“Let no man who is not a mathematician read my work,” Leonardo da Vinci once wrote—a warning that applies to the 50 pages of his drawings, mostly “technical,” on view at the National Museum of History and Technology in Washington, D.C., this month. It is the largest group of Leonardos yet seen in the U.S., or indeed anywhere in the world since the miraculous show of the royal family’s Leonardo collection at Buckingham Palace in 1969. It accompanies an ambitious publishing project—the McGraw-Hill five-volume facsimile of the so-called Madrid codices: two recently discovered Leonardo notebooks, edited and translated by the late technological historian Ladislao Reti, to be published this month at $400 the set ($750 de luxe) and bound, rather bathetically, in red vinyl morocco. The codices themselves are incomparable.
Kenneth Clark called Leonardo “the great Sphinx of art history,” but he was also its great Rorschach blot. The past century has seen almost as many Leonardos as there have been léonardistes. Magus, “Renaissance man,” supergay, world’s first nonlinear thinker —the parade of stereotypes marches on. At one moment he struck the Victorians as a prototype of the engineer-hero, a 15th century Brunel or Edison who lacked only the omnipotent semen of capital to make his projects real. At the next, the English 19th century aesthete Walter Pater wrote of his mechanical inventions as mere “dreams, thrown off by the overwrought and laboring brain.”
If Anything Got Done. No exceptional mind has ever been more elusive, harder to interpret, or more vulnerable to posthumous cliche. He was unquestionably the greatest observer of the real world in his time, and the breadth of his inquiries would be inconceivable in ours; but this is the same Leonardo who, on cutting a pen, scribbled as his customary test sentence some variant on the melancholy words, “Dimmi, dimmi se maifufatta cosa alcuna “— “Tell me, tell me if anything ever got done.”
Leonardo’s inaccessibility has a great deal to do with his absolute distaste for disclosing himself. We still know miserably little about Leonardo the man. Though a great deal is known about his work, it survives only in fragments. Twenty-seven of the 46 Leonardo manuscripts that went to Spain in the 16th century are lost; and so the discovery of a few battered pages by Leonardo’s hand, let alone two complete codices in mint legibility (348 leaves in all), is a rare event in art and human history. The Madrid notebooks have expanded the known writings of Leonardo by 20%.
On a personal level, the Leonardo of the Madrid codices is as frustratingly hermetic as ever. But in terms of his work, the notes are priceless. They shed little new light on his painting, but this is made up for by the richness of detail in Codex Madrid II on his great sculptural project, the equestrian bronze of Francesco Sforza—Il Cavallo, as Leonardo called it, the full-size clay model for which was shot to rubble by French crossbowmen after the conquest of Milan in 1500. It would have been the largest bronze group in recorded history, 23 ft. high, cast upside down in one continuous pour of 158,000 lbs. of metal.
How Leonardo proposed to carry out this unprecedented and technically almost unimaginable project has long been a mystery. But his Madrid notes set down the method in full detail. He invented a revolutionary system of doing it in one piece, designing special furnaces and bracing systems and winches for it, and even a way of casting it buried upside down in the marshy Milanese soil without cracking the mold. It becomes clear that Leonardo, despite Michelangelo’s bitching about his ineptitude as a sculptor, knew exactly how to make the horse and was prevented from executing his plan only because, in the end, he had no bronze: it had all been requisitioned for cannon against the French.
Though Leonardo was, as everyone knew, chemist and physicist, mechanical engineer, musician, architect, anatomist and botanist as well as painter, it is not wholly possible to draw a dividing line between art and science in his work. Painting was to him a method of inquiry into the world’s structure; it was the empiricism of sight itself. He tended to regard it as the queen of the sciences. His scientific work (on water, wind and their catastrophic powers, for instance) was presented in drawings of ravishing subtlety. Their purely descriptive intent in no way affects their aesthetic power.
Precise Images. Most of Codex Madrid I is filled with exquisitely fine engineering drawings: designs for self-releasing hoist grapnels, frictionless bearings, clock escapements, wire-making machines, worm drives and so on. For Leonardo, the drawn image was more precise than the written. One of the striking things about the machines in the Madrid notebooks is how they prefigure the future history of formal engineering draftsmanship without becoming schematic diagrams. They are conceptions rather than blueprints, but conceptions that one could take to a factory and have built tomorrow. More over, they are conceived as a series.
What Leonardo had in mind, apparently, was to produce a handbook on the operating principles of machinery, and not — as an earlier guild mechanic might have done it — simply a compendium of useful gadgets. This, as Art Historian Ludwig Heydenreich argues, was a turning point in the history of engineering itself. If Leonardo’s designs had been made public instead of resting in his notebooks, they would certainly have transformed the extremely crude face of Renaissance mechanics, bringing it to the pitch of sophistication the Chinese had reached four centuries earlier. That did not happen, and so by now the value of the Madrid codices is entirely historical: a large and beautiful patch of tesserae added to that gapped, puzzling mosaic of Leonardo’s thought. One can only thank McGraw-Hill for presenting it with such dogged and fastidious care.
More Must-Reads from TIME
- Inside Elon Musk’s War on Washington
- Why Do More Young Adults Have Cancer?
- Colman Domingo Leads With Radical Love
- 11 New Books to Read in February
- How to Get Better at Doing Things Alone
- Cecily Strong on Goober the Clown
- Column: The Rise of America’s Broligarchy
- Introducing the 2025 Closers
Contact us at letters@time.com