Leonardo

Leonardo da Vinci's Struggles with Representations of Reality Author(s): Nicholas J. Wade, Hiroshi Ono, Linda Lillakas Source: Leonardo, Vol. 34, No. 3 (2001), pp. 231-235 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1576941 . Accessed: 26/08/2011 04:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Leonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

HISTORICAL

PERSPECTIVE

Leonardo with

da

Vinci's

Struggles

Representations of Reality
ABSTRACT

HiroshiOno NicholasJ. Wade, and Linda Lillakas

Virtual reality systems seek to simulate realscenes so that theywillbe seen as three-dimensional.Theissues at the heartof virtual are old ones. reality Leonardo da Vinci with struggled the differences betweenthe perceptionof a scene anda painting of it, which he reduced to the diff,ranrore h,'hA,, n hinnr,il:Ir nn,-

Virtual reality is concerned with creating an imitation of the visual world. The term is an oxymoron considered to be a modern engineering enterprise, made possible by the power of computers. The issues at the center of virtual reality, however, are not new, as they address some ancient questions of visual perception. One of these is the contrast between binocular and monocular vision, which the great sciLeonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) entist/engineer/artist struggled with in his numerous notebooks. His knowledge of ocular anatomy was wanting but his application of optics to the eye was ahead of his time [1]. Leonardo conducted experiments with a camera obscura and drew an analogy between its operation and that of the eye [2]. Moreover, his observational skills were without equal, and his creations of virtual reality on canvas were unsurpassed. Yet, he realized: "A Painting, though conducted with the greatest Art and finished to the last Perfection, both with regard to its Contours, its Lights, its Shadows and its Colours, can never show a Relievo equal to that of Natural Objects, unless these be view'd at a Distance and with a single Eye" [3]. That is, the perception of depth is incomplete in a painting, unlike that for a scene viewed with two eyes. Leonardo struggled long and hard with the contrast between monocular and binocular vision. He was able to utilize the concept of Alberti's window, which provided a monocular match between a picture and a view of a scene from a single point [4]. But what happens when two viewpoints are adopted? Leonardo examined this many times in the context of a small object lying in front of a background. He returned to the issue repeatedly, as indicated by the many diagrams he made of it. In each instance, vision with two eyes was optically and phenomenally different from that with one (Fig. 1):
drawnfrom nature do not seemto be in the same Whyobjects perfectly relief as the natural object.It is impossible for a painting, even

I1 ilU m.oncur v.Wsion. UHeculd sides of the central line, the eyes vision.Hecouldnot monocular see the space G D behind the obproduce on canvaswhat, n the ject; the eye A sees the whole of Ames,was an terminology space F D, and the eye B sees the 'hiswas T equivalent configuration. whole space G E. Thus, the two 300 yearsafter provided eyes see the whole space F E bestereohind the object C. The object C s to virscope. Modern approache remains transparent, according to orate tualreality thatcan incorpi the definition of transparency, by fasmoving vewpoints would have which nothing is hidden. This cinatedLeonardo. cannot happen to him who looks with one eye at an object larger _ than his eye, as it could not happen when the eye looks at objects smaller than the pupil. This is shown in the second diagram. Because of what has been said, we can conclude our investigation, because the painted object covers all the space that is behind it, and it is in no way possible to see any part of the background behind it within the outlines of the object [5].

The example he used, of viewing a sphere with a diameter less than the distance separating the eyes, reflected one condition Euclid analyzed, but Leonardo added the characteristic of seeing the whole background [6]. Every time Leonardo returned to the struggle, he came to the same conclusion: that he could not depict correctly on canvas everything he saw with two eyes. He was unable, in the terminology of virtual reality, to simulate what he saw with two eyes. Alberti's procedures (for conveying visual angles to a picture plane) simulate the monocular visual world on a canvas, but not that of the binocular visual world. For exFig. 1. Leonardo da Vinci's diagrams of viewing a sphere with two eyes or one. The drawing on the left represents binocular observation of a sphere, the diameter of which is smaller than the separation between the eyes. The two drawings on the right, of two monocular views, are not so easy to interpret because Leonardo did not assign any letters to them, nor is the accompanying text as explicit. It is likely that they represent two different stimulus conditions, with spheres smaller than the pupil (left monocular diagram) and larger than the eye (right monocular diagram). Leonardo's original sketches have been redrawn from McMahon [27].

though executed with the greatest perfection of outline, shadow,light, and color,to seem in the samerelief as the natural model, unless that naturalmodel is looked at from a great distancewith one eye. The proof is as follows:Let the eyes, A B, look at the object C, with the convergence of the central lines from the eyes, A C and B C, and those lines convergeto the object at the point C, and along the other lines, on the
Nicholas J. Wade (researcher, artist, teacher), Department of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland, U.K. E-mail: <n.j.wade@dundee.ac.uk>. Hiroshi Ono (researcher, teacher), Department 5, ATR Human Information Processing Laboratories, Kyoto, 619-0288,Japan. Linda Lillakas (researcher), Centre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada.

? 2001 ISAST

LEONARDO, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 2231-235, 2001

r m n a )a

b
r

Background
Fig. 2. The two monocular conditions in Fig. 1 have been redrawn separately with the eyes of equal size, so that the consequences of viewing a sphere smaller and larger than the pupil can be appreciated more readily. If the background is accommodated in the situation depicted on the left side, the whole background is visible, with the near stimulus appearing blurry. However, part of the background will not be visible in the situation depicted on the right side. The light emitted or reflected from the dark area on the background would not reach the eye, whereas some of the light from the gray areas would. Strictly speaking, the visibility of the background also depends on the distance of the small object from the eye. If the size of the object is one-half of the pupil opening, the object must be closer than one-half the distance [28].

V
Fig. 4. Leonardo's binocular (top) and monocular (bottom) observation of two aligned spheres, redrawn from Richter [31]. A sphere with a diameter smaller than the interocular distance will obscure a more distant one when viewed with one eye.

Fig. 3. Leonardo's binocular observation of a sphere, redrawn from Strong [29]. "If the two central lines concur in the object x the subordinate adherent lines s v and r y will see the object t occupy two places on the wall n m, i.e., in v and y. But if such central [lines] terminate in t, then the object x will be seen by the two exterior adherent lines, i.e., r x and s x, because the right eye sees with the right adherent line and the left eye sees with the left adherent line" [30].

ample, Leonardo's

drawings repro-

duced in Fig. 1 represent both binocular

(left) and monocular (right) observation of a small sphere [7]. Leonardo's accompanying text (quoted above) emphasizes the differences between viewing a scene and a painting of it in terms of perceived depth and the amount of the background that is visible. Leonardo's drawings (Fig. 1) display a concern with monocular as well as binocular viewing, but the monocular drawings are often omitted from reproductions of his Treatise[8]. This could be because they appear so enigmatic; the representations of the eye in each of the two monocular drawings differ in size, which makes the monocular drawings difficult to interpret. The two monocular views can be understood if it is appreciated that (a) they indicate two different stimulus conditions, and (b) Leonardo represented the eyes (the uppermost circles on the right side of Fig. 1) as different in size. The eye denoted by the upper circle on the left is viewing a small sphere that is placed at the intersection of the converging lines; the eye

represented by the smaller circle on the right is viewing a sphere much larger than the diameter of the pupil. These two monocular conditions have been redrawn in Fig. 2, with the eyes represented as the same size and the objects as larger and smaller than the pupil. A drawing similar to the binocular part of Fig. 1 occurs again in Fig. 3 [9]. Leonardo's text again emphasizes the visibility of the background, but it also comes very close to describing the disparities of direction attendant upon viewing a near object. Drawings of retinal disparities did not appear in texts on optics until the seventeenth century [10]. Leonardo made another representation of monocular and binocular projections (see Fig. 4), which was reproduced in Richter [11]: A sphere with a diameter smaller than the interocular distance will obscure a more distant one when viewed with one eye, but not when two are used:
Why a Painting Can Never Appear Detached as Natural Objects Do. Painters often fall into despair of imitating nature when they see their pictures fail in that relief and vividness which objects have that are seen in a mirror; while they allege that they have colours which for brightness or depth far exceed the strength of light and shade in the reflections in the mirror, thus displaying their own ignorance rather than the real cause, because they do not know it. It is impossible that painted objects should appear in such relief as to resemble those reflected in the mirror, although

both are seen on a flat surface, unless they are seen with only one eye; and the reason is that two eyes see one object behind another as a and b see m and n. m cannot occupy [the space of] n because the base of the visual lines is so broad that the second body is seen beyond the first. But if you will close one eye, as at s the body fwill conceal r, because the line of sight proceeds from a single point and makes its base in the first body, whence the second, of the same size, can never be seen [12].

Essentially the same points were made in Leonardo's drawings shown in Fig. 5, and the reference was made to the inadequacy of paintings in matching perception with two eyes. In the remaining three drawings reproduced here (Figs 6-8) Leonardo restricted himself to binocular observation of spheres. Figures 6 and 7 are from Richter and Fig. 8 is from Pedretti [13]. In Fig. 6 Leonardo was adopting a procedure described by Galen, namely placing a septum (made from four fingers extended along the midline of the head) so that each eye could see beyond it [14]. The region occluded to both eyes is referred to in Fig. 7, and emphasis is again placed on the amount of the distant background that is visible with both eyes. In Fig. 8, Leonardo returns to an aspect of Euclid's analysis in which more than a hemisphere of a small sphere is visible to both eyes; this in turn was related to the apparent size of the sphere. A similar concern with the interplay between art, optics and binocular vision was evident in the writing of Adelbert Ames II [15]. He was trained as a lawyer but practiced art with the intention of becoming a neo-Impressionist painter.

232

Wade et al., Leonardoda Vinci'sStruggles

la

mO

0
h

Qg
m
Fig. 6. Leonardo's binocular observation of a small sphere, redrawn from Richter [33]. "If you place an opaque object in front of your eye at a distance of four fingers' breadth, if it is smaller than the space between the two eyes it will not interfere with your seeing anything that may be beyond it. No object situated beyond another object seen by the eye can be concealed by this [nearer] object if it is smaller than the space from eye to eye" [34].

Fig. 5. Leonardo's binocular (top) and monocular (bottom) observations of a small sphere, redrawn from Richter. "Objects in relief, when seen from a short distance with one eye, look like a perfect picture. If you look with the eyes a, b at the spot c, this point c will appear to be at d, f, and if you look at it with one eye only, g, h will appear to be at m. A picture can never contain in itself these two aspects" [32].

In the process he came to realize that a thorough understanding of visual optics was a necessary prerequisite, and he later studied physiological optics. Whereas Leonardo was concerned with optical projection, Ames made the equivalence between painting and perception in terms of images:

ternal physical arrangements. In the absence of other information, . . . equiva-

lent configurations will be perceived as identical, no matter how different they be physically" [18]. Thus, despite his appeal to visual images, Ames was a twentieth-century practitioner of Leonardo's The fundamental idea . . . was that picprojective principles. torial art should be similar to our menModern attempts to create "virtualretal visual images, and since our mental ality"draw upon the principle of equivavisual images are probably similar to lent configurations [19], and three-diour retinal pictures, valuable suggesmensional (3D) visual virtual reality tions could be obtained from a knowldepends on matching two incoming edge of the characteristics of our retinal picture. Our mental visual impression, messages, namely, two retinal images. however, is not derived from a single Charles Wheatstone [20], in 1838, with retinal picture but from two, as we norhis invention of the stereoscope, was mally look with two eyes [16]. able to match binocular incoming mesHe then devised many demonstrations sages and create a virtual reality that can that were based, essentially, on Alberti's be considered to satisfy Leonardo's dewindow. One of these is now called the sire to imitate nature binocularly. Thus, Ames room; it consists of a trapezoidal there was a delay of over 300 years from room that is viewed with one eye Leonardo's deliberations until the stethrough a small aperture, so that it is vir- reoscope was invented, by which time tually rectangular. The room epitomizes Wheatstone was able to enlist photograthe essence of virtual reality by render- phy to facilitate capturing visual angles. Neither Leonardo's painted imitation ing as equivalent the projections to a single point of a systematically distorted of the world from a single vantage point space and a conventionally rectangular nor Wheatstone's paired pictures enterroom: "Equivalentconfigurations are de- tained the possibility of a moving perfined as that family of physical configura- ceiver. Incorporating a moving observer tions for which impingement is invari- into the scene involved an even longer ant" [17]. It was a concept that Ames delay, until 1905, when Heine [21] returned to and manipulated with skill: slaved stimulus movement to body move"The definition of equivalent configura- ment in studies of depth perception. The head-mounted displays that are tions implies that identical 'incoming from different exused in creating virtual reality today slave can come messages'

Fig. 7. Leonardo's binocular observation of a small sphere with regard to the amount of background occluded by each eye, redrawn from Richter. "Let the object in relief t be seen by both eyes; if you will look at the object with the right eye m, keeping the left eye n shut, the object will appear, or fill up the space, at a; and if you shut the right eye and open the left, the object (will occupy the) space b; and if you will open both eyes, the object will no longer appear at a or b, but at e, r, f. Why will not a picture seen by both eyes produce the effect of relief, as [real] relief does when seen by both eyes; and why should a picture seen with one eye give the same effect of relief as real relief would under the same conditions of light and shade?" [35].

Fig. 8. Leonardo's representation of the amount of a small sphere seen by both eyes, redrawn from Pedretti. "If both eyes see a spherical object, the diameter of which is smaller than the distance between the pupils of the eyes, they will see beyond the diameter of that object, and the more so as that object is placed closer to them. And therefore the central visual lines will see the object as being smaller than it really is" [36].

Wadeet al., Leonardo da Vinci's Struggles

233

the paired pictures to eye and head movements, so that incoming messages of a more complicated nature can be matched to a mobile observer. Even with this addition, however, the incoming binocular messages of 3D space cannot be matched perfectly from two two-dimensional (2D) screens, because the differential defocusing of the retinal image is not yoked to the states of convergence and accommodation of the eyes. Many are presattempts to increase "virtuality" ently under way [22]. For example, a virtual display screen system that presents hologram-like images [23] allows the matching of convergence and accommodation, as does Sony's Visortron, or a device [24] that co-varies the convergence and accommodative requirements. Yet another system [25] attempts to bypass this yoking but incorporates Leonardo's observation and Ames's work on seeing depth from a single picture. This system uses wide-angle lenses with a small depth of field, either to make the incoming message equivalent to that recommended by Leonardo (being "view'dat a Distance") or to eliminate the 2D cues that Ames [26] identified when trying to see 3D from 2D pictures. As a scientist, Leonardo would have been excited by Wheatstone's stereoscope; as a theorist he would have appreciated the subtlety of Ames's concept of equivalent configurations. As an engineer he would doubtless have found modern attempts at simulating scenes intriguing. What use would he have made of these modern struggles as an artist? One can only speculate. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of the original manuscript for the constructive comments they made; Richard Held for kindly providing us with a copy of an unpublished manuscript; and York University Faculty of Arts Research Fellowship for supporting Hiroshi Ono's work on the manuscript.

thought that the lens rather than the retina received images of objects. It was not until the early seventeenth century, when Kepler outlined the principles of image formation in the eye, that similarities between the optics of eyes and cameras could be appreciated (see NJ. Wade, "Light and Sight Since Antiquity," Perception27, No. 6, 637670, 1998). Leonardo's application of optics to art has been commented upon in detail by K.H. Veltman, Studieson Leonardoda Vinci. 1. LinearPerspectiveand the Visual Dimensions of Scienceand Art (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1986). 3. The collection of Leonardo's manuscripts, given the title A Treatise of Painting,was first translated into English by an unnamed translator (London: Senex and Taylor, 1721); this quotation appears on p. 178. 4. Alberti's book On Paintingwas published in 1435 and was translated byJ.R. Spencer (L.B. Alberti, On Painting, [New Haven, CT:Yale Univ. Press, 1966]). Alberti described how a painting could be constructed in perspective by interposing a transparent surface through which the scene was viewed: "When they [painters] fill the circumscribed places with colours, they should only seek to present the forms of things seen on this plane as if it were of transparent glass. Thus the visual pyramid could pass through it, placed at a definite distance with definite lights and a definite position of the centre in space and in a definite place in respect to the observer" (p. 51). 5. Leonardo's quotation is taken from A.P. McMahon's translation of Leonardo's Treatiseon Painting (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1956) Vol. 2, p. 177. 6. In his Optics,Euclid described the consequences of viewing spheres that were smaller than, the same size as, and larger than the separation between the eyes (see H.E. Burton, "The Optics of Euclid,"Journal of the Optical Societyof America35, No. 2, 357372, 1945). Euclid's discussion was restricted to the amount of the sphere that was visible in each case, with no reference to what was visible beyond the spheres. When the sphere was smaller than the interocular separation, then more than a hemisphere was seen. 7. Leonardo's manuscript sketch was reproduced in McMahon [5] and we have redrawn it and its remaining figures so that they are comparable. 8. M. Kemp, Leonardoon Painting (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1989) did not reprint the two monocular diagrams. 9. D.S. Strong, Leonardoon the Eye (New York: Garland, 1979). 10. Drawings of retinal disparities were published long before their involvement in stereoscopic vision was understood. Detailed diagrams of disparities were produced by Sebastien Le Clerc, an authority on perspective, in his Discours Touchantde Point de Veue,dans lequelil es prouvequeles chosequ'on voit distinctement,ne sont veues que d'un oeil (Paris: Jolly, 1679), but he used them as evidence against Descartes's theory of binocular combination; they became a regular feature of texts on optics in the eighteenth century (see NJ. Wade, A Natural Historyof Vision[Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998]). 11. J.P. Richter, The Literary Worksof Leonardo da Vinci (London: Phaidon, 1970). The drawing is on p. 268. 12. Leonardo quoted in Richter [11] pp. 267-268. 13. C. Pedretti, The Literary Worksof Leonardo da Vinci (London: Phaidon, 1977). 14. In the second century, Galen, in his On the Usefulness of theParts of the Body,M.T. May, trans. (Ithaca, NY:Cornell Univ. Press, 1968), introduced a method of separating the two eyes by means of a septum, and reported that vision of a peripheral target seen by one eye (when both were open) was inferior to that with one eye alone: "If you care to place longitudinally on your nose between your eyes a small piece

of wood, your own hand, or anything else that can prevent external objects lying before them from being seen by both eyes, you will see dimly with each eye, but much more clearly if you close one eye, as if the faculty hitherto divided between two were now coming to the other eye" (p. 501). 15. The life of Adelbert Ames II has been chronicled by R.R. Behrens, TheMan WhoMadeDisAmes tortedRooms:A Chronology of the Life of Adelbert Jr. (Univ. of Northern Iowa: published by the author, 1993); and R.R. Behrens, "The Life and Unusual Ideas of Adelbert Ames Jr.," Leonardo 20, No. 3, 273-279 (1987). An account of his artistic work can be found in R.R. Behrens, "The Artistic and Scientific Collaboration of Blanche Ames Ames and Adelbert Ames II," Leonardo 31, No. 1, 47-54 (1998). Ames subsequently studied physiological optics and developed a range of ingenious devices for producing unexpected perceptual effects. These have been described and illustrated in W.H. Ittelson, The Ames Demonstrations in Perception (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1952). 16. In the references to Ames's papers we have used his name as it appears in the publications cited. This quotation is from p. 34 of A. Ames, C.A. Proctor, and B.A. Ames, "Vision and the Technique of Art," Proceedings of the AmericanAcademyof Arts and Sciences58, No. 1, 3-47 (1923). 17. W.H. Ittelson, VisualSpacePerception (New York: Springer, 1960) p. 50. 18. Ittelson [17] p. 51. 19. H. Rheingold, VirtualReality (New York: Summit Books, 1991); R. Held, "Perception of Virtual Worlds,"unpublished manuscript (1999). 20. Wheatstone invented both mirror and prism stereoscopes in the early 1830s, but he only described the former in his classic paper: C. Wheatstone, "Contributions to the Physiology of VisionPart the First. On Some Remarkable, and Hitherto Unobserved, Phenomena of Binocular Vision," 128, No. PhilosophicalTransactions of theRoyalSociety 2, 371-394 (1838). One of the distinctions between Wheatstone's and Leonardo's deliberations related to the object they viewed with two eyes. Leonardo followed Euclid's lead and used a sphere. As Wheatstone remarked: "Had Leonardo da Vinci taken, instead of a sphere, a less simple figure for the purpose of his illustration, a cube for instance, he would not only have observed that the object obscured from each eye a different part of the more distant field of view, but the fact would also perhaps have forced itself upon his attention, that this object itself presented a different appearance to each eye. He failed to do this, and no subsequent writer within my knowledge has supplied the omission" (p. 372). Wheatstone did realize, perhaps better than many have since, that disparity alone would not suffice to yield depth perception. In his second memoir (C. Wheatstone, "Contributions to the Physiology of Vision-Part the Second. On Some Remarkable, and Hitherto Unobserved, Phenomena of Binocular Vision," PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society142, No. 1, 1-17 [1852]), he described experiments with a pseudoscope, which reversed retinal disparities. The resulting projections to the eyes set disparity in conflict with monocular cues, of the type Leonardo discussed, and the monocular cues often dominated. 21. L. Heine, "Uber Wahrnehmung und Vorstellung von Entfernungsunterschieden," Archiv fir klinischeund experimentelle 61 (1905) Ophthalmologie pp. 484-498. 22. See, for example, S. Yano and I. Yuyama, "Stereoscopic HDTV: Experimental System and Psychological Effect," Society of MotionPictureand Television EngineersJournal 100, No. 1, 14-18 (1991); and E. Peli, "Optometric and Perceptual Issues with HeadMounted Displays," in P. Mouroulis, ed., Visual Instrumentation:Optical Design and Engineering Principles(New York:McGraw-Hill, 1999) pp. 205-276. 23. See, for example, S.S. Zelitt, 3D imaging system,

References and Notes

1. Leonardo's descriptions of the eye and illustrations of its structure can be found in J.P. McMurrich, Leonardoda Vinci the Anatomist(14521519) (Baltimore, MA: Williams & Wilkins, 1930). His deliberations on image formation in the eye and its analogy with the camera obscura have been assessed by K.D. Keele, "Leonardo da Vinci on Vision," Proceedings of the Royal Societyof Medicine 48, No. 3, 384-390 (1955). 2. The formation of an image in a camera obscura was described by Ibn al-Haytham (or Alhazen) in the eleventh century (see A.I. Sabra, ed. and trans., The Opticsof Ibn Al-Haytham. BooksI-Il. On DirectVision [London: The Warburg Institute, 1989]). Although Leonardo did relate the image formation in a camera to that in the eye, there was still uncertainty about the nature of light and the structure in the eye that was receptive to it; at that time it was

234

Wadeet al., Leonardo da Vinci's Struggles

United States Patent 5,790,086 (1998); Y. Kajiki, H. Yoshikawa and T. Honda, "Hologram-Like Video Image by 45-Viewes [sic] Stereoscopic Display," SPIE, Vol. 3012 (1997) pp. 154-166. 24. See, for example, S. Onishi, H. Yoshimatsu, A. Kawamuraand A. and K. Ashizaki, "AnApproach to Natural Vision Using a Novel Head-Mounted Disfor Information play,"Society Display 94, Digest 28-31 (1994); R.A. Eagle, E. Paige, L. Sucharov, B.J. Rogers, "Accommodation Cues Reduce Latencies for Large-Disparity Detection," Perception 28, Supplement (1999) p. 136. 25. M. Siegel, S. Nagata, "JustEnough Reality: Comfortable 3D Viewing via Microstereopsis," IEEE Transactions on Circuitsand Systems for VideoTechnology 10, No. 3, 387-396 (2000).

26. A. Ames, "Depth in Pictorial Art," Art Bulletin,8, No. 1, 5-24 (1925); and A. Ames II, "The Illusion of Depth from Single Pictures," Journal of the Optical of America10, No. 2, 137-148 (1925). Society 27. McMahon [5] Vol. 1, section 487. 28. Another example of this situatiorn is presented in Pedretti [13] p. 193. In the originsil (redrawn in Fig. 1) Leonardo paid scant attentioni to the representations of the eyes themselves. lis overriding concern was with the contrast betweeen binocular and monocular observation of object s,their optical projections and the inadequacy of painting to do more than represent monocular view: ing. 29. Strong [9] p. 81. 30. Leonardo, quoted in Strong [9] ppp.80-81.

31. Richter [11] pp. 267-268. 32. Leonardo, quoted in Richter [11] p. 21. 33. Richter [11] p. 129. 34. Leonardo, quoted in Richter [11] p. 129. 35. Leonardo, quoted in Richter [11] p. 21. 36. Leonardo, quoted in Pedretti [13] p. 193.

Manuscript received 1 June 2000.

Wadeet al., Leonardo da Vinci's Struggles

235