Yesterday, I posted a graphic with no explanation of its meaning or relevance to this evaluation of erudition. My hope was to trigger curiosity. I will now reveal its meaning.
This graphic is a model of the U.S. Library of Congress (LOC), the largest library in the world. Please note: I am not attempting to depict the entire collection held by the LOC, but only those parts that are relevant to this evaluation. The graphic does not expressly answer the question: How many books did C.S. Lewis read? But it does provide an interesting perspective and perhaps a useful framework for considering what might be called the “scale of erudition.”
The LOC was founded in 1800, and in 1815 Congress expanded the collection with the purchase of Thomas Jefferson’s personal collection of 6,487 books. It is the main research arm of the U.S. Congress, though active use by Members of Congress is questionable.
I developed this framework ten years ago, when I first presented my premise to seminar attendees in Atlanta. Over the past few days, I contacted staff librarians at the LOC to update my assumptions about the LOC collection, and to adjust the graphic accordingly.
As of a few days ago, the LOC houses over 171 million documents, with about 10,000 new items added daily. Most documents are in formats other than hard copy print book. These formats include manuscripts, electronic text, microfiche, microfilm, recordings, newspapers, and scanned images. Of this total there approximately 25 million are catalogued print books in 470 languages, with just a tad over 16 million in hard copy books in English.
The model was designed to convey the massive size of the world’s great libraries. Certainly, The Bodleian is one of them, with a collection of over 11 million books. I might have used data on the Bodleian Library, but I contacted them to seek different data (truly fascinating, by the way) that I will share in a later post. For purposes of making a few points about reading, and the “scale of erudition”, this LOC graphic works.
The model is not an accurate representation of the LOC facility. In truth, the LOC is comprised of three main buildings, coupled with a good bit of off-site storage. Instead, the model assumes the 16 million print books are housed in one facility with:
- 16 floors
- 200 racks on each floor
- Each 7-shelf rack being 175-feet long
- Each rack holding 5,000 books (average book width of 2.5”)
Of course, the real LOC is not configured in this manner, but this model provides a useful framework for thinking about the LOC and its collections by broad topical category. It will also be illustrative in depicting the “scale of erudition” which is relevant to our discussions. (More on that later.)
If you look closely at this image which is now complete, you will see the approximate size of collections in the following subject areas:
- History (31.1%)
- Science (5.6%)
- Mathematics (1.6%)
- Literature, languages, linguistics, and religion (18.7%)
- Philosophy and theology (4.5%)
I assume this model is sufficiently close to representing The Bodleian—not precise, but directionally-correct. As we all know, The Bodleian is where C.S. Lewis did most of his reading over the course of his life after completing the pedagogy of William T. Kirkpatrick. Surely he read many books at home in the Kilns (he had 3,000 books there), and also in his Magdalen College quarters (and another 3,000 books there), but he probably spent well over 20,000 hours in The Bodleian, and most of that in the Duke Humphries Library.
The center segments include what might be considered the areas of “literary learning”. This includes a large “Literary” collection (literature, languages, linguistics) in green and a smaller “Philosophy and Theology” collection in blue. No doubt, this central area is where Lewis spent most of his time. Certainly, the collection housed in the Duke Humphries Library—where Lewis did immense research for English Literature in the Sixteenth Century—would fall into the green and blue sections.
What is my point here? If someone were to challenge Lewis’ credentials for “most erudite person in history” by claiming his reading was narrow, this graphic suggests that claim is not credible. To be sure, Lewis probably rarely entered the Science section . . . and likely never once ventured into the Mathematics area. But I do believe he used the History section on occasion.
As for other candidates, I doubt Adler, Chesterton, or Eco spent much time in the Science or Math sections. As for Winston Churchill, no doubt he would have spent most of his time in the History section, but I willingly concede that he made frequent forays into the Literature and Philosophy sections as well.
There is also the matter of the four “horrid red things.” However, since I am trying to limit my text to 1,000 words or less, I will push my discussion of that until the next post.
Part 8 | Part 9 | Page 10
Erudition Series Index
