Interpretations of Poetry and Religion

by George Santayana, The Santayana Edition (Editor)

Interpretations of Poetry and Religion is the third volume in a new critical edition of the complete works of George Santayana that restores Santayana's original text and provides important new scholarly information.

Published in the spring of 1900, Interpretations of Poetry and Religion was George Santayana's first book of critical prose. It developed his view that "poetry is called religion when it intervenes in life, and religion, when it merely supervenes upon life, is seen to be nothing but poetry." This statement and the point of view it espoused contributed significantly to the debate between science and religion at the turn of the century, and its eloquence and clearsightedness continue to have an impact on current discussions about the nature of religion.

Interpretations of Poetry and Religion affronted Santayana's peers with its assault on literary and religious pieties of the cultivated classes. William James called its philosophy of harmonious and integral ideal systems nothing less than "a perfection of rottenness."

In his insightful introductory essay, Joel Porte observes that while Santayana's theory of correlative objects, his espousal of the "ideal" - the normal human affinity for abstraction - and exaltation of the imagination may have offended some at Harvard, these ideas had a significant influence on other Harvard scholars T.S. Eliot and Santayana's "truest disciple," Wallace Stevens.

Herman J. Saatkamp, Jr., heads the Department of Philosophy and Humanities at Texas A & M University. William G. Holzberger is a Professor of English at Bucknell University. Joel Porte is Whiton Professor of American Literature at Cornell University

Genres: Philosophy, Poetry, Religion, Literary Criticism, Spirituality, Nonfiction

291 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1957

About the author

Philosopher, poet, literary and cultural critic, George Santayana is a principal figure in Classical American Philosophy. His naturalism and emphasis on creative imagination were harbingers of important intellectual turns on both sides of the Atlantic. He was a naturalist before naturalism grew popular; he appreciated multiple perfections before multiculturalism became an issue; he thought of philosophy as literature before it became a theme in American and European scholarly circles; and he managed to naturalize Platonism, update Aristotle, fight off idealisms, and provide a striking and sensitive account of the spiritual life without being a religious believer. His Hispanic heritage, shaded by his sense of being an outsider in America, captures many qualities of American life missed by insiders, and presents views equal to Tocqueville in quality and importance. Beyond philosophy, only Emerson may match his literary production. As a public figure, he appeared on the front cover of Time (3 February 1936), and his autobiography (Persons and Places, 1944) and only novel (The Last Puritan, 1936) were the best-selling books in the United States as Book-of-the-Month Club selections. The novel was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, and Edmund Wilson ranked Persons and Places among the few first-rate autobiographies, comparing it favorably to Yeats's memoirs, The Education of Henry Adams, and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. Remarkably, Santayana achieved this stature in American thought without being an American citizen. He proudly retained his Spanish citizenship throughout his life. Yet, as he readily admitted, it is as an American that his philosophical and literary corpuses are to be judged. Using contemporary classifications, Santayana is the first and foremost Hispanic-American philosopher.

Reviews

[Rasmus Tillander · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ah, kunnon hyvää klassista elitismi-hörhöilyä.

Kuukauden päivät olen nyt tavannut tätä Santayanan uskonnon/taidefilosofista esseekokoelmaa väitöskirjaa varten. Ja se on kyllä ollut sangen viihdyttävää.

Esseiden keskeinen argumentti on, että uskonto ja runous ovat essentialtaan samanlaisia. Niiden ainoa eroa se miten ne kiinnittyvät elämään. Molemissa on pohjimiltaan kyse ideaalien tavoittamisesta. Uskonnon ja runouden ytimen voi siis löytää heprealaiskirjeen sanoista "Usko on sen todellisuutta mitä toivotaan, sen näkemistä mitä ei nähdä." Uskonnolla on kultissaan kuitenkin "empiirisen todellisuuen siemen" toisin kuin runoudella (paitsi tietenkin silloin kun runous nousee uskonnolliseksi).

Esseet itsessään käsittelevät pitkälti eri kirjoittajia kuten Walt Whitmania, Robert Browningia, Shakespearea, Emersonia, Dantea ja Homerosta. Santayana onkin liki koomisen klassisesti sivistynyt ja esimerkiksi homeerista epiikkaa käsittelevä essee tuotti itselle suuria vaikeuksia kun siinä oletettiin, että tiedät kaiken kreikkalaisesta mytologiasta. Vaikka kirjallisuushistoriallinen näkökulma olikin monella tapaa kiinnostava niin silti itselle filosofisemmat luvut kuten kristillisen dogmatiikan runollisuutta käsittelevä essee olivat ehkä vähän läheisempiä. Täytynee myös sanoa, että kieleltään tämä on 1900-luvun alun övereintä mahdollista filosofia-poetiikkaa, aina välillä tosi kaunista, aika usein uskomattoman koukeroista.

Vaikka tämä ei olekkaan mitenkään täydellinen filosofinen esitys herätti se silti paljon kiinnostavaa pohdintaa. Eikä ainakaan saanut katumaan väitöskirja-aiheen valintaa.

[Marti Martinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

As much as I liked Nikki Moustaki's Complete Idiot's Guide to Writing Poetry, that book is NOT this book. Reading this and comprehending most of it (I think), it is amazing that a person could KNOW this, could THINK this, and could WRITE this. Nothing less than a theology of poetry. I will never read or write a poem without wondering what it is that is truly meant. His chosen poets are HIS chosen poets: Shakespeare, Whitman, Browning, are dissected, not vivisected; I have my other favorites. The last chapter is tremendous. I do recommend this book.

[Lenhardt Stevens · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this. A thought provoking examination at the religious impulse.

[J. Alfred · Rating 3 out of 5]

Santayana is a philosopher, but doesn't especially read like one, and in my mind this is a plus. He is a serious moralist (plus) who is very interested in literature (plus). He's also intensely sympathetic to religion and people with religious belief: he thinks that the fact content of religious dogma is all a delusion, but generally a salutary one, and the ideal meaning of religion is the closest thing we have that approaches total (emotional, moral, social) truth.
Poetry and religion are the same thing, with different social uses.
Interesting stuff!

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've tried to teach others an appreciation for history by referencing Santayana's oft quoted/misquoted "Any who will not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." So I was disappointed to find this piece missing the mark. It's okay, I suppose.

[Laura]

Hm?