en Herrens Tjenerinde, saa er hun stor, og jeg tænker, det skal ikke falde vanskeligt at forklare, hvorfor hun blev Guds Moder.  
When she nonetheless said: behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord, then she is great, and I think it shall not prove difficult to explain why she became the Mother of God.

Hun behøver ingen verdslig Beundring, ligesaa lidet som Abraham behøver Taarer, thi hun var ikke Heltinde, og han ikke Helt, men begge bleve de ingenlunde større end disse, ved at være fritagne for Nøden og Qvalen og Paradoxet, men bleve det ved disse.  
She needs no worldly admiration, just as little as Abraham needs tears, for she was no heroine and he no hero, but the two of them became by no means greater than these by being exempted from the distress and the agony and the paradox, but became so through these.
> «fritagne for» — exempted from: The crux of the parallel: Mary and Abraham became great «ved» ('through') the «Nød», «Qval», and «Paradox» — not «ved at være fritagne for» ('by being exempted from') them. «Heltinde» = 'heroine'; «verdslig» = 'worldly'; «ligesaa lidet som» = 'just as little as'. The faith stands above the heroic precisely by passing through dread.

Det er Stort, naar Digteren, idet han stiller sin tragiske Helt frem for Menneskenes Beundring, at han da tør sige: Græder over ham, thi han fortjener det; thi det er Stort at fortjene deres Taarer, der fortjene at udgyde Taarer; det er Stort, at Digteren tør holde Mængden i Ave, tør tugte Menneskene, at Enhver prøver sig selv, om hån er værdig til at græde over Helten, thi Flæbernes Spildevand er en Nedværdigelse af det Hellige.  
It is great when the poet, as he sets his tragic hero before the admiration of men, then dares to say: weep over him, for he deserves it; for it is great to deserve the tears of those who deserve to shed tears; it is great that the poet dares to hold the crowd in check, dares to chasten men, that each one tests himself whether he is worthy to weep over the hero, for the slop-water of blubberers is a degradation of the holy.
> «Flæbernes Spildevand» — the slop-water of blubberers: A scornful image: «Flæber» = 'blubberer, cry-baby' and «Spildevand» = 'waste-water, slop' — the cheap, unearned tears of the sentimental crowd defile the holy. «holde … i Ave» = 'to keep in check, hold in awe'; «tugte» = 'to chasten, discipline'; «hån» is a typeset slip for «han» ('he').

— Dog større. end alt dette er det, at Troens Ridder tør sige endog til det ædle Menneske, der vil græde over ham: græd ikke over mig, men græd over Dig selv.  
— Yet greater than all this is it that the knight of faith dares to say even to the noble man who would weep over him: weep not over me, but weep over yourself.
> «Troens Ridder» — the knight of faith: «Troens Ridder» ('the knight of faith') is Kierkegaard's name for the one who, like Abraham, lives the paradox. Where the tragic hero invites our tears, the knight of faith refuses them and turns us back upon ourselves — echoing Christ to the women of Jerusalem, 'weep not for me, but weep for yourselves' (Luke 23:28). «ædle» = 'noble'.

Man bliver rørt, man søger tilbage i hine skjønne Tider, søde kjelne Længsler føre Een til Ønskets Maal, at see Christus vandre om i det forjættede Land.  
One is moved, one seeks back into those beautiful times, sweet tender longings lead one to the goal of one's wish: to see Christ walking about in the promised land.
> «det forjættede Land» — the promised land: «det forjættede Land» = 'the promised land'; «forjætte» = 'to promise (solemnly)'. Kierkegaard mocks the sentimental wish to have lived in Jesus' day, as if proximity made faith easy — the next sentences puncture it. «skjønne» (modern «skønne») = 'beautiful'; «kjelne» = 'tender, fond'; «Een» (modern «én») = 'one'.

Man glemmer Angsten, Nøden, Paradoxet.  
One forgets the anxiety, the distress, the paradox.

Var det saa let en Sag ikke at tage feil?  
Was it so easy a matter not to be mistaken?

Var det ikke forfærdeligt, at dette Menneske, der gik mellem de Andre, at han var Gud, var det ikke forfærdeligt at sidde tilbords med ham?  
Was it not dreadful that this human being who walked among the others — that he was God; was it not dreadful to sit at table with him?
> «forfærdeligt» — dreadful, terrifying: «forfærdeligt» = 'dreadful, terrifying' — to be a contemporary of the God-man was not comfortable but appalling, full of the same «Angst» and possibility of «at tage feil» ('being mistaken') that faith always carries. «sidde tilbords med» = 'to sit at table with'. The sentimental wish forgets this terror.

Var det saa let en Sag at blive en Apostel?  
Was it so easy a matter to become an apostle?

Men Udfaldet, 18 Aarhundreder, det hjælper, det hjælper til dette lumpne Bedrag, hvormed man bedrager sig selv og Andre.  
But the outcome, eighteen centuries — that helps; it helps toward this contemptible deceit by which one deceives oneself and others.
> «Udfaldet» — the outcome: «Udfald» means 'outcome, result' (modern «udfald»). Segments s148–s153 concern Christ, not Abraham: the «18 Aarhundreder» are the roughly eighteen centuries from Christ's time to Kierkegaard's 1843, which make comfortable Christianity possible by removing the terror of being one of Christ's contemporaries. Kierkegaard's target here is the way historical distance erases that terror and enables the «lumpne Bedrag» (contemptible deceit) of judging apostolic faith by its later outcome. Note period orthography: «Aarhundreder» (modern «århundreder») writes «aa» for «å», and nouns are capitalized (Udfaldet, Bedrag).

Jeg føler ikke Mod til at ønske at være Samtidig med saadanne Begivenheder, men derfor dømmer jeg ikke strengt om dem, der toge feil, ikke ringe om dem, der saae det Rette.  
I do not feel the courage to wish to be a contemporary of such events, but for that reason I do not judge harshly those who erred, nor lightly those who saw what was right.
> «toge» — old plural preterite: «toge» is the old plural past tense of «tage» (to take), here 'took (wrongly), erred'; «saae» is likewise the old preterite of «see» (to see), 'saw'. The doubled vowel «saae» (modern «så») and these distinct plural verb forms mark 19th-century Danish, which still inflected verbs for number.

Dog jeg vender tilbage til Abraham.  
But I return to Abraham.

I den Tid før Udfaldet var Abraham enten i hvert Minut en Morder, eller vi staae ved det Paradox, der er højere end alle Mediationer.  
In the time before the outcome, Abraham was either, in every minute, a murderer, or we stand at the paradox that is higher than all mediations.
> «Paradoxet» — the paradox: «Paradoxet» (the paradox) is the hinge of the whole book: faith places Abraham in a position that ethics can only read as murder, yet that is 'højere end alle Mediationer' — higher than all mediations. «Mediation» is Kierkegaard's jab at the Hegelian «Mediation» (sublation), the dialectical reconciling that he insists faith refuses.
> «staae» — doubled-vowel spelling: «staae» is the period spelling of «stå» (to stand), with «aa» doubled into «aae». Compare «gaaer», «raade», «forstaae» later in the chunk — all show the «aa» orthography this 1843 edition keeps.

Abrahams Historie indeholder da en teleologisk Suspension af det Ethiske.  
Abraham's story, then, contains a teleological suspension of the ethical.
> «teleologisk Suspension af det Ethiske»: 'A teleological suspension of the ethical' — the famous formula of Problema I. «det Ethiske» (the ethical), spelled with «th», is for Kierkegaard equivalent to «det Almene», the universal; faith 'suspends' it for the sake of a higher «telos» (end/purpose). The individual is justified before God in stepping outside the universal.

Han er som den Eukelte bleven højere end det Almene.  
He has, as the single individual, become higher than the universal.
> «den Eukelte» — the single individual: Read «den Enkelte» — 'the single individual' (the OCR «Eukelte» preserves a flaw in this edition). «den Enkelte» is Kierkegaard's signature category, set here against «det Almene», the universal: faith's paradox is precisely that the single individual stands higher than the universal.

Dette er Paradoxet, som ikke lader sig mediere.  
This is the paradox, which does not let itself be mediated.
> «lader sig mediere» — lets itself be mediated: «lade sig + infinitive» is a reflexive passive: 'to let oneself be …', here 'does not let itself be mediated'. «mediere» again targets Hegelian «Mediation»: the paradox of faith resists being dialectically resolved into a higher synthesis.

Det er ligesaa uforklarligt, hvorledes han kom ind i det, som det er uforklarligt, hvorledes han bliver i det.  
It is just as inexplicable how he entered into it as it is inexplicable how he remains in it.

Forholder det sig ikke saaledes med Abraham, da er han end ikke en tragisk Helt, men. en Morder.  
If this is not how it stands with Abraham, then he is not even a tragic hero, but a murderer.
> «Forholder det sig … da» — inverted conditional: A conditional with no «hvis»: putting the verb first — «Forholder det sig ikke saaledes …» ('Stands it not thus …') — itself signals 'if'. The «da» ('then') opens the main clause. «saaledes» (thus) shows the «aa» spelling. Note the stray period in «men. en Morder» — a typographic flaw of the source edition, kept verbatim.

At ville vedblive at kalde ham Troens Fader, at tale derom til Mennesker, som ikke bekymre sig om Andet end om Ord, er tankeløst.  
To go on wanting to call him the father of faith, to speak of it to people who care for nothing but words, is thoughtless.
> «Troens Fader» — the father of faith: «Troens Fader» (the father of faith) is Abraham's traditional title. «Tro» — faith — is the book's central term; the genitive «Troens» recurs throughout this chunk (Troens Fader, Troens Ridder, Troens trange Vei). Kierkegaard's point: keep the honorific only if you grasp the paradox behind it.

En tragisk Helt kan et Menneske blive ved egne Kræfter, men Troens Ridder ikke.  
A tragic hero a person can become by his own powers, but a knight of faith he cannot.
> «Troens Ridder» — the knight of faith: «Troens Ridder», 'the knight of faith', is Kierkegaard's term for the one who makes the movement of faith — opposed here to «den tragiske Helt», the tragic hero. The tragic hero a person can reach «ved egne Kræfter» (by his own powers); the knight of faith cannot, because faith is not an achievement of strength.

Naar et Menneske tiltræder den tragiske Helts i en vis Forstand tunge Vei, da skal Mange kunne raade ham; den, der gaaer Troens trange Vei, ham kan Ingen raade, Ingen forstaae.  
When a person sets out on the tragic hero's in a certain sense burdensome path, then many will be able to counsel him; but the one who walks faith's narrow way — him no one can counsel, no one understand.
> «Troens trange Vei» — faith's narrow way: «trang Vei» = 'narrow, hard way' (echoing the Gospel's strait gate). «gaaer», «raade», «forstaae» all carry the «aa» spelling (modern «går», «råde», «forstå»). The contrast: on the tragic hero's heavy path others can counsel you; on faith's narrow way no one can counsel or understand you — faith is incommunicable.

Troen er et Vidunder, og dog er intet Menneske udelukket derfra; thi det, hvori alt Menneskeliv enes, er i Lidenskab >), og Troen er en Lidenskab.  
Faith is a marvel, and yet no human being is excluded from it; for that in which all human life is united is passion, and faith is a passion.
> «Lidenskab» — passion: «Lidenskab» = passion. The closing claim of Problema I: «Troen er en Lidenskab» — faith is a passion — is what unites all of human life and so excludes no one. The marker «>)» is a footnote reference cue from the source edition (the note follows, beginning «”)»); both are kept verbatim.

”) Lessing har etsteds yttret noget Lignende fra et reent æsthetisk Standpunkt.  
Lessing has somewhere expressed something similar from a purely aesthetic standpoint.

Han vil egentlig paa det Sted vise, at Sorgen ogsaa kan give sig et vittigt Udtryk.  
His real aim in that passage is to show that grief, too, can give itself a witty expression.

Han anfører til den Ende en Replik i en bestemt Situation af den ulykkelige engelske Konge Edvard, den Anden.  
To that end he cites a line, in a particular situation, of the unhappy English king Edward the Second.

I Modsætning dertil anfører han, efter Diderot, en Fortælling om en Bondekone og en Replik af hende.  
In contrast to it he cites, after Diderot, a story about a peasant woman and a line of hers.

Nu vedbliver han: Auch das war Witz, und noch dazu Witz einer Baderin: aber die Umstånde machten ihn unvermeidlich.  
Now he goes on: That too was wit, and what is more, the wit of a bathhouse keeper; but the circumstances made it inevitable.

Und folglich auch muss man die Entschuldigung der witzigen Ausdricke des Schmerzes und der Betråbniss nicht darin suchen, dass die Person, welche sie sagt, eine vornehme, wohlerzogene, verståndige, und auch sonst witzige Person sey; denn die Leidenschaften machen alle Menschen wieder gleich: sondern darin, dass wahbrscheinlicher Weise ein jeder Mensch ohne Unterschied in den nåmlichen Umstånden das nåmliche sagen wirde.  
And consequently one must not seek the excuse for the witty expressions of pain and grief in the fact that the person who utters them is a distinguished, well-bred, sensible, and otherwise witty person — for the passions make all people alike again — but rather in the fact that, in all probability, every person without distinction would say the same thing in the same circumstances.
> 'the passions make all people alike again': The heart of Lessing's point — and Kierkegaard's reason for quoting it: «die Leidenschaften machen alle Menschen wieder gleich», the passions make all people equal again. This echoes the chunk's own claim that all human life is united in «Lidenskab» (passion). German printed with «å» for «ä» throughout (verståndige = verständige, wahbrscheinlicher = wahrscheinlicher, an OCR flaw kept verbatim).

Den Gedanken der Båuerin håtte eine Kånigin haben kånnen und haben miissen: so wie das, was dort der Kånig sagt, . auch ein Bauer håtte sagen kånnen und ohne Zweifel wirde gesagt haben.  
The peasant woman's thought a queen could have had and must have had — just as that which the king says there a peasant too could have said and without doubt would have said.

Cfr. Såmtliche. W. 30 B. p. 293.  
Cf. Complete Works, vol. 30, p. 293.
---

Source text: public domain (Søren Kierkegaard, d. 1855; first published 1843, under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio). English translation: © 2026 1732 Studios, LLC — original draft, pending editorial review. NOTE: minimal seed excerpt; the 1843 Danish should be verified against Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter (SKS) before shipping, and full content is authored through the content pipeline.