Talk:Leonardo da Vinci

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leonardo da Vinci article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Former featured article Leonardo da Vinci is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Leonardo da Vinci has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 10, 2004.
WikiProject Echo      (Multiple languages)
WikiProject Echo has identified Leonardo da Vinci as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bulgarian, Dutch, Greek, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak or Albanian language Wikipedias.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] Birthday date

Da Vinci's birth date is April 15th of 1452, but in Florentine Time (which started the 'new day' at sunset.) By our reckoning he was born on the evening of April 14th ('three hours into the night' according to the biography). Then we need to account for the difference between Julian Calendar (which was used at that time) and Gregorian Calendar which we use now. At 1452 the difference is 9 days, so this finally gives us April 23, 1452 as the birth data of Da Vinci that astrologers use - which is Taurus. http://holisticastrologer.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-is-leonardo-da-vinci-taurus-reader.html


Is this true? Anyone any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehzades (talk • contribs) 12:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Mysterious people

The category is for people about whom there is a mystery as to their identity, immediate origins, or life. A cursory glance at the article suggests da Vinci's identity, origins or life story were not mysterious. Am I missing something? Because otherwise, the man should be removed from the category. Best regards, Steve T • C 09:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK! point taken.Amandajm (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of starting a new category, Dead People. Should be quite easy to fill it up. PiCo (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Mysterious" category was added by Nfgii (talk · contribs), who added it to dozens of random bio pages. Most have been reverted, and he has been warned. This category is not any more appropriate for da Vinci than it is for any other random historical (or living) person. I reverted it. Before restoring, please provide a detailed rationale on this talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Argyropoulos one of his teachers

Leonardo Da Vinci, in his Atlantic Codex (saved in the Ambrosiana Biblioteca or Abrosian Library), describes some scholars and scientists among whom he lived and socialised including the most known Byzantine academic of his time “Giovanni Argyropulo” (John Argyropoulos). Modern History researchers assumed that he attended his lectures. Reference:

  • Short Biographical Lexicon of Byzantine Academics Immigrants to Western Europe, by Fotis Vassileiou,Barbara Saribalidou, 2007.
  • Leonardo da Vinci: Flights of the Mind, by Charles Nicholl, 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Book13 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


I have now included the name John Argyropoulos, along with the other important Neo-Platonists in the section about Florence. Amandajm (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hovercraft, not helicopter

i have looked at the "helicopter" he invented and it works the same way as a hovercraft, using fan(s) to push air downwards. a helicopter uses the principle that air will always travel from a high pressure aria to low pressure area to fly. 122.105.220.244 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting observation. Amandajm (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. 122.105.222.138 (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Leonardo questions

Please leave a message on my talk page, by clicking "talk" after my name. Amandajm (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] L or V?

Hello,

Why is this article ordered on L. Intuitively I would put it at V, but every other sources put it at L. Why? Yann (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because his name is Leonardo. Da Vinci means he came from Vinci. A considerable number of Italian artists are known to history by their first names, even when, like Michelangelo who was minor nobility, they had a well established surname. When Dan Brown named his book "The Da Vinci Code", he was displaying a considerable degree of ignorance, for one pretending to know a lot about the subject.

Raphael, the other giant of the High Renaissance is also commonly known by his first name. During their lifetimes, all the artists would have been called by their first names or nicknames, and this should be maintained in the articles about them, unlike articles about modern people which use surnames, so that for example, Andrea del Sarto can to be shortened to Andrea rather than del Sarto. On the other hand, some artists are known almost always by their surname such as Ghiberti and Brunelleschi, or place name, such as Perugino (from Perugia).

Among the artists who are known by nicknames are Uccello, Masaccio, Masolino and il Sodoma (don't ask)

A large number of the 14th century painters are usually known by two names such as Taddeo Gaddi, Bernardo Daddi or a name and place name like Barna di Siena. In the case of Piero, in the late 14thc, he was identified as the illegitimate child of his mother and made her name famous as Piero della Francesca.

With Leonardo, despite his illegitimacy, his birth and baptism were proudly recorded by his grandfather, and his father named him as his son. Otherwise he may well have been Leonardo della Caterina. Amandajm (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious (& Political) Views

Can somebody add with references a section on his religious views to the main article? Was he devout? was he skeptical? Like many at that time, did he pay lip service? Seems difficult to imagine that someone who's interests extended as widely as his did, didn't have views on the nature of religion and politics. --Dmg46664 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

About Leonardo's religious views: This is a matter that is almost entirely open to speculation. In his journals he occasionally made severe criticism of the church as an organisation, and in particular, monastic life. Other than that, he was silent. We know practically nothing about Leonardo's personal feelings on any subject.

Vasari indicates that Leonardo may have been sceptical about religious matters for most of his life, because he says that Leonardo, on his death bed, sent for a priest and learnt about the Christian faith. He was give the sacrament before his death. That is all we know.

Michelangelo, on the other hand, was a biblical scholar. It is my bbelief that the scheme for the Sistine Chapel Ceiling is entirely Michelangelo's devising.

In the article on Leonardo, there is simply no room to go into speculative matters. The article is very long already. For that reason, there are three other articles: Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor, Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci and Leonardo da Vinci's personal life.

The place to include the various theories about his religious beliefs is on the latter page, along with the speculation about his sexually and so on.

Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality Tuscan?

Because Italy wasn't a nation at the time? And "Tuscany" was? This retroactivism is going to create some interesting situations. Goethe isn't German any more. Pericles isn't Greek. And as for Moses, well, he was born in Egypt, so I guess he's an Egyptian. PiCo (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is totally ridiculous - he would have been regarded as Italian at the time, and should be now. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh!) I'm perfectly happy to call him Italian. Is this a quorum then? Amandajm (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not keen to make an issue of it, but it might be. Or just avoid adjectives altogether. I don't want to have to work out what prince all my early Germans lived under! Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If the Italians are happy to call him Italian, and they seem to be, then so am I. Amandajm (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please! If you can find anything from the 15th century that uses the word Italy or Italian in anything but the broadest geographical sense, I'd love to see it. If Leonardo had an idea of Italian nationhood, it was almost as far ahead of reality as his flying machines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please you! This has been discussed at three different places on this board. If you take the trouble to read all of them, you will find that the general concensus of major contributors to this page is that we feel that "Italian" is the best option. The discussions will also make it clear to you that we are none of us ignorant of whatever point you are trying to make. Amandajm (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Pericles and Goethe are incomparable examples to Leonardo and the Italianata. The Italianata is a product of the 19th century, prior to that every "Italian" was loyal to their city and not to Italy. The best description would have been "Florentine" however per WP:POLICY we're obliged to use the most common descriptor, which is probably Italian. That's the only reason this name should be used, and not because the contributors feel in a certain way. Miskin (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

Sometimes this article talks too much of others and not of Leonardo himself. Does anyone have any suggestions for this? Particularly the section on his influences needs some improvement. Some of the statements are vague, and I think that more examples could be given. --152.3.239.4 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just replying to this.
  • The section on "Influences" is about Florence and the situation into which Leonardo moved, as a youth. It isn't about Leonardo's influence on others. It is this section, specifically, that talks about "others" and not Leonardo himself. To understand Leonardo, it is important to understand the artistic climate of Florence in the 1400s.
  • Further down, there is a section dealing with Leonardo, Legend. The statements are direct quotations by authors over several centuries which show the esteem in which he was held, as his "legendary" status is unique among Renaissance artists.
  • A sectionn dealing specifically with his influence on other painters would be a good addition.
Amandajm (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Equine statue

I've changed "equestrian statue" to "equine statue", because the planned Sforza monument was that of an unmounted horse. Pannonius (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leonardo's mother

  • "There is some evidence that Caterina may have been a slave from the Middle East, but many experts question this evidence."

There's an article in today's Guardian about new evidence supporting the claim that his mother was a slave, which in turn gives greater weight to the claim of Middle Eastern lineage. The latter part of the quoted text refers to the question of fingerprint reliability, whereas the Guardian article isn't focusing on that - perhaps it would be appropriate to add this to the quoted text to balance it out? G E Enn (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The new evidence seems to be pretty much the same as the evidence of 2001. I removed the line that said that there was doubt, I don't think it's necessary, as no-one has come forward with more proof to the contrary in 7 years.
Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo's Arab heritage

Moved addition to first paragraph. The first paragraph attempts to briefly sum up his biography with known facts. It's not the right place to discuss whether something is "firmly proven". That is the sort of wording that goes in "talk page" discussions.

When Leonardo's origins are indeed "proven" then the first paragraph will simply state "the illegitimate son of Ser Piero.... and an Arabic slave, Caterina." It won't require the words "firmly proven".

The problem is this: it is not "firmly proven", even though it seems highly probable.

  1. We don't know for sure whether the slave Caterina who is mentioned in documents in Vinnci was in fact Leonardo's mother.
  2. The scientific report of the fingerprints does not appear to be available. We are reliant onn press reports.
  3. The press reports confirm a likelihood, or probability. What we need to know is not just' the fact that the particular fingerpring occurs in Middle Eastern people, but whether or not it also occcurred in 15th century Italians. No-one has, as yet, produced that information.
  4. "Arab" means "Arabic". Not all Middle Eastern people are Arabic. The statements claim "Middle Eastern" descent, not specifically "Arabic" descent.

This topic is interesting, but we have no idea how it impacted on his major fields of creativity, or if it had any impact at all. There is so much info on Leonardo that we have four Wikipedia pages. The best place for an in-depth look at the question of Leonardo's family background is on the page Leonardo da Vinci's personal life.

Amandajm (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The notebooks

The notebooks (which you call journals, but I think notebooks is the more commonly used term) deserve their own article. Some of the questions raised here could be treated at length - such as why he didn't publish them in his own lifetime (answer: apparently he intended to, but never got around to it), and the role of Melzi (faithful ammenuensis or blundering idiot?). This is a job for Super-Amanda!PiCo (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not! No, I refuse! This is a job for Peekypoo! Amandajm (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It'll grow on you.PiCo (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do U Have Questions?

Is Leanrado Left handed?-angle

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.223.148 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.

thats cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.193.37 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are all the Ranaissance people.((please make a list under)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.193.37 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian nationality

I don't quite understand based on what this article can claim that Leonardo's nationality was Italian. Stating that Leonardo was born in Italy might be correct even though the country Italy didn't exist at the time, since it's also a geographical turn. However, he most certainly wasn't an Italian national. Imposing contemporary nationalities on people who lived in other states is just plain falsification. If in the future Italy would be part of another country (let's say San Marino to emphasis the hypotetical question) would Leonardo then be of Sammarinese nationality? And if for some reason Italy would become part of the US 200 years from now, would Leonardo then be American? JdeJ (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that L. was of Italian nationality; it says he was Italian. Italian by culture, by language, by geography (Italy did exist as a geographical expression at the time, to rephrase Bismark). PiCo (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Painting mistake

Unless I am mastaken, under the paintings section, the painting The Virgin Of the Rocks appears twice. could someone please correct this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.223.43 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a mistake. It is explained. They are two paintings in two different galleries. Amandajm (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Renaissance artists were fond of repeating their successes - you do a painting for client A, his good friend B sees it and asks for a copy, and so on and on. Works by Caravaggio are currently popping out of unexplored attics all over the place, all original, all nearly identical.PiCo (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which Sangallo?

From the text (under "Florence—Leonardo's artistic and social background")

Like the two contemporary architects, Bramante and Sangallo, Leonardo experimented with designs for centrally-planned churches, a number of which appear in his journals, as both plans and views, although none was ever realise

The link for "Sangallo" leads to a disambiguity page and it is not clear which Sangallo is meant: Giuliano da Sangallo (c. 1443 – 1516) or Antonio da Sangallo the Elder (c. 1453 – December 27, 1534); both were architects active during the Renaissance. Anrie 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The latter is probably the more relevant.Amandajm (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just reverted the lead image

The reason that the caption states that we do not know for sure if the drawing is a self-portrait is because that is the fact. It is also a fact that it is almost universally accepted as such. The oil painting dating from the 16th century may or may not be Leonardo, regardless of the fact that it has his name on it in large letters. If it is Leonardo, then it probably confirms that the drawing is also Leonardo. If the drawing is in fact Leonardo, then it is a superb drawing, by a greater master (the man himself) than the author of the painted portrait. Whichever way you look at it, the drawing is a better lead image than the painting. Amandajm (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leonardo's birthplace

because the page is rather crowded, I'm moving it to the Leonardo da Vinci's personal life pag. Amandajm (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ease of accessibility

A clean list of his artworks would be easily accessed if it were more easily accessible. Nandor1 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Come again? Ham 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC) PS: This might be what you're looking for.

[edit] PROPOSAL- split section List of paintings to List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci

My rationale for making this suggestion is as follows. Please add your comments.

  • The existing article is a huge 89kB, so it would benefit from the removal of some non-essential content
  • Parts of the list are redundant to the "Painting" section.
  • The list adds excessive weight to Leonardo's artistry. We should either add new sections such as "List of inventions", or remove the "List of paintings" section. Given the length of the article, the latter seems preferable.
  • If split from the main article, the list could be expanded into nice table format, including more information, and images for each item. Sounds like a future Featured List candidate to me!

Papa November (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. unless anyone vehemently objects. now the box has been well editted, this is a good way to go. Amandajm (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Split completed. If anyone objects, we can easily restore the split content. Take a look at List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci - it needs a some work, including expansion of the lead section, and addition of the missing details in the latter sections, but it's reasonably complete otherwise. It would be nice if we could get it featured. Papa November (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have a suggestion: http://publicliterature.org/books/notebooks_of_leonardo_da_vinci/xaa.php

This offers the online text and PDF of the Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci.

76.100.228.241 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you look at the bottom of the article, there is already a link to Richter's translation.. Amandajm (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leonardo as a Pederast

Leonardo's most intimate relationships were perhaps with his pupils Salai and Melzi, Melzi writing that Leonardo's feelings for him were both loving and passionate. It has been claimed since the 16th century that these relationships were of an erotic nature. Since then much has been written about Leonardo's presumed homosexuality and its role in his art, particularly in the androgyny and eroticism manifested in John the Baptist and Bacchus, and more explicitly in a number of drawings. (REF Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships epigraph, p. 148 & N120 p.298 END REF)

This was the previous version. Changed by Haiduc to the following:

Leonardo's most intimate relationships appear to have been with his pupils Salai and Melzi. Melzi wrote that Leonardo's feelings for him were both loving and passionate. According to Giulio Mancini, Da Vinci "made such carefully observed anatomical studies of the handsome young Signor Francesco Melzi." (REF Elizabeth Abbott, A history of celibacy: Experiments Through the Ages, p.34 END REF) Salai was also the model for an eroticized John the Baptist, and of him it was said at the time that he was kept by Leonardo as his Ganymede.(REF Robert Aldrich, Garry Wotherspoon, Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II, p.265 END REF) It has been asserted since the 16th century that these relationships were of an erotic nature. Since then much has been written about Leonardo's assumed homosexuality and its role in his art, particularly in the androgyny and eroticism manifested in John the Baptist and Bacchus, and more explicitly in a number of drawings. (REF Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships epigraph, p. 148 & N120 p.298 END REF)

Haiduc asks me to explain why I deleted the info on the grounds that it was "speculation".

Whether or not Leonardo's relationships with Melzi and Salai were of an erotic nature appears to have been first speculated in writing by Giulio Mancini who was born 40 years after Leonardo's death. His work is a sexual fantasy.

As for Leonardo making detailed anatomical studies of a young man.... well what the heck does one expect an artist to do. As an artist, I have a stack of such "detailed anatomical studies" of young people both male and female with whom I have absolutely no erotic association whatsoever. Who was the contemporary who said that Salai was Leonardo's Ganemede?

Haiduc continually pushes a case for Leonardo being a pederast. The actual evidence for it is slight. If he ever drew or painted a boy who was younger than 18 years old, in any guise whatsoever, (except babyhood) then all the evidence has disapppeared. There remain a couple of erotic drawings of a Salai as a young man, but whether they reflect Leonardo's personal interest, or rather Salai's own sexual behaviour is uncertain.

Amandajm (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My only concern here is to try somehow to reduce the length of the article, and improve its style. The material about his social life is covered in detail in Leonardo da Vinci's personal life, and it's not necessary here. However, I also think that there's a lot of very flowery description here, which can be made much more succinct. A lot of Vasari's descriptions seem more like fanciful fables about Leonardo than accurate historical accounts, and I'm not sure that they are entirely appropriate for the biography section. The "Leonardo the Legend" section would seem like a better place. Also, the amount of peripheral material dwarfs the account of Leonardo in many places - I agree that some context is necessary, but do we really need so much detail about work by other artists, the Italian Wars and Italian diplomacy to understand Leonardo fully? Per WP:LENGTH, the current 80kB size is really pushing the limits, and we can improve readability significantly by cutting down on superfluous information and redundancy. Papa November (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to reduce the length of the article, the worst place to begin would be with what is most central to the artist, namely his passion. The great man himself has said that When the lover is united with his beloved he is at peace, and has placed love at the center of his creative genius.
As for labeling Leonardo's passion for young men "speculation," I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word. If we were to come up with novel theories about George Washington or George Bush, and put forward suggestions that they were (are) pederasts, we would be speculating. In Leonardo's case we have the words of his beloved - I am sure I do not have to repeat or translate them for you here. Melzi himself tells us Leonardo was in love with him. We also have the accounts and comments of his contemporaries, and countless other scholars since. So let's put the "speculation" cant aside and stop beating around the bush about his very well known and obvious love of youths. Haiduc (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Haiduc, Melzi's comments about Leonardo's feelings appear to be fairly brief and not necessarily indicative of a physical relationship. Leonardo wrote little about his personal feelings. That he placed "love at the centre of his creative genius" seems highly speculative.
You have said that "accounts and comments of his contemporaries" indicate the nature of his relationship with the two young men. Which contemporaries?
The particular emphasis that your previous writing on this topic took was that his relationships were of a specifically pederast nature. I know that this was written about in fairly lurid detail by someone who wasn't born until many years after Leonardo's death. However, it seems that the only solid evidence about his sexuality concerned a change of sodomy when he was about 20 with a young man of 18. He was aquitted. This is document, and referred to in the article as one of the few dated references to Leonardo during this part of his life. The reasons for his aquittal have been subject to speculation, of course, with suggestions that he was cleared after his father exchanged a sum of money.
I think that the paragraph as it stood previously is quite sufficient as it cites Melzi's comments for anyone to interpret them as they chose. It mentions "presumed homosexuality" and the homoerotic nature of the John the Baptist and a couple of drawings. I really don't think that any further elaboration in this article is necessary, given that there is another article about his personal life. Amandajm (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Amanda, I am sorry that you find sex lurid, that probably explains why you are so determined to keep it out of the picture. As for the rest of your comments, I am afraid you're severely mistaken on several counts, all of them of crucial importance.
First, your "rejection" of Melzi's comments is patently absurd. "Fairly brief?!" How long a treatise do you want the man to make out of a simple "He loved me." As it so happens, he did not say just that, but made an emphatic statement that Leonardo loved him with a burning love with all his heart and soul. "Fairly brief," indeed!
Then you insist that Melzi's comments are "not indicative of a physical relationship." So what? You do not need a physical connection to have a pederastic relationship. All you need is love, as some musical group famously said.
Then you get the age of the boy whore wrong: Jacopo was seventeen, not eighteen, when Leonardo and the others were busted.
A more critical fatal flaw in your argument is your contention that That he placed "love at the centre of his creative genius" seems highly speculative. But Leonardo's words are clear:

The lover is moved by the thing he loves. As do the senses with their object, they bond together and form one whole. The work of art is the first thing to be born from this union. If the thing which he loves is base, the lover debases himself. When the thing to which he joins himself is suitable to the person who so unites himself, the result is one of delight, pleasure and peace. When the [male] lover is united with the [male] beloved he is at peace.

While I agree with you that the bulk of this discussion belongs in the article on his personal life, I do not agree with the present formulation of the material. It is a misrepresentation of the facts, and reads like an equivocal whitewash. Leonardo is widely believed to have been exclusively homosexual, and his two principal lovers were the two boys he loved from adolescence on. "Study, analysis and speculation" and "most intimate relationships were perhaps" are officious fumblings that do not belong here. Haiduc (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Cultural blindness and historical deafness:
  1. Plato's Phaedrus is about a male lover, but the medieval church interpreted its "αγάπη" as "Platonic love" and an ideal. This interpretation goes to the 14th century.
  2. In the renaissance, it is conventional for men to speak of love and loving one another and intend "agape." This is the post-erotic and trans-erotic love that they have copied from Plato, but note that it is unspeakable and unthinkable that it would be sexually active.
  3. Therefore, speaking of how one was the "beloved" of Leonardo would be nearly a cliche. It would most emphatically not indicate that the two were sexually involved.
So, what we have is a very commonplace literature of male "love" in the Renaissance. You can find it in Shakespeare and in Jonson. You can find it all over the place. None of this implies sexual relations. The cultural tradition was to read "agape" as a non-sexual love that was most likely to occur between members of the same sex, and it was so wonderful because there could be no doubt that it was not sexual.
The "erotic" boy is part of Humanism in general. All forms were done beautiful. Leonardo did some very sexy women: does that prove that he was massively heterosexual? No? If not, then males would not demonstrate anything, either. Leonardo was ... get this... not a realist, and certainly not a Romantic, painter. Isn't that mind blowing? Well, he was a Humanist in the Renaissance, and he paints according to his philosophy and goals. A man who painted the patron with warts would be in trouble (at least for a while).
Another lesson, to be learned both from Michel Foucault and Lawrence Stone and, well, everyone else, is that "homosexual" does not exist until the 19th century. The idea of a person who goes about loving the same sex and perforce having sexual involvement with members of the same sex is simply non-existent. Artists of all sorts played with what we now think is homoeroticism, but they were not homosexual.
"Pederast" is a term of law, not nature. To try to label this person and that a "pederast" is foolish and dishonest. It is either an attempt to convict these people, posthumously, of a crime or an attempt to say that the crime should be allowed. Both impulses are shabby. Bad, bad. Geogre (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Pederast" in academia has nothing to do with law, and that is the sense it is used in Wikipedia since this is not an encyclopedia of legal terminology. Strict constructionist views of homosexuality were all the rage a generation or two ago, now they are road kill, together with Foucault. More to the point, Leonardo is recognized as homosexual by the great majority of gay history scholars, if not all. That is what matters here. Haiduc (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You've referenced this "academic definition" of pederast several times, but I have not yet seen the citation. Who exactly are you claiming defines a pederast as "anyone who has any sort of relationship, from platonic to sexual, with a young man?" Specific citations would be most helpful. Nandesuka (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This is one instance, off the top of my head. Haiduc (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You characterized the definition as "academic." While the wiki-like online encyclopedia you cite is interesting, if that qualified as "academic", then I am Marie of Roumania. Got anything a little more established? Say, a peer-reviewed article or two? Nandesuka (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, your majesty, if you look again you will notice that the article was written by Vern L. Bullough. If he is not an academic, then I am Queen Victoria. Haiduc (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Vern Bullough is certainly an academic. And this little essay is most assuredly not an academic article. Bullough is an acknowledged expert on modern sexuality, but this article seems singularly ignorant about antiquity, and is spectacularly dismissive of the actual experts in Athenian culture who aren't as given to leaping to conclusions without any reasonable evidence. "Many scholars who acknowledge the existence of Greek pederasty are unwilling to look upon it as involving sexual activity. Some couples undoubtedly limited their physical contact to the gymnasia--wrestling, reclining together on couches, but not going beyond kissing and fondling. Some presumably ejaculated between the thighs or buttocks of the boys, yet others, perhaps most, penetrated their lover anally. Such activities appear on vase or other paintings."
In any event, with sources like these, I look forward to your next contribution, List of Japanese women who had cunnilingus with octopi. After all, such activities appear on paintings. Nandesuka (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. Jacopo was 17 not 18. Leonardo was 21 or 22.
  • When Leonardo writes of love in relation to the arts, he is not necessarily writing of passion for a person. A musician might express fervent love for his violin. Leonardo appears to have had many loves- anatomy, landscape, light and shadow, botany etc. Amandajm (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to Andre Gide, who obviously thought otherwise. Forgive me, but I will take my analysis of Leonardo from him before I take it from you. Haiduc (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Andre Gide's qualification for analyzing Leonardo's life is the same as that of Dan Brown. If you prefer novelists and essayists as your sources, that might be fun, but it's not sound. I love Fra Lippo Lippi, by Robert Browning, too, but it's not a biography of a painter. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verrocchio

Is there an exact date for when Leonardo was apprenticed to Verrocchio? Every web page or book I look at shows a different year from 1464 to 1469 and I just want to make sure this is right. 74.232.16.224 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The exact date of Leonardo's apprenticeship is unknown. 1464 is almost certainly too early a date. Normal practice was to apprentice the boy at 14, having completed his formal education at 13. Thus, the year 1466 is presumed by some writers. It is though by some that the family moved to Florence in 165-66 after the death of Ser Piero's first wife. It is known that Ser Piero's father dies in 1468, aged 92. In the following year Piero and his brother Francesco bought a house near the Bargello in Florence, and lived there with their respective wives. Some writers presume that Leonardo entered Verrocchio's studio at this date, when the whole family shifted to Florence.
However, the facts are not certain because Ser Piero appears to have worked between Vinci and Florence, and probably rented a house in Florence for some years before making it his permanent home. 16 years old was rather a late age to commence an apprenticeship. However, I think that the later date may be the more likely one. A reasons for thinking this (this is strictly OR) is that Leonardo remained an "outsider" with the art fraternity in Florence, even though they were tolerant of other talented incomers eg Perugino.
Amandajm (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re Maloseri's edits

The Leonardo article has been relatively stable for a long time. This indicates that the majority of editors who are interested in it are satisfied with it.

As I have pointed out to you above, the subject of Leonardo's relationships is a fairly delicate one that has brought about a great deal of discussion and argument. This had calmed down.

With regards to your edits, they have been reversed because:

  • "Companion" is a term used for a young person or servant who travels with and assists an older person. Melzi was Leonardo's "companion" in his old age. This is correct English. It means something different to "close friend". It does not mean "homosexual partner".
  • The beauty of Salai is not a digression. It is almost certainly the reason why Leonardo took the urchin home. He painted those ringlets on his angels.
  • The later description links to the drawings. Salai's face appears many times, but is not always labelled as Salai.
  • You deleted the reference to several of Leonardo's pictures. That was not appropriate.
  • You deleted a citation to a written source. That was not appropriate either.

Amandajm (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked at your edits to the other website (Leonardo da Vinci's personal life). Changing the word "relationship" to "friendship" is completely inappropriate. Leonardo had a "relationship" with the boy Salai. It was a "master/pupil" relationship. This much is certain. It may have been a "father/son" relationship. It may have been a pederast relationship. But one thing is absolutely certain. It was not a "friendship" in any normal sense of the word "friendship" which implies an equal and giving relationship.
Amandajm (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The word "associate" is not a suitable translation for "companion" either. Amandajm (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foetus

Isn't it Fetus? it says Foetus in the subtitle for the image on the left in the 'Scientist' section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.255.79 (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Foetus" is correct. However, in non-scientific literature it is often written as "fetus". This is probably more usual in the USA than in the UK. This article is written in English English. Amandajm (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length, and style

I've mentioned my concerns previously about the article, and I'd like to see whether we can agree on a way forward. To reiterate: firstly, the article is huge. Amandajm suggested that we could split the painting section into separate article, and leave a very condensed form of the section here. I think this is a great idea, and if there are no objections, we could make a start quite soon. Secondly, a lot of the prose seems to be written in a "flowery" style that may not be quite formal enough for an encyclopedia. I think the article would benefit from stripping some of the text down to nice, succinct descriptions. There is some excellent advice for reducing redundancy here. Any thoughts/suggestions? Papa November (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Unless there are immediate objections, I'll do it, having authored that section. The article will come down a great deal in length, as a result. Concerning the language:

  • this is essentially an art article, and as such requires a style of prose that is a little different to a scientific article, for example. Because of the nature of the subject matter, art articles are always more descriptive.
  • Those parts of the biography which are drawn from Vasari must stick fairly close to his wording, in order maintain any sense of accuracy and not indicate things which are not necessarily true.
  • You, Papa November, have made a few edits in the interests of brevity that have put innacuracies into the article.
eg- The article stated that Lorenzo sent Leonardo to Milan to secure peace with Ludovoco. You made a change that stated that in a given year Leonardo secured peace with Milan. This was an inaccurate description of what happened, because you removed the nuances. The intention of Lorenzo Medici, according to Vasari, was to secure peace. To state it in bald political terms, as if Leonardo had gone north and got a contract signed between the cities is not accurate.
It is for this sort of reason that it is better not to fiddle with the "flowery language". It has been written with great care in order that errors of that type are not introduced. Believe me, it is very much easier to get it wrong than to get it right.

Amandajm (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style

OK, good news about the split. I've created this subsection so we can discuss the style separately. I agree that my abbreviated form of the section went too far, and I should emphasise that I'm not an expert on this subject. However, improvements can still be made here. I don't propose that the article should be written in the same way as a scientific article, but there are several examples of existing featured articles in the renaissance arts, which use a direct and succinct style without sounding clinical or dry:

Once the split has been completed, we can go to another round of peer review and then hopefully back to FAC. Papa November (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] response

Of these featured articles, some are monographs on individual works, one a simple biography on a life with only one significant event in it, one is a more extensive but straight forward biography, the last is a description of a number of works, with some relevant biographical details. None of these articles resembles the Leonardo page in any way. The enormous diversity of Leonardo's interests and skills, the amount of speculation about him, the amount of influence that he had on later artists, puts him in a position which would be unique among artists, were it not for Michelangelo, sculptor, painter, architect and poet...(and unlike Leonardo, supremely successful in every such activity that he attempted).

If you, Papa November, had any understanding of how difficult it is to present a balanced and accurate account, then you would be much more cautious in suggesting that something that has been laboured over as much as this article has, should be chopped up.

A little history: It went up for FA some time ago. The reason that it was passed over was as follows:

  • I rashly put up several articles at the same time.
  • Raoul and several other editors addressed their focus to one of the articles which soon went through to