There is a lot of mystery surrounding the life of the Italian inventor and painter Leonardo Da Vinci, many claim he did not even exist, that he was a mere invention by Italian or Catalonian nobility to maintain the secret of their profession, or that he simply, his figure was so manipulated as to create a new completely overrated and overstated identity, by which people may be distracted or simply deceived, away from the truth in such or such character.
Many things in the life in the life of Leonardo don’t add up, and they make us think that he did not even exist or that if he did, in was in a completely different way, apart from the public figure of genius which they so much seek to present to us.
Leonardo’s mother was not Italian
Florence (Italy) (AFP) – Leonardo da Vinci, the painter of the “Mona Lisa” and a symbol of the Renaissance, was only half-Italian, his mother a slave from the Caucasus, new research revealed on Tuesday.
Da Vinci’s mother had long been thought of as a Tuscan peasant, but University of Naples professor Carlo Vecce, a specialist in the Old Master, believes the truth is more complicated.
“Leonardo’s mother was a Circassian slave… taken from her home in the Caucasus Mountains, sold and resold several times in Constantinople, then Venice, before arriving in Florence,” he told AFP at the launch of a new book.
In the Italian city, she met a young notary, Piero (Peter) da Vinci, “and their son was called Leonardo”.
The findings of Vecce, who has spent decades studying da Vinci and curating his works, are based on Florence city archives.
They have formed the basis of a new novel — “The Smile of Caterina, the Mother of Leonardo” — while also shedding new light on the artist himself.
Any new discovery about da Vinci is hotly contested by the small world of experts who study him, but Vecce insists the evidence is there.
Among the documents he found is one written by da Vinci’s father himself, a legal document of emancipation for Caterina, “to recover her freedom and recover her human dignity”.
This document is dated 1452 and was presented Tuesday at a press conference at the headquarters of the publishing house Giunti in Florence.
It was written by “the man who loved Caterina when she was still a slave, who gave her this child named Leonardo and (was) also the person who helped to free her”, Vecce said.
His assertion offers a radical change of perspective on da Vinci, who was believed to have been the product of an affair between Peter da Vinci and a different woman, young Tuscan peasant Caterina di Meo Lippi.
Born in 1452 in the countryside outside Florence, da Vinci spent his life traveling around Italy before dying in Amboise, France in 1519, at the court of King Francis 1.
Vecce believes the difficult life of his “migrant” mother had an impact on the work of her brilliant son.
“Caterina left Leonardo a great legacy, certainly, the spirit of freedom,” he said, “which inspires all of his intellectual scientific work”.
Da Vinci was a polymath, an artist who mastered several disciplines including sculpture, drawing, music, and painting, but also engineering, anatomy, botany, and architecture.
“He doesn’t let anything stop him,” Vecce said.
Some may consider the idea that this epitome of a “Renaissance man” was the product of such a union too good to be true.
But Paolo Galluzzi, a da Vinci historian and member of the prestigious Lincei scientific academy in Rome, said it is “by far the most convincing”.
Speaking to AFP, he highlighted the quality of the documents discovered by his colleague, adding that there “must remain a minimum of doubt, because we cannot do a DNA test”.
Galluzzi said he was also not surprised.
The period into which da Vinci was born marks “the beginning of modernity, the exchanges between people, cultures and civilizations which gave birth to the modern world”, he said.
leonardo da vinci was overrated intentionally
Why da Vinci was not an engineer, scientist, or mathematician
Bob Zeidman
High tech entrepreneur, author of The Software IP Detective’s Handbook
Leonardo da Vinci is considered the quintessential “Renaissance Man,” one who excelled at all forms of intellectual endeavors. He is honored as a genius, some say the greatest genius the world has ever known: an artist, a mathematician, a scientist, and an engineer. But does he deserve these accolades? No. And bestowing them upon him belittles those who truly are great mathematicians, scientists, or engineers.
Leonardo da Vinci definitely created great artwork, though for my taste he doesn’t match the grandeur, detail, or power of Michelangelo his peer and competitor. Da Vinci invented painting techniques like sfumato for creating a delicate shading for more realistic human features, though other techniques for which he is credited were actually developed by other painters such as and chiaroscuro that was developed and perfected by Caravaggio, Correggio, and Rembrandt[1]. I acknowledge he was a great artist—he created artwork that has been appreciated worldwide for centuries. But da Vinci, known for a problematic lack of attention, rarely finished any of his works. The Last Supper painting is incomplete[2]. His Gran Cavallo horse statue was never finished[3]. He left the monastery of San Donato before finishing the Adoration of the Magi that he had been commissioned to produce[4]. The list goes on. Even the Mona Lisa background seems to me drab and amateurish, like an attempt to just get the portrait done so he could move on, a fact described by a witness to the original painting, Giorgio Vasari, a biographer and painter himself[5]. Modern day art historians and fans of da Vinci make all kinds of excuses for his impatience and impulsiveness. One fan states that Vinci “fell victim to those individuals jealous of his genius labeled him a man who did not finish his commissions as the [Gran Cavallo] was meant to be made of bronze, not clay.”[6] Another fan claims that the payment terms were so complex that he probably wouldn’t have received any compensation anyway. So get bored and leave. Thankfully other artists, like Vincent van Gogh or Michelangelo, had a different attitude and struggled to complete their works out of passion and love.
Da Vinci Was Not a Mathematician
Although I’ve dabbled in art and art history, I am not an expert. However, I am an expert in mathematics, science, and engineering, having had a rigorous education in these fields and having worked for several decades in them. I’ve known true brilliant people in these areas. To my knowledge Leonardo da Vinci never wrote down an equation, even one as simple as basic algebra. He just didn’t seem to understand math[7]. Some credit him for understanding the golden ratio, but the golden ratio is simply two numbers—a width and a length—and had been known at least since the days of the Greek sculptor and mathematician Phidias, a thousand years before da Vinci[8]. Da Vinci came up with interesting mathematical ideas but never investigated even one and certainly never proved one. He put out interesting possibilities in his notebooks, using a notation that has not been deciphered so their interpretation is open all kinds of grandiose theories. But mathematics and science are only useful if they can be built upon, and undecipherable notations contradict the actual philosophy of any field of study. Very few, if any, of his “mathematical ideas” turned out to be correct[9]. In fact, you can search books, the Internet, or entire libraries, and you won’t find a single, tiny original contribution that da Vinci made to mathematics.
Mathematicians don’t guess at their answers. They study various techniques, sometimes for years. They learn how to use multiple mathematical models to find a solution. They compare alternative ways of performing calculations. They generalize the problems to solve categories of problems. They test their answers and try to find fault in them, try to tear the solution apart. They construct involved proofs that can withstand the attempts by other mathematicians to find weaknesses and fallacies. Only after this long effort born of creative spark but nurtured by perseverance do they create something worthy of being labeled genius. Da Vinci was far from a mathematical genius, and giving him the title of mathematician demeans those who have spent their lives vigorously examining the beauty of numbers and their relationships.
Da Vinci Was Not a Scientist
Scientists practice the scientific method. They come up with hypotheses based on observations or the works of others, but that’s simply the very beginning. Every curious child imagines reasons why the world works the way it does. Most of them are fantastic and some turn out to be true. Ancient people thought the world was flat, supported by tortoises. But even the ancient Greeks, two thousand years before da Vinci, created the scientific method used by Archimedes, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, and many others[10]. Roger Bacon, two hundred years before da Vinci, was making discoveries and promoting the scientific method[11]. All that da Vinci did was write fantastic theories in his notebooks but never once devised experiments to test them. Had he done that, he would have found that most of his theories were completely wrong. There is not a single known, novel scientific principle that can be attributed to da Vinci. But at that same time, real scientific geniuses like Nicolaus Copernicus were changing our understanding of the solar system forever. To call da Vinci a scientist is like calling a curious kindergartener a scientist. It is an insult to those real scientists who spend their lives not just observing and hypothesizing, but testing, poring over results, retesting, studying the works of others, refining their own work, creating new theories, and eventually giving us more knowledge about how the universe functions.
Da Vinci Was Not an Engineer
Da Vinci was often given credit for the inventions of others, simply drawing machines, bridges, weapons, and other devices that had been written up by others or actually built by others[12]. In fact most of his so-called inventions including diving suits and flying machines had been drawn up extensively by others before him[13]. Scientist Roger Bacon had drawn plans for an ornithopter 200 years before da Vinci, and flying machines had been discussed and drawn since ancient times[14]. Modern attempts to build even a single one of da Vinci’s inventions have all failed because da Vinci didn’t understand materials or forces or structures or math or any engineering requirements. He never built any of his inventions; he simply drew them and in a few cases built small, non-working models. Engineering requires a deep understanding of mathematics and science. It also requires testing and experimenting and calculating and retesting and improving, leading to eventual success. As Thomas Edison famously said, it is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. It requires more than just dreaming and drawing, which is as far as da Vinci ever got. Honoring da Vinci as an engineer, let alone a brilliant one, denigrates the accomplishments of those engineers who spend years planning and measuring and calculating and building and rebuilding and creating the wonderful inventions that simplify or improve our lives.
Give Credit Where Credit is Due
In summary, da Vinci was a great artist, debatably one of the best who ever lived. Certainly the most famous. But to call him an engineer, scientist, or mathematician, let alone a brilliant one, is simply not true and is an insult to those who devote their lives and their energies to these important human endeavors.
- Marion Boddy-Evans, Painting in the Style of Old Masters: Sfumato and Chiaroscuro, retrieved July 26, 2011.
- Seen with my own eyes, the bottom left corner was never completed.
- Leonardo Da Vinci Paintings, Inventions & Biography!, retrieved July 26, 2011.
- Adoration of the Magi,retrieved July 26, 2011.
- Giorgio Vasari, Lives of Seventy of the most eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects (of the Renaissance), 1550.
- Leonardo Da Vinci Paintings, Inventions & Biography!, retrieved July 26, 2011.
- How Not to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci, retrieved July 26, 2011.
- The Beauty of the Golden Ratio, retrieved July 26, 2011.
- Dirk Huylebrouk, Lost in Triangulation: Leonardo da Vinci’s Mathematical Slip-Up, retrieved July 26, 2011.
- Norman W. Edmund, Scientific Method History, retrieved July 26, 2011.
- Brian Clegg, Review – The First Scientist, retrieved July 26, 2011.
- Web Gallery of Art, Drawings of engineering themes, retrieved July 26, 2011.
- Leonardo: the Man, His Machines, retrieved July 26, 2011.
- Ornithopter Flying Machines: The Ancient Origins of an Invention, retrieved July 26, 2011.
spanish independent investigator mr. espejo claims he was a catalonian cathar and rosicrucian
Dear reader. This is an illustrated summary of my theory. You can find much more information (in Spanish) in my web page:
http://joseluisespejo.com/index.php/leonardo-da-vinci
According to Mr. Alessandro Vezzosi the blason of the Da Vinci is this one:
And specifically this one:
You can find the blason of the Da Vinci in the “stemma” that is in the center of the list of owners of Clos Lucé, in Amboise. The stemma of Leonardo is round, not straigh, like the french or spanish ones:
It is curious that Leonardo had the same blason that the Lords of Amboise. In fact, the blason of the Amboise is so old (has the same antiquity) as the one of the Counts of Barcelona (first documented the year 1150), what implies the same origin. In fact, in the Cantar del Mío Cid the catalans commanded by Ramon Berenguer are called “francs”. The Counts of Barcelona were linked, by feudal relationship, to the king of France until the Traité de Corbeil, the year 1258. This explain the similarity of the blason of the lords of Amboise, of the Da Vinci, and of Catalonia. It is possible that this blason descends from the french “oriflame”, the banner of the french kings.
According to my theory, the Da Vinci family came originally from a village called Vinciano, but popularly Vincia, near Perpignan, in North Catalonia (now in France, since the year 1659). Here you have some documentary evidences of the name of this village:
Vinciano and Vincia in some transcriptions of Jean Bernard Alart (Vinça).
Vinciano was the name used in the notarial documents; Vinsia and Vincia were the popular names. Sometimes it was used as first name, as seen above.
This name is very ancient. We can see it in a document of the year 1210, translated by Jean Bernard Alart. You can read Avincia. The “A” is a tropos called “protesis”, very popular in this area (Aria, instead of Ria, etc.):
So, we have the name Vincia and the blason of the Da Vinci. It was really the blason of Catalonia and of the kingdom of Aragon. Why? Because Vinciano was a city of the king, it had not feudal lord. The lord was the king, and Vinciano was owned by the kingdom. It is for this reason that the blason of Vinciano (modern Vinça) was, until the french domination, the following one:
The number of red bars of this blason was not specified. Could be three, four or five, as you can see in this blason of Girona, with three:
Or in this blason of the italian family Allione, with five red bars:
According to my theory, the catalan Alió (perhaps the italian Allione), as the De Vinciano (the modern Da Vinci?), were feudal lords that flew from the territory of North Catalonia to Italy because of the repression against the Cathars (XIII century). Bernat d’Alió was burned in Perpignan, as heretical cathar, the year 1258.
The De Vinciano family were feudal landlords, with lands in Puigcerdà, in the Pyrenees, and perhaps other propierties near Berga, in the province of Barcelona. The De Vinciano had strong contacts with hereticals:
The last presence of a De Vinciano in Catalonia is documented in 1270. Then they disapeared.
The first Da Vinci (not Vinci) in Italy is documented in 1254. It was, according to Vezzosi, Cianchi or Uzzielli, Riniero di Salvi da Vinci.
Near Vinçà (ancient Vinciano) there is a village called Reiner (Rainiero in the old documents). Salvi is a name very popular in that area, as explained in the article above.
It is broadly accepted that the blason of the Da Vinci is the same than the one of Catalonia and Aragon, as seen in the door of the house of the Da Vinci in Anchiano:
Leonardo could have family in Catalonia, because a brother of his great-grandfather, Giovanni Da Vinci, died in Barcelona in 1406, and lived almost 40 years in this city. I can’t prove it, but I think that he could have left family (children) in Barcelona, who would be distant cousins of Leonardo.
Leonardo knew very well Spain and Catalonia, as seen in his map of Europe, in the Atlantic Codex:
Next to the map of Spain there is a list of french cities. One of them is Perpignan, in North Catalonia, very near to Vinça (the ancient Vinciano).
So, it would be no strange at all if Leonardo went to Catalonia. I think that he did this at least two times, between 1481-1483, and in the second half of 1504. This year he made a drawing of the castle of Salses (near Perpignan), which was finished the same year 1504 (as seen in the Madrid II Codex). A year later (1505) a Spanish painter, Fernando Yáñez, went to his bottega. Perhaps it was Fernando de Llanos. In any case, a Ferrando Spagnolo was with Leonardo a year later of his second travel -according to my theory- to Barcelona.
It was then when he began La Gioconda, with a landscape very similar to the one of Martorell, near Barcelona.
In this travel (year 1504) he drawed the castle and monastery of Rocafort, in Martorell, destroyed by an earthquake the year 1448. Here there is a clear evidence:
This drawing is documented in the year 1504, as some of the drawings of the Codex Madrid II.
Leonardo erased these letters, as seen in the Codex Madrid II, 4r:
In the other side of the page you can see “un catalano rosato”, a catalan cloak in a list called “In cassa al munistero”.
I think that Leonardo came at least two times to Barcelona as a spy. The first time, perhaps, invited by Giuliano della Rovere, who was then the abbot of Montserrat (but who lived most of the time in Avignon). A month before of the desaparition of Leonardo from Florence, the year 1481, Giuliano della Rovere (future pope Giuliano II) says to the king of Spain (Fernando el Católico) that he is going to be soon in Montserrat (this letter is dated the 13 August 1481). You can see this transcription, made the year 1789 by a monk of Montserrat (the original has desapeared):
Literally Fernando el Católico writes to the monks of Montserrat that Giuliano della Rovere is coming to Montserrat:
“1481. Carta (compulsada) del Católico a los monges; dice: ‘Per la devoció que tenim a la beneita Verge Maria de Montserrat havem procurat que en aqueixa casa havia Abat, que farà residencia personal, e lo Cardenal que de present te la dita Abadia (la Rovere, despues Papa Julio 2) ha estat content de complaure-nos’. Y mientras se perfecciona este negocio, dice que el Cardenal da procura a los magníficos Guillem de Peralta y a su auditor Joan Periz; y manda el Rey que les obedezcan, ‘que aixo sera pera lo benefici de aqueix Monestir, e no faran lo contrari, per quant nostra gracia haveu casa’. Dat. Agosto 13“.
In another letter, dated the year 1480, Giuliano della Rovere, according to the monk that transcribed the original documents, says that he wants to expel all the benedictine monks from Montserrat, and to transform Montserrat in a monastery of the Jeromes. In these years (beginnings of the 1480) Leonardo paints a Saint Jerome, with clears details similars to Montserrat:
“… Embiando regio diploma dirigido al cardenal de la Robere (despues Julio II), prior comandatario, con motivo de la negociacion muy adelantada del cardenal con los jeronimos para expeler a los claustrales, que atajó el Rey Católico“.
Above you can see the Saint Jerome of Leonardo, compared with a sculpture of Pau Serra (1776), who -according to my opinion- was inspired in the painting of Leonardo in Montserrat. The Saint Jerome would have been stolen by the Maréchal Suchet the year 1811, when he took Montserrat, and given as a present to the Cardinal Joseph Fesch, uncle of Napoleon, in that moment in Rome. It would be for this reason -really- that the Saint Jerome is nowadays in the Vatican Museums.
It is posible that Leonardo painted another Saint Jerome inspired in the one made in Montserrat: “In 1991 Janice Shell and Grazioso Sironi contributed a new document to the dossier. They published the post-mortem inventory of Salai, which was drawn up on 21 April 1925, in Milan, for the división of his goods. The document lists pictures whose subjects unhesitaingly conjure up paintings by Leonardo, that is… un ‘quadro cum uno Santo Hieronimo grando’…” (Laure Fagnart: “The French History of Leonardo da Vinci Paintings”, in Leonardo da Vinci and France, exposition in Clos Lucé, Amboise, 2009).
There are some details that show that the landscapes painted by Leonardo in the Saint Jerome are characteristics of Montserrat, as seen above.
He went twice to Catalonia in secret because he came as a spy. You have to considere the historical circumstances: the wars in Italy. In 1480 there was trouble between Florence and Naples, and Fernando el Católico of Spain was cousin of Ferrante de Napoli. His father (Joan II of Aragon) was brother of Alfons el Magnànim d’Aragó, king of Aragon and of Naples (who was the father of Ferrante de Napoli).
You have to remember also that the abbot of Montserrat, in that moment, was Giuliano della Rovere. I think that this was the context and the reason that explains the stay of Leonardo in Spain in disguise. He never wrote in his notebooks about these travels; and if he did, he erased these writtings (as seen above, in the Codex Madrid II).
The second travel, in the second part of 1504, coincided with a dispute between the cardinal Francesco Soderini (brother of Piero Soderini, gonfaloniero of Firenze) and the king Fernando el Católico about the legitimacy of the Abbey of Montserrat.
Francesco Soderini, with the support of Giuliano della Rovere, maintained that he was the real abbot, instead of the Abbot Cisneros, in charge then of the monastery of Montserrat.
Furthermore, the year 1504, Leonardo learnt the last techniques of fortification in Spain. The castle of Salses (near Perpignan) was the best -and more modern- in Europe. The year 1504 Leonardo was working for Jacopo d’Appiano in the fortification of Piombino.
Up, drawing by the spanish Gonzalo de Ayora (1503). Down, drawing by Leonardo (1504).
Up, drawings of Leonardo in the Codex Madrid II (1504). Down, castle of Salses (Perpignan), 1504.
This is essentially my theory. You will find much more information in my books EL VIAJE SECRETO DE LEONARDO DA VINCI, LOS MENSAJES OCULTOS DE LEONARDO DA VINCI, and in the section LEONARDO DA VINCI of my web page:
http://joseluisespejo.com/index.php/leonardo-da-vinci
I think that this new line of research can explain some of the enigmas on the iconography and on the life of Leonardo, as points out a french reader that sent these words to me:
