In the last post we explored three “hard” metrics of erudition. There can be little question of the relevance of these metrics:
(1) the number of books read.
(2) the number of university courses completed.
(3) the number of academic degrees earned.
This is not to say these are the only possible quantifiable benchmarks of erudition, but I think they warrant evaluation.
As for the three metrics we considered, each of them seems to be relevant, but when we look at the data behind these metrics, they become squishy. How can we know how many books any person actually read? We cannot determine for certain how many books C.S. Lewis actually read–though I have estimated that number to be somewhere between 18,000 and 25,000 books. One viable candidate for “most erudite” is Umberto Eco. He owned 50,000 books in two personal libraries, but he freely admitted he had not read all of them. Two other strong candidates are Mortimer Adler and G.K. Chesterton. How are we to know how many books they read? We cannot.
So much for that metric.
Then there are two metrics that relate to academic work. Although the claims of Michael W. Nicholson (most degrees) and Brian “Fred Worm” McGregor (most courses) probably could be confirmed, who is to say they are “erudite”. I wonder whether the courses and degrees were on meaningful subjects . . . or whether they fully comprehended the course material . . . or, most important of all, whether they actually retained all that information? Ask yourself: “How much of what I studied while at university do I still recall?” Yeah, me too.
So much for those two metrics.
Some sort of examination or standardized test might seem to be the answer, but the Stanford-Binet IQ test is not about erudition, and various Scholastic Aptitude Tests are simplistic and narrow. Besides IQ tests and SATs are discredited as unreliable. Then there is this: retroactive testing over the centuries might be a tad problematic. It is reported that C.S. Lewis somewhere joked about the evils of examinations “preventing young men from becoming learned”. (That works for me.)
Thus, it seems we cannot quantify erudition.
If my proposition were true, how then would I prove it? Well, I cannot. There is simply no way that I can prove that it is true . . . and similarly, no way anyone can prove it to be untrue. Still, I do believe the premise is plausible.
The absence of “hard” metrics leaves us with subjective factors. To that end, I propose that we consider twelve subjective factors as depicted in the puzzle, then base our “opinion” on them.
The twelve factors include the following:
1) Demonstrated intelligence of a genius.
2) Access to massive collections of books.
3) Prodigious amount of literary reading.
4) Expansive breadth of reading.
5) Profound philosophy of learning.
6) Superior skills in ancient languages.
7) Rare insights into deciphering ancient texts.
8) Uncanny ability to concentrate.
9) Effective use of mnemonic techniques.
10) Total grasp of meaning.
11) Perfect retention (or as Grandpa might have said “pert-near”).
12) Exceptional quality of writings.
Perhaps there are other factors, so please share your thoughts. I will share mine as relates to the twelve listed. In the final analysis, I am aware I cannot prove conclusively that the answer to the question . . .
“Is C.S. Lewis the Most Erudite Person Who Ever Lived?”
. . . is “YES!” But I hope to leave you with the impression that my premise might just be plausible. If not, then at least the dialogue has been fun, eh? For now . . . please consider joining the C.S. Lewis Forum.
Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
Erudition Series Index
