I would just add that there were no "scientists" in the Renaissance. The word "scientist" and our idea of what it means is a product of the last century. To say he's overrated because he didn't publish is a trifle harsh, IMHO. He certainly intended to. If you read his writings, you'll find him constantly referring "the reader" that he intended his writings for. I would agree that he was no scientist in the same way that Galileo was. However, I think it would as foolish to leave him out of the history of science as would be to leave out any of the Classical philosophers or other non-"scientists" who have shaped the way we see the world. Cheers, Ed P.S. My vote's with Eric on this. Name one other painter/sculptor/engineer/inventor/anatomist/philosopher/musician who's had as much impact on Western society. > Eric Seagel has commented that Leonardo di Vinci is "exceptionalism >personified"; I would strongly argue that he is history's most overrated >person. ___________________________________________________________ Edward Rodley email: [log in to unmask] Exhibit Planner [log in to unmask] Museum of Science, URL: www.tiac.net/users/erodley Boston, MA Opinions expressed are the author's alone (thankfully) ___________________________________________________________