The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci — Complete
at all. The grades of depth in compound shadows are fewer in
proportion as the lights falling on, and crossing them are less
numerous.
186.
Why the intersections at _n_ being composed of two compound derived
shadows, forms a compound shadow and not a simple one, as happens
with other intersections of compound shadows. This occurs, according
to the 2nd [diagram] of this [prop.] which says:--The intersection
of derived shadows when produced by the intersection of columnar
shadows caused by a single light does not produce a simple shadow.
And this is the corollary of the 1st [prop.] which says:--The
intersection of simple derived shadows never results in a deeper
shadow, because the deepest shadows all added together cannot be
darker than one by itself. Since, if many deepest shadows increased
in depth by their duplication, they could not be called the
_deepest_ shadows, but only part-shadows. But if such intersections
are illuminated by a second light placed between the eye and the
intersecting bodies, then those shadows would become compound
shadows and be uniformly dark just as much at the intersection as
throughout the rest. In the 1st and 2nd above, the intersections _i
k_ will not be doubled in depth as it is doubled in quantity. But in
this 3rd, at the intersections _g n_ they will be double in depth
and in quantity.
187.
HOW AND WHEN THE SURROUNDINGS IN SHADOW MINGLE THEIR DERIVED SHADOW
WITH THE LIGHT DERIVED FROM THE LUMINOUS BODY.
The derived shadow of the dark walls on each side of the bright
light of the window are what mingle their various degrees of shade
with the light derived from the window; and these various depths of
shade modify every portion of the light, except where it is
strongest, at _c_. To prove this let _d a_ be the primary shadow
which is turned towards the point _e_, and darkens it by its derived
shadow; as may be seen by the triangle _a e d_, in which the
angle _e_ faces the darkened base _d a e_; the point _v_ faces the
dark shadow _a s_ which is part of _a d_, and as the whole is
greater than a part, _e_ which faces the whole base [of the
triangle], will be in deeper shadow than _v_ which only faces part
of it. In consequence of the conclusion [shown] in the above
diagram, _t_ will be less darkened than _v_, because the base of the
_t_ is part of the base of the _v_; and in the same way it follows
that _p_ is less in shadow than _t_, because the base of the _p_ is
part of the base of the _t_. And _c_ is the terminal point of the
derived shadow and the chief beginning of the highest light.
[Footnote: The diagram on Pl. IV, No. 5 belongs to this passage; but
it must be noted that the text explains only the figure on the
right-hand side.]
FOURTH BOOK ON LIGHT AND SHADE.
On the shape of the cast shadows (188-191).
188.
The form of the shadow cast by any body of uniform density can never
be the same as that of the body producing it. [Footnote: Comp. the
drawing on PI. XXVIII, No. 5.]
189.
No cast shadow can produce the true image of the body which casts it
on a vertical plane unless the centre of the light is equally
distant from all the edges of that body.
190.
If a window _a b_ admits the sunlight into a room, the sunlight will
magnify the size of the window and diminish the shadow of a man in
such a way as that when the man makes that dim shadow of himself,
approach to that which defines the real size of the window, he will
see the shadows where they come into contact, dim and confused from
the strength of the light, shutting off and not allowing the solar
rays to pass; the effect of the shadow of the man cast by this
contact will be exactly that figured above.
[Footnote: It is scarcely possible to render the meaning of this
sentence with strict accuracy; mainly because the grammatical
construction is defective in the most important part--line 4. In the
very slight original sketch the shadow touches the upper arch of the
window and the correction, here given is perhaps not justified.]
191.
A shadow is never seen as of uniform depth on the surface which
intercepts it unless every portion of that surface is equidistant
from the luminous body. This is proved by the 7th which says:--The
shadow will appear lighter or stronger as it is surrounded by a
darker or a lighter background. And by the 8th of this:--The
background will be in parts darker or lighter, in proportion as it
is farther from or nearer to the luminous body. And:--Of various
spots equally distant from the luminous body those will always be in
the highest light on which the rays fall at the smallest angles: The
outline of the shadow as it falls on inequalities in the surface
will be seen with all the contours similar to those of the body that
casts it, if the eye is placed just where the centre of the light
was.
The shadow will look darkest where it is farthest from the body that
casts it. The shadow _c d_, cast by the body in shadow _a b_ which
is equally distant in all parts, is not of equal depth because it is
seen on a back ground of varying brightness. [Footnote: Compare the
three diagrams on Pl. VI, no 1 which, in the original accompany this
section.]
On the outlines of cast shadows (192-195).
192.
The edges of a derived shadow will be most distinct where it is cast
nearest to the primary shadow.
193.
As the derived shadow gets more distant from the primary shadow, the
more the cast shadow differs from the primary shadow.
194.
OF SHADOWS WHICH NEVER COME TO AN END.
The greater the difference between a light and the body lighted by
it, the light being the larger, the more vague will be the outlines
of the shadow of that object.
The derived shadow will be most confused towards the edges of its
interception by a plane, where it is remotest from the body casting
it.
195.
What is the cause which makes the outlines of the shadow vague and
confused?
Whether it is possible to give clear and definite outlines to the
edges of shadows.
On the relative size of shadows (196. 197).
196.
THE BODY WHICH IS NEAREST TO THE LIGHT CASTS THE LARGEST SHADOW, AND
WHY?
If an object placed in front of a single light is very close to it
you will see that it casts a very large shadow on the opposite wall,
and the farther you remove the object from the light the smaller
will the image of the shadow become.
WHY A SHADOW LARGER THAN THE BODY THAT PRODUCES IT BECOMES OUT OF
PROPORTION.
The disproportion of a shadow which is larger than the body
producing it, results from the light being smaller than the body, so
that it cannot be at an equal distance from the edges of the body
[Footnote 11: H. LUDWIG in his edition of the old copies, in the
Vatican library--in which this chapter is included under Nos. 612,
613 and 614 alters this passage as follows: _quella parte ch'e piu
propinqua piu cresce che le distanti_, although the Vatican copy
agrees with the original MS. in having _distante_ in the former and
_propinque_ in the latter place. This supposed amendment seems to me
to invert the facts. Supposing for instance, that on Pl. XXXI No. 3.
_f_ is the spot where the light is that illuminates the figure there
represented, and that the line behind the figure represents a wall
on which the shadow of the figure is thrown. It is evident, that in
that case the nearest portion, in this case the under part of the
thigh, is very little magnified in the shadow, and the remoter
parts, for instance the head, are more magnified.]; and the portions
which are most remote are made larger than the nearer portions for
this reason [Footnote 12: See Footnote 11].
WHY A SHADOW WHICH IS LARGER THAN THE BODY CAUSING IT HAS
ILL-DEFINED OUTLINES.
The atmosphere which surrounds a light is almost like light itself
for brightness and colour; but the farther off it is the more it
loses this resemblance. An object which casts a large shadow and is
near to the light, is illuminated both by that light by the luminous
atmosphere; hence this diffused light gives the shadow ill-defined
edges.
197.
A luminous body which is long and narrow in shape gives more
confused outlines to the derived shadow than a spherical light, and
this contradicts the proposition next following: A shadow will have
its outlines more clearly defined in proportion as it is nearer to
the primary shadow or, I should say, the body casting the shadow;
[Footnote 14: The lettering refers to the lower diagram, Pl. XLI,
No. 5.] the cause of this is the elongated form of the luminous body
_a c_, &c. [Footnote 16: See Footnote 14].
Effects on cast shadows by the tone of the back ground.
198.
OF MODIFIED SHADOWS.
Modified shadows are those which are cast on light walls or other
illuminated objects.
A shadow looks darkest against a light background. The outlines of a
derived shadow will be clearer as they are nearer to the primary
shadow. A derived shadow will be most defined in shape where it is
intercepted, where the plane intercepts it at the most equal angle.
Those parts of a shadow will appear darkest which have darker
objects opposite to them. And they will appear less dark when they
face lighter objects. And the larger the light object opposite, the
more the shadow will be lightened.
And the larger the surface of the dark object the more it will
darken the derived shadow where it is intercepted.
A disputed proposition.
199.
OF THE OPINION OF SOME THAT A TRIANGLE CASTS NO SHADOW ON A PLANE
SURFACE.
Certain mathematicians have maintained that a triangle, of which the
base is turned to the light, casts no shadow on a plane; and this
they prove by saying [5] that no spherical body smaller than the
light can reach the middle with the shadow. The lines of radiant
light are straight lines [6]; therefore, suppose the light to be _g
h_ and the triangle _l m n_, and let the plane be _i k_; they say
the light _g_ falls on the side of the triangle _l n_, and the
portion of the plane _i q_. Thus again _h_ like _g_ falls on the
side _l m_, and then on _m n_ and the plane _p k_; and if the whole
plane thus faces the lights _g h_, it is evident that the triangle
has no shadow; and that which has no shadow can cast none. This, in
this case appears credible. But if the triangle _n p g_ were not
illuminated by the two lights _g_ and _h_, but by _i p_ and _g_ and
_k_ neither side is lighted by more than one single light: that is
_i p_ is invisible to _h g_ and _k_ will never be lighted by _g_;
hence _p q_ will be twice as light as the two visible portions that
are in shadow.
[Footnote: 5--6. This passage is so obscure that it would be rash to
offer an explanation. Several words seem to have been omitted.]
On the relative depth of cast shadows (200-202).
200.
A spot is most in the shade when a large number of darkened rays
fall upon it. The spot which receives the rays at the widest angle
and by darkened rays will be most in the dark; a will be twice as
dark as b, because it originates from twice as large a base at an
equal distance. A spot is most illuminated when a large number of
luminous rays fall upon it. d is the beginning of the shadow _d f_,
and tinges _c_ but _a_ little; _d e_ is half of the shadow _d f_ and
gives a deeper tone where it is cast at _b_ than at _f_. And the
whole shaded space _e_ gives its tone to the spot _a_. [Footnote:
The diagram here referred to is on Pl. XLI, No. 2.]
201.
_A n_ will be darker than _c r_ in proportion to the number of times
that _a b_ goes into _c d_.
202.
The shadow cast by an object on a plane will be smaller in
proportion as that object is lighted by feebler rays. Let _d e_ be
the object and _d c_ the plane surface; the number of times that _d
e_ will go into _f g_ gives the proportion of light at _f h_ to _d