Robert Henderson
In his book “Human Accomplishment” the American Charles Murray
calculates the contribution to civilisation made by individuals
throughout history up until 1950. To give his calculations as much
objectivity as possible he measures the amount of attention given to
an individual by specialists in their field in sources such as
biographical dictionaries – put crudely, the greater the frequency of
mention and the larger the space devoted to an individual, the higher
they score.
Murray quantifies achievements under the headings of astronomy
(Galileo and Kepler tied for first place), biology (Darwin and
Aristotle), chemistry (Lavoisier), earth sciences (Lyell), physics
(Newton and Einstein), mathematics (Euler), medicine (Pasteur,
Hippocrates and Koch), technology (Edison and Watt), combined
scientific (Newton), Chinese philosophy (Confucious), Indian philosophy
(Sankara), Western philosophy (Aristotle), Western music (Beethoven and
Mozart), Chinese painting (Gu Kaizhi and Zhao Mengfu), Japanese
painting (Sesshu, Sotatsu and Korin), Western art (Michelangelo),
Arabic literature, (al-Mutanabbi) Chinese literature (Du Fu), Indian
literature (Kalidasa), Japanese literature (Basho and Chikamatsu
Monzaemon), Western literature (Shakespeare).
Objections have been made to Murray’s methodology such as the fact that
many of the great achievements of the past, especially in the arts,
have been anonymous, which give it a bias towards the modern period,
and fears that it has a built-in Western bias – the representation
of non-Western figures in the science and technology categories is
minimal. Nothing can be done about anonymity – it is worth pointing
out that the majority of those heading the categories lived at least
several centuries ago – but Murray substantially guards against
pro-Western bias with the breadth and number of his sources and it is
simply a fact that science and advanced technology arose only in the
past few centuries and that both are essentially Western achievements.
It is also noteworthy that Murray’s method only places one of his
fellow countrymen at number one in any category (Edison in
technology). If any bias exists it is unlikely to be conscious. At
worst, Murray’s findings can be seem as a fair rating of Western
achievement.
The list of those heading the various categories (see second paragraph
above) suggests that Murray’s method is pretty sound despite any
possible methodological shortcomings, because those who come top are
all men of extreme achievement. There might be arguments over whether
Aristotle should take precedence over Plato or Kant, but no one could
honestly argue that Aristotle was an obviously unworthy winner of first
place in the philosophy category.
Of the 13 categories which can include Westerners (they are obviously
excluded from non-European literature and art), Englishmen are
undisputed firsts or share first place with one other in four: biology
Darwin with Aristotle; Physics Newton with Einstein; combined
scientific Newton alone; Western literature Shakespeare alone. No
other nation has more than two representatives at the top of a
category. The thirteen Western including categories have a total of 18
people in sole or joint first place. England has nearly a quarter of
those in first place and more than a quarter of the 15 who are drawn
from the modern period, say 1500 AD onwards.
Apart from those coming first, the English show strongly in most of
the Western qualifying categories (especially in physics – 9 out of the
top 20, technology – 8 out of the top twenty – and Western literature).
The major exceptions are Western art and music, where English
representation is mediocre. I think most people who think about the
matter at all would feel those cultural strengths and weaknesses
represent the reality of English history and society.
The fact that England shows so strongly in Murray’s exercise gives the
lie to the common representation of the English as unintellectual.
Moreover, there is much more to human intellectual accomplishment than
the fields covered by Murray, most notably the writing of history and
the social sciences, areas in which England has been at the forefront
throughout the modern period: think Gibbon, Macaulay, Herbert Spencer
and Keynes.
English intellectual history is a long one. It can reasonably be said
to begin in the early eighth century with Bede’s Ecclesiastical
History of the English, which amongst other things firmly establishes
the English as a people before England as a kingdom existed (“At
present there are in Britain…five languages and four nations –
English, British, Irish and Picts…” Book One).
In the late ninth century comes Alfred the Great, a king whose reign
was one of constant struggle against the Danes, but who thought
enough of learning to teach himself to read as an adult and then engage
in translations into Old English of devotional works such as Pope
Gregory’s Pastoral Care, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and Boethius’
The Consolation of Philosophy.
From Alfred’s reign comes the Anglo-Saxon Journal (ASJ), a work also
written in Old English. (There are nine surviving versions written at
different places, eight of which are in Old English with the odd man
out being in Old English with a Latin translation). The journal is
a history/myth of Britain and a narrative of the settlement of
Anglo-Saxons within it until the time of Alfred and then a putative
record of and commentary on the great events of English life from the
time of Alfred until the middle of the 12th century (like all such
medieval works the veracity of the ASJ is questionable, but at worst it
gives a flavour of the mentality of those living at the time). The work
is unique in medieval Europe for its scope and longevity and is
particularly noteworthy for the fact that it was written in the
vernacular throughout the three centuries or so of its existence, this
at a time when the normal language for writing in Western Europe was
Latin.
The Norman Conquest subordinated the English politically,
linguistically and socially for the better part of three centuries,
but it did not kill English intellectual endeavour. Those three
centuries of oppression saw the emergence of many of the ideas which
were later to produce the modern world. John of Salisbury produced a
work on politics (Policraticus 1159) which was “the first attempt in
the Middle Ages at an extended and systematic treatment of political
philosophy” (G H Sabine A History of Political Theory p246) and one
which argued for a form of limited monarchy and the overthrow of
tyrants, views given practical English expression in Magna Carta
(1215). The period was also noteworthy for the strong showing of annals
and histories, most notably those of Eadmer (Historia Novorum or The
History of Recent Events – it covered the period 950-1109), Henry of
Huntingdon (Historia Anglorum or History of the English 5BC-1129) and
Matthew Paris (Chronica Majora). In addition, the Common Law was
formed, English became once more a literary language (Chaucer,
Langland), John Wycliffe laid the intellectual roots of the
Reformation and, perhaps most impressively, ideas which were later to
provide the basis for a true science emerged. England was the mother of the modern world.
To have produced Shakespeare, Newton and Darwin alone would have been
a great thing for any nation, but for England they are merely the
cherries on the top of a very substantial intellectual cake. Beneath
them sit dozens of others of serious human consequence: the likes of
Ockham, Chaucer, Wycliffe, Francis Bacon, Marlowe, Halley, Hobbes,
Locke, Gibbon, Priestly, Cavendish, Newcomen, Faraday, Austen, Dickens,
Keynes, Turing… ‘Nuff said.
