Da Vinci Could Have Used a Publicist

I was surprised to note some of Alan Shapiro's comments in his review of the book Math and the Mona Lisa: The Art and Science of Leonardo da Vinci by Bülent Atalay (PHYSICS TODAY, July 2005, page 63). Shapiro wrote, "I believe [Atalay] overemphasizes da Vinci's significance and originality as a scientist and engineer—as many do." This may be true, if we evaluate daVinci's direct impact on science and engineering in the centuries after his death. It is certainly not his fault that nobody bothered to read his notebooks. I suggest da Vinci's significance and originality as a scientist and engineer—not to mention his other multifarious talents and abilities—make him perhaps the most outstanding intellect and talent of recorded history. Webster's Biographical Dictionary devotes three full lines to listing fields in which he made contributions; it finishes with the dreaded "etc."

Reading da Vinci's own writings (The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, translated by Edward MacCurdy, Garden City, 1941), one can scarcely grasp the breadth of his interests, or of his abilities in deductive and inductive logic. As a practicing geophysicist, I found the following observations in the first hundred or so pages da Vinci wrote around 1510. "A falling body will take the shortest route towards the Earth's center." And "two bodies of water equidistant from the Earth's center, will not move towards each other." No mean deductions regarding Earth's gravitation and equipotential surfaces. More than 30 years before Copernicus, da Vinci wrote, "The Sun does not move." I found hundreds of other observations about every scientific subject under the Sun—light, geology, aerodynamics, anatomy, flight, and more.

Perhaps da Vinci's lack of serious mathematical training hindered his making deeper contributions in some fields. However, he knew the importance of that purest of all sciences: "Therefore, O students, study mathematics, and do not build without foundations." What comes across clearly from his notebooks was his complete lack of interest in public acclaim. He carried out his activities and research for his own interest and moved on from them once completed.

Shakespeare was correct when he wrote "Here was a [man] Caesar! When comes such another?" But the Bard applied it to the wrong son of Italy.

Shapiro replies: My intention was not to deny Leonardo da Vinci's significance or originality, but rather to draw attention to the tendency to overestimate those qualities. To properly evaluate his—or anyone's—originality and significance, simply citing passages from his work is insufficient. One must also study the work of his contemporaries and predecessors to appreciate when he was borrowing from others, extending earlier work, or taking a truly innovative direction. That is a difficult task involving the study of long-forgotten Renaissance writings. For more than a century, historians have been attempting to evaluate Leonardo in his historical context, and before assessments can be made, those historical works must be consulted.¹

Leonardo's work is full of brilliant insights, observations, and designs, but, as Baksi recognizes, if they are to become part of the scientific enterprise, they must be made publicly available. It is in fact Leonardo's "fault" that he never composed and published coherent scientific or technological treatises on his investigations or allowed his manuscripts to circulate widely. Surely, one cannot blame people for not reading Leonardo when he did not publish his work.

Reference

1. 1. See, for example, D. C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from al-Kindi to Kepler, U. of Chicago Press, Chicago (1976); P. Galluzzi, Mechanical Marvels: Invention in the Age of Leonardo, Giunti, Florence, Italy (1997).