"Few art historians doubt that Leonardo’s vision was influenced by his
memory of a mountain excursion on which he found himself wandering
“among gloomy rocks”. “I came to the mouth of a great cavern... discovery inside of a fossilised whale and a horde of ancient seashells whose engrossing geometric grooves he would memorialise in the pages of his notebooks...
Over the ensuing years, the perplexing presence of “oysters and
corals and various other shells and sea snails” on “the high summits of
mountains”, far from the sea, worried away at the artist’s imagination.
For Leonardo, the accepted explanation by ecclesiastical scholars of a
great flood, such as that described in the Old Testament, for the
relocation of these shells, didn’t wash. These creatures weren’t thrown
there. They were born there.
Seashells in mountains were proof,
Leonardo came to believe and confided to his journal, that Alpine peaks
were once the floors of seas. And the Earth was therefore much older and
far more haphazardly fashioned by violent cataclysms and seismic
upheavals over a vast stretch of time (not the smooth hand of God in a
handful of days) than the Church was willing to admit...
Continue reading at the
BBC, where there is discussion of this worldview in relation to the iconography he inserts in his paintings.
The top of Everest is formed of limestone.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I see either version of this painting, I am reminded of Poul Anderson’s short story, “The Light”, which gives an alternate explanation for the origins of Leonardo’s work: https://www.tangentonline.com/old-time-radio/1830-the-light-poul-anderson
ReplyDeleteHave you ever read The Seashell on a Mountaintop by Alan Cutler? Very similar to this thought process. He was a priest or heavily involved in the church and then drifted away during his time studying geology. Oddly, he goes back to the church in his final years of life. Good read.
ReplyDeleteI'm not familiar with that book, but it is in our library system - thanks. BTW, in my view "going back to the church" is not inconsistent with being a rational scientist.
DeleteI would agree 100% with you, I am a geologist but also have my faith in a higher power. I just have a problem identifying with most religion. I didn't mean to imply Cutler was religious, then an atheist/scientist and then went religious again. It's been awhile since I read it so I don't remember the exact details of his journey.
DeleteI'm sorry gentlemen, but your views of a belief in a higher power being consistent with rational science doesn't wash. belief without proof is irrational. Of course it doesn't preclude you from being a good scientist.
Delete