Talk:Regine Olsen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

A rephrasing, please[edit]

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?


How does one pronounce Regine's name? Is it as in "Regina", without the "a"? (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Her age[edit]

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.

1822 + 14 = 1836, not 37. Why? Kirill-Hod (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Regine Olsen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 22:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take this one on and will make the review over the weekend Mujinga (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi I have to fail this article. It can be brought up to GA status in future I think, the potential is there, but it quickfails right now on more than one of the six criteria. I'm happy to go through what I found on a close reading of the article:

Well-written - FAIL
Spelling and grammar are not correct throughout, this article needs a copy edit, perhaps the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors could help
MoS guidelines should be followed more closely, for example the lead needs to be 3 or 4 paragraphs, not one, as per MOS:LEADLENGTH
Verifiable with no original research - FAIL
Unfortunately at the moment some of the references reads like original research eg "An edited account of Kierkegaard's relation to Olsen and her family, from the point of view of Kierkegaard, appears roughly around August 1849 in Journals, 49 X 5 A 149" eg " See: 1 Peter 4:7–12, The Holy Bible.) Kierkegaard decided to forgive Olsen so that his love might hide her sin from the eyes of God just as Christ's love hides our sin from the eyes of God."
Some quotes do not have inline references eg in the 'Kierkegaard's concern' section
The 'Olsen in Kierkegaard's writings' contains unreferenced claims
The 'In popular culture' section is completely unreferenced. I am not saying the section should go, i am saying it needs inline citations.
Broad - FAIL
I am seeing problems here as well, if this is about Regine Olsen we need to see why she herself is notable. We know Kierkegaard of course and there are some sources such as Garff writing a book length study of Olsen which confirm her notability, but right now the article has some long quotes from Kierkegaard and at times the article feels more about him than Olsen. Possibly a Wikipedia:Peer review process could help refocus the article.

I'll stop here since the article is failing on all three of the criteria I have checked so far. In addition Earwig gives a high chance of possible copyvios, that might just be the big quotes causing problems but that needs checking too.


Sorry to bring bad news to DMT biscuit and the other contributors, but hopefully this article could be brought up to GA status with some work. Unfortunately the Danish article isn't in a good state so that can't be used as a guide here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green would be a helpful place to ask for help if needed. Mujinga (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Address her diary?[edit]

I'm not familiar with the topic but did some searching and it seems that in September 2001 a diary of Regine Olsen's was published in Denmark, though it seems like it was a forgery. Thomas E. Kennedy published a review in English, titled "The Secret Life of Kierkegaard's Lover" which might be useful. It mentions, for example, that the diary says Olsen actually ended the engagement but promised to lie and say Kierkegaard ended it. The review also mentions an interview with Olsen which said the same thing. The article should probably address both this interpretation of events, and the 2001 diary itself (including trying to put together some info on whether it was legitimate). The diary was published as Regine Olsens Dagbog, Høbjerb, Denmark: Høvedland Press, 2001. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 01:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]