Jump to content

Talk:Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Salai as John the Baptist? Says who?

Greetings,

I find the attribution of the painting of John the Baptist to be his friend Salai pretty extraordinary- where is the reference for this information? I've never seen it claimed before in much discussion around this painting- even is someone has legitimately made this claim in the past, surely wikipedia's framing of it should be with some caution, as in "sometimes claimed to be...".

I'll take the attribution off in a few days if no responses are forthcoming. Seanmercy (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that this is unreferenced. It is almost certainly Salai, as there exists the childhood portrait of him, and they are almost certainly the same person. I find your statement that the attribution is "extraordinary" to be, well, the only word for it is "extraordinary"! Why on earth wouldn't it be Salai?
It is better not to remove a "fact" just because it a) isn't referenced and b) you don't happen to know that piece of info yourself.
The appropriate action is to place a [citation needed] tag on it. Unless, of course, you are so certain that the information is incorrect that you are challenging the statement, and are prepared to produce evidence to the contrary.
Amandajm (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies- I came off too stridently. I called it an extraordinary claim because of how little we know for sure of Leonard's personal life, less about the subjects of his portraits. Even the attribution of the drawing at the top of the page as a self portrait has been argued against. That being said, it really does need a citation. I've read discussion about this painting in several different books on Leonardo and never encountered that claim. But you're right that it was extremely arrogant of me- because I haven't encountered the information doesn't mean it's not true. There are so many people wanting to claim Leonardo for themselves, that I'm suspicious of many claims made of him. Seanmercy (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Humph! I have searched every book that I have here and none of my references state that it is regarded as Salai. The only reference I can find is online, and not as good a reference as one might hope! Probably some of literature about Leonardo's suspected homosexuality/pedaresty takes this line.
There is a portrait of Salai as a child, and the two are obviously the same: the shape of the face, the incredible hair, the rather sly smile, the brown eyes. However, to state this is OR. Nevermind. Now I've got a few minutes, I'll see if I can find that reference again and see if it's worthy of inclusion. Amandajm (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You could always ask whats-his-name, I'm sure he'd know. (Oh, I forgot, he got banned...)PiCo (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Did he really? I was wondering why we hadn't heard from him for a while! Well, what offence did he comit in order for that to happen. We are fairly liberal here on Wikipedia! Amandajm (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. Any more progress? I looked through my Leonardo books this week and was unable to find anything. Seanmercy (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Seanmercy. Just to get back to you! I did find a reference, but I wasn't happy with it, because, even though its author has published a book on the subject, there were a few too many problems for me to quote it as a reliable source. I'm currently communicating with the author..... unless I've shocked him and he's not going to reply. Amandajm (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please remove vandalism

Someone kindly remove the vandalism at the bottom of the page, right under the yellow Leonardo da Vinci box? I'd do it myself but the article is protected... thanks, hreichgott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hreichgott (talk • contribs) 06:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Include his feature in Assassin's Creed?

Hello. As many of you may know, Leonardo is fictionally represented in Assassin's Creed II. Representation of other historical figures is noted on many other pages on Wikipedia, such as the Pazzi family. Does anyone else think this should be changed on this page? Also, I apologize for not having a Wikipedia account to sign my post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.16.223 (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo has been included as a character in a vast number of fictions. This particular article is not the right place for that sort of info. There are a number of additional articles about Leonardo including Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci. Amandajm (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree with you there, wise admin. This is a conspiracy theory we speak of and not a game. And the history matches. This should be included. Not including it would be like not telling the world he was gay. No, it must be done.

75.4.28.184 (talk)

Put this contribution into the recently created article called Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation. There are a huge number of theories. This is only one of them. The main article simply cannot hold all the info about Leonardo. That is why the other articles have been created. Amandajm (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentence Structure Failure

"Two of his works, the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper, are the most famous, most reproduced and most parodied portrait and religious paintings of all time, respectively, their fame approached only by Michelangelo's Creation of Adam."

Just pointing out that The Mona Lisa is not a religious painting, let alone one of the most religious paintings of all time. The Last Supper is a religious painting, but the most religious painting of all time? Re-read the sentence and you will notice it doesn't make much sense. I know it says respectively, but nowhere does it delineate where the repsect changes from Mona to Jesus....here's an alternative that works better:

"Two of his works, the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper, are the most famous and most reproduced paintings of all time, their fame approached only by Michelangelo's Creation of Adam."

You can add that the Last Supper is the most famous religious painting of all time, and you can add that the Mona Lisa is the most parodied portrait of all time, but that is all semantics and not very useful.

13:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Batmanners

Thank you, Batmanners. The problem was a simple one. Some well-meaning twit had added an "s" to the word "painting". It now reads fine. Amandajm (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
And that bloody little cherub of Raphael's. You know, the saccharine overdose with the chin in its hands and no body. Let's not forget that one when it comes to all-time icons.PiCo (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As a scientist

"As a scientist, he greatly advanced the state of knowledge in the fields of anatomy, civil engineering, optics, and hydrodynamics."

He did? I rather think he did no such thing. He wrote no books in his own lifetime and his notebooks remained unpublished for centuries after his death, with the result that his impact on anatomy, civil engineering, etc etc, was nil. It's true that he made discoveries remarkable for the age, but not true that they had any impact.PiCo (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.154.38.95, 7 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In "Verrocchio's workshop, 1466–1476" it states that Leonardo may have modelled as "the archangel Michael" in the painting "Tobias and the Angel." This painting is from the book of Tobit in the old Testament. The Angel is not not the archangel Michael, but the archangel Raphael. Please change the word "Michael" to "Raphael", as it is misleading. Thank you. 86.154.38.95 (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: How is it misleading? Inka888 04:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't simply misleading. It was an error. It is fixed. And I'm still wondering where the error came from! Amandajm (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I came across the same problem when researching Cariani at some now forgotten juncture, and think there was confusion of language with Raphael the artist and Raphael the angel fitting the same passage in the original document. Murray menzies (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

iron rusts?

I found what I thought was a remarkable quote attributed to Da Vinci in a book of quotes that boiled down to "iron rusts." A rather nice book actually that went on to expand on the quotes, the authors and the historical perspectives of both the quotes and authors. We don't, at least I don't think of Da Vinci as somebody with knowledge of metallurgy. Perhaps the edited quote I found in this book is out of context, and perhaps Da Vinci wasn't attempting to make a glib statement about the physical properties of iron although it sure sounded of as if he did.

To picture a Da Vinci consulting a civil engineer (or the guild equivelent of a civil engineer) to detail the use of an iron based product in say the architectual design of a cathedral or public building is thought provoking that he might be so familiar with the use of the material to be glib about it's physical properties is even more thought provoking.

Gymnogyps (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Firstly, Leonardo's scientific approach to almost everything he did was to observe and record in great detail. At a time when wrought iron was by far the most common form of metal in use, Leonardo would have been very well aware of its properties. Leonardo was trained in the workshop of a goldsmith who was also a painter and sculptor, and who had one of the biggest artistic workshops in town. Every type of artistic endeavour that you can imagine would have gone on in that bottega. They would almost certainly have had a small forge on the site for working iron, with a furnace for casting small objects in bronze.
  • Secondly, although we think of him as a painter, one of Leonardo's major forms of employment was as a military/civil engineer. He designed a number of churches, but none was every built to his design. However, there is a small castle in Locarno in Ticino in southern Switzerland that is possibly built to his design. His main engineering projects were bridges, ramparts, seige machines, barricades to divert the tides and the Turks from Venice and canals to channel water from the Arno.
He designed a number of horrible war machines (possibly to keep clients like Cesare Borgia happy), but, as it happens, the designs all appear to be mechanically flawed. I have my own suspicions as to the reasons for this, as it is obvious from his more peaceful inventions that he had a perfect understanding of gears and the like. I found a bridge in France that employs a system that Leonardo appears to have devised. The bridge was 19th century. It left me wondering whether the system was already in use when he drew it, or whether in fact, his invention simply passed into French civil engineering practice without acknowledgenment. (He lived his last years in France).
Amandajm (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Not metallurgy; Be happy that the sometimes-glib Leonardo might have merely been muttering something like: "expect the material to do what the character of the material always does," or, as in Chaucer, "if gold rust, what shall the iron do?"Art4med (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-portrait (Leonardo da Vinci)

The portrait here is certainly Leonardo's father, not himself. It has little relationship to authentic portraits of Leonardo and is of a man obviously older than sixty-seven, the age of Leonardo at death. It does resemble authentic pictures of his father. Leonardo's father died at age eighty.

Bruce Wilson wils720@aol.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.120.201 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any access to this page, but if you look earlier in the discussion topics there is a huge debate about the picture, yet it's still up there. So chances are this will change nothing. Scavens (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Um! I've got to ask, what "authentic" portraits of Leonardo are we talking about? There is no "authentic" portrait of Leonardo as an adult. There is only a host of speculation and some quite remarkable and unlikely claims. The "most authentic" portrait of Leonardo as an adult is probably the profile drawing at Windsor which is sometimes attributed to his pupil Melzi. We don't have a good copy of this available on Wikimedia.
And what "authentic" portraits of his father are we talking about? There isn't one. However, it has been speculated that a drawing by Leonardo of an elderly man in profile might be him.
Regarding the apparent age of the figure in the Turin drawing, I have stated this previously and will say it all again for your benefit:
  • Drawing is a linear technique. It is made using mainly lines, not gently graded colours and tones. This means that when an artist draws, they define the lines that they see. A moderately-wrinkled face will appear very wrinkled when drawn, as against the appearance of the same face when painted. Just the way a high-resolution photo with sharp contrast can make a person look distressingly older than they want to appear.
  • Leonardo, like other men of his age, was not protected from the elements. He travelled around the country in all weathers. He sat by an open fire for warmth. These things leave visible scars on the skin.
  • The man depicted has a long beard which appears in the drawings to be white or grey rather than brown or black. The long beard is associated with extreme age (and extreme wisdom). We look at this and unconsciously conjour images of Gandfalf or Professor Dumbledore who is "something around one-hundred-and-fifty". Imagine the face without the beard.
  • You may think you know what a sixty-seven year old man ought to look like, but the chances are that your expectations are not taking into account factors like environment and state of health. This man has a long beard, has lost his top teeth and has bags under his eyes. These factors are aging.
There are two good reasons why this drawing is believed to be a self-portrait of Leonardo.
  • It bears a very close resemblance to Raphael's portrayal of Leonardo in The School of Athens.
  • It is so expertly drawn by a left-handed artist that it is difficult to imagine that anyone other than Leonardo created it.
Amandajm (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, in Milan, where they hold some of Leonardo's codices, there is a page on display (resembling very much Raphael's portrayal of Leonardo, and resembling very much Leonardo's portrayal of an older man - possibly his father - and it is presented as a self-portrait of Leonardo. The resemblance of that portrait to the one here on the Wikipedia page is convincing to anyone who has studied faces. But, is there proof that an "encyclopedic" mentality would accept? Perhaps not. But, I consider myself to be a reasonable person, and I'm convinced. Unfortunately, they do not allow pictures to be taken of it (and it is not on permanent display, although I suspect it is still there, as I saw it in 2010), but I suggest that serious students of this question go and view it for themselvesLeValley 05:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo and the Este girls

Leonardo, according to Cartwright Addy, may have had a chance to meet both Isabella and Beatrice in or near Rome when they were young girls. It is more likely that he met Beatrice, who had been sent to Southern Italy to be raised in the Court of Naples. If so, then he knew Beatrice for about 20 years. Beatrice came to Milan in 1491 (Isabella was in Mantua). Leonardo painted one of his best and most lively portraits of her (see her page on Wikipedia; the portrait is labeled as by Leonardo in the gallery where it is held; there are several copies of it by Leonardo's students as well). It was probably painted as a wedding portrait in 1491 - so they spent some time together. He captured quite a bit of her personality - denoting some "closeness." If Wikipedia is interested in Leonardo's sex life, I doubt that will ever be reconstructed. But it is clear that he sketched Beatrice's two sons frequently in his notebooks, and actually wrote that his drawings of babies improved when he was around one long enough to get a sense of what they were really about. Many of Leonardo's babies are somewhat grotesque, but his drawings of Massimiliano show a robust and cute baby. So, Leonardo spent six years actually living with Beatrice - probably right in the castle; and was involved in some sort of intimate scandal with her the year before she died (1496). Some scholars believe he did two portraits of her, and that she may have been a model for a figure in the Last Supper. So, if a relationship with either Este woman is going to be mentioned, his relationship with Beatrice was closer - and Isabella threw tantrums and tried to get him to come to Mantua, but he went only once, and briefly, and avoided her company thereafter. I think he liked Beatrice a great deal, and as he designed so many things for her person, her rooms and her castle, and there are records of him discussing the figures in the Last Supper (commissioned by her husband and herself) with her, I think it was a "close" relationship.LeValley 05:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo's Name and Father

Recently I have done a research investigation on Leonardo da Vinci, and have come across his fathers name, Ser Piero. Upon learning what Ser means, it is a completely different title than that of Messer, which is used in this article. Ser is translated to meaning Sir, which Piero attained through being a highly notable notary. Messer on the other hand, simply meant mister. In politeness, anyone could be called Messer, but only members of a higher class would gain the title Ser. Therefore, the part of the Leonardo article that states this, "Leonardo, (son) of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci" should instead say, "Leonardo, (son) of Sir Piero from Vinci". My source is a book called "The World of Leonardo 1452-1519" by Robert Wallace --Scavens (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Not to be misleading, I had more than one source, however that was the book that covered most of his childhood compared to the rest of my sources. Scavens (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Leonardo's father was of some sort of noble rank, but his mother was not. This is of interest to his biography and should be placed in the article.LeValley 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says "He was the illegitimate son of the wealthy Messer Piero Fruosino di Antonio da Vinci [...] his full birth name was "Lionardo di ser Piero da Vinci", meaning "Leonardo, (son) of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci".[8] The inclusion of the title "ser" indicated that Leonardo's father was a gentleman."
That seems contradictory in itself. It seems both instances of "Messer", per the above discussed, should be replaced with "Ser" and "Sir", respectively. I'll do this change and reference this thread in case someone disagrees. --Waldir talk 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Sir, in English indicates that the person has been honored with a knighthood by a monarch. It is an individual honour which isn't a simply reflection of family status, Ser in Italian doesn't equate to Sir in English, except in the general way that a shop assistant might call someone Sir or school children might call a teacher Sir. To refer to Leonardo's father as Sir Piero is not appropriate.
I think it's fine the way it is. Scavens, above, points out that anyone could be called Messer in respect. While this is theoretically the case, in practice it didn't happen. If a person was referred to as Messer Piero, then he wasn't just anbody; he was someone held in respect.
Amandajm (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci never got married and did'nt have children but you ahve absolutely no idea on what his sexuality was, so don't make thigs up.== Private life ==

Leonardo never got married because he was gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.145.35 (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

fff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.169.163 (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC) No he wasent!!!! (oh no u didn't!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonlink9567 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Contributor March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change As a scientist, he made important discoveries in anatomy, civil engineering, optics, and hydrodynamics, but his failure to publish his findings meant that he influence on these fields is not well documented by historians.[citation needed] to As a scientist, he made important discoveries in anatomy, civil engineering, optics, and hydrodynamics, but his failure to publish his findings meant that his influence on these fields is not well documented by historians.[citation needed] because it is not grammatically correct. 71.48.247.13 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I had to re-edit it because it's not factually correct. Leonardo spent much of his life recording his scientific studies in his notebooks, which he intended to publish in a series of volumes on various subjects. But he never did - the only thing to be published was his notebook on painting. That did have an impact, but on art, not science. The remaining notebooks were dispersed after his death (more accurately, after Melzi's death), about half the pages are now completely lost, and none of them were published. The result was that no contemporary scholars ever learned of what he had done, and he had no impact whatsoever on the course of scientific studies. PiCo (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Very interesting. But of course, even if he didn't influence his contemporaries, that does not mean that he did not influence the course of science, for the (close to) five hundred years since his passing. That is a fairly long time. I also notice that you have not provided a citation; one would certainly be quite helpful, considering that a citation needed was there before. Thanks, RogueTeddy (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
He didn't influence future scientists because by the time the notebooks did come to be recovered, his discoveries had already been independently rediscovered by others. I can get the reference. PiCo (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Da Vinci's Sfumato

I would like to submit the addition of Jacques Abenaïm's Da Vinci's Sfumato, an essay on the life of Leonardo Da Vinci and his relations with Christopher Columbus and Isabella of Castille, among others. It is the result of 10 years of research and challenges several historical aspects of Da Vinci's own life, notably Vasari's accounts in Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects.

The book is available for download at davincisfumato.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.138.189 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked it out. Some good stuff but much speculation that is not well founded. Amandajm (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Influence on science

Leonardo had a best friend named devin taylor who played for the SC gamecocks!! theoretical nature of science, but to state that he had no influence on anatomy, engineering, hydraulics etc is much too exaggerated. It's a bit like saying that the potter's wheel or the spinning jenny had no influence.

Leonardo's work on anatomy was viewed by other artists and knowledgeable anatomists. His immediate influence on those to whom he was teaching painting must have been considerable.

In the fields of engineering, we really have no idea the extent to which his more practical designs were put into use, or the extent to which the military engineers of the various dukes for whom he worked seized upon them, and further developed them. This I do know, I discovered a mechanical, opening, bridge in France, probably early 19th century, which appears to be built to a design of Leonardo's. I presume there was a prototype and others to that design in the intervening centuries. Amandajm (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Capra says he had no influence, and explains why. But first, there's a distinction between science (the investigation of fundamental principles) and engineering (the practical application of principles, without necessarily understanding them - tho L would certainly have understood). So, your example of the potter's wheel is misplaced - the wheel is technology, it could have been invented without any understanding of theoretical physics, and probably was. But (and here's the great tragedy of Leonardo's life), L was a genuine scientist, a man who devoted most of his life to the understanding of the natural world and its underlying mechanisms. He studied optics, anatomy, fluid hydraulics, and other fields, and he made breakthroughs. He discovered topology, a field of mathematics that wasn't revisited until the 19th century. He made important discoveries in anatomy. But - and this is the killer - he never told anyone. He wrote it all down in the Notebooks, which he regarded as the most important achievement of his life, but he never got them into publishable form, and never published. As a result, by the time the Notebooks were reassembled (and then only partially - as much as half may be lost forever), everything he had discovered had been rediscovered by others. Leo himself had no impact whatsoever on science. It's all in Capra. PiCo (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Other da Vinci Inventions

Didn't he also invent a huge crossbow? I may have missed it, but I don't think I saw it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efrandpilot (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo's Name Typo

In the section "Childhood, 1452-1466", it is noted "his full birth name was "Lionardo di ser Piero da Vinci", should be "his full birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci". (Leodavin (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

It's not a typo. It's the way it was written in the record of his baptism. Amandajm (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Proof of the Pythagorean theorem by Leonardo da Vinci

Hi, some sources say Leonardo da Vinci gave a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. If it's true, it would have space to me mentioned in this article? I think it's noteworthy for the time, considering all the other things he did and he had some interest in the theorem. I read it in http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml, proof #16. José Henrique Campos (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not in this article. There is a separate article on his science and inventions. Amandajm (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Da Vinci as a musician (and scientist)

I'm sorry if I have to rattle the cage that is the ginormous scientific and artistic polymath-lie of 'Leo from Vinci', but how can it be said that he was a musician? Using this and the german Wikipedia article, I only find 3 anecdotes- that he liked to fiddle around with lyres, he once painted for a music guy, and that he liked to listen to music while working. That does not a musician make. I'd like to see actual quotes from this Emanuel Winternitz-hack cited here --88.152.201.83 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is said he was a musician because Vasari says that the fact that he could "fiddle around with lyres" as you put it, was the primary reason that the Duke Sforza of Milan invited him to go there. He took with him a Lyre of his own design, in the shape of a horses head (which would have taken months of "fiddling around" to create.) Leonardo played for the Duke and "because of the sonorous tone of his lyre" Leonardo out-did all the musicians at the Duke's court, according to Vasari. Now it is fairly obvious that regardless of how good the lyre was, he couldn't have outdone anyone unless he played magnificently. Owning a Steinway doesn't make you a concert pianist. Read Vasari's life of Leonardo. You'll find the online link on the article page. Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to point out here that Leonardo's fame as a painter was so great that it drew away from his other talents. He is now known as a scientist and has almost equal standing in that field as in the filed of painting, but he was forgotten as a scientist for several hundred years. It is hardly surprising that his musical talents receive very little attention when their are so many other aspects of his work that have masses of documentation. The portrait of a musician is thought by some, including me, to represent Leoanrdo himself. Amandajm (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
He is only known as a scientist at a popular level - Discover Channel stuff. His achievement as a scientist was actually zero - see above. PiCo (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
PiCo Darling... he was an engineer.... it is impossible to say that his influence was nil. And his drawing up of those dodecky things were published, and must have had some influence on the mathematical world. I wouldn't like to be absolutely dogmatic about him having no influence whatever! Amandajm (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Amandy Sweetheart... an Engineer and a Scientist are 2 different beasts... when Len designed a lock or a canal, he was being an engineer... When he studied the flow of water and described the formation of vortices in conditions of chaotic motion he was being a scientist... Engineering can be copied, (and was - nobody, sweetness, denies that he left the odd bobbin-winder to us)... but Science is a one-off affair, Newton describes the motion of the planets and that's it, no point in doing it again, until Einstein comes along and does it differently... and Len never told anyone about his science, and left nothing, zilch, and nada, to mankind.
To design and build a telescope (which he never did, but never mind the details) is technology, engineering; to describe a wave theory of light (which Leo actually did do) is science. Great, that puts Lenny right up there in terms of scientific breakthroughs. Excpet he never published, and Huygens, 200 years later, came to the same conclusions and (now get this), PUBLISHED THEM! which makes Chris, not Len, the one who had an impact on science. PiCo (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If I may intercede, it is possible the following perspective may be of interest. It appears that not all academics seem to share your view of Capra's opinion on the matter. "The Place of Leonardo da Vinci in the emergence of modern science" by JH Randall, who appears to be an author of some later vintage and whose work appears to have stood the test of time without undue challenge, as opposed to your citation that seems to be (by my eyes) to be a misinterpretation of work not yet 5 years old. I dare say, given the nature of the book you cite, it would be curious to hear Capra's view on your perspective of his dedication to the memory of the great genius of Leonardo. From the amazon review, for instance, and I quote: "Capra, author of the classic The Tao of Physics, makes the case in this fascinating intellectual biography for the great artist Leonardo being the unsung father of modern science." -- Publishers Weekly. This appears to be in direct contradiction to your conclusion of the tone of the work. Best Wishes, RogueTeddy (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(Undent, since this is a new conversation). Capra says: "His [i.e., Leonardo's] pioneering discoveries and ideas had no direct influence on the scientists who came after him..." Capra doesn't say what indirect influence they might have had, but the answer is none - if you don't publish, you don't have influence. Capra goes on (this is the continuation of the same quote): "...although during the subsequent 450 years [i.e., after his death] his conception of a science of living forms would emerge again at various times." But emerge spontaneously, not because anyone knew anything about Leonardo's science - they couldn't, he never published anything. Capra admits as much in the next sentence: "During those periods [i.e., when a 'science of living forms' was revisited] the problems he had struggled with were revisited with increasing levels of sophistication as scientists advanced in their understanding..." But they advanced without Leonardo's help - they had to, he left no books or papers.
All of that is on page 5 of Capra, a paragraph in the middle of the page. At the top of page 6 (the paragraph begins at the bottom of page 5), Capra says: "None of the scientists in that lineage were aware that the great genius of the Renaissance [i.e., Leonardo] had already pioneered many of the ideas they were exploring." Or to put that in slightly less flowery prose, they weren't influenced by him. "While Leonardo's manuscripts were gathering dust, Galileo was being celebrated as the father of modern science." And quite rightly - Galileo published books and papers, Leonardo didn't. "I wonder (says Capra) how Western scientific thought would have developed had his Notebooks been known and widely studied soon after his death." But they weren't.
Incidentally, Amazon is misrepresenting Capra - Capra doesn't say Leonardo is the father of modern science, sung or unsung, he says he arrived at a "modern" approach to science before Galileo, but left no children because of his failure to publish anything. That's pretty much the consensus view. PiCo (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
(PS: Sorry, I made a mistake: Leonardo wasn't before Galileo, they were almost contemporaries). PiCo (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
PPS: Randall is useless as a reliable source, he admits to never having even read the Notebooks and to having no knowledge of Leonardo or of the history of science - why on Earth did he bother writing?). PiCo (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
According to your citation, Capra mentions ".. no direct influence", as opposed to what you are saying, which is, "no influence" - additional information. So it appears that you are drawing a further inference from the document that is not mentioned therein. However that is not to say that if you can find a notable source supporting such a strong statement, such as an arts or theology dissertation, I would be very interested in hearing about that reference; or alternatively journal articles that conclude the same (one of the reasons I mentioned the amazon review was that the view was due to Publishers Weekly, which is a notable vendor of written publications).
I note that you also make an additional inference: "Capra doesn't say what indirect influence they might have had, but the answer is none - if you don't publish, you don't have influence." Apart from reasons already mentioned above regarding the suitability of making such forward statements, with regard to the statement directly I should probably point out that it is possible to have influence in ways other than publication. I would point you, for instance, to the story of the man who planted trees. He had no education or training, and worked essentially as a laborer for the entirety of his life; but solely due to his labors he made a difference to the lives of thousands of people, without necessarily working for the government public service, or writing papers within the confines of the academy.
Also, the notebooks of Leonardo, containing descriptions of flying machines etc, [1] were known to scholars long before the first successful aircraft designs were developed, and thoroughly and exhaustively studied]; as I said earlier, it has been 500 years since his passing. To my mind, to conclude such a strong statement would require some slightly more convincing documentation, to say the very least, than that which you have displayed so far. However I would be very interested in hearing of such, if you can find a good source, as such efforts will doubtless help make this a better article; at the very least, it will help me and others understand better the consensus view of which you speak. Best Regards, RogueTeddy (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There are many people who can dabble in a variety of things and be an expert in relatively few. Leonardo was one of them. Anyone who spends their life frolicking between multiple areas rather than specializing in one is nonetheless likely to come up with something new and possibly be considered some sort of genius by laymen. The general public sees that Leonardo was not only a great artist but also, like many people nowadays, a sketcher of various contraptions that never would have worked (as has been proven numerous times with Leo's stuff) due to insufficient expertise. And so, obviously, he must have been a great musician as well, no? =P --82.31.164.172 (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2011

(UTC)

It's not known whether Leonardo was a great musician. It is known that he was a sufficiently good musician to be sent from Florence to Milan to entertain the Duke. Carrying an instrument he had built himself as a gift from the richest man in Florence.
You can draw your own conclusion from this. However, my conclusion is that he must have been no mean musician, otherwise Lorenzo would not have sent him on that mission.
As for him dabbling in a variety of things, and becoming expert at few...... Well, OK. Lets look at the things he became expert at.
  • He mastered the new art of painting in oils (unlike his master who painted in tempera and those around him who painted in fresco). His technical skill at oil painting left works of extraordinarily high technical quality, compared with most Italian Renaissance oil paintings i.e. they have physically stood the test of time better.
  • As an artist, he revolutionised the way in which artists saw and recorded things. No single artist had had so profound effect on other artists since Giotto, 200 years earlier.
  • His understanding of some aspects of human anatomy was fairly traditional, but he had a far greater understanding of topographical anatomy and the workings of muscles and sinews than any other artist of his time, including Michelangelo.
  • He was an expert cartographer.
  • His botanical drawings hold up against those of any specialist in the field.
  • His understanding of the science of perspective allowed him to draw, expertly, very tricky diagrams of complex solids, in three dimensional, schematic perspective form, for a mathematical publication.
  • He had a remarkable grasp of geology, (just ignore the statements of the American geologist who wrote about this, and who has obviously never seen red limestone, and has certainly never been to Lago Maggiore)
  • He successfully built automata, not a skill that the average person possesses. A mechanical lion that can walk and roar sounds like quite an achievement, and certainly demonstrates a more-than-basic understanding of mechanics.
  • When you talk about "contraptions that never would have worked", you need to be much more specific. In fact, the vast majority of Leonardo's contraptions do work. The Helicopter doesn't. The tank goes round in circles, and the gigantic crossbow is a complete failure. However, a very large number of other inventions which are less dramatic and exciting, work very well indeed.
  • A number of Leonardo's practical inventions seem to have simply gone into production without attribution. History has not been kind to Leonardo as an inventor. The British can name every significant machine and every improvement to it and every industrial process and who developed it, since about 1500. Who built the steam engine? - Newcommen, Trevethick, Watt, Boulton, Stephenson, Brunell and a boy call Humphrey (whose surname I have forgotten) all played a part, and every improvement that each one made, including Humphrey's pieces of string, have gone down in British history. On the other hand, nothing that Leonardo added to the industries of Florence, the defence of Milan or the staging of pageants and drama, has ever been attributed to him in the vagaries of Italian history. Basically, if Vasari didn't mention it, then we don't know.
  • I have spent quite a lot of time analysing Leonardo's practical inventions. I concluded that, when drawing them, he very often simply omitted things which were very obvious and basic mechanics- e.g. he drew a machine that worked, but didn't draw the handle, or the crank, or the gear or the screw necessary to make it work; he only drew that part of the mechanism which was new and inventive. This is because he inventing, he wasn't drafting a blueprint for a manufacturer. He somehow succeeded in selling himself to Cesare Borgia (who was no fool) as an engineer, rather than as a painter.
My final comment to you is that Leonardo was, all his life, a layman in every field except painting. However, I suggest that you look into the matter a little further and you may find that he did more than dabble. Amandajm (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the response. He was an exceptional man for sure, and he made more significant contributions than most people who juggle between a variety of fields. I just believe that there is a tendency to mistaken above-average to gifted talent in a variety of fields with universal ingenuity or talent, although this is not a logical conclusion. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point that in the whole history of humankind no-one else is perceived as having been so greatly gifted in such a diverse number of fields. You speak about this as if such acclaim of universal genius is a common phenomena. My impression is that a person of such blazing curiosity and such inventive powers could indeed have had "universal talent" i.e. been able to take up almost any academic challenge that came his way. However, it's just possible that he couldn't tie his shoe laces, and didn't know which side his bread was buttered on.
Besides which, it isn't merely "ordinary laymen" that cite Leonardo as an extraordinary genius. Among the people who regard him as such are many who have extraordinary and ground-breaking skills in their own fields- Sigmund Freud, for example. What's your agenda in trying to prove ha was less than he was? Amandajm (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from UncleVanya, 25 June 2011

Leonardo da Vinci -> Anatomy incomplete at the time of Meltzi's [death] forty years later

Inserting this word will make the sentence complete, but the numbers do not add up. Da Vinci died in 1519 & Meltzi in 1570, 51 years later. UncleVanya (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (fixed little problem with format Amandajm (talk))

Thanks for alerting me to these two problems. Amandajm (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Done by Amandajm Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

His interests were not "without precedent"

The opening paragraph gives a quote describing Leonardo's interests as "without precedent." This is untrue. Leonardo modeled himself after Leon Alberti, a similar architect, writer and polymath whom Leonardo studied in-depth, evidence also seems to suggest that the notion of studying multiple disciplines was quite common in Renaissance Italy. I feel that to say that Leonardo was "without precedent" gives people an inaccurate view of history and dehumanizes him. He was a very talented person, but like the rest of us, he did not exist in a vacuum and had role models and influences whom he emulated. I would prefer that the quote in the opening paragraph be cut down or removed so as not to give an inaccurate view of the past. Thank you. EGarrett01 (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What is says in the opening is: According to art historian Helen Gardner, the scope and depth of his interests were without precedent.....
This statement of Gardner's is precisely true.
  • Leon Battista Alberti was indeed a very clever "Renaissance Man". However, I suspect that to say Leonardo "modelled himself" on Alberti was incorrect. He had no more need to "model himself" on anyone else than did Michelangelo, and it is very doubtful that either of them did. Leonardo, in his childhood, was already showing the curiosity and invention that was to mark his life. We do know that he owned Alberti's treatise but to say that he "modelled himself" on Alberti is going too far.
  • If you consider the statement that is being made more fully, it states that the "scope and depths" of his interest was without precedent.
Before Leonardo, there were a number of scholars who were architects, mathematicians, painters, philosophers and writers. There were scholars (particularly in the Muslim world) who were chemists, physicists, botanists, philosophers and writers. There were painters who greatly advanced the science of light and the geometry of perspective.
But no-one else was regarded (even within his lifetime) as the supreme master of painting, and was also (and most significantly) the world's greatest anatomist, and a geometrician who collaborated on and illustrated a the major work on geometrical solids, and the engineer of dykes, canals, siege machinery, water pumps and practical industrial inventions, and a botanist whose drawings of plants are renowned, and also a geologist who theorised about the origin of fossils and disputed the Great Flood, and a physicist whose studies of light are recorded in detail in his notes and made manifest in his paintings, setting a new standard for the handling of light in artworks for every after. Add to this that his primary employment for many years was in the designing of "entertainments" ie he was a theatrical producer and director (which in todays world would make him more famous than all the other stuff together), but all we have left is a few drawings of costumes. He was a musician who was also a builder of musical instruments. He built what was possibly the first robot. He was a model-maker who made an automaton in the form of a lion that walked and roared. Let us add to this that he studied the flight of birds, and created a number of flying and gliding machines, that he devised ways of swimming under water and walking over the top of it. He investigated church architecture, and designed numerous centrally-planned domed churches, none of which seem to have been constructed. It is probable that a castle was built to his design, and my personal research has discovered bridges in France to a design of his invention. You can add to this that he not only wrote copious notes on all these subjects but he also philosophised and wrote fables.
  • I think if you consider this, you will have to agree with Helen Gardner, as quoted here that: the scope and depth of his interest were without precedent".
  • I also want to make the point that Leonardo was a "legend in his lifetime".
You cannot "cut down" statements about Leonardo, any more than you could reduce the singular importance of Jesus, or downplay the amount of hype that surrounds Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe who are "iconic" in the 20th century. Even in 1500 Leonardo da Vinci was not regarded as someone who was merely a "very talented person". He was regarded with awe.
The mystique with which he has always been surrounded is part of his story. It is not a legend that has developed in the 20th century. It was part of his life and needs to be dealt with in his biography.
  • I have deliberately written and included quite a lengthy section that gives a picture of the quite remarkable world into which Leonardo was transported, when his father took him to Florence and apprenticed him. The recent publication by Bulent Atalay and Keith Wamsley, Leonardo's Universe, (2008) ISBN 978-1-4262-0285-8 is a beautiful book devoted to this subject in particular.
Amandajm (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
From the point of wikidianism, all that really counts is that the "without precedent" judgement is reliably sourced. (Although I do suspect that a bit of art-gush-talk is being employed). PiCo (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"...outlined a rudimentary theory of plate tectonics."

I did not know Leonardo da Vinci "outlined a rudimentary theory of plate tectonics" until I read this article, so thanks to the editors.
The Wikipedia article on plate tectonics makes no mention of da Vinci, referring only to "early speculations." I have suggested that they link their article with the Wikipedia article on the Codex Leicester which states "Hundreds of years before plate tectonics became accepted scientific theory, Leonardo believed that mountains had previously formed sea beds, which were gradually lifted until they formed mountains."
I believe that this article would also be improved if you were to add a footnote or a reference to the Codex Leicester when you state that he "outlined a rudimentary theory of plate tectonics."
Thanks, --Walter Wright (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. Amandajm (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

deconstructing the genius

In modern writings, there is significant reconsideration of the term 'genius' and its contribution to mythologizing him. Although his legacy is indisputable, a critical review of his work, including the many failures, incomplete works, and trials and errors, in addition to contextualizing his gained popularity (including Visari's exaggerated biography + agenda) may complete a better understandiing of him, while adding a more human dimension and quality without taking from his legacy.

Furthermore, an underlining understanding of his purpose may also help to deconstruct the mystery man. Leonardo dabbled into so many fields to get an understanding of the macrocosm, and used comparative studies ('paragone') as evident in his notebooks to undestand the world.

Readings I would suggest: Ackerman, James M. "Leonardo da Vinci: ARt in Science." Daedalus, 127, 1 (1998), pp.207-224.

Garber, Marjorie. "Our Genius Problem." The Atlantic Monthly, 290, 5 (2002), pp.65-72.

Kemp, Martin. "The Crisis of Received Wisdom in Leonardo's Thought." In Leonardo e l'eta della ragione [Leonardo and the Age of Reason ]. Ed. Enrico Bellone and Paolo Rossi. Milan: Scientia, 1982, pp.27-42.

Kemp, Martin. "The 'Super-Artist' as Genius: The Sixteenth-Century View." In Genius: The History of a Idea. Ed. Penelope Murray. Oxford and New York: Blackwell, 1989, pp.32-53. Zammel (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'm not directly involved, but I'd like to say that I appreciate the precision, good research and obvious thought that you've put into this topic. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, Zammel. Unfortunately, a "critical review" of his work is not possible within the context of Wikipedia, because this would constitute "Original research" or "Personal opinion", both of which conflict with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
The other problem here is that the article is already extremely long. If it gets longer, then it simply doesn't load. In Australia, for example, the internet service is so poor that unless you are located in Sydney University, you can wait half an hour for a five minute clip on You Tube to load. I kid you not. I believe SEAsia is worse.
The article attempts to give a summary of his artworks (on which his fame chiefly rests) while mentioning his science, engineering and so forth, which are dealt with more fully in the article Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci.
The article simply hasn't got space to list every failed project. It deals with four major failures: the Adoration of the Magi, the Equestrian statue, the Battle of Anghiari and the deterioration of the Last Supper. Basically, if people want the whole story they need to "buy the book".
Can I suggest that you look at the series of quotations on Leonardo's genius, (which were all taken from what I happened to have available at the time), think about what could be most conveniently deleted, and prepare a suitable collection of quotes from more recent authors that you feel give some insight beyond the adulation.
I also suggest that the books that you recommend be added, either as sources, if you quote them, or as "further reading" if you do not.
Just thinking about this again, there is a List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci. It would be possible to make another list, a list of projects, which stated the date, the location, the patron and the results, if known. This could include projects that were of an engineering nature, and also of an artistic nature, such a theatre and celebrations. What do you think? Would you be prepared to work on it?
There are also articles called Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci (which could well have a section on critique, provided they were quotes) and Leonardo da Vinci's personal life (buy into that one at your own risk!)
Amandajm (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Amandajm, I do understand what you are saying about critical perspectives, amd I like your suggestion about including some these pieces in the 'further reading' section of the article, and leaving it up to the descrition of the user. I can definately look into the quotations regarding his genius and see if there is anything of value that I can add. As of now, I do not have a list of projects in detail, but I will attempt to research it, if my search is fruitful I would be up for creating a list of his projects. Zammel (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be terrific. I've got a couple of useful books. There is a small book by Kemp that has a really good timeline and says what he was doing for who in a number of instances. Oh, I can't see it in the bookcase. Why does a book seem to grow legs of its own whenever you need it? Amandajm (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Was da Vinci half Arabic?

There is some speculation that da Vinci's mother was Arabic slave. It was reported it the news here or here. Do you think it should be included in the article? I think there is a mention of this issue in the article about LdV personal life.--Maksymilian Sielicki (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The information is far from conclusive. When pushed to be more specific, the discoverers of this fact wavered between Arabic and Turkish (which are not the same thing) and when pushed further they said "Mediterranean" which could mean anything from Palestine to Spain to North Africa with Italy firmly placed in the middle!
There is also the possibility that Leonardo was a Jew.
So because this article is pushed for space, the speculation has been put into the article about his personal life.
Amandajm (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

Changer une phrase dans le texte à propos du Château du Clos Lucé Born out of wedlock to a notary, Piero da Vinci, and a peasant woman, Caterina, at Vinci in the region of Florence, Leonardo was educated in the studio of the renowned Florentine painter, Verrocchio. Much of his earlier working life was spent in the service of Ludovico il Moro in Milan. He later worked in Rome, Bologna and Venice and spent his last years in Amboise in France, at the Château du Clos Lucé, a residence awarded him by Francis I. Leonardo was and is renowned[2] primarily as a painter. Among his works, the Mona Lisa is the most famous and most parodied portrait and The Last Supper the most reproduced religious painting of all time, with their fame approached only by Michelangelo's Creation of Adam.[1] Leonardo's drawing of the Vitruvian Man is also regarded as a cultural icon,[4] being reproduced on items as varied as the euro, textbooks, and T-shirts. Perhaps fifteen of his paintings survive, the small number due to his constant, and frequently disastrous, experimentation with new techniques, and his chronic procrastination.[nb 2] Nevertheless, these few works, together with his notebooks, which contain drawings, scientific diagrams, and his thoughts on the nature of painting, compose a contribution to later generations of artists only rivalled by that of his contemporary, Michelangelo.

ajouter ce texte à la fin du paragraphe "Old age, 1513–1519" After a journey across the Alps on mule-back. He brought with him three paintings: the Mona Lisa, Saint John the Baptist, and The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne. Leonardo was named as “The King’s First Painter, Engineer and Architect”, and received a pension of 1000 gold crowns per year.

Leonardo da Vinci received a pension of 1000 gold crowns per year, and was named “The King’s First Painter, Engineer and Architect”. Until his death, he was the object of real affection on the part of Francis I – who called him “my Father” – his sister Marguerite and the whole Court. At the Château du Clos Lucé, Leonardo da Vinci was very prolific. In his office, he drew up plans for the construction of a grand palace and ideal city of Romorantin to accommodate the Court. In Leonardo’s codex, there is a series of investigations, plans and drawings presenting this fabulous project. He established the project to drain the Sologne, and planned moveable houses for the itinerant Court. Francis I appreciated this genius so much that he is said to have visited Leonardo often, using the underground passage linking the Château du Clos Lucé to the Royal Château d’Amboise. The vaulted entrance of the passage can be seen in the cellar of the residence. In 1519, the artist died at Le Clos Lucé at the age of 67


Nadègevillain (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, could you be more specific about what it is you require changing, in English please--Jac16888 Talk 12:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

please add after the first paragraph in the chapter "Old age, 1513–1519" theses lines: After a journey across the Alps on mule-back. He brought with him three paintings: the Mona Lisa, Saint John the Baptist, and The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne. Leonardo was named as “The King’s First Painter, Engineer and Architect”, and received a pension of 1000 gold crowns per year.

Leonardo da Vinci received a pension of 1000 gold crowns per year, and was named “The King’s First Painter, Engineer and Architect”. Until his death, he was the object of real affection on the part of Francis I – who called him “my Father” – his sister Marguerite and the whole Court. At the Château du Clos Lucé, Leonardo da Vinci was very prolific. In his office, he drew up plans for the construction of a grand palace and ideal city of Romorantin to accommodate the Court. In Leonardo’s codex, there is a series of investigations, plans and drawings presenting this fabulous project. He established the project to drain the Sologne, and planned moveable houses for the itinerant Court. Francis I appreciated this genius so much that he is said to have visited Leonardo often, using the underground passage linking the Château du Clos Lucé to the Royal Château d’Amboise. The vaulted entrance of the passage can be seen in the cellar of the residence. In 1519, the artist died at Le Clos Lucé at the age of 67.

and please change the following sentence : "He later worked in Rome, Bologna and Venice and spent his last years in Amboise in France, at the Château du Clos Lucé, a residence awarded him by Francis I." in the second paragragh in the chapter "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci". Thank you Nadège Nadègevillain (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is the addition of a direct quotation from another source, which you haven't stated.
This article is very long. Long articles don't load very well in parts of the world that have poor internet provision. It makes the article inaccessible to millions of people. For this reason, unimportant details like the fact that Leonardo travelled by mule are not included here.
There is already a description indicating that the King loved and appreciated Leonardo, as well as the name of his home and the amount he was paid.
If you would like it to be included that he worked mainly on architectural and engineering projects, then state what the source is.
Amandajm (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cranes?

I was doing some research, wondering if da Vinci ever worked on crane technology. I vaguely recall hearing about his making schematics for cranes, but not sure where to find that information. If so, did his research/designs have any effect on the advancement of crane technology? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether Leonardo advanced crane technology. I know that his various inventions made masterly use of gears, (including angle gears) and ratchet and pinion technology, so it is possible that he advanced crane technology.
Brunelleschi is said to have devised a number of the machines that were used in the construction of the dome of Florence Cathedral. Leonardo is known to have drawn some of Brunelleschi's machines.
This is unrelated but, a huge Medieval crane stood abandoned on the unfinished south-west tower of Cologne Cathedral from 1474 until the late 1800s. [2]
Hope that this is some help
Amandajm (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

In Leonardo da Vinci's Wikipedia page under Professional life, 1476-1513 in the first paragraph Verrocchio is spell "Verroccio" instead of the correct spelling "Verrocchio".

173.16.59.96 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Was he dyslexic?

Recently stumbled upon this in an article in Corriere della sera - http://www.corriere.it/salute/disabilita/11_dicembre_16/dislessia-troppe-diagnosi_79ca21ae-27d2-11e1-a7fa-64ae577a90ab.shtml and it is not hard to find english language sources (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8128233/Dyslexia-the-secret-of-Da-Vinci-and-Picassos-success.html). Any reason why it is not mentioned here? Richiez (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not mentioned here because it is speculation. This article attempts to deal with what is actually known about Leonardo. The article is already very long, and there isn't room for this sort of stuff. There is another article titled Leonardo da Vinci's personal life. This information could go into that article. I created another article specifically about all the various theories and speculations, but it was deleted by an administrator who didn't perceive it as relevant. Amandajm (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Too bad the theories and speculations were deleted, do you have copy somewhere?Richiez (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It is unfinished. I was working on it. At the time it was deleted, what I was doing was gathering references, so in places there are references with no content attached. User:Amandajm/Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation
Amandajm (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Paintings of the 1490s - ... The novelist Matteo Bandello observed Leonardo at work and wrote that some days he would paint from dawn till dusk without stopping to eat and then not paint for three or four days at a time.[71] This was beyond the comprehension of the prior, ...

It's unclear who/what the prior is: I didn't know that prior was a homonym until I looked it up - incidentally on it's Wikipedia page, which it could be linked to. In it's above usage, it sounds like it's trying to mean "former," relating to the first of the two people just previously mentioned; unless you know what a prior is already, you wouldn't know that it related to the convent mentioned in the prior (hehe) paragraph. Domiciliphile (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That problem had already caused confusion and I should have dealt with it then. I think its fixed. I linked it, as you suggested, and added the words "of the convent".
Amandajm (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leonardo_da_Vinci/Archive_6&oldid=1136901525"