the modern polymath defined, part 4

Today, let’s review Cambridge cultural historian Peter Burke’s definition of the polymath. In fact, remember that he had four definitions:

The passive polymaths, who read widely but make their reputation in one discipline alone.

The limited polymaths, active in a small cluster of neighboring disciplines.

The serial polymaths, whose interests gradually shifted from one discipline to others.

The proper polymaths, who have continued to work in several fields and to make serious contributions to all of them, keeping several balls in the air at the same time rather than picking them up one by one.

Also remember that Burke lamented that polymathy “has been diluted to refer to people who have mastered two or three disciplines.”

How should we work these definitions into our own?

The limited polymath is clearly out as a definition for our modern polymath. Yesterday, I suggested that the learning of a microbiologist and neurobiologist is not broad enough to be fully polymathic. That is a good example of Burke’s limited polymath.

But what about his passive polymath and his serial polymath?

The biggest problem, it seems, with the passive polymath is that it is very hard to determine that person’s polymathic qualities. How do you figure out if that person has read widely enough to qualify as a true polymath? I don’t know. If you have any ideas, please let me know.

But the serial polymath seems pretty legitimate to me. So what if the person concentrated in one field and then moved on to a different field? There has never been a rule that a polymath has to engage in all of his/her fields of interest at the same time. Some undoubtedly have, but that’s not a requirement, at least not to me.

And then of course, we have Burke’s proper polymath, which is a pretty legitimate polymath.

So, when we come up with our definition, possibly even tomorrow, we’ll want to factor in Burke’s concepts of the serial and proper polymaths.