Some Genius
Leonardo da Vinci was a genius at painting, no
doubt about it. He invented sfumato, inaugurated the High Renaissance, and
created what is arguably the cleverest composition in the history of art,
The Last Supper .
Was he also a genius at
science? The casual visitor to the current exhibition of the Codex
Leicester at the American Museum of Natural History in New York (through
Jan. 1, 1997) might come away with the vague impression that he was. The
curators describe the 72-page manuscript, on loan to the museum from Bill Gates
(who bought it two years ago for $30.8 million), as "a masterpiece of science."
One of the catalog essayists writes that "[a]s a scientist, Leonardo rates more
space in the reputable Dictionary of Scientific Biography than Kepler,
Galileo, and Einstein combined."
But Leonardo was not a genius the way Einstein or Galileo
was. He was more a genius the way Buckminster Fuller was, if that is a way of
being a genius.
For a couple of centuries
after his death in 1519, Leonardo was seen mainly as a painter, albeit a
preternaturally gifted one. His artistic legacy comprises the Mona Lisa
and 14 other paintings (several of them unfinished), together with a treatise
on painting. But he had also left behind some 7,000 pages of unpublished notes
on hydraulics, geology, anatomy, flight, ballistics, botany, optics, and
astronomy, as well as designs for all sorts of fantastical inventions. It was
not until the time of the Industrial Revolution that his notebooks, by then
scattered all over Europe, were paid serious attention. Soon, he was being
celebrated for his "precursive" genius. He had beaten Newton to the theory of
gravity and Copernicus to heliocentrism. He had worked out the circulation of
the blood before William Harvey. He had grasped the principle of erosion more
completely than Georges Cuvier. He had invented the airplane, the tank, the
bicycle, the modern toilet--such are the claims that have been made for
him.
What is the evidence for such deep originality in the
Codex
Leicester ? The manuscript itself, whose pages are dimly
illumined in a series of glass cases at the museum, is not, at first blush, a
fetching object. You can't exactly read the thing, since Leonardo's jottings
are in medieval Italian, and are rendered in his famous mirror-image script.
The hundreds of marginal drawings have some aesthetic interest--especially
those depicting the flow of water--but they are mainly simple geometrical
diagrams and doodles. The earls of Leicester, who owned the codex since 1717,
seem rarely to have looked at it. "Nothing like three centuries of aristocratic
incuriousity to keep ink and paper in near-perfect condition," commented one
wag. (Between the Leicesters and Bill Gates, the notebook was owned for a dozen
or so years by Armand Hammer--who, with his unerring flair for the ludicrous,
insisted it be called the Codex Hammer and claimed that he had retained
a squad of elite commandos trained in kung fu and armed with Uzis to guard it
round the clock.)
Looking at the English
translation of the codex on a CD-ROM at the exhibit, I saw that what began as
an attempt by Leonardo to set down the first principles of the behavior of
water ended up as a farrago of observations and musings--fanciful, insightful,
analytically maddening. At one point, for example, he notes that the higher a
column of water, the greater the pressure it exerts--a valid, if unexciting,
conclusion. But elsewhere in the codex, he maintains that only moving
water produces pressure at the bottom, reasoning that the still water of a
pond, after all, does not press down the grasses that grow on the bottom. Not
only is this breathtakingly wrongheaded, it contradicts the previous
principle.
Leonardo's greatest shortcoming as a scientific thinker
was, not paradoxically, his greatest strength as an artist: his eye. This, for
him, was the ultimate epistemic instrument, one to be trusted over all
classical authorities. "Do you not see that the eye embraces the beauty of the
whole world?" he wrote, insisting that the visual eye was, pre-eminently, the
real. It is Leonardo's sheer ability to see --to notice, in a way that no
one had before, precisely what it looks like when two streams of water
merge--that accounts for the thrilling bits of the Codex
Leicester .
The problem was that
Leonardo knew very little mathematics. Algebra was a closed book to him, and he
was poor at figures. (When he writes, "Let no one read me who is not a
mathematician," he is using the term loosely, to suggest a rigorous cast of
mind.) His ocular observations were in a qualitative vein, hearkening back to
Aristotelian science rather than forward to Newton. That is fine when it comes,
say, to anatomy--in which Leonardo was also well-served by his willingness to
thrust his nicely manicured hands into the guts of dead felons he was
dissecting. But it's disastrous in dynamics, where his experiments led him to
conclude that both the velocity of a falling object and the distance fallen are
proportional to the time of the fall--which a moment's reflection exposes as a
logical absurdity. (The only other figure I can think of who had similar claims
to genius both in art and science, Goethe, was also a mathematical innocent.
But where Leonardo had a keen respect for mathematics, Goethe was openly
contemptuous of it.) The true precursor of the scientific revolution was
Galileo, who proclaimed, with almost mystical conviction, that the Book of
Nature was written in the language of mathematics.
As for Leonardo's "inventions," those that were sound from
an engineering point of view were usually borrowed from contemporaries. His
elaborate hoists and cranes were designed by Brunelleschi, his engines of war
by the German engineer Konrad Keyser, his "automobile" by the Sienese Francesco
di Giorgio Martini. (On the other hand, a device described in the Codex
Leicester that, the exhibition catalogue notes, "sounds curiously similar
to a modern espresso machine," seems entirely original.) Leonardo's "flying
machine" would not have flown, but that hardly counts against its visual
bravura; one version resembled a calabash shell crossed with a windmill, and
another, a four-winged butterfly. Leonardo was a man who, according to one
biographer, "was plunged into a kind of ecstasy by devising never-ending
systems of cogwheels and screws"--rather like Buckminster Fuller deliriously
multiplying geodesics.
If there was a bit of Fuller in Leonardo, there was
also a bit of Liberace in this theatrical, high-living dandy who favored
brocade doublets and bad boys with pretty faces. (Since his disciples were
chosen for their looks, he had no distinguished successors.) Little of
Leonardo's weirdness is conveyed by the Codex
Leicester
exhibit--though Isabella Rosellini's blue-velveteen voice narrating the
exhibit's eight-minute biographical video helps somewhat. Here was a
Renaissance humanist who regarded his fellow men as "stupid and deranged,"
"sacks for food," and "fillers-up of privies," and relished the thought of
humanity's destruction in a universal deluge. Leonardo's obsession with
swirling water--which found scientific expression in the Codex
Leicester and sublime artistic expression in the drawings he did toward
the end of his life--could be pretty morbid.
