We have come to the faceoff between Mortimer J. Adler and C.S. Lewis for this unofficial competition to determine who is “the most erudite person in history.”
Those who have followed this series know that this is not about determining who is the “most erudite person ever.” My intent from the beginning has been to ask this question:
Do you agree that it is plausible that C.S. Lewis is “the most erudite person in history?”
I have presented my case for Lewis, but I have not attempted to discover who truly is the most erudite person ever. That is beyond my reach.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Since I have already presented in considerable detail the “case for C.S. Lewis” (including a broad assessment of his gifts and natural talents as they relate to erudition) I will not reiterate all that here. Instead, I will mostly comment on Adler’s gifts and talents, and then offer my opinion regarding which of these two candidates seems to have the advantage on each dimension of the assessment.
Five Primary Factors in the Assessment
As you may recall from earlier posts, there are five primary factors to consider:
- Number of books read.
- Breadth and value of the information in the books read.
- Comprehension of the knowledge read.
- Retention of the knowledge read.
- Accomplishments with all that erudition.
FACTOR #1: THE NUMBER OF BOOKS READ
The first factor to consider in evaluating “erudition” is the total number of “quality” books read during each candidate’s lifetime. By quality, I mean books that satisfy the criterion of “literary learning.” The definition of “erudition” is “knowledge obtained through ‘literary learning’”. Consequently, reading of books that fall outside that definition (such as sports books, business books, travel books, romance novels, cookbooks, comic books, etc.) do not quality as “literary learning”, no matter how edifying or entertaining they might be.
The Limitation of the Book Count
No one really has an accurate count of the “literary books” read by any of the candidates who have been nominated. However, it is possible to apply basic assumptions to candidates based upon the era in which they lived. For example, all those who lived prior to the commercial introduction of the printing press (around 1455) lived during an era when printed books did not yet exist. Scrolls, manuscripts and other forms of literary documentation were few and far between. Accordingly, I have ruled out some of the greatest geniuses in history simply because they could not possibly have read all that many books. Brilliant, yes. Erudite, I think not.
Even after Guttenberg’s invention, printed books were scarcely available to most people. Books of any format were not available to most people until the 19thcentury. The truth is that books of any kind were not all that common prior to the Sixteenth Century. One need only look at the difference in the size of collections held at The Bodleian for the 15th Century versus the 16th Century. Copies of books were not only not available, for the most part books had not even been authored. The invention of the printing press eventually led to an explosion not only in book production, but also in book authorship–and that “big bang” in books occurred during the 19th Century.
As relates to the comparison of Mortimer Adler with C.S. Lewis, this limitation is not in play since both men lived during the Twentieth Century. Because both candidates were affiliated with stellar universities and lived near world-class libraries, it is assumed that both had unlimited access to books that met the “literary learning” standard.
I have speculated upon the number of books that C.S. Lewis read using clues from his writings, anecdotal evidence from his contemporaries, and suppositional analyses based upon what I consider credible assumptions. I have estimated that C.S. Lewis read somewhere around 20,000 books during his life.
As for Mortimer Adler, I have no such estimate. To my knowledge, there is no evidence, nor any anecdotes on his reading speed or the number of hours he spent per day reading. Was it more than Lewis, or less? I cannot say.
What I do know is this: in doing his research for Great Books of the Western World alone Mortimer Adler must have become exceedingly erudite. This calls to mind the prodigious amount of reading Lewis did in preparing to write English Literature in the Sixteenth Century. That enormous effort, plus Adler’s numerous books on philosophy, tend to suggest that Mortimer Adler was exceedingly well-read.
Assessment: No clear advantage to either candidate.
FACTOR #2: THE BREADTH AND VALUE OF BOOKS READ
When I first proposed this series, several readers expressed the view that C.S. Lewis should not be considered truly erudite due to the narrowness of his reading. Their gist of their point was that Lewis did little to no reading in mathematics or the sciences . . . and that no person could be considered the “most erudite person in history” without having read books in these essential fields of study. I respectfully disagree.
They are right in that Lewis probably read nothing whatsoever on mathematics. I concede that if he read any science books, they would have been not about specific fields of science (such as chemistry, metallurgy, biology, botany, geology, astrophysics). I suspect Lewis did read books about the scientific method; but even that, I cannot confirm.
The question is this: should a lack of reading in mathematics and the sciences be a disqualifier for the title of “most erudite”? In my opinion, the answer is NO. How so?
If I were having serious personal difficulties in life—relational, parental, financial, career, psychological, spiritual, medical–I cannot imagine that I would reach out to a mathematician for counsel. Moreover, I cannot imagine ever feeling the need to call a chemist, metallurgist, biologist, botanist, geologist, or astrophysicist for help. On the other hand, I would very likely call a philosopher or a theologian or a psychologist or perhaps even a professor of English Literature. These are fields where “literary learning” is most prevalent.
Some doctors are scientists, but most are not. As medical students their heads were filled with information on biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, and other sciences, but information does not a scientist make.
So, what books should be considered essential?
The Canon of Western Civilization
In an earlier post, I quoted what C.S. Lewis’ friend Alister Fowler said about Lewis having his own “private canon” of books. What exactly did Fowler mean by this? Moreover, if Lewis’ “private canon” were unique to Lewis, then what canon might be considered the “standard authorized canon”? And how greatly would the two lists have differed?
Webster’s define “canon” as “a standard or criterion” and as “a collection of works forming any similar standard.” The word implies “orthodox” or “accepted”. Its most common usage is in describing the “authorized books of the Holy Bible,” but in our case “orthodox” suggests “accepted” in a cultural way, such as “the authenticated works (canon) of Shakespeare”, for example. For our purposes, “canon” is considered “the essential great books by the great thinkers of Western civilization.” If that is true, then Lewis’ private canon was his own selection of the “great books by the great thinkers”, based solely on his own personal preferences.
Is there a universally accepted standard for the “Western canon?” I am not aware that such a thing exists. Perhaps Oxford administrators would accord such status to the textbooks used in teaching courses across all 39 colleges that comprise Oxford University.
C.S. Lewis was an independent thinker. It is not unthinkable that his own private canon would have differed considerably from the “official canons” of Oxford. I am aware of several “great books colleges,” but I know of no such “universal university canon.” There is some vague notion of a “Western Canon,” but it is more of an ideal than a practical reality.
If there is a canon that might serve as the (unofficial) “standard canon of Western civilization”, it would likely be “The Great Books of the Western World” program that Mortimer Adler played a central role in designing. And since we are comparing the relative erudition of C.S. Lewis versus Mortimer Adler, it seems a reasonable place to begin.
Reflect a moment on this insightful quote by Mortimer Adler:
“In the case of good books, the point is not how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you.”
And then reflect on this from C.S. Lewis:
“Every age has its own outlook. It is especially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes . . . The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books.”
Clearly, both men valued “great books” no matter how old. What, you may ask, is so important about “the Great Books”? Benjamin McArthur, a professor of history at Southern College in Tennessee, wrote a powerful essay in American Heritage way back in 1989. McArthur shared a keen insight:
“In truth, the Great Books are both profoundly conservative and perilously radical: conservative because they assume there is a repository of wisdom containing abiding truths; radical because engagement with them can upend unexamined assumptions and arm one with whetted knives of critical thought.”
Adler’s effort to revolutionize modern education was of interest to many. The actresses Lillian Gish and Ethel Barrymore, Orson Welles, and the novelist Gertrude Stein all stopped by Adler’s classroom to observe firsthand what they had read about in the national press. Gertrude Stein’s visit was the most memorable. She boldly insisted that “Greek ideas must be studied in Greek, Latin ideas in Latin”. C.S. Lewis would have agreed emphatically with her, but this was too much for Mortimer Adler. When he protested, Stein thumped him on the head.
Professor McArthur went on to say this:
“Our culture is split between what Emerson called “the party of the Past” and “the party of the Future,” the former upholding tradition and its wisdom, the latter looking ahead to greater days and new ideas. The party of the Future maintains the loyalty of most Americans at most times. That is why the ancients must struggle just to hold their ground.”
Can anyone become erudite in the 21st Century reading only social media posts and watching YouTube videos? Not in my book!
Comparison of CS Lewis’ Reading to Adler’s Reading
Out of curiosity, I scrolled through the Wikipedia listing of the Great Books of the Western World (GBWW). This is the series of books originally comprising what Mortimer Adler might have deemed the “canon of the West”. This first edition (there was a second version in 1990) included 470 “great books”, written by 84 different “great thinkers”.
My base assumption here is that Mortimer Adler read every book on his list. I doubt he would rely upon recommendations from fellow academics. Surely, Adler would have wanted to be familiar with the text in each selected book, and this no doubt applies to a great many other books that were not selected. While I do know how many did “make the cut” (470), just how books many fell short and yet had been read by Adler, nobody seems to know.
As I scrolled through the list, I tried to assess which books and authors were likely to have been read by C.S. Lewis. Fortunately, Mortimer Adler arranged the contents of the 52 volumes by broad subject category. This made it easy to determine how extensively Lewis read what Adler deemed to be the “Great Books of the Western World.”
From the 1952 Great Books of the Western World compilation, it seems likely that C.S. Lewis would have read 46 of the 54 volumes. I did not give credit to Lewis for reading Volumes 11 and 16 because they were on mathematics. The same is true with Volumes 28, 34, and 45 because they were on science. To be on the safe side, I discounted Volumes 39 and 43 because they were on American politics or economics. Volume 49 was on Darwinism, so I did not give credit to Lewis’ for that one either, though I suspect he might have read it.
Considering all this, the analysis suggests that Lewis read 85% of the volumes from the first edition of GBWW. Continuing, it would seem likely that Lewis read the works of 65 of the 84 “great thinkers” (authors), or roughly 78% of them. Similarly, it appears that Lewis likely read 412 out of the 470 “great books”, or just shy of 88% of them.
Considering this insight, I think one is hard pressed to make the case that Lewis’ reading was “narrow.”
Comparison of CS Lewis’ Reading to Adler’s Reading
One other comparison I made is the books read by C.S. Lewis versus the books listed in the Great Books of the West as compiled by Mortimer J. Adler. In other words, how many of those books in Lewis’ private canon did Adler likely read?
You may ask: What constitutes “Lewis private canon”? No one knows for sure, so I created a “strawman” based upon the merging of two short lists. First, you may recall how in an earlier post I presented a list of 108 books that I consider to be among Lewis’ favorites. This list I compiled from my reading, not only of works “by” C.S. Lewis, but of a great many books “about” C.S. Lewis. Second, I merged my list with a list created by Lewis-scholar Brenton Dickieson. His list included all those books that Lewis mentioned in An Exercise in Criticism. This combined compilation of 164 different works by 123 different authors provides a reasonable basis for conducting a test. My assumption is that this combined list represents a representative glimpse into what Lewis’ more complete “private canon” might have been. Of course, his “private canon” would have been much larger.
What I learned from this is interesting. Of the 164 different books on this strawman Lewis canon, Adler read only 55, or 33% of them. Similarly, of the 123 different authors, Adler read only 38, or 31% of them. So, while Lewis read a very high percentage of Adler’s canon, Adler’s percentage coverage of Lewis’ canon is much lower.
Does this mean that Lewis had eccentric tastes, or that his reading did not match up with the “standard Western canon”? I think not, if only because we already determined that Lewis read somewhere between 77% and 88% of the “standard canon.” Consequently, I do not believe you can blame this anomaly on Lewis’ eccentricity. I think it relates to the greater breadth and depth of Lewis’ reading.
If Adler’s GBWW canon is indicative of the breadth of his reading, then he, too, had substantial gaps. For example, Adler’s list is missing (or short on) the following authors and categories:
- Few mythologies.
- Almost nothing by the patristic church fathers.
- Few medieval Christian thinkers.
- Very little from the Sixteenth Century.
- Very few of the Protestant theologians.
- Not many of the great English novelists.
- Nothing by the Christian mystics.
- Nothing by Samuel Alexander, Rudolph Otto, Evelyn Underhill, Arthur James Balfour, J.W. Dunne, or Edwin Bevin.
- Nothing by J.R.R. Tolkien, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams, or any of the inklings.
- And nothing (nada, zip, zilch) by George MacDonald or G.K. Chesterton.
I believe the evidence suggests that Lewis read a better, or at least a broader, mix of books despite his gaps in math and science.
Assessment: Advantage to C.S. Lewis.
FACTOR #3: COMPREHENSION OF THE KNOWLEDGE READ
In a segment on “Comprehension”, I took a position that Lewis’ ability to comprehend fully the author’s intended meaning is the “single most important” factor in my case that Lewis is (plausibly) the “most erudite person who ever lived.” I stand by that statement.
I believe “Comprehension” is the greatest differentiator primarily because I cannot imagine any other person—no matter how erudite—could have had the capacity to discern the author’s intended meaning at a level anywhere near that of C.S. Lewis.
There are no reports or anecdotes about Mortimer Adler having an uncommonly rich understanding of the original author’s intended meaning. However, there is such evidence for C.S. Lewis. It came from Lewis himself in “De Descriptione Temporum”:
“I read as a native, texts that you must read as foreigners.”
Did Adler grasp the vast majority of what he read? Probably, though I doubt that he fully comprehended the math and science texts. It is my opinion that Lewis was in an altogether different league in comprehension than anyone else.
So, I will “cut to the chase” on this criterion, if only because I covered it in detail earlier in this series. Based upon my reading of the life and works of Mortimer J. Adler, I have found no evidence that Adler had a level of comprehension comparable to C.S. Lewis.
Assessment: Advantage to C.S. Lewis
FACTOR #4: RETENTION OF THE KNOWLEDGE READ
I said that comprehension is the primary differentiating factor in C.S. Lewis’ credentials. You may wonder: Why not his legendary memory? Certainly, there are far more tales in Oxford lore about Lewis’ amazing feats of memory than there are stories of his unparalleled comprehension.
The difference is that I think it is reasonable to assume other great geniuses might have had “near-perfect” retention on a par with Lewis.
Retention, perhaps. Comprehension, no.
It is possible that Mortimer Adler did have such a memory. However, I must again report that there is no evidence to support this view. By contrast, there are countless reports about C.S. Lewis, and they come from credible sources.
Here again, I cut to the chase since I covered all this sufficiently in earlier posts.
Assessment: Advantage to C.S. Lewis.
FACTOR #5: ACCOMPLISHMENTS WITH ALL THAT ERUDITION
This is a complex, multidimensional category. A single overall assessment might not be fair to either candidate. Consequently, I break the assessment into multiple subcategories.
Writing: Number of Books Authored
C.S. Lewis wrote 32 books and over 200 essays. Mortimer Adler wrote 52 books, and edited 9 compilations, including the estimable Great Books of the Western World. Adler’s books also tended to be much longer than Lewis’. If we are measuring accomplishment by truckload of ink expended, Adler weighs in heavily here.
Score this for Mortimer Adler.
Writing: Diversity of Genres
Although C.S. Lewis wrote fewer books, he wrote in 22 different literary genres, a breadth of writing nearly as amazing as that of Isaac Asimov. Adler did write more books, but he wrote narrowly. And for the most part, in one genre. It is said that even the books written directly by Adler are encyclopedic in nature. If the location of books at the local Barnes and Noble is the measure, then Lewis has a much larger footprint.
Score this for C.S. Lewis.
Writing: Quality of Prose
C.S. Lewis was an exceptional writer. His prose is concise, cogent and convincing. His mastery of logic and rhetoric was put to profitable use across all his books. He wrote in a poetic style that is truly eloquent. His metaphors are legendary. Few authors are more beloved than Lewis.
So how was Mortimer Adler in this regard? He was adequate, but perhaps not much more than that. Adler’s text is said to be dry reading–rational, but not imaginative. His books are encyclopedic, but not literary. His use of metaphor and rhetorical techniques was limited—perhaps because encyclopedic books do not require such things. If a great read is what you are looking for, Lewis delivers. Adler not so much.
Score this for C.S. Lewis.
Influencing: Teaching
Both men taught at world-class universities. Lewis was a favorite among the students at both Oxford and Cambridge. His lectures were so powerful, the local Oxford townsfolk would often attend. Mortimer Adler left teaching early in his career to focus on his Great Books Program and the Paideia Program–both of which were judicious investments of his time.
Score this for C.S. Lewis.
Influencing: Debating
Here is a pivotal question: Which person of erudition would I most relish watching in a one-on-one debate with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, or Isaac Asimov? For me, that would be C.S. Lewis (G.K. Chesterton would also be great fun to see in action). Armed with his massive erudition, his unparalleled comprehension, his near-perfect retention, his razor-sharp skills in argumentation and his rapier wit, I believe that C.S. Lewis would expose these skeptics as intellectual frauds.
C.S. Lewis was a legendary debater at the Oxford Socratic Club. I found no references to Adler entering the debate arena.
Score this for C.S. Lewis.
Influencing: Importance of Books
C.S. Lewis books and shorter writings are all important, especially his academic works such as English Literature in the Sixteenth Century and The Discarded Image. Though his books are more popular and commercially-successful than Adler’s books—they are seldom what literary critics would say rise to the level of “important.” Is that fair?
This seems to be the case even Lewis’ most famous books—Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters and The Chronicles of Narnia–despite the fact that they are beloved by millions and profoundly impactful on the faith journey of countless people. So, no, it is not fair.
Adler’s list of 52 books and 9 edited compilations may be less often read and stir far less zeal with readers than Lewis’ works. Yet, somehow it seems they are more likely to be deemed “important”. I wonder whether this is because his books, though not irreligious or secular, are less threatening to the skeptics who control the media, academia, libraries, and publishing houses.
The question we must address is this: Who determines what books are “important”? And what are the measures of importance.
The tagline of the C.S. Lewis Forum is: “The Rational Road to the Region of Awe.” There are two parts to this—rationality and inspiration. How is this relevant to this assessment of erudition?
The sheer volume of Adler’s nonfiction writings on philosophy would suggest that Mortimer Adler is a good source of wisdom related to matters of reason. Adler rationally defended the existence of God and wrote about other theological topics. But while Adler will take you down “the Rational Road,” with stops along the way for philosophical theology, there are not many stops that are specific to Christianity.
C.S. Lewis can take you down this “Rational Road”, too. But if what matters most is being led to the frontier of “the Region of Awe,” then C.S. Lewis is the only option here. Lewis is not just rationally convincing; he is profoundly inspiring. C.S. Lewis has had a profound impact on the faith journeys of a great many people all around the world. This is why so many of us cherish his works.
There is nothing in Alder’s oeuvre that compares to “The Argument from Desire” or “the Trilemma” or “the Doctrine of Transposition”. And nothing in Adler rises to the heights of eloquence and inspiration as “The Weight of Glory”. C.S. Lewis has provided us a treasure trove of inspiring thoughts and unforgettable quotes. Few quotes come to mind from Adler’s books, good as they are.
Though Adler became a Christian late in life, evangelizing was neither an objective of Mortimer Adler, nor an accomplishment. For C.S. Lewis, it was everything. As Walter Hooper said, “it was Lewis’ apostolate, and he did it.”
All subcategories in Factor #5: Accomplishments considered . . .
Assessment: Advantage to C.S. Lewis.
FACTORS: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
There really is only one additional factor that hits my radar screen: longevity. To be candid, while the advantage here goes to Mortimer Adler (in a big way), I am not quite sure what to do about it.
C.S. Lewis died a few days before his 65th birthday in 1963. He began his productive career in the mid to late 1930s and was productive up until the time of his death. Thus, Lewis had perhaps 30 years of productive work. By contrast, Mortimer Adler died six months after his 98th birthday in 2001. He, too, began his productive career in the mid to late 1930s, and, like Lewis, he was productive until the time of his death—a period that spanned over 65 years.
To his great credit, Adler’s level of productivity did not wane when he turned 65 years old. Of the ten books listed earlier as his best, seven of them were written after the age of 65. He was not only a great man, but an amazingly enduring one.
Assessment: Advantage to Mortimer Adler.
VERDICT:
I respect Mortimer Adler immensely and recommend that everyone—believers and nonbelievers alike—would benefit from reading his works on philosophy, his book on how to read, and (time permitting) his voluminous Great Books of the Western World.
Is it “plausible” that Mortimer Adler is “the most erudite person in history”? Perhaps it is. But he is not my choice.
As much as I think it might be judicious (and dispassionate) for me to call this unofficial assessment a tie, a draw, a dead heat, I cannot do so. Based upon all my reading of C.S. Lewis over the past 30 years, I cannot not help but observe that Lewis had a uniquely powerful set of mental faculties that led to attain incomparable erudition.
Consider what the apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14:
“If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”
In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis echoed Paul when he wrote:
“If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance.”
This notion points to the deciding factor (for me, at least) in the verdict: truth. Put another way, which candidate read more books that spoke compelling about “truth.” So, how much of what C.S. Lewis and Mortimer J. Adler read is expressly related to Christianity? To answer that, I did a bit more research on the canon of each man. This is what I found:
- The percentage of C.S. Lewis’ 108 favorites (my list) that are about Christianity: 49%
- The percentage of Adler’s list of recommended readings that is about Christianity: 7%
Consider also these propositions in an Aristotelian syllogism:
- If Christianity is NOT TRUE, then books that describe Christianity and seek to bring you closer to Christ are meaningless.
- If Christianity is NOT TRUE, then much of what C.S. Lewis read is of no value as erudition whether from “literary learning” or not.
- If Christianity is NOT TRUE, then C.S. Lewis is not the most erudite person in history, and it is quite possible that Mortimer Adler is.
- If Christianity is TRUE, there is nothing more important than books that bring you closer to Christ.
- If Christianity is TRUE, then a large part of what C.S. Lewis read was extremely important.
- Christianity IS true.
Thus, the conclusion inferred from these propositions is this:
It is plausible (if not likely) that C.S. Lewis is “the most erudite person in history.”
Please note I am not saying that C.S. Lewis had more knowledge about Christianity than St. Paul, or Augustine, or Aquinas, or Luther, or even George MacDonald. But if these great Christians possessed more knowledge about Christianity, it was due to their life experience, or their intellectual brilliance, or revelation directly from God . . . but not from “literary learning.”
Your thoughts on all this are of interest to me. Please engage!
Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32
Erudition Series Index
