I wonder why the choice to refer to him as "Leonardo", rather than "da Vinci"? Given that the latter appears to be the more common way of referring to him as the author of many of his other works?
They don't refer to Einstein as "Albert".
They don't refer to Einstein as "Albert".
Leonardo was born in Anchiano, a tiny hamlet near the slightly-larger hamlet of Vinci. Ser Piero's family, however, were big fish in the little Vinci pond, and so tagged "da Vinci" ("of" or "from Vinci") after their names.
When he became an apprentice, in order to distinguish himself from other various Tuscan Leonardos in 15th-century Florence, and because he had his father's blessing to do so, Leonardo was known as "Leonardo da Vinci."
When he traveled beyond the Republic of Florence to Milan, he often referred to himself as "Leonardo the Florentine."
Eventually, Leonardo became very famous. He became so famous, in fact, that for the past 500 years he has had no need of a last name (as with "Cher" or "Madonna"), let alone any indication of his father's home town.
In art historic circles he is simply, as he started out in this world, Leonardo.
"Da Vinci" as in "The Da Vinci Code" is kind of cringeworthy for anyone who traffics in Leonardo.
I seem to recall him being referred to primarily as "da Vinci" in my childhood, long before that book was ever written.
> for anyone who traffics in Leonardo.
Interesting. That choice of phrasing makes "Leonardo" sound, to me, like a constructed shibboleth intended to gatekeep those who aren't "in the know". That's probably a slightly uncharitable take (sorry) but it was the first implication that just slapped me in the face.
> In art historic circles he is simply, as he started out in this world, Leonardo.
I wasn't aware that Ars Technica was aiming at the art historic circle crowd. ;-)
"Traffics in Leonardo" might be the most pretentious thing I've ever seen written down in my entire life, especially when saying that referring to Leonardo Da Vinci as "Da Vinci" is somehow cringeworthy
or
> The mistake of referring to Leonardo as "da Vinci" is so entrenched, I'm afraid it's uncorrectable. I have had to fight with editors about this: You say "Leonardo," and they want to say "da Vinci," thinking it's his last name — thinking it's the same as saying "Reynolds." They think that, when you say "Leonardo," you're saying the equivalent of "Joshua." Actually, to say "da Vinci" is to say "of Orange," instead of "William."
(Both from Cutting in line: What would 'Of Nazareth' do? at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003151.h... a post about plagiarism including of these examples.)
I, for one, welcome any deviation from the assumption that everyone's name is of the form "Given-name Surname".
In this case is it maybe dependent on country? I know that he was Da Vinci, but always heard mostly "Leonardo" alone. (also Miguel Ángel y Rafael)
People saying that "Da Vinci" only means he was from Vinci, come on, that's the case for a lot of family names and it's because, you know, people that started with such name came from such place.
It's a cool article but as the comments point out, it's one heck of a stretch to compare these early notes to anything done by Einstein, or even Newton.
Surely if it means that everyone knows who you're talking about, it does actually identify him.
Probably more so than "Leonardo" does. There are plenty of famous people called "Leonardo", but only one who is known as "da Vinci".