Was Leonardo a Heretic?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

From another thread:

It is very likely that Leonardo was some sort of heretic, and there are plenty of evidences that he may have been a Gnostic, though a 100 page thread is not one of my goals currently.

I absolutely never listen to pop culture. This doesn't mean that there's no reason to say what I said about Leonardo.

Okay. Since that point was peripheral to that thread, I've moved the discussion here. I'd be interested in know what any of this evidence that he was "a Gnostic" was. The evidence regarding Leonardo's religious beliefs is scanty, but none of it indicates any "Gnosticism" and several pieces of it indicates a quite un-Gnostic attitude to the physical world (the Gnostics regarded it as a prison, while Leonardo celebrated it for its beauty and found it his greatest inspiration) and the nature of the soul.

There is nothing in any of Leonardo's writings, including his personal notebooks which were private journals not for public consumption, that indicates any unusual religious beliefs at all, let alone Gnosticism. He expressed contempt for the commerical exploitation of relics and religious art, writing "I see Christ once more being sold and crucified and his saints martyred." But similar sentiments were quite common among intelligent people at the time, who saw these things as an exploitation of the gullible and the simple. Chaucer devoted a whole section of his Canterbury Tales to a satire on the cyncism of the sellers of faked relics and Erasmus commented in a letter "What would Jerome say could he see the Virgin's milk exhibited for money ... the miraculous oil; the portions of the true cross, enough if they were collected to freight a later ship? Here we have the hood of St. Francis, there Our Lady's petticoat, or St. Anne's comb, or St. Thomas of Canterbury's shoes ... and all through the avarice of priests and the hypocrisy of monks playing on the credulity of the people." These men were intelligent Catholics and their attitudes on this subject were common and reasonable and in no way heretical.

Leonardo also criticised hypocrisy, greed and immorality in the clergy. But, again, these sentiments and comments were commonplace at the time and not heretical at all. Chaucer, Langland, Brandt, Bosch and various other late medieval artists and poets variously lamented and lampooned corrupt clergymen and this was such a common theme that if having such attitudes could be regarded as "heretical" then most of medieval Europe were "heretics".

There is some evidence that Leonardo was a homosexual, though this seems to be something he struggled with morally. He noted "Whoso curbs not lustful desires puts himself on a level with the beasts. One can have no greater and no lesser mastery than that which one has over one's self." He was accused, with two others, of sodomy in 1476, but the charges were dropped and the incident seems to have been an attempt at extortion by a known con-artist. But in later life he had two pupils and "companions" who do seem to have been his young lovers: Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno (or "Salai", the most probable model for John in The Last Supper) and, later, Francesco Melzi, who was the executor of his will. Open homosexuality was a crime in medieval Florence, but covert homsexuality was common enough for it to be a place known for such a lifestyle. While homosexuality would have caused a conflict between Leonardo's lifestyle and his faith, it is certainly not evidence of "heresy". It definitely isn't evidence of "Gnosticism", as the Gnostics took a dim view of sex of any kind and regarded physical lusts as a sign of the soul's captivity in its material prison.

Leonardo didn't make many comments at all on spiritual matters in his private writings and none of them are "heretical", let alone "Gnostic". Writing on the relationship between the soul and the body, he noted that "in due time (the body) awakens the soul that inhabits it" and that "every part is designed to unite with its whole, that it may escape from its imperfections. The soul desires to dwell in the body because without the body it can neither act nor feel." Neither of these ideas are contrary to standard Christian ideas of the time and the second one, that the soul has a natural unity with and a neccessary dependence on the body to act and feel, is completely contrary to any form of "Gnosticism", which believed in the independence and superiority of the imprisoned soul over its prison, the physical body.

There are only three other major pieces of evidence regarding Leonardo's possible religious beliefs. The first is a comment in the first edition of Giorgio Vasari's account of Leonardo's life (1550). In this first edition he says Leonardo's "cast of mind was so heretical that he did not adhere to any religion, thinking perhaps that it was better to be a philosopher than a Christian." It's this comment (especially it's use of the word "heretical") that is the sole source of the idea that Leonardo was some kind of "heretic". But this is undercut by the first part of this quote - that Leonardo "did not adhere to any religion" - and what Vasari is saying is that Leonardo put natural philosophy and science above religious ideas of any kind. This might make him unusual for this time and even a "heretic" in one sense of the word, but it certainly doesn't make him a "Gnostic", given the Gnostic contempt for the physical realm. Gnosticism and a reverence for the natural world don't sit well together.

It's also important to note that this was one of several passages that Vasari edited out of his work for its second edition in 1568. In 1566 Vasari visited Francesco Metzi - Leonardo's former companion and probable lover who was, at that stage, a very old man of 78 living close to death on the estate Leonardo bequeathed to him. After consulting with Metzi, Vasari changed parts of his book, which indicates that Metzi identified aspects of it which were not accurate and based more on gossip and rumour than fact. This comment that Leonardo "it was better to be a philosopher than a Christian" was one of these sections edited out as a result.

The second piece of evidence regarding Leonardo's faith also comes from the second edition of Vasari's Life and so is probably also based on Metzi's memories. Describing the artist's death, Vasari writes:

(Leonardo) desired to occupy himself with the truths of the Catholic faith and the holy Christian religion. Then, having confessed and shown his penitence with much lamentation, he devoutly took the Sacrament from his bed, supported by his friends and servants because he could not stand.
(Vasari, Lives of the Artists - Leonardo)

Even if there is an element of fiction to this scene, the fact that it was added after Vasari consulted Metzi, who was present at Leonardo's deathbed, strongly indicates that it was not made up completely.

And this is also supported by the third piece of evidence regarding Leonardo's religion: his will. Leonardo was relatively wealthy for an artist, largely because he also took on commissions for engineering works which paid better than paintings. He left a vineyard and some art works (including the Mona Lisa) to Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, or "Salai", and his other estates and notebooks to Francesco Metzi. But he also left money for masses to be said in three separate churches for his soul and for the soul of his housekeeper, Caterina. That isn't the action of a man who had no religious beliefs and it is quite definitely not the action of a "Gnostic".

So the evidence definitely doesn't support the idea that Leonardo was a "Gnostic" at all. It does indicate a man whose attitudes and lifestyle (especially his probable homosexuality) would have made him something of a philosophical and spiritual outsider in Catholic medieval Italy, but he seems to have lived as a (not terribly devout) Catholic Christian and he certainly died as one.

This is why those who have tried to perpetuate the idea that Leonardo was a "heretic" or (in Dan Brown's case) a "Goddess worshipper" have to resort to assertions without evidence or outright distortions. Take this passage from The Da Vinci Code for example:

"From Da Vinci's notebook on polemics and speculation," Teabing said, indicating one quote in particular. "I think you'll find this relevant to our discussion."

Sophie read the words.

Many have made a trade of delusions
And false miracles, deceiving the stupid multitude.
- LEONARDO DA VINCI

"Here's another," Teabing said, pointing to a different quote.

Blinding ignorance does mislead us.
O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!
- LEONARDO DA VINCI

Sophie felt a little chill. "Da Vinci is talking about the Bible?"

Teabing nodded.
(Chapter 55, pp. 230-231)

Which might sound like good evidence of Leonardo's attitudes to the average reader, especially if they swallowed all Dan Brown's marketing crap about how the history in his novel is "all true". More sceptical readers might actually look up those quotes in Leonardo's Notebooks and find that what Brown has his character say here is total and complete crap.

The first quote is Section 128 of Leonardo's Notebooks. This passage and the one before it (Section 127) come under the heading 'Against Alchemists'. Section 127 reads: "The false interpreters of nature declare that quicksilver is the common seed of every metal, not remembering that nature varies the seed according to the variety of the things she desires to produce in the world." The 'false interpreters of nature' are clearly alchemists, as are those who have 'made a trade of delusions'. Put back in their context, the idea that this is somehow referring to Christianity or the Bible is clearly complete and utter nonsense.

The same can be said of the second out-of-context quote. It is one of a number on the deadly nature of ignorance and any wasting of the intellect - Sections 1165-1182. They include other sayings such as "Just as iron rusts unless it is used, and water putrefies or, in cold, turns to ice, so our intellect spoils unless it is kept in use." (1177) and "The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions." (1180). None of these related sayings have anything at all to do with the Bible and there is absolutely no reason to think that they are even hinting at anything to do with Christianity or religion at all.

Unfortunately, due to the vast popularity of this novel and its impact on the popular consciousness, the "fact" that Leonardo was a "heretic", a "Gnostic" or (even more stupidly) a "Goddess worshipper" has become better known that many actual facts about Leonardo. These ideas definitely didn't start with Dan Brown, who is a man remarkable for this almost total lack of any original ideas at all, but it has definitely been widely propogated by him.

[Zenith Darksea]

That pretty much puts the nails in Dan Brown's coffin, I have to say.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

That pretty much puts the nails in Dan Brown's coffin, I have to say.

Dan Brown was very vocal about how the "historical" stuff in his novel was "all true" back in 2003. That was back when Doubleday Books were embarking on the most extensive and expensive marketing campaign in publishing history. Once Doubleday achieved its aim of making The Da Vinci Code a vast bestseller, Danny suddenly became rather shy.

Not only was he shy about defending his previous strident claims that his whacko claims were "99% true", but he totally avoided all the historians and art experts who slashed his New Age crap to tiny little ribbons. Worse still, when his fans ignored his previous claims about the veracity of his claims and his (2003) assertion that if he'd written his book as non-fiction he wouldn't have changed a thing, and said that it was "just fiction", Brown maintained his weird silence and failed to support them. We've seen no statement by Brown correcting his original extravagant claims and saying that people shouldn't take his novel seriously.

How odd.

Perhaps he was too busy counting the cash he made by convincing 32% of his readers that the New Age pseduo history in his poorly researched, third rate, paperback, airport thriller was factual and actually supported by "experts".

Leaving Brown and his lies, greedy deceit and bags of money aside, I'd still like to hear from Ummon, who is strangely and conspicuously absent from this thread.

[Ummon]

An excellent idea to open this thread. There's one big problem though. The evidence is partly pictorial. I cannot seem to find some of the pictures I need online, if someone can help and search for Domenico Beccafumi's Crucifixion, Pala d'altare, Siena?

Okay. Since that point was peripheral to that thread, I've moved the discussion here. I'd be interested in know what any of this evidence that he was "a Gnostic" was. The evidence regarding Leonardo's religious beliefs is scanty, but none of it indicates any "Gnosticism" and several pieces of it indicates a quite un-Gnostic attitude to the physical world (the Gnostics regarded it as a prison, while Leonardo celebrated it for its beauty and found it his greatest inspiration) and the nature of the soul.

Not all gnostics regarded the world as a prison. Additionally, there are many esoterical traditions based on gnosticism which do not share this view at all.

There is nothing in any of Leonardo's writings, including his personal notebooks which were private journals not for public consumption, that indicates any unusual religious beliefs at all, let alone Gnosticism. He expressed contempt for the commerical exploitation of relics and religious art, writing "I see Christ once more being sold and crucified and his saints martyred." But similar sentiments were quite common among intelligent people at the time, who saw these things as an exploitation of the gullible and the simple. Chaucer devoted a whole section of his Canterbury Tales to a satire on the cyncism of the sellers of faked relics and Erasmus commented in a letter "What would Jerome say could he see the Virgin's milk exhibited for money ... the miraculous oil; the portions of the true cross, enough if they were collected to freight a later ship? Here we have the hood of St. Francis, there Our Lady's petticoat, or St. Anne's comb, or St. Thomas of Canterbury's shoes ... and all through the avarice of priests and the hypocrisy of monks playing on the credulity of the people." These men were intelligent Catholics and their attitudes on this subject were common and reasonable and in no way heretical.

Leonardo also criticised hypocrisy, greed and immorality in the clergy. But, again, these sentiments and comments were commonplace at the time and not heretical at all. Chaucer, Langland, Brandt, Bosch and various other late medieval artists and poets variously lamented and lampooned corrupt clergymen and this was such a common theme that if having such attitudes could be regarded as "heretical" then most of medieval Europe were "heretics".

There is some evidence that Leonardo was a homosexual, though this seems to be something he struggled with morally. He noted "Whoso curbs not lustful desires puts himself on a level with the beasts. One can have no greater and no lesser mastery than that which one has over one's self." He was accused, with two others, of sodomy in 1476, but the charges were dropped and the incident seems to have been an attempt at extortion by a known con-artist. But in later life he had two pupils and "companions" who do seem to have been his young lovers: Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno (or "Salai", the most probable model for John in The Last Supper) and, later, Francesco Melzi, who was the executor of his will. Open homosexuality was a crime in medieval Florence, but covert homsexuality was common enough for it to be a place known for such a lifestyle. While homosexuality would have caused a conflict between Leonardo's lifestyle and his faith, it is certainly not evidence of "heresy". It definitely isn't evidence of "Gnosticism", as the Gnostics took a dim view of sex of any kind and regarded physical lusts as a sign of the soul's captivity in its material prison.

All correct, for what I can tell, yet in truth, I might say, irrelevant to influence conclusions.

Leonardo didn't make many comments at all on spiritual matters in his private writings and none of them are "heretical", let alone "Gnostic". Writing on the relationship between the soul and the body, he noted that "in due time (the body) awakens the soul that inhabits it" and that "every part is designed to unite with its whole, that it may escape from its imperfections. The soul desires to dwell in the body because without the body it can neither act nor feel." Neither of these ideas are contrary to standard Christian ideas of the time and the second one, that the soul has a natural unity with and a neccessary dependence on the body to act and feel, is completely contrary to any form of "Gnosticism", which believed in the independence and superiority of the imprisoned soul over its prison, the physical body.

Now this is the interesting part. I have made reference to Gnosticism as it was in the beginning, yet again, this is a placeholder definition on my part, for something much more articulated. We are writing online and thus we do not generally make recourse to very specific terms.

Let's elaborate.

every part is designed to unite with its whole, that it may escape from its imperfections.

This sentence is particularly interesting. It may mean many things, yet forgive me if I say, that isn't at all incompatible, and it may be thought revealing, of what I was surmising.

in due time (the body) awakens the soul that inhabits it.

This, as well, I see as a fully compatible statement. Materialism, in this form, is infact not incompatible with the beliefs, myths and esoteric practices contemporary to Leonardo. The alleged opposition of Leonardo to Alchemy, can be equated to that of many others who were though in other ways linked, or related, with Alchemic conceptualizations.

Infact it is true that from an Alchemic point of view matter has a soul which awakens in due time.

The soul desires to dwell in the body because without the body it can neither act nor feel.

This part, which you claim is in open opposition with Gnosticism, and its Alchemic derivatives, is again perfectly compatible with them.

There are only three other major pieces of evidence regarding Leonardo's possible religious beliefs. The first is a comment in the first edition of Giorgio Vasari's account of Leonardo's life (1550). In this first edition he says Leonardo's "cast of mind was so heretical that he did not adhere to any religion, thinking perhaps that it was better to be a philosopher than a Christian." It's this comment (especially it's use of the word "heretical") that is the sole source of the idea that Leonardo was some kind of "heretic". But this is undercut by the first part of this quote - that Leonardo "did not adhere to any religion" - and what Vasari is saying is that Leonardo put natural philosophy and science above religious ideas of any kind. This might make him unusual for this time and even a "heretic" in one sense of the word, but it certainly doesn't make him a "Gnostic", given the Gnostic contempt for the physical realm. Gnosticism and a reverence for the natural world don't sit well together.

Again you absolutize Gnosticism. Alchemy has no contempt for the physical world which it infact seeks to redeem through its formulations and proceedings, and it considers this practice central and essential to a correct life. The name of Alchemists is: Philosophers, Natural Philosophers, between others.

It's also important to note that this was one of several passages that Vasari edited out of his work for its second edition in 1568. In 1566 Vasari visited Francesco Metzi - Leonardo's former companion and probable lover who was, at that stage, a very old man of 78 living close to death on the estate Leonardo bequeathed to him. After consulting with Metzi, Vasari changed parts of his book, which indicates that Metzi identified aspects of it which were not accurate and based more on gossip and rumour than fact. This comment that Leonardo "it was better to be a philosopher than a Christian" was one of these sections edited out as a result.

The second piece of evidence regarding Leonardo's faith also comes from the second edition of Vasari's Life and so is probably also based on Metzi's memories. Describing the artist's death, Vasari writes:

(Leonardo) desired to occupy himself with the truths of the Catholic faith and the holy Christian religion. Then, having confessed and shown his penitence with much lamentation, he devoutly took the Sacrament from his bed, supported by his friends and servants because he could not stand.
(Vasari, Lives of the Artists - Leonardo)

The interesting aspect of Alchemy, and Hermetic currents, is that they are heretical lines of thought only in the strict sense. Infact, Alchemists were always extremely respectful of orthodoxy, formally and in their intent. Alchemic conceptualizations though, constitute a massive expansion of the Catholic metaphysical body, compatible with it, but which was unsupported by the Church.

Even if there is an element of fiction to this scene, the fact that it was added after Vasari consulted Metzi, who was present at Leonardo's deathbed, strongly indicates that it was not made up completely.

And this is also supported by the third piece of evidence regarding Leonardo's religion: his will. Leonardo was relatively wealthy for an artist, largely because he also took on commissions for engineering works which paid better than paintings. He left a vineyard and some art works (including the Mona Lisa) to Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, or "Salai", and his other estates and notebooks to Francesco Metzi. But he also left money for masses to be said in three separate churches for his soul and for the soul of his housekeeper, Caterina. That isn't the action of a man who had no religious beliefs and it is quite definitely not the action of a "Gnostic".

Again, I do not concur. While essentially correct if we limit ourselves to the strictest and oldest definition of Gnosticism, this is in no way true for later developements of what was a sort of subterranean river all throughout the history of western thought.

So the evidence definitely doesn't support the idea that Leonardo was a "Gnostic" at all. It does indicate a man whose attitudes and lifestyle (especially his probable homosexuality) would have made him something of a philosophical and spiritual outsider in Catholic medieval Italy, but he seems to have lived as a (not terribly devout) Catholic Christian and he certainly died as one.

This is why those who have tried to perpetuate the idea that Leonardo was a "heretic" or (in Dan Brown's case) a "Goddess worshipper" have to resort to assertions without evidence or outright distortions. Take this passage from The Da Vinci Code for example:

"From Da Vinci's notebook on polemics and speculation," Teabing said, indicating one quote in particular. "I think you'll find this relevant to our discussion."

Sophie read the words.

Many have made a trade of delusions
And false miracles, deceiving the stupid multitude.
- LEONARDO DA VINCI

"Here's another," Teabing said, pointing to a different quote.

Blinding ignorance does mislead us.
O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!
- LEONARDO DA VINCI

Sophie felt a little chill. "Da Vinci is talking about the Bible?"

Teabing nodded.
(Chapter 55, pp. 230-231)

Which might sound like good evidence of Leonardo's attitudes to the average reader, especially if they swallowed all Dan Brown's marketing crap about how the history in his novel is "all true". More sceptical readers might actually look up those quotes in Leonardo's Notebooks and find that what Brown has his character say here is total and complete crap.

The first quote is Section 128 of Leonardo's Notebooks. This passage and the one before it (Section 127) come under the heading 'Against Alchemists'. Section 127 reads: "The false interpreters of nature declare that quicksilver is the common seed of every metal, not remembering that nature varies the seed according to the variety of the things she desires to produce in the world." The 'false interpreters of nature' are clearly alchemists, as are those who have 'made a trade of delusions'. Put back in their context, the idea that this is somehow referring to Christianity or the Bible is clearly complete and utter nonsense.

The same can be said of the second out-of-context quote. It is one of a number on the deadly nature of ignorance and any wasting of the intellect - Sections 1165-1182. They include other sayings such as "Just as iron rusts unless it is used, and water putrefies or, in cold, turns to ice, so our intellect spoils unless it is kept in use." (1177) and "The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions." (1180). None of these related sayings have anything at all to do with the Bible and there is absolutely no reason to think that they are even hinting at anything to do with Christianity or religion at all.

Unfortunately, due to the vast popularity of this novel and its impact on the popular consciousness, the "fact" that Leonardo was a "heretic", a "Gnostic" or (even more stupidly) a "Goddess worshipper" has become better known that many actual facts about Leonardo. These ideas definitely didn't start with Dan Brown, who is a man remarkable for this almost total lack of any original ideas at all, but it has definitely been widely propogated by him.

This interpretation is entirely correct, for what concerns Dan Brown: a spreader of lies and a seller of misconceptions. Very thin for what constitutes alchemy, and my points, not because you don't know what you speak of, but because you don't know what I am speaking of.

Many have made a trade of delusions
And false miracles, deceiving the stupid multitude.

Blinding ignorance does mislead us.
O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!

'Against Alchemists'. Section 127 reads: "The false interpreters of nature declare that quicksilver is the common seed of every metal, not remembering that nature varies the seed according to the variety of the things she desires to produce in the world."

And this is infact perfectly true from an Alchemic point of view. The real problem consisting, that most dilettante Alchemists thought Alchemy was about chemistry, which it isn't at all. Chemical formulations are but a metaphor of the meaning of Alchemy. Leonardo, in his works, clearly points out that those who try to use them as formulas to understand physical reality, are in truth misled and deluded. A statement any real Alchemist would have made too.