The first three great encyclopedias of the western world
were all written in the eighteenth century and all had something biting to say
about polymathy.
The first was the Cyclopedia,
published in 1728 by Ephraim Chambers. The British Chambers defined polymathy as
“the knowledge of many Arts and Sciences; or an Acquaintance with a great
Number of different Subjects.” That sounds reasonable, but he then criticized
polymathy as “frequently little more than a confused Heap of useless Knowledge
occasionally detail’d, either pertinently or impertinently, for Parade.”
The next encyclopedia was the German Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste (Great Complete Encyclopedia of all
Sciences and Arts), printed between 1732 and 1754, and published by Johann Heinrich Zedler. This encyclopedia stuck to criticism, saying, “Polymathy is something
one should not occupy oneself with. Therefore one will realize that the
greatest polymaths did not do such a great service to the world, simply because
they are polymaths and therefore occupied with trifles.”
And finally, the groundbreaking Encyclopédie of Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond D’Alembert, which
appeared between 1751 and 1772, copied Chambers, writing, “Polymathy is often
nothing but a confused mass of useless knowledge which one lets out
ready-witted and out of place to put on a show.”
These guys sure didn’t like polymathy, but they had really great title pages.
No comments:
Post a Comment