25 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Leonardo did this, saw this, noted this, thought this, but.., September 25, 2000
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A good book about an incredible mind., February 12, 2001
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
