Leonardo, Anatomist or Natural Philosopher?
No other subject engaged Leonardo more than his work on the anatomy of the human body. It was the subject in which he argued most forcibly for the importance of independent observation allied to original thought. This process he called “experience” of the
- PDF / 2,685,026 Bytes
- 17 Pages / 595.28 x 790.87 pts Page_size
- 6 Downloads / 178 Views
Leonardo, Anatomist or Natural Philosopher?
No other subject engaged Leonardo more than his work on the anatomy of the human body. It was the subject in which he argued most forcibly for the importance of independent observation allied to original thought. This process he called “experience”1 of the world around him “gained through the senses” was his starting point for new understanding. Reason and contemplation brought to bear on the sensed experience allowed the development of a hypothesis. Experimental testing and mathematical proof then gave authority to that hypothesis, the veracity of which could be stated. This approach, proclaimed by Leonardo as essential for rational progress, presages the modern method of science. This reliance upon dependent observation, throwing off the cloak of didactics, clearly brought him into conflict with some of the academics of the day. He can be heard to rail against his detractors who seem to be criticizing him for original thought; though the context may have been more general, the control on perceived wisdom by the physicians of the day would seem a likely target. Leonardo wrote: Many will think that they can with reason blame me, alleging that my proofs are contrary to the authority of certain men held in great reverence by their inexperienced judgment, not considering that my works are the issue of simple and plain experience which is the true mistress. These rules enable you to know the true from the false—[The rules that he refers to are those that we would speak of as scientific method.]—and this induces men to look only for things that are possible and with due moderation— and they forbid you to use a cloak of ignorance, (allowing the enquirer to admit that he does not know the answer) which will bring about that you attain to no result and in despair abandon yourself to melancholy. I am fully aware that the fact of my not being a man of letters may cause certain presumptuous persons to think that they may with reason blame me, alleging that I am a man without learning. Foolish folk! Do they not know that I might retort by saying, as did Marius2 to the Roman Patricians, ‘They who adorn themselves in the labours of others will not permit me my own.’ They
will say that because I have no book learning, I cannot properly express what I desire to treat of—but they do not know that my subjects require for their exposition experience rather than the words of others. Experience has been the mistress of whoever has written well; and so as mistress I will cite her in all cases.3
Perhaps the melancholy he speaks of refers to his own state of mind in dealing with the obdurate academics that clearly were scoffing at his work. He was an original thinker prepared to think outside of the box, and his preparedness to challenge ancient accepted authority can be found in these words, which open the passage quoted above: “Consider now, O reader! What trust can we place in the ancients, who tried to define what the Soul and Life are—which are beyond proof—whereas those things which can
Data Loading...
