Edward MacCurdy
Leonardo for the Modern Reader
The present volumes contain the most complete translation of the literary remains of Leonardo da Vinci that has yet been offered to the public.
— Edward MacCurdy, Introduction to The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci (1938)
The Scholar
Edward MacCurdy (1871–1940) was a British scholar who spent decades on Leonardo's manuscripts, producing what remains the most complete single English translation: The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, published in two volumes in 1938 by Jonathan Cape in London (and by Reynal and Hitchcock in New York).
MacCurdy came to Leonardo through art history but was drawn into the full breadth of the notebooks — he was particularly struck by Leonardo's scientific writings, which he felt Richter had not fully represented. His earlier work, Leonardo da Vinci's Note-Books (1906), was a smaller selection; the 1938 edition was his magnum opus, representing over thirty years of work.
Where Richter was a German scholar writing primarily for specialists, MacCurdy was an English literary man writing for the educated general reader. His translations are notably more fluid and readable than Richter's — sometimes at the cost of technical precision, but always in service of making Leonardo's voice come through in English.
The Classification System
Building on Richter, broadening the scope
Approach
MacCurdy adopted Richter's fundamental strategy — organization by subject rather than by manuscript — but made significant changes in scope and structure:
- Far more passages — MacCurdy included material Richter had omitted, particularly scientific and technical writings
- Broader categories — expanded coverage of anatomy, flight, water, and mechanical engineering
- Windsor collection — crucial additions from the Royal Collection at Windsor Castle, especially the anatomical drawings that Richter had limited access to
- Updated translations — working fifty years after Richter, MacCurdy had access to better transcriptions and new manuscript discoveries
Organization Structure
MacCurdy organized his two volumes broadly as follows:
| Volume | Major Sections | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| Volume I | Philosophy | Experience, reason, nature, science vs. practice |
| Painting | Light, shadow, colour, composition, portraiture, landscape | |
| Sculpture & Architecture | Casting, building, engineering | |
| Music | Leonardo's notes on musical instruments and theory | |
| Volume II | Anatomy | Extensive — muscles, bones, nerves, organs, embryology |
| Physiology | The senses, digestion, respiration | |
| Zoology & Botany | Comparative anatomy, plant studies | |
| Physical Sciences | Mechanics, optics, acoustics, astronomy | |
| Water & Earth | Hydraulics, geology, geography | |
| Flight | Bird flight, flying machines — greatly expanded from Richter | |
| Tales, Prophecies, Letters | Fables, jests, personal correspondence, dated notes |
Key Differences from Richter
1. The Anatomy Revolution
MacCurdy's greatest contribution was dramatically expanding the anatomical material. By 1938, the Windsor anatomical collection — hundreds of Leonardo's most extraordinary drawings and annotations — was far better understood than in Richter's day. MacCurdy included extensive passages on musculature, the cardiovascular system, embryology, and comparative anatomy that Richter had barely touched. For readers interested in Leonardo as scientist, this was transformative.
2. Flight and Engineering
Richter had compressed mechanical engineering, naval warfare, and miscellaneous practical arts into a single section (XVIII). MacCurdy broke these out, giving dedicated space to flight — one of Leonardo's most famous obsessions — and to hydraulic engineering, military devices, and practical mechanics. The Codex on the Flight of Birds received full treatment.
3. Accessible Translation
MacCurdy's English is notably more readable than Richter's Victorian-era translations. He aimed for clarity and fluidity, making Leonardo's voice more immediate to the general reader. His introduction situates Leonardo within Renaissance history in a way that doesn't assume specialist knowledge.
4. No Universal Numbering
Unlike Richter, MacCurdy did not create a passage-numbering system that other scholars adopted. His organization by volume and section is useful for reading but less useful for citation. When scholars cite MacCurdy, they reference page numbers — which change across editions — rather than a universal system. This is the main reason Richter's system persisted as the standard even after MacCurdy offered a more complete selection.
Assessment
What MacCurdy Gets Right
- Completeness — the most comprehensive single English translation of the notebooks, even today
- Anatomy coverage — finally gave English readers access to Leonardo's most advanced scientific work
- Readability — translations that actually sound like a human wrote them, not a Victorian committee
- Context — introductions to each section that orient the general reader
- Flight material — proper treatment of one of Leonardo's most distinctive research programs
What It Misses
- Same structural weakness as Richter — subject-based organization still breaks apart multi-subject pages
- No standard numbering — passages are cited by page number, making cross-referencing across editions difficult
- Pre-Pedretti dating — published before Pedretti's chronological revolution; datings are often outdated
- Drawings as illustrations — like Richter, treats Leonardo's drawings as supplements to text rather than primary documents
- Out of print issues — the 1938 edition has been reprinted but never fully updated, meaning translations reflect pre-war scholarship
Legacy
MacCurdy's Notebooks remains the book most English-speaking readers encounter first when they want to read Leonardo's own words at length. It's been continuously in print (in various reprints) since 1938, making it the most commercially successful Leonardo compilation ever produced. Dover Publications' reprint brought it to generations of students.
Where Richter built the scholarly reference system and Pedretti would later build the chronological framework, MacCurdy's contribution was accessibility. He made Leonardo's notebooks readable as literature — not just as source material for specialists. For many readers, MacCurdy is Leonardo in English.
If you want to read Leonardo, pick up MacCurdy. If you want to cite Leonardo, you need Richter. It's that simple. MacCurdy gives you the broader picture — more passages, more accessible English, more science. But Richter gives you the reference grid that scholarship runs on. Ideally, you use both. -D