Da Vinci could have used a publicist

Shapiro replies: My intention was not to deny Leonardo da Vinci’s significance or originality, but rather to draw attention to the tendency to overestimate those qualities. To properly evaluate his—or anyone’s—originality and significance, simply citing passages from his work is insufficient. One must also study the work of his contemporaries and predecessors to appreciate when he was borrowing from others, extending earlier work, or taking a truly innovative direction. That is a difficult task involving the study of long-forgotten Renaissance writings. For more than a century, historians have been attempting to evaluate Leonardo in his historical context, and before assessments can be made, those historical works must be consulted. ¹

Leonardo’s work is full of brilliant insights, observations, and designs, but, as Baksi recognizes, if they are to become part of the scientific enterprise, they must be made publicly available. It is in fact Leonardo’s “fault” that he never composed and published coherent scientific or technological treatises on his investigations or allowed his manuscripts to circulate widely. Surely, one cannot blame people for not reading Leonardo when he did not publish his work.