I can't understand the problem. It's completely unambiguous. Perhaps because there are three people in it, and two anaphoric pronouns, "he" and "himself", and some ellipsis, it looks as if there could be a problem with reference. But there isn't. It's clear, and can only be read in the correct way.

Attending a dance at a professor's house, he

Well "he" obviously isn't the professor. It is clearly the unexpressed person attending.

with one Manderup Parsbjerg, like himself

This clearly doesn't mean that Parsbjerg resembles himself, that his mirror reflection is faithful. "One" introduces a new person. "B, like A" implies A is different and has already been mentioned. In "like himself", the "himself" refers back to someone already mentioned in the sentence. Since "he" couldn't refer to the professor, even more clearly the repetitive "self" can't: so this must be the person attending the professor's house, the "he".

like himself a member of the Danish gentry
while "a member of the Danish gentry" to Manderup Parsbjerg

No, it refers to both of them, obviously. Why does the commentator have to decide who it belongs to? "B like A is X" means unambiguously that both A and B are X.