a sufficient variety of knowledge
In the grand tradition of blog posts for this class, I'm going to veer slightly from the actual question.
Humboldt is quoted as lamenting the "sufficient variety of knowledge" of the scientists/travelers/collectors who went before him—but not because these scientists/travelers/collectors did a terrible job at science or travelling or collecting. Instead, the rest of the quotation makes it clear that Humboldt was disappointed that this lack of a sufficient variety of knowledge thus disallowed the travellers "to avail themselves of every advantage arising from their position." In other words, perhaps Humboldt is most disappointed in the singular/limited purposes of trips, or the single-minded-ness of collectors? Sort of like that question Amir and Kellan asked in class the other day, about what happens when you're so focused on studying one thing—think of all the stuff you missed out on. Perhaps it's a little of that, but perhaps it's just that Humboldt was so freaking awesome at everything that he wishes he had been part of those early travels and had the opportunity to experience/view the entire context from whence came the first specimens from [insert locale here].
And even if Humboldt was harshing on the scientists/travelers/collectors who went before him, he still got some value from them. In a letter to Carl Ritter, Humboldt says:
In fact, this quotation was the epigraph to An Abstract of Mr. Emerson's Remarks Made at the Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Von Humboldt, September 14, 1869. In those remarks, Emerson referred to Humboldt as "one of those wonders of the world [...] who appear from time to time, as if to show us the possibilities of the human mind." And, Emerson goes on to say, Humboldt's mind was not like the rest of our minds: "As we know, a man's natural powers are often a sort of committee that slowly, one at a time, give their attention and action; but Humboldt's were all united, one electric chain..." But the connection to what I'm trying to say here about the "sufficient variety of knowledge to avail themselves of every advantage arising from their position" comes in this observation by Emerson: "He was properly a man of the world...for at any point on land or sea he found the objects of his researches"—perhaps not because he specifically set out to collect or study a particular object, but because he saw potential for study in everything.
This conception of Humboldt as some sort of superscientist was not solely Emerson's, of course. In an 1866 letter from John Muir to Jeanne Carr [CONTEXT: In 1866 Muir was a few years removed from his study of botany at Univ of Wisconsin; his prof was Jeanne Carr's husband (Ezra Carr) and Muir formed a relationship with the family. Muir then went walking around Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Canada—he hadn't made his thousand-mile walk to the Gulf or ever been to California, and had read a little bit of Emerson and Thoreau but wouldn't meet Emerson for another five years.], Muir discusses his dislike for having to focus on only a few things, and none of those things are the big things he really wants to do:
Humboldt is quoted as lamenting the "sufficient variety of knowledge" of the scientists/travelers/collectors who went before him—but not because these scientists/travelers/collectors did a terrible job at science or travelling or collecting. Instead, the rest of the quotation makes it clear that Humboldt was disappointed that this lack of a sufficient variety of knowledge thus disallowed the travellers "to avail themselves of every advantage arising from their position." In other words, perhaps Humboldt is most disappointed in the singular/limited purposes of trips, or the single-minded-ness of collectors? Sort of like that question Amir and Kellan asked in class the other day, about what happens when you're so focused on studying one thing—think of all the stuff you missed out on. Perhaps it's a little of that, but perhaps it's just that Humboldt was so freaking awesome at everything that he wishes he had been part of those early travels and had the opportunity to experience/view the entire context from whence came the first specimens from [insert locale here].
And even if Humboldt was harshing on the scientists/travelers/collectors who went before him, he still got some value from them. In a letter to Carl Ritter, Humboldt says:
If a life prolonged to an advanced period bring with it several inconveniences to the individual, there is a compensation in the delight of being able to compare older states of knowledge with that which now exists, and to see great advances in knowledge develop themselves under our eyes in departments which had long slept in inactivity.In this quotation, he's talking about himself and his advanced age (he lived to be 89, after all, and Ritter 79), but I could see where he might also be talking about the state of scientific knowledge. The advancements in scientific knowledge that occurred during his lifetime (1769-1859) are pretty spectacular, I would say, and in no small part due to Humboldt himself.
In fact, this quotation was the epigraph to An Abstract of Mr. Emerson's Remarks Made at the Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Von Humboldt, September 14, 1869. In those remarks, Emerson referred to Humboldt as "one of those wonders of the world [...] who appear from time to time, as if to show us the possibilities of the human mind." And, Emerson goes on to say, Humboldt's mind was not like the rest of our minds: "As we know, a man's natural powers are often a sort of committee that slowly, one at a time, give their attention and action; but Humboldt's were all united, one electric chain..." But the connection to what I'm trying to say here about the "sufficient variety of knowledge to avail themselves of every advantage arising from their position" comes in this observation by Emerson: "He was properly a man of the world...for at any point on land or sea he found the objects of his researches"—perhaps not because he specifically set out to collect or study a particular object, but because he saw potential for study in everything.
This conception of Humboldt as some sort of superscientist was not solely Emerson's, of course. In an 1866 letter from John Muir to Jeanne Carr [CONTEXT: In 1866 Muir was a few years removed from his study of botany at Univ of Wisconsin; his prof was Jeanne Carr's husband (Ezra Carr) and Muir formed a relationship with the family. Muir then went walking around Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Canada—he hadn't made his thousand-mile walk to the Gulf or ever been to California, and had read a little bit of Emerson and Thoreau but wouldn't meet Emerson for another five years.], Muir discusses his dislike for having to focus on only a few things, and none of those things are the big things he really wants to do:
I do not believe that study, especially of the Natural Sciences, is incompatible with ordinary attention to business; still I seem to be able to do but one thing at a time. Since undertaking a month or two ago to invent new machinery for our mill, my mind seems to so bury itself in the work that I am fit for but little else; and then a lifetime is so little a time that we die ere we get ready to live. I would like to go to college, but then I have to say to myself, "You will die ere you can do anything else." I should like to invent useful machinery, but it comes, "You do not wish to spend your lifetime among machines and you will die ere you can do anything else." I should like to study medicine that I might do my part in helping human misery, but again it comes, "You will die ere you are ready or able to do so."
How intensely I desire to be a Humboldt!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
« Home