The Mark Steel Lectures - Errata Minora

As admirable as the BBC radio and television programs collectively titled the Mark Steel Lectures are, they do contain a few minor errors. Of course, some of the - quote - "errors" - unquote - are not necessarily errors in the strictest sense. Instead they are often the minor discrepancies which arise from the telescoping of events and chronology needed when cramming several thousand years of history into a few hours of broadcast time. But still, it is useful for those fighting against ignorance and superstition and advocating the virtues of evidence based belief to review these slight, trifling errors which will appear in historical accounts, no matter how worthy the work.

For instance, in the episode on Leonardo da Vinci we learned that Leonardo came to the attention of Lorenzo de Medici, the rich banker who was in charge of Florence, because one of Leonardo's drawings. The drawing had attracted the admiration of the citizens who gathered around it for two days. We also learned that it was Leonardo who first figured out that to create an accurate painting, an artist must have a rigorous mathematical understanding of perspective. Before that people just had a general knowledge that things were smaller when they were far away.

Actually it is highly debatable to what degree Leonardo was favored by Lorenzo or whether the two men had much contact at all. True, one of Leonardo's early biographers wrote that Leonardo spent time with the Medici's entourage where he debated philosophy and discussed art. But none of Leonardo's biographers knew him personally and the earliest - Giorgio Vasari was only six years old when Leonardo died in France in 1619.

Instead the record shows Leonardo had little financial success in Florence once he struck out on his own - clearly not what you expect for an artist "favored" by Lorenzo the Magnificent. Au contraire, as Leonardo's later patron Francis I would have said, once the young artist left his apprenticeship with Andrea del Verrochio, he had to get by doing odd jobs like decorating clocks. When he did land a major commission, he had to ask for an extra advance because he didn't have funds to buy paint or food. Likely because he was already getting a reputation for unreliability, the contracts were not always very favorable. Once Leonardo was partly paid in firewood.

But we are absolutely certain that Lorenzo did not take notice of Leonardo because everyone in Florence had gone ecstatic about a drawing. Instead, the drawing that did attract the admiring crowds was the preparatory drawing - the "cartoon" as they are called - of the "Virgin and St. Anne". Now in the National Gallery in London (CooperToons disagrees it is a copy - it is way too Leonardoesque) - we know Lorenzo never even saw the drawing. It was not drawn until at least 1499, and il Magnifico had been dead for seven years.

But did Lorenzo even know of Leonardo? Yes, he did, but not necessarily in a particularly favorable light. One of Leonardo's pupils had actually been sent away from Florence, probably at Lorenzo's command, since the young man had been associating with bad company. Although it wasn't stated directly, the bad company could well have been Leonardo. Three years earlier Leonardo been arrested and detained for suspicion of sodomy. It was potentially a serious charge, (you could get burned at the stake), but like many others charged with crimes, Leonardo was never convicted, and the case was dismissed.

Why dismissed? Well, either through lack of evidence or because one of his co-defendants, Lionardo de Tornabuoni, was related to Lorenzo's mother. But in any case, a man is innocent, etc., etc...

But regarding Leonardo the innovative artist, he did not invent the science of perspective - that is, he did not derive the mathematics of representing three dimensional objects on a two dimensional surface. Linear perspective had been known by artists for many years. Who actually invented the process of using lines converging to one or more vanishing points is, of course, unknown. But one of the first artists to formulate the rules - or at least write the principles down - was Leon Battista Alberti. Leon died in 1472, when Leonardo was just twenty and was still working as an apprentice. Another pioneer - and sometimes considered the first artist to systematically use perspective (as opposed to Alberti who was a mere - ptui - architect) - was Piero della Francesca. He was born in 1420 and so was a generation ahead of Leonardo. But don't mistake us (editorially speaking). Leonardo was certainly one of the early artists to use the mathematical principles of linear perspective, but he was not the first.

Another story we hear is that when Leonardo moved to Milan around 1482, he had offered his services to Ludovico Sforza as an artist who could double as a military engineer. He was also, we read, one of the finest players of the lute. He even made his own lute out of silver in the shape of a horses skull.

Well, this may seem like quibbling, but when Leonardo wrote to Ludovico Sforza, he actually represented himself almost exclusively as a military engineer. He could, he claimed, make portable bridges, dig under moats, knock down a fort's wall, make tanks ("covered chariots", he called them), and build various type of catapults. Only at the end of the letter and almost as an afterthought did Leonardo say he could paint as well as anyone and would be happy to cast the great bronze equestrian statue that the Duke wanted as a memorial to his father.

That Leonardo was an excellent musician is certainly true, a trait shared by other artists like the American portrait artist John Singer Sargent (who played the piano and - get this - the banjo). But it was actually the lyre that Leonardo played. The instrument may have the traditional lyre - the harp like instrument with plucked strings - but not likely. Probably it was the lira da braccio, a forerunner of the modern violin. Leonardo was, we hear, a great improviser and a good singer.

Continuing, the lecture goes into how we have a first hand account of Leonardo working on the Last Supper left to us by his friend, Matteo Bandello. Then Leonardo went to Rome to work for Cesare Borgia and he studied anatomy by the controversial method of dissection. Leonardo was also, we learn, the first vegetarian.

Again, these are stories pretty much on the mark (no pun intended) but Matteo was not really a friend of the painter. He was no older than fifteen and was a novice in the monastery of Santa Maria della Grazie at the time Leonardo was painting the mural (which is not, we emphsize, a fresco). So Leonardo may not have even known the kid. But Leonardo did work for Cesare, the most Brutal of the Borgias, who hired the artist as a military engineer and advisor. But the connection between the two men does not appear to have been forged in Rome but occurred while Leonardo was still in Florence. The only extended stay Leonardo had in Rome was when he was looking for patronage from the Cardinal Guiliano de Medici, who was a son of Lorenzo.

It is also correct that Leonardo was banned from using the mortuary in Rome for his anatomical studies. However, the reason for the Pope's displeasure is not known. It could have been that his studies were leading him into heretical thinking or perhaps he had been accused by a disgruntled workman of practicing sorcery. But the banning of Leonardo from further anatomical research was not because of his dissection per se.

Probably one of the most common and enduring myths is that dissection of cadavers was banned during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. You may also hear that it was a capital offense. Actually dissection of humans as part of medical or other studies was common and quite legal. It was even a form of spectator sport, and doctors would even hire out space in churches and construct bleachers so citizens could come and watch a demonstration. There are even times when monks or nuns chopped up the body of their (deceased) abbot or mother superior and rummaged around in their innards looking for miraculous signs (like a kidney stone shaped like the True Cross) to bolster a case for canonization. They would dutifully send the report to the Pope who might question their findings but never the method.

As far as Leonardo being a vegetarian, that is certainly attested to by contemporary writings. But Leonardo was by no means the first vegetarian. In quattrocento Italy it was a bit odd not to eat meat - then as now Italians loved carne. But there were vegetarians long before Leonardo. Empedocles, a Greek philosopher, from the 3rd century BCE was a strong advocate of vegetarianism as was Porphyry, a Greek philosopher who lived in third century CE. And of course some religions which go back thousands of years, like Buddhism, have sects which are strictly vegetarian.

Among the lesser known stories that Mark tells is how Leonardo and Michelangelo couldn't stand each other. The reason is, the lecture elaborates, that Michelangelo went to art school and Leonardo did not. So the older man, with little formal schooling (which he himself lamented), resented Michelangelo's educational advantages and so the deep dislike developed.

The dispute between artists culminated in a famous encounter. The way Mark tells it, Leonardo was in Rome when he was stopped by some men who asked him to resolve a dispute on some scientific question. Leonardo said he was sorry but he couldn't answer. Michelangelo then came by, and Leonardo quite generously told the men the younger artist could explain it. But Michelangelo just told Leonardo to answer the question himself and then made a rather snotty comment about how Leonardo couldn't even finish the equestrian statue for Ludovico. Also we should point out that the depiction in the show might make some believe the encounter happened in the Sistine Chapel and that Leonardo was in Rome when Leonardo developed his intense dislike of Michelangelo.

Actually the public scrap between the men occurred in Florence, and Leonardo had been asked to clear up a point of interpretation of Dante's Inferno - not answer a scientific question. Michelangelo was indeed an expert on Dante - he had supposedly memorized the entire work - but he still gave Leonardo the brush off.

But the dislike between the two men was not because Michelangelo went to art school and Leonardo did not. Actually if anything it's the other way about. It was Leonardo who had enjoyed a full apprenticeship with Verrocchio - which in that day was the same as going to art school. Although Michelangelo did study with Domenico Ghirlandio his tenure was probably only for a couple of years. Oddly enough, it was during his training with Domenico that Michelangelo would have learned fresco painting - which if you listen to some people was a skill he acquired in a near miraculously manner when hired to paint the Sistine. Actually it was Michelanglo's skill in sculpture that he learned largely through self-study with his in-born talent. It's also likely he had some private tutoring by scultpors in the Medici household as it was Michelangeo who was favored - and even lived with - Lorenzo. After all Michelangelo's father was a cousin of the Medici.

What was the problem between Leonardo and Michelangelo? We don't know. We do know is Leonardo made a number of remarks about sculpture being the most "mechanical" of the arts. He even trashed the sculptors themselves and the "filthy" houses they lived in.

But we must emphasize that these small errors and quibbles in no way detract from overall accuracy and correctness of the story Mark tells about Leonardo. But seekers of truth have no fear of scrutiny and inquiry.

There are, of course, a number of other of these fine informative shows. But there are, alas, still some minor errors to be found. For instance, in the show about Rene Descartes, we learned that Descartes did his thinking in an oven. Now this is an oft-told story although usually the word used is "stove", not oven. Actually, in French, the word is poêle, and a French-English dictionary indeed translates the word as "stove".

More exactly Rene wrote, "J'étais alors en Allemagne, où l'occasion des guerres qui n'y sont pas encore finies m'avait appelé et comme je retournais du couronnement de l'Empereur vers l'armée, le commencement de l'hiver m'arrêta en un quartier où, ne trouvant aucune conversation qui me divertît, et n'ayant d'ailleurs, par bonheur, aucunes passions qui me troublassent, je demeurais tout le jour enfermé seul dans un poêle, où j'avais tout loisir de m'entretenir de mes pensées."

However, in subjects of linguistic controversy, it is best to consult authoritative translations. An accurate rendering of what Rene wrote is, "I was then in Germany, to which country I had been attracted by the wars which are not yet at an end. And as I was returning from the coronation of the Emperor to join the army, the setting in of winter detained me in a quarter where, since I found no society to divert me, while fortunately I had also no cares or passions to trouble me, I remained the whole day shut up alone in a stove-heated room, where I had complete leisure to occupy myself with my own thoughts."

So we see that what Rene liked to do was to think in a warm room that was heated by a stove. He was certainly not the weirdo suggested by the less accurate but more literal of the English translations. Rene just wanted to keep warm like everyone else.

There were a couple of minor errors on the show about Thomas Paine - one of the best shows in an Official CooperToons Opinion. Mark told the familiar story of how after start of the French Revolution, Tom went to France where he was granted French citizenship. He was granted a seat in the general assembly and was one of the members to argue against the execution of Louis XVIII. Instead, Tom said he should be imprisoned and then after things settled down, he should be exiled.

However, Tom's plea was voted down and Louis was sent to the guillotine. Then when the Terror began, fellows like Robespierre and Marat remembered the sissies who wanted to be soft on the king, and so Tom himself was arrested. Tom was among those slated for the guillotine, and the jailer came along marking the doors of the next day's victims. However because Tom had a fever the warden permitted him to keep his cell door open for fresh air. So the mark was made on the inside of the door, and that night Tom closed the door. Of course, the next morning the guards didn't see the mark. So Tom was spared, and a few days later he was set free.

Although this story sounds very much like an internet created legend, it's true enough. The source is a letter Tom himself wrote to James Monroe while Tom was still in jail. But Tom wasn't released in a few days. He remained in prison for nearly three months more, writing letters to James that the Americans should get him sprung because he was an American citizen. Although James did help get Tom released, the problems was that Tom was now a French citizen, and the Americans didn't feel they had any business interfering with what was an internal French matter.

The second error was when Mark told us how much George Washington was influenced by Tom's writing, Mark also mentioned that George had wooden teeth - for a long time a virtually universally held belief. Now it is true that George did have false teeth - which often fit poorly and caused him considerable discomfort. Back then they didn't have dental adhesives and uppers and lowers were attached and kept in place by the tension of steel springs. But the teeth themselves were made of ivory or carved from hippopotamus teeth and some of his dentures even had human teeth. So George did not deserve the nickname "Old Hickory Teeth".

One of the more difficult shows that Mark hosted was the one about Sigmund Freud. Here Mark has to point out that Freud was a genius and revolutionary in a general sense, but specifically much of what he said was absolute horse hockey and hogwash.

For instance, Mark pointed out that Sigmund said that if you keep things like books or records in alphabetical order, it means you have the famous "anal fixation." Mark agreed that if you have only two records or CD's and you are constantly checking to make sure they're alphabetical that shows a bit of an overly fixated personality. But he, Mark, said he had over two thousand records, and keeping them in an orderly arrangement seemed logical. As Mark but it, "I thought I kept them in alphabetical order so I could find the one I want. Now I learn I have a problem with me arse."

The show about Sigmund is a good one - Freud's cocaine addiction is mentioned openly and with considerable humor (as much as a major health and sociological problem can) - but there are some glitches. For instance at one point, Mark mentioned how Sigmund Freud qualified as a neurosurgeon. That isn't quite true. In 1885, Sigmund studied with French physician, Jean-Martin Charcot, so he could practice as a neurologist, that is, a specialist in nervous diseases. At the time Sigmund studied with Jean-Martin, brain surgery was in its infancy and mostly limited to trepannng, that is opening the cranium to relieve pressure. It was really in the early twentieth century that Harvey Cushing at Johns Hopkins University began pioneering methods in brain surgery. To repeat, Sigmund had training as a neurologist and established himself as an alienist, the early version of a psychiatrist. But he never was a practicing surgeon.

As we said, most of the errors are minor and of minimal consequence in the overall message. On the other hand, it would be too much to expect that here and there true errors would never appear. One such error is in the show about Albert Einstein. There we learn how Albert had written to then-President Franklin Roosevelt about the possibility of creating an atomic bomb, and Franklin had just filed the letter and forgot about it. So from this story the reader could conclude the development of the atomic bomb was independent of any of Albert's actions, and Albert really had no responsibility creating the road to the nuclear armaments race - not to mention the only use to date of nuclear weapons in war at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The truth, though, is Leo Szilard, a Hungarian physicist, had become extremely worried that the Germans would learn how to make an atomic bomb. The Germans were indeed working on their own version of the Manhattan Project which they called the Uranverein project. So Leo wrote the letter and had Albert sign it. Leo then hand delivered the letter to the White House where Roosevelt immediately recognized its importance and directed immediate action be taken.

Leo, it should be noted, saw the bomb mostly as a bargaining chip and was adamantly opposed to dropping the bomb on Japan. He later went on record saying had the Germans dropped two atomic bombs on American cities and yet still lost the war, we would have added atomic warfare to the list of war crimes that were tried at Nurenberg. Leo's certainly right on that point. But the truth is the language in the various treaties and conventions as to who and what are and aren't legitimate military targets are splendidly crafted to insure - as indicated in a speech that Curtis Lemay gave at West Point - that there will be no war criminals among the victors.

References

The Mark Steel Lectures, BBC.