Talk:Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

"old style"

Not sure what " (April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519, Old Style)" means. Is it possible to get clarification on this? Bergin (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this. I have fixed the problem by linking Old Style to the explanatory page. Amandajm (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

also add that he did not know how to write. so he wrote with his left hand backwards and could only be held if looked from a mirror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.5.95 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

He knew how to write very well. He chose to write backwards. It is mentioned in the article. Amandajm (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Respect for life."

"One such aspect is his respect for life evidenced by his vegetarianism," ought to state "animal life." Vegetarians consume living or once-living plants/fungi, just as all other people do. ChozoBoy (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Eating plants doesn't show disrespect for them. It mixes their seeds with other nutrients and distributes them. Many plants are dependent upon being eaten. Amandajm (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

hey :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.17.2 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

no religion mention?

i see no mention of his religion. was he athiest? christian? other??? shouldn't this be in the article? what were his religious views? flood myth says "Leonardo da Vinci postulated that an immediate deluge could not have caused the neatly ordered strata he found in the Italian Apennines" though provides no source. surely he had religious views?

No-one knows about Leonardo's religious beliefs. He kept whatever beliefs he had strictly to himself. He may have been an atheist. He may have been a heretic. He may have been a Jew. (his mother may have been Jewish). These considerations are pure speculation, and because this article is long (and hard to load in parts of the world with poor internet services) there is no room in the article for speculation.

There is an article called Leonardo da Vinci's personal life.

His father had him baptised. And on his deathbed, a priest was called, who heard his confession and gave him Communion. Because Leonardo lived within a society that was almost entirely Catholic, (and if not Catholic then either Jewish, or considered a dangerous heretic) these two events were so much part of the culture that they say nothing about his faith. If Leonardo had not had the priest and made confession on his deathbed, then it would have been a great embarrassment and a matter of personal grief to his patron, the King of France. If he had refused the Communion, then a scandal would have been caused, implicating the King in harbouring a heretic (because only a heretic would refuse communion). It is possible that Leonardo simply put aside any misgivings that he had (either a an atheist, or as a Jew, or as a member of an heretical sect) and did what was necessary, to maintain the honour of his patron.

The Decameron, a collection of stories that Leonardo would have known well, has a very funny story about an absolute villain of a man, making his last Confession, and telling lie after lie to the Priest, simply to save the face of the host at the house where he is staying. It is possible that Leonardo, although atheist, like the man in the story, made a Confession that would save his host embarrassment. (This is my speculation)

Even though he left many writings, his only references to religion is criticism of the behaviour of monks. This doesn't indicate anything at all about what he believed.

Michelangelo, on the other hand, was known to be a devoutly religious person who studied the Bible and probably devised the whole scheme for the Sistine Chapel Ceiling himself.

Amandajm (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC) nice thank you your reply was a great read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.172.203 (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Leonardo could only be Catholic, at least for the practice. In Italy of Renaissance, Jews hadn't rights, also they had to wear special clothes to be recognized and they couldn't study. The situation for them was very hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.73.13 (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

people don't know cause i saw on this thing like he was painting christain stuff and he belongs to this group it was top secrect don't know i think he is christain. (unsigned comment)

His tomb

Leonardo was not buried in the Chapel of Saint-Hubert in Château d'Amboise! His bones (???) were only translated there in 1807. I should like correct this episode but I cannot for the article is protected... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.193.136.90 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

The article says he is Italian, however Italy did not yet exist as a unified nation in the 16th centuary, wouldnt he be Florentine ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.240.68 (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Italy as a country or nation, like Germany, had existed for centuries long before it was unified as a state, and like most RS, we generally use it for Italians throughout the medieval period and beyond. Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Leonardo is ITALIAN, like Orderic Vitalis (1075-1142) is an "English" chronicler.--77.195.189.184 (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess the fact that italy started the Renaissance first has a link with this...

i love leonardo da vinci — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.152.115 (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

He was Italian because he was born in the Italian peninsula. But he certainly hadn't the modern concept of nationality (concept born in XVIII century)

Grammar mistake

In November 1494 Ludovico gave the bronze to be used for cannon to defend the city from invasion by Charles VIII.

Shouldn't cannon be in plural form?

No. Cannon are like sheep and fish. The singular and the plural are the same.

Amandajm (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Observation and invention #Scientific studies: doubtful bibliography conclusions

Quoting: "A recent and exhaustive analysis of Leonardo as scientist by Frtijof Capra[91] argues that Leonardo was a fundamentally different kind of scientist from Galileo, Newton and other scientists who followed him. Leonardo's experimentation followed clear scientific method approaches, and his theorising and hypothesising integrated the arts and particularly painting; these, and Leonardo's unique integrated, holistic views of science make him a forerunner of modern systems theory and complexity schools of thought."

That sounds like a nice example of cognitive confirmation/belief bias: both Galileo and Newton are out of place in a serious comparison with Leonardo Da Vinci, since their timelines and the evolutionary state of science was completely different for each of them (being Leonardo's work one century older than Galileo's, and two when compared to Newton). A holistic approach is to be expected from the Renaissance, given the direct influence of Ancient Greece's methods, and a combination of a shallow understanding of the scientific method and a strong focus in arts - which allows a(n exceptional) man to cover many fields and draw connections from one another. Galileo and Newton had a broader base of knowledge to choose from, which forced them to focus on a lesser ammount of subjects. Besides, it's quite bizarre to compare Leonardo's approach to a modern one based on very recent mathematical discoveries on non-linear systems and emergence behaviours.

Therefore, since methodological convergence is purely coincidental, and not grounded on any solid comparison regarding scientific approaches, it should be considered superficial - and so, dubvious. The last sentence should be removed or modified substantially. Unsigned comment by Jordissim.

Response: left message on user's talk page requesting further suggestions/intervention.

Amandajm (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the sentences was clearly true, but misplaced so as to cary a false implication. It is fixed. Amandajm (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 April 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Leonardo da Vinci, the mid-famous Italian Renaissance painters, scientists and engineers, was born in April 15, 1452 near the the Tuscan Vinci. He has shown artistic talents in the youth to the Florence study with a teacher about the age of 15, growth for the scientific literacy of the painter, sculptor, military engineer and architect. Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, Raphael and said Renaissance three heroes, especially in the "Last Supper" and "Mona Lisa" painting well-known. "Mona Lisa" is considered to be the world's most precious painting, it can be said that a picture and it is comparable to the world. Most art theorists believe that Leonardo da Vinci painted a beautiful image of a life of young women, to express the humanist passion for the beauty of reality, the praise of a person's thoughts, feelings and wisdom. He chose a spiritual liberation, and dispersed the old stiff from the bottom of the inner smiling young woman. Yes, the painter is really excellent performance figures of the inner joy. 144.131.201.57 (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done B music ian 12:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Many of the ideas that are in this suggestion are already included, but perhaps not the "stiff" and the "bottom" of the smiling young woman!

Amandajm (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"dispersed the old stiff from the bottom of the inner smiling young woman." Errrr.... PiCo (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Turkish bridge

The article states "On May 17, 2006, the Turkish government decided to construct Leonardo's bridge to span the Golden Horn.[97]" However, if one follows the citation, it mentions nothing about this decision and google searches seem to produce nothing but links to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.192.50 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A number of sources indicate that the project was announced in 2006, by the Prime Minister, but I cannot find any evidence that it is actually proceeding. When the Turkish Govt. indicates it is near completion, we can put it back in the article. Amandajm (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

" We have enough examples of of ideas that were never realised. The bicycle is sheer nonsense. It PLAINLY wasn't draw by Leonardo " """ Amandajm """

"Professor" Amandajm,

More beguiling than the Mona Lisa, at least to me, is the sketch of a bicycle in one of Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks. It probably was drawn about 1493, almost 400 years before the bicycle was actually invented. Historians say no chain-driven, pedal-powered two-wheeler was built with the tools and materials of Leonardo's time, but it is possible Leonardo envisioned such a vehicle. He had drawn other gear and chain mechanisms, and his spring-driven wagon was a forerunner of the modern automobile.

" Professor " Amandajm,

" We have enough examples of of ideas that were never realised "

Leonardo da Vinci, polymath, him as supreme example of Renaissance genius. Its machines (designed first parachute, hang gliding, helicopter, bicycle, automobile, excavator, air conditioner, oil lamp, alarm clock, printing press, odometer, machine gun, tanks, scuba outfits and life preserver among others) reveal one aspect of the multi-faceted ingenuity of Leonardo. AHAHA

The reasons why it isn't Leonardo's.

The drawings on the bicycle page are of a badly-drawn bicycle, a very badly-drawn figure, a very badly drawn penis approaching an anus which is described as "Salai's bum" and a diagram similar in it's basic form to some diagrams that Leonardo drew as optical studies.
It is plain that none of the drawings are by Leonardo himself, because although Leonardo often drew in a sketchy manner, he never drew anything badly. To imagine that he could draw a figure in a manner that was exceptionally amateurish, and a penis that was even worse is to misunderstand not just his genius, but the nature of his training.

How can we be absolutely sure that Leonardo didn't draw the bicycle? Because the pedals go down lower than the wheels. Leonardo could not possibly draw a mechanical diagram in a manner that defied the basic mechanics of the simple machines. And the manner in which the drawing implement has been used is so crude and untrained that Leonardo's hand could not have done it.

The drawings are all by someone who has no training whatsoever in drawing. Any pupil, even a ten year old pupil, who was with Leonardo for a week, would have been taught to draw in a more disciplined manner than these drawings reveal. They are all extraordinarily amateurish.
The chance that an inexperienced pupil spent a very brief time in the workshop (so brief that they had not learnt anything about drawing) but had comprehended another person's (i.e. Leonardo's) plan for a bicycle so well that they could draw it is not feasible.

This means that we have to accept a scenario in which Leonardo managed to convey the whole concept of a bicycle, with its gear and chain, to a young person who had never seen anything even remotely like it, so well that they could draw a diagram, which is exceptionally crude artistically, but has all the right parts. This is not convincing.

The bicycle is typical of the drawing of someone who knows just how a thing looks, and what its main parts are, but is very poor at drawing it. In other words, it is the way that a boy who owned a bicycle, or a person familiar with bicycles but is poor at drawing would draw it. It is the drawing of someone who knows and has seen bikes, not the drawing of someone who has invented one, or someone who has simply had the idea described.

So this means that the drawing was done sometime after 1900, perhaps not until the 1960s when it was discovered. The person who drew on the sheet included several of the sorts of elements that one might find in a Leonardo manuscript: a face, an invention, a diagram and an anatomical drawing. Note that there are not just one, but two provocative images on the page. The penis and words referring to Salai's bum suggest a pederast relationship between Leonardo and his pupil. This has been speculated, but never confirmed.

Whoever drew these images was a real stirrer! My opinion is that someone has been having a very good laugh about taking everyone in. Just remember Van Meergeren.

Amandajm (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, You may certainly refer to me as "Professor", if that is the way that you wish to address me, but it is customary, and courtesy to do it without the inverted commas. Amandajm (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. " Professor " Amandajm.

The history of the bicycle became rather messy in 1974, when Italian historian Augusto Marinoni (1) announced that Leonardo da Vinci invented modern bicycle in the fifteenth century. Monks from the Grottaferra Abbey near Rome, charged with restoring one of the Vatican's obscure Leonardo da Vinci notebooks in the late 1960s, unwittingly revealed a blockbuster scribble that had been, according to Marinoni, locked away for several hundred years. In the restoration process, the monks separated two sheets that had been glued together since the early 1600s and found out the likely reason why those pages had been sealed up in the first place. On the revealed pages, dated from 1493, were the doodles of one of Leonardo's more restless students: a few obscene cartoons of walking penises — check for yourself if you don't believe — and a nasty, perhaps jealous, caricature of a young man named Salai, who is known to have been Leonardo's prized pupil. But there was also a crude sketch of what is, unmistakably, a bicycle, up in the corner away from the cartoons.

Too nice?

Is there nothing critical to say about him? Is this article truly objective and encyclopedic?

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of what exactly? You don't like the man's hair? Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The criticism is made that he rarely delivered on time.
The criticism is made that his lack of ability to paint fresco caused his two major works to self destruct.
The fact that he was charged with "sodomy" is stated.
The fact that he designed war machines (none of which has been made to work) has been stated.
The fact that during the 16th century an author (who had never met him) wrote a book of sexual fantasies which had an imaginary conversation in which Leonardo said he liked fifteen-year-old boys has been dealt with in a companion article on his personal life.

His artworks are regarded as sublime, and were imitated from the day he created them. They are very hard to criticise.

We actually know nothing whatsoever about his personal life except:

He was a child prodigy
He was handsome, strong and athletic
He bought caged birds at the market and set them free
He was vegetarian
He got 30 bodies from the morgue and dissected them
He took care of his mother
He took in a really anti-social child that no-one else could handle and turned him into a decent painter, despite the fact that the kid pinched everything that wasn't nailed down including the other students pencils.
His numerous step-brothers tried to rob him of his inheritance, because he was the eldest and illegitimate.
He gave his share of payment for an altarpiece to the wife and children of a frame-gilder who had died.
His pupil wrote that he was like the dearest father to them, and that there would never be another person to equal him.
From the time of his baptism to the time of his death (when he received the Last Rites) he gave no indication of his religious beliefs, so we can only speculate.
He wrote thousands of words, but never a bad word about any specific person. (he criticised greed, gluttony, brutality and hypocrisy)
No-one, except Michelangelo, seemed to dislike or resent him, and since Micky-baby had a chip on his shoulder large enough to pave the piazza, it is not a matter of great account.
On his death, he left money and land to his servants, and a sum of money to pay 60 of the town's poorest people to walk in procession with his coffin.

What do you suggest we criticise?

Amandajm (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Amandajm. Criticisms ? Perhaps no one in history achieved so much in so many different fields as did Leonardo da Vinci. He invented the diving bell and tank, and — though they could not be built with the materials of the time — flying machines. He made important discoveries about the structure of the human body. Leonardo da Vinci is the personification of the Renaissance man. He has been called "the universal genius par excellence". --Aries no Mur (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion

Amanda, I'm bored. Would you like me to totally rewrite the article, just for something to do? PiCo (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pip, you are being provocative. If you don't give over, I will write you into my next novel.

Amandajm (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing myself :)PiCo (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for placing this here, but it is not quite grammar, and is a suggestion: The second sentence in the section about Leonardo as legend contains the phrase "writers like Vasari continue to marvel at his genius" which sounds to my ear a bit like Vasari having lived a very long time indeed, so long that he continues to marvel at Leonardo today. Could this be rephrased? Perhaps "writers continue to marvel at his genius, as Vasari did in his day" or something along those lines. 76.169.228.99 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Sarvi, Sept 22, 2012

Thank you! It's fixed. Amandajm (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

More discoveries about Leonardo's interests and hobbies

It might be worth to note, as an upmost example of Leonardo's genius about so different fields, a never published book of jokes and satires which was written by Leonardo and amongst other things,like the "Facezie". Than, a book of receipts of fruits cocktails , in which Leonardo gives some formula how to mix juices of different fruits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is already very large. There is another article called Leonardo da Vinci's personal life where things like his collection of jokes could go. You would need to find references before the material was added. Amandajm (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

LGBT Christians

This page should not go in the category "Category:LGBT Christians"? --186.182.145.201 (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No.

The article is currently listed under Category:LGBT history prior to the 19th century and Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws. Both these categorisations are correct.

With Leonardo, we have just one formally recorded and dated event. We know for sure that he was, along with some other young men, charged with sodomy in 1479. We also know that the charges were dropped.
There is no other solid evidence that Leonardo was homosexual. People have tried to prove his homosexuality on the grounds of one painting in which a young John the Baptists has an alluring expression, and on the grounds of a single drawing of a young man with an erection. Note that the erection has been drawn onto the picture in a different colour suggesting it's not part of the original.
Leonardo did hundreds of drawings. Only one suggests homosexual interest. It is known that some drawings were later destroyed because of their content, but these may have been detailed anatomical studies, not erotica.
Leonardo, like other artists, took student apprentices at a young age. His pupil/servant Salai was a rascal, a thief, and very badly behaved. Vasari wrote that Leonardo loved Salai's beautiful long blonde curls. Some people have chosen to interpret this as a pederast interest in the boy. However, as a practising artist, I can assure you that admiring a person's hair or eyes or body structure or perfect profile does not equate with either love or lust.
When this wild lad was approaching adulthood, the nobleman, Count Melzi, apprenticed his son to Leonardo. If there had been any scandal about Leonardo's relationship with his young pupils, this wouldn't have happened. Young Melzi remained in Leonardo's household until the day of his death, when Melzi became executor of his estate.
One of Melzi's first jobs was to write to Leonardo's younger half-brothers (who had previously tried to diddle him out of his share of their father's estate). Melzi wrote to the brothers that Leonardo was like the dearest father to his pupils and that he loved them with a burning and "gut-felt" love. (This translates into English as "heart-felt"). He went on to say that there would never be another man like Leonardo.

People who want to prove that Leonardo had pederast relationships with these two boys hone in on the "burning and gut-felt love" and ignore the context: a) leonardo was "like the dearest father", b) Italian 16th century writers use passionate language. c) There is no way in the world that Melzi would have blackened Leonardo's reputation by telling his cheating brothers that Leonardo had sex with boys.

So the bottom line is, there is no evidence that Leonardo was actually gay, except for the charge against him which was dismissed.

The other issue that you raise is Christianity.

And , once again, we draw a blank. There is no evidence whatsoever that Leonardo had Christian convictions. I have dealt with this matter further up the page, so I suggest that you look for it.

Amandajm (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. --186.182.145.201 (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What language did he write in?

Nowhere does it say in the article what language he wrote in (in his "mirror-writing"). Most of the intellectual books at the time were written in Latin. You might guess from the article that since Leonardo apparently didn't learn Latin perfectly, that that means he wrote in Italian - but that is just leaving the reader to guess. It should be stated specifically what language he wrote in. Did he write anything in Latin? Was it all in Italian?Jimhoward72 (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

He wrote everything in Italian. He had a rudimentary grasp of Latin but did not write in it. Any Latin words or phrases would have been copied from elsewhere. It is possible, that as you suggest since many intellectual books at the time were written in Latin, that Leonardo failed to publish his writings because he didn't know enough Latin, not because he was a procrastinator. Everyone assumes the latter but there may have been more to it than that. Regarding inclusion of his written language in the article - yes, everyone assumes that because he was Italian then he must have written in Italian. In this case everyone's assumption is correct. This can still be added but I would like other people to have an opinion on whether to include it in the article or not. Jodon1971 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This needs a serious rewrite

His inventions weren't feasible in his or anyone's lifetime - the most ridiculous is his "machine" gun. Let's face it, he knew nothing more than anyone of his time could have known, made no real contributions, and invented things which would never have worked. His flying machine could never work, no matter what materials it could be made of today, likewise his design for a helicopter. He was obviously highly intelligent but outside of art not a genius. 69.158.165.32 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

These far-sighted ideas are the ones that receive attention in the 21st century, whether they were feasible or not. He came up with the concepts, rather than the practical invention. On the other hand, his studies of anatomy, water, geology, optics etc were ground-breaking. This article focuses on his real source of fame, his art..... or haven't you noticed?Amandajm (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Leonardo's lack of a prime mover in his day (such as a combustion engine) prevented him from taking many of his inventions (such as a horseless cart, which instead used levers, springs, and various rotor mechanisms) off the drawing board. Leonardo experimented ceaselessly with the materials and knowledge he had available at the time. That's all any of can do. It is said that all inventions are either improvements or adaptions from existing designs. Nobody could have been more frustrated than Leonardo to have so many ideas and still know they could never work in his day because his designs were too far-reaching for the day in terms of practicality. Actually there have been a number of documentaries showing various inventions of Leonardo (such as his pyramidal parachute, his scuba diving apparatus, and one of his flying "flapping wing" machines) that have been constructed in modern factories by Leonardo scholars that have worked. In any event "invention" doesn't necessarily apply only to machines, and Leonardo "invented" many techniques that assisted him in his experimentation in various fields. These can be considered "contributions". Jodon1971 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Category: LGBT history

User:Arch8887 has repeatedly removed this category from the article.

I have attempted to explain on this person's talk page that the charge of sodomy against Leonardo is a documented part of LGBT history, and is not the same as categorising Leonardo as an LGBT person.

My explanations appear to have no impact. I think if it happens again we have to start treating the matter as vandalism.

Amandajm (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Most articles about artists do not include signatures; however Da Vinci might be an exception for a variety of reasons - however IMO the signature should be removed...Modernist (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Left a message on the page you have just come from.

I don't like digitised signatures. That signature (The one from the Codex Forster) has come a long way from the original and lost a lot of its character. Most signatures on drawings by Leonardo have been added by others. These include signatures on works that are not his at all.

Please call him Leonardo, rather than Da Vinci. (Maybe it was Dan Brown who wrote that signature) Amandajm (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you about the character of signatures; very unreliable, often done by others, I will call him Leonardo from now on...Modernist (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that signature was an April Fool's joke. -- Jodon | Talk 23:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Da Vinci and polyphasic-sleep

Hi, Wikipedians.

I am from Vietnam and I read on a local newspapers an article describing Da Vinci had practiced polyphasic-sleep in his whole life. Is it right?--115.73.15.104 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

To keep from spending too much time asleep he invented a water clock which set off an alarm based on the amount of water flowing from one container to another. Once the container was full it would tip over and spill water all over his face. BlubBlubBBLUEHH!! -- Jodon | Talk 00:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

2 April, right? A day late? PiCo (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry my UTC time zones were screwed up, anyway I was only 12 minutes late (UTC). Guess I should have set my water clock to an earlier time! -- Jodon | Talk 09:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo also was an ingenious philosopher and mystic

Sergey L. Markov worked as Fulbright Scholar at California State University (Fullerton, USA) and now he is a Professor of Psychology at the KROK University (Kiev, Ukraine) writes: "Leonardo also was an ingenious and peculiar philosopher and mystic. Leonardo’s paintings are full of philosophical and spiritual reflections. Some of his painting and writing has become a mystifying riddle to the people. Thus for acute perception of the world and development of imagination Leonardo created puzzles and predictions: "Men from the most remote countries shall speak one to another and shall reply". (Internet. Telephon). Invisible money will cause many who spend it to triumph. (Electronic funds transfers). Leonardo also offered the special method of imagination stimulating: "In order to excite the mind, contemplate walls covered by shapeless stains. Find in them mountain landscape, trees, battles and faces". His scientific theories, like his artistic innovations, were based on careful scientific observation. He believed that the power of perception and ability to drawing the received observations, are the universal keys to the nature's secrets." Source: [2]

This article ( [3] ) contains a lot of information about Leonardo Da Vinci. This information could be useful to improve the encyclopedia. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm not sure if this adds anything particularly new. I'm also not sure where, or how this can be included specifically in the article (if it can even be included at all, as the existing article is probably already too large for further expansion). Maybe you can suggest somewhere? -- Jodon | Talk 11:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's all very well citing bits such as: "Men from the most remote countries shall speak one to another and shall reply. (Internet. Telephon). Invisible money will cause many who spend it to triumph. (Electronic funds transfers)."

But this is simply to fall prey to his wry humour. It's just what he wanted you to believe! Without actually looking it up in his notebooks, I think you'll find that these two 'predictions' are simply descriptions of then-current activities -- namely letter-writing and (probably) credit-notes. The article already refers to an easily consultable online collection of these. --PL (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the answers.

Other encyclopedic material of an eminent scholar. [4]

See also: Jacobsen, Aaron H. Leonardo da Vinci. Scholastic.com. [5]

Very reliable sources. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that we have the contents of those articles pretty well covered, either in this article or in the articles that deal more fully with individual paintings and other significant works. Amandajm (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The preposition da in the normative (Tuscan-based) pronunciation of Italian still requires raddoppiamento sintattico: check the Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia.--Carnby (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Isabella d'Este ?

The woman appearing in the portrait known as Isabella d'Este is actually Leonardo's mother Caterina in distant memory. The woman appearing in the portrait looks like the Mona Lisa and not like Isabella d'Este. See: Titian, Isabella d'Este, 1534 - 1536. This cartoon which has survived must have been drawn for an important work. See the cartoon in London, National Gallery. The only possible important work we are aware of is the Mona Lisa. See also the veil and the upper dress cut, rounded and not in straight lines. See Roni Kempler's comment [6]. Zaqxswer (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the images of Isabella d'Este are inconsistent. The Leonardo portrait looks more like Isabella in the earliest portraits, but not like the Titian portrait in which she appears very fair.

Regarding whether the Isabella portrait or the Mona Lisa are likenesses of Leonardo's mother, this is speculation and nothing more. Both pictures may bear a passing likeness to his mother, because artists tend to paint features in a similar way in every picture that they do. Very few portrait painters can free themselves from a subjective image in their mind and truly look at the person seated in front of them. In saying this, I don't mean that Leonardo 's painting closely resemble his mother, or are portraits of his mother, but only that they may have characteristics of his mother. Other people have claimed that they all have been influenced by the face of Salai.

The pictures below, by Peter Lely show five different women, but certain characteristics are retained in every portrait.

Many people who write bloggs or make comments about what they perceive in the works of Leonardo have rarely looked at other paintings and may have no understaing of the common processes of portrait painting and the way in which an artist's perceptions and style can affect the end results. Amandajm (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

See Isabella d'Este (18 May 1474 – 13 February 1539) and not Isabella d'Este, Duchess of Parma

(3 October 1635 – 21 August 1666). Zaqxswer (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of which picture you are referring to. The Titian iis probably not a good likeness because she didn't like the portrait that he did and got him to knock 30 years off her age. He wassimply imagining what she might have looked like. He appears to have made her much too blonde (to be expected of Titian)! Amandajm (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand the point that I am making about the Lely portraits? I am not relating them to Isabella. I am using them to diffuse the idea that various pictures by Leonardo (including the Mona Lisa) represent his mother. The point I am making is that any given artist may produce a generic facial type, and use it to represent different people. These women (Lely Women) all have the same eyes, regardless of who they are. Maybe they are the eyes of someone Lely loved. Maybe they are the eyes that looked back at him when he was shaving his face in the morning. Regardless! They are generic Lely eyes.

So it is wrong to presume that because similarities can be found in the faces that Leonardo painted, that they therefore represent the same individual. As for them representing his mother, that is simply a Freudian Oedipus theory. We don't know that Leonardo was devoted to his mother. We do know that someone in his household called Caterina was buried at considerable expense, so it is presumed that it was his mother rather than a servant of the house. That is all that is known for sure. Anything else is speculation.

Amandajm (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we know much more for sure about Mona Lisa. We are not sure that the woman appearing in the portrait is Isabella d'Este. Zaqxswer (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The drawing that is thought to be Isabella plainly isn't a cartoon for the Mona Lisa. It has been pricked for transfer to a painting, which obviously wasn't the Mona Lisa. If you want to compare the drawing to a known image of Isabella, then the Titian is the wrong image to chose. We know that it is a retrospective image and that Titian was trying to please her. Amandajm (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong. We can only say that this is a drawing of a woman, perhaps Isabella d'Este. Your theory is not complete because artists don't tend to paint features in a similar way in every picture that they do. See for example Ginevra de' Benci, Lady with an Ermine and La belle ferronnière. The Mona Lisa closely resembles Madonna, and Madonna has the characteristics of his mother. Isabella d'Este closely resembles Mona Lisa. Zaqxswer (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Kempler presents an interesting theory, nothing more. He's connected a few loose dots and drawn one possible conclusion, not necessarily the correct one. I, for example, would support a theory presented by author Robert Payne that Leonardo's alleged "Turin self-portrait" is actually a portrait of Leonardo's father, based on an understanding of how Leonardo's drawing style and choice of materials changed over time, the age of Leonardo/his father around the time, and the fact that Leonardo was artistically incapacitated for roughly the last 5 years of his life. Its a nice theory, but unfortunately my wishing it does not make it so.

I would like to know where you get your knowledge about Leonardo's mother's "characteristics". Practically nothing is known about her, yet you claim otherwise. Perhaps you could enlighten me to some sources.

From Wikipedia's point of view, this theorizing is too close to original research. I wish it were otherwise, but Wikipedia is not the place for speculation unless it can be backed up by scholarly sources (especially for biographies). Supporting a belief has limitations, and does not necessarily make something true. Jodon | Talk 13:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Here we discuss the drawing known as Isabella d'Este and not the Kempler's theory. Isabella d'Este is not the "one possible conclusion, not necessarily the correct one". Zaqxswer (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You brought up Kempler, not me - "See Roni Kempler's comment". Your entire first post in this section is a direct quote from that comment. Clearly you have no references other than that to support your "knowledge" of Leonardo's mother's "characteristics". Jodon | Talk 15:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This is Kempler's research[7]. I agree with you that we don't know much about her (why ?) and about the Mona Lisa (why ?) Zaqxswer (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no certain knowledge of Leonardo's mother. No-one has any idea what her characteristics were. No-one knows whether Leonardo was very attached to her, or whether he was merely dutiful. Freud proposed certain theories, and some people have run with them.
You have plainly not understood me when you comment: Your theory is not complete because artists don't tend to paint features in a similar way in every picture that they do. You have taken my statement in the most simplistic manner possible.

Read what is written and think about it, before responding:

"The pictures .... by Peter Lely show five different women, but certain characteristics are retained in every portrait."

"Many people ..... may have no understaing of the common processes of portrait painting and the way in which an artist's perceptions and style can affect the end results."

When you look at Ginevra de Benci and the Woman with the Ermine, you are seeing a woman with a round broad face and a sulky expression, and a woman with a long oval face and an animated expression.

When I look at the same pictures I see that the manner of painting the eyes, the mouth, the skin, etc is very similar. When I look at the drawing of hands that are believed to be for part of the Ginevera portrait that is lost, I see an even stronger resemblance. Yes, they are very different girls, just as Lely's women are all different, but the artist in each case has overlaid his own concept of feminine beauty on the woman that he has painted.

Amandajm (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know what Isabella looked like, and why this is regarded as a portrait of that lady, then look at these: Bust of Isabella d'Este, Medal of Isabella d'Este. In the second instance there is no room for doubt as to whom the profile portrait represents. Amandajm (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. They don't have the same forehead. They don't not have the same lips... Zaqxswer (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Arguing like this could go on forever. Unfortunately, this is not the place for a debate on opinions or beliefs, much as any of us would wish otherwise. Wikipedia is not a forum. Speculation can be included if it is sourced and/or quoted properly. Either you have reliable sources to support your arguments or you don't. End of story.

Your only reference for your arguments so far here is Kempler. If you have more please provide links. My initial searches show Kempler has copied and pasted the same comments on multiple websites, such as here, here, and here, without backing up that "research". Where is the published material of that research? Jodon | Talk 20:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! let's leave it right there..... Amandajm (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The lost painting seems to have turned up today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10356401/Leonardo-da-Vinci-painting-lost-for-centuries-found-in-Swiss-bank-vault.html Dsrguru (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a detailed drawing exists, so someone was bound to come up with a painting sooner or later. It's not really very convincing, is it? Amandajm (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Judging from that article Carlo Pedretti has already authenticated it as either Leonardo or his workshop, and carbon dating asserts its age, although Martin Kemp is dubious. Still, Kemp thinks the Salvator Mundi is an authentic Leonardo, so you never know! -- Jodon | Talk 12:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No. This is not an authentic Leonardo. Carlo Pedretti has got himself excited about things before, and then suddenly gone very quiet. This painting is plainly nowhere near the quality of the Salvator Mundi. There are a whole lot of things about it that are simply not good enough. Amandajm (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know your credentials as an art historian, but popular opinion seems to be that it is more likely authentic than not, so shouldn't its discovery be mentioned in the article? Dsrguru (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No. This is possibly the tenth "authentic" Leonardo discovered this decade. They range from feasible like Portrait of a Young Fiancée to absolutely ghastly.

See: List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Disputed attributions and List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Some recent attributions. In the latter, you will notice both the variations in style and quality. People who want their discovery to be by Leonardo always call in Pedretti because he can be relied upon to make enthusiastic-sounding comments that are generally noncommittal, but which can easily be misinterpreted as agreement.

"Popular opinion" isn't enough to make a thing authentic. Its discovery doesn't need mentioning here. The painting is nowhere near good enough to be genuine, but the public (in general) are unlikely to recognise that fact. It is far far below Bella Principessa in quality.

On the other hand, it does require adding to the List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Some recent attributions.

Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

His date of birth

According the footnote about his date and time of birth it says:

'His birth is recorded in the diary of his paternal grandfather Ser Antonio, as cited by Angela Ottino della Chiesa in Leonardo da Vinci, and Reynal & Co., Leonardo da Vinci (William Morrow and Company, 1956): "A grandson of mine was born April 15, Saturday, three hours into the night". The date was recorded in the Julian calendar; as it was Florentine time and sunset was 6:40 pm, three hours after sunset would be sometime around 9:40 pm which was still April 14 by modern reckoning. The conversion to the New Style calendar adds nine days; hence Leonardo was born April 23 according to the modern calendar.'

According to http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ then according to the Gregorian calendar his date of birth should be April 24, 1452. Not April 23, 1452.

So we have a problem regarding his date that needs to be resolved. Is it April 23 or April 24, 1452?Chandraputra (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Making me a day older or younger is of no consequence to someone who is over 500 years old. I wouldn't burden myself with such matters. Leonardo da Vinci^Talk 18:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)