|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
How was she married to Schlegel, if Schlegel died in 1829?
- The link was misleading: she married Johan Frederik Schlegel (1817-1896) not Friedrich von Schlegel, a philosopher. How confusing :) -- Taku 04:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
During this time, Regine was being tutored by Schlegel, her future husband, and a mutual infatuation between the two had developed.
The sentence is a bit ambiguous. Was an infatuation developing between Schlegel and Regine, or Kierkegaard and Regine?
Yeah, I also stumbled over that sentence. Further down, I was wondering whether the chronology is mixed-up: I always thought the Kierkegaard's breaking-off with Regine gave him material for "Fear and Trembling," and not the other way around. The story of Abraham and Isaac became so meaningful to him because of his personal tragedy. Johannes Wich-Schwarz 17:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Both actually. Schlegel fell for Regine, before Kierkegaard came along; but when Kierkegaard came, he swept Regine off her feet. When K broke it off, she married Schlegel. eh...
As for Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard knew about Abe and Isaac before Regine; he just thought of it as another interesting story in the Bible. But after the breakup, that story gave Kierkegaard a double meaning. Poor Yorick 23:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
A rephrasing, please
Concerning Regine's account of their engagement, the article says:
"This account was published after Regine's death in 1904 as Kierkegaardian Papers: The Engagement; Published on Behalf of Mrs. Regine Schlegel, but in general scholars concede that it offers little information that wasn't already known through Kierkegaard and other sources." <The emphasis is mine.>
In other words, the article makes it sound as if HER "side" of the story - which happens to coincide with K.'s account (which only proves that neither of them - or BOTH of them - were lying) - is somehow less relevant because K.'s account preceded hers.
There is no need for such silly classification in terms of (implied) "originality" or lack thereof. We are talking about HER account of HER engagement to Kierkegaard - not about philosophy or literary theory or whatever originality-seeking "scholars" may be interested in.
With that in mind, I propose a rephrasing of the sentence, perhaps something along these lines (just a suggestion):
"This account, published after Regine's death in 1904 as <...>, seems to confirm the relevant information known through Kierkegaard and other sources
This is no race, as in "who gets there first". Please, do not demean her. Human rights and personal dignity do not become obsolete after death, y'know?
The discrepancy in the figures. Regine was born on January 23, 1822, in Frederiksberg, a district of Copenhagen, Denmark. She first met Kierkegaard on a spring day in 1837 when she was 14.