Leonardo: The First Scientist

Rating:
Summary: Leonardo did this, saw this, noted this, thought this, but..
Review: I have previously enjoyed the writing of Mr. Michael White in the Biography he penned of "Isaac Newton The Last Sorcerer". Despite contemporary connotations the word sorcerer may bring to mind, the book was very well done. Mr. White is very honest from page 1 as to his admiration for Leonardo; he even shares a young dream of wanting to be the man he so admired. Candor can cut either way. The reader can read with a bit more skepticism, allowing for the Author's personal feelings, or read with less caution, justified by the Author having been so forthright at the outset.

Mr. White sets what some would argue is an impossible goal, he not only wants to establish that Leonardo was the first scientist, but that because his notebooks were largely lost for 200 hundred years following his death, his work was often repeated, and all History was held back because of this. While Mr. White writes an enjoyable narrative, I do not believe he makes his case.

Even with what remains of the 13,000 hand written pages that were Leonardo's notebooks, there are still vastly different interpretations of some of what he might, or might not have done. That he chose to write in a left handed mirror image style, that then was often encoded to protect his ideas, has not helped the understanding of this brilliant mind. Leonardo wrote extensively on a myriad of topics, and he did have thoughts, or perhaps insights about what he observed. There is no argument that his documentation of anatomy was extraordinary, and that his sketches of flying machines and parachutes resembled the inventions that came centuries later. But even if we do as the Author suggests, one almost has to have a separate definition for what a scientist does, so as to be able to apply the term, to Leonardo.

The Author "One must allow for a broader interpretation of what science means... To me, science is exploration, it is questioning, it is the application of imagination, it is analysis". The author also says that what Leonardo lacked in math skills, he made up for "with his genius as an artist".

Wanting something does not make it so.

His exceptional skills as an artist have no value as a replacement for what were his basic math skills at. A Scientist uses exacting rules laid down for performing observations and testing the soundness of conclusions, he is systematic he is accurate. And this is where Leonardo fails.

This is why the Author is forced to qualify, with few exceptions, that Leonardo's concepts were explored 200 years earlier by Villard de Honnecourt as to flying machines and parachutes, or that Leonardo predated Newton's third law of motion by 200 years except, he did not apply the concept to a range of situations, he was not studying conventional mechanics, and also he did NOT create a mathematical framework to support the idea. Said simply he observed birds, made an educated guess, and then designed flying machines that were absurd when pen was put to paper. And the why of it is, for all his brilliance in a wide range of subjects, Leonardo was not a formerly educated man, he was not possessed of math skills that even remotely approach what he would have required to prove the designs he had did not work, or to develop ones that did.

Leonardo was brilliant, he was a man with a mind that was unique, and he had a desire for knowledge so vast and wide, it at times prevented him from finishing much of what he was commissioned or promised to do.

A good Author, writing of one of the greatest minds in History, but a mind that nonetheless must utilize those tools, and meet the benchmarks, not be excused from them, that science requires of any who participate.

Rating:
Summary: A good book about an incredible mind.
Review: I liked this book - it is well written and easy to read - but I do have a few complaints. Frankly, I can't see how the author concludes that Leonardo was homosexual based on the lack of nude females (and the abundance of nude males) found in his existing notebooks. We know that many of Leonardo's notebooks are missing or incomplete, so it's quite likely that many of the female nudes were simply ripped out (remember: these notebooks got passed around quite a bit back in the days before photography and Playboy centerfolds). Furthermore, it is hard for me to believe that the man who painted the Mona Lisa and other women with such loving care did not spend a lot of time studying the female body. So I really doubt that the absence of evidence here should be construed as evidence of absence. Besides, who really cares? My other gripe centers around the author's attempt to prove that Leonardo was the first "real" scientist. I'm not sure why such a classification is so important (unless of course the author felt he needed a new "angle" of some kind for writing about Leonardo). After all, when viewing the totality of a person's life, it's hard to say when someone can be considered a "real" scientist 100%. For example, I would venture that there are thousands of biologists who attend church on a regular basis, but I doubt we would dismiss their scientific sincerity simply because they partake in something as totally unscientific as religious ritual, chanting, school vouchers, rattling beads, etc. But don't get me wrong. Despite my complaints I still enjoyed this book and felt well rewarded for my efforts, gaining a deeper look into the mind of this old master, scientist or no.

Rating:
Summary: Original but a bit misleading.
Review: It's good to try to explore different aspects of such transcendent people as Leonardo Da Vinci, but I think Michael White stressed it up a little too much. Personally I think Leonardo was not a scientist, he was an incredibly talented heuristic, but that doesn't make him a scientist, a genius maybe (which I certainly believe he was). The book has a good pace and writing style, besides it has some interesting original figures that complement well with the text. As a whole, the book is an interesting one, but I wouldn't recommend it if this is going to be the only one you're reading about Leonardo Da Vinci.

Rating:
Summary: Very readable, but rather thin on facts
Review: Leonarda da Vinci was one of the most versatile scientists and artists of all times, so a very good reason to read a biography. Most of Michael White's book is indeed very readable. What disturbed me a little is that there are quite some extrapolations in the book: thin facts (which is probably logical if you have to go back 500 years in time), followed by enormous conclusions, which then may or may not be true. I also had the feeling that sometimes there were more clues available, butthat for readability's sake the author had decided to leave them out, only giving a rather vague indication that there was more information available. I found this rather distressing, but that may be the scientist in me who wants to know all the facts. Apart from this it is a very fluently written book which gives you a nice idea of the live of a genius who does not wish to conform to society.

Rating:
Summary: Leonardo
Review: Leonardo the First Scientist by Michael White, while engagingly written, walks a dangerously fine line between biography and historical fiction. Biography is essentially the history of an individual based on historical fact, while historical fiction is fiction based on historical fact. For my money, White's biography of Leonardo da Vinci tips a little too far into the latter realm, particularly in the first half of the book where he tries to capture for his reader the inner workings of his subject. His flights of imagination and speculation are just a little too fanciful and frequent when trying to get at Leonardo the man. That's perhaps because there is too little remaining of the man except his art and his inventions with which to make a detailed personal profile.

White introduces his work by suggesting that he will discuss Leonardo as a scientist. Indeed he starts out to do so by devoting an early chapter of his book (Leonardo's Intellectual Inheritance) to the Greco-Roman roots of Renaissance science. This chapter reads like many introductions to the subject of science in the Classical world, and while it places Leonardo in the setting of common Renaissance learning, it does little to show his actual relationship to it. Despite his statement in the introduction that he is interested in creating something new by focusing on Leonard the scientist, the author strays into all manner of suppositions with regard to the great man's possible inner turmoil: his illegitimacy, his lack of formal education, his relationship to his parents, and to the great men of his age (particularly Lorenzo de Medici of Florence), his possible fear of water, his homosexuality, etc, for much of which he admits he has little if any evidence. Most of these psychological wanderings are prefaced with "might," "possibly," "could have," "might have," etc. While the latent historian within me may lift an eyebrow over it, I can let it pass, so long as the author makes the reader aware that there is very little actual data and of what that data is. However, when later in the book he refers to some of his past "might haves" as confirmed issues upon which he can make further suppositions, a bell goes off in my head, as it should in every reader's.

One might provide some leeway for such tenuous suppositions based on little data, were it not that Mr. White's credulity as a researcher is a little overworked at times. He seems to buy into sensationalism almost whole sale, with no references given to support his "facts." At one point he describes Lucretia Borgia and her family in very unflattering terms (P. 77) (not a totally unjustifiable stance on the whole) without bibliographic entries of any kind. The stories he relates are probably taken from accounts of the Borgias circulated at the time by political detractors with their own agendas, and not on the more extensive primary data on the family and their times or on competent secondary sources that provide a more realistic portrait of the family (as in Lucretia Borgia by Ferdinand Gregorovius, which while old is excellent especially for the citation of its source material on the topic). One has to admit the twice told tales of political enemies makes for more interesting reading, but that's not history; that's good story telling.

White probably spends more time laboring over Leonardo's sexual identity and his childhood than Leonardo did. Certainly more than one would expect for a work on the man as scientist. He labors in detail over the possible relationship the artist might have had with his mother during his formative years while he lived with his grandfather Antonio and while his mother lived in a near by town, and puts forth all manner of suggestions as to identities of Leonardo's possible lovers, even citing specific expenditures for clothing and other items made for Leonardo's companion Salai.

White's book is not a total bust. His insights into the scientist's career as engineer and anatomist are quite good, though all too brief (they occupy only about 4 chapters of the book). One could have hoped for more insights into the science and more illustrations from the notebooks to embellish the work. Their lack at crucial points, especially when describing some of the existing paintings or the designs for inventions, is frustrating. One hangs on White's verbal description, turning the page in expectation of seeing the described item, and....nothing! The best entries are the sketches of the crossbows and catapults on p. 89, the tanks on p. 163, the muscles of the arm and shoulder on 280, and the oft illustrated Vitruvian Man on p. 165. Of particular interest is the section on the science of art, particularly the material on vision. The Renaissance was premier in the understanding and use of visual perspective in the art work of the time, both painting and architecture, and this single chapter is a good start for anyone interested in the topic.

Overall I came away with a sense of Leonardo, the artist who rarely finished anything he started, and Leonardo the scientist who spread himself too thin. If you just want to know a little bit about Leonardo, this might be adequate-if you're critical when you read it. If you're a Leonardo enthusiast I suggest the works on his art and life by Kenneth Clark or Martin Kemp or some of the modern publications of translations of his writings. Then you can form your own opinions.

Rating:
Summary: Leonardo
Review: Leonardo the First Scientist by Michael White, while engagingly written, walks a dangerously fine line between biography and historical fiction. Biography is essentially the history of an individual based on historical fact, while historical fiction is fiction based on historical fact. For my money, White's biography of Leonardo da Vinci tips a little too far into the latter realm, particularly in the first half of the book where he tries to capture for his reader the inner workings of his subject. His flights of imagination and speculation are just a little too fanciful and frequent when trying to get at Leonardo the man. That's perhaps because there is too little remaining of the man except his art and his inventions with which to make a detailed personal profile.

White introduces his work by suggesting that he will discuss Leonardo as a scientist. Indeed he starts out to do so by devoting an early chapter of his book (Leonardo's Intellectual Inheritance) to the Greco-Roman roots of Renaissance science. This chapter reads like many introductions to the subject of science in the Classical world, and while it places Leonardo in the setting of common Renaissance learning, it does little to show his actual relationship to it. Despite his statement in the introduction that he is interested in creating something new by focusing on Leonard the scientist, the author strays into all manner of suppositions with regard to the great man's possible inner turmoil: his illegitimacy, his lack of formal education, his relationship to his parents, and to the great men of his age (particularly Lorenzo de Medici of Florence), his possible fear of water, his homosexuality, etc, for much of which he admits he has little if any evidence. Most of these psychological wanderings are prefaced with "might," "possibly," "could have," "might have," etc. While the latent historian within me may lift an eyebrow over it, I can let it pass, so long as the author makes the reader aware that there is very little actual data and of what that data is. However, when later in the book he refers to some of his past "might haves" as confirmed issues upon which he can make further suppositions, a bell goes off in my head, as it should in every reader's.

One might provide some leeway for such tenuous suppositions based on little data, were it not that Mr. White's credulity as a researcher is a little overworked at times. He seems to buy into sensationalism almost whole sale, with no references given to support his "facts." At one point he describes Lucretia Borgia and her family in very unflattering terms (P. 77) (not a totally unjustifiable stance on the whole) without bibliographic entries of any kind. The stories he relates are probably taken from accounts of the Borgias circulated at the time by political detractors with their own agendas, and not on the more extensive primary data on the family and their times or on competent secondary sources that provide a more realistic portrait of the family (as in Lucretia Borgia by Ferdinand Gregorovius, which while old is excellent especially for the citation of its source material on the topic). One has to admit the twice told tales of political enemies makes for more interesting reading, but that's not history; that's good story telling.

White probably spends more time laboring over Leonardo's sexual identity and his childhood than Leonardo did. Certainly more than one would expect for a work on the man as scientist. He labors in detail over the possible relationship the artist might have had with his mother during his formative years while he lived with his grandfather Antonio and while his mother lived in a near by town, and puts forth all manner of suggestions as to identities of Leonardo's possible lovers, even citing specific expenditures for clothing and other items made for Leonardo's companion Salai.

White's book is not a total bust. His insights into the scientist's career as engineer and anatomist are quite good, though all too brief (they occupy only about 4 chapters of the book). One could have hoped for more insights into the science and more illustrations from the notebooks to embellish the work. Their lack at crucial points, especially when describing some of the existing paintings or the designs for inventions, is frustrating. One hangs on White's verbal description, turning the page in expectation of seeing the described item, and....nothing! The best entries are the sketches of the crossbows and catapults on p. 89, the tanks on p. 163, the muscles of the arm and shoulder on 280, and the oft illustrated Vitruvian Man on p. 165. Of particular interest is the section on the science of art, particularly the material on vision. The Renaissance was premier in the understanding and use of visual perspective in the art work of the time, both painting and architecture, and this single chapter is a good start for anyone interested in the topic.

Overall I came away with a sense of Leonardo, the artist who rarely finished anything he started, and Leonardo the scientist who spread himself too thin. If you just want to know a little bit about Leonardo, this might be adequate-if you're critical when you read it. If you're a Leonardo enthusiast I suggest the works on his art and life by Kenneth Clark or Martin Kemp or some of the modern publications of translations of his writings. Then you can form your own opinions.

Rating:
Summary: Scientist? Homosexual?
Review: Michael White spends more time trying to use very tenuous evidence to ascertain whether or not da Vinci engaged in sex with other males than he spends trying to convince us that da Vinci should be classed as scientist. What is the purpose of this effort? Does da Vinci become a more credible scientist if White convinces us that da Vinci can be classed as a homosexual? In attemtping to convince himself and his readers that da Vinci would fit into either class -- scientist or homosexual -- White pursues a useless game. Why not simply tell us of the very superior insights that da Vinci achieved in his explorations and let us revel in the man's astouunding creativity. And, who cares about da Vinci's sex life? What difference could it possibly make relative to his creativity?

Rating:
Summary: A Load of Misinformation
Review: Seldom have I read a book that purported and looked as though it could be of interest and been so disappointed - perhaps I should have realised from the very title, insofar as most interested people rate Roger Bacon as the 'First Scientist'. The main point is however, that Mr White having conceived what he must of thought was a good idea then proceeds to regurgitate all the hoary old rhubarb that most truly interested observers consigned to the bin in their kindergartens. It is also, so dispiriting to read yet another unresearched comment about the likes of Ludovico Sforza and Lucrezia Borgia and others; and to find the chronology wrong and even some of the dates. I have not read any of Mr White's other books but I am amazed that a publisher of the quality of Little Brown should put its name to a book that overtly suggests it is authoritative but, quite clearly, is a tuppenny comic - they should be ashamed of themselves...unless of course, it is a spoof(?)...in which case it falls short of the mark on that score too.

Rating:
Summary: Curiously flat
Review: This book tells the tale of the life of one of the world's great artists - and yet he left such a small body of refined and completed works - just masses and masses of notebooks with extremely elegant sketches, but sketches they are. So, was Leonardo a scientist because he used an inquisitive eye to gain inspiration from nature? We are told he was poor at mathematics - even for his day - and indifferent at languages. Both characteristics I suggest leave Leonardo more of an artist and less of a scientist despite Mr White's claim.

Leonardo was, of course, profoundly enquiring and Mr White's biography does go some way to describing his life, travels and interests. But I was left feeling remote from the man, less engaged than I would have liked to be. Perhaps it was Leonardo's speculated homosexuality that caused Mr White not to delve too far, but I would have liked more research from Leonardo's comtemporaries to try and flesh out the man more fully.

Rating:
Summary: pushing it too far
Review: This is an odd book. I think that it's main problem is that it is a popular science writer who is trying to say something original as well. While I by no means wish to disparage gifted amateurs from pursuing their own investigations, that kind of formula tends to work better when the writer first and foremost a specialist, on the caliber of SJ Gould, which White clearly is not.

White's contention, in concentrating on Leonardo's investigations, is that he was in fact acting as a scientist, perhaps the first modern one: using direct experiment to test theories that he was formulating. While Leonardo was certainly doing this, it all depends on how you define science. If it is experimentation to validate and change your mathematical theories, OK. But if you mean participating in a community that shares a larger theoretical foundation and then communicating your results for a kind of peer review, which Kepler and Galileo did, Leonardo most definitely was not a modern scientist: he kept his notebooks to himself and feared plagarism almost paranoically.

Unfortuantely, White leaves the definition unclear and so turns his book into a strange kind of anacronistic exercise. If you focus on the work on others, you can argue that many were "the first modern scientists." Some hundreds of years before Leonardo, the builders of gothic cathedrals appear to have had geometric concepts (math), which they carved into massive stone by trail and error (experiment), and they also had an overarching highly logical intellectual system, scholasticism, that was adaptive and very rich. Why not argue that they were the first real scientists?

Moreover, it is not even clear that White wants to systematically argue that Leonardo was "first," but merely that he was a pioneer. Does it even make sense to argue such a thing? What does it really add? We all know he was a genius who was largely self-educated and hence did not share the aristotelian assumptions inherent in scholasticism. But Leonardo was not systematic: with the exception of his great anatomical studies, he jotted thing down most things privately and in code, so you really have to interpret a lot of things heavily to find meaning in them.

Nonetheless, this was the first bio I read of Leonardo and it was quite interesting. Indeed, it gave me an appetite to seek more on him, though I would go for his art and engineering in the next go. It covers many of the standard details adequately and is written clearly, even beautifully. When the author speculates, which I think he does far too often, he at least makes it clear that that is what he is doing.

Recommended as a starting point.