The Polymath: A Cultural History from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag

This was an interesting review of people who qualify as polymaths. It is well referenced, so follow up questions can be addressed by readers. The author (Peter Burke) spends some time describing individuals as generalists or specialists (he uses foxes and hedgehogs as descriptors). I wish that he had also discussed the difference between specialists and experts. In my sarcastic sense I think of a specialist as: Somebody who knows more and more about less and less until he or she knows everything about nothing. An expert needs more than branching logic and lots of facts. A grandmaster chess player can play times simultaneous games and win. I postulate that this may be more related to pattern recognition (like machine learning) than brute memory or logic. Are polymaths better are perceiving patterns, and thus able to use this talent in multiple fields?

“The Polymath: A Cultural History from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag,” by Peter Burke, Yale Univ Press, New Haven, CT, 2020. The dictionary defines polymath as one with encyclopedic knowledge or those with expertise in three or more fields. In this 327-page paperback Peter Burke elaborates. He collects a list of 500 polymaths and presents them with brief biographies in chronological order. His list is based on their writings especially in academic terms. He notes that until about 1850, it may have been possible for an individual to know “everything.” After about 1850 the explosion of knowledge made that impossible. He attributes that to the expansion of universities and surprisingly to the development of cheap paper from wood pulp. He does not mention the printing press. Burke then characterizes polymaths from his data. His portrait section lists key aspects as curiosity, concentration, memory, speed, imagination, restless energy, work, timeliness (in a hurry), competitive, and playful. In the work section there is suggestion that Protestant work ethic may be part of it, but then discounts that notion as Catholics, Jews and others also qualify. He cites Leonardo Syndrome as an aspect. That seems to be procrastination. The inability to complete projects. There always seems to be another better idea to examine. He explores many other characteristics. Early exposure to knowledge as in an encyclopedia is often a factor. Groups as in families or groups of friends contributes. Especially in the sciences groups that review new developments, scientific societies that hold meetings, and journals that publish results are pluses. His list of polymaths includes many we know. Leonardo da Vinci is perhaps best known. Others include Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton, Voltaire, Samuel Johnson, Adam Smith, Joseph Priestly, Thomas Jefferson, Lavoisier, Goethe, Wilhelm and Alexander von Humbolt, Charles Babbage, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Freud, HG Wells, John Maynard Keynes, Aldus Huxley, Buckminster Fuller, Leo Szilard, Linus Pauling, John Von Neumann, Peter Drucker, Alan Turing, and Richard Feynman. No doubt this list is subject to much discussion. Exactly what criteria are used and who was overlooked. This is an interesting study. You will find it thought provoking. Photos. References. Index.

An excellent book, well written and well cited. A guide to anyone with broad interests.

Review of Burke’s "The Polymath" by Paul F. Ross About to finish my then-in-process read and wanting something current, I picked up my copies of recent issues of Science and scanned the book reviews. Andrew Robinson’s review of Burke’s The polymath (2020) in the 28 August 2020 issue of Science (p 1064) won my attention. I purchased a copy through Amazon.com. Peter Burke tells us about polymaths – individuals with remarkable in-depth knowledge, even creativity, in multiple intellectual regimes and possibly also physical skills when compared with other individuals of their time – from Leonardo da Vinci of the 1500s to Susan Sontag of the 2000s. Burke’s five-hundred-polymaths come primarily from Europe and America although he casts his eyes briefly into Eastern and Arabic cultures. Robinson himself had published books under the titles The last man who knew everything (2007) and Genius: A very short introduction (2011) and surely is a qualified reviewer. I should have noted with greater care Robinson’s comment: “For all its considerable insight into polymathy, however, at no point does [Burke’s] book address what distinguishes a polymathic genius from a specialist of comparable standing. … There has always been a tension between specialization and polymathy. Universities and professions are chiefly organized for the benefit of specialists, not polymaths. … specialists … receive greater funding … more recognition … than polymaths do.” Having read a mere sixty pages of the 330-page book, I had become a cynic about polymathy. If being on Burke’s list is the qualification for being a polymath, one must be male, of European heritage, importantly wealthy-royal-religious in order to have the time to read and study, and born after printing had been invented. These entry requirements are very different from the qualifications I had imagined as I started to read Burke. My expectations were that “a polymath” has been outstandingly intelligent, lucky enough to have enjoyed extended good health, and has contributed something new and important in two or more fields … that is, more than just amazing. I wondered how polymaths had affected my life and education. I spent the first twenty-nine years of my life (minus six pre-school years) – even during the year and a half I was in the US Navy – exploring, learning, and acquiring knowledge in depth in the fields of high priority of the moment. My scientific field of expertise for my career had barely been invented at the time of my birth. Having heard of it entirely by accident while in graduate study in another field, it took me a mere six months to apply for and enter a four-year program of study in graduate school to acquire its entry credentials. I chose psychology as it is relevant to behavior and success in organizations of every kind. While acquiring my entry credentials, I owed particular debt to giants in learning theory, social relationships, and the methods [Sorry for the strange format. Amazon.com allows no means for uploading a table.] Table 1 Giants in my education in psychology and statistics … and my experience in measuring/predicting performance (There are only five polymaths among them, marked with an * … according to Burke.) Giants in^^^^^^^^^^ Giants in^^^^^^^^^^ My teachers^^^^^^^^^ My experience learning theory ^^^^^ statistics^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (all of it aided by psychometrics, statistics, perception^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ behavior in organizations, computing) psychometrics Skinner, Burrhus F.^^^ Spearman, Charles^^ Wherry, Robert J. Sr.^^ Measuring job performance Hull, Clark^^^^^^^^^ Pearson, Karl*^^^^^ Wickens, Delos^^^^^^^ Peer reviewing scientific manuscripts Allport, Gordon^^^^^ Yule, George U.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Assessing influences on purchases Ebbinghaus, Hermann^ Thurstone, L. L.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Selecting executives, managers, marketers Thorndike, Edward^^^ Galton, Francis*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Selecting clerical workers Pavlov, Ivan*^^^^^^^ Kaiser, Henry F.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Position-candidate matching Watson, John B.^^^^^ Hotelling, Harold Guilford, Joy^^^^^^^^ Thorndike, E. L. Cattell, Raymond^^^^ Descartes, Rene* Helmholtz, Hermann* Pinker, Steven for measuring psychological aspects of behavior (psychometrics). I also owed particular debt to giants in statistics. To better understand the sources of my knowledge, I decided to record the names of giants to whom my studies owed much (see Table 1), then discover how many of these were listed among Burke’s polymaths. Giants in the fields of knowledge to whom I owe debts are listed in Table 1 along with uses to which I have put my knowledge in my sixty-year (and ongoing) career. Of the twenty giants I list, five (those marked with an *) make it into Burke’s list-of-five-hundred-polymaths. Accepting Burke’s list as authoritative, there were more specialists than polymaths contributing to the knowledge important in my career in science. As with all professional and leadership roles, my career has required a variety-of-knowledge-and-skill-in-depth for survival … overlooking for the moment the good luck of at least modest good health. Robinson’s insight seems correct. “Universities and professions are chiefly organized for the benefit of specialists, not polymaths. … specialists … receive greater funding … (and) more recognition … than polymaths do.” Burke packages his chapters by time period. The polymaths in each period are described, each at paragraph length at the most. His biographies often produce introductory sentences of this kind: (The named polymath) “was active as a philosopher, theologian, lawyer, mathematician and astronomer as well as a diplomat and cardinal, was driven by the idea of reconciling conflicts” (p 37) … listing the polymath’s fields of expertise. Another sentence or two and that biography is complete … a polymath like Leonardo da Vinci receiving a bit more attention in different segments of Burke’s book. When outstanding performance is expected by the person himself/herself or by those around him/her, that person’s responsibilities require knowledge and skills of various kinds that go well beyond the instinctive, the casual, the ordinary. Activities like baby-sitting an infant, driving a car at speed limit on a super-highway, leading a classroom, building a marriage, hosting a formal dinner party for cherished friends, or contributing a crucial idea during a meeting of an important committee all require a variety of sound judgments and multi-faceted knowledge/background/skills. In a way, all but the least able among us, those unable to be responsible for their own lives, are required to be “polymaths” in at least one sense of that word. References Burke, Peter (2020) "The polymath: A cultural history from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag" Yale University Press, New Haven CT, xi + 327 pages Bellevue, Washington 21 September 2020 Copyright © 2020 by Paul F. Ross All rights reserved.

In his introduction to this book, Peter Burke cites a definition of polymath as "someone who is interested in learning about many subjects." It might be more accurate to say that a polymath is someone who actually "mastered" a number if not many subjects. A true polymath would also be widely viewed as a "genius," an issue Burke fails to address. Oh ... and Susan Sontag or that smooth-talking fraud Jacques Derrida a "polymath"? Move over Leonardo, Thomas Jefferson, and Goethe. Let the small fry have your place at the high table!

Very detailed

Polymath:日本語では「博識家」、著者の定義では言語、雄弁術、算術、植物学、地理学、天文学などのリベラルアーツ全体の幅広い分野に長けた人達をさしている。ソクラテス、ダビンチ、カント、ニーチェ、最近では「銃、病原菌、鉄」のダイヤモンド博士等です。日本では軍医総監、独仏語の天才で、作家の森鴎外でしょう。著者は古代から現在までの500名以上（除くアジア人）のpolymathを精細に調査し、polymathのpolymathになろうとしたのでしょう。Polymathの出身国、人種、性別、環境などが詳しく調査され興味は尽きません。その中で一つ上げると、ユダヤ人のpolymathは非常に多いのですが、彼らは例外なくgenntile（非ユダヤ人）との付き合いが有り、異文化を通じて彼等の能力を発揮した事です。残念な事は現在のpolymathイーロン・マスク氏を不明な理由をつけ、polumath外とし、彼の存在を無視した事です、現在の一番の研究対象者のはずですが。

Como disse diversas vezes o brilhante escritor argentino J.L. Borges, somos frequentemente incapazes de avaliar de forma razoável nossos contemporâneos e pósteros. Por essa razão, Borges quase nunca se pronunciou sobre seus contemporâneos e jamais sobre os escritores e ensaístas que o sucederam. Peter Burke, depois de um início simplesmente brilhante, ao longo de excelentes capítulos, vai nitidamente perdendo o fôlego e gerando lacuna sobre lacuna, à medida que avança no tempo. Casado com uma ensaísta brasileira e familiarizado com nosso país e nossa língua, destaca tão somente Gilberto Freyre (autor a quem sua esposa (Maria Lúcia G. Pallares Burke) dedica um alentado estudo, hoje clássico, e Darcy Ribeiro, em detrimento do gigante de erudição e atuação diversificada e fecunda Sérgio Buarque de Holanda. A simples leitura dos ensaios literários de Sérgio Buarque, compilados por A Arnoni Prado, além de sua imensa obra historiográfica, sociológica e cultural documenta essa falta de um balanço mais criterioso. Isso sem falar nos maiores polímatas brasileiros do século XX, que uniram a produção de ponta em matemática e física/engenharia (a obra de Niemeyer simplesmente não seria possível sem a transformação de suas plantas em estruturas, com base na matemática de Cardozo) a uma produção magistral em poesia e ensaio, como no caso de Joaquim Cardozo, e crítica de arte, no caso de Mário Schenberg. No caso dos autores estrangeiros, é imperdoável a simples menção ao Círculo de Viena e uma análise mais detida de um único dos seus membros, O. Neurath, sem um aprofundamento em relação aos demais, especialmente aos membros mais excêntricos frente a seu núcleo, e, no entanto, mais brilhantemente inovadores, como Kurt Goedel, talvez o maior lógico da história, matemático com achados simplesmente desconcertantes (como a possibilidade de um tempo reversível; como discutido no excelente livro de P. Yourgrau), além de um profundo conhecedor de filosofia, especialmente a Fenomenologia de E. Husserl. Parece pouco provável que Burke não tenha tido acesso à obra seminal de K. Sigmund: Exact Thinking in Demented Times, de 2017. Mas mais do que Goedel, o que dizer da omissão de L Wittgenstein, engenheiro mecânico, matemático, linguista e um dos filósofos mais destacados do século XX, se não O filósofo daquele século. Provavelmente por não acompanhar a física contemporânea, o Autor sequer menciona o trio de Prêmios Nobel, que revolucionou não apenas a física, mas diversos ramos da matemática, da linguística, do desenho artístico e de esportes como o xadrez, além de ramos diversos das artes, como é o caso de: i) M. Gell-Mann (o Instituto Santa Fe, onde Gell-Mann teve papel central, berço dos estudos interdisciplinares mais fecundos sobre a Complexidade, é simplesmente ignorado); ii) Frank Wilkczek, físico com um profundo conhecimento sobre a história da ciência e a filosofia; sem esquecer de iii) Roger Penrose, geômetra, físico, autor de teorias tão desconcertantes como a dos tiling patterns, base de um novo estado da matéria, como descrito na obra que combina ciência de ponta e aventura de Paul J Steinhardt, além de disseminador de novas ideias em neurociência, exímio enxadrista (paixão que compartilha com seu irmão, o grande mestre Jonathan) e cosmólogo. Em suma, talvez fosse o caso de uma edição revista e ampliada da obra, talvez em parceria com outro autor, familiarizado com as ciências exatas e naturais contemporâneas, onde polímatas de incrível amplitude e genialidade ampliam o diálogo entre ciência, filosofia, artes, linguística, nos moldes de seus mais ilustres antepassados.

Peter Burke created an interesting book that gives a good overview on several "polymaths". Interesting to read, very shallow nevertheless. After reading the book, it's still not clear to me who counts as a polymath and who does not.

I have purchased a number of books on Polymathy. Obviously many great people and noted "geniuses" , are written about. But I too have the features of one,I wanted to know why. This gives great insight a good book.

The books content and examples