Review of Leonardo da Vinci’s Water Theory: On the Origin and Fate of Water by L. Pfister, H. H. G. Savenije, and F. Fenicia: IAHS Press, Center for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BB, U.K.; 2009; ISBN 1-901502-34-3; 92 pp.

No great man lives in vain.

The history of the world is but

The biography of great men.

    Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881)

Pfister, Savenije, and Fenicia eloquently support the essence of Carlyle’s quotation, as the history of the water sciences and engineering would have a huge void if it were not for the creativity and foresight of Leonardo da Vinci. His approach to the conduct of scientific investigation was a major shift from the direction of the centuries before him. In addition to the historical perspective that the book provides, the authors clearly make connections between da Vinci’s views on the science of water and the knowledge of those who are currently practicing in the hydrologic sciences.

Chapter 1 (“Introduction”) establishes the setting at the time of da Vinci’s life, specifically the state of scientific and artistic knowledge. The discussion goes back beyond the fifth century B.C. to show the misperceptions that had developed and carried through a scientific dead period of almost 15 centuries. Topics such as the hydrologic cycle, estimating discharge rates, and most important the state of scientific investigation are covered. The misfortunes of his personal life may very well have contributed to his long-term success. Da Vinci was an illegitimate child, which at that time prevented him from attending a university and may very will have kept him from adopting the antiquated scientific methods that were hindering the advancement of science. Da Vinci was able to learn from his own observations and experiences and thus recognize the advancements in the scientific method that would lead to valid theories.

Chapter 2 (“Leonardo’s ‘Treatise on Water’”) outlines da Vinci’s thinking on major water issues: the form of water, which was considered to be one of the four principal elements (earth, water, air, fire). While da Vinci never completed his treatise on water, his writings that survived provided a reasonably coherent picture of his perceptions as well as his knowledge. Da Vinci had a set of laws on water that governed his views and directed his observations. While the laws are unlike the principles that we follow in the 21st century, they seemed rational to him given the state of knowledge $500\text{years}$ ago.

Chapter 3 (“The Atmosphere”) is relatively short. Part of the discussion on the atmosphere illustrates the link between his role as a scientist and his capacity as a skilled artist. The requirement for perception, observation, and the understanding of nature that made him a great artist contributed to his ability to excel at the study of geology, biology, aerodynamics, hydraulics and hydrology, and the ways of science. For example, he used his knowledge of color to speculate about the vapor content of the atmosphere. The chapter includes discussions on da Vinci’s understanding of cloud formation, evaporation and condensation, humidity, rainbows, and wind. As with other physical phenomena, he conducted experiments to support his hypotheses and his understanding of the atmospheric phenomena.

A discussion of some of the devices that Leonardo devised for measuring atmosphere phenomena is discussed in Chapter 3. Some of these pictures have been presented elsewhere, and they always seem amazingly accurate for those times. I find these to be especially intriguing and wonder if my undergraduates could assemble a final design based on da Vinci’s drawings included in the book. Keeping in mind the state of knowledge at that time, the plans attest to da Vinci’s thinking ability.

Chapter 4 (“The Physical Structure of the Earth”) is especially interesting to those interested in erosion, landforms, and sedimentation. The authors make perceptive connections between da Vinci’s observations and the state of our current knowledge on such topics as stream meandering and landscape formation.

In Chapter 5 (“The Water Cycle”), the book returns to da Vinci’s concept of the water cycle. The authors ask if da Vinci can be considered the first experimental hydrologist. It is important to keep in mind that Francis Bacon (1561–1626) is usually credited with being responsible for introducing the scientific method into modern science. Da Vinci was using organized scientific methods a century before Bacon’s Novum Organum in 1620. Da Vinci does not get the credit that he likely deserves because he did not document his experimental methods, or possibly he described the methods but the writings were lost.

Floods in da Vinci’s early years influenced his interest in water, especially because he wanted to protect the public from the effects of flooding. Therefore, he devoted some of his efforts to the study of water dynamics, which is the topic of Chapter 6 (“The Study of Water in Motion”). Da Vinci saw canalization and damming as potential solutions to flooding along the Arno River. He was proposing locks be built and even designed a new gate to be used. He was proposing engineering solutions to societal problems long before the state of knowledge had sufficiently advanced for such undertakings.

To most people, da Vinci is known for his paintings, especially the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper. After reading this book, the reader will have a much more balanced view of the unique and monumental contributions that da Vinci made to the ages. While the focus of the book is on water, the authors do not let the reader lose sight of the breadth of da Vinci’s abilities and contributions. If you have an interest in water or art or the growth of science and technology, then you should read this book. If you are interested in all of those topics, then you will definitely want to read the book. The 92-page book is an easy and very enjoyable read and will be of interest to many beyond those involved professionally in the hydrological sciences.