History and Theory of the Holy Roman Empire.

Historians group European empires into three phases:  an ancient period of Greek and Roman Empires that extended into the mid 5th century CE.  A second phase of successor empires to the Roman Empire that overlapped between the Byzantine of the East that continued until 1453 and the Holy Roman Empire that derived as a consortium of Frankish, Germanic and Austrian kingdoms that survived as a coalition in various forms until the abdication of the Austrian-Habsburg dynasty to Napoleon’s invading army in 1806.  A third phase of empires emerged in around 1500 with the modern world system, the conquest of the New World and the production of European colonial empires.   The separate and rival Spanish, British, Dutch, French and later empires of other European states came to dominate the world system alongside the Euro-Asiatic empires of the Ottomans and Chinese.

The choice of how to write about European empires crosses the division of history into conventional theories found in three dominant approaches:  Eurocentric, Nation-State or Nationalistic, and Core-Periphery.  Eurocentric approaches are founded upon Hegel’s theory of European civilization as the root of progress in which Greek civilization and its European successors are superior to their Oriental counterparts.  The national approach is found in Leopold von Ranke, whose nation-state approach positioned nationalism as the division of Europe and with it the division of the world into European spheres of imperial control of influence. Immanuel Wallerstein represents the revisionist approach that sees the modern world system as a competition between a European and other core areas and their semi-periphery and peripheries that are exploited by the former[1].  It is common then to find historians who blend one or two of these approaches, but rarely do we find all three approaches attempted, for the various theories contain self-enclosed arguments that exclude one or another of the other theories[2].

An interpretive survey of the thousand-year history of the Holy Roman Empire forces a historian to confront these theories.  Peter Wilson’s The Holy Roman Empire (2016) offers seeks to present analogies with the contemporary formation of the European Union with the political organization and administrative theory and practice of the Holy Roman Empire[3]. The book is organized into four parts:  ideology and the relation between church and state; power over land in local kingdoms, principalities and national allegiances; and the relative administrative and dynastic control of territories; and a final section on judicial and governmental powers.

For Part Two, the author surveys the various overlapping and competing dynasties. These are grouped into the following: Continue reading

Russian Empires and the Multi-ethnic States of Early Modern History

In the Russian and Turkic Central Steppes, the transition from the late Mongol dynastic formation and its successor empires witnessed a conflict between a Muscovy centered empire that culminated in the rise of Ivan IV, the Terrible, (r. 1533-1584) and consolidated itself into an early modern state formation under Tsar Peter the Great.  The reign and transition from the Mongol invasion and establishment of its empire in the Southern Central Asian Steppelands and interaction, defeat and absorption encompassed a period of nearly 500 years.  The impact and place of non-Christians in this period has been summarized (Khodarkovsky 2006) while the multi-ethnic nature of these empires and states has received much needed attention (Kappeler 2001).  Kappeler’s The Russian Empire: A Multi-Ethnic History (2001) in particular is a revelation for it situates the presence of multi-ethnic groups and peoples throughout early modern and modern Russian and Central Asian history as intertwined.  Kappeler also notes that early attempts at an inclusive history, while incomplete, were mostly ignored or overlooked.  These earlier works included Boris Nolde, La Formation de l’Empire russe (1952-53) and Emanuel Sarkisyanz, Geschichte der orientalischen Völker Rußlands  (1961). Continue reading

German Culture and Society 1600 – 1750

At the beginning of the 17th century, theology, law, medicine, astronomy, mathematics, and music were favored subjects of interest.  An exemplary German astronomer of this period was Johann Kepler. German intellectual life was integrated into the needs of the court, the princes and competing interests of  the Catholic Church, which still held strong influence in Bavaria and Southern Germany, and the Lutheran areas where the local princes variously supported research into mathematics, medicine, science and military arts. In the aftermath of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) Prussia was reorganized along the lines of this pre-war configurations of principalities and aristocratic privileges of the landed elite.  Prussian rivalry over the Baltic trade led to episodic wars through the later 17th century and into the Seven Years War.

By the early 18th century we find the establishment of numerous academies of science and humanities that were dependent on court sponsorship and were held tothe preferences of the court. and emperor.   For more go to this page on this blog.

Joseph Needham (1900-1995) On Chinese Science, Culture and History

In a 1947 Conway Memorial Lecture in London, Joseph Needham, the physician and scholar of the history of Chinese science and technology,  changed the title of his talk from Science, Mysticism, and Ethics in Chinese Thought to the more bold and broader title Science and Society in Ancient China[1].  In addition to establishing his medical career and practice, Needham devoted much of his life in an undertaking of the study of ancient and pre-modern Chinese science and technology.  The result of that dedication have resulted in his now famous encyclopedic series that has grown into 9 or more volumes and that has been continued after his death.  The lecture is significant not only for its timing, for it was delivered only months before the Chinese Revolution thrust away the nationalist rule of Kuomintang government.  More importantly, Needham put forth the intriguing and major question facing scholars of Chinese and Western European civilizations:  why didn’t China invent modern science and technology?  After all, Needham noted, China had advanced far beyond its Western counterparts in most areas of science and technology from ancient times through the medieval periods.  Its advances in chemistry, agriculture and medicine held landmark advances and was credited with the key transfer of knowledge in numerous inventions and discoveries, including gunpowder, that led to the ultimate development of modern science, mathematics and technology in the early modern and industrial revolutions of Europe and the Americas.  Further, why was it that capitalism, the Renaissance, and industrial revolution was an invention of the West?

What Needham realized was that one needed to understand the underlying social structure and organization that fostered scientific and cultural development. Out of this social organization came the major products we associate with Chinese technology, including paper making, book making, block printing, the magnetic compass and navigation, and gunpowder. Indeed, the more Needham studied this phenomenon, the more he came to question why modern science and technology did not orginate in China.  To a certain extent the origins of Chinese civilization arose from its river basins and agriculture based around the Yellow River.  While this was not dissimilar to the river basin and delta societies of the Nile in Egypt, the Indus in India and the Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia.  In China, the working of metal crafts and trades, particularly bronze gave a durable metal that could be poured and molded into vessels of ceremonial and utilitarian purpose, and could be used for weapons, both offensive and defensive.  Yet was seemed unique in China was the relative insularity of the Yellow Basin from its Middle Eastern and Western counterparts.  While some Western diplomatic and very limited commercial diplomacy and tentative trade contacts were made with China, for the most part China developed in relative isolation. Continue reading

The Rise of Literary and Aesthetic Criticism in Asian History 250-600 CE

Chinese Classical Literature and the Social Position of Criticism

In this part of my World History blog I am moving away from early modern history to highlight more examples of how the Rise of the West and Western Civilization are given too much credit for the invention of culture, philosophy, science and so on. Now it is certainly true that Roman literature and history became intertextual by the Augustinian period of the late 1st c. BCE to early 1st c. CE.  This means that history writing and literature were intertwined, written histories took on rhetorical styles just as Ovid’s epic The Aenid, commissioned by the emperor Augustus, referenced Roman historical myths and legends (Conte 1999).  Comparisons of early classical Chinese and Greek literature is also worth considering as introduced in this video lecture by Professor Robert Oxnam and Stephen Owen on the Book of Songs.

Chinese literature provides a number of the earliest works of literary criticism.  A principal example is Liu Xie (Hsieh) The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons, written in the early 6th century CE (Hsieh 2015).  Liu Hsieh (465-522 CE) was a Chinese monk and literary critic who wrote from the Ting-lin Monastery in Southern China during the Liang Dynasty (Hsieh, XXXV).  Liu’s preference for classical forms arose from his intensive scholarship of an earlier body of literary criticism produced in the 3rd century Han Dynasty as well as the chronicles of Sima Qian (145-80 BCE) (Department of Asian Art 2000).

Liu Xie (Hsieh) compiled his works on literary criticism during a prosperous period for the Southern Chinese Liang Dynasty.  Some of his writing appeared for the court of  the Emperor Wudi (r. 502–49), who was a scholar and Buddhist and sent an emissary monk Song Yuan to India to collect texts on the origins of Buddhism (Metropolitan Museum of Art 2001). More recent studies on Lieu Xie offer appreciations of the depths of literary technique and analysis (Cai 2010).

Indian Literature and Historical Epics

Among the most developed in length of narrative and in chronological literature are the literary epics from the Indian subcontinent.  Sheldon Pollock’s study of the origins and development of Sanskrit literature as both an administrative language and as an ideology is a pioneering work (Pollock 2006). The rise of the Veda and Vedic literature dates to the end of the BCE period and among its successors, is the Mahābharāta historical epic of conquest and battle and the later Rāmāyana literature and other texts based on the Sanskrit language and writing system introduced by the landowning elite and their court society who dominated power (Pollock, 78).

Several studies note that before the codification of laws, the warrior class or caste developed their sense of ideology and ethics from stories and epics (McGrath 2004).

Early and Middle Persian Literature and History

A third source of early literary criticism is found in Western Asia and particularly in Iranian literature where a pre-Islamic secular literature arose in the late Sassanid period that flourished in the interim period of the breakup of the Roman Empire into a Greek dominated Byzantine dynasty and its Western based Latin dynasty and empire.  In around the year 600 CE we find the Kārnāmak-I Artakshēr-I Pāpakān (Book of the Deeds of Aradashir, son of Pāpak (Klíma 1968, 44).  The history informs us of the origins of the Sassanians, for it begins with the story of the son of a common shepherd Sāsān who rises from the ranks of a common soldier to become the future Sassanian king and founder of the Sassanid Dynasty. This early literature is symptomatic of a landlord and pastoral based court society that demands epics of loyalty and a privileged monopoly of knowledge held by the court. Continue reading

1873-1914 Empires and War

The entire period from about 1873 to the end of World War may be seen as a nearly continuous series of regional wars of European and American Empire expansion.  It came at great cost to indigenous populations and nations that were subjugated into the modern World System in this phase of empire building. Following the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, the two European powers turned attention again to expanding their positions and holdings overseas, primarily in Africa and Asia where these two continental powers were seeking to carve out a position relative to the British Empire, the limited positions of the Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish.  Another period of nearly continuous international conflict, war and crisis may be seen between 1873 and 1919 (Wallerstein 2011). This period includes the subjugation of the American continent by the United States after the Civil War, and the division of Africa after the Congress of Berlin with resulting invasions and colonization of the African continent and violent battles and wars, the Zulu Wars and resistance to the British in 1875; the Mahdist State and revolt in the Sudan in 1885 up to its final defeat and dismantling after the Battle of Omdurman in 1898. These are only a partial list of these continental-wide conflicts.

Historians differ and spend a great deal of time on discussing the nuances of specific diplomatic incidents that precipitated the crisis that ultimately caused World War I.  If on one takes a longer and more comparative view of how competing empires create violent and invasive wars, then this period is better understood (Reinhard 2016).The American position during this period is one of reconsolidation of their continental system and of Reconstruction following the American Civil War.  The continental wars of expansion witness multiple incidents of atrocities against Native Americans in almost all of the Western territories and states.  The brief but poignant victory of the Plains Indians tribes against General George Armstrong Custer and the defeat of his 7th Cavalry forces at Little Big Horn in 1876. Continue reading

German Counter-Reformation in Munich

While most accounts of the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic project of opposing the Protestant Reformation center on Italy or the Spanish Habsburg Empire, I suggest this misses the concerted and immediate response of the Catholic nobility in Southern Germany, who undertook the first pronounced cultural reaction against the Reformation in its architectural projects in its main cathedral churches.  Of all the German Catholic Counter-Reformation building projects, the double domed addition to  Frauenkirche cathedral in Munich represents the most immediate and direct example of a reply to the Lutheran Reformation.  The two domed towers were constructed and completed in 1524, just three years after Luther had been excommunicated.  It was also constructed as a statement of the Catholic Princes and clergy just as raging Peasant Wars were to break out in other parts of Germany.  Bavaria remained one of the few regions where the power of the Catholic princes were able to suppress the Reformation sentiments of the local military order of the knights. The main structure of the Frauenkirche was begun in the 12th century with significant additions built in the middle of the 15th century.  The symbolism and raising of the two towers signified the Catholic presence amid the new Reformation.  Its two domes curiously styled after the shape of the Muslim Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem symbolized a return to the unified campaign of the Crusades of the late 12th and 13th centuries.


The Frauenkirche in Munich with the two domes added in 1524 (Source of image Wikipedia)

The interior of the Frauenkirche reveals the elaborate symbolism and hierarchy of standing and prestige of the Catholic nobility of Bavaria. With its side altars paid for by patronage of the nobility and aristocracy and its elaborate tomb structures for several emperors, it symbolizes the stance of German Catholic aristocracy and clergy against the Lutheran rebellion and its nobility in rival German cities.


The elaborate reconstruction and re-dedication of the tomb of an emperor who had died more than two centuries prior reflected the needs of the Catholic aristocracy and its nobility to express their power and position in the Bavarian capital of a divided Germany.  The cenotaph and tomb borrows heavily from Italian Renaissance and Mannerist sculptural cenotaphs found in Rome.  It is marked by the full-standing sword bearing figure of the Emperor himself facing to the North in the direction of the Lutheran Reformation cities and territories.  Above and around the tomb are figures of Roman laurel wreath crowned emperors and goddesses who remind us of the title of Louis IV as the Holy Roman Emperor of a united Christendom. The symolism of the Roman dressed laurel crowned figures above the cenotaph’s structure, beckon the power of Rome, ancient and contemporary and the attempt to signify the continuity of both the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire.  Beside the tomb are two knighted figures in full armor, a direct link to the role of the ritter or German knight in Bavarian and German court culture. It unequivocally restates the power of the aristocracy and princes over the formerly rebellious German knights who in the early 1520s had atttempted to create support and sentiment for the Reformation.  Their defeat is implicit in the symbolism of the raised sword of the Catholic emperor facing in the direction of the rebellious new Protestant north. The context of the so-called Munich Scandal in which Lutheran brought pressure against various orders of the Catholic clergy, including that of the Jesuit Order.  In 1571 a number of Lutherans accused the Jesuits in Munich of castrating boys who were being instructed for holy orders (Cloulas 1989, 324).  In the 1570s the reintroduction of the Tridentine Mass and special commissions for liturgical music to accompany it were being reinstated in Bavaraian Catholic churches and cathedrals, and the cult of Mary (Crook 1994, 63, 74).

Within the tomb structure and invisible to the modern tourist visitor is a surviving portrait relief of Louis IV that was carved in red marble and set on his gravestone.  This carved relief from around 1468 provides a view of the late pre-Reformation view of the emperor, for as it was also carved several hundred years after the death of its namesake, it portrays the ruler as a Catholic ruler whose dress and crown would not be easily distinguishable from an archbishop or the Pope himself.


1468 portrait of Louis IV by Hans Halder in the tomb at the Frauenkirche in Munich (Source Wikipedia)

Through the end of the 15th century, the relation of the ruling aristocrat to the chief cleric was more or less symbiotic.  A review of illuminated manuscripts hand rendered until the arrival of the printing press revolution of the late 15th century show repetitive scenes of ruling monarchs consulting with their principal archbishops and abbots.A page from the collections of the Nuremberg Chronicles of the late 15th century German physician shows the impact of writing in German with the continued need for illuminated handpainted scenes that reflected on the hierarchy of the high clergy and rulers at the top, the order of military knights in the middle and the lower aristocracy, and clergy and ladies of the court at the lower level.



Cloulas, Ivan. 1989. The Borgias. Translated by Gilda Roberts. New York: Franklin Watts.

Crook, David. 1994. Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats for Counter-Reformation Munich. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Norwich, John Julius. 2011. Absolute Monarchs: a History of the Papacy. New York: Random House.

Schreiber, Fr. Ant. Wilhelm. 1860. Geschichte das bayerischen Herzogs Wilhelm V. des Frommens nach Quellen und Urkunden dargestellt. Munich: Lentner.

Schwaiger, Georg. 1970. “Maria Patrona Bavaria,” In Bavaria Sancta. Zeugen christlichen Glaubens in Bayern, ed. Georg Schwaiger, 28-37. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet.

Söhner, Leo. 1934.  Die Musik im Münchener Dom Unserer Lieben Frau in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart.Munich: Lenter

The Papacy as State Monarchy 900-1520

This essay considers the consolidation of the Papal States as land territories held by the Church with the Pope acting as a elected monarch selected by the secretive College of Cardinals.  It ends with the rise of Lutheranism and the invasion of Italy by Francis I and the political outfall between France, Spain, the Papacy and the rise of Lutheranism in Germany and beyond.

Prior to the 11th  century the Papacy as an institution remained an institution for promoting Church power and organization (Blumenthal 2008).  It had relied upon the Carolingian Empire and it successors in the emergent Holy Roman Empire for political protection and as a base for promoting its domains through the spread of monasteries, large churches in towns and its close affiliation and integration into court life and culture through the promotion of clergy form the aristocracy to fill the roles of abbots and bishops.  From the eleventh century onward the Church’s interest in territorial possessions and claims of lands of its own now extended beyond the role and function of the monasteries as holders of large estates throughout Western Europe, but increasing the Papacy centered in Rome began to claim and assert its political domain over lands in Italy.  The Papacy became its own state. What provoked this response by the Papacy was an internal crisis caused by differences and attempts at asserting local autonomy by the local clergy and that by 1046 led to a search for extensive reforms.  This was marked by the first Northern Pope Clement II (1046-7) and eventually the reforms of Pope Gregory.
Since the 9th century the Papacy had relied on support and close ties to the main political and military powerhouse in Western Europe, the Frankish rulers and kingdoms and its successors after the breakup of the Carolingian Empire.  With the breakup of the Carolingian Empire into different states and kingdoms, the Papacy forged alliances with the different kingdoms and had to take sides in the sparring of Roman and Italian factions.  This led to the increased pressures of the Roman and Italian rich families to make sure that members of their own families were appointed to the high clerical ranks:  bishops, cardinals with the potential of gaining the papacy.  Papal politics at the end of the 9thcentury were so bad that pope Stephen VII called a synod or assembly of cardinals and bishops and had the body of his predecessor Pope Formosus (1091-96) exhumed, put on trial for condemnation and tossed into the Tiber River (Blumenthal 2008, 9).  Formosus’ crime was his meddling in selecting the successor to the fledgling Holy Roman Empire when he crowned Arnulf, who controlled the armies in Northern Italy, as Emperor over the child Lambert, the presumed successor to deceased Guy III of Spoleto whose power base was in Southern Italy which was under attack by Muslim armies. Continue reading

Hegel’s Problem with Non-Western Societies – Part Two – Haiti

The critique of Hegel’s historicism and his racist presumption have been argued persuasively by world and regional historians, including Peter Gran, The Rise of the Rich (Gran 2011, 137)Wang Hui, China from Empire to Nation-State (Hui 2014), and Susan Buck-Morss,Hegel, Haiti and Universal History (Buck-Morss, Hegel, Haiti and Universal History 2009), and Timothy Brennan, Borrowed Light:  Vico, Hegel and the Colonies (Brennan 2014).  In this essay I will compare the examination of Hegel by Buck-Morss and Brennan as an examination of the problem of colonialism that is notably among Hegel’s most flawed areas of speculation in his Lectures on World History.  Before we compare Buck-Morss and Brennan it is important to note the resonance that Hegel still finds in the area of history, even if in the discipline of history Hegel has been increasingly although as yet incompletely criticized. In philosophy we still find many scholars defending Hegel against his critics, notably Charles Taylor in his study of Hegel and Will Dudley in Hegel and History (2009).

A new paradigm for the study of history, art and literature as world history and as comparative history is necessary. How do we shift from the paradigm of the general and essentialized nature of Hegel and institutionalization in the profession of history, via Leopold Ranke, and a dependence on Eurocentrism, to a meaningful and relevant world history that allows for the comparisons of culture, civilization, nation and society?  One of the ways is to integrate the study of history with that of the arts and literature. One might expect philosophy would be a field that would help but we find it is still a field lodged in Eurocentric or Western Civilization exceptionalism.

Within the field of philosophy there remain recalcitrant defefenders of Hegelian essentialism and universalism.  Notably among these are Dudley, Hegel and History. Most philosophy based studies of Hegel that are kept within the Western/Continental philosophy model avoid a critique of Hegel’s flawed world history and side step any consideration of his Orientalist assumptions that gave rise to other deeply problematic theories, including that of Marx’ Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP).  An example of this Eurocentric philosophical approach is found in Jon Stewart,  Idealism and Existentialism : Hegel and Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century European Philosophy (2010).  A work that shows how to challenge this idealistic approach is Mohamed Salama, Islam, Orientalism and Intellectual History (2011).

By extension the reliance on the state as a model of analysis has come to dominate the field of International Relations (IR) which assumes the model of the Western history of nation-state and body politics to be a higher stage of development and thus a normative basis of analysis for comparison with the periphery, with failed states and other denominations of the Third World and the Non-West.

The roots of a Hegelian model and assumption of Western Civilization as the basis of rational political theory and as a paradigm for practice in International Relations are not a central part of contemporary writing in IR theory In this discussion I’d like to examine the use of a Hegelian assumption, that it is the Western model of civilization that predominates in history and rational politics, and that all relations are subject to treating other nations as outsiders.  This idea of the outsider is of course quite old in Greek thought, assuming for the moment as classical political scientists and historians do, that Greece is a source of political thought.  The notion of the outsider is found in Herodotus’ history and discussion of Sparta as outside the normative Athenian or Attic central experience.  I take as representative contemporary writers’ dependence on Hegel, Henry Kissinger, Ulrich Beck and Kees van der Pijl (van der Pilj 2007).  At first the extreme differences of these writers seems impossible to compare.  Kissinger is a practitioner and the enforcer of American Cold War era practice, when America arose into the role of the world’s policeman.  Ulrich Beck writes as a sociologist, but whose discussion of globalism I consider to be relevant to practices and theories of IR. Kees Van der Pijl represents the hope of an expansive European openness to the word, whose Atlantic systems approach I suggest is an extension of the Hegelian Western Civilization hypothesis.

Brennan’s critique of Hegel makes a comparative study of European Enlightenment philosophy and history.  By comparing Hegel as a Northern European and Prussian based intellectual with Vico, his Italian contemporary Brennan is able to study two intellectuals from European states that were largely outside of the larger colonial system of exploitation that was shared among the other Western European states:  Portugal, Spain, Holland, England and France. A reading of Brennan allows us to examines Vico’s attempt to criticize colonialism as reflective of the Italian experience of a fragmented nation-state without a systematic colonial structure, in other words the fragmented nature of Italian polities and its regionalism led to its own internal colonization of the Italian South as a subservient or tradition based socio-economic region that was a supply center of foodstuffs to the Northern Italian states.  Brennan notes that Vico was providing a critique of the system of internal colonization found in the material conditions of the regionalism of Italy, and its two islands Sardinia and Sicily that served as a tradition based region to the mixed economy of the agrarian and proto-industrial North (Brennan 2014, 14).   But Brennan’s critique and comparison of Hegel avoids the racist and essentialist doctrine of his idea of world history as stages of development.  Brennan fails to examine Hegel’s reductionist presumptions about Africa and his dismissal of African development.  Instead Brennan returns to Hegel’s idealism as a radical who seeks to end slavery, but in doing so Brennan ignores Hegel’s lack of historical understanding of African history and its varied experiences in all periods of ancient or modern world history.  Brennan assumes Hegel is sympathetic to non-Western sources and indigenous knowledge, but leaves his acceptance of Hegel as a philosophical ideal that is unwarranted in Hegel’s ahistorical approach (Brennan 2014, 86).  Despite his reading of critiques of Hegel’s essentialization about Africa Brennan is unable to escape the philosophical reification of Hegel[1](Bernasconi, Hegel at the Court of the Ashanti 2002) (Bernasconi and Cook 2003).

Susan Buck-Morss’s critique of Hegel’s racism and universal essentialism is more systematic and substantive in both theory and method.  Buck Morss begins to negotiate the border areas between the disciplines of history and philosophy, two disciplines that I argue were not engaged in a discourse with each other.  In so doing she examines claims to universal history of the larger ideas that may supercede the idea of a singular national or empire framework, for example that of the American empire.  Buck-Morss takes up the problem of New World slavery as one such theme that was necessary both for Hegel and for world historians to take up (Buck-Morss, Hegel and Haiti 2000).

Buck Morss takes up Hegel’s approach to a speculative writing on Haiti by noting the influence of his reading in 1803 of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (Buck-Morss, Hegel, Haiti and Universal History 2009, 4).  The first studies of Hegel’s writing on Haiti were taken up by Pierre-Franklin Tavarès (Tavarès 1991).  Hegel was influenced by accounts of the revolt and revolution of the Saint-Domingue slaves led by Toussaint Louverture.  What Buck-Morss demonstrates is that Hegel avoided any clear and systematic review or mention of the successful revolution of slaves that led to the independent state of Haiti that was declared by Louverture’s successor Dessalines.


Bernasconi, Robert. 2002. “Hegel at the Court of the Ashanti.” In Hegel after Derrida, 41-63. London: Routledge.

Bernasconi, Robert, and Sybol Cook. 2003. Race and Racism in Continental Philosophy.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Brennan, Timothy. 2014. Borrowed Light: Vico, Hegel and the Colonies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Buck-Morss, Susan. 2000. “Hegel and Haiti.” Critical Inquiry 821-65.

—. 2009. Hegel, Haiti and Universal History. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Dudley, Will. 2009. Hegel and History. State University of New York Press

Gran, Peter. 2011. Rise of the Rich: A New View of World History. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Hui, Wang. 2014. China from Empire to Nation-state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Salama, Mohammad R. 2011. Islam, Orientalism and Intellectual History. : I.B.Tauris, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Tavarès, Pierre-Franklin. 1991. “La Conception de l’Afrique de hegel comme critique.”Chemins Critiques 2 (2): 153-66.

van der Pilj, Kees. 2007. Nomads, Empires, States : Modes of Foreign Relations and Political Economy. London, GB.: Pluto Press.

[1] Here Brennan cites to but does not fully examine the beginning of a critique of Hegel’s anti-African bias in Bernasconi, “Hegel at the Court of the Ashanti,” in Hegel after Derrida (London: Routledge, 2002 ), 41 – 63

My Readables

World Through My Lenses



Blog 500

Knowledge is to Share

US History 20th Century

Empire and Inequality

World History: 500-1600 C.E.

Empire and Inequality

Muslim and Jewish Culture in the European-Latin Middle Ages

Seeking Knowledge in the Age of Crusades and Empire