Introduction

A polymath, also known as a polyhistor, is an individual whose knowledge encompasses multiple diverse subjects, enabling them to draw upon complex knowledge repositories to address specific challenges. This concept epitomizes a fundamental tenet of Renaissance humanism, asserting that human potential is boundless and, therefore, individuals should wholeheartedly embrace a broad spectrum of knowledge, striving to maximize their capabilities. The term “Renaissance man” is frequently employed to characterize the exceptional individuals of that era who aspired to cultivate their talents across intellectual, artistic, social, physical, and spiritual domains.

Etymology

In 1603, Johann von Wowern, a philosopher from Hamburg, published the first work to use the term “polymathy” in its title (De Polymathia tractatio: integri operis de studiis veterum). Von Wowern defined polymathy as “knowledge of various matters, drawn from all kinds of studies… ranging freely through all the fields of the disciplines, as far as the human mind, with unwearied industry, can pursue them.” He also listed synonyms of erudition, literature, philology, philomathy, and polyhistory.

The term “polymathy” was first recorded in English in 1624, in the second edition of Robert Burton’s The Anatomy of Melancholy. The form “polymathist” appeared slightly earlier in the “Diatribae upon the first part of Richard Montagu’s late History of Tithes” in 1621. The similar term “polyhistor” dates back to the late 16th century.

Renaissance man

“Renaissance man” was first documented in written English in the early 20th century. It refers to brilliant thinkers who lived before, during, or after the Renaissance. Leonardo da Vinci is often regarded as the quintessential Renaissance man, possessing an insatiable curiosity and an inventive imagination. Many accomplished polymaths thrived during the Renaissance, a cultural movement from the 14th to the 17th century. Originating in Italy during the Late Middle Ages, the Renaissance spread throughout Europe. These polymaths embraced a well-rounded approach to education, reflecting the ideals of humanists at the time. In that era, it was expected that a gentleman or courtier would be multilingual, skilled in music, proficient in poetry, and so on, embodying the ideals of the Renaissance.

The concept of universal education was essential in nurturing polymathic abilities. The term “university” originated from the Latin word “universitas,” which denoted a group of people forming a society, company, community, guild, or corporation. Historically, universities provided a comprehensive education in science, philosophy, and theology rather than specializing in specific areas. This diverse education gave students a broad foundation, allowing them to pursue expertise in their chosen field through apprenticeship.

In modern terms, labeling someone a “Renaissance man” suggests a deep understanding and proficiency, or even expertise, in at least some fields rather than just possessing superficial knowledge across various areas. While some dictionaries use the term more broadly to describe someone with many interests or talents, others emphasize its connection to Renaissance ideals.

Robert Root-Bernstein

Robert Root-Bernstein is widely recognized for reviving the scientific community’s fascination with polymathy. In his work, he underscores the distinctions between three archetypes: the specialist, the dilettante, and the polymath. The specialist exhibits depth within a specific domain but lacks breadth across diverse subjects. The dilettante, by contrast, possesses only superficial knowledge across various domains and often fails to understand or apply their skills comprehensively. In contrast, the polymath excels in multiple areas and dedicates significant time and effort to their varied interests, using them to enhance their professional endeavors.

The work of Root-Bernstein and colleagues underscores the universality of the creative process. While creative products may be specific to certain domains, such as art, mathematics, or poetry, the mental tools that drive the generation of innovative ideas are consistent across disciplines. These cognitive tools, often considered intuitive thinking tools, are shared between the arts and sciences. It’s not uncommon for highly innovative scientists to have hobbies in the arts and creative artists to have interests in the sciences.

Root-Bernstein and colleagues’ research offers a significant perspective countering the belief that creativity is limited to specific domains. Their findings suggest that certain thinking skills and tools can transcend different fields and stimulate creative thinking. They propose that creativity stems from integrating ideas from diverse fields and combining various sets of problems, skills, and knowledge in novel and valuable ways. In their work “Life Stages of Creativity,” Robert and Michèle Root-Bernstein present six typologies of creative life stages based on actual creative production records first published by Root-Bernstein, Bernstein, and Garnier in 1993.

• Type 1 represents people who specialize in developing one major talent early in life (e.g., prodigies) and successfully exploit it exclusively for the rest of their lives.
• Type 2 individuals explore creative activities (e.g., through wordplay or various hobbies) and then settle on exploiting one for the rest of their lives.
• Type 3 people are polymathic from the outset and manage to juggle multiple careers simultaneously so that their creativity pattern is constantly varied.
• Type 4 creators are recognized early for one major talent (e.g., math or music) but go on to explore additional creative outlets, diversifying their productivity with age.
• Type 5 creators devote themselves serially to one creative field after another.
• Type 6 people develop diversified creative skills early and then, like Type 5 individuals, explore these serially, one at a time.

Finally, his studies suggest that grasping the concept of polymathy and drawing inspiration from polymathic role models can contribute to developing a new educational model that nurtures creativity and innovation. “We should prioritize educating students on principles, methods, and skills that will empower them to learn and create across various disciplines, multiple careers, and different stages of life.”

Peter Burke

In several of his literary contributions, Peter Burke, Professor Emeritus of Cultural History and Fellow of Emmanuel College at Cambridge, has endeavored to examine the concept of polymathy. He has meticulously presented a comprehensive historical survey delineating the wax and wane of polymaths as an “intellectual species.”

In ancient and medieval times, scholars did not have to specialize in specific fields. However, starting from the 17th century, the rapid rise of new knowledge in the Western world made it increasingly difficult for individual scholars to master as many disciplines as before. This resulted in a decline of the polymath species, transitioning from knowing every academic field to knowledge in several fields and from making original contributions in many fields to more passive consumption of the contributions of others.

With the shift in the intellectual climate, it is now more common to encounter “passive polymaths” who acquire knowledge in various areas but specialize in one discipline rather than “proper polymaths” who achieve significant contributions in multiple disciplines through intellectual heroism.

Burke warns that in today’s specialized age, polymathic individuals are more essential than ever. They must synthesize information to understand the big picture and conduct in-depth analyses. According to Burke, a polymath must “mind the gap” and draw attention to knowledge that might otherwise be lost between the defined and organized disciplines.

Finally, he suggests that governments and universities should nurture a habitat where this “endangered species” can survive, offering students and scholars the possibility of interdisciplinary work.

Bharath Sriraman

Bharath Sriraman of the University of Montana has also delved into the role of polymathy in education. He proposes that an ideal education should cultivate talent in the classroom, empower individuals to pursue multiple fields of research, and foster an appreciation for the aesthetic and structural/scientific connections between mathematics, the arts, and the sciences.

In 2009, Sriraman published a paper describing a 3-year study involving 120 pre-service mathematics teachers. The analysis yielded several implications for mathematics pre-service education and interdisciplinary education. Sriraman employed a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach to capture students’ emotions, voices, and struggles as they attempted to comprehend Russell’s paradox in its linguistic form. The study revealed that those more engaged in solving the paradox exhibited more polymathic thinking traits. It was suggested that cultivating polymathy in the classroom could assist students in altering beliefs, discovering structures, and exploring new avenues for interdisciplinary pedagogy.

Michael Araki

Michael Araki is a professor at the UNSW Business School at the University of New South Wales, Australia. He aimed to create a general model that explains how polymathy develops. His Developmental Model of Polymathy (DMP) was introduced in a 2018 article with two main objectives:

1. Organize the elements involved in polymathy development into a structured framework that aligns with the view of polymathy as a lifelong pursuit.
2. Connect with other well-established concepts, theories, and models, mainly from giftedness and education.

The model, which was designed to reflect a structural model, has five major components:

1. polymathic antecedents
2. polymathic mediators
3. polymathic achievements
4. intrapersonal moderators
5. environmental moderators

Upon conducting an in-depth analysis of the existing literature, the researcher has concluded that despite the various perspectives on polymathy, the consensus is that polymathy encompasses three fundamental elements: breadth, depth, and integration.

“Breadth” refers to knowledge’s comprehensiveness, extension, and diversity. It contrasts with narrowness, specialization, and restricting expertise to a limited domain. A comprehensive understanding of various areas is a hallmark of the greatest polymaths.

Depth refers to the vertical accumulation of knowledge and the level of complexity of one’s conceptual network. Araki uses dilettancy to contrast with the profound learning that polymathy entails.

Although not explicitly stated in most definitions of polymathy, integration is considered a fundamental component, according to the author. Integration involves the capacity to connect, articulate, concatenate, or synthesize different conceptual networks, which in non-polymathic individuals might remain distinct. Additionally, integration can occur at the personality level, where a person can integrate their diverse activities into a harmonious whole, involving emotional, motivational, and cognitive integration.

Finally, the author also suggests that, through a psychoeconomic approach, polymathy can be seen as a “life project.” Depending on a person’s temperament, abilities, personality, social circumstances, and opportunities (or lack thereof), pursuing polymathic self-formation may appear more or less appealing and more or less feasible.

Kaufman, Beghetto, and colleagues

James C. Kaufman and Ronald A. Beghetto, both from the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut, conducted a study to explore whether everyone has the potential for polymathy and to address whether creativity is domain-general or domain-specific.

Beghetto and Kaufman proposed a model of creativity, which includes a typology of polymathy that ranges from mini-c polymathy to Big-C polymathy. They also outlined the general requirements for a person to achieve high levels of creative accomplishment, including intelligence, motivation to innovate, and an environment conducive to creative expression. Specific abilities are necessary depending on the chosen domain, and matching one’s skills and interests with the requirements of a domain is beneficial. While some individuals develop skills and motivations in specific domains, polymathic people exhibit intrinsic motivation and the ability to pursue a variety of subjects across different domains.

When considering the relationship between polymathy and education, experts propose that educators should actively seek to foster their students’ multi-creative potential instead of questioning whether every student is inherently multi-creative. For instance, teachers are advised to encourage students to connect across different subjects and utilize various media forms, such as drawings, movies, and other visual mediums, to express their ideas and understanding.

Waqas Ahmed

In his 2018 book “The Polymath,” British author Waqas Ahmed defines polymaths as individuals who have significantly contributed to at least three fields. He argues that rather than being exceptionally gifted, everyone has the potential to become a polymath, as people naturally have multiple interests and talents. Ahmed contrasts this polymathic nature with what he calls “the cult of specialization,” pointing out that education systems often hinder this natural tendency by forcing learners to specialize in narrow topics. The book contends that the emphasis on specialization, driven by the production lines of the Industrial Revolution, is counter-productive for both individuals and society as a whole. It suggests that the complex problems of the 21st century require the versatility, creativity, and broad perspectives characteristic of polymaths.

Ahmed believes that specialization dehumanizes individuals by limiting their full range of expression. On the other hand, polymathy is seen as a powerful means to achieve social and intellectual emancipation, enabling a more fulfilling life. According to Ahmed, answers to specific problems often come from combining knowledge and skills from multiple areas, especially because many significant issues are multi-dimensional. Ahmed urges breaking the “thinker”/”doer” and the art/science dichotomies, instead advocating for an orientation towards action and thinking that mutually support each other. He argues that pursuing diverse experiences and knowledge allows human beings to flourish, emphasizing that successful people in various fields often credit hobbies and other “peripheral” activities for supplying skills or insights that helped them succeed.

Ahmed presents evidence indicating that cultivating multiple talents and perspectives can contribute to success in a highly specialized field. He references a study of Nobel Prize-winning scientists, which revealed that they were 25 times more likely to have interests in activities such as singing, dancing, or acting than their peers. Additionally, another study found that children demonstrated higher scores on IQ tests following drum lessons. Ahmed employs this research to support the notion that diversifying one’s skill set can enrich overall intelligence.

Ahmed discusses the historical advantages of polymathy, emphasizing the general intellectual abilities that polymaths can apply across multiple domains. For instance, Aristotle asserted that a comprehensive understanding of a topic requires not only subject knowledge but also a general critical thinking ability to evaluate acquiring that knowledge. Furthermore, polymaths can employ multiple approaches to grasp a single issue. Biologist E. O. Wilson contended that a complete understanding of reality is achieved through synthesizing various academic disciplines rather than a singular discipline. Considering multiple approaches fosters open-mindedness as it prompts individuals to acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge. Ahmed notes that many influential thinkers, including Confucius, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and Nicolas of Cusa, emphasized the importance of recognizing one’s limitations, which he refers to as “the essential mark of the polymath.” Additionally, polymaths can perceive connections where others see disparities, enabling them to advance multiple fields by applying principles from one discipline to others, as demonstrated by da Vinci’s application of the mathematical tenets across various fields.

Related terms

“Renaissance man” is often used to describe individuals with a wide range of knowledge and skills. Similar terms in Latin and Italian, such as homo universalis and uomo universale, also refer to this concept of a “universal man.” A Renaissance man is often contrasted with a specialist, who has a general approach to knowledge rather than focusing on a specific field.

Other terms, such as “universal genius” or “versatile genius,” describe individuals who have made lasting contributions in at least one field where they were actively involved and took a universal approach to their work. Leonardo da Vinci is often a prime example of a universal genius.

When we say someone has “encyclopedic knowledge,” we mean that they have a vast scope of expertise. However, labeling historical figures as having “encyclopedic knowledge” may be anachronistic, as the concept of an encyclopedia did not exist during their time. For instance, Eratosthenes was known for having encyclopedic knowledge even before encyclopedias existed.