Category: BLOG Page 1 of 2

by Adrienne Harris Thomas

The Santayana Edition has introduced a new web resource! Select “Map of Travels” under the “About Santayana” tab, and view and interact with a map tracking Santayana’s travels from his retirement in 1912 until his death in 1952 (see Figure 1).

The map allows you to toggle between years and select locations marked by a pushpin icon that, when clicked on, opens a pop-up box listing locations (sometimes with specific addresses), the dates Santayana was there, links to the letters Santayana wrote while there, and, occasionally, information on projects he was working on or contemporaneous publications (see Figure 2). To maintain chronological and spatial clarity, arrows depict the progression of his travels (the arrows do not represent the exact route Santayana took to travel between locations; rather they indicate the general spatial order of his travels.)

As the world becomes increasingly digital, academic scholarship can create tools to communicate research results more easily and more widely. This map, created to take advantage of the tools and methods of digital humanities for The Santayana Edition, leads you on a virtual exploration of the life and travels of George Santayana. A chief value of the map lies in providing geographical awareness of Santayana’s life at a time when he wrote some of his best-known works. The map benefits experienced Santayana scholars, interdisciplinary researchers, and students. It can enrich individual research as well as the classroom.

The process of creating the map was fairly simple. After collecting the data (dates, locations, addresses, etc.) from The Letters of George Santayana, I used the Map Viewer program on ArcGIS Online to construct the map. This involved creating layers for each year, plotting points at each location, adding the pertinent information to the pop-up boxes, drawing the arrows to indicate the timeline/progression of travel, and formatting the shape and color of the location points and arrows to visually delineate between years if multiple layers are selected. Multiple variations were created and reviewed by Santayana scholars and a geographer familiar with ArcGIS to determine the most effective and useful version possible with this platform.

 

Coming to America
Academic dress, or regalia, is a type of clothing worn by students and faculty. In the United States, this form of dress generally consists of a cap and gown and is worn during commencement ceremonies or other special occasions. The history of academic regalia dates back to the Middle Ages as the first universities as we know them were established in Europe. During this period, academic dress was not merely ceremonial; rather it was worn as a daily uniform by students and instructors alike. The style of dress, a long hooded robe, was derived from the garb worn by medieval clerics (Figure 1).[1]

Long before today’s students were forced to contend with classrooms pumped full of freezing air, their studious predecessors used the long robes to keep warm in Europe’s chilly university halls. Jumping ahead a few centuries, the traditions of academic regalia, particularly those derived from Oxford and Cambridge, found a firm foothold amongst the first American universities including Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia (Figure 2).

During the eighteenth century, students, and some faculty, at these institutions regularly wore academic gowns on campus.[2]

It was not until the mid-nineteenth century, however, that the role of academic regalia in American universities came to resemble its modern function as solely ceremonial attire. At this time, there was little standardization of academic dress between the different colleges and universities in the United States (Figure 3).

In 1895 the Intercollegiate Commission held a meeting at Columbia University attended by representatives from some of the top scholastic institutions to discuss adopting a regulated code of academic dress. Gardner Cotrell Leonard, whose family operated the manufacturing firm Cotrell and Leonard in Albany, New York, was also present at the discussion to provide practical advice[3] as he had, several years earlier, designed the gowns for his class at Williams College and had (in 1893) published an article on dress standardization that became a significant factor contributing to the creation of the Intercollegiate Code of Academic Costume (passed in March 1895 by representatives from Princeton, Columbia, New York, and Yale).[4]

 

Which Robe is Which?
The Intercollegiate Code of Academic Costume has been amended five times since its inception (in 1932, 1957, 1959, 1973, and 1987).[5] While there are many variations in gown, sleeve, and hood styles (not to mention the effects of school colors), there are some basic guidelines for recognizing degrees based on gown design. In general, bachelor’s and master’s gowns are untrimmed and may both feature hoods; the master’s gown typically has oblong sleeves and a longer hood than the bachelor’s (Figure 4).

The doctoral gown is the easiest to distinguish as it is trimmed in velvet down the front of the robe and has three velvet bars on the bell-shaped sleeves; the doctor’s gown also has the longest hood of the three styles (Figure 5).

Although the Intercollegiate Code of Academic Costume describes the design of academic regalia, no body exists to enforce adherence to the code. As a result, the Code of Academic Costume may be adapted by any university provided that the changes are “reasonable and faithful to the spirit of the traditions which give rise to the code.”[6] Therefore, the Code of Academic Costume is less of a rulebook than it is a general guideline led by tradition.

 

The Santayana Edition’s Hidden Treasure
Tucked away amongst the books and manuscripts of the Santayana Edition is a treasure of academic dress history: George Santayana’s doctoral gown from Cotrell and Leonard. That this gown is a doctoral robe is clear from its design; the black gown features black velvet facing down its front as well as the distinctive bars on the sleeves also done in black velvet (Figures 6-8).

The gown is in good condition for its age and still clearly bears the brand label on its interior (Figure 9).

The exact date on which Santayana purchased his gown is unknown. However, since he earned his doctorate from Harvard in 1889, one may infer that he acquired his gown sometime around this year. Following his graduation, Santayana taught at Harvard until 1912, at which time he retired and moved to Europe. Before leaving the country, in a letter dated December 12, 1911, Santayana wrote to one of his former students at Harvard, Horace Kallen:

In looking over my goods and chattels, I find a doctor’s cap and gown which I don’t know what to do with. If you haven’t one and would like it, I should be very glad to have you take it off my hands.[7]

In another letter written on December 29^th, Santayana notes that he has sent off his academic regalia to Kallen.[8] Many years later, the gown arrived at the Edition as a donation from Kallen’s widow. Its corresponding cap remains with Kallen’s son, David.

Although academic regalia has undergone many changes in the United States, it remains grounded in European traditions that span centuries of scholastic history. We at the Santayana Edition feel fortunate to have this artifact of early American academic dress in our possession and we are excited to share a piece of George Santayana’s past with our colleagues.

---

[1] Eugene Sullivan, “Historical Overview of the Academic Costume Code,” American Council on Education, accessed February 4, 2016, http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Historical-Overview-Academic-Costume-Code.aspx.
[2] Stephen L. Wolgast, “Timeline of Developments in Academic Dress in North America,” Transactions of the Burgon Society 9, (2009).
[3] Stephen L. Wolgast, “The Intercollegiate Code of Academic Costume: An Introduction,” Transactions of the Burgon Society 9, (2009), 13.
[4] For Leonard’s article see Gardner Cotrell Leonard, The Cap and Gown in America: Reprinted from the University Magazine for December, 1893 (Albany, NY: Cotrell & Leonard, 1896).
[5] For detailed descriptions of the changes see Wolgast, pp. 23-32.
[6] Eugene Sullivan, “Academic Costume Code,” American Council on Education, accessed February 8, 2016, http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Academic-Costume-Code.aspx.
[7] Holzberger, William G. and Herman J. Saatkamp Jr. eds., The Letters of George Santayana, Book 2: 1910-1920 (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2002): 64-65.
[8] Ibid., 65.

Kristin Lee is a graduate student in Public History and an intern with the Santayana Edition.

 

 

Recently, while going through George Santayana’s letters for the Letters in Limbo section featured daily on our home page, I found an ambiguously dated letter that, to my eyes, seemed suspect. The letter was to Santayana’s longtime friend Charles Augustus Strong, and it mentioned one of their mutual acquaintances. It’s a fairly typical, brief Santayana letter to which the original editors of The Letters of George Santayana had assigned a tentative date of “Before 1889,” proposing that the letter may have been written while Santayana was in Roxbury, Massachusetts.[1] I can say with certainty that the suggested date cannot be correct.

A little background is necessary here. For the past year, I’ve been working with Santayana’s unfinished translation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, preparing it for presentation on this site. Part of that process involved researching the background of the manuscript to understand when, why, and how Santayana went about working through the translation. During this process, I became aware of a student and eventual colleague of Santayana’s, Benjamin Apthorp Gould Fuller, who’d been a member of Santayana’s Aristotle study group, translating and comparing notes on the Metaphysics. He went on to join the faculty at Harvard with Santayana’s recommendation.

Why is all this important? Fuller is the acquaintance Santayana describes to Strong. This immediately throws off the “before 1889” dating, as Santayana wasn’t even aware of Fuller until at least 1896, when he began his studies at Harvard. Moreover, and this is where things are particularly puzzling, the published letter includes a footnote identifying Fuller, noting his birth year as 1879. Santayana is unlikely to have been commenting on the life of a ten year old.

The misdating is stranger yet given the letter’s content. Santayana comments that Fuller always seems to be distracted; he notes that Fuller was recently in the company of a young French professor, who discussed Albert Einstein and argued he was an absolutist, saying “that his theory should have been called Théorie de l’Invariance!” Einstein, also identified in a footnote to the letter, was born in 1879, and while certainly a brilliant mind, he was far from a well-recognized physicist as a pre-teen.

Fortunately, all of these facts can help us to home in on a more precise date for this letter. Fuller completed his PhD at Harvard in 1906 and began teaching there in the same year. Einstein’s paper on Special Relativity was published in September of 1905, igniting a firestorm of opinions in the intellectual world and almost certainly causing the French professor’s quip about relativistic theories. And finally, Santayana left Harvard permanently in 1911. So the letter must have been written between October of 1905 and April of 1911. Additionally, the letter was almost certainly written in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as Santayana says he saw Fuller yesterday, implying the latter had just recently been on Harvard’s campus.

More than anything else, I think this oversight points to the real-world difficulties associated with the work of a scholarly edition. A publication like The Letters of George Santayana requires years of preparation, the collaboration of several editors, and frequently the help of numerous interns. With so many hands and minds working on a project, mistakes are bound to happen, and sometimes they slip through the cracks and find their way into a published volume. The task of curating this sort of project never really ends. In the future, new information might be discovered, scholars might find other mistakes, and revisions can always be made.

---

[1]
To Charles Augustus Strong
[Before 1889?] • [Roxbury, Massachusetts?]  (MS: Rockefeller)

Thursday

Dear Strong
Thank you for this. I am pleased with that the reviewer takes us¹ seriously; but he seems to be exclusively occupied with one point.
I see Fuller² now and then—unsatisfactory mind: always seems to be really thinking of something else, like a woman. Yesterday he had a young French professor³ in tow who said Einstein⁴ was an absolutist, and that his theory should have been called Théorie de l’Invariance!

Yours ever
G. S.

¹ Unidentified.
² Benjamin Apthorp Gould “Bags” Fuller (1879–1956) was a member of the Harvard class of 1900. He pursued graduate study (Ph.D., 1906) with Santayana and later was appointed to the Harvard faculty.
³ Unidentified.
⁴ Albert Einstein (1879–1955), born in Germany, was an American theoretical physi- cist (known for his theory of relativity) who won the 1921 Nobel Prize.

George Santayana,The Letters of George Santayana:  Book One, [1868]-1909.  Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001. 99.

 

Austen Hurt is a graduate student in Philosophy, and an intern at the Santayana Edition.

In articulating his philosophy, George Santayana drew on spiritual and philosophical traditions of Europe, Asia, and the United States. It is relatively easy to begin looking into the influence of his teachers William James and Josiah Royce since he corresponded with them, wrote essays about them, and remembered them in his autobiography. His discussions of Modern Philosophy also are sustained and obvious in chapters and essays. The Christian tradition lent concepts, vocabulary, and imagery to his thought; and the influence of ancient Greek culture is beyond question. Many readers, I suspect, would find it reasonable enough to assert that Santayana’s thought has some connection to Indian philosophy, yet mentions of it in his work—while not invisible—are not as prominent as references to other traditions. And so, I think it worth remarking Santayana’s comments on Indian philosophy to begin to get a more definite sense of its influence on his thinking.

Read More