In the first half of the nineteenth century, Hegel’s philosophy had a profound impact on Denmark, as it did on most countries on the European continent. Christian Wolff and Immanuel Kant in the mid- and late-eighteenth century, as well as Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling at the beginning of the nineteenth century, were also known to the Danish intellectual community; however, they did not receive significant recognition from the country’s intellectuals. The Danish language was, by and large, limited to Denmark, with the exception of its close Scandinavian neighbours. As a result, the development of the Danish philosophical tradition and its remarkable flourishing under Hegel’s influence remained generally unnoticed beyond Scandinavia, and the key figures who embodied this development remained unknown to the broader European public. The inertia resulting from a lack of scholarly attention contributed to a situation in which Hegel’s role in the philosophical, cultural, literary, and artistic life of Denmark remained an unexamined page for a long time. Jon Stewart’s three-volume work, the subject of this review, constitutes a substantial scholarly contribution that fills this historical-philosophical lacuna.
Stewart’s interests have been primarily centred on the thought of Hegel and Kierkegaard; it is to these two figures that the American historian of philosophy has devoted the greater part of his academic output. In the three-volume work History of Hegelianism in Golden Age Denmark (HHGD),Footnote 1 Stewart examines the influence of Hegel’s ideas on the leading Danish philosophers of the early nineteenth century, compares their views, and reflects on their broader significance within the history of philosophy.
The first two volumes of HHGD were initially published in 2007 (Stewart Reference Stewart2007a; Reference Stewart2007b). As the author himself notes, work on the third and final volume was initiated during this period (HHGD І: XII). In what follows, I recount the history of the revised edition’s publication, based on Stewart’s preface to the second edition of volume I (HHGD I: XII–XVII). By the time the third volume was completed, nearly two decades had passed since the publication of HHGD I and II—a period during which the scholarly landscape had changed significantly. A considerably greater number of translations of Danish philosophers from that period appeared in print, and numerous important studies were written on the reception of Hegel in nineteenth-century Denmark. One should first mention the Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, the Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, and Danish Golden Age Studies. Interest in Danish philosophy has increased substantially, both within Denmark and internationally. As a result, a notable imbalance emerged between the two 2007 volumes, devoted to Johan Ludvig Heiberg and Hans Lassen Martensen, and the third volume, which focused on Søren Kierkegaard. It had to do with sources, content, and methodology used. Stewart, therefore, resolved to revise and reissue volumes I and II in order to bring them into line with the standards established in volume III. He significantly revised the content of volumes I and II for the second edition, aiming to incorporate references to new translations and recent scholarly studies.
Stuart narrates the history of Hegelian philosophy’s influence in Denmark in chronological order. Each volume of HHGD is devoted to one of three key figures: Heiberg, Martensen, and Kierkegaard (the digital edition of this volume was published on 18 March 2025). The latter author represents the culmination of the Danish Golden Age and, as such, is the main subject of the third volume. Stuart sheds light on how Kierkegaard engaged with the ideas of Hegel and the Danish Hegelians in his works, while also facilitating a reappraisal of his philosophy within a global context.
The aim of Stewart’s work is threefold: (1) to provide the reader with a coherent understanding of the philosophical discourse in Denmark during the first half of the nineteenth century; (2) to demonstrate the significance of Hegelianism for the academic milieu of the period, including the diversity of its strands and concepts; and (3) to reconsider the traditional perception of Kierkegaard’s relation both to Hegel himself and to the Danish Hegelians, identifying with precision where he criticizes Hegel’s ideas and where he addresses their Danish interpretations.
According to Stewart, the dissemination of Hegel’s ideas in Denmark can be provisionally divided into two phases: (1) a phase of direct discipleship ushered in by the individuals who attended Hegel’s lectures, talked to him personally, and corresponded with him; and (2) a phase of indirect engagement, in which Danish thinkers encountered Hegelian philosophy through his students. According to Stewart, Heiberg is the central figure in the spread of Hegelianism in Denmark: he ‘was the first to introduce Hegel’s philosophy in Denmark’ (HHGD I: 43). Heiberg began publishing his philosophical works, particularly on aesthetics, in 1824, during his tenure at the University of Kiel, a period in which he travelled and attended Hegel’s lectures. Upon his return from Berlin, Heiberg began translating and interpreting Hegel’s works—a development that had a considerable impact on the Danish philosophical community. In his first article in Perseus, the journal he created, Heiberg ‘writes condescendingly of Danish philosophy and portrays it as wallowing in ignorance’ (HHGD I: 45). It may be assumed that Hegel’s philosophy was expected to serve as a remedy for this ‘ignorance’. As Heiberg states in his 1825 letter to the German philosopher, Hegel’s philosophy had not yet made its way into Denmark (HHGD I: 43). Heiberg was not only a student of Hegel but also an authoritative figure within Danish academic circles; he sought to draw lecturers and students into his philosophical sphere to bring Danish academia under the influence of Hegelian thought. As a well-known poet and director of the Royal Theatre, he was able to reach diverse audiences and promote Hegelianism within artistic circles.
Martensen is the ‘heir’ to Danish Hegelianism after Heiberg, his teacher. As Stewart observes at the close of volume I, Martensen was the one ‘who in a short time would come to displace him [Heiberg] as the central figure in the Danish discussions about Hegel’s philosophy’ (HHGD I: 541), eventually replacing Heiberg in that leading role. Martensen may be considered Heiberg’s successor. However, whereas Heiberg’s interests lay primarily in logic and aesthetics, Martensen’s central concerns were theological. His was the theologically grounded reception of Hegel that led to a markedly original development, distinct from German philosophical debates of the time (HHGD ІІ: 10–11).
Stewart notes that Martensen was drawn to Hegel’s philosophy ‘in its negative aspect, that is, its ability to refute previous errors by means of dialectical analysis’ (HHGD I: 574). Although Martensen approached Hegel’s philosophy with a critical eye, his attitude towards the Hegelians was even more sceptical. After becoming acquainted with David Friedrich Strauss, he began to question the latter’s theological position (HHGD I: 570). He also disagreed with Heiberg on many points, as he had a fresh perspective on the dynamic cultural and political developments unfolding in his country at the time (HHGD I: 576).
Kierkegaard was a key figure in nineteenth-century Danish philosophy. He is one of the few Danes whose philosophy has become widely known beyond Denmark’s borders; yet, according to Stewart, the origins of his thought remain underrepresented in the scholarly literature. In HHGD, Stewart examines Danish Hegelianism as a whole but devotes particular attention to Kierkegaard, who studied under both Heiberg and Martensen. In the third volume of his opus, Stewart seeks to demonstrate that Kierkegaard developed as a thinker within the environment of intense reception of Hegel in Danish intellectual circles. Kierkegaard’s philosophy, as the most original Danish response to Hegel, culminates at the end of the Golden Age, effectively encapsulating the intellectual developments of the entire era.
It is worth noting that in the introduction to Volume I of HHGD, the author first clarifies the term ‘Golden Age Denmark’, which was introduced by Valdemar Vedel (1865–1942) and Vilhelm Andersen (1864–1953) to describe Danish literature of the first half of the nineteenth century (HHGD I: 30). Stewart argues that the original art-historical context in which this term was used should be appropriately broadened to include the work of the philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813–55), as well as that of the physicist Hans Christian Ørsted (1777–1851) and the writer Hans Christian Andersen (1805–75), emphasizing the profound impact of Hegel on all three figures, since ‘Hegel’s philosophy played its most significant role’ (HHGD I: 28).
It is important to note that, according to Stewart, ‘Danish Hegelianism bears no intrinsic interest and warrants study only to the extent necessary to understand Kierkegaard’s polemics against it’ (HHGD I: 31). Given the complexity of such a study due to the aforementioned issues, Stewart proposes in the introduction four theses that summarize the essence of Denmark’s Golden Age. These theses serve as the foundation for his entire investigation:
(1) The reception of Hegel in Denmark can best be characterized as a simultaneous assimilation and critique of his ideas. This multifaceted reception extends beyond the academic context, encompassing poetry, prose, newspaper articles, and other forms of expression.
(2) The views of the Danish Hegelians do not always align with Hegel’s original texts. As already noted, Hegelianism influenced various spheres of Danish society—from art and literature to philosophy. Therefore, the interpretation of Hegel’s texts was rather diverse. The Danish Hegelians did not follow Hegel’s ideas literally, but rather drew inspiration from them. Stewart argues that most Kierkegaard scholars tend to oversimplify the situation, paying little attention to the specific versions of Hegel’s ideas that Kierkegaard’s critique targets in every case (HHGD I: 37). But for an adequate understanding of Kierkegaard’s own theses, this distinction must be taken into account, as it is crucial to determine what exactly is being criticized: the interpretation or the original source.
(3) Overall, the division into Hegelians and anti-Hegelians (or critics of Hegel) can be misleading. ‘The very term Hegelian itself proves to be problematic upon closer inspection. It seems to imply that the academic world at the time was divided into at least two main groups: the Hegelians and the Hegel critics. However, this is likewise rather oversimplified. The problem is that those figures who have often been designated as Hegelians, e.g., Feuerbach or the young Marx, issued some of the most serious and influential critical challenges to Hegel’s philosophy’ (HHGD I: 25).
(4) According to Stewart, the study of Hegelianism in Denmark is impossible without taking Kierkegaard into account, even though, as the author ironically notes, he is usually ‘portrayed as a solitary outsider in his struggle against Hegel’ (HHGD I: 37). However, by examining the development of Kierkegaard’s views in the context of those held by the Danish Hegelians, we gain a valuable tool for understanding the contemporary debates surrounding Hegel’s philosophy both within and beyond the university.
To elaborate on each of the theses mentioned above, Stewart analyses the works of what he considers the most important Danish philosophers of the first half of the nineteenth century. The collection and its constituent parts are therefore divided into three main historical periods:
(1) 1824–36: The work of Johan Ludvig Heiberg. The main characteristic of this period is its focus on aesthetics, logic and political philosophy. Although the first volume is devoted specifically to Heiberg, Stewart clarifies that it would be a mistake to assume that nothing was known about Hegel’s philosophy in Denmark before him; nonetheless, Heiberg became the key populariser of Hegelianism in the country.
(2) 1837–41: The work of Hans Lassen Martensen, which begins with his review of Heiberg’s course on logic (HHGD I: 38). In the concluding section of the first volume, titled The End of an Era—marking the end of Heiberg’s influence—Stewart underscores the significance of Martensen’s role in the development of Danish philosophy. This period is still marked by Heiberg’s considerable impact, but the main focus shifts toward the domain of the philosophy of religion.
(3) 1842–55: Kierkegaard’s work, which constitutes the pivotal stage in the development of the philosophy of religion in Denmark.
Stewart posits that the end of Denmark’s Golden Age occurred in 1855, symbolically aligning it with the death of Søren Kierkegaard. Although, as the author of the trilogy acknowledges, this dating is provisional, the intellectual debates following Kierkegaard’s death take on a new character, shifting towards positivism, secularism and modern science (HHGD III: 4).
According to Stewart, Heiberg, Martensen and Kierkegaard together formed the foundation of Denmark’s Golden Age or, more precisely, the Golden Age of Danish Hegelianism. Stewart maintains that it was Hegelianism itself that served as the driving force of the era (and not only in Denmark); it was most likely the key factor behind the remarkable flourishing of philosophy, theology and literature. In my view, this triad—Heiberg, Martensen and Kierkegaard—somewhat echoes the triadic structure of dialectics. Stewart illustrates how the reception and original interpretation of Hegel’s ideas evolved in and through the work of each of these three men, culminating in Kierkegaard’s philosophy.
