Was Leonardo da Vinci a gay pedophile?

Statue of Leonardo da Vinci

Stattue of Leonardo da Vinci outside the Uffizi Gallery, Florence

To include a fun biography of Leonardo da Vinci, my principal detective, I extensively  researched his sexuality for my $2.99 e-book, A Borgia Daughter Dies.

Bottom line: he was either bisexual or heterosexual. For a quick, fun read about the period and da Vinci’s life, you can get A Borgia Daughter Dies here: Purchase at Amazon ($2.99) .  The controversy over his sexuality is so fascinating that it forms the historical backdrop for my next book, tentatively titled Da Vinci Detects, available through Amazon and maryannphilip.com sometime this summer.

A quick summary of the controversy: the historians who say da Vinci was gay universally accuse him of pedophilia of the worst sort: the only male pointed to as  his sexual partner was eleven years old when he became da Vinci’s apprentice. (Da Vinci was 38.) This was not a story I wanted to believe, much less  tell. But  I wanted my book  to include a story, based on contemporaneous rumors, that Leonardo loved a widowed duchess who some think was the model for the Mona Lisa.  Without solid evidence he was bi or heterosexual, though,  I would have ignored his sexuality completely, to avoid labeling him a pedophile. (He had many young apprentices, including this eleven year old, none of whom ever accused him of anything inappropriate, as far as we know.)

Why is da Vinci portrayed as a homosexual pedophile, if the evidence shows he was either bisexual or heterosexual? Simplified answer: because, with three other men and a juvenile, he was anonymously accused and publicly arrested by the Night Office, the diabolical Florentine institution whose sole function was to persecute and prosecute alleged gays. All five were arrested without evidence (the conclusory accusation gave no facts, nor any explanation of how the accuser knew the intimate secrets of  five males).  All five were released for lack of evidence, a rare thing considering how the Night Office functioned. But the public arrest labeled them for life.

Contrast this with the evidence that he was heterosexual: an admission in his writings that he had sex (he uses the rude term) with at least one woman, a courtesan contemporareously rumored to be his mistress, who is recorded as a member of his household for a period of time.

About the Office of the Night:  during da Vinci’s lifetime, over half of Florentine men were accused of homosexuality; two thirds by the time they were forty. (These statistics come from a scholar who computerized the records of the Night Office and compared them with a thorough Florentine census from Leonardo’s time.)  The procedures of the Night Office–perfectly normal at the time–included at least twelve violations of current American constitutional norms. Among the most basic: they investigated people after they arrested them, and sometimes resorted to torture.

More facts:  Da Vinci was undoubtedly close to the eleven year old, who is a character in both my books.  The question historians debate is whether the child was his “boy toy” or his adopted son.  Abundant circumstancial evidence, as I see it, points to the boy as an adopted child.

And finally: the first man to accuse da Vinci of abusing this boy was almost assuredly a pedophile himself, with obvious ulterior motives for his accusation, made long after da Vinci died.  Yet because his accuser belongs to the next generation of painters, art historians have tended to accept his accusation, though  he never knew da Vinci or anyone who did. (They seem to view a few decades difference as nothing. I am a lawyer and ex-litigator, When someone is accused of a crime like pedophilia, I want  to see admissions by the accused or testimony from a victim or witnesses. In da Vinci’s case, none exists that I have found.)

After I bring out Da Vinci Detects, I will do a podcast that discusses the controversy surrounding his sexuality  and incudes some interesting pornography, some of which da Vinci drew and some he didn’t.  Look for it this summer at maryannphilip.com.

Given that he is accused of  pedophilia–universally a crime even today–shouldn’t we give da Vinci the benefit of the doubt?



    • says

      As far as I know, pederast is just a more polite way of saying pedophile. If you want to explain the distinction you see, feel free. But I am not going to allow this site to deteriorate into advocacy for pedophilia. Because–as I have made clear–I do not approve of pedophilia.

  1. Tristan says

    My repies (two of them) to your contention have magically disappeared Maryann… Given the tenor of this conversation and the obvious in denial status of its non-homosexual posters, I’ll opt out. Those two insightful comments I left had been sitting there unapproved for easily two weeks .. but “Ian” got his comment in didn’t he? I don’t care to discuss it further. It’s obvious you’d prefer to ignore the obvious with respect to Leonardo’s sexuality which is, of course, your right. You’d hardly be the first. Just keep the hetero myth going… should you receive this reply feel free to post it. If and when I see it posted under my name I’ll recompose that which has been eradicated.


    • says


      One of your posts was name-calling (ie, calling me names) and I will not approve such posts. If you have anything substantive to say, go ahead and I will approve it. But please refrain from name-calling. I don’t know anything about substantive posts that magically disappeared. I do see another post that complained that I didnt’ approve your comments. I do not check the site every day. Be patient.

      • Tristan says

        I have nothing further to say to you Maryann other than the observation I’ve come to that bespeaks this site as a place where you can moderate the affirmation of your own opinion and opt not to post anything that disagrees with “Maryann Philip” whomever she may be. Have a good time (you too Ian) convincing yourselves Leonardo da Vinci was not a pederast. You’re preaching to the choir here Maryann. A pederast.. just so you know… is a male who likes boys who are (given the country about which one speaks) are “underage” to have sex but developed sexually. A pedophile is someone who lusts after prepubescent boys. I’ve NEVER heard of anyone attributing that quality to Leonardo until I found this site. So, you see, there IS a vast difference. Perhaps you’d care to educate yourself further before you say things like “as far as I know…” Perhaps it would be better if you found out first. For that’s what Leonardo was, a pederast. Loads of heterosexual men are too when it comes to sexually developed under-aged girls, but in this biased society that is far less frowned on than male-on-male activity. High time the heterosexual males among us (and the women who follow their foolish logic) were put out of the societal sexual norm and pederasty was not considered anything akin to pedophilia be the subject two males, two females, or two members of the opposite sex. It’s abhorrent. I would have thought you’d have known the difference between the two considering you want to present yourself as so well-informed. But, naturally, in this you’re not. Why am I not surprised?

        • says

          Tristan what you are referring to is also called hebephilia and it is NOT what Leonardo is accused of. Salai was eleven years old when he joined Leonardo as an apprentice/student. (One source says ten. I have never seen a source claiming he was any older.) That is pedophilia.

          Granted, the pedophile/hebephile who was the first to accuse da Vinci (and never knew da Vinci or Salai or anyone who did because he was born several decades after both of them died) intimated in what was admittedly a fictional account promoting pedophlia/hebephilia, that da Vinci waited until Salai was 14 to have sex with him. I don’t call that pedophilia. I call that incest. Because da Vinci was Salai’s teacher, his mentor and his host (ie, Salai lived in his home) for three years before he supposedly sexually abused him. It is a reprehensible accusation and there ought to be evidence of it before people accept it. There isn’t.

    • says

      Tristan, I have not looked at my website in some time; that is why I have not approved your comments. Right now I can’t even read them. I literally can’t open them. So I am sending you a response and hoping it will let me read what you wrote.

  2. Tristan says

    Again, You’re trying very hard to “dehomosexualize” da Vinci. It did not carry the foolish negative absolutist connotation it did in Renaissance Italy that it does in 21st century America. And would you please point me toward the “documented” instance of a relationship da Vinci purportedly had with a woman? Oh. I’m not a lawyer (just so you know).

    • says

      Your comment is offensive. I am fine with da Vinci being gay. I wholly support gay marriage and gay adoption, and have lots of gay friends.

      Understand: that is not what historians accuse da Vinci of. The ONLY person whom they ever identify as his sexual partner was that 11 year old. And essentially that is because a pedophile with ulterior motives who never knew da Vinci or the 11 year old or anyone who did accused da Vinci years after he died, but in the century after he died. Because other than the anonymous accusation made against him when he was 26–which was also made against over half the men in Florence–there is nothing from his lifetime suggesting he was gay or a pedophile. And there is evidence suggesting he wasn’t.

      I could turn this inquiry around and ask you: why are you so determined to make him into a pedophile? Here’s the accusation: he allegedly took an 11 year old boy into his home, as his apprentice and student, and then fucked him for years and years. NO ADULT MALE has ever been identified as da Vinci’s potential partner. ANYONE who says da Vinci was gay who knows anything about the historical record is accusing him of being a pedophile of the worst kind.

      If you want an example of a gay great artist, choose Michelangelo. There is ample evidence he was gay, and had an adult male partner. Not so da Vinci.

      I am NOT homophobic but yes, I am pedophiliphobic. I am a mother and I would be fine if my adult son announced he was gay. I would openly and happily embrace him and his partner. But if one of his teachers had been fucking him when he was 11, I would have hit the roof.

      As you may be aware, attitudes towards pedophilia were different back then, because in the Renaissance, intellectuals were in love with all things Greek. Though pedophilia could get you burned at the stake, boys were regarded as woman substitutes and men who loved boys were assumed to be bisexual people with very bad habits. The assumption was they would get over them, marry a woman, and father a family. A man who loved another adult man, the “powers that be” did not even begin to comprehend (or said they didn’t, if they wanted to get along in that culture.)

      • Ian says

        I’m going to have to agree with Maryann on this one. See also Leonardo’s disapproving comments of same-sex relations in the book ‘Leonardos Notebooks’. The section of proverbs/sayings near the end entitled “lewdness” indicates he did not look favorably on such habits.

        Maryann is right about Michelangelo (which does not detract from his genius as an artist).

        One thing for sure is that Raphael certainly was a ladies man!

        • says

          Agree with Ian. I have read Leonardo’s writings extensively, and frankly, I was (partly) looking for what lawyers call “admissions” on this point, ie, references indicating he was homosexual. Leonardo’s biographers have combed his writings, look for the same thing. He would have been appalled, because he was very, very bitter about the anonymous accusation that ruined his reputation in Florence–meaning he was deeply closeted, even assuming he was homosexual.

          His biographers have come up with nothing, and neither have I.

          Thousands of pages of writing, and nothing I could see, indicating he was a homosexual. Contrast Michelangelo–admissions all over the place.

          What I did see in da Vinci’s writings–in addition to what Ian points out here, which I was not aware of–is a number of references where da Vinci referred to homosexuality as “unnatural,” which was the dominant attitude at the time. (Dante put homosexuals in the 7th circle of Hell called, “Crimes against Nature,” which included murderers, thieves and suicides.)

          And yep, as Ian says, Raphael was definitely a ladies man! He is going to seduce my young female protagonist in my next book. And Salai, who was likely da Vinci’s adopted son rather than his “boy toy,” is going to be bitter about how he has been stereotyped by those who knew of da Vinci’s (wrongful, baseless) arrest, and assumed the worst.

      • says

        PS This blog has never gotten much in the way of comments except “spam” which is why I don’t pay much attention to it. But my previous comment was just followed by an inappropriate one from a member of the public, addressed personally to Tristan and about his personal sexuality.

        I have not and will not approve any comment along those lines. This is a discussion of the sexuality of a historical figure and the sexuality of the discussion participants is immaterial. I did feel I had to defend myself against the charge of homophobia. I plead guilty to pedophilaphobia, but not homophobia.

  3. Tristan says

    When he was twenty-four years old, Leonardo was arrested, along with several young companions, on the charge of sodomy. No witnesses appeared against them and eventually the charges were dropped. It must be said that often anonymous charges like this were brought against people just for a nuisance. Renaissance Florentines didn’t make the distinctions we make about sexuality today and apparently it was common for young men to get into sexual relationships; in fact, the word “Florenzer” was German slang for “homosexual”. Leonardo had no relationships with women, never married, had no children, and raised many young protégés, including one nicknamed “Salai” which means “offspring of Satan”, Salai stole things, broke things, lied, and was generally a, well, devil; if he were a mere student or servant he would have been fired. It’s not hard to see how this imp would be attractive to Leonardo. He stayed with Leonardo for over twenty years, and appears many times in Leonardo’s sketchbooks. Why is it so disturbing to you to admit the obvious fact that Leonardo was a homosexual? Many other young lads were hired to be in his company as well. Fortunately, there was not the Oprah Winfrey’esque attitude toward men and post-pubescent boys which, unfortunately pervades this society to such a degree today.

    • says

      Look I’m a lawyer by training and I look at it as a lawyer does. And there is no evidence in the technical sense that Leonardo was a homosexual, much less a pedophile, much less the worst kind of pedophile: someone who would take an 11 year old into his home as his student, then sexually abuse him.

      Neither Salai nor his family every accused Leonardo of anything sexual, nor for that matter did any of Leonardo’s many apprentices. Even though he had numerous young male apprentices, there is NOTHING in writing from Leonardo’s lifetime accusing him of pedophilia, and nothing from his lifetime accusing him of homosexuality except the anonymous accusation against 5 different males that was dismissed for lack of evidence when he was 26 years old. His first accuser, born long after his death-, was an undoubted pedophile who had obvious ulterior motives for the accusation. Later art historians picked this up uncritically. They should not have done so.

      You are wrong about a couple of things. Leonardo did have a documented relationship with at least one woman, a courtesan, and his notebooks contain an admission that he had sex with her. He also sketched many beautiful women; hairstyles indicate that one or more of them were prostitutes. So this was not a man who lived without any association with women. He was just very circumspect about it.

      Bear in mind also, that during Leonardo’s lifetime over 50% of Florentine men were formally accused of homosexuality before the Night Office. Anyone who lived to age 50 had an even higher chance–I forget the exact number but it is something like 60-65%. And the year Leonardo was arrested is the year when the city convicted more people than any other year in the roughly 70 year old history of the Night Office. The procedures of the Night Office violated so many modern due process standards that any data coming out of the office is meaningless.

      Leonardo was not convicted, which is remarkable once you understand how the Night Office worked. From a modern legal perspective, though, the procedural defects mean that convictions don’t prove anything, even when they occurred.

      What historians debate about Salai and the other young man who was important in Leonardo’s life, Francesco Melzi (nicknamed “Cecco”) is whether they were his “boy toys” or his adopted sons. The evidence actually is much more consistent with the idea that they were adopted sons. No one talks about Cecco much any more because they actually found the adoption papers on him. He referred to Leonardo as “father” in a letter to Leonardo’s relatives after his death. At that point Cecco returned to Italy, married and had a huge number of children. (Salai had already returned to Italy and taken over Leonardo’s properties in Milan, which he inherited.) As to Salai: if you are a pedophile, do you keep an 11 year old around for 25 years? Do you rent your real estate to the child’s family? The three of them (Leonardo, Salai and Cecco) lived for awhile with Cecco’s family, which was wealthy, and very proud that Leonardo had taken their son under his wing. (Cecco’s birth family was not giving up any parental rights in allowing Leonardo to “adopt” their son. Leonardo was more like a godfather.)

      It makes sense to me that Leonardo wanted sons without the bother of a wife or babies. Myself, I don’t understand why people are so determined to label Leonardo a homosexual pedophile, based on no evidence. It is an ugly accusation, criminal in any era. There ought to be evidence if people are going to believe it.

  4. Ian says


    Thank you for this intriguing article. I am very interested in this controversial aspect of Da Vinci’s life. I had a few specific questions regarding one paragraph since I had not heard about this before and cannot find any information about it from other sources apart from this blog:

    “Contrast this with the evidence that he was heterosexual: an admission in his writings that he had sex (he uses the rude term) with at least one woman, a courtesan contemporareously rumored to be his mistress, who is recorded as a member of his household for a period of time.”

    What source is this from? His notebooks or personal writings or elsewhere?

    Thank you!

    • says

      Thank you Ian! Watch for my next book which agaom jas da Vinci as my principle detective and deals extensively with the Office of the Night and the way homosexuals and heterosexuals alike were misused by it, in ways that are unconstitutional (because unfair) under current American standards. I am finalizing it now–hopefully it will be out in early July.

      The source of the above statement is the best bio I have found on da Vinci, by Charles Nicholl, at p. 442. Nicholl thinks da Vinci was a pedophile and made the best case for it he could (a very poor case in my mind) but at least he was honest about the evidence on the other side. Many of his predecessor biographers were not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *