What do you think?
Rate this book
The Polymath: A Cultural History from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag
The first history of the western polymath, from the fifteenth century to the present day
From Leonardo Da Vinci to John Dee and Comenius, from George Eliot to Oliver Sacks and Susan Sontag, polymaths have moved the frontiers of knowledge in countless ways. But history can be unkind to scholars with such encyclopaedic interests. All too often these individuals are remembered for just one part of their valuable achievements.
In this engaging, erudite account, renowned cultural historian Peter Burke argues for a more rounded view. Identifying 500 western polymaths, Burke explores their wide-ranging successes and shows how their rise matched a rapid growth of knowledge in the age of the invention of printing, the discovery of the New World and the Scientific Revolution. It is only more recently that the further acceleration of knowledge has led to increased specialisation and to an environment that is less supportive of wide-ranging scholars and scientists.
Spanning the Renaissance to the present day, Burke changes our understanding of this remarkable intellectual species.
From Leonardo Da Vinci to John Dee and Comenius, from George Eliot to Oliver Sacks and Susan Sontag, polymaths have moved the frontiers of knowledge in countless ways. But history can be unkind to scholars with such encyclopaedic interests. All too often these individuals are remembered for just one part of their valuable achievements.
In this engaging, erudite account, renowned cultural historian Peter Burke argues for a more rounded view. Identifying 500 western polymaths, Burke explores their wide-ranging successes and shows how their rise matched a rapid growth of knowledge in the age of the invention of printing, the discovery of the New World and the Scientific Revolution. It is only more recently that the further acceleration of knowledge has led to increased specialisation and to an environment that is less supportive of wide-ranging scholars and scientists.
Spanning the Renaissance to the present day, Burke changes our understanding of this remarkable intellectual species.
352 pages, Hardcover
Published June 18, 2020
104 people are currently reading
1454 people want to read
About the author
Peter Burke
277 books210 followersPeter Burke is a British historian and professor. He was educated by the Jesuits and at St John's College, Oxford, and was a doctoral candidate at St Antony's College. From 1962 to 1979, he was part of the School of European Studies at Sussex University, before moving to the University of Cambridge, where he holds the title of Professor Emeritus of Cultural History and Fellow of Emmanuel College. Burke is celebrated as a historian not only of the early modern era, but one who emphasizes the relevance of social and cultural history to modern issues. He is married to Brazilian historian Maria Lúcia Garcia Pallares-Burke.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
May 12, 2021
I picked up this book while perusing the shelves of a store, so I hadn't heard much about it before picking it up. What convinced me to get it was A.C. Grayling's positive evaluation of it on the back cover. The book both disappointed and positively surprised me in certain regards - but I will certainly be coming back to it sometime in the future, perhaps less bewildered by the amount of names and so with a different tint to my glasses.
The shallow treatment of some personalities has to have been the greatest let-down for me, as far as this take on the history of polymathy is concerned. The book felt, at certain points, as if it were simply citing the first paragraphs of a few intellectuals' Wikipedia pages, despite the vast citation network that is the base of this work. The dizzying torrent of names, followed by the simple enumeration of the disciplines they have had contributions in, sometimes with some marginal anecdotes about these personalities, leaves you with little to no understanding of their importance in the history of ideas.
Later on, the author's criteria for the label of "polymath" begin to seem somewhat shaky. One has to wonder how "interdisciplinary" it really is to be a "philosopher, literary, art, and film critic", as Deleuze, or a "philosopher, critic and photographer", as Sontag, or to be interested in "philosophy, literature and semiotics", as Eco. Curiously enough, to my knowledge, all of these, with the exception of photography (which is not an academic discipline), are taught as part of undergrad literary studies! Literary Theory is very close, some would even say a branch, of continental philosophy. The former is strongly linked to semiotics and the beginning of modern linguistics, with Saussure. Semiotics developed out of saussurean linguistics, at least at first, as a generalization of those principles. When one takes into account the similarities of principle, the fact that these rely on qualitative inquiry, the fact that in histories of Literary Theory it is well understood that these are strongly linked etc., Burke's notion of "polymath" in the later half of the book becomes questionable. Being a critic of both art and literature is not uncommon, and even in undergrad literature degrees, comparisons between film and literature are frequently drawn. The border between these disciplines is virtually inexistent. I do not recall reading much about the "polymaths" who were brave enough to bridge the gap between expertise in birds and expertise in crocodiles, or between linguistic theory as applied to English and to Finnish either (just to illustrate the point).
Being Romanian, I could add two Romanian polymaths that, in my view, fit in the frame of polymathy at least marginally better than the two that the author has chosen (Nicolae Iorga and Zevedei Barbu). My picks would have been Dimitrie Cantemir (statesman, historian, ethnographer, linguist - knowing and writing in 11 languages, philosopher - member of the Berlin Academy of Leibniz, who also devised a musical writing system for Ottoman music and composed songs of his own) and Solomon Marcus (mathematician, computational linguist, computer scientist, philosopher, literary critic etc.).
The book was most appealing when it showed the connections between some of these personalities, as well as how they went about creating them - letters, salons, universities, clubs etc. The presentation of their overall attitude to the body of knowledge, to learning institutions, and to learning in general, was also quite good, in my view. Burke's highest achievement with this work is, for me, finding the underlying connections that allow us to group all of the separate portraits, "Renaissance Man", "Monsters of Erudition", "Man of Letters" etc., within the same frame of polymathy.
The shallow treatment of some personalities has to have been the greatest let-down for me, as far as this take on the history of polymathy is concerned. The book felt, at certain points, as if it were simply citing the first paragraphs of a few intellectuals' Wikipedia pages, despite the vast citation network that is the base of this work. The dizzying torrent of names, followed by the simple enumeration of the disciplines they have had contributions in, sometimes with some marginal anecdotes about these personalities, leaves you with little to no understanding of their importance in the history of ideas.
Later on, the author's criteria for the label of "polymath" begin to seem somewhat shaky. One has to wonder how "interdisciplinary" it really is to be a "philosopher, literary, art, and film critic", as Deleuze, or a "philosopher, critic and photographer", as Sontag, or to be interested in "philosophy, literature and semiotics", as Eco. Curiously enough, to my knowledge, all of these, with the exception of photography (which is not an academic discipline), are taught as part of undergrad literary studies! Literary Theory is very close, some would even say a branch, of continental philosophy. The former is strongly linked to semiotics and the beginning of modern linguistics, with Saussure. Semiotics developed out of saussurean linguistics, at least at first, as a generalization of those principles. When one takes into account the similarities of principle, the fact that these rely on qualitative inquiry, the fact that in histories of Literary Theory it is well understood that these are strongly linked etc., Burke's notion of "polymath" in the later half of the book becomes questionable. Being a critic of both art and literature is not uncommon, and even in undergrad literature degrees, comparisons between film and literature are frequently drawn. The border between these disciplines is virtually inexistent. I do not recall reading much about the "polymaths" who were brave enough to bridge the gap between expertise in birds and expertise in crocodiles, or between linguistic theory as applied to English and to Finnish either (just to illustrate the point).
Being Romanian, I could add two Romanian polymaths that, in my view, fit in the frame of polymathy at least marginally better than the two that the author has chosen (Nicolae Iorga and Zevedei Barbu). My picks would have been Dimitrie Cantemir (statesman, historian, ethnographer, linguist - knowing and writing in 11 languages, philosopher - member of the Berlin Academy of Leibniz, who also devised a musical writing system for Ottoman music and composed songs of his own) and Solomon Marcus (mathematician, computational linguist, computer scientist, philosopher, literary critic etc.).
The book was most appealing when it showed the connections between some of these personalities, as well as how they went about creating them - letters, salons, universities, clubs etc. The presentation of their overall attitude to the body of knowledge, to learning institutions, and to learning in general, was also quite good, in my view. Burke's highest achievement with this work is, for me, finding the underlying connections that allow us to group all of the separate portraits, "Renaissance Man", "Monsters of Erudition", "Man of Letters" etc., within the same frame of polymathy.
November 4, 2020
Very dry, and no clear unifying thesis. Would recommend skipping this. Much more worthwhile to read specific biographies of individuals you are interested in (like Isaacson's Leonardo bio) as this book is just a surface-level summary of lots of people without really adding much.
December 5, 2022
Cartea este o introducere in lumea fascinanta a speciei de polimat exclusiv occidental. Autorul nu incearca sa faca analize speculative, controversate, subiective, complexe si exhaustive asupra polimatiei. Nu vrea sa-si lase amprenta, ci doar reliefeaza succint o lista de polimati si realizeaza un portret incomplet al speciei. Mi-ar fi placut sa scrie mai mult despre Leonardo da Vinci, John von Neumann, Alan Turing, Freud, Erasmus etc. Acesta elogiaza polimatii, dar nu mentioneaza si aspectele negative din viata lor, caci de multe ori, patologia unui polimat poate tempera sau chiar eclipsa stralucirea geniului.
Par example, Kant a avut o viață tare plictisitoare fata de omul de rând contemporan. Rutina l-a urmărit pretutindeni. N-a fost căsătorit niciodata, n-a părăsit țara, se trezea mereu la aceeași oră, nu mânca singur la prânz etc. Predictibilitatea si rigoarea programului său au contribuit la succesul răsunător, dar cu ce preț? Dezvoltase OCD într-o formă care-i controla viața. Tesla era și mai trăsnit. Pe lângă OCD-ul pentru igienă (se spăla obsesiv), acesta se îndrăgostise și de-un porumbel. Charles Darwin chiar a scris o lista cu pro si contra casatorie: http://iasifun.ziaruldeiasi.ro/charle...
Multi au fost celibati. Există o corelație între OCD și HIGH IQ, dar și una între nebunie și geniu. Chiar și compatriotul nostru, Eminescu, ar fi luat-o razna. Unii zic ca ar fi asasinat politic, alții dau vina pe morfină...
Evolutia functioneaza pe selectie genetica si mediocritatea este regula de baza pentru specia umana. It's a middle ground called "Regression toward the mean". Aceasta are modul ei sadistic de a inlatura elementele anormale, iar geniul este o augmentatie genetica a structurii creierului, insotita adesea de Asperger, ADHD, OCD, schizofrenie si alte tulburari mentale. Analogic, ai un procesor overclocked si instabil la 5Ghz, cu 24 nuclee, tinut la rece prin azot lichid si consum urias de energie. Geniul nu e creat, ci asa s-a nascut. Astfel, beneficiezi de o putere incredibila de procesare cognitiva, way beyond your peers, dar cu efecte secundare grave precum depresie, solitudine, stari melancolice si suicidare, incapacitatea de a-si gasi partener etc. Cu cat esti mai destept, cu atat iti va mai greu sa gasesti oameni care sa te inteleaga, insa mai ales sa-ti gasesti un partener (Birds of a feather flock together), deoarece societatea, in comparatie, e dominata de procesoare Celeron, fata de geniu, Intel Core i9.
De asemenea, autorul nu mentioneaza cum au putut deveni, in primul rand, polimati. Raspunsul este ca toti polimatii impartasesc genetic o trasatura fundamentala: IQ superior. Poti sa citesti mii de carti, sa inveti cat mai multe chestii, insa va fi extrem de greu sa devii polimat fara un IQ superior. Este drept ca polimatii au citit extrem de mult la viata lor pentru a obtine aria de expertiza in diferite domenii, dar setea de cunoastere este un by-product al IQ-ului superior. Neurogeneza are totusi limitele sale. E ca si cum ai vrea sa alergi proba de 100m in 9.60s, fara sa ai fibre de tip Fast-Twitch precum are Usain Bolt, crezand ca un antrenament obsesiv te va ajuta vreodata. Nu, potentialul este minim fara pachetul genetic corespunzator. Nu suntem egali biologic nu doar la inaltime, gene recesive, telomeri (regenerare celulara) etc., dar si la genele responsabile pentru inteligenta. John von Neumann, cu un IQ de 160, ar fi putut sa citeze din memorie pagini întregi de cărți citite cu ani în urmă si o viteza de procesare incredibila, mult peste a lui Einstein, insa creatorul teoriei relativitatii il depasea la creativitate. Indivizii cu IQ superior sunt fascinati, inca din primii ani de viata, de cunoastere, singurul stimul real si util al creierului lor nestavilit, insetat dupa devorarea informatiei, de mecanismele ce opereaza culisele realitatii, de elucubratiile vietii, fiind inzestrati cu o curiozitate extraordinara si tind sa devina polimati. Dincolo de degringolada sociala, ei decodifica acest malaxor al vietii la un nivel imperceptibil pentru omul obisnuit. Activitatea lor cognitiva opereaza la o capacitate incredibila. Creierul acestora simte o nevoie exacerbata de a acumula, intelege si procesa informatia, de a sti cat mai multe, de a invata, de a citi, de a forma tipare acestui labirint energetic. Ei prefera solitudinea ca masura de conservare, de a se proteja de vitregiile vietii si de a-si maximiza potentialul. Implinirea personala a unui individ se realizeaza in tenebrele singuratatii, in deplinatatea si umbra propriului eu, nu in multime, deoarece aceasta slabeste, altereaza, omogenizeaza si lezeaza integritatea intelectuala. Te mulezi, te camuflezi, te disociezi, pana cand devii ca ei.
Veti observa cum copiii cu IQ superior manifesta, inca din primii ani de viata, inclinatii intelectuale neobisnuite, curiozitate mare, limbaj dezvoltat, citesc de la 3-4 ani, vocabular complex, memorie, constiinciozitate sporita, deschidere catre experiente noi, prefera sa aiba discutii cu adultii decat cei de varsta lor etc.
Pe final, autorul isi manifesta subtila elegie pentru avansul tehnologic, culminat cu aparitia internetului prin anii '90, cauzand totodata si extinctia polimatiei, care nu mai este apreciata si introducerea hiperspecializarii. Din pacate, suntem martorii secolului cu genii pe cale de extinctie. Sinapsele neuronale sunt nestimulate la potentialul din trecut si intra in regresie. "Muchiul" nu mai e antrenat.
Recomand cartea! Chiar am si notat cateva carti, mentionate de autor, pe care am de gand sa le citesc:
Istoria sexualității - Michel Foucault;
Archaeology Of Knowledge - Michel Foucault;
Utilitatea inutilului - Nuccio Ordine (cu faimosul eseu despre importanta lecturii al polimatului Abraham Flexner);
Foucault, cunoasterea si istoria - Lucian Popescu;
Proust and the Squid - Maryanne Wolf.
Suplimentar pentru Romania:
Articolul este despre genialitate, cu precadere IQ-ul ridicat in zona de nord a tarii, in urma statisticilor si nr. mare de oameni de cultura. Cert e ca selectia genetica (varietatea/diversificarea etnica/rasiala) din nordul tarii a favorizat aparitia acestor genii, iar reminescentele genetice subzista si astazi.
Link: https://adevarul.ro/stiri-locale/boto...
Par example, Kant a avut o viață tare plictisitoare fata de omul de rând contemporan. Rutina l-a urmărit pretutindeni. N-a fost căsătorit niciodata, n-a părăsit țara, se trezea mereu la aceeași oră, nu mânca singur la prânz etc. Predictibilitatea si rigoarea programului său au contribuit la succesul răsunător, dar cu ce preț? Dezvoltase OCD într-o formă care-i controla viața. Tesla era și mai trăsnit. Pe lângă OCD-ul pentru igienă (se spăla obsesiv), acesta se îndrăgostise și de-un porumbel. Charles Darwin chiar a scris o lista cu pro si contra casatorie: http://iasifun.ziaruldeiasi.ro/charle...
Multi au fost celibati. Există o corelație între OCD și HIGH IQ, dar și una între nebunie și geniu. Chiar și compatriotul nostru, Eminescu, ar fi luat-o razna. Unii zic ca ar fi asasinat politic, alții dau vina pe morfină...
Evolutia functioneaza pe selectie genetica si mediocritatea este regula de baza pentru specia umana. It's a middle ground called "Regression toward the mean". Aceasta are modul ei sadistic de a inlatura elementele anormale, iar geniul este o augmentatie genetica a structurii creierului, insotita adesea de Asperger, ADHD, OCD, schizofrenie si alte tulburari mentale. Analogic, ai un procesor overclocked si instabil la 5Ghz, cu 24 nuclee, tinut la rece prin azot lichid si consum urias de energie. Geniul nu e creat, ci asa s-a nascut. Astfel, beneficiezi de o putere incredibila de procesare cognitiva, way beyond your peers, dar cu efecte secundare grave precum depresie, solitudine, stari melancolice si suicidare, incapacitatea de a-si gasi partener etc. Cu cat esti mai destept, cu atat iti va mai greu sa gasesti oameni care sa te inteleaga, insa mai ales sa-ti gasesti un partener (Birds of a feather flock together), deoarece societatea, in comparatie, e dominata de procesoare Celeron, fata de geniu, Intel Core i9.
De asemenea, autorul nu mentioneaza cum au putut deveni, in primul rand, polimati. Raspunsul este ca toti polimatii impartasesc genetic o trasatura fundamentala: IQ superior. Poti sa citesti mii de carti, sa inveti cat mai multe chestii, insa va fi extrem de greu sa devii polimat fara un IQ superior. Este drept ca polimatii au citit extrem de mult la viata lor pentru a obtine aria de expertiza in diferite domenii, dar setea de cunoastere este un by-product al IQ-ului superior. Neurogeneza are totusi limitele sale. E ca si cum ai vrea sa alergi proba de 100m in 9.60s, fara sa ai fibre de tip Fast-Twitch precum are Usain Bolt, crezand ca un antrenament obsesiv te va ajuta vreodata. Nu, potentialul este minim fara pachetul genetic corespunzator. Nu suntem egali biologic nu doar la inaltime, gene recesive, telomeri (regenerare celulara) etc., dar si la genele responsabile pentru inteligenta. John von Neumann, cu un IQ de 160, ar fi putut sa citeze din memorie pagini întregi de cărți citite cu ani în urmă si o viteza de procesare incredibila, mult peste a lui Einstein, insa creatorul teoriei relativitatii il depasea la creativitate. Indivizii cu IQ superior sunt fascinati, inca din primii ani de viata, de cunoastere, singurul stimul real si util al creierului lor nestavilit, insetat dupa devorarea informatiei, de mecanismele ce opereaza culisele realitatii, de elucubratiile vietii, fiind inzestrati cu o curiozitate extraordinara si tind sa devina polimati. Dincolo de degringolada sociala, ei decodifica acest malaxor al vietii la un nivel imperceptibil pentru omul obisnuit. Activitatea lor cognitiva opereaza la o capacitate incredibila. Creierul acestora simte o nevoie exacerbata de a acumula, intelege si procesa informatia, de a sti cat mai multe, de a invata, de a citi, de a forma tipare acestui labirint energetic. Ei prefera solitudinea ca masura de conservare, de a se proteja de vitregiile vietii si de a-si maximiza potentialul. Implinirea personala a unui individ se realizeaza in tenebrele singuratatii, in deplinatatea si umbra propriului eu, nu in multime, deoarece aceasta slabeste, altereaza, omogenizeaza si lezeaza integritatea intelectuala. Te mulezi, te camuflezi, te disociezi, pana cand devii ca ei.
Veti observa cum copiii cu IQ superior manifesta, inca din primii ani de viata, inclinatii intelectuale neobisnuite, curiozitate mare, limbaj dezvoltat, citesc de la 3-4 ani, vocabular complex, memorie, constiinciozitate sporita, deschidere catre experiente noi, prefera sa aiba discutii cu adultii decat cei de varsta lor etc.
Pe final, autorul isi manifesta subtila elegie pentru avansul tehnologic, culminat cu aparitia internetului prin anii '90, cauzand totodata si extinctia polimatiei, care nu mai este apreciata si introducerea hiperspecializarii. Din pacate, suntem martorii secolului cu genii pe cale de extinctie. Sinapsele neuronale sunt nestimulate la potentialul din trecut si intra in regresie. "Muchiul" nu mai e antrenat.
Recomand cartea! Chiar am si notat cateva carti, mentionate de autor, pe care am de gand sa le citesc:
Istoria sexualității - Michel Foucault;
Archaeology Of Knowledge - Michel Foucault;
Utilitatea inutilului - Nuccio Ordine (cu faimosul eseu despre importanta lecturii al polimatului Abraham Flexner);
Foucault, cunoasterea si istoria - Lucian Popescu;
Proust and the Squid - Maryanne Wolf.
Suplimentar pentru Romania:
Articolul este despre genialitate, cu precadere IQ-ul ridicat in zona de nord a tarii, in urma statisticilor si nr. mare de oameni de cultura. Cert e ca selectia genetica (varietatea/diversificarea etnica/rasiala) din nordul tarii a favorizat aparitia acestor genii, iar reminescentele genetice subzista si astazi.
Link: https://adevarul.ro/stiri-locale/boto...
May 13, 2022
What is the book about? And can I recommend it?
Yes, I can recommend it. Although the half of the book Peter Burke merely enumerates names of polymaths and what they did to gain polymathic status, I found the other half engaging, partly because it outlines the development of knowledge and its increasing specialisation, but majorly because it reveals much about polymathy culture: the way general education and universality changed as a desideratum within the ages of history, the way it developed in institutional education, and also how polymaths were regarded by their contemporaries in turn. What I also liked was the depiction of the typical qualities, habitats and niches of many-sided individuals.
What I liked best, however, was that I have been encouraged to pursue my own life-project of interest exploration and accumulation of knowledge to gain personal wisdom and to make a meaningful contribution by it's integration.
What are some of the facts and ideas that sparked my interest?
What is a polymath?
- Master of several disciplines
- Meaning changes over course of the history of knowledge and education
- See connections between fields that have been separated and which the insiders fail to see
What are the types of polymathy?
- passive: know everything but unproductive
- between passive and active: systematisers or synthesisers
- clustered/limited: a few *related* disciplines
- Learning serially or simultaneously
- centrifugal: accumulating knowledge without worrying about connections, curiosity
- centripetal: unity, grand scheme, beauty of order
- most polymaths are in between centrifugal and centripetal
- Those who see connections, those who claim to see them, those who demonstrate them.
- in all ages by many considered to be superficial, imposters, charlatans
- they seem dispersed, although for the polymath the things are connected
What are their habitats?
- Polymaths do not only require specific qualities, but also an appropriate niche to unfold themselves.
- Protestantism (work ethic)
- Home Education; autodidactism; exmatriculation from universities
- Independence: social and financial
- Enforced leisure
- Networks/Collabaration: meetings, correspondence, vertical and horizontal networks
- Families
- Niches:
-> Schools and universities: unfavourable because other places offer more freedom, but some unis allow to move from one faculty to another
-> Libraries and museums:
-> Encyclopedias and journals:
-> Newspapers
What are the polymath's typical qualities?
- Curiosity
- Good memory: to remember what one has learned and thereby effectively draw connections and integrate
- Speed: quick apprehension
- Imagination: daydreaming, ability to connect, ability to reemploy terms and concepts from one discipline in another (displacement)
- Ability to concentrate (perceived as absent-mindedness)
- Multitasking
- Energy/Restlessness: the ability to work tirelessly
- Work: actually making use of the energy (however, nervous breakdowns were common), uninterrupted work
- Time-Management
- Competition
- Playfulness
- impatience, Leonardo-Syndrome (inability to carry things through; although many produced pieces or even masterpieces, many of their pieces were never started or, if started, finished)
What are the three crises of knowledge?
1. Gutenberg Revolution: 2nd half of 15th century
2. Cheap print: 2nd half of 19th century
3. Internet: 1990s. We may become mere decoders who don’t take time to transform information into knowledge anymore; who forget to read slowly and closely.
What is the history of polymathy over the ages?
1. In anicent greece
- "polythema" was a term back then already
- many sophists had a bad reputation
2. The Age of the Renaissance Man: 1400-1600
- ideal: Universality, a full human being; to some including the arts and practical abilites like dancing
- 1st explosion of knowledge: Gutenberg revolution
3. The Age of Monsters of Erudition : 1600-1700
- golden age of universality
- focus on academic polymathy
4. The Age of the Man of Letters: 1700-1850
- learning as pedantry; polyhistors merely provide some material to the philosophers
- Polymath as pseudo-scholar
- Hybris was common
- A new ideal: cultivation showed in conversations in everyday situations
5. The Age of Territoriality: 1850-2000
- from dilettane, someone who delights in sth, to pejorative meaning of superficiality
- from amateur, who loved art or learning, to pejorative meaning of superficiality
- 2nd explosion of knowledge: printing of books became cheaper, more knowledge produced
- 1830s: “scientist”
- higher education still general in beginning, but increasing specialisation
6. The Age of Interdisciplinarity
- Burke’s claim: It is hard to be a polymath today, but if you are truly engaged you can cluster in a few disciplines.
- Unification: Institutions with purpose to unify knowledge (e.g. Neurath)
- General education became aim of some universities
Other facts
- only 12 female polymaths between 1450 and 1800 shows restricted access
- Complaints by heads of unis of overspecialisation 1890s onwards
- Leibniz: "What we need is universal men. For one who can connect all things can do more than ten people."
Yes, I can recommend it. Although the half of the book Peter Burke merely enumerates names of polymaths and what they did to gain polymathic status, I found the other half engaging, partly because it outlines the development of knowledge and its increasing specialisation, but majorly because it reveals much about polymathy culture: the way general education and universality changed as a desideratum within the ages of history, the way it developed in institutional education, and also how polymaths were regarded by their contemporaries in turn. What I also liked was the depiction of the typical qualities, habitats and niches of many-sided individuals.
What I liked best, however, was that I have been encouraged to pursue my own life-project of interest exploration and accumulation of knowledge to gain personal wisdom and to make a meaningful contribution by it's integration.
What are some of the facts and ideas that sparked my interest?
What is a polymath?
- Master of several disciplines
- Meaning changes over course of the history of knowledge and education
- See connections between fields that have been separated and which the insiders fail to see
What are the types of polymathy?
- passive: know everything but unproductive
- between passive and active: systematisers or synthesisers
- clustered/limited: a few *related* disciplines
- Learning serially or simultaneously
- centrifugal: accumulating knowledge without worrying about connections, curiosity
- centripetal: unity, grand scheme, beauty of order
- most polymaths are in between centrifugal and centripetal
- Those who see connections, those who claim to see them, those who demonstrate them.
- in all ages by many considered to be superficial, imposters, charlatans
- they seem dispersed, although for the polymath the things are connected
What are their habitats?
- Polymaths do not only require specific qualities, but also an appropriate niche to unfold themselves.
- Protestantism (work ethic)
- Home Education; autodidactism; exmatriculation from universities
- Independence: social and financial
- Enforced leisure
- Networks/Collabaration: meetings, correspondence, vertical and horizontal networks
- Families
- Niches:
-> Schools and universities: unfavourable because other places offer more freedom, but some unis allow to move from one faculty to another
-> Libraries and museums:
-> Encyclopedias and journals:
-> Newspapers
What are the polymath's typical qualities?
- Curiosity
- Good memory: to remember what one has learned and thereby effectively draw connections and integrate
- Speed: quick apprehension
- Imagination: daydreaming, ability to connect, ability to reemploy terms and concepts from one discipline in another (displacement)
- Ability to concentrate (perceived as absent-mindedness)
- Multitasking
- Energy/Restlessness: the ability to work tirelessly
- Work: actually making use of the energy (however, nervous breakdowns were common), uninterrupted work
- Time-Management
- Competition
- Playfulness
- impatience, Leonardo-Syndrome (inability to carry things through; although many produced pieces or even masterpieces, many of their pieces were never started or, if started, finished)
What are the three crises of knowledge?
1. Gutenberg Revolution: 2nd half of 15th century
2. Cheap print: 2nd half of 19th century
3. Internet: 1990s. We may become mere decoders who don’t take time to transform information into knowledge anymore; who forget to read slowly and closely.
What is the history of polymathy over the ages?
1. In anicent greece
- "polythema" was a term back then already
- many sophists had a bad reputation
2. The Age of the Renaissance Man: 1400-1600
- ideal: Universality, a full human being; to some including the arts and practical abilites like dancing
- 1st explosion of knowledge: Gutenberg revolution
3. The Age of Monsters of Erudition : 1600-1700
- golden age of universality
- focus on academic polymathy
4. The Age of the Man of Letters: 1700-1850
- learning as pedantry; polyhistors merely provide some material to the philosophers
- Polymath as pseudo-scholar
- Hybris was common
- A new ideal: cultivation showed in conversations in everyday situations
5. The Age of Territoriality: 1850-2000
- from dilettane, someone who delights in sth, to pejorative meaning of superficiality
- from amateur, who loved art or learning, to pejorative meaning of superficiality
- 2nd explosion of knowledge: printing of books became cheaper, more knowledge produced
- 1830s: “scientist”
- higher education still general in beginning, but increasing specialisation
6. The Age of Interdisciplinarity
- Burke’s claim: It is hard to be a polymath today, but if you are truly engaged you can cluster in a few disciplines.
- Unification: Institutions with purpose to unify knowledge (e.g. Neurath)
- General education became aim of some universities
Other facts
- only 12 female polymaths between 1450 and 1800 shows restricted access
- Complaints by heads of unis of overspecialisation 1890s onwards
- Leibniz: "What we need is universal men. For one who can connect all things can do more than ten people."
July 1, 2022
O lucrare despre cei mai fascinanți savanți, oameni de știință și filosofi ai ultimei jumătăți de mileniu. Mai bine spus, o scurtă introducere în acest fenomen al polimaților, acei însetați de cunoașterea generală, "maeștri" în mai multe domenii academice.
Deși o bună parte din lucrare este mai mult o trecere în revistă a acestor polimați, printre aceste portrete diverse sunt abordate și problematici precum fragmentarea disciplinelor și conflictul dintre "cunoașterea generală" și "specializare", modul în care sistemul universitar occidental s-a schimbat de-a lungul istoriei, conflictele dintre polimați în diferite epoci, tiparele și habitatelor acestor "monștri ai cunoașterii", ori statutul polimatului clasic în contextul în care majoritatea contribuțiilor sale au fost "superficiale" ori caracteristice "sindromului Leonardo".
Perfectă pentru cei care sunt interesați de subiect și vor să aibă un punct de pornire/ o privire de ansamblu. Din păcate, deși descrierea pare promițătoare, Peter Burke nu a reușit să trateze mai în detaliu măcar anumite personaje/problematici, astfel că pe alocuri lucrarea însăși suferă de superficialitate, precum polimații în general. Un alt minus este concentrarea aproape exclusivă pe situația din lumea occidentală. În ciuda acestor observații, trebuie să mai adaug că am apreciat cartea pentru că m-a pus în contact cu numeroase nume pe care nu le cunoșteam, m-a introdus mai bine în universul și mintea unui polimat și pentru că m-a făcut să văd puțin altfel conflictul dintre "generalizare" și "specializare".
Deși o bună parte din lucrare este mai mult o trecere în revistă a acestor polimați, printre aceste portrete diverse sunt abordate și problematici precum fragmentarea disciplinelor și conflictul dintre "cunoașterea generală" și "specializare", modul în care sistemul universitar occidental s-a schimbat de-a lungul istoriei, conflictele dintre polimați în diferite epoci, tiparele și habitatelor acestor "monștri ai cunoașterii", ori statutul polimatului clasic în contextul în care majoritatea contribuțiilor sale au fost "superficiale" ori caracteristice "sindromului Leonardo".
Perfectă pentru cei care sunt interesați de subiect și vor să aibă un punct de pornire/ o privire de ansamblu. Din păcate, deși descrierea pare promițătoare, Peter Burke nu a reușit să trateze mai în detaliu măcar anumite personaje/problematici, astfel că pe alocuri lucrarea însăși suferă de superficialitate, precum polimații în general. Un alt minus este concentrarea aproape exclusivă pe situația din lumea occidentală. În ciuda acestor observații, trebuie să mai adaug că am apreciat cartea pentru că m-a pus în contact cu numeroase nume pe care nu le cunoșteam, m-a introdus mai bine în universul și mintea unui polimat și pentru că m-a făcut să văd puțin altfel conflictul dintre "generalizare" și "specializare".
January 18, 2021
Giving an overview over some of the most fascinating scholars, scientists and other thinkers of the past half millenium, this book provides an interesting introduction to many of these intriguing figures but ultimately leaves one with rather little in the way of actual insight. The IMO most interesting parts of the book concerned discussion of general developments in scholarly discourse, increasingly specialised fields of study, and education, while the brief portraits of the exhaustive list of people Burke ascribes the polymath label to remain to cursory to do the subjects justice.
August 4, 2022
Recuerdo la primera vez que leí algo de Burke con esa mezcla de miedo y orgullo que significa ser conscientes de estar entendo en un terreno nuevo, en uno de esos campos que ya se intuye que dejarán una semilla. Era 2004 y fui la única persona de mi promoción que escogió un libro para defender el examen oral de "maturità" de historia. Desde aquella lectura de Historia social de los medios, con 18 años, seguí con curiosidad y una pizca de devoción a este erudito que, de alguna manera, nos ayuda a entender un poco más el mundo en el que vivimos y la historia que lo configura.
El polímata me ha parecido sin duda interesantísimo (además, imposible que no acabara leyendo algo que en su título menciona expresamente a Susan Sontag), pero las tesis y los vínculos que trata de tejer a lo largo de la obra (si es que trata de hacer eso) parecen algo endebles y tocadas muy superficialmente, casi forzadas pese a su pertinencia. Tanto que toda la lectura acaba siendo más bien un decálogo, una citación continúa de grandes eruditos que se pueden catalogar bajo la complicada etiqueta de polímata (una etiqueta que siempre me ha gustado y atraído hasta el punto de considerar ese enfoque indispensable en una sociedad que, como bien se remarca en la obra, tiene una tendencia suicida hacia la especialización).
De todos modos, como siempre pasa con el autor, las páginas nos regalan una lectura amenísima, documentada con minucia y que deja esa esa semilla de conocimiento que te permite tener la sensación de entender las cosas un poquito mejor.
El polímata me ha parecido sin duda interesantísimo (además, imposible que no acabara leyendo algo que en su título menciona expresamente a Susan Sontag), pero las tesis y los vínculos que trata de tejer a lo largo de la obra (si es que trata de hacer eso) parecen algo endebles y tocadas muy superficialmente, casi forzadas pese a su pertinencia. Tanto que toda la lectura acaba siendo más bien un decálogo, una citación continúa de grandes eruditos que se pueden catalogar bajo la complicada etiqueta de polímata (una etiqueta que siempre me ha gustado y atraído hasta el punto de considerar ese enfoque indispensable en una sociedad que, como bien se remarca en la obra, tiene una tendencia suicida hacia la especialización).
De todos modos, como siempre pasa con el autor, las páginas nos regalan una lectura amenísima, documentada con minucia y que deja esa esa semilla de conocimiento que te permite tener la sensación de entender las cosas un poquito mejor.
January 11, 2021
(Audiobook) (2.5 stars) This work attempts to define what it is to be a polymath and the various individuals who could qualify under such a definition. In particular, Burks looks to show that it is not always as simple as those who dabble in a little bit of everything. A polymath can be versatile in various disciplines with a certain area. Burke also notes that some areas and times may see more polymaths than others based on access to reading material and type of education.
However, as an audiobook, I found this book hard to focus on when listening. The reader, while not terrible, was not the best at conveying the material in a way that perhaps just reading the hard/e-copy. This work also came across as a glorified list at times, when mentioning the various names, perhaps too many at one time to get the point across for certain sections. Overall, I didn't get as much out of the audiobook as I would have visually reading.
Perhaps worth a read, and the rating would be a bit higher, but not sure I could endorse the audiobook.
However, as an audiobook, I found this book hard to focus on when listening. The reader, while not terrible, was not the best at conveying the material in a way that perhaps just reading the hard/e-copy. This work also came across as a glorified list at times, when mentioning the various names, perhaps too many at one time to get the point across for certain sections. Overall, I didn't get as much out of the audiobook as I would have visually reading.
Perhaps worth a read, and the rating would be a bit higher, but not sure I could endorse the audiobook.
January 19, 2021
Dry with little pay off. Contains only a chapter of synthesis on the habits/traits/cultures that produce polymaths, and even then it's not that insightful... (polymaths are curious, often workaholics, and live in a culture where 'dilettante' isn't a pejorative). Most of the book is simply a rapid fire list of polymaths appended with a sentence or two of bio, organized by time period. At best, a good launching off point for finding detailed biographies about less-known figures.
Read
February 19, 2022The book is mainly focused on the debate on specialization and interdisciplinarity and its consequences for knowledge production. Burke looks at polymath (highly interdisciplinary scholars), their habitat, and questions what enabled their creativity. Good for those who are interested in the history of knowledge, but this exploration is mainly focused on individuals, rather than social context and environment.
June 30, 2021
it's a good list of European polymath specialists. But unfortunately I cannot agree on conclusion about modern polymathes.
September 6, 2023
It was almost *too* boring to be a Boring Bedtime Book...
October 25, 2024
Muita descrição. Interessante mas nada de excepcional.
July 1, 2024
3,5 stars; the author in a way penned down a swan-song of the 'homo universalis' or 'renaissance man/woman (mostly men in those days)'; that dying breed of highly able generalists excelling in multiple fields of science and/or the humanities; was pleased to find, finally, some attention given to Michael Polanyi, the totally ignored scientist (chemist) later philosopher of science. The writing style could've been more upbeat, bit tedious in places.
December 31, 2023
Nel libro “Il genio universale” Peter Burke (uno dei più autorevoli storici europei) fa una ricerca e un analisi dei vari geni universali che si sono manifestati in Europa e in America dal quindicesimo secolo in poi.
Ma cos’è un genio universale? In sostanza è un individuo che eccelle in più discipline diverse tra loro.
In passato non c’erano molte informazioni a disposizione, e la linea di confine tra una disciplina e l’altra non era così netta. Per questo era facile che una persona curiosa, con il giusto impegno, riuscisse ad eccellere in più discipline.
Questo è il caso di Leonardo Da Vinci, il genio universale per eccellenza, che è stato artista, ingegnere, architetto, filosofo, scienziato, musicista, e solo dio sa cos’altro.
Ma anche prima di Leonardo ci sono stati personaggi famosi che si sono interessati in più campi del sapere. Aristotele, per esempio, viene ricordato principalmente come filosofo, ma ha scritto anche di matematica, fisica, cosmologia, anatomia, zoologia, e altro.
Tra le donne troviamo Ipazia di Alessandria che scrisse di filosofia, matematica e astronomia.
Il rinascimento viene considerato l’età d’oro degli uomini universali, perché le nuove conoscenze arrivavano al ritmo giusto per eccitare la curiosità degli studiosi, senza però sopraffarli. Dal settecento in poi, invece, il sovraccarico d’informazioni ha reso sempre più difficile poter approfondire discipline diverse tra loro.
Ciononostante comparvero diversi geni universali che hanno giocato un ruolo centrale nello sviluppo della nostra cultura, tra i più noti ricordiamo Hume, Goethe, Tocqueville, Mill e Darwin.
“Il generalista ha un compito speciale, quello di riunire campi molto distanti e prudentemente recintati dagli specialisti in un’area comune più ampia, visibile solo dall’alto.”
Purtroppo le donne universali compaiono in numero nettamente inferiore, soprattutto nel rinascimento, perché per loro era difficile accedere all’istruzione. La donna universale più recente e d’impatto è forse Susan Sontag, che collezionò 10.000 libri, scrisse saggi, romanzi, opere teatrali e diresse film. Scrisse di filosofia, psicanalisi, danza, pittura, cinema e altro.
Insomma, se vi affascina la figura del genio universale, quest’opera di Peter Burke farà sicuramente al caso vostro. Forse in alcuni punti il libro risulta troppo enciclopedico, ma è inevitabile quando si devono trattare così tante figure in un unico volume.
Ma cos’è un genio universale? In sostanza è un individuo che eccelle in più discipline diverse tra loro.
In passato non c’erano molte informazioni a disposizione, e la linea di confine tra una disciplina e l’altra non era così netta. Per questo era facile che una persona curiosa, con il giusto impegno, riuscisse ad eccellere in più discipline.
Questo è il caso di Leonardo Da Vinci, il genio universale per eccellenza, che è stato artista, ingegnere, architetto, filosofo, scienziato, musicista, e solo dio sa cos’altro.
Ma anche prima di Leonardo ci sono stati personaggi famosi che si sono interessati in più campi del sapere. Aristotele, per esempio, viene ricordato principalmente come filosofo, ma ha scritto anche di matematica, fisica, cosmologia, anatomia, zoologia, e altro.
Tra le donne troviamo Ipazia di Alessandria che scrisse di filosofia, matematica e astronomia.
Il rinascimento viene considerato l’età d’oro degli uomini universali, perché le nuove conoscenze arrivavano al ritmo giusto per eccitare la curiosità degli studiosi, senza però sopraffarli. Dal settecento in poi, invece, il sovraccarico d’informazioni ha reso sempre più difficile poter approfondire discipline diverse tra loro.
Ciononostante comparvero diversi geni universali che hanno giocato un ruolo centrale nello sviluppo della nostra cultura, tra i più noti ricordiamo Hume, Goethe, Tocqueville, Mill e Darwin.
“Il generalista ha un compito speciale, quello di riunire campi molto distanti e prudentemente recintati dagli specialisti in un’area comune più ampia, visibile solo dall’alto.”
Purtroppo le donne universali compaiono in numero nettamente inferiore, soprattutto nel rinascimento, perché per loro era difficile accedere all’istruzione. La donna universale più recente e d’impatto è forse Susan Sontag, che collezionò 10.000 libri, scrisse saggi, romanzi, opere teatrali e diresse film. Scrisse di filosofia, psicanalisi, danza, pittura, cinema e altro.
Insomma, se vi affascina la figura del genio universale, quest’opera di Peter Burke farà sicuramente al caso vostro. Forse in alcuni punti il libro risulta troppo enciclopedico, ma è inevitabile quando si devono trattare così tante figure in un unico volume.
December 18, 2024
Mi-aș fi dorit o discuție mai amănunțită despre figura legendară a „polimatului” și exemple cu adevărat reprezentative. Din păcate, autorul a procedat fix pe dos, mica teorie despre „polimat” (= omul foarte citit, individul care stăpînește cel puțin două domenii ale cunoașterii) e urmată de o înșiruire interminabilă de savanți mai mult sau mai puțin citiți, mai mult sau mai puțin cunoscuți.
În opinia mea, polimatul e o celebritate sau nu e nimic. Altfel spus, polimatul a contribuit activ la avansul cunoașterii, a uimit lumea științei prin invențiile și ipotezele sale, nu s-a ascuns în ceața anonimatului. Ideea de „polimat pasiv” (Burke numește cel puțin doi: Aldous Huxley și Jorge Luis Borges) e o contradicție în termeni. La ce bun a mai străbătut cineva cercul științelor, dacă pînă la urmă n-a scris absolut nimic? Nu poți stima un om doar pentru că a învățat mult (și multe) și este în stare să vorbească despre (absolut) orice cu egală (in)competență. Aproape toți indivizii citați de Burke știau, mai degrabă, din toate cîte nimic. În vremea nostră, cînd se publică o mie de cărți zilnic, noțiunea de „polimat” și-a pierdut complet semnificația (dacă a avut vreodată).
Mă întreb, în plus, ce semnificație poate avea faptul că Thomas Browne se pricepea în medicină sau în alchimie? Ce era medicina la 1650? Cum poate fi pus Lombroso în rîndul eminent al polimaților (alături de Leonardo da Vinci) doar pentru că s-a ilustrat în frenologie, o știință inexistentă (Burke pretinde că era specialist și în „parapsihologie”)? Și cum poate lipsi dintre polimați Immanuel Kant, autorul așa-numitei „ipoteze Kant-Laplace” (care ține, firește, de cosmologie)? Nu „stăpînea” Kant cel puțin două domenii?
În textul original, numele celei care a scris Speculum of the Other Woman, Luce Irigaray, e scris de trei ori și de fiecare dată greșit. Nici traducerea românească nu e mai brează. Un proiect interesant de care s-a ales praful...
P. S. Cum să fie românul Zevedei Barbu (anonim pînă și în țara lui) un polimat? Peter Burke a vrut, probabil, să împace și capra și varza și principiile „corectitudinii politice” și „feminismul”. A dat greș. E imposibil să dovedești că Susan Sontag a fost un polimat, cînd nici ea nu și-a dorit o astfel de titulatură...
În opinia mea, polimatul e o celebritate sau nu e nimic. Altfel spus, polimatul a contribuit activ la avansul cunoașterii, a uimit lumea științei prin invențiile și ipotezele sale, nu s-a ascuns în ceața anonimatului. Ideea de „polimat pasiv” (Burke numește cel puțin doi: Aldous Huxley și Jorge Luis Borges) e o contradicție în termeni. La ce bun a mai străbătut cineva cercul științelor, dacă pînă la urmă n-a scris absolut nimic? Nu poți stima un om doar pentru că a învățat mult (și multe) și este în stare să vorbească despre (absolut) orice cu egală (in)competență. Aproape toți indivizii citați de Burke știau, mai degrabă, din toate cîte nimic. În vremea nostră, cînd se publică o mie de cărți zilnic, noțiunea de „polimat” și-a pierdut complet semnificația (dacă a avut vreodată).
Mă întreb, în plus, ce semnificație poate avea faptul că Thomas Browne se pricepea în medicină sau în alchimie? Ce era medicina la 1650? Cum poate fi pus Lombroso în rîndul eminent al polimaților (alături de Leonardo da Vinci) doar pentru că s-a ilustrat în frenologie, o știință inexistentă (Burke pretinde că era specialist și în „parapsihologie”)? Și cum poate lipsi dintre polimați Immanuel Kant, autorul așa-numitei „ipoteze Kant-Laplace” (care ține, firește, de cosmologie)? Nu „stăpînea” Kant cel puțin două domenii?
În textul original, numele celei care a scris Speculum of the Other Woman, Luce Irigaray, e scris de trei ori și de fiecare dată greșit. Nici traducerea românească nu e mai brează. Un proiect interesant de care s-a ales praful...
P. S. Cum să fie românul Zevedei Barbu (anonim pînă și în țara lui) un polimat? Peter Burke a vrut, probabil, să împace și capra și varza și principiile „corectitudinii politice” și „feminismul”. A dat greș. E imposibil să dovedești că Susan Sontag a fost un polimat, cînd nici ea nu și-a dorit o astfel de titulatură...
June 14, 2025
I don’t remember the first time someone referred to me as a “Renaissance man,” but I must have been fairly young, as I didn’t fully understand what the phrase meant, and I’d never heard it before. It may have been an exaggeration then, but the notion is something I came to embrace more consciously in subsequent years, and I would certainly lay claim to being a polymath today…with all the baggage the term entails. “Renaissance man” is not the unadulterated compliment I once considered it, and I can speak from experience that the pursuit of many fields of study is no unalloyed boon. The criticisms often leveraged against polymaths – scattered, spread too thin, possessing merely surface level knowledge about many topics, tending never to finish anything – are often fair. Da Vinci, perhaps the most famous, prototypical Renaissance man, certainly demonstrated them, although others, like Brunelleschi, combined abilities and managed to complete great works.
Burke’s book on polymaths is no paean to the idealized renaissance man; although the book purports to survey the factors that both advantage and disadvantage polymaths in various eras, a certain skepticism seems to pervade his approach. In fairness, if his survey of polymaths throughout the ages is representative, some degree of skepticism is warranted; the number who, despite being considered well-read and broadly intelligent in their time, failed to produce lasting contributions is cautionary. Even famous names whose works do endure, like Da Vinci, have biographies littered with unfinished projects and half-begun enterprises, dreams which were never brought to fruition, just as we saw with Hooke. It is a fear I have for myself – not that I am so arrogant as to think my efforts worth being remembered four hundred years from now, but that I have not the time in my mortal span to complete all the projects and studies I should like to pursue.
Despite the subtitle referring to the book as a “cultural history,” The Polymath is more a survey book than it is a proper history. Most of the text is spent listing representative polymaths, divided into eras, and providing brief biographies for each, usually only a few paragraphs. Burke provides a little context and framing, and goes a little deeper on a few of the more impactful individuals, but a “little deeper” in this case means maybe a dozen paragraphs, at most. At some point, the various polymaths start to blur together. Furthermore, many of Burke’s later polymathic subjects are not what I would consider polymaths. Well, that may be unfair – they may constitute a type of polymath – but they are primarily critics, people who study a broad range of the so-called humanities and write reviews, critiques, and essays on a variety of topics. This is not what I think of when I think of the term “polymath” – one of my basic requirements for considering someone a polymath is practicing in both technical and nontechnical fields, like I do with my fiction writing and my astronautical engineering.
After reaching a few contemporary exemplars (who, as mentioned above, may or may not qualify in my personal definition), Burke turns to some rudimentary analysis of polymathy trends through history, discussing the conditions which tend to favor or disfavor polymaths, and the contributions which they make to human knowledge and understanding. This section, although analysis-based, is comparable to the rest of the book in being more a survey than an in-depth, scholarly treatment. Burke is supposedly something of a specialist in the study of the history of knowledge, but his writing does not reflect it – it is detailed, but not thoughtful. Despite the prolific endnotes with which the text is populated, The Polymath suffers from the fate of many nonfiction books written with appeal to a general audience in mind, being rather dilute and shallow in its treatment and approach compared to what I seek.
In fact, this book prompted me to a long-overdue reckoning with the “general readership” nonfiction books on my reading list. I’ve already begun sorting out the ones written by journalists or communicators, rather than by experts in the subject being addressed. Now, I wonder if I should, instead of adding these books to my reading list, find the key scholarly sources they reference and read those, instead. It can be difficult to tell the difference without reading the book sometimes, though, and there is a place for such treatments – I don’t always want to read three books on a subject anymore than I want to read a book lacking in depth and thoughtful analysis. Isn’t that the polymath’s trap? That I seek to spread my knowledge so thin that I worry over the time it would take to read those three books, as opposed to one, while simultaneously lamenting that the one book is of insufficient density? Perhaps we do spread ourselves too thin, but there is a role for polymaths in an age of specialization, and perhaps especially then. Burke doesn’t make it explicit, but his discussion of the polymath’s role in unifying knowledge and inventing new fields of study goes to the same notion we discussed in our post about innovation: it is in synthesizing a detailed knowledge of disparate subjects that innovation, as opposed to extrapolation, can be achieved.
May 29, 2022
For the first few chapters, it seemed to me this book really wanted to be an encyclopaedia of polymaths. It basically names individuals from whichever era the chapter covers, lists their interests and works, and provides perhaps a little historical context (though not enough, for my taste). One interesting fact mentioned is that debates about the merits of specialization versus a more generalized education were occurring in ancient Greece and China. They are not only the product of modern, industrialized societies.
Eventually, the book does get to the crux of the matter: what makes polymaths who they are, and what personality traits do they tend to have? They tend to be from well-to-do backgrounds, particularly in historical periods in which education was still defined as a luxury associated with wealth. It also seems that they often have parents who are also polymaths and encourage their children's broad intellectual pursuits. Personality-wise, they tend to be restless, highly energetic, nomadic, and interested in working for peace. They are often able to survive on less sleep than others, working 16-hour days. Some of them have day jobs and do their scholarly activities in the morning from 4am to 8am, or alternatively, late at night. They also frequently have 'Leonardo syndrome', starting many projects that never get completed (no prizes for guessing who that's named after).
Overall, this might be an interesting read as a starting point for those who wish to explore the phenomenon, but it seems a little selective in its focus at times, skating over some influential thinkers (such as Erasmus) and devoting more time to others who are not quite so influential. It doesn't go into a huge amount of depth on any of the thinkers and the forces that may have shaped them, and as such, it reads as if we're constantly at a surface level. As stated, the book feels like it missed its calling as an encyclopedia, or perhaps a dictionary of biography.
Eventually, the book does get to the crux of the matter: what makes polymaths who they are, and what personality traits do they tend to have? They tend to be from well-to-do backgrounds, particularly in historical periods in which education was still defined as a luxury associated with wealth. It also seems that they often have parents who are also polymaths and encourage their children's broad intellectual pursuits. Personality-wise, they tend to be restless, highly energetic, nomadic, and interested in working for peace. They are often able to survive on less sleep than others, working 16-hour days. Some of them have day jobs and do their scholarly activities in the morning from 4am to 8am, or alternatively, late at night. They also frequently have 'Leonardo syndrome', starting many projects that never get completed (no prizes for guessing who that's named after).
Overall, this might be an interesting read as a starting point for those who wish to explore the phenomenon, but it seems a little selective in its focus at times, skating over some influential thinkers (such as Erasmus) and devoting more time to others who are not quite so influential. It doesn't go into a huge amount of depth on any of the thinkers and the forces that may have shaped them, and as such, it reads as if we're constantly at a surface level. As stated, the book feels like it missed its calling as an encyclopedia, or perhaps a dictionary of biography.
July 1, 2025
Un polímata es alguien con grandes conocimientos en distintas materias. El paradigma es Leonardo, pero fueron y aún son infinidad: no es una condición excepcional, muchas personas compaginan sus intereses profesionales, sus estudios e incluso sus aficiones artísticas con resultados sobresalientes en todas sus actividades. No resulta, pues, tan rara la polimatía, es algo natural, consustancial a las personas curiosas e inteligentes, si es que ambas cualidades, curiosidad e inteligencia, no son una y la misma o una no lleva a la otra, o viceversa. En ese sentido, no es difícil encontrar en los anales de la Historia personas que acumularon conocimientos en distintos campos artísticos, científicos e intelectuales. Peter Burke recoge quinientos, un número redondo y caprichoso para una lista en la que quizá falten algunos y sobren bastantes.
:: El asunto de qué es y en qué consiste el "fenómeno" se agota pronto.
:: El análisis de cómo se entendía en las distintas épocas resulta banal.
:: La controversia entre polimatía y erudición, incluso polifacetismo, carece de sentido.
:: Conceptos como autodidactismo o enciclopedismo se explican por sí solos,
· Y aun así, Peter Burke se las ingenia para alargar un anecdotario cuyo mayor mérito es el compilatorio, al cabo una suerte de catálogo, ordenado por fechas, en el se van presentando personajes con dotes similares como si de bichos raros se trataran. En definitiva, un libro repetitivo y bastante aburrido.
:: El asunto de qué es y en qué consiste el "fenómeno" se agota pronto.
:: El análisis de cómo se entendía en las distintas épocas resulta banal.
:: La controversia entre polimatía y erudición, incluso polifacetismo, carece de sentido.
:: Conceptos como autodidactismo o enciclopedismo se explican por sí solos,
· Y aun así, Peter Burke se las ingenia para alargar un anecdotario cuyo mayor mérito es el compilatorio, al cabo una suerte de catálogo, ordenado por fechas, en el se van presentando personajes con dotes similares como si de bichos raros se trataran. En definitiva, un libro repetitivo y bastante aburrido.
March 18, 2022
2.5.This book was highly disappointing. For one it turned out to be a very very dry book that I struggled hard to finish it. It seemed more like a catalog of Western polymaths rather than any sensible synthesis or analysis of polymathy. One problem with the book is the near exclusive white male focus which the author admits but seems to justify over and over by stressing that he could bot include more women according to his strict definition of pymaths and blames it on the limited opportunity for women to pursue intellectual ambitions through the ages. I suspect it was the case of not looking enough. The justification to focus on the west is that he cannot talk about what he does not know which also seems flimsy in this age of insclusivity. Also the study of pomymaths comfortably glosses over the imperialist ambitions of many included. Some acknowledgment of this could have made the book a bit more palatable.
There were also some very flimsy statements about how Linus Pauling could not elucidate the structure of DNA as he was distracted wot multiple things! The vilification of sleep and the argument that polymaths do more as they sleep less was laughably simplistic.
The spirit of polymathy definitely got blurred in a slurry of half thought out justifications and long dry cataloging of names and places.
There were also some very flimsy statements about how Linus Pauling could not elucidate the structure of DNA as he was distracted wot multiple things! The vilification of sleep and the argument that polymaths do more as they sleep less was laughably simplistic.
The spirit of polymathy definitely got blurred in a slurry of half thought out justifications and long dry cataloging of names and places.
May 1, 2023
🎨The polymath: a cultural history by Peter Burke 🔬
As someone whose interests encompass many different subjects, i can definitely relate to the concept of the polymath. After viewing this book in my local library, decided to give it a read with the mention of “Leonardo da Vinci” in the blurb. Despite the fact that I don’t usually read non-fiction, the curiosity to understand the polymath sealed my interest and choice.
The book is titled a cultural history, with a extreme emphasis on the “history” part. After the introduction, It feels like there are endless mentions of anyone and everyone who’s ever done work in more then one area/speciality. Which as you can imagine, is quite a long list. Initially, it was interesting seeing the sheer number of historical accounts of people who’ve had multiple interests/specialities around the world.
However, upon further inspection, it becomes evident that through Burke’s examples, anyone could be considered a polymath. For example, if I play tennis, work in construction and know how to use a computer, am I considered a polymath?
Although there are few moments where Burke does attempt to classify the categories of polymath. For example, he distinguishes creative polymaths/ synthesisers from those who collect vast amount of information or objects from varying fields.
However, once again this is limited and isn’t easily accessible from the contents. Also, Burke’s layout of the book includes a series of subheadings in which he introduces concepts, but these aren’t viewable in the contents. As a result, it is pretty much impossible for the reader to locate a specific subheading that sounds interesting without flicking through each page.
Furthermore, there is a repetition of themes and points of view. For example, Burke consistently brings up criticism of the polymath not being adept at all their talents multiple times unnecessarily.
To conclude, the book felt like a encyclopaedia of essays or a article in Wikipedia concerning polymaths. As opposed to narratives around their intellectual conception, thinking process and modern day specialisation.
Researchers looking to see historical records of polymaths may find a encyclopaedic information guide. However, those looking for a introduction or explanatory narrative regarding polymaths will be left underwhelmed.
As someone whose interests encompass many different subjects, i can definitely relate to the concept of the polymath. After viewing this book in my local library, decided to give it a read with the mention of “Leonardo da Vinci” in the blurb. Despite the fact that I don’t usually read non-fiction, the curiosity to understand the polymath sealed my interest and choice.
The book is titled a cultural history, with a extreme emphasis on the “history” part. After the introduction, It feels like there are endless mentions of anyone and everyone who’s ever done work in more then one area/speciality. Which as you can imagine, is quite a long list. Initially, it was interesting seeing the sheer number of historical accounts of people who’ve had multiple interests/specialities around the world.
However, upon further inspection, it becomes evident that through Burke’s examples, anyone could be considered a polymath. For example, if I play tennis, work in construction and know how to use a computer, am I considered a polymath?
Although there are few moments where Burke does attempt to classify the categories of polymath. For example, he distinguishes creative polymaths/ synthesisers from those who collect vast amount of information or objects from varying fields.
However, once again this is limited and isn’t easily accessible from the contents. Also, Burke’s layout of the book includes a series of subheadings in which he introduces concepts, but these aren’t viewable in the contents. As a result, it is pretty much impossible for the reader to locate a specific subheading that sounds interesting without flicking through each page.
Furthermore, there is a repetition of themes and points of view. For example, Burke consistently brings up criticism of the polymath not being adept at all their talents multiple times unnecessarily.
To conclude, the book felt like a encyclopaedia of essays or a article in Wikipedia concerning polymaths. As opposed to narratives around their intellectual conception, thinking process and modern day specialisation.
Researchers looking to see historical records of polymaths may find a encyclopaedic information guide. However, those looking for a introduction or explanatory narrative regarding polymaths will be left underwhelmed.
March 30, 2025
I've always been fascinated by the "Renaissance Man" idea, of being a master of many disciplines. So I was intrigued by a historical study of these men (and women) throughout history.
Sadly, this book is mostly just lists of names and citations. Literally whole chapters are just naming the people who were polymaths during a particular era in history, with citations showing which disciplines they made expert contributions in.
There were a few sections in between the lists of people from each era with some comments about how the academic world shifted pro-polymath or anti-polymath. And my favorite section of the book was a brief chapter on the personality characteristics and environmental factors that they shared.
There is a very strong type that shows up from ancient Chinese bureaucrats medieval artists to modern Latin American professors. Clearly, some people are wired to be this way, and when someone with that wiring ends up a particular environment, they turn into a polymath, whether or not the larger culture is pro-polymath or not.
But the vast majority of the felt more like reading the end notes on a research paper. I would have loved stories of their lives and/or comments on what we can learn from them.
Sadly, this book is mostly just lists of names and citations. Literally whole chapters are just naming the people who were polymaths during a particular era in history, with citations showing which disciplines they made expert contributions in.
There were a few sections in between the lists of people from each era with some comments about how the academic world shifted pro-polymath or anti-polymath. And my favorite section of the book was a brief chapter on the personality characteristics and environmental factors that they shared.
There is a very strong type that shows up from ancient Chinese bureaucrats medieval artists to modern Latin American professors. Clearly, some people are wired to be this way, and when someone with that wiring ends up a particular environment, they turn into a polymath, whether or not the larger culture is pro-polymath or not.
But the vast majority of the felt more like reading the end notes on a research paper. I would have loved stories of their lives and/or comments on what we can learn from them.
November 9, 2025
It is a careful tour through the lives of many dimensional thinkers but it stops at being a tour. It gives us names, dates, and anecdotes without ever answering the basic question a modern reader cares about: what is polymathy for, and how does it work today?
The book is narrowly framed. It leans toward Western male academics, with little space for entrepreneurs, technologists, open-source builders, or artists, and only thin attention to women. There’s no clear standard for who counts as a polymath, no serious attempt to weigh impact across fields, no map of how these people influenced one another. We get traits like curiosity and hard work, but not the real mechanics: how they used analogy, abstraction, institutions, money, and technology to move ideas between domains.
Most importantly, it barely connects history to our world of AI, global networks, cheap compute, and extreme specialization. It doesn’t ask how a modern polymath should learn, collaborate, or build leverage under today’s constraints on time, attention, and incentives. In the end, it is informative as a reference book but as a guide to thinking and acting broadly in this century, I would pass and go to original (auto)biographies.
The book is narrowly framed. It leans toward Western male academics, with little space for entrepreneurs, technologists, open-source builders, or artists, and only thin attention to women. There’s no clear standard for who counts as a polymath, no serious attempt to weigh impact across fields, no map of how these people influenced one another. We get traits like curiosity and hard work, but not the real mechanics: how they used analogy, abstraction, institutions, money, and technology to move ideas between domains.
Most importantly, it barely connects history to our world of AI, global networks, cheap compute, and extreme specialization. It doesn’t ask how a modern polymath should learn, collaborate, or build leverage under today’s constraints on time, attention, and incentives. In the end, it is informative as a reference book but as a guide to thinking and acting broadly in this century, I would pass and go to original (auto)biographies.
November 11, 2023
For me The Polymath presents a rich tapestry of intellectual history, offering glimpses into the lives of extraordinary thinkers, albeit with some caveats. As a lover of culture and someone who appreciates the depth and breadth of knowledge, I found the book's exploration of polymathy both enlightening and occasionally frustrating. While the book excels in showcasing the interconnectedness of various disciplines through historical figures, it sometimes falls short in depth, leaving one craving a more thorough understanding of these polymaths' contributions. However, the discussions on the evolution of scholarly discourse and the traits common to polymaths resonated with me, echoing my own beliefs in the value of interdisciplinary learning and the dangers of over-specialization in modern society. Despite its shortcomings, this book is a celebration of intellectual curiosity and a reminder of the extraordinary potential of the human mind when unbound by the constraints of narrow specialization.
January 22, 2021
The title does this book a disservice. It is more than a history, or a catalog, of polymaths throughout western history. Peter Burke theorizes here about the circumstances that give rise to polymathy-acknowledging the large roll that privilege has played and still plays in the accumulation of a wide breadth of knowledge. (He notes that his own academic training limits his ability to recognize polymaths outside of the western tradition.) He additionally goes on to speculate about how current changes in knowledge culture, with the advent of the internet and the popularity of e-readers, for example, might impact the prevalence of polymathy in the future. He highlights favorably the creation of interdisciplinary fields, such as urban studies, area studies, and computational biology; and he shows that there will always be a place for the polymath in our culture, just as there will always be a place for the specialist, and for new interpretations of polymathy in cooperative context. Whether you're looking for guidance on the development of a general education curriculum or looking for your next biographical subject, this is a quick and engaging read.
February 28, 2022
As someone with many and varied interests myself, the idea of the polymath has always exerted a strange fascination.
Books like The Age of Wonder and The Lunar Men, and reading on folk like Darwin, Newton, William Herschel and others, further fanned the flames.
So, on a recent visit to a favourite bookshop (that I’d not been to in about three years, thanks to Covid and other things), this caught my eye. I’m very glad I followed my instincts and bought it. I’ve been glued to it ever since.
500 polymaths are covered, from ancient Greeks like Eratosthenes, to Jakob ‘Ascent of Man’ Bronowski’s daughter, Lisa Jardine (RIP), who actually very briefly taught me, or rather a bunch of pupils (that included me), from my VI Form, many moons ago.
The biggest chapters are given over to different ‘Ages’, or eras, of polymathery (bagsy coinage of that word!). But the subjects are also considered by type - ‘fox vs hedgehog’, serial, cluster, etc - and character/habitat.
Such an ambitious and broad survey is necessarily brief in how it addresses its subjects. But the endless maelstrom of names, places, dates and so on, is leavened by the connecting or contextual materials.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. And have learned of many more polymaths than I knew before. I’m also inspired to do lots of follow up reading. Always a good sign, in my books (so to speak!).
Perhaps inevitably some of the polymaths I expected to read about didn’t make Burke’s list. Here are a few I was surprised not to find: Napoleon (his name appears at least twice, but neither as a polymath, nor even in the index!), William Herschel (his son and grandson are included!), Isaac Asimov, and Stephen Fry.
But the cast is huge, and dazzling. And the book fizzes with the omnivorous hunger and boundless energy of its subjects. Educational, inspiring, hugely enjoyable.
Books like The Age of Wonder and The Lunar Men, and reading on folk like Darwin, Newton, William Herschel and others, further fanned the flames.
So, on a recent visit to a favourite bookshop (that I’d not been to in about three years, thanks to Covid and other things), this caught my eye. I’m very glad I followed my instincts and bought it. I’ve been glued to it ever since.
500 polymaths are covered, from ancient Greeks like Eratosthenes, to Jakob ‘Ascent of Man’ Bronowski’s daughter, Lisa Jardine (RIP), who actually very briefly taught me, or rather a bunch of pupils (that included me), from my VI Form, many moons ago.
The biggest chapters are given over to different ‘Ages’, or eras, of polymathery (bagsy coinage of that word!). But the subjects are also considered by type - ‘fox vs hedgehog’, serial, cluster, etc - and character/habitat.
Such an ambitious and broad survey is necessarily brief in how it addresses its subjects. But the endless maelstrom of names, places, dates and so on, is leavened by the connecting or contextual materials.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. And have learned of many more polymaths than I knew before. I’m also inspired to do lots of follow up reading. Always a good sign, in my books (so to speak!).
Perhaps inevitably some of the polymaths I expected to read about didn’t make Burke’s list. Here are a few I was surprised not to find: Napoleon (his name appears at least twice, but neither as a polymath, nor even in the index!), William Herschel (his son and grandson are included!), Isaac Asimov, and Stephen Fry.
But the cast is huge, and dazzling. And the book fizzes with the omnivorous hunger and boundless energy of its subjects. Educational, inspiring, hugely enjoyable.
February 27, 2021
3.5 stars. An extremely ambitious book and sweepingly interesting but with some very tedious list-type details at times. It’s the kind of book that you need to read or listen to very quickly so that you can get the gist and over-arching themes rather than being bogged down in the detail - after all the lives of 500 people no matter how interesting is a hard ask.
And while I distilled language ability - in particular that of learning many at a high level to be an essential ingredient- while listed in attributes for individuals did not make the list as integral to creating a polymath. Well worth reading. Could possibly spawn several more detailed interesting tales with sub-selections of the 500.
And while I distilled language ability - in particular that of learning many at a high level to be an essential ingredient- while listed in attributes for individuals did not make the list as integral to creating a polymath. Well worth reading. Could possibly spawn several more detailed interesting tales with sub-selections of the 500.
Read
July 13, 2023Burke hace una historia de los polímata, desde la antigüedad hasta nuestros días. De fácil lectura. Hay momentos en los que casi se vuelve una mera enumeración de personajes, que poco se diferencia del apéndice con 500 personas polímatas del final. Algunos sesgos, como que la mayoría de los polímatas citados sean europeos y estadounidenses, o el criterio de considerar polímata a los escritores con diversos intereses y que escribían no ficción —como si escribir ficción ya imposibilitara a una persona para que se le considerara polímata—; y aunque señala que estas personas son producto de las sociedades en las que vivieron, el énfasis que hace en que son personalidades particulares contradice esa tesis.
June 24, 2024
I'm not sure what I expected from this, but it ultimately ends up being a list of 500 (I assume) polymaths and a brief description of what makes each one a polymath. There are some discussions about things they may have in common, although of course nothing holds for all of them. The author mentions, in passing, the advantage one has being a polymath (can connect disparate points from unrelated fields), and some of the issues (not taken seriously by experts).
I guess I was hoping it would discuss more of the advantages/disadvantages and how to become more of a polymath and think like one. Or something along those lines.
I did like the quote "Adrien Baillet feared the return of barbarism because of too much literature available", in the 1600's.
https://4201mass.blogspot.com/
I guess I was hoping it would discuss more of the advantages/disadvantages and how to become more of a polymath and think like one. Or something along those lines.
I did like the quote "Adrien Baillet feared the return of barbarism because of too much literature available", in the 1600's.
https://4201mass.blogspot.com/
February 21, 2025
With such rich source material, it is a wonder to end up with a book that is so dull. I kept waiting for the book to “really get started” but I should have known there was no redeeming it when the author managed to make the life of Juana Inez de la Cruz sound boring. There is no narrative, thesis, or compelling central idea to unify the book. It drones on with shallow biographical data about various western intellectuals, not even grouped in an interesting or meaningful way. Feels like it should have just been written as an encyclopedia of polymaths or a research guide. That said, I did read the whole thing and I wrote down some names to research further. If you go into it with the right expectations I guess it’s okay—but I was disappointed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews