Upload
sayyyrah123
View
333
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Hidden Father of Anatomy or an Overrated Icon?
By: Sarah Harder
May 7, 2010
HST 301
Sarah Harder 2HST 301 Research Paper
In modern day society, what would substantiate one to be called a skilled “painter,
architect, mathematician, city planner, biologist and researcher in optics, while at the same time a
civil, military and hydraulic engineer…gifted athlete, a fine musician, and a talented singer?”1
Besides decades of educational training and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars to
finance those years of schooling, one would require an insatiable curiosity and an unfathomable
aptitude for learning. A person encompassing characteristics to this extreme degree is unheard of
in the present day and age.
In the sixteenth century, however, one particular scholar “could claim the job titles of
architect, astronomer, botanist, sculptor, anatomist, physiologist, geologist, and physicist, as well
as military, mechanical, civil, and aeronautical engineer.”2 Born in 1492 in a town near Florence
in Tuscany, Leonardo da Vinci received an education before entering into an apprenticeship in
Verrocchio’s workshop where he learned painting and sculpture. At the young age of 20, he was
welcomed into the painter’s guild of Florence and thus began his career as an artist. The
remainder of his years was spent between Milan, Venice, Rome, and Florence. “Almost 500
years after his death Leonardo da Vinci is still known first and foremost as an artist; [however]…
not to acknowledge his other accomplishments is to miss his true genius.”3
He made many astonishing breakthroughs in several areas of study that he explored. “In
every category of science,…the first modern presentation is often ascribed to Leonardo.”4 He is
often referred to as the quintessential Renaissance man due to his ability to grasp a thorough
understanding of multiple content areas and make advancements in several fields through close
observation and experimentation. “His genius was not bounded by time and technology. His
1 Bhattacharya, 283.2 Wise, 100.3 Ibid.4 Dibner, 380.
Sarah Harder 3HST 301 Research Paper
research and invention extended beyond the realm of knowledge and technology available in the
day.”5 Though he lacked contemporary equipment such as x-ray machines and had nothing on
which to base his initial knowledge besides a small number of classical texts, he had a drive and
passion to seek the answers to questions unknown.
Due to the brevity of this paper, the focus shall remain on Leonardo’s advancements in
the field of anatomy. Originally, Leonardo, like other leading Renaissance artists, began his work
in anatomy to refine the realistic quality of his work. “Renaissance artists were among the first to
begin examining corpses superficially to improve their depiction of the human body.”6 In the
past, dissections were considered taboo and had been made illegal, so a majority of knowledge
obtained by scientists and physicians was purely hypothetical.7 The dawn of the Renaissance
replaced the constant reliance on religion and superstition with a renewed sense of confidence in
mankind, so that gradually, dissections were made legal.
The artist Donatello is given the honor of being the first artist to take interest in the
scientific study of the human body, but Leonardo was not far behind. He “performed more than
100 human dissections and, among his works that have been discovered, there are 779
anatomical drawings and sketches.”8 As mentioned before, artists often studied the human body
to improve their art; however, Leonardo’s studies continued far beyond what was necessary for
his artwork. The purpose for his study of anatomy became much more than to improve his art,
but became a constant search to find the answers to some of life’s mysteries.9 He blurred the line
5 Monties, 477.6 Wise, 100.7 Ackerman, 208.8 Xie, 899.9 Wise, 100.
Sarah Harder 4HST 301 Research Paper
between his role as an art student and that of a student of science as he continually “breathed life
into the inert anatomical form.”10
This is not to say that his works were wholly unflawed. On several accounts, his findings
were incorrect and he held to certain medieval ideas that led him to erroneous conclusions. Also,
whether accurate or not, an argument stands in the present day academic community as to the
importance of Leonardo’s anatomical contributions to society. There is no question as to the
greatness of his research; however, the fact that the majority of his works were either lost or
remained hidden for 400 years after his death causes some scholars to question the significance
of his role on the development of modern anatomy. Of these scholars, one, George Sarton,
admits to the genius of Leonardo when he says that he “was one of the greatest men of science in
history,” but also highlights that “the world which admired him as an artist did not discover the
man of science until many centuries after his death.”11
Nonetheless, Leonardo da Vinci was a man born into a world that was not quite ready for
him. According to Sigmund Freud, he “awoke too early in the darkness, while everyone was still
asleep.”12 He was responsible for the discovery of major breakthroughs in multiple fields
spanning over various facets of society, but the breadth of this article will cover his work in the
field of anatomy. Leonardo used his observational skills and artistic imagination to bring new
light into the field of anatomy, making advancements so great that several ideas are still accepted
today, more than 500 years later. Some scholars contend that his impact on this subject matter is
so immense that evidence suggests his legitimacy as the “Hidden Father of Modern Anatomy.”13
To propose such a statement is extreme, but the remainder of this paper will take into
10 Toledo-Pereyra, 247. 11 Dibner, 380.12 Bhattacharya, 283.13 Toledo-Pereya, 249.
Sarah Harder 5HST 301 Research Paper
consideration the actual influence Leonardo had in the history of anatomy. In his anatomical
ventures, what were Leonardo da Vinci’s successes versus his failures; and consequently, what
impact did he have on the emergence of modern anatomy?
The field of anatomy is incredibly broad, yet Leonardo managed to study almost every
aspect, meaning each individual bone, muscle, organ, system, etc. In his lifetime, he wrote in
excess of 120 chapters on anatomy, though “the only remaining evidence of his anatomical
studies is the extensive collection of sketches with their distinctive mirrored captions.”14 Still, the
comparatively few works that remain in circulation were bound together to create six folios of
information, published in Oslo between 1911 and 1916.15 To comment on each of his findings
would require a far more intensive range than intended for this paper. Consequently, the focus
will be on briefly covering Leonardo’s study of osteology, myology, the cardiovascular system,
the nervous system, and the respiratory system.
I. Osteology
First, a survey on Leonardo’s studies of osteology is necessary to grasp the intensity of
his curiosity. Osteology is, in essence, the study of bones. Throughout his academic career,
Leonardo sought to sketch and define each part of the human body, from head to toe. In this
goal, he was successful as his folios contain hundreds of drawings that cover both large factions
as well as smaller, individual sectors. For example, one of the more famous sketches portrays
various viewpoints of the body from the neck down. Through a variety of subsequent sketches,
this is broken down into the vertebrae, the leg, the arm, etc. To get the best overview in such a
14 Wise, 100.15 Dibner, 380.
Sarah Harder 6HST 301 Research Paper
limited document, one should be exposed to Leonardo’s sketch of the full body, neck down as
well as that of the skull.
Figure 1, a series of sketches known simply as The Skeleton, represents one of the more
successful attempts to convey the skeleton in its entirety. Just by viewing this work, the amount
of observation required to yield such a
precise depiction is obvious. This is not to
suggest, however, that his work is
completely accurate. “Although far in
advance of anything which had preceded it,
this sketch…exhibits certain inaccuracies.”16
The scapula (red), for example, is portrayed
slightly too long. Leonardo extends it from
the second rib to the tenth rib, and modern
day anatomy dictates that it should only
reach the seventh rib. He did, however,
generate the “first accurate depiction of the
vertebral column as well as, for the first
time, the correct identification of the proper number vertebrae.”17 His representation of the
sternum (blue) includes the manubrium (top yellow section) and the xiphoid process (bottom
yellow section) as part of the sternum, but also three separate entities. He does make a slight
error by showing eight connecting ribs when there should only be seven.18 Though discrepancies
16 O’ Malley, 40.17 Wise, 100.18 O’ Malley, 40.
http://webtafe.com/juanm/juanm/images/019852403x_leonardo-da-vinci_2.jpg
Figure 1
Sarah Harder 7HST 301 Research Paper
do exist, they are so few and minute that this sketch is highly accurate considering the time
period and resources available to the artist.
Leonardo’s sketches of the skull follow this same pattern of amazing accuracy bearing in
mind the resources accessible. In fact, this
particular drawing is highly precise, with
the only possible flaw being an error in the
count of teeth. Figure 2 is a highly admired
sketch due to its creativity in dividing the
skull down the middle so that the “front
and maxillary air sinuses (yellow), the
nasal cavity (green)…have been exposed
on the right half, (viewer’s left)”19 and the
“superior and inferior orbital fissures
(blue), the supraorbital (orange),
supratrochlear (pink), infraorbital (purple)
and mental foramina (red)”20 are displayed
on the left half (viewer’s right). Creativity
aside, this piece was a major development in the scientific community as it provided an accurate
depiction of the skull and all its features.
19 Ibid., 44.20 Ibid., 44.
Figure 2
http:/www.drawingsofleonardo.org/images/skull2.jpg
Sarah Harder 8HST 301 Research Paper
II. Myology
Myology, the study of muscles and muscle tissue, was a second major subject that
interested Leonardo. Leonardo’s “study of the musculature began as a study of motion and
emotion in art and ended as a physiological study of their action.”21 Like several other
Renaissance masters, he began his studies to gain a better understanding of the movement of the
human body in order to portray more realistic representations in his artwork. As he continued his
research, he acquired a genuine curiosity for anatomy, and his title changed from artist to
student. Ultimately, his curiosity was effective as he introduced several innovative ideas to the
science community. “He was the first to describe the origins and insertions of muscle groups as
well as the first to depict the relationships
between agonist and antagonist groups of
muscles. In addition (he) described the distinct
blood and nervous supply to individual
muscles.”22 For the sake of this discussion, two
of the more prominent muscle sketches will be
discussed to reveal the ways in which Leonardo
imitated muscle movement and allowed new
insight
In Figure 3, Leonardo attempts to
demonstrate the movement of muscles
throughout the shoulder region. Take particular
notice of the construction of the figure in the top, right corner. This “wire or cord model is a
21 Ibid., 100.22 Ibid., 100.
http://www.wga.hu/art/l/leonardo/10anatom/3should1.jpg
Figure 3
Sarah Harder 9HST 301 Research Paper
unique characteristic of the work of Leonardo and serves two purposes.”23 Not only does it help
to visualize the relationship between the surface and its underlying composition, but it also aids
in the demonstration of muscle action. His fixation with muscle movement actually spurred the
establishment of individual muscle groups that was previously mentioned.
Also mentioned was Leonardo being the first to depict the relationship between agonist
and antagonist muscles, which he attempts
to do in Figure 4. Look closely at
the figure on the right. Leonardo
describes this relationship in his
notes. “When the two muscles a
and r pull, the leg is carried
forwards and the two muscles b
(and) c are relaxed.”24 In this
example, the muscles a and r (blue)
are the antagonist muscles, and b
and c are the agonist muscles. The
function of muscles as either antagonist or agonist varies depending on the position. If a muscle
is pulled tight, it is always considered an antagonist. Vice versa, if the muscle is relaxed, then it
is an agonist.
III. Cardiovascular System
23 O’ Malley, 136. 24 Ibid., 80.
http://www.taschen.com/media/images/320/default_leonardo_exc_10_0706141027_id_44078.jpg
Figure 4
Sarah Harder 10HST 301 Research Paper
The next topic is one which many consider to be Leonardo’s most intriguing contribution,
his work on the cardiovascular system. This system is composed of the heart, blood, and blood
vessels, and is responsible for delivering oxygen and nutrients throughout the body, while also
removing waste. Many scholars agree that one of Leonardo’s biggest downfalls was his failure to
recognize the circulation of blood. This was not discovered later by William Harvey. Leonardo
did propose the movement of blood throughout the body long before Harvey, but because
Harvey hypothesized the existence of capillaries as a connector between arterioles and venues,
he was able to prove that the blood worked in a constant cycle. The comprehension of this
process is not necessary to grasp this discussion, but it must be realized that this is a vital process
for the function of blood circulation and the major barrier Leonardo faced in his studies of the
cardiovascular system.
Though he reached a standstill regarding blood circulation, this is not to say that his
research on the cardiovascular system was wholly unsuccessful. Leonardo “was the first to
recognize the four chambers of the heart, to accurately describe the valves, and to elucidate the
role of the sinuses of Valsalva.”25 Since his opportunity to partake in dissections were few and
far between, as well as the fact that a dissection allowed him no insight into the beating heart and
movement of blood, the majority of his findings were the result of lab experiments. For example,
in one experiment, he placed a porcine valve inside a glass cylinder, and then facilitated the flow
of water colored by marker fluid so that he could have a visual aid for his theory of blood flow.26
25 Wise, 101.26 Ibid.
Sarah Harder 11HST 301 Research Paper
As mentioned, the chance to dissect a human heart was rare; however, Leonardo gained
much insight from the dissection of animal hearts. For example, Figure 5 is modeled from the
heart of an ox. Unfortunately, the more valuable work is somewhat indistinguishable. It is hard to
make out majority of the diagrams, but in the upper right hand corner, Leonardo drew an
illustration of his theory of the function of the cardiac valves in which he suggested the opening
and closing of valves. The two larger diagrams that are discernible are of opposite views of the
complete heart. These were significant
because they showed the aortic sinuses of the
Valsalva as well as the division of the
coronary arteries to a relatively well degree of
accuracy.27
Though his drawings were somewhat
precise, the accompanying descriptions were
quite erroneous. The major hitch was that
Leonardo was completely ignorant of the
circulation of blood. This lack of information
made it difficult for him to understand the
function of the heart, which was why his
descriptions were indecisive and unfinished.
Majority of his work was based on Galen’s
theory of ebb and flow. This hypothesis can be summed up as follows:
Blood on entering the right ventricle must pass by a one-way valve opening inward, so that only an insignificant portion can relapse into the vena cava whence it came. Some of
27 O’ Malley, 216.
http://www.art-prints-ondemand.com/ kunst/leonardo_da_vinci/the_heart.jpg
Figure 5
Sarah Harder 12HST 301 Research Paper
the blood passes directly from right to left through the interventricular septum. But much, and apparently most, of the blood moves into the arterial vein [our pulmonary artery] past a one-way valve opening outward from the ventricle. On contraction of the thorax, the blood in the arterial vein, its retreat cut off from behind, can only go forward into the arterial system of the lungs [in modern usage, venous].28
The basic idea of this conjecture is that blood flows through the veins to be distributed
throughout the heart and body. Actually, the circulation of blood is a process that is offset by the
contraction of the heart. The blood is pushed out into one of two complicated routes that
eventually circles around to restart continually.29 Leonardo was not able to grasp this concept,
and so his work with the cardiovascular system was not very beneficial to the scientific
community.
IV. The Nervous System
The central nervous system, in its most basic form, is a system of organs that sends and
retrieves signals throughout the body to coordinate movement. Leonardo’s work on the nervous
system can be divided into two categories – early work and later work. His initial drawings were
based on medieval preconceptions that were far from accurate. At some point during his
research, his notions were swayed by Galenic views, which directed him much closer to
contemporary ideas. Leonardo was able to make observations from a whole new perspective and
subsequently yield brilliant sketches depicting the arrangement of the nervous system.30
28 Fleming, 18-19.29 Ibid.30 O’ Malley, 29.
Sarah Harder 13HST 301 Research Paper
Leonardo was the first person to portray the cerebral ventricles to complete accuracy. He
devised a method which involved injecting
a straw into the brain of an ox and pouring
hot wax through the straw, into the
ventricles. The wax, upon drying,
provided a perfect cast of the brain.31 This
is how he was able to create a cast of the
ventricles of the brain and accurately
depict the human head, as shown in Figure
6. The upper figure illustrates the three
ventricles, labeled imprensiva (anterior
ventricle), senso commune (third
ventricle), and memoria (fourth
ventricle).32 Most interesting of these is the
senso commune, as it does not physically
exist. This title represents the concept of
the soul. Leonardo spent his whole career searching for the tangible location of the soul as he
thought it was the center of life. Today, scientists claim the soul as more of an idea rather than a
physical entity, and identify this mistake as one of Leonardo’s major oversights. Also portrayed
in this sketch is a close-up of seven pairs of cranial nerves (middle diagram) and an expanded
view of the human head with the skull and brain detached (bottom diagram).
31 Wise, 101.32 Pevsner, 218.
http://www.drawingsofleonardo.org/images/brainphysiology.jpg
Figure 6
Sarah Harder 14HST 301 Research Paper
Another great contribution Leonardo made to the development of knowledge on the
nervous system was the recognition of the importance of the spinal cord. He asserted that serious
injury to the spinal cord would result in fatality. He came to this conclusion after conducting
several experiments on frogs. He noted that the frogs immediately died after puncturing the
spine, yet often managed to survive momentarily without a head, heart, skin, or various internal
organs.33
V. The Respiratory System
Later in his career, Leonardo spent a great deal of his time studying the respiratory system.
Majority of his structural sketches are based exclusively on animal observations, and the
physiological composition is spans largely from Galenic theory. He was especially interested in
the functioning of the larynx, as he himself was a noted musician. In fact, he credited the larynx
to be the most vital organ for the voice and phonation.
Figure 7 reveals several various elements of the respiratory system, but the focus shall be on
the different viewpoints of the larynx portrayed by Leonardo. The diagram in the top left corner
shows the larynx (blue) in relation to the uvula (red). The uvula is the small piece of soft tissue
located underneath the tongue, and was believe, according to medieval theory, to facilitate the
transmission of phlegm into the larynx so it could lubricate the voice and lungs.34 Leonardo
himself discarded this notion, so it is interesting that he chose to include the uvula in his sketch
because it seems to suggest his agreement with popularly held vertical relationship.
33 Ibid., 218-219.34 O’Malley, 386.
Sarah Harder 15HST 301 Research Paper
One of the most significant
components of this sketch is
Leonardo’s recognition of the
arytenoids cartilage (purple). The
reason for its importance is that it was
not said to have been discovered until
1521, by Berengario da Carpi, a
famous Bolognese physician and
anatomist. This diagram proves that
Leonardo, in fact, realized its existence
years earlier.
Though this was a great discovery
for Leonardo, there are still flaws
present in this series of sketches. He
mistakes tendons emitting from the
larynx (yellow) to be nerves that
connected to the third ventricle of the brain. Also, the size he attributes to the thyroid glands
(green) is far too large. This may be due to the fact that his main, and possibly only, observation
was through the dissection of animals.
VI. Impact on the Formation of Modern Anatomy
As evidenced, Leonardo used his amazing art skills to generate astonishing anatomical
advancements that superseded the work of his predecessors, as well as several of his successors.
Figure 7
http://www.italian-renaissance-art.com/images/Larynx-and-leg-leonardo.jpg
Sarah Harder 16HST 301 Research Paper
Regardless, his hard work was, for the most part, futile because after his death, the majority of
Leonardo’s sketches were misplaced. For nearly 300 years, his sketches were lost, travelling
between various people and places. At present, there is no evidence to suggest that anyone
competent enough to comprehend his scientific ideas was ever allowed access to view his work.
From traveling around Italy, to wandering throughout Spain and finally England, the journals
were disregarded for years because of their indecipherable text and academically advanced
drawings.35 It was not until 1796 that the sketches landed in the hands of Sr. William Hunter.
Hunter was a renowned anatomist, and said by many modern scholars to be the best human
anatomist in eighteenth-century England.36 He realized the value in Leonardo’s sketches and had
them combined and published into a set of six folios, collectively titled the Codex. Still today,
they remain in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle in England, where Hunter placed them over a
century ago.37 The majority of his anatomical works, including those which have been presented
in this paper, are published in the Codex Leicester. By this time, however, his “revolutionary
breakthroughs” had already been rediscovered and accredited to his successors. Thus, the
influence he asserted on the founding of modern anatomy was minute, if it had any impact at all.
There is some debate of the possibility that Vesalius, Leonardo’s foremost successor, did
have access to his works for a limited time. There was a period of about six years when
Leonardo’s sketches were held for public viewing at his close friend Francesco Melzi’s villa
home in northern Italy from 1537 to 1545. During this time, Vesalius resided in Italy as a
professor of anatomy the University of Padua. He was only 23 years old, and so his career as an
anatomist had just began.38 Many scholars contend the possibility that he was able to view
35 Randall, 197.36 A.K., 950.37 Keele, 369.38 Xie, 900.
Sarah Harder 17HST 301 Research Paper
Leonardo’s work. This hypothesis is strengthened by the striking similarities and commonalities
between the two scientists’ work.39 Leonardo’s sketches were much more detailed and accurate,
though Vesalius expanded the borders far beyond what was known pre-Leonardian times.40
Again, this is all just theory among the academic community, and there is no substantial
evidence to confirm this idea.
So, if this cannot be proven, then it must be assumed to be false. Therefore, the influence
of Leonardo on the founding of modern anatomical ideas is diminutive. His real influence,
however, was not his actual findings but rather the methods and reasoning he utilized to reach
such findings.
First off, the fact that he even expended time and effort into carrying out his research was
atypical. It had become basically standard practice among the scientific community to
acknowledge the theories that had been accepted by previous scholars, usually those stemming
from Galen. The fact that Leonardo thought it necessary to challenge the already accepted
theories was, in itself, extraordinary. Leonardo “saw when few did the vital necessity of going to
nature and freed himself…from the all-powerful Galenic tradition.”41 He rejected the scholarly
community’s idea of truth, and instead, sought to achieve his own certainty by acquiring genuine
evidence. This in itself constituted an enormous stray for what was perceived as normal, but also
led to the introduction of new insight towards conducting scientific experiments.42 Leonardo
himself said, “Should you say that the sciences which begin and end in the mind have achieved
39 Randall, 198.40 Xie, 900.41 Ochenkowski, 200.42 Pevsner, 217.
Sarah Harder 18HST 301 Research Paper
truth, that I will not concede, but rather deny for many reasons; and first, because in such mental
discourse there occurs no experience, without which there is no certainty to be found.”43
Leonardo did not believe that science is a subject that be conjectured in one’s mind. He
did not think it feasible to reach accurate conclusions through concepts and ideas. He agreed that
these were necessary to form theories, but that these theories must first be tested and proved true
before they should be accepted. Basically, he concluded that one must experience the truth or it
is not a truth at all.
If it is experienced through a first-hand perspective, there is no way to argue its
inaccuracy. Leonardo deduced that “nature begins from reason and ends in experience, [but] it is
necessary for us to proceed in the opposite direction, commencing…from experience, and by its
means investigating the reason.”44 Nature functions in the way it was created to function, and it
should be the goal of scientists to observe this functioning and from their observations, make
deductions. Again, this opposed the Galenic tradition of making deductions based on no
evidence or reasoning. It is not in the nature of mankind to be born with an absolute
understanding of the world. It must first be observed before it can be understood.
Accordingly, Leonardo completed an astounding amount of observations throughout his
academic career. Observation was not wholly uncommon in the scientific community; however,
the way that Leonardo viewed the world is the aspect that set him apart from other anatomists.
“He appreciated the important fact that the way to understand the structure of an organ was to
observe how the organ worked.”45 While other anatomists were concerned solely with depicting
43 Randall, 200. 44 Ibid., 201.45 Ochenkowski, 200.
Sarah Harder 19HST 301 Research Paper
a mirror image of the body, Leonardo felt it necessary to first understand its function. Only then,
he concluded, could one correctly portray the image of the body part in question.
The process of discerning certain functions of the body was a near impossible task. As
mentioned before, man was not born with the innate understanding of the world, so viewing the
mechanics of the body was a completely foreign subject. In the past, only slight progress had
been made in understanding the human body, and a large part of those conclusions were either
partially erroneous or entirely incorrect.
Leonardo was able to end this recession in the progress of anatomy by employing a new
and different outlook on the functioning of the body. He “insisted on the importance of studying
the various tissues entering into a part, as for instance bones, muscles, tendons, vessels, first
separately and the collectively, studying each part from all points of view and in all possible
positions.”46 This is obvious when viewing his works as one page will contain several sketches of
the same body part being studied. The sketches are presented in a variety of different angles and
sometimes zoomed in to highlight a specific section of the entity. Leonardo thought that the most
promising method to understand the body was to break it down into small pieces. Once he gained
an understand of each section, he could put them together and better understand the whole.
Leonardo began his endeavors as an artist seeking a way to improve his representation of
nature. Hours of dissections and observation, he decided, would generate a more realistic effect
on his art by allowing him to portray the human body as more similar to its actual form. By
studying the function of muscles and movement, he could arrange his subjects in a variety of
positions without losing that life-like appearance.
46 Ibid., 200.
Sarah Harder 20HST 301 Research Paper
Regardless of his reasoning, the fact remains that at some point between 1500 and 1506,
his interest in anatomy shifted from being a subservient to his art to an “expression of a scientific
urge.”47 Leonardo, however, did not view this as a transformation, but rather a merger of two
interconnected subjects that would benefit both. The relationship between anatomy and art, he
held, would result in considerable progress for both fields. The two were dependent on each
other. Leonardo summarizes his beliefs on the relationship between art and anatomy when he
says:
Painting represents to the senses the works of nature with more truth and certainty than do works or letters; but letters represent works with more truth than painting. But we shall call that science more admirable which represents the works of nature, than that which represents the works of the worker, that is, the works of men, which are words…which come from the human tongue.48
According to Leonardo, painting is the ultimate representation of nature as it is able to
depict it in its actual form. It can embody the spirit of nature far more accurately than words
could ever describe. The scientific efforts of men, that is words and thoughts, are less
commendable those of nature. Given this explanation, it is difficult to deduce whether his
varying academic interest can be considered a shift or a merger.
At any rate, his new emphasis on anatomy, whether it be a compliment to his art or a new
field entirely, resulted in years of rigorous work devoted to seeking the answers to some of
hundreds of mysteries presented in the nature of the human body. In this investigation, Leonardo
was extremely successful. He far surpassed all his predecessors by refusing to accept their
thought-based ideas of the scientific community in the past, and instead establishing his theories
according to pure observation. By doing this, he was able to deliver astonishing breakthroughs
such as correct depiction of the cerebral ventricles, recognition of the four chambers of the heart,
47 Keele, 360.48 Randall, 201.
Sarah Harder 21HST 301 Research Paper
the acknowledgement of agonist and antagonist muscles, and the identification of the correct
number of vertebrae, to name a few.
This is not to suggest that Leonardo was a perfect scientist. Throughout his academic
career, he made several mistakes. On several occasions, he upheld Galenic theories that were
incorrect, thus hindering his progress. The best example of this was his inability to recognize the
circulation of blood. He maintained Galen’s ebb and flow theory, which prohibited him from
fully recognizing the cardiovascular system. This is but one of the many mistakes made by
Leonardo. He also inaccurately depicted the scapula, rib cage, and the thyroid glands. This was
largely due to the fact that the majority of his observations were based on the dissection of large
animals. This comparative anatomy was helpful, but often led to wrong conclusions. Another
major downfall was his constant search for the senso commune, or soul. He believed the senso
commune was a physical entity located in the third ventricle of the brain.
Nonetheless, his works extended far beyond anything that had been discovered
previously. It is unfortunate that his research, more than likely, lied idle for almost 300 years
after his death. There is some speculation of the possibility that Vesalius was able to view his
sketches, but there is not substantial evidence to confirm this supposition. It was not until 1796
that the sketches ended up in England, in the hands of Sr. William Hunter. He realized the
importance of this work and had it published into what is now known as the Codex.
Sadly, by this time, all of Leonardo’s great discoveries had already been rediscovered and
become accepted ideas so his impact on the formation of modern anatomy was relatively
insignificant. His real impact, however, was in the methods he utilized to complete his research.
Through observation, dissections, and experimentation, Leonardo was able to transform the
Sarah Harder 22HST 301 Research Paper
scientific world from one based on thoughts and conjectures to one founded on experience. Since
Leonardo da Vinci’s works were lost after his death, there was no impact on the amount of
anatomical knowledge recognized. There was, however, a lasting impact in that scientists began
to view the way they looked at science differently, and by placing their reliance on experience
rather than speculation, anatomists have reached great conclusions and made much progress in
their understanding of the human body.
Bibliography
Ackerman, James S. “Leonardo Da Vinci: Art in Science.” Daedalus 127, no. 1 (Winter 1998), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027483.
Bhattacharya, Kaushik, and Neele A. Cathrine. “Da Vinci’s Code for Surgeons.” Indian Journal of Surgery 68, no. 5 (October 2006): 283-285.
Sarah Harder 23HST 301 Research Paper
Dibner, Bern. “Leonardo da Vinci, Man of Science.” Science 131, no. 3398 (February 12, 1960), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1705321.
Fleming, Donald. “Galen on the Motions of the Blood in the Heart and Lungs.” Isis 46, no.1 (March 1955), http://www.jstor.org/stable/226820.
K., A. “Leonardo Da Vinci As Anatomist.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 3673 (May 30, 1931), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25339724.
Keele, Kenneth D. “Leonardo Da Vinci’s Influence on Renaissance Anatomy.” Medical History 8, no. 4 (October 1964): 360-370.
Monties, Jean-Raoul. “Leonardo da Vinci: Precursor Member of the International Society for Rotary Blood Pumps?” Paper presented at the 6th Congress of the International Society for Rotary Blood Pumps, Park City, Utah, July 25, 1998.
O’Malley, Charles D., and J. B. de C. M. Saunders. Leonardo da Vinci on the Human Body. New York: Henry Schuman, Inc., 1952.
Ochenkowski, H., and William Wright. “The Quatercentury of Leonardo Da Vinci.” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 34, no. 194 (May 1919), http://www.jstor.org/stable/860767.
Pevsner, Jonathon. “Leonardo da Vinci’s Contributions to Neuroscience.” TRENDS in Neurosciences 25, no. 4 (April 2002): 217-220.
Randall, Jr., John Herman. “The Place of Leonardo Da Vinci in the Emergence of Modern Science.” Journal of the History of Ideas 14, no. 2 (April 1953), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2707470.
Toledo-Pereyra, Luis H. “Leonardo da Vinci: The Hidden Father of Modern Anatomy.” Journal of Investigative Surgery 15 (2002): 247-249.
Wise, M.D., M. Whitten, and J. Patrick O’Leary, M.D. “Leonardo da Vinci: Anatomist and Physiologist.” The American Surgeon 67, no. 1 (January 2001): 100-102.
Xie, M.D., Chen, and J. Patrick O’Leary, M.D. “The First Anatomists/Artists.” The American Surgeon 65, no. 1 (September 1999): 899-900.