Over the
next forty years I periodically read and reread Santayana’s works, especially Realms of Being (much admired by Guy
Davenport); Three Philosophical Poets:
Lucretius, Dante, and Goethe; Persons and Places and the letters. But that
first book remained a cipher without author. My copy is long gone. Santayana’s
name was never mentioned in any of my philosophy or literature classes. I
remembered only that the book was published by Washington Square Press. Recently
I turned to the internet and within minutes identified the volume: George Santayana by Willard E. Arnett,
one of twenty-two titles in the Great American Thinkers series. Go here to see
the cover and please note the price: 75 cents. With the author’s name I was
able to find a copy in the library. The first printing is dated March 1968. Now
I’ve reread it and experienced only two moments of déjà vu: Arnett’s mention in the introduction of Santayana’s problematical
American identity (he was born in Spain of Spanish parents and never became an
American citizen), and the epigraph he places at the top of Chapter 9, “Art,
Beauty, Meaning, and Value.” It’s from Reason
in Art (volume IV of The Life of
Reason, published in 1905): “. . .
the effort
of art is to keep what is interesting in existence, to recreate it in the
eternal.” It was Santayana’s choice of “eternal” that thrilled and bothered me,
and caused me to remember the passage.
Joseph
Epstein is another admirer of Santayana. In “George Santayana: The Permanent
Transient” (Essays in Biography,
Axios Press, 2012), he judges the philosopher “one of the greatest of American
writers,” and says he is “among the small handful of true artist philosophers—Plato,
Nietzsche, Schopenhauer are in this select category—who write beautifully and
whose finer-grained meanings are never so straightforward as philosophers who
write without artistry.”
3 comments:
It's been fifty years since I've read any Santayana -- I had a copy of Three Philosophical Poets; where is it now? I'll go back to him now on your recommendation.
I don't know about "thrilled," but if anything were to "bother" me about the quote -- "the effort of art is to keep what is interesting in existence, to recreate it in the eternal" -- it would be the word "interesting." I suppose GS explains what he means by "interesting" in Reason in Art, but it may be his use of concepts such as Interesting that kept him out of philosophy curricula and the fact that he wrote philosophy what kept him out of literature curricula.
(I'd never thought of him as an American.)
How do you and Epstein reckon with Santayana's flagrant anti-Semitism? Do you thus consider him rewarding and obnoxious at the same time like Wagner?
Santayana is a hypnotic stylist. By all the evidence he was a model of civility and he seems to have shown spasms of generosity: apparently he gave money to Bertrand Russell when Russell was in real need. But his austere propriety and good manners go far towards masking a frigid indifference to the concerns and sensibilities of almost anyone except himself. Seductive to read, but he leaves a bad taste in the mouth. In the end, I think I'd feel more comfortable with someone more messily human
Post a Comment