Write to the booksellers
Hector Hugues Munro dit. SAKI
Le thé.
Couverture blanche souple et imprimée. Papier jauni. Ex-libris en relief sur la page de titre.
Reference : 61870
Non-donné. L'o&il de la lettre. 1988. 30 pp. In-12. Broché. Très bon état. 1 volume. Traduit de l'anglais par J. DEREGNAUCOURT.
Bookseller's contact details
Librairie Koegui
M. Guy Neplaz - Isabelle Bilbao
21 rue Vieille Boucherie
64100 Bayonne
France
05 59 59 78 74
Payment mode
Sale conditions
Les prix indiqués sont nets et en euros. Les frais de port sont forfaitaires. Commandez vos livres en même temps, vous économisez des frais de livraison ! Vous pouvez commander par lettre, e-mail, ou téléphone, en précisant la référence, l'auteur et le titre de chaque ouvrage. Expédition dès réception du règlement. La librairie accepte les modes de paiement suivants : chèque et mandat postal international. Important: toujours attendre la confirmation de disponibilité par mail avant l'envoi du règlement. Envoi rapide avec emballage adapté.
5 book(s) with the same title
Om Begrebet Ironi med stadigt hensyn til Socrates. Af S. A. Kierkegaard. - [ARGUABLY THE BEST POSSIBLE COPY ONE CAN EVER HOPE TO ACQUIRE OF KIERKEGAARD’S DISSERTATION – ONE OF TWO COPIES ON THICK VELLUM PAPER]
Kjøbenhavn, P.G. Philipsens Forlag, 1841. 8vo. (8), 350 pp. Gift binding of elaborately blindpatterned full cloth with single gilt lines to spine. All edges gilt and printed on thick vellum paper. A splendid copy in completely unrestored state with minimal edge wear. Slight sunning to upper 1 cm of front board and slight bumping to corners and capitals. Leaves completely fresh and clean. Pencil-annotation from the Kierkegaard archive of the Royal Library (nr. 83) and discreet stamp from the Royal Library of Copenhagen to inside of front board (with a deaccession-inscription) and to verso of title-page. With ownership signatures of P.S. Lund and Troels Lund to title-page. Inside of back board with previous owner’s pencil-annotations listing the entire provenance of the copy and explaining that this is one of two copies printed on thick vellum paper. Laid in is the original agreement for the exchange of real property between the previous owner and the Royal Library of Denmark, from which is evident that in 2003, The Royal Library and the previous owner legally agreed to exchange their respective copies of Om Begrebet Ironie – the present one for Ørsted, being one of two copies on thick vellum paper, and the copy on normal paper for Heiberg, which is now in the holdings of the Royal Library of Denmark.
Arguably the best possible copy one can ever hope to acquire of Kierkegaard’s dissertation – one of two copies on thick vellum paper, being a presentation-copy from Kierkegaard to the discoverer of electromagnetism H.C. Ørsted. Inscribed to verso of front fly-leaf: “Til / Hans Magnificens / Universitetets Rector / Hr. Conferentsraad Ørsted. / C og D.M.” (For / His Magnificence / Principle of the University / Mr. [a high Danish title, now obsolete] Ørsted. / C (ommandør) (i.e. Commander) and DM (short for Dannebrogsmand, another honourable title) ). The copy is with the Thesis, and both the day and the time has been filled in by hand. As mentioned in the introduction to the Irony, Kierkegaard had two copies made on thick vellum paper –one for himself (which is in the Royal Library of Denmark), and one for H. C. Ørsted, a towering figure of the Danish Golden Age, one of the most important scientists that Denmark has produced, then principle of the University of Copenhagen. This copy is unique among the 11 registered presentation-copies of Kierkegaard’s dissertation and is without doubt the most desirable. It is approximately twice as thick as the other copies and stand out completely. THIS IS KIERKEGAARD’S dissertation, which constitutes the culmination of three years’ intensive studies of Socrates and “the true point of departure for Kierkegaard’s authorship” (Brandes). The work is of the utmost importance in Kierkegaard’s production, not only as his first academic treatise, but also because he here introduces several themes that will be addressed in his later works. Among these we find the question of defining the subject of cognition and self-knowledge of the subject. The maxim of “know thyself” will be a constant throughout his oeuvre, as is the theory of knowledge acquisition that he deals with here. The dissertation is also noteworthy in referencing many of Hegel’s theses in a not negative context, something that Kierkegaard himself would later note with disappointment and characterize as an early, uncritical use of Hegel. Another noteworthy feature is the fact that the thesis is written in Danish, which was unheard of at the time. Kierkegaard felt that Danish was a more suitable language for the thesis and hadto petition the King to be granted permission to submit it in Danish rather than Latin. This in itself poses as certain irony, as the young Kierkegaard was known to express himself poorly and very long-winded in written Danish. One of Kierkegaard’s only true friends, his school friend H.P. Holst recounts (in 1869) how the two had a special school friendship and working relationship, in which Kierkegaard wrote Latin compositions for Holst, while Holst wrote Danish compositions for Kierkegaard, who “expressed himself in a hopelessly Latin Danish crawling with participial phrases and extraordinarily complicatedsentences” (Garff, p. 139). When Kierkegaard, in 1838, was ready to publish his famous piece on Hans Christian Andersen (see nr. 1 & 2 above), which was to appear in Heiberg’s journal Perseus, Heiberg had agreed to publish the piece, although he had some severe critical comments about the way and the form in which it was written – if it were to appear in Perseus, Heiberg demanded, at the very least, the young Kierkegaard would have to submit it in a reasonably readable Danish. “Kierkegaard therefore turned to his old schoolmate H. P. Holst and asked him to do something with the language…” (Garff, p. 139). From their school days, Holst was well aware of the problem with Kierkegaard’s Danish, and he recounts that over the summer, he actually “translated” Kierkegaard’s article on Andersen into proper Danish. The oral defense was conducted in Latin, however. The judges all agreed that the work submitted was both intelligent and noteworthy. But they were concerned about its style, which was found to be both tasteless, long-winded, and idiosyncratic. We already here witness Kierkegaard’s idiosyncratic approach to content and style that is so characteristic for all of his greatest works. Both stylistically and thematically, Kierkegaard’s and especially a clear precursor for his magnum opus Either-Or that is to be his next publication. The year 1841 is a momentous one in Kierkegaard’s life. It is the year that he completes his dissertation and commences his sojourn in Berlin, but it is also the defining year in his personal life, namely the year that he breaks off his engagement with Regine Olsen. And finally, it is the year that he begins writing Either-Or. In many ways, Either-Or is born directly out of The Concept of Irony and is the work that brings the theory of Irony to life. Part One of the dissertation concentrates on Socrates as interpreted by Xenophon, Plato, and Aristophanes, with a word on Hegel and Hegelian categories. Part Two is a more synoptic discussion of the concept of irony in Kierkegaard’s categories, with examples from other philosophers. The work constitutes Kierkegaard’s attempt at understanding the role of irony in disrupting society, and with Socrates understood through Kierkegaard, we witness a whole new way of interpreting the world before us. Wisdom is not necessarily fixed, and we ought to use Socratic ignorance to approach the world without the inherited bias of our cultures. With irony, we will be able to embrace the not knowing. We need to question the world knowing we may not find an answer. The moment we stop questioning and just accept the easy answers, we succumb to ignorance. We must use irony to laugh at ourselves in order to improve ourselves and to laugh at society in order to improve the world. The work was submitted to the Philosophical Faculty at the University of Copenhagen on June 3rd 1841. Kierkegaard had asked for his dissertation to be ready from the printer’s in ample time for him to defend it before the new semester commenced. This presumably because he had already planned his sojourn to Berlin to hear the master philosopher Schelling. On September 16th, the book was issued, and on September 29th, the defense would take place. The entire defense, including a two hour long lunch break, took seven hours, during which ”an unusually full auditorium” would listen to the official opponents F.C. Sibbern and P.O. Brøndsted as well as the seven “ex auditorio” opponents F.C. Petersen, J.L. Heiberg, P.C. Kierkegaard, Fr. Beck, F.P.J. Dahl, H .J.Thue og C.F. Christens, not to mention Kierkegaard himself. Two weeks later, on October 12th, Kierkegaard broke off his engagement with Regine Olsen (for the implications of this event, see the section about Regine in vol. II). The work appeared in two states – one with the four pages of “Theses”, for academics of the university, whereas the copies without the theses were intended for ordinary sale. These sales copies also do not have “Udgivet for Magistergraden” and “theologisk Candidat” on the title-page. The first page of the theses always contains the day “XXIX” of September written in hand, and sometimes the time “hora X” is also written in hand, but not always. In all, 11 presentation-copies of the dissertation are known, and of these only one is signed (that for Holst), all the others merely state the title and name of the recipient. As is evident from the auction catalogue of his collection, Kierkegaard had a number of copies of his dissertation in his possession when he died. Five of them were bound, and two of them were “nit. M. Guldsnit” (i.e. daintily bound and with gilt edges). These two copies were obviously meant as presentation-copies that he then never gave away. The gift copies of the dissertation were given two types of bindings, both brownish cloth, one type patterned, the other one plain, and some of them have gilt edges, but most of the plain ones do not. There exist two copies on thick vellum paper – one being Kierkegaard’s own copy, the other being the copy for H.C. Ørsted, discoverer of electromagnetism and then principle of the University of Copenhagen. “As already implied, two works of the authorship stand out in the sense that Kierkegaard sent his presentation-copies to a special circle of people: The dissertation from 1841...” (Posselt, Textspejle, p. 91, translated from Danish). Most of the copies were given to former teachers and especially to people who, due to leading positions, personified the university. “For this circle of initiated we can now, due to registered copies, confirm that Kierkegaard gave copies with handwritten dedications to the headmaster of the University H.C. Ørsted (printed on thick paper), Kolderup-Rosenvinge and to J.L. Heiberg. It is granted that Sibbern, Madvig and F.C. Petersen were also given the dissertation as a gift,... but these copies are not known (yet).” (Posselt, Textspejle, pp. 93-94, translated fromDanish). (N.b. We have since handled the copy given to Petersen and can thus confirm that it exists). The presentation-inscriptions in the 11 registered copies of the Irony all follow a certain, strict pattern. “The wording could not be briefer. In the donation of his academic treatise, the otherwise prolific Kierkegaard sticks to name, titles, and the modes of address that goes with the titles.” (Tekstspejle p. 96, translated from Danish). When presenting his later books, he always signs himself “from the author”, sometimes abbreviated (i.e. “Forf.” In stead of “Forfatteren”), unless he is mentioned by name on the title-page as the publisher, not the author, as is the case with some of the pseudonymous works. In that case he signs his inscriptions “From the publisher”, always accompanied by “in deep reverence”, “with reverence”, “with friendship” or the like, adapted to the rank of the recipient and his place on Kierkegaard’s personal scale. An academic treatise, however, published before the oral defense took place – in the mind of Kierkegaard – required certain demands in relation to the donation of it. Thus, the brevity and rigidity in the following inscriptions. With the exception of Kierkegaard Hans Christian Ørsted (1777-1851) is arguably the most famous and influential Dane ever to have lived, universally known for his discovery of Electro-magnetism in 1820, which led to new theories and discoveries that constituted the foundation of all later electro-technology. After this milestone of scientific discovery, Ørsted went on to write a number of important philosophical works on natural philosophy and empiricism, of which The Spirit in Nature is the most famous and the work he himself considered his main work. Both H.C. Andersen and Søren Kierkegaard admit to having been influenced by the writings of Ørsted. “He was an enthusiastic follower of the “Naturphilosophie” school in Germany, whose main object was the unification of physical forces, thus producing a monistic theory of the universe. It was to further this purpose that Oersted sought in actual phenomena the electro-magnetic identity of which he had already convinced himself on metaphysical grounds” (Percy H. Muir in Printing and The Mind of Man). “The natural scientist Hans Christian Ørsted was one of the most significant and influential personalities of his age and together with the sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen, the poet Hans Christian Andersen, and the thinker Søren Kierkegaard, constituted the small handful of figures from “The Danish Golden Age” who achieved international and even world fame.” (Troelsen in Kierkegaard and his Danish Contemporaries I: p. (215) ). In intellectual circles in Denmark at the time of Kierkegaard, Ørsted was inevitable. He influenced not only natural sciences profoundly, but also philosophy, literature, and Danish languages (coining more than 2.000 neologisms). He was furthermore rector of the university of Copenhagen, when Kierkegaard in 1841 submitted his master’s thesis On the Concept of Irony. Being the rector, Ørsted was the one who needed to pass the treatise, but having read it, he was simply not sure whether to do so or not and needed to consult other experts, before making his decision. He ended up allowing it to pass, but not without having first famously said about it (in a letter to Sibbern) that it “makes a generally unpleasant impression on me, particularly because of two things both of which I detest: verbosity and affectation.” (Kirmmmse (edt.): Encounters with Kierkegaard, p. 32). Kierkegaard makes several references to Ørsted’s Spirit in Nature and mentions him several times in his journals and notebooks. Although being of different generations and not particularly close on a personal level, the two intellectual giants would naturally be unavoidably connected in one way or the other. Ørsted was simply so centrally placed and so influential that there was no way around him for someone like Kierkegaard. Himmelstrup 8 The present copy is no. 9 in Girsel's ""Kierkegaard"" (The Catalogue) which can be found here.
Stadier paa Livets Vei. Studier af Forskjellige. Sammenbragte, befordrede til Trykken og udgivne af Hilarius Bogbinder. - [KIERKEGAARD'S OWN COPY OF THE WORK THAT INTRODUCED ""THE LEAP OF FAITH"", WITH HIS OWN HANDWRITTEN CORRECTION]
Kjøbenhavn, Reitzel, 1845. Large 8vo. (8), 383 pp. An extraordinary copy printed on very heavy vellum-paper and bound in the mid-20th century in an elegant black half Morocco binding with single gilt lines to boards" double gilt lines and Gothic gilt lettering to spine (bound by Agnete With). Top edge gilt. A bit of brownspotting throughout. With the bookplate of Henning Kehler to inside of front board and with neat pencil annotations to back free end-paper describing the history of the copy. With a handwritten correction on p. 47.
Kierkegaard’s own copy of the pivotal sequel to his main work Either-Or, one of two copies printed on special paper, with Kierkegaard’s own handwritten correction on p. 47. In Either-Or, Kierkegaard had presented the first two stages, the aesthetic and the ethical. In Stages on Life’s Way, he continues his work on these stages and moves on to present also the religious stage, which occupies approximately two thirds of the work. The religious stage is that in which man attains a personal relationship with God and that in which man only truly begins to exist, the aesthetic and ethical stages being inadequate. It is in this foundational work, in the religious stage, that Kierkegaard first properly describes what is now known as the “Leap of Faith” (in fact a “leap to faith”), namely the leap that involves willing and belief instead of reason and knowledge, the leap that you take in order to connect to God and which requires that which Kierkegaard calls “the suspension of the ethical”. Undoubtedly among Kierkegaard’s most brilliant literary achievements, Stages on Life’s Way is written in the form of different viewpoints of Kierkegaard’s many pseudonymous characters. We have both Hilarius Bookbinder, who by chance has come into possession of the documents presented in the work and has prepared them for printing. We have the famous banquet scene, which mirrors Plato’s Symposium, described by William Afham, and in which the three aesthetics participate: Johannes the Seducer, Victor Eremita, and Constatin Constantius. We have Judge William’s discourse in praise of marriage, and we have the diary, discovered by Frater Taciturnus, of a young man, who was deeply in love but felt compelled to break off his engagement. This story in form of a diary is the closest one comes to a description of Kierkegaard’s own love story, his relationship to Regine. The diary describes an engagement that has lasted for six months it alternates between the morning notes that recall the engagement and the midnight notes that put it all in perspective. The work closes with a letter to the reader from Taciturnus on the three “existence-spheres” represented by the three parts of the book. Stages on Life’s Way is one of Kierkegaard’s most important works. Not only does it sum up and explain some of the most important themes of Kierkegaard’s previous works, utilizing the characters and pseudonymous authors of the earlier works to do so it goes beyond these foundational themes, introduces the religious stage, and points to the further development of the central themes in Kierkegaard’s philosophy, most of which are only fully developed in Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Written under a pseudonym and without Kierkegaard’s name appearing as publisher or indeed anything else, he was unable to give away presentation-copies of the work (due to his own rigid set of rules for his presentation-copies). Thus, not a single presentation copy of the work exists. A single copy of the book was in the auction catalogue of his book collection after his death. In Rohde’s edition of the auction-record, this copy and its recent faith is thoroughly described. Like Repetition, Prefaces, and his other seven pseudonymous works, Stages on Life’s Way was printed in two copies each on vellum-paper and bound in special bindings, one for Regine, one for Kierkegaard himself. 24 years ago, three of these books surfaced, at an auction in 2002, namely Either-Or, Repetition, and Prefaces, all being the copies Kierkegaard had bound for Regine. Before that, only one single copy of one of these eight titles for Kierkegaard himself or for Regine were known (namely Kierkegaard’s own copy of Either-Or, which is in the Danish Royal Library). Seven of the books, Kierkegaard’s own copies, were listed in the auction catalogue after his death, but apart from the mentioned copy of Either-Or in the Royal Library, the others had not been found. Kierkegaard’s wildly famous love story and failed engagement to Regine Olsen plays a pivotal role throughout Kierkegaard’s entire life and work. It all begins in 1837, when Kierkegaard meets the lovely young girl Regine Olsen at a visit to the widowed Cathrine Rørdam. Three years later, in September 1840, after having corresponded frequently with her and visited her on numerous occasions, Kierkegaard decides to ask for her hand in marriage. She and her family accept, but the following day, Kierkegaard regrets his decision and ends up finally breaking off the engagement in October 1841. Disregarding the scandal, the heartbreak (his own included), and the numerous pleas from family members and friends alike, Kierkegaard’s tortured soul, still searching for God and for the meaning of faith, cannot continue living with the promise of marriage. Later the same month, he flees Copenhagen and the scandal surrounding the broken engagement. He leaves for Berlin, the first of his four stays there, clearly tortured by his decision, but also intent on not being able to go through with the engagement. As is evident from his posthumously published Papers, Kierkegaard’s only way out of the relationship was to play a charming, but cold, villain, a charlatan, not betraying his inner thoughts and feelings. Despite the brevity of the engagement, it has gone down in history as one of the most significant in the entire history of modern thought. It is a real-life Werther-story with the father of Existentialism as the main character, thus with the dumbfounding existentialist outcome that no-one could have foreseen. This exceedingly famous and difficult engagement became the introduction to one of the most influential authorships in the last two centuries. “She was the reason for my authorship”, Kierkegaard writes in his Papers, and there is no doubt that several of his most significant works are born out of the relationship with Regine – and its ending. It is during his stay in Berlin, his first of four altogether, right after the rupture of the engagement, that he begins writing Either-Or, parts of which can be read as an almost autobiographical rendering of his failed engagement. After a couple of years, Regine got engaged to someone else, whom she married in 1847. But as is well known, Kierkegaard never married, and the impact of his engagement to Regine and what it made him understand – about himself, about religion, faith, the inner workings of the philosopher and the poet –, never lost its significance. It is evident from the many drafts of a letter that he sent to Regine, through her husband, in 1849 (which was returned to him, unopened) that he had never lain the matter to rest and that the relationship with Regine was still very much alive. He also states in his Notebook 15 from 1849 “By the way, it is certainly the case that my relationship with her has been a very close, present study for me of what faith is. For I know better in this relationship how it is apparently the exact opposite of the foundational. That I have lasted in this relationship has been useful for me in relating to God as a believer.” In his Notebook 15, also known as My Relationship with Her, from 1849, Kierkegaard describes how, when he finally broke off the engagement and she tried to get him to stay, she had told him “that she would thank me her entire life for being allowed to stay with me, even if she were to live in a little cupboard” (SKS No. 16: 6). Thus, Kierkegaard had a little cupboard made, with no shelves in it. Here, he kept “everything that reminds me of her and will remind me of her. There is also a copy of the pseudonyms (i.e. the works that he wrote under a pseudonym) of these, there were always only two copies on vellum-paper, one for her and one for me.” (SKS: Not. 15:6.). In all, Kierkegaard wrote eight pseudonymous books, Stages on Life’s Way being one of them, all of which were evidently printed in two copies each on vellum-paper and bound in special bindings, one for Regine, one for Kierkegaard himself. This splendid copy, which is one of two specially produced copies, being Kierkegaard’s own copy, with his own correction (deleting “ikke” – i.e. “not” on p. 47), is nr. 2136 in the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard’s books sold after his death. In Rohde’s official edition of the auction catalogue, there is a lengthy note on the present copy documenting the more recent history of the copy:“Now: Mogens Müllertz, Copenhagen. Copy on vellum-paper. S.K.,’s own handwritten correction of the printing error “not” on p. 47, cf Papers XI I, p. 36. The previous owner, the author Henning Kehler, has let the book, which was originally in half calf, rebind in black half calf by Agnete With and has pasted his book plate on the inside of the front board. In 1952, Henning Kehler gave the book as a Christmas present to Mogens Müllertz in an accompanying letter Kehler writes, among other things: “even though the present book is my best and dearest, I still want you to have it. I know of no-one else to whom I would rather dispense with it.” In an article “About printing errors”, Berlingske Aftenavis 9.11.1963, Kehler touches upon this book gift: “Being a writer I am naturally hardened when it comes to printing errors, no book and no newspaper article is without errors. Søren Kierkegaard, who could even pay others – eg. Israel Levin – to proofread mentions in his Papers a printing error in “Stages on Life’s Way”, which kept vexing him. It was a “not” that had fallen out. I once owned a copy of the book that had been placed in the palisander book cabinet for Regine, and in that copy, this “not” had been added in ink and in Kierkegaard’s handwriting. I gave the book to a book-mad collector – under false pretenses, alas.” – Identification of the copy uncertain.” (pp. 110-11).Although Kehler is mistaken in the correction being adding a “not” instead of deleting one, there is no doubt that this is the copy he is referring to. The sentence on p. 47, in which the correction occurs reads “Pro dii immortals what is a woman, when she is not in fashion, per deo obsecro what is she when she is not (this being the “not” that Kierkegaard has deleted here and was vexed about) in fashion”.This copy on very heavy paper – one of the two printed like this – is approximately 1/3 thicker than normal copies of the book.The pencil annotations on the back free end-paper bear witness to the previous owner’s frustration at Kehler for having tampered with the copy. After stating that this is Kierkegaard’s personal copy, one of two on vellum-paper and copy nr. 2136 from the auction catalogue, he continues: “The copy used to have all edges gilt, a few leaves still have remains of this. The edge has been shaved at the ruthless rebinding that Henning Kehler in his complete lack of understanding of what he possessed had done.” On Kehler’s bookplate, the same previous owner has noted in neat pencil-annotation “bibliophile vandal”.In spite of the frustration with this particular book having been rebound and not kept exactly as it was, this is still an utterly amazing copy of one of Kierkegaard’s most important works – hands down the best copy there is of the work. Namely Kierkegaard’s own, with his own correction, one of two printed on heavy paper, one for Regine, one for himself. We must be thankful that, despite the “vandalism” of the rebinding, the book is still here and identified as that same copy that Kierkegaard had made for himself. Himmelstrup 78.
Moral grundet paa Nytte- eller Lykkeprincippet. Oversat og indledet ved G. Brandes. - [THE STARTING POINT FOR THE WELFARE STATE]
Kjøbenhavn (Copenhagen), Gyldendal, 1872. 8vo. Contemporary brown half cloth with gilt lettering to spine. Capitals worn and wear along edges. Internally a bit of light scattered brownspotting, but overall very nice. With numerous pencil-underlinings as well as pencil-markings, and -annotations, the latter in Høffding's hand (the underlinings possibly in Brandt's). With the ownership signature of Harald Høffding to front free end-paper and with a later presentation-inscription from Frithiof Brandt (signed F. B.) underneath. Recent ownership signature in pencil to foot of front free end-paper (1973). (2), VIII, 85, (1) pp.
Scarce first edition of the first Danish translation of Mill’s seminal “Utilitarianism”, translated by the great Georg Brandes and with the most excellent provenance, namely that of the founder of the welfare principle, which laid the groundwork for the welfare state as we know it today, Harald Høffding, with his numerous handwritten notes, annotations, and markings, and later given to someone by Høffding’s pupil, the important Danish philosopher Frithiof Brandt. Mill’s “Utilitarianism” constitutes a classic within the field of moral and political thought and is considered ""the most influential philosophical articulation of a liberal humanistic morality that was produced in the nineteenth century."" (Encycl. Of Philosophy). Originally published as a series of three separate articles in 1861, it was collected and printed as a single work under the canonical title in 1863. This publication is now considered the classic exposition and defense of Utilitarianism in ethics, a revolution within moral philosophy. The work was translated into Danish by the immensely influential literary critic Georg Brandes, by many considered the greatest intellectual of his time. Brandes played a key role in introducing especially German and British thought to Scandinavia, most notably the works by such thinkers as Darwin and Nietzsche. He is also the first to translate Mill’s works and make them accessible to a Scandinavian readership. His translation of “Utilitarianism” appeared in 1872 and was responsible for spreading the utilitarian philosophy to a wider audience in the North, indirectly - through Høffding - contributing to the formation of the welfare state that the Scandinavian countries are so famous for. It was through the reading of primarily Mill and Bentham that Harald Høffding came to develop his welfare principle, a principle that he is the first in the world to work out, and the principle upon which the modern welfare state is founded. He is primarily inspired by Mill’s Utilitarianism, but comes to largely replace the conceptions of utility and happiness using instead the welfare principle as a specification of the yardstick that must be used to evaluate actions. “The object of the welfare-principle is not the individual or momentary inclination, rather the lasting vital necessities of the human race, and therefore it places the point of judgment at the effects of an action.” (Thyrring Andersen, p. 105). “In the abandonment of the Christian ethics, positivism had to try to give the grounds for a morality which does not seek refuge with a divine authority. The contribution of Harald Høffding lies in a continuation of the utilitarianism in Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills, whose normative theories on ethics claim that the correct ethically is the one that compared to the other options produces the greatest amount of positive values. And that means that the ethical values of an action depend on its ability to increase the amount of happiness. The principle of utility is formulated this way: The greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number of people. Among the problems in this ethics are how different forms of values can be compared, which yardstick they can be measured by, and how a just and/or fair distribution of boons can be based.” (Thyrring Andersen, p. 104). Høffding had his starting point in Utilitarianism, but he transcended the more narrow principle of happiness. His welfare principle does not identify the supreme good with the happiness of the individual, “but considers the utmost purpose of being as the appearance of men of sterling characters, who have a feeling of happiness in working for the common good. … a decisive precondition of this was the commandment concerning charity in the Gospels and the historical development of this in Christianity.” (Thyrring Andersen, p. 109). Georg Brandes was the leading intellectual of his time in Denmark and must be credited with bringing European thought to Scandinavia, not only through his incredibly popular and famous lectures, but also through his own writings and not least through his translations of the most important works of the period into Danish. In Denmark, Brandes was synonymous with “the modern breakthrough” and therefore, for most, also the symbol of democracy and what we today would call welfare-thinking. At a closer look, however, Brandes was also in many ways an anti-democrat and so influenced by the thoughts of Darwin and especially Nietzsche that his views came to be very much opposed to those of a society based on a welfare principle that Høffding came to develop. “[I]t was Høffding who was the first in the world to work out a welfare-principle, namely in his “Etik” (Ethics) in 1887. Today, Høffding is not widely known, but in his lifetime and up to the 1950ties he was an internationally famous philosopher, whose works were translated into many languages and who was several times nominated for the Nobel Prize.” (Andersen, A.T.: The Dialogic and Religious Theme of Welfare in Harald Høffding…, p. 104). His great work ""Etik"", in which he developed the welfare-principle, constitutes an ethical system. Here, Høffding discusses the principal questions in order to develop a scientific ethics, or a moral science if one will, analyzes the ethical principles that are expressed in ethical assessments, and on the basis hereof develops an individualistic and a social ethic that was way ahead of its time, but which found great resonance within the reading public. The book had an enormous impact. It appeared five times in Høffding’s life-time, sold extremely well, and was quickly translated into German and French – “Denmark had gotten its first internationally known and acknowledged philosopher, several decades before Kierkegaard had his breakthrough on the international scene.” (Koch, Dansk filosofi i positivisments tidsalder, p. 41 – translated from Danish). “Høffding became a mentor to many – not least because of the humanity that marks this book [i.e. Ethics] and because of the well-balanced treatment it gives of the social and political questions of the time, of the relationship between the sexes and between church and state, just to mention a few of the “important life conditions” it deals with. Students in personal crisis contacted him, and people in difficult circumstances wrote to him for advice. Not least because of his ethical view, he came to appear as the old, wise man of the nation… His influence in the neighboring countries was also great. For instance, his ethical considerations in the years around 1900 came to play a significant role for the young Swedish social democrats and for their conception of a coming welfare state.” (Koch, Dansk filosofi i positivisments tidsalder, p. 60 – translated from Danish). The opposing views of the two intellectual giants of late 19th century Denmark would develop into a public feud that is now known as “the great debate”, an acrimonious exchange between the two concerning the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche (running from August 1889 to April 1890). “The significance of the dispute is due largely to the fact that it constitutes the earliest public interpretation and evaluation of Nietzsche’s philosophy.” (William Banks: “The Great Debate”: Nietzsche, Culture, and the Scandinavian Welfare Society”, 2024, p. 133). The feud was begun by Brandes after having read Høffding’s “Ethics” from 1887, where he presented his welfare principle for the first time, a welfare principle he had developed under the influence of Mill’s Utilitarianism that Brandes had translated an published 15 years earlier. Brandes, ultimately, wholeheartedly joins the views of Nietzsche and dissociates himself not only from the welfare principle of Høffding, but also from the ideal of Utilitarianism. Frithiof Brandt (1892–1968) was a student and follower of Høffding. He succeeded Høffding as professor in philosophy and held the chair of professor of philosophy and psychology at the University of Copenhagen from 1922 to 1958. During his lifetime, Brandt was a significant figure in Danish philosophy and psychology, most notably with his works on Kierkegaard, and especially in Danish cultural life. “Harald Høffding, the Danish philosopher and historian of philosophy, was born in Copenhagen and lived there throughout his life. From 1883 to 1915 he was professor of philosophy at the University of Copenhagen. Høffding received a degree in divinity in 1865, but he had already decided not to take orders. A study of Søren Kierkegaard's works, and especially of his views on Christianity, had led to an intense religious crisis ending in a radical break with Christianity. Høffding sought in philosophy a new personal orientation and gradually developed into an extraordinarily many-sided liberal humanist. His philosophical development was influenced during a stay in Paris (1868–1869) by the study of French and English positivism… his activity as a scholar ranged over every branch of philosophy, including psychology. His works display a vast knowledge, a keen eye for essentials, and a critically balanced judgment. They were translated into many languages and widely used as textbooks. By the turn of the twentieth century Høffding's reputation was worldwide and he knew personally many leading thinkers. He was the outstanding Danish philosopher of his day, and in 1914 the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters assigned him the honorary residence of Gammel Carlsberg, where he lived to the end of his life. The residence later passed to the physicist Niels Bohr, a younger friend of Høffding.” (Frithiof Brandt, Encyclopaedia of Philosophy). “The Danish philosopher Harald Høffding was the first in the world to work out a welfare-principle. He expressed a dialogic and democratic standpoint, a fellowship and an ideal concerning equality, and consequently a distinct philosophical basis for the realization of the formation of the welfare state.” (Andersen, A.T.: The Dialogic and Religious Theme of Welfare in Harald Høffding…, p. (103).).
"VITTORE, PIETRO (or Piero) (Lat. PETRUS VICTORIUS). [ARISTOTELES - ARISTOTLE].
Reference : 62508
(1610)
Commentarii, in primum librum Aristotelis de Arte Poetarum. Positis singulas declarationes Graecis auctoris. Iisdemque ad verbum Latine expressis. Acessit rerum et verborum memorabiblium index locupletissimus. - [THE GREATEST EDITION OF ARISTOTLE'S POETICS]
Florence, In officina Iuntaru, Barnardi Filiorum, 1560. Small folio. 18th century full vellum with gilt labels to spine. Wear to capitals and small worm tracts towrad opper hinges. Corners a bit bumped. A very nice and sturdy binding. Marbled edges. Some browspotting throughout. Small wormholes to blank margin of final leaf, far from affecting imprint. Woodcut vignette to title-page and to verso of colophon-leaf. (10), 308, (12) ff.
The rare first edition of Vittore's main work, his great edition, translation, and commentary on Aristotle's Poetics, which is arguably the most important and influential commentary on the work ever published, profoundly shaping our understanding and interpretation of Aristotelian literary theory. Petrus Victorius (or Piero/ Pietro Vittore/Vettore) (1499-1584) is not only the “first great editor of the Poetics” (McMahon), he is also considered ""the greatest Greek scholar of Italy"" (Whibley), “the leading Italian scholar of his time” (Encycl. Britt.), “the last great figure [from that period] in the domain of Greek studies” (Willamowitz), and “the foremost representative of classical scholarship in [Italy] during the sixteenth century, which, for Italy at least, may well be called the “saeculum Victorianum”.” (Sandys). His magnum opus and without doubt most influential work is his edition with commentary of Aristotle’s Poetics, which is of seminal importance in several respects. It is crucial to our understanding of Aristotle’s great work, shaping the way that all later scholars have read it. The understanding of Aristotle’s work on poetry came to define the way that we have understood literature and fiction ever since the Renaissance, and Victorius is the leading interpreter. ““From the sixteenth century to Romanticism, European literary theory used the term marvel or wonder (It. meraviglia, ammirabile, Fr. merveille, Sp. maravilla) to designate everything that was on the conceptual margins of the poetics of probability and imitation. The discovery and complete reception of Aristotle’s Poetics between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries resulted in the dissemination of an idea of poetry as the imitation of the actions of men, whose main part was the plot, or the structuring of actions ordered according to the laws of necessity, credibility and probability. This formed the basis of Neo-Aristotelian poetics, which determined the ways of thinking about literature and fiction for more than four centuries.” (Vega p. 280). Especially the idea of “wonder” in Aristotle’s Poetics came to be one of the founding ideas of modern literary theory. And especially here, Victurius’ reading is groundbreaking, playing a central part in the reception and understanding of the work over the centuries to come. “A single editorial decision in just one passage (and what is more, in a complex, fragmentary, unfinished text like the Poetics) affects the entire work…” (Vega, p. 284). “The text of the Poetics that can be read in the editions and translations of the sixteenth century and a large part of the seventeenth (with one exception, as we shall see [NB. This exception is Victorius] ) does not include the term alogon in the passage that deals with wonder. It does not appear in the first Greek edition, the famous Aldine princeps of 1508, or in the Latin translations of the end of the fifteenth century" it is not in the edition and translation by Alexander Paccius or Pazzi, the one most widely read in the sixteenth century, neither does it appear in the edition with commentary by Francesco Robortello, nor in Vincenzo Maggi’s Enarrationes, nor in the vernacular commentaries of Ludovico Castelvetro and Alessandro Piccolomini. What is more, a detailed revision of the history of the text reveals that no manuscript of the Poetics and no direct or indirect testimonies (not even in the Arabic branch of its transmission) have ever included the term alogon.” (Vega, p. 282). It is Victorius, who is solely responsible for the reading that is generally accepted today as well. “The moment when the idea of irrationality [alogon] appears for the first time in Aristotle’s text can be identified without hesitation as 1560, which is the date when the edition, translation and commentary on the Poetics by the philologist and Hellenist Pier Vettori, or Victorius, was printed on the presses of Giunti in Florence. Vettori is the one who first edits alogon, even though no testimony provides him with this reading, and he does so fully aware of his choice and its implications” (Vega, pp. 287-89). “The success of Victorius’ reading, while not immediate, was extraordinary.” (Vega, p. 287) Antonio Viperano accepts the reading “alogon”, with all it involves (De poetica libri tres), Ricciboni adapts it in his edition of Aristotle’s Poetics, Tasso embraces it (Discorsi dell’arte poetica, Discorsi del poema eroico), and it is implicit in Alonso López Pinciano’s Philosophia Antigua Poetica. Vossius in 17th century Germany makes abundant glosses on alogon in his books on poetics, and the commentators and translators of the “Poetics” in France preferred Victorius’ reading in every case. “Victorius’ conjecture seems to have convinced all editors and commentators, who reproduce it without question in every case.” (Vega, p. 289). The influence of Victorius’ interpretation of Aristotelian literary theory that he presented in his magnum opus (i.e. the present work) was not limited to the use of specific words that changed the reception history of Aristotle’s Poetics. His entire view of poetry through an interpretation of Aristotle was highly original and came to define the way we understand literature in general. Victorius was one of the first to put forth the belief that heroic poetry should present a Platonic idea of perfect virtue, contributing to the centuries long doctrine of the perfect hero as perfect exemplar, and he was one of the first to revive Aristotle’s idea of purgation from tragedy (still widespread today) and to also understand the existence of a purgation from poetry. “He viewed poetry as a moderator of minds “By reading poetry men “become moderate in temper and their turbid motions are extinguished.” Poems “purge our minds of blemish and spot”. Vettori realized that Aristotle’s reference to catharsis should be applied to tragedy alone, but he added that similar purgations could be achieved by other kinds of poetry, effective, however on other passions than pity and fear and with the aid of other instruments.” (Hathaway pp. 292-93). Apart from his overall interpretation of Aristotle’s literary theory and his groundbreaking reading of the most central passages of the Poetics, Victorius was also the first to determine that the Aristotelian text that has come down to us is not complete. “Victorius was the first to see that the treatise now known as the Poetics is only the surviving portion of a larger work.” (Bywater, p. XX). “during his lifetime five medals were struck in his [i.e. Victorius’] honour, and his portrait was painted by Titian… His fame was not limited to his own land, or his own time. His scrupulous care and unwearied industry are lauded by Turnebus, who declines to be compared with him, even for a moment the epiteths doctissiums, optimus, and fidelissimus are applied to him by the younger and the greater of the two Scaligers, while Muretus calls him eruditorum coryphaeus and similar eulogies might be quoted from Justus Lipsius,.. Dacius, … and Graevius. He is described as having climbed the “hill of virtue”, and taken his place on its summit between Cicero and Aristotle. In his funeral oration, Salviati says of him, in the personification of Italia: “Now no more shall distant peoples cross the snows of the Alps to see Victorius, or men of mark arrive from every land to hear him or princes hold converse with him. Now no more shall the works of scholars in all parts of the world be sent here for his approval or youth learn wisdom from his lips.” (Sandys, pp. 139-40). “[N]o one, said a contemporary of his in a funerary laudatio, ‘left Aristotle in a cleaner state (purgatior)’.” (Baldi). _____________________________________________ Adams: 1905 Brunet V: 1179 Graesse I: 213 (”édition excellente quant à la critique” and noting that some copies bear the dates 1563 and 1564). Sandys: A History of Classical Scholarship Vol. II, 2003, pp. 135-140. Hathaway, Baxter: The Age of Criticism: The Late Renaissance in Italy. Cornell University Press, 1962. A.Philip McMahon: On the Second Book of Aristotle's Poetics and the Source of Theophrastus' Definition of Tragedy Author(s). In: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 1917, Vol. 28 (1917), pp. 1-46. Christopher Rowe: Petrus Victorius and Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics, Cambridge University Press online, 2025. Vega, Maria José: Wonder and the Irrational. The Invention of Aristotle’s Poetics in the Sixteenth Century. In: Nous, Polis, Nomos... (Berlin, Academia Verlag, 2016). Baldi: Il greco a Firenze e Pier Vettori (1499–1585), (Alessandria, 2014), 117.
Danicorum Monumentorum Libri Sex: E spissis antiquitatum tenebris et in Dania ac Norvegia extantibus ruderibus eruti + Regum Daniae Series duplex et Limitum inter Daniam & Sveciam Descriptio. Ex vetustissimo Legum Scanicarum Literis Runicis in membran... - [THE FOUNDATION OF RUNOLOGY]
Hafnia, Joachim Moltke, 1643 + Melchior Martzan, 1642. Folio (290 x 200 mm). In contemporary full calf with four raise bands and embossed super ex-libris (C. H. Helwerskov (1655 - 1733), Danish landowner and supreme court judge) to front- and back-board. Rebacked and back-board with repair. Annotations to pasted down front end-paper and front free end-paper. Closed tear to leaf B2. A very nice, clean and wide margined copy printed on heavy paper. Engraved title-page (by Simon de Pas). (24), 526, (16) pp. + large folded woodcut plate (the Golden Horn). Large woodcuts in the text + (12), 36 pp. The text is in two columns, in Latin and runes. Captions and some runic letters printed in red.
A very nice wide margined copy printed on good paper of the scarce first editions of both of Worm's famous masterpieces on runes - 1) ""Danicorum Monumentorum"" being Worm's runic magnum opus, which not only constitutes the first written study of runestones and the first scientific analysis of them, but also one of the only surviving sources for depictions of numerous runestones and inscriptions from Denmark, many of which are now lost"" 2) ""Regum Daniae"", which contains the highly important reproduction of The Law of Scania in runes as well as in Latin translation with commentaries. The ""Danicorum Monumentorum"", with its numerous woodcut renderings of monuments with rune-inscriptions - including the world-famous folded plate of the Golden Horn, which had been found only five year previously, and which is now lost - is arguably the most significant work on runes ever written, founding the study of runes and runic monuments. Most of the woodcuts were done after drawings by the Norwegian student Jonas Skonvig"" they are now of monumental importance to the study of runes and runic monuments, not only because they appeared here for the first time in print, but also because many of the monuments are now lost and these illustrations are the only surviving remains that we have. Ole Worm (Olaus Wormius) (1588-1655) was a famous Danish polymath, who was widely travelled and who had studied at a range of different European universities. Like many of the great intellectuals of the Early Modern era, Worm's primary occupation was as a physician, for which he gained wide renown. He later became court doctor to King Christian IV of Denmark. In 1621, Worm had become professor of physics, but already the year before, in 1620, had he begun the famous collection that would become one of the greatest cabinets of curiosites in Europe (and one of the first museums) and which would earn him the position as the first great systematic collector (within natural history) in Scandinavia. It was his then newly begun collection that enabled him, as professor of physics, to introduce demonstrative subject teaching at the university, as something completely new. He continued building and adding to his magnificent collection, now known as ""Museum Wormianum"", throughout the rest of his life. Worm's fascination for antiquarian subjects not only resulted in his famous ""Museum Wormianum"", but also in a deep fascination with early Scandinavian and runic literature and the history and meaning of runestones. These monuments found throughout Scandinavia, were carved with runic inscriptions and set in place from about the fourth to the twelfth centuries. In most cases, they are burial headstones, presumably for heroes and warriors.Worm published works on the runic calendar, translations of runic texts and explications of folklore associated with the runestone histories. By far his most extensive and important work was the ""Danicorum Monumentorum"", which was the first serious attempt at scientifically analyzing and recording all 144 then known runestone sites in Denmark. With the King's blessing and support, Worm contacted bishops all over the country who were instructed to provide details and drawings of the barrows, stone circles and carved inscriptions in their regions.Many of the monuments recorded in this splendid work have since disappeared. Some of them appeared in the fire of Copenhagen, to which they were brought at the request of Worm himself. The book thus contains highly valuable data about missing sites in Scandinavian archaeology and is an invaluable source to anyone studying runes and runic monuments. Included in the work are Worm's three earlier, small treatises on runes, here collected for the first time and set into a systematic an scientific context, among them his 1641 treatise on the Golden Horn. For Danes, the Golden Horns, discovered on 1639 and 1734 respectively, with their amazing, complicated, and tragic story, constitute the Scandinavian equivalent to the Egyptian pyramids and have been the object of the same kind of fascination here in the North, causing a wealth of fantastical interpretations, both historical, literary, mystical, linguistic, and artistic. The two golden horns constitute the greatest National treasure that we have. They are both from abound 400 AD and are thought to have been a pair. A span of almost 100 years elapsed between the finding of the first horn and the finding of the second. Both findings are now a fundamental part of Danish heritage. In 1802 the horns were stolen, and the story of this theft constitutes the greatest Danish detective story of all times. The thief was eventually caught, but it turned out that he had melted both of the horns and used the gold for other purposes.Before the horns were stolen, a copy of the horns was made and shipped to the King of Italy, but the cast which was used to make this copy was destroyed, before news had reached the kingdom of Denmark that the copies made from the cast were lost on their way to Italy, in a shipwreck. Worm's work constitutes not only the earliest description of the seminal first horn, but also the most important source that we now have to the knowledge of the horn. It is on the basis of the description and depiction in the present work that the later copies of the first horn were made. Both horns were found in Gallehus near Møgeltønder, the first in 1639, by Kirsten Svendsdatter, the second in 1734, by Jerk (Erik) Lassen.Kirsten Svendsdatter made her discovery on a small path near her house, initially thinking that she had stumbled upon a root. When she returned to the same place the following week, she dug up the alleged root with a stick, and took it for an old hunting horn. She brought it back home and began polishing it. During the polishing of it, a small piece broke off, which she brought to a goldsmith in Tønder. It turned out that the horn was made of pure gold, and rumors of Kirsten's find quickly spread. The horn was eventually brought to the King, Christian IV, and Kirsten was given a reward corresponding to the gold value of the horn. The king gave the horn to his son, who had a lid made for it so that he could use it as a drinking horn. An excavation of the site where the horn was found was begun immediately after, but nothing more was found - that is until 95 years later when Jerk Larsen was digging clay on his grounds - merely 25 paces from where Kirsten had found the first horn. The year was now 1734. The horn that Larsen found was a bit smaller in size and was lacking the tip, but it still weighed 3,666 kg. As opposed to the first horn, this second horn had a runic inscription. After the horn had been authenticated, it was sent to King Christian VI, where it was placed in a glass case in the royal art chamber, together with the first horn. Before being placed here, a copy was made of both horns. These copies were lost in a ship wreck, however, and the casts had already been destroyed. In the fatal year of 1802, the gold smith and counterfeiter Niels Heldenreich broke in to the royal art chamber and stole the horns. By the time the culprit was discovered, the horns were irrevocably lost - Heldenreich had melted them and used the gold to make other things, such as jewellery. A pair of ear rings that are still preserved are thought to have been made with gold from the horns, but this is all that we have left of the original horns. New horns were produced on the basis of the descriptions and engraved illustrations that were made after the finding of the horns. And thus, the plate used in the present works constitute our main source of knowledge of the appearance of the first horn. ""The longest of the golden horns was found in 1639 and described by Ole Worm in the book 'De Aureo Cornu', 1641 (a treatise which is also included in his greater ""Danicorum Monumentorum""). The German professor at Soro Academy Hendrich Ernst, disagreed with Worm’s interpretation of the horn. Ernst believed that the horn came from Svantevits temple on Rügen, while Worm interpreted it as a war trumpet from the time of Frode Fredegods, decorated with pictures, calling for virtue and good morals. Worm immediately sent his book to Prince Christian and the scholars at home and abroad. You can see in his letters, that not only did the horn make an impression, but also the letter and the interpretation. In that same year there were such lively discussions on the horn among the scholars of Königsberg, now Kaliningrad!In 1643 Worm reiterated the description of the golden horn in his great work on Danish runic inscriptions, 'Monumenta Danica'. In 1644, his descriptions of the horn reached for scholars and libraries in Schleswig, Königsberg, London, Rome, Venice and Padua. Several learned men wrote poems for him, and the golden horn was mentioned in an Italian manus. Map Cartoonist Johannes Meyer placed the finds on several of his map of South Jutland. When the Swedish commander Torstensson attacked Jutland in 1643, Peter Winstrup wrote a long poem in Latin addressed to the bishop of Scania (which at that time still belonged to Denmark), the poem was called 'Cornicen Danicus'. It was immediately translated into Danish, entitled 'The Danish Horn Blower'. He interpreted the horn and its images as an warning of war, and his interpretations were very hostile to the Swedish. Paul Egard and Enevold Nielssen Randulf were among some of the other scholars who interpreted the Golden Horn In the 1640s. They were both deans in Holstein, and had a more Christian interpretation of the horn.All these works were illustrated with copies of Worms depictions of the horn. The Golden Horn remained known throughout the 1600s, both in terms of interpretations of the horn and designs. The found of the short golden horn in 1734 renewed the interest of the meaning of the horns."" (National Museum of Denmark). Thesuarus: 727 & 733Biblioteca Danica III, 23
