Below is an essay written during my postgraduate program at the University of Sussex around 2019. This was a purely academic piece and thus I had to reserve some of my personal views. That said, this could serve as a brief introduction to Hegel’s philosophy of history. Hegel’s philosophy of history was one of the first texts of Western speculative philosophy of history that I have come across. This ultimately became a good thing despite feeling extreme confusion following a thorough and substantive read, since I believe understanding Hegel’s complex philosophy of history would give one an edge when diving into the rest of the literature — Spengler, Toynbee, Kant, Herder, Quigley, or any other philosophy of history whether in expressed in art-form, poetry, literature, or other related fields. Two interesting and profound ideas in Hegel’s philosophy of history that I briefly touch upon here are the following: first, the clear esoteric element in his work — embodied here by his obsession with triads and the number 3, which I am now fully aware after adopting a stance of reading Hegel that emphasizes the esoteric and occult dimension of his work. Second, is a usually overlooked idea in Hegel’s philosophy of history which I only came across a few writers on esoteric history touch upon, the notion that Jesus Christ embodies the ultimate and universal turning point in history, and that, most importantly for us here, that the history following his death (AD) will be a mirror of the history prior to his death (BC). These are very speculative metaphysical notions that cannot be easily grasped with many mainstream readings of Hegel in my judgement, and hence my Analemma of History project and idea, which was primarily inspired by this specific notion presented by Hegel, and other authors that have shaped my overarching philosophy of history (Jonathan Black in the Secret History of the World; Spengler’s Decline; Toynbee’s work; Guenon’s philosophy; and the eschatological traditions in all of its forms).
Prolegomena
The philosophy of history, as a discipline, has accommodated diverse theories regarding the progression of time, man’s nature and his purpose, as well as providing platforms to discern the socio-political and economic changes evident within history. Contemporarily, the theorists of history have been distinguished from practicing historians, for the former is interested in providing a framework which illustrates the progression and causality within the chronological history of man whilst the latter is more focused on narrating and analyzing historical events. Thus, for the purpose of this paper, we shall initially briefly explore the various paths existent within the philosophy of history.
Temporality –linear and cyclical theories
In regards to temporality and causality, there are two dominant frameworks, each possessing a different perception of the temporal dynamics of change, namely, linear and cyclical progressions of human universal history. The theories associated with linear progression borrow a linear timeline when observing the relationship between temporality, causality and human civilization. Whereby, human civilization moves on a linear path towards progress, Hegelian and Marxist historians employ this framework[1]. Cyclical theorists, on the other hand, deploy a cyclical framework of temporality and causality. Whereby, history moves in a cyclical fashion, with recurring patterns being evident within history. With religious origins, the earliest works associated with cyclical views of history date back to Vedic India and Ancient Greece, the former associated with early Vedic priests who inscribed of endless universal cycles of destruction and restoration[2], and the latter was home to Hesiod whose poems mention the five successive ages of man ending with his inevitable destruction[3]. Thus, the origins of cyclical theories are associated with eschatological theories regarding the destiny of man and his purpose, St. Augustine’s City of God gives us an illustration of the Judeo-Christian and Neo-Platonic views of history that eventually paved the way and inspired Muslim Sufi scholars to produce Islamic grand world cycles[4]. Written at the end of an age and at the brink of a new one, Ibn Khaldun’s Muqadimmah was the answer to why the Islamic civilization collapsed following the Reconquista and Mongol conquest of Baghdad. In it, Ibn Khaldun employs a cyclical view of history when viewing the rise of cultures into their final form –civilization- and their inevitable decline[5]. However, unlike the theories emerging within antiquity, the cyclical theories that emerged following the middle ages reflect to us their strict demand for rationalism and empiricism. This is reflected in Ibn Khaldun’s work, as well as Oswald Spengler and Sorokin. Another difference was the use of shorter time scales, rather than the larger time scales employed in antiquity[6]. In the case of Spengler, history is essentially the interaction, growth and decline of various high-cultures or “Civilizations”, in his The Decline of the West, Spengler views cultures as organisms which possess a lifespan consisting of four sequential stages or seasons. Since he gives a high-culture a life span equivalent to a millennium, he approaches history through a longue duree lens[7]. Moreover, he rejected the dominant Eurocentric periodization of human history and preferred to label each of his eight high-cultures as a significant period within human history[8]. Yet, his concept of the “Soul of Cultures” resembles, and may have been inspired by, Hegel’s Volksgeist in the sense that both concepts play a crucial role in the development of high-cultures and civilizations. Hegel and Spengler designate different concepts as their main driving force in history, to the former Geist, or the spirit, is the main driving force of history reflected in the continuous process of dialectical clashes[9]. For Spengler “Cultures are organisms and world-history is their collective biography”[10]. Thus, from this perspective the dominance of optimistic and progressive linear views of history is only the reflection of the Faustian (Germanic or Western) soul, and his yearning for the infinite. Spengler views the sciences, architecture, religions, music and political entities developed by any culture, as the expression of the cultures soul, thus the rise of enlightenment ideas of inevitable progress within historiography only reflects to us the Faustian soul’s yearning for infinite progress[11]. More importantly for the sake of our paper, is the similarity between Spengler and Hegel regarding what encompasses history, for Spengler believes man’s main destiny is to fulfill his yearning for civilization and thus the death of a high culture signals its transition from history into “the history-less”[12]. Similarly, within Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the motion of history is manifested in the Sun’s movement over the earth. Hence, history commences in the East and ends in the West, it’s home being the Orient[13]. In Hegel’s philosophy of history, there are specific essentials necessary for an episode of the past to belong to history. As the pendulum of time continues to swing, an empire experiencing stability and duration without “The development of the consciousness of freedom on the part of the spirit, and of the consequent realization of that freedom.”, ceases to become part of history and belongs only to the realm of “Ante-history”[14].
Periodization
Within the philosophy of history, the periodization, temporal framework and geographic demarcations of the authors are shaped by the respective questions they pose and their inclusive objectives upon observing history. Thus, in the case of Hegel, his interest in universal and world history combined with his philosophy of history, obliges him to employ an original periodization, geographic division and temporal framework which suits his understandings of history.
The division, or periodization, of history is essential to world and universal historians, since they do not emphasize micro-events, instead they employ a macro-lens which encompasses larger time frames, hence, the significance and diversity of periodization’s within the philosophy of history. As mentioned above, Spengler’s periodization of history “comprised of his eight high cultures or civilizations, suiting his understanding of history, where high cultures are the main driving force. Hegel, on the other hand, underlining the importance of the trajectory of Geist, nature of Weltgeist (World Spirit), influence of Volkgeist (National Spirit) and the significance of Zeitgeist (Spirit of the Age) within his philosophy of history employs an original periodization of history. History, in the understanding of Hegel, as opposed to the dominant European Ancient-Medieval-Modern periods, is divided into four successive stages, namely, commencing with the Oriental, followed by the Greek and Roman phases and finally culminating in the German phase[15]. Since the history of the world is essentially driven by the spirit, the periodization Hegel employs reflect its motion through the dialectal clashes imminent within the trajectory of history. Moreover, each period is further distinguished by their respective political forms; chronologically they are Despotism, democracy and aristocracy, followed by monarchy[16].
The Orient
The Orient, in Hegel’s thought, is the birthplace of substantial or objective freedom. Essentially, objective freedom is the first form of freedom within world history; hence, it is the most undeveloped form. Objective freedom, as opposed to subjective freedom, demands the strict obedience of laws and enforces the individual to view these laws as fixed regardless of their nature[17]. The first impulse of this form of freedom is evident in the Orient, according to Hegel, the Sun’s trajectory around the earth reflects the course of world history, and this impulse which arose in China is embodied by the Sun’s birth or rise from the East[18]. The commencement of the dialectic clash is the Orient; therefore, it is constituted as the first age or period within world history. The dominant periodization’s, in Europe, within the enlightenment, is the classical three-period model (Ancient/Antiquity-Medieval/Middle-Modern). As mentioned earlier, a historian’s objective, in regards to history, shapes the framework, model and organization of his work. The historians who have shaped the emergence of the tripartite periodization model emphasized on transitional periods, rather than the reasons for the respective transitions. Hence, they observed change, yet they have not explained it. Hegel’s philosophy of history, as well as other individuals within this field, attempted to explain the relationship between temporality and causality within world history rather than narrate its course[19]. Each periodization model has a specific criterion; in the case of Hegel, the chief criteria is non-material and idealistic. Therefore, his philosophy of history is antithetical to that of early historians adopting the tripartite model; their main criteria was materialistic and temporal. Thus, in order to illustrate the dialectal clash which rules over the course of world history, Hegel replaces the initial stages of the period we know today as the Antiquity or Ancient history with “The Oriental Phase”[20]. In Hegel’s understanding of world history, in China, Geist was born, whereby “The immediate unity of the substantial spirit and the individual; but this is to equivalent to the spirit of the family, which is here extended over the most populous of countries”[21]. This is embodied by the political form adopted in the Orient, namely, Despotism. Subjectivity, as an antithesis through the negation of reality, is non-existent in this phase, as in, the individual’s ability to consciously self-reflect and acknowledge that one is free. Instead, “In China the Universal Will immediately commands what the individual is to do.”[22].
The Greek Period
This period dawns with the rise of the Chinese sovereign government around the 24th century BC and ends with the commencement of the Greek epoch between the 16th and 15th centuries BC. This is marked by the establishment of Thebes on the part of the mythical Cadmus and the arrival of Deucalion’s (The Greek counterpart of Noah) descendants within mainland Greece, this according to Hegel, could not have occurred without the role played by the Egyptians and Phoenicians in the emergence of Greek civilization. Both responsible for founding the first settlements in Greece, and the latter in specific, for exporting phonetic writing[23]. Hegel labels the Greek period, as the intermediate between pure objective freedom where individuality is non-existent on the one hand, and pure subjectivity where the individual is certain of his freedom and existence[24]. The Greek spirit, in this case, lies entirely in the centre of these juxtaposing dialectics. The impulse to free individuality emerges from Greece in this period, whereby the Geist is shaped through natural stimulus. The Greek spirit, in this case, does not possess the elements necessary to attain pure freedom of spirituality; hence, their spirit enforces them to interact with nature. This is reflected in their temperament, which is dominated by curiosity, in regards to nature, and art that transforms the solid natural material into a manifestation of the individual spirit[25]. As described within Spengler’s philosophy of history, the Apollonian or Greek culture respects beauty and the present, it is the epitome of a culture that is ipso facto living the moment. Spengler assigns the Apollonian culture with a prime symbol reflecting the final expression of its soul, “The definite and separate body” (i.e. Spengler assigns the Faustian/Western Germanic culture with the prime symbol “Infinite Space”), manifested in the Doric column and Greek art-form[26]. Hence, Hegel dubs the Greek spirit “Individuality Conditioned by Beauty.”[27]. Democracy is the political form of the Greek phase of world history; it is essentially the collective self-consciousness of the Greek nation. However, although individual freedom exists, it is not developed to an extent to produce the will necessary to reflect that subjective freedom into the state (Such as the level of objective will evident and manifested Oriental Despotism). Subjective freedom is a catalyst for demise when the spirit does not recognize the political entity it comes to contact with (In the case of Greece, the Spirit was non-existent prior to the political entity). The Greek form of freedom was essentially an unconscious form, whereby, they cannot view the state in the abstract, in the words of Hegel “Their grand object was their country in its living and real aspect”[28]. Henceforth, when the polity was subjected to subjective freedom, it paved the way for Greece’s demise. The Greek period then consists of three phases, the first, consisted of the Greek spirit’s realization of itself, the second is dominated by the first Greek interaction with “World-Historical” peoples, namely, the Persians, and the last period coincides with the rise and fall of the Macedonian rule. Since history, in Hegel’s thought, follows the trajectory of the spirit, the Orient is thus stuck in time; therefore, their history becomes “Un-historical”[29].
The second and third periods nearly coincide with Karl Jasper’s “Axial Age” (800-200 BC), the period when simultaneously dozens of iconic philosophers, prophets and kings emerged within all of the inhabited regions of earth at that specific time. The world witnessed the rise of Buddhism in the East, the Vedic Religions and the accumulation of what we know today as Hinduism in the Indus valley, the birth of Confucianism in China, the rise of Greek Philosophy and finally the emergence of Zoroastrianism and Second Temple Judaism[30]. This, according to Jasper, was the period which experienced the rise of the intellectual and spiritual ideas necessary to build the foundations of high civilizations from the 2nd century BC to contemporary times[31]. In Hegel’s philosophy of history, the Medes, Persians and Neo-Assyrians are not distinguished from one another and are in essence embodying the Oriental Spirit[32]. Moreover, Hegel does not place a fixed date for the second period in the Greek Period, yet he mentions the Median wars with the Greek colonies taking us closer to the beginning of the Axial Age. The third period commences with the death of Alexander and the conflicts that followed and concludes with the Roman conquest of Greece. Although their own periodization’s do not perfectly overlap, the similarity is evident, and both historians identify the importance of this specific period. In Hegelian terms, however, this period was significant because of the dialectical clash materialized in the Greco-Persian Wars, a war between Oriental despotism and free Greek individuality[33].
Thus, the second period is the assertion of the Greek spirit once it had realized its essential being. Nevertheless, ironically, the fall of the Greek Spirit was an internal cause, namely, their subjectivity’s yearning for emancipation. Though subjectivity is responsible for shaping the art, sciences, philosophy, religion and architecture of the Greeks, as mentioned above, it is antithetical to the idea of a state. Allegorically the Greek spirit’s subjectivity in relation to the state, could be clarified upon viewing the life, thought, and death of Socrates. In turn, subjectivity amplifies chaos and anarchy and becomes self-corrupting in the case of the Greek Spirit; its initial expression was the Peloponnesian War[34]. Consequently “Achilles, begins the Greek World, and his antitype Alexander concludes it”[35] as the final assertion of the Greek spirit, paving the way for the third and final period associated with the Greek spirit’s decline.
It is essential to note some preliminary remarks prior to moving to our next section. The Apollonian high culture, in Spengler’s periodization of history, comprises both the Greek and Roman cultures. Yet Hegel separates the two within his periodization (Though, of course, Hegel does emphasize the similarities between the two peoples), where the main driving force differs from that of Spengler. More importantly for our paper, is the nature of overlapping ages within Hegel’s periodization. As mentioned above, and unlike Western paradigms of periodization, Hegel’s periodization is not restricted by fixed dates; instead, it is ipso facto open-ended. Whereby, the completion of one epoch and the dawn of another could overlap, such is the case within Hegel’s periodization[36].
The Roman Phase
Hegel’s division of the Roman Period within world history resembles that of Roman historian’s in its tripartite nature. However, instead of the classical division based on the diverse Roman political entities (Monarchy-Republic-Empire), Hegel’s introduces a tripartite division of the Roman period which reflects the rise, peak and decline of the Roman spirit. The Roman spirit, like the Greek, is evident yet it differs from the latter in its attainment of “Free Universality” and “Abstract Freedom”[37]. Thus, subjectivity has evolved in the Roman period, from one of observation of its natural surroundings to a more inward subjectivity necessary to achieve the abstract state, in the case of Rome, the spirit is embodied in the aristocracy. In the Greek period, subjectivity was a catalyst for destruction, in the Roman period; however, the antithetical relationship between abstract freedom and political universality allows subjectivity to amplify the respective political entity. Moreover, the Roman epoch and spirit are manifested in the aristocracy’s relentless opposition to the people, which according to Hegel, is reflected in the internal division based on principles[38]. In Hegel’s periodization, the first of the Roman periods consists of the gradual amalgamation of the pre-Roman peoples, viz., the Etruscans, Sabine and Latins. The nature of the Roman spirit could be understood upon viewing the story of its mythical founders, Romulus and Remus, whereby each individual reflects a body within the Roman socio-political sphere, precisely, the plebeians and patricians. The necessary dualistic opposition we have mentioned above, as the main principle of the Roman spirit is manifested in the mythical clash between the two brothers. The result of the clash is reflected in the life of the Roman people, the victory of Romulus is manifested in the authority and power of the Roman state, the death of Remus reflects the definite dependency of the plebs on behalf of the patricians. Thus, the first period is marked by the birth and accumulation of the antithetical condition embodied by the Roman nation. The fundamental nature of the early Roman community was a predatory one, according to Hegel, the shepherd community, which constituted the earliest Roman settlements, was isolated and remote. Again, Hegel’s metaphoric use of Rome’s mythical founding brothers, reflects their isolated nature and non-existence of family life, suggesting they are mere “Freebooters”[39]. This brings us to three key points in the development of the Roman spirit, impassive aggressiveness, emotionless familial ties and plebian debt. The predatory nature of the early Roman state produced a populace that is military by nature, the reason being the vulnerability of the community which enforced vigilance and armaments. This paves the way for the accumulation of eternal financial debts, paving the way for patrician dominance in Roman affairs. The nature of the Roman community, combined with the prevalent lawlessness within the surrounding regions, attracted criminals and outcasts as they viewed it as a potential safe haven. Rome’s initial disconnection from other communities reflects the fact that it was a predominately male society, or in essence, a military camp[40]. The rape of the Sabine Women best illustrates to us the emotionless familial ties which have shaped their spirit, since the Roman married by force and not consent (Formal), hence, the elimination of natural morality. Consequently, Hegel labels the Roman spirit as “The self-consciousness of finiteness, the abstraction of the understanding and a rigorous principle of personality”[41]. Perfectly expressed in the Etruscan art form, which is realistic and accurate, yet lacks ideality and beauty. This, as in Greece, is also reflected in their religious and political forms, the Roman consciousness attained no spiritual objectivity. The nations that are subjected to sway of Geist cannot escape its fate; thus, the Roman spirit was necessary in Hegel’s understanding of world history, for without the perversion and demoralization it brought to the world. As the victims of Geist, the Romans were crucial to the development of religion and allowed it to receive abstract juristic understandings. Thus, the Roman spirit required to be antithetical to morality since the realization of human freedom occurs through the process of dialectical clashes. Victimhood, on behalf of the Romans, was essential for many to attain Freedom. This, in Hegel’s theodicy, is the justification of God in world history.
The second period of Rome embarks precisely during the Second Punic war. Mirroring the Greeks, the first period marked the phase of internal realization, the second, external interaction. Thus, the outburst of the Roman spirit, freeing the Macedonian and Greek spirit from the shackles of temporality upon conquering them, as observed above, conquering Carthage, Iberia and Asia minor. With the balance tilting towards Rome, she became “The mistress of the Mediterranean.”[42]. The necessary contradiction between the patricians and plebs, as discussed above, is a crucial element within the Roman spirit. Rome’s dualistic tension eases during war, since abstract sovereignty is projected outwards, and the existence of an external threat unites the two sides of the spectrum. Nevertheless, the elimination of Rome’s enemies allowed this contradiction to resume, albeit on a larger scale. The antagonism that shaped the lives of Romulus and Remus was not projected all over Italy, the victories accumulated by Rome led to an impulsion of patriotism, which in turn makes “The grandeur of the individual character” more significant, and “More vigorous in the use of means”[43]. Thus, the opposition manifested itself in Pompey and Caesar, the former representing the Republic and Senate, the latter himself, and his military force[44]. The latter also reflects Rome’s main principle, according to Hegel, that of sovereignty and military might, hence his decisive victory. Hegel argued that the republic, echoing the Greek period, was no longer viable for Rome, for even after the elites of Rome eliminated Caesar, the spirit of the times ruled and ensured Rome’s destiny would be led by the individual, not the many[45].
As previously discussed, in Hegel’s periodization, historic periods overlap. Thus, we come to find the dawn of the German period within the dusk of the Roman. Thence the third phase of the Roman period marks, on the one hand, the first encounter with the nations to succeed Rome within world history (German nations), and on the other, the birth of spirituality within the Roman realms marking the end of the Roman period. The crucial element of this epoch, is the final realization of the Roman spirit, through absolute imperial rule, and the introduction of private property. The emperor here constitutes the complete realization of isolated subjectivity and the right of property –which is essentially the final sentiment of abstract subjectivity. Right to private property was the manifestation of the birth of the individual “Person”[46]. From here, according to Hegel, this “lifeless” private right indicates Rome’s fall, as the pride of the social unit paved the way for the ego to assert itself in its claims. Yet, the artificial nature of these claims only led to the demise of the empire. “Thus man was either at war with existence, or entirely given up to mere sensuous existence” says Hegel. The Roman period is thus a necessary phase for the progress of spirit, for their desertion of god was a form of purification which paved the way for the birth of Christianity and the higher spirit, namely, “The reconciliation and emancipation of Spirit; while man obtains the consciousness of spirit in its universality and infinity.”[47]. This impulse emerged from the Roman period, yet, it could not find grounds in it, says Hegel. Though Christianity enjoyed the throne of Byzantium, it was one which separated itself from the world, as Hegel describes it “The Byzantine Empire is a grand example of how the Christian religion may maintain an abstract character among a cultivated people”[48].
The German Spirit
The bearers of Christianity were; instead, the German nations, the German spirit’s objective is namely “The realization of absolute truth as the unlimited self-determination of freedom”[49]. The German epoch’s significance, in regards to Geist, is the unity of the objective and subjective, as well as their reconciliation. For the purpose of this paper; however, we need to underline the overextension of the German phase in Hegel’s periodization. Initially, it is open-ended as Hegel refuses to trace its origins due to nonexistence of necessary material to trace these pasts. Moreover, Hegel defines the German period as one of totality, as at the end of history, since the German spirit is yearning for the realization of absolute truth, it constitutes an aeon. Borrowing, Spengler’s prime symbols and high-cultures, the Faustian or German high-culture yearns for the infinite (yet, in Spengler’s cyclical view this is the trait of the culture in question and not their destiny). Hegel’s fascination with tripartite divisions is further reflected in the German Aeon, which is further distinguished by its similarity or correlation with Hebrew-Christian eschatological grand cycles and their periodization, whereby the birth of Christ symbolizes a turning point or climax within world history. Furthermore, Hegel divides his aeon into a tripartite division, successively with the Kingdom of the Father (Consolidation), then the Son (Secular existence) and finally the Spirit (Harmonization)[50]. Finally, since the birth of Christianity is a turning point within world history, Hegel believes the history of the German Aeon perfectly repeats Ancient history. The Kingdom of the Father as that of Ancient Persia, the Son-Greece and the Spirit (Modern) as Rome.
The German spirit is essentially “The sense of natural totality” Hegel terms it as “Heart”. In essence, it is the undeveloped spirit of which “Satisfaction of the soul is attained in a correspondingly general and indeterminate way”[51], yet it is not interested in any objective condition but satisfies on the entirety of the Soul. Heart ceases any object which satisfies the German soul and leaves no place for vice in the process. This element of heart is what distinguishes the German peoples from other in regards to Christianity in Hegel’s understanding, for it manifests itself in the German spirit’s persistent unrestricted satisfaction of the soul which allowed it to bear Christianity[52]. The German spirit, within the first period, manifested itself in the Germanic invasions of Gaul, Iberia, Rome and Britain. Clovis –as the first King of the Franks, formed the foundations of the spirit’s political form embodied in his state. The arrival of Charlemagne in world history marks the beginning of the second age, as he establishes the alliance with the Holy see, the Carolingian Empire here embodies the Feudal Monarchy and the Roman Church the Theocracy. Thus, the second period is the accumulation of opposition as both sides of the antithesis develop. The result is feudalism and the emergence of states of abnormally large and miniature proportions. The end of this second period occurs after the reformation, which in turn marks the beginning of the third period, of our own times. The reformation restored Christian freedom, whereby reason dominates the political life and the Free spirit “becomes the world banner”[53].
Conclusion
“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk”[54] says Hegel, emphasizing that significance of internal temporality in the ultimate purpose of human life, thus, the purpose of the philosophy of history. Symbolically, the Owl here is the embodiment of philosophy, as it is progressed by temporality, it expands its knowledge of the past. Thence, Wisdom of the past only expands as time progresses, and only through hindsight and retrospect, does the world consciousness expand. Hegel’s understanding of Ancient history was limited to 19th-century historical thought, as evidently reflected in his dating of ancient civilizations in the Lectures on the Philosophy of History. His philosophy, however, transcends time; and thus as our knowledge of the world and universal history expands - inevitably since temporality rules the spirit - our collective consciousness steps closer to its ultimate realization, or in other words –God. This is the purpose of the philosophy of history in Hegel’s view, a theodicy and eschatology.
Bibliography
Primary sources
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. The Philosophy of History. With Prefaces by Charles Hegel and the Translator, J. Sibree, and a New Introd. by C.J. Friedrich. New York, Dover Publications, 1956.
Secondary sources
Aron, Raymond. Introduction to the Philosophy of History: An Essay on the Limits of Historical Objectivity. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976.
Cairns, Grace E. Philosophies of History: Meeting of East and West in Cycle-Pattern Theories of History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1971.
Green, William A. “Periodization in European and World History.” Journal of World History3, no. 1 (1992): 13–53.
Hodgson, M. G. The venture of Islam: Conscience and history in a world civilization: Vol. 1. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press. 1974.
Khaldūn Ibn. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Edited by Nessim Joseph. Dawood. Translated by Franz Rosenthal. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967.
Mahdi, Muhsin. Ibn Khaldūns Philosophy of History: A Study in the Philosophic Foundation of the Science of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. Translated by Charles Francis Atkinson. New York: Knopf, 1966.
[1] Raymond Aron, Introduction to the Philosophy of History: An Essay on the Limits of Historical Objectivity, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976).
[2] Grace E. Cairns, Philosophies of History: Meeting of East and West in Cycle-Pattern Theories of History, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1971), 67.
[3] Ibid, 197.
[4] Ibid, 251 & 267.
[5] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans. Franz Rosenthal (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967).
[6] Grace E. Cairns, Philosophies of History: Meeting of East and West in Cycle-Pattern Theories of History, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1971).
[7] Ibid, 55.
[8] Ibid, 353-355.
[9] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History. With Prefaces by Charles Hegel and the Translator, J. Sibree, and a New Introd. by C.J. Friedrich, (New York, Dover Publications, 1956), 56.
[10] Grace E. Cairns, Philosophies of History: Meeting of East and West in Cycle-Pattern Theories of History, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1971), 377.
[11] Ibid, 353-356.
[12] Ibid, 372.
[13] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,, The Philosophy of History. With Prefaces by Charles Hegel and the Translator, J. Sibree, and a New Introd. by C.J. Friedrich, (New York, Dover Publications, 1956), 104.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid, 103-110.
[16] Ibid, 104.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid, 103
[19] William A. Green, “Periodization in European and World History.” Journal of World History3, no. 1 (1992): 15.
[20] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History. With Prefaces by Charles Hegel and the Translator, J. Sibree, and a New Introd. by C.J. Friedrich, (New York, Dover Publications, 1956), 116.
[21] Ibid, 120.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid, 228.
[24] Ibid, 238.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West. Translated by Charles Francis Atkinson. (New York: Knopf, 1966).
[27] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History. With Prefaces by Charles Hegel and the Translator, J. Sibree, and a New Introd. by C.J. Friedrich, (New York, Dover Publications, 1956), 238.
[28] Ibid, 253.
[29] Ibid, 106.
[30] M. G. Hodgson, The venture of Islam: Conscience and history in a world civilization: Vol. 1, (Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press, 1974.)
[31] William A. Green, “Periodization in European and World History.” Journal of World History3, no. 1 (1992): 42.
[32] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History. With Prefaces by Charles Hegel and the Translator, J. Sibree, and a New Introd. by C.J. Friedrich, (New York, Dover Publications, 1956), 182-187.
[33] Ibid, 256.
[34] Ibid, 267.
[35] Ibid, 273.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid, 279.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid, 286.
[40] Ibid, 285-286.
[41] Ibid, 288.
[42] Ibid, 307.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Ibid, 311.
[45] Ibid, 312-313
[46] Ibid, 317.
[47] Ibid, 319.
[48] Ibid, 338.
[49] Ibid, 341.
[50] Ibid, 345.
[51] Ibid, 350.
[52] Ibid, 351.
[53] Ibid, 344.
[54] Ibid.
jumping in after reading your intro, one wonders why the analemma is restricted to one POV The key point in time of Jesus), when if restricted to everyone, this would come closer to mad interplay that life presents, before we whack some animal grammar all over it (as a derivative overlay, if not overloading overmapping...)
now to read the rest