the Renaissance man (woman) versus the polymath

As I wrote yesterday, the OED defines a Renaissance man as “one who exhibits the virtues of an idealized man of the Renaissance.”

And I defined a modern polymath as one who is proficient in or who has made significant accomplishments in at least two widely disparate fields or three less disparate fields.

So what exactly is the difference between a polymath and a Renaissance man (woman)?

It seems pretty clear. Polymath status is based solely on knowledge and intellectual achievements, whereas Renaissance man status is based primarily on factors other than one’s intellectual abilities and achievements. Braininess is one part of being a Renaissance man, but it is hardly the only part.

The Renaissance ideal was based on education, but, as the OED states, there was more to it than that.

One of the great Renaissance educators, Vittorino da Feltre, believed that a proper education should allow one to be able to discuss “natural philosophy (i.e., the sciences), ethics, the motion of the stars, geometry, harmony, arithmetic and surveying.”

The Renaissance humanists believed that the man who arose from this education was the perfect gentleman, a man who was not only accomplished in most fields of study, but also was athletic, skilled in military science, courteous, well spoken, artistic, and musical.  And, as if that wasn't enough, the ideal man was supposed to be able to do all that with grace and nonchalance.

Basically, he was supposed to be able to make the difficult look easy, an ability that the Italians called sprezzatura. The idea of sprezzatura came from the book that epitomized the Renaissance ideas, Baldasare Castiglione's The Book of the Courtier, published in 1528. Castiglione wrote the Courtier to describe the qualities of the ideal gentleman, the courtier, i.e., one who spent his time at the court attending (and flattering) the king and queen.

Famed Renaissance historian William Harrison Woodward wrote that Castiglione’s courtier was “nothing less than the ideal personality as the Renaissance conceived it.”  Woodward wrote that the ideal personality of the Renaissance was to be developed in every way; i.e., to be a “complete gentleman.”  He should be a brave and competent soldier, but not a professional soldier, a superior athlete and sportsman, a “perfect horseman,” a competent dancer, and an excellent conversationalist, not just in content, but in style. He should be intelligent and well-read, a poet, an artist, a singer, and a musician. Not only should he be all this, but he should also dress well.

This was the “Renaissance man,” a learned and widely read man who used that learning as a springboard to become a gracious, virtuous, and multi-talented person.

Again, what is the difference between the two? Renaissance man status could incorporate polymathy, but not vice versa. A Renaissance man might be a polymath, but a polymath is not necessarily a Renaissance man.