Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1871-11-30
Something Of Everything.


Something Of Everything.
We remember many wears ago pam
phlet On University Reform which began
with quoting saying that a man ought to
know something OF everything and every
ihingof something The saying, whoever
made it, wss 50 neatly put that we were ut
once struck by il ard led to suspect it. A
man certainly should-within the limits
both of general human possibility and of
his own personal opportunities-know
everything of something That is TO say,
there should be some subject to which he
has really given his powers, and on which
he has rot as near to the knowledge of
! everything about it as his powers and OPP
portunities will lead him. The concen-
trating of powers on one special subject is
undoubtedly necessary 10 the highest sue
cess. or even to a measure Of success good
way below the highest, in any branch Of
knowledge whatever. No one will sue
/ coed in anything by scattering his atien-
/ ton equally over the whole range Of
/ knowledge, learning little about this and
/ little about that, without learning any
one thing thoroughly. In this sense a man
ought certainly To know everything of
something of everything =? We confess
that we always admire the man who bold
" confcsses that there are things Of which
he knows nothing, and we are the more in
clined to trust such a mans knowledge in
those things which he does profess TO
know. This feeling may perhaps be "a lit
tie balanced in some cases by suspicion
that the standard of nothingncss may be
relative A man who is thoroughly master
of some one subject, and who has several
Others of which he is not wholly ignorant,
NAV be tempted to look on his knowledge
of his secondary subjects as a mere moth
ing. while in the eyes of many people it
would seem great deal Yet, on the
whole. il is "A good sign when man does
not shrek from confessing ignorance, even
total ignorance in the strictcst sense, OF
subjects which he has not taken in hand.
I The vice of ignorance is at least better
than the vice of omniscience. To know
something of everything must perhaps he
taken with the same sort Of qualifications
with which we have already taken the
other phrase of knowing everything of
something. 4 man who sets forth with
the purpose of learning everything will
undoubtedly, like Margcitcs, end with
knowing nothing well But man who
has his central subject round which he
groups all others, looking at all others with
q reference to it, WILL perhaps, find II eX-
pedient TO extend the range OF what we
NAV call his secondary knowledge so far
that it may not he much more than natu-
raj cxaggeratiOn to say that he knows, not
only everything of one thing, but some
thing of everything. One branch OF
knowledge helps another in a way which
might not be looked for at first sight. And
there is kind of knowledge which
though il is very far from being thorough,
is vet quite enough for this subsidiary sort
OF use The something which, according
To our saving, the perfect man knows 81
everything is by its own showing quite dill
fcrcnt from the everything which he
knows of something. 1t Is in ITS
own nature less IN amount, and
vet there is certain sense in
which /, NAV be called greater than the
knowledge which many man has OF what
he believes to be his own special subject.
Take. for instance, the case OF the compar.
atiyc philologer; no one would expect OF
him that he should understand every Ian
puape with which he has to deal in the same
way either as the man understands ii who
is familiar with it in conversational way
No doubt the more familiar the compare
tive philologcr is with all the languages
with which lie has to deal, the better Tor
his own object. But il il simply Impossible
that he should know all of them in the
same minute way as the special student OF
each Yet. in certain sense, he often
knows far more about those languages than
euA special students themselves. 1t con
stantly happens that a man knows a Ian
Guage thoroughly for all practical pur-
noses he may be able to speak IT, write
Il and translate it correctly and elegantly,
without having ever given thought to its
history or to its relations to other languages.
The like NAV even be the case with the
man whose knowledge is far deeper than
this. who not only knows the language IN
mere empirical way but who has thor
oughlv studied the tongue and its literature
in the way in which finished Greek or
| Latin scholar of the older type has studied
the Greek or Latin language. The philolo-
! Ger NAV know all about the language, he
I NAV know all that is needed for his own
purposes, though he may be quite unable
| IA nut together a paragraph in it, Nay,
more he NAV have knowledge which,
! II not all that he wishes for ms
| own purpose, is yet by no means useless,
without in any strict sense understanding
the language at all. He may have clear
notion of the history and relations OF the
language, and may even know something
Of It's internal peculiarities, though he has
not really learned the language itself, ana
can at most only hammer out the meaning
| Of sentence through his knowledge OF
other kindred langusges. And again, the
pursuits of the comparative philologer VIII
often lead him into regions beyond the i'm
mediate dominion Of language. The com