Having established a working hypothesis on the number of books that C.S. Lewis read during his lifetime—approximately 20,000—I now move on to the second of five key questions: “What was the value of the information in the books C.S. Lewis read?”
This is the first of three posts on that question:
- How broad was Lewis’ reading?
- How important was his research on the 16th century?
- What were his favorite books?
Some readers have commented that Lewis cannot be considered “the most erudite person ever” because the breadth of his reading was narrow. I suspect this view reflects Lewis’ disinterest in reading anything about mathematics, coupled with his minimal interest in science.
It may well be true that Lewis never entered the mathematics wing in The Bodleian Library, but I would challenge that view with regard to science. How so?
I willingly concede that Lewis cared little about specific fields of applied science. Many other geniuses who are considered polymaths did have science on their CV. For example, Aristotle excelled in astronomy, Leonardo in anatomy, Pascal in pneumatics, Leibniz in physics, and Swedenborg in physiology. Lewis was interested not in specific fields of science but in the scientific revolution and its impact upon the world. One need only read The Abolition of Man or That Hideous Strength to see evidence of this.
In a recent post, I offered evidence that Lewis “read everything” from the 16thcentury. The “scientific revolution” had its origin in the 16th century, and because he “read (almost) everything” from that period, he must have had extensive knowledge on the scientific method—how it was discovered, how it works, and how it changed the world. The bibliography from English Literature in the Sixteenth Century lists a number of books by Francis Bacon, who is credited with a first formulation of a modern scientific method.
Granted, science was not Lewis’ gig, but he respected science at the same time that he had utter contempt for the philosophical fallacy known as “scientism.”
The accompanying graphic depicts five fields of knowledge, all of which fall within the realm of “literary learning”. Each of these five fields is further delineated by six different subfields of knowledge. They are as follows:
Literature
- Ancient literature
- Medieval literature
- Renaissance literature
- English literature
- Scripture
- Myth
Religion
- Paganism
- Pantheism
- Polytheism
- Theism
- Skepticism
- Mysticism
Philosophy
- Classical philosophy
- Eastern philosophy
- Modern philosophy
- Logic
- Ethics
- Metaphysics
Linguistics
- Philology
- Linguistics
- Lexicology
- Phonetics
- Semantics
- Rhetoric
History
- Ancient history
- Greek and Roman history
- Oriental history
- Medieval history
- Renaissance history
- English history
Of the five fields depicted in the accompanying graphic, there can be little doubt that the most prominent field for Lewis is the one in the middle: Literature. Certainly, there are other ways of segmenting Literature (one might want to add a separate category for “Enlightenment literature”) but I chose to highlight those areas that are relevant to Lewis’ academic interests.
I suspect most, if not all, readers will agree that Lewis was exceedingly well-read in all six subcategories of literature as presented in the graphic.
Lewis was also keenly interested in the three broad fields of knowledge labeled Religion, Philosophy and Linguistics. Moreover, within each of these three broad fields it would be difficult to identify any one of the six subfields that Lewis would have left unexplored.
Still, some who are less familiar with the range of C.S. Lewis’ intellectual interests might be surprised to learn just how interested Lewis was in Mysticism. (If so, I recommend that you read David C. Downing’s excellent book Into the Region of Awe).
As for the field of Linguistics, Lewis’ friendship with members of the Inklings (especially J.R.R. Tolkien) would have kept this field front and center in his mind. No doubt their ongoing discussions during twice-weekly meetings were often focused about Linguistics.
Of the five fields, History was probably his weakest. And yet, he knew a great deal about history. For example, Lewis’ diligence in his academic specialization in Medieval and Renaissance Literature would have compelled him to read extensively about the history of those eras. The same would have been true for ancient history, if only as a result of his great love of mythology and the Greek playwrights. Then, of course, there was his “mind-boggling” research on the 16th century.
In his inaugural lecture at Cambridge University (found in “De Descriptione Temporum”), Lewis claimed to be a “dinosaur”. He described himself as an “Old Western man” who could read centuries old texts with a near complete understanding of the historical, political, religious, and cultural context of the times when the authors penned their works.
To have such contextual insight would have required him to read history. Certainly, enough history that he would have had the insight (and courage) to declare boldly that the Renaissance never really happened. This was not so much a comment on Renaissance literature as on the historical era.
Please note: I do not contend that my “five field” framework is the best possible model. It is likely flawed. Moreover, I am quite sure university academics might suggest different, and better, frameworks.
But the framework is not the point. What, then, is the point? There are two significant points that I want to make. The first is this: Lewis did in fact read very broadly in areas of “literary learning.” He was most assuredly NOT narrow in his reading, despite his eschewal of mathematics.
Math might have been his bane. Were it not for his military service he might never have passed the “Responsions” exam. And if not for his good fortune in having “Responsions” waived, we might never have known about C.S. Lewis. But Lewis was not the only genius who struggled with certain subjects.
There’s no reason to believe that Albert Einstein could have mastered any subject he wanted simply because he was (arguably) the greatest “genius of intelligence” (IQ) in history. Einstein failed his University entrance exam on history, languages, and geography, while he passed the math and science sections. Clearly, his brain was not full of all the fields of knowledge that ever existed.
The second point I endeavor to make in the three posts is that what Lewis read was important. And to my way of thinking, having knowledge of important matters is essential to establish his credentials of being (possibly) the “most erudite person in history.”
Up next: How important was his research on the 16th century?
Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14
Erudition Series Index
