A Background to the
Harvard Archives Royce Papers (HARP)
By
Dawn Aberg
Frank M. Oppenheim, SJ
This brief background sketch of the Royce collection in the Harvard University Archives
describes how the collection has evolved through the years to its present form, and how it is
currently organized.
The sketch also includes notes on Royce’s apparent drafting habits and editing processes. An
understanding of these work habits has led to some interesting “discoveries” among his
manuscript papers, many of which have never been published and have yet to be examined by
scholars. No doubt other discoveries have yet to be made.
Finally, this sketch gives a sense of how the Comprehensive Index created by Frank Oppenheim
relates to the Harvard Royce collection.
The History of the Collection
The summer after Josiah Royce’s death on September 14, 1916, Jacob Loewenberg sat down
with Katharine Head Royce (Royce’s widow) in what was probably the first formal posthumous
attempt to sort through the Royce papers. Loewenberg, a former Royce teaching assistant and a
Harvard Philosophy PhD, identified materials he wanted shipped to University of California at
Berkeley, for work he planned on Royce. Later that year (1917), Loewenberg published an
article based on what he had found: “A Bibliography of the Unpublished Writings of Josiah
Royce,” Philosophical Review 26 (1917): 578-82.
Loewenberg’s lists of Royce materials may be found in HARP (Box 142, folder 2 and 3). It is
possible that some of Loewenberg’s work as Royce’s assistant is also contained in the collection.
(See, e.g., Box 112, folder 4).
Loewenberg’s decision to have many original Royce papers sent to California created an early
obstacle to the systematic organization of the papers. Harvard librarian Benjamin Rand, who had
known Royce when he first arrived at Harvard in the 1880’s, created a list of the materials to be
shipped to California. Rand’s list catalogues nine bundles of manuscripts, and was used as a
checklist against Loewenberg’s list of the documents that were to be returned from California in
1929. When William Ernest Hocking decided to teach a course on Royce’s philosophy at
Harvard, he worked with Katharine Royce to have the papers returned from California to
Cambridge. It is not entirely clear that all the papers did in fact come back to Harvard. Both
Hocking and Rand’s “checklists” may be found in Box 142, folder 3, inserted as loose pages in a
Loewenberg notebook.
In 1940, Harvard Ph.D. candidate E.F. (Edgar Franklin) Wells was hired by the Harvard
Philosophy Department to help organize the Royce papers the department had in its collection
for the Harvard Archives. It is unknown, at present, how the Department decided which
manuscripts rose to the level of archival quality, and whether any manuscripts were held back.
(Some research into department correspondence around this time might prove interesting.) Wells
dedicated himself to the project, and worked with the papers until he finished his degree in 1941.
Correspondence between Wells and Frank Oppenheim, in which Wells describes his work with
the papers, can be found in Box 129, folder 11.
In the course of his work, Wells pasted loose manuscript and typescript sheets into the albums or
“folios” which are now called “Boxes” 1-98. (They are also referred to as “volumes” by some
scholars who have worked with the collection.) Wells titled each of these “boxes” according to
his assessment of the contents. Wells characteristically makes his notations in red pencil; his
notes appear throughout the “albums” he assembled. For the most part, his notes attempt to
clarify what he (Wells) saw as technical errors (doubled or missing page numbers, for instance).
Wells also makes suggestions as to dates where papers are undated, and even makes suggestions
as to the provenance of certain writings. It should be noted, however, that the Wells titles and
dates may not always be accurate. This is significant, given the fact that some archival
attributions are based on his notes.
Wells occasionally makes more interpretive statements as to whether a manuscript is complete,
or what the manuscript’s purpose might have been (whether, for instance, it was delivered as a
lecture and where that lecture might have taken place). Again, red pencil notes point to his
authorship; and again, the notes should not be assumed to be definitive of a date or designation.
Some Wells red pencil notes also appear in loose papers in folders in Boxes 99-145.
Two key additions were made to the Royce papers after his death. One, referred to as the
“Crystal Falls Collection” contains family correspondence and memorabilia that had been in the
possession of Royce’s son Stephen. (Stephen lived in Crystal Falls, Michigan at the time of his
own death. The Royce family materials were not discovered until his house was sold, and the
new owner stumbled upon the boxes in the attic.) Another collection of family papers was
donated to Harvard by Nancy Ingraham Hacker, the granddaughter of Royce’s sister Mary. An
avid genealogist who was deeply interested in her great-uncle’s career, Ms. Hacker accumulated
a good deal of information from different sources about Royce family members. Also included
is correspondence from people who had contacted her with queries about Royce’s life.
The Evolution of the Box Numbers
While Box numbers 1-98 have remained stable since Wells worked with them in 1940-41, the
manuscripts that remained loose (unbound) have been categorized and organized in various ways
through the years. The manuscripts were at one point grouped in “Logicalia” Boxes 1-6 and
“Non-Logicalia” Boxes A-H. Even after the boxes had been numbered sequentially, Boxes 99
and up, some reorganization of the materials continued to occur.
It is important to be aware of these changes regarding the materials in boxes currently numbered
99 and higher; scholars working in HARP pre-2009 may cite to an older system. A chart for
comparison of the numbering systems may be found in the Finding Aid.
Royce’s Working Methods
A 19th century cartoon, included as a frontispiece in Jacqueline Ann Kegley’s book Josiah Royce
in Focus (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 2009) portrays Royce as he delivers one of his
many lectures. Standing at the podium, Royce is surrounded by piles of paper on the floor. It
was apparently his habit as he spoke to toss pages down onto the floor once he had finished
reading from them. The habit was sufficiently well-known to give rise to this caricature. Given
that Royce’s lectures averaged anywhere from 60 to 80 manuscript pages in length, one can
imagine the state of their organization at the end of a talk, much less at the time of his death.
As a further confusion regarding his own organization of his papers, Royce tended to take huge
chunks of manuscript pages from finished work to incorporate into later texts. He would then
“renumber” these pages to fit into the new manuscript. In this Appendix, manuscript and
typescript pages are often referred to as either “fresh” (still with the original page number) or
“redrafted” or “renumbered.” It is not uncommon for Royce to renumber a page three, or even
four times.1
This process is significant, as it allows a researcher to trace the development of Royce’s thought
on certain subjects. The balance of redrafted and fresh pages in a given manuscript may also
elucidate Royce’s thought process while wrestling with a given topic. For instance, does he
return to an idea previously considered to carefully work it through? Does he simply polish a
redrafted page? Or does he charge ahead with a new thought on fresh sheets?
Portions of manuscripts previously identified as “missing” may be found in different but subjectrelated manuscripts with re-numbered pages. For instance, when Royce excerpted a huge section
of his fifth Augustus Graham lecture for the text of “On the Problem of Job,” he inadvertently
grabbed the final section of that lecture as well. This “excerpted” bit of the Fifth Graham lecture
is found in the manuscripts along with the other “Studies of Good and Evil” manuscripts (Box
52), not with the Graham Lectures (Boxes 67 and 68). The result is that the final section (not
published in the Job essay) had been lost to scholars for years. It is a fascinating piece of work,
summing up the Graham Lecture project as a whole. That lecture series followed closely after the
Conception of God lectures in Berkeley, and the vigorous response those lectures received.
The Organization Appendix C of the Comprehensive Index
For easy cross-reference to the Finding Aid and the collection materials, the titles of boxes and
folders given here precisely mirror the titles assigned by Wells and the archivists. To the degree
there is a disagreement with the identification or dating of a particular set of materials, the
disagreement is noted in the entry, with an asterisk beside the box or folder.
In the bound “folio volumes” that comprise Boxes 1-98, the Appendix lists the documents in the
order in which they appear in the album. Where there is a title given to a manuscript or
typescript in quotes, it is the title that heads that text. If a document is not titled, no title is
1
Some renumbering may simply be the product of a pagination error, or the slip of a pen. But the renumbering is
noted in any case.
suggested.
Boxes 99-145 organize loose documents and memorabilia into folders which are in turn
contained in document boxes. Again, this appendix follows the Harvard Archives identification
system and folder title. If there is a disagreement concerning the contents of a given folder, that
disagreement is marked by an asterisk, and explained in the entry. In many cases, many
documents are contained in a given folder. Sometimes those documents have been organized
into “bundles” by the archivists. In those instances, this appendix lists the documents or bundles
in the order they appear in the folders.
This Appendix is organized by box number, not by topic or chronological sequence. Dr.
Oppenheim’s Comprehensive Index, organized chronologically and by topic, will be available
on-line, with links to the Harvard University Archive Finding Aid and this Appendix.
Description of texts
Texts are here described as either a manuscript (handwritten) or a typescript (prepared on a
typewriter). Occasionally Royce incorporates chunks of typeset materials clipped from copies of
his published work. The Appendix entries expressly note such cut and paste work.
As to pagination, although this Appendix will note that a manuscript has, e.g., “20 pages,” this
simply refers to the page number on the last page. In reality, a manuscript may have more or less
pages given missing pages, combinations of pages (e.g. 12/13/14) and the addition of insertions
(e.g. 17a-e). We have attempted to note such pagination markings within the manuscripts and
typescripts.
Notes added by scholars
Over time, scholars working with the collection have added their own notes to clarify some
materials, or express opinions about their dates and/or identification. Those scholars include
Loewenberg and Wells (described above) as well as J. Harry Cotton (Wabash University), Frank
Oppenheim, SJ (Xavier University), and John Clendenning (Cal State, Northridge), among
others. As noted above, the red pencil markings throughout the folio volumes (and occasionally
among loose sheets in Boxes 99 and up) belong to E.F. Wells, who organized the papers in 194041. Dr. Oppenheim’s notes appear in pencil in the margin of the Folio Volumes, or on loose
inserted sheets. Drs. Cotton and Clendenning insert their notes on loose pages in the folders or
Box.