Leonardo da Vinci may have had ADHD, leading professor says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/leonardo-da-vinci-adhd-health-mona-lisa-a8927641.html

Attention disorder ‘most scientifically plausible hypothesis’ for boundless creativity and unfinished masterpieces like ‘Mona Lisa’.

Leonardo da Vinci’s famously incomplete masterpiece could most logically be explained by the Renaissance polymath having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a leading UK researcher has said.

His most famous work, the Mona Lisa, is among the iconic pieces he left unfinished, and his tendency to flit between projects is suggestive of ADHD.

As well as his wide-ranging creativity and inability to complete tasks, historical accounts suggest Da Vinci was always restless and worked day and night, resting for only short naps, a study found.

“While impossible to make a post-mortem diagnosis for someone who lived 500 years ago, I am confident ADHD is the most convincing and scientifically plausible hypothesis to explain Leonardo’s difficulty in finishing his works,” said Professor Marco Catani, an expert in disorders like autism and ADHD at Kings College London, said

“Historical records show Leonardo spent excessive time planning projects but lacked perseverance,” he added. “ADHD could explain aspects of Leonardo’s temperament and his strange mercurial genius.”

Published in the journal Brain, Prof Catani’s research draws on historical accounts of Da Vinci’s work practices and behaviour to back his theory.

While most commonly recognised in childhood, the disorder is increasingly being diagnosed among adults, including university students and people with successful careers.

Da Vinci’s difficulties with sticking to tasks were pervasive from childhood.

Alongside reports of erratic behaviour and incomplete projects from fellow artists and patrons, including Pope Leo X, there is indirect evidence to suggest Leonardo’s brain was organised differently compared to average.

He was left-handed and likely to have been both dyslexic and possessed a dominance for language in the right-hand side of his brain, all of which are more common among people with ADHD.

As well as explaining his apparent chronic procrastination, ADHD could have been a factor in Da Vinci’s extraordinary creativity and achievements across the arts and sciences, Prof Catani believes.

Prof Catani said this should be seen as a prime example to challenge the “stigma” around the condition that persists today.

“There is a prevailing misconception ADHD is typical of misbehaving children with low intelligence, destined for a troubled life,” he added.

“I hope the case of Leonardo shows ADHD is not linked to low IQ or lack of creativity but rather the difficulty of capitalising on natural talents.”

Da Vinci died 500 years ago this month, and a series of celebrations are happening around the world to mark the anniversary.

History of Hellenistic astronomy, mathematics, and geography

I’m still re-reading William Cecil Dampier’s ‘A History of Science, and its Relations with Philosophy and Religion’ (1929). So far, I’ve been doing this slowly, but I have already finished reading the chapter about science in the ancient world. When I first read the book, I found this chapter to be one of the most interesting in the book. Therefore, I will include a number of quotes from it in this post. “Whatever be its value in philosophy, in science the Democritean atomic theory is nearer to the views now held than any of the systems which preceded or replaced it, and its virtual suppression under the destructive criticisms of Plato and Aristotle must, from the scientific standpoint, be counted a misfortune. Platonism in its various forms was left to represent Greek thought to later ages, a fact which was one of the reasons why the scientific spirit vanished from the earth for a thousand years. Plato was a great philosopher, but in the history of experimental science he must be counted a disaster. Between the times of Plato and Aristotle, about 367 B.C., Eudoxus of Cnidos did good work in astronomy, though his cosmogony was a relapse from the ideas of the Pythagoreans with their moving Earth. Eudoxus held that the Earth was the centre of all things, and that the Sun, Moon and planets revolve round it in concentric crystal spheres. This was the first serious attempt to explain the apparently irregular movement of those bodies. The system of Eudoxus led to the more elaborate schemes of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, whose cycles and epicycles satisfied astronomers till the time of Copernicus. In its day, the now discredited geocentric theory, which gave a quantitative explanation of the phenomena, was an immense advance over the ideas which preceded it. A false hypothesis, if it serves as a guide for further enquiry, may be more useful at the time than a truer one for which verifiable evidence is not yet at hand. The literary bent which has characterized modern studies of ancient times has directed attention chiefly to the ages when the poets and sculptors of Athens were putting forth their masterpieces. It would be unfair to say that the classical period of Greece produced no science. There was geometry before Euclid; the medicine of Hippocrates and the zoology of Aristotle were based on sound observation. Yet the philosophic outlook was metaphysical and not scientific; even the atomic theory of Democritus was speculative philosophy and not science. With the marches of Alexander the Great we reach a new epoch. He carried to the East that Greek culture which was already spreading westwards over the Mediterranean, and in return he brought Babylonia and Egypt into closer touch with Europe, while his staff collected vast stores of facts in geography and natural history. Thus began three centuries of Hellenism, from the death of Alexander in 323 to the establishment of the Roman Empire by Augustus in 31 B.C., centuries during which Greek culture, having passed its zenith in its original home, spread to other lands and dominated the known world. A form of the Greek language, the common speech, was understood “from Marseilles to India, from the Caspian to the Cataracts”, and the upper classes from Rome to Asia accepted Greek philosophy and the Greek outlook on life. Commerce became international, and thought was free as it was not to be again till modern days in some nations of the western world. The increased knowledge of the Earth led to more curiosity about natural things, and a more scientific attitude of mind. We are at once conscious of a more familiar atmosphere - indeed there is much resemblance to our own times, though there were then few machines and many slaves. A change in method appears. We pass from general philosophic systems and encyclopaedic surveys of knowledge to more modern specialization. Definite and limited problems are isolated from others and attacked singly, and real progress in natural knowledge is seen. Indeed, the change from the synthetic philosophies of Athens to the analytic science of Archimedes and the early Alexandrians is closely parallel to the change from the Scholasticism of late mediaeval writers to the modern science of Galileo and Newton. The Greek mathematicians and philosophers accepted implicitly the simple intuitional idea, in which the axioms of geometry are taken to be facts self-evident to the mind. But whatever view we may now take of its philosophic meaning, deductive geometry was especially suited to the Greek genius, and, unlike some other products of Greek thought, it marked a permanent step in the advance of knowledge, a step which never had to be retraced. Indeed, Greek geometry may well be considered to share with modern experimental science the highest place among the triumphs of the human intellect. The origins of the sciences of mechanics and hydrostatics are to be sought in the practical arts, rather than in the writings of the early Greek philosophers, but they were placed on a sound footing when observation was allied to the deductive methods learnt in geometry. The first known to have done this was Archimedes of Syracuse (287-212 B.C.), whose work, more than that of any other Greek, shows the true modern combination of mathematics with experimental enquiry; a combination in which definite and limited problems are attacked, and hypotheses are set forth only to have their logical consequences first deduced and then tested by observation or experiment. The idea of the relative densities of bodies, which, as we have seen, was unknown to Aristotle, was first formulated clearly by Archimedes, who, moreover, discovered the principle known by this name - that, when a body floats in a liquid, its weight is equal to the weight of liquid displaced, and, when it is immersed, its weight is diminished by that amount. It is said that King Hiero, having entrusted some gold to the artificers who were to make his crown, suspected them of alloying it with silver. He asked Archimedes to test this suspicion. While thinking over the problem, Archimedes noticed in his bath that he displaced water equal in volume to his own body, and saw at once that, for equal weights, the lighter alloy would displace more water than the heavier gold. This flash of insight revealed to Archimedes his principle, but he then proceeded to deduce it mathematically from his fundamental conception of a fluid as a substance that yields to any, even the smallest, shearing stress, that is, a force tending to cause one layer to slide over another. Archimedes also considered the theoretical principle of the lever, the practical use of which must be of immemorial antiquity and is illustrated in the sculptures of Assyria and Egypt two thousand years before the days of Archimedes. Nowadays we treat the law of the lever as a matter for experimental determination, and deduce other, more complicated, results from it. Nevertheless, the co-ordination of the law of the lever with ideas which then seemed simpler was a step in advance. Archimedes’ chief interest lay in pure geometry, and he regarded his discovery of the ratio of the volume of a cylinder to that of a sphere inscribed in it as his greatest achievement. He measured the circle by inscribing and circumscribing polygons, increasing the number of sides till the polygons nearly met on the circle. By this method of exhaustion he showed that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter was greater than 3*10/71 and less than 3*1/7. The mechanical contrivances for which he was famous - compound pulleys, hydraulic screws, burning mirrors - were considered by him as the recreations of a geometer at play. Archimedes was no mere compiler. Nearly all his writings are accounts of his own discoveries. It is a sign of the modernity of his outlook that the greatest man of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci, sought for copies of the works of Archimedes more eagerly than for those of any other Greek philosopher. And nearly indeed were his writings lost to the world. Apparently at one time the only survival was a manuscript, probably of the ninth or tenth century, which has long ago disappeared. But fortunately three copies were made, and are extant; and from these the printed editions have been taken. Archimedes, the first and greatest of physicists of the modern type in the ancient world, who helped with his engines of war to keep the Romans at bay for three years, was killed by a soldier after the storming of Syracuse in the year 212. His tomb was discovered and piously restored in 75 B.C. by Cicero, who was then Quaestor in Sicily. In the fourth century before Christ, geographical discovery made considerable progress. Hanno passed the Pillars of Hercules, and sailed down the west coast of Africa; Pytheas voyaged round Britain towards the polar seas, and also correlated the lunar phases with the tides; Alexander marched to India. It was known that the Earth was a sphere, and some idea of its true size began to be formed. This growth in knowledge was not favourable to the ideas of the counter-earth or central fire imagined by Philolaus, and those parts of Pythagorean astronomy were thenceforward discredited. By the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century before Christ the intellectual centre of the world had moved from Athens to Alexandria, the city founded in 332 by Alexander the Great. One of Alexander’s generals, Ptolemy (not the astronomer), founded there a Greek dynasty which became extinct on the death of Cleopatra in the year 30 B.C. Among those who made the schools of Alexandria illustrious in the reign of the first Ptolemy, 323 to 285, were the geometer Euclid and Herophilus the anatomist and physician. In the Greek civilization of Alexandria a new and more modern spirit appears, as in other Hellenistic lands. Instead of the complete intellectual systems in which the Athenian philosophers were pre-eminent, the men of Alexandria, following the lead of Aristarchus of Samos and Archimedes of Syracuse, undertook limited and special enquiries, and therefore made more definite scientific progress. About the middle of the third century, the famous Museum, or place dedicated to the Muses, was founded at Alexandria. The four departments of literature, mathematics, astronomy and medicine were in the nature of research institutes as well as schools, and the needs of them all were served by the largest library on the ancient world, containing some 400,000 volumes in rolls. One section of the library was destroyed by the Christian Bishop Theophilus about A.D. 390, and, after the Muslim conquest in the year 640, the Muhammadans, whether accidentally or deliberately is uncertain, destroyed what the Christians left. But for some centuries the Library of Alexandria was one of the wonders of the world, and its destruction was one of the greatest intellectual catastrophes in history. We have already considered the work of Euclid under the head of deductive geometry. He systematized the writings of older geometers and added many new theorems of his own. He also studied optics, realized that light travels in straight lines, and discovered the laws of reflection. The Alexandrian school of medicine was established chiefly by the work of two men, Herophilus and Erasistratus. The former, born at Chalcedon, flourished at Alexandria under Ptolemy I. He was the earliest distinguished human anatomist, and the greatest physician since the days of Hippocrates. His medicine was empirical and almost free from theoretical preconceptions. He gave a good description of the brain, of the nerves and of the eye, of the liver and other internal organs, of the arteries and veins; and he held that the seat of intelligence is the brain, and not the heart as maintained by Aristotle. Erasistratus, a younger contemporary of Herophilus, practised human dissections and made experiments on animals. He was keenly interested in physiology, and was the first to treat it as a separate subject. He added to the knowledge of the brain, of the nerves and of the circulatory system, holding that there are in the body and the brain special vessels for the blood and for the spirit which he identified with air. Taking over from Epicurus the tenets of the atomic theory, Erasistratus was opposed to medical mysticism, though he believed in nature acting as an external power, framing the human body for the ends it is to serve. Herophilus, Erasistratus and a third anatomist, Eudemus, made their century remarkable in the history of medicine. In the latter part of the third century B.C., another group of great men appears, younger contemporaries of Archimedes. Among them was Eratosthenes, born at Cyrene about 273 and died at Alexandria about 192. He was Librarian of the Museum, and the first great physical geographer. He held the Earth to be spheroidal and calculated its dimensions by estimating the latitudes and distances apart of Syene and Meroe, two places on nearly the same meridian. His result was 252,000 stades, equal to about 24,000 miles. These are surprisingly close approximations to the modern estimates of 24,800 and 93 million miles respectively. Eratosthenes argued from the similarity of the tides in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans that those oceans must be connected and the world of Europe-Asia-Africa an island, so that it should be possible to sail from Spain to India round the south of Africa. It was probably he who conjectured that the Atlantic might be divided by land running from north to south and inspired Seneca’s prophecy of the discovery of a new world. Posidonius later rejected this idea, and, underestimating the size of the Earth, said that a man sailing west for 70,000 stades would come to India. This statement gave Columbus confidence. A striking advance in mathematics was made at Alexandria in the latter half of the second century B.C. by Apollonius of Perga, who collected the knowledge of conic sections due to Euclid and his predecessors, and carried the subject much further by his own work. Apollonius showed that all conics could be considered as sections of one cone; he introduced the names parabola, ellipse and hyperbola; he treated the two branches of the hyperbola as a single curve, and thus made clear the analogies between the three kinds of section. He obtained a solution of the general equation of the second degree by means of conics, and determined the evolute of any conic. His treatment of the whole subject is purely geometrical. In the second century at Alexandria we meet again with Hipparchus, whose great work in astronomy has already been described. By this time Alexandria was losing its supremacy in Greek learning, which later was shared with Rome and Pergamos. Of uncertain date, somewhere between the first century B.C. and the third A.D., is Hero, a mathematician, physicist and inventor. He found algebraic solutions of equations of the first and second degree, and worked out many formulae for the mensuration of areas and volumes. He pointed out that the line of a reflected ray of light is the shortest possible path. But he is chiefly remembered for his mechanical contrivances, such as siphons, a thermoscope, the forcing air pump, and the earliest steam engine, in which the recoil of steam issuing from a jet is used to make an arm carrying the jet revolve about an axis, a forerunner of the jet-propelled aeroplane. The chief name which distinguishes later Graeco-Roman Alexandrian science is that of the astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, who must not be confused with the kings of Egypt of the same name. He taught and made observations at Alexandria between the years A.D. 127 and 151. His great work, later called by its contracted Arabic name of Almagest, is an encyclopaedia of astronomy, which was based on and expounded the work of Hipparchus, and remained the standard treatise till the days of Copernicus and Kepler."

Northwestern Memorial, Rush hospitals are among best in US – NBC Chicago

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/2-chicago-hospitals-named-to-list-of-best-hospitals-in-the-us-for-2025/3800114/

The two hospitals also tied for the No. 1 hospital in Illinois, according to U.S. News & World Report.

Two Chicago hospitals made U.S News & World Report's national list of 20 "Best Hospitals" for 2025-26, with a slew of other Chicago and suburban hospitals rounding out the list of best hospitals in the state.

Northwestern Medicine - Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Streeterville, and Rush University Medical Center on the Near West Side both made the annual report's latest "Honor Roll," which ranks the top 20 hospitals in the nation. According to editors, nearly 4,400 hospitals across the country were considered.

Hospitals were awarded honor roll status if they ranked in one or more of the 15 specialties that U.S. News evaluates, the report said, including cancer, heart surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic, gastroenterology and more. From there, hospitals earned points based on patient outcomes, patient experience, staffing, expert opinions and more.

According to a statement from Northwestern Medicine, this is the 14th consecutive year Northwestern Memorial has been named to the report's Best Hospital Honor Roll.

“Every day our physicians, nurses and staff demonstrate their commitment to better medicine, better outcomes and better patient care” Howard Chrisman, MD, president and chief executive officer, Northwestern Memorial HealthCare said in a statement. “We are proud to be recognized by U.S. News & World Report Best Hospital rankings as one of the top hospitals in the U.S.”

A press release from Rush said the hospital's Neurology and Neurosurgery program was ranked No. 5 in the country, as part of the report and that Rush's Neurology and Neurosurgery; Orthopedics and Ear, Nose and Throat were all ranked top in Illinois.

“Our continued success on the U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals rating — and other external rankings and ratings — speaks volumes about the dedication and clinical excellence exhibited by our entire team,” Dr. Omar Lateef, president and CEO of Rush University System for Health and Rush University Medical Center said in the release.

Northwestern Memorial and Rush also tied for the No. 1 hospital in Illinois. The University of Chicago Medical Center landed at No. 3 on the best hospitals in Illinois, followed by Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn and No. 4, and Endeavor Health Evanston Hospital at No. 5.

Chicago's Shirley Ryan AbilityLab also earned honors in the report, ranking as the No. 1 hospital for rehabilitation in the country.

In total, 504 hospitals ranked among the best in their regions, out of more than 4,000.

Here's the full list of the top 10 hospitals in Illinois according to the report:

Top 10 hospitals in Illinois

1. Northwestern Medicine-Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Rush University Medical Center (tie)
3. University of Chicago Medical Center - Chicago
4. Advocate Christ Medical Center - Oak Lawn
5. Endeavor Health Evanston Hospital - Evanston
6. Advocate Lutheran General Hospital - Park Ridge
7. Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital - Winfield
8. Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital - Lake Forest
9. Endeavor Health Edward Hospital - Warrenville
10. Northwestern Medicine-McHenry, Huntley, Woodstock Hospitals - McHenry

Here's the full list of 20 hospitals that made the "Best Hospitals Honor Roll, which are listed in alphabetical order:

Best Hospitals in the US - Honor Roll

- AdventHealth Orlando - Orlando, Florida
- Brigham and Women's Hospital - Boston, Massachusetts
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center - Los Angeles, California
- Cleveland Clinic - Cleveland, Ohio
- Hackensack University Medical Center at Hackensack Meridian Health - Hackensack, New Jersey
- Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania-Penn Presbyterian - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Houston Methodist Hospital - Houston, Texas
- Johns Hopkins Hospital - Baltimore, Maryland
- Massachusetts General Hospital - Boston, Massachusetts
- Mayo Clinic-Arizona- Phoenix, Arizona
- Mayo Clinic-Rochester - Rochester, Minnesota,
- Mount Sinai Hospital - New York City, New York
- New York-Presbyterian Hospital-Columbia and Cornell - New York City, New York
- Northwestern Medicine-Northwestern Memorial Hospital - Chicago, Illinois
- NYU Langone Hospitals - New York City, New York
- Rush University Medical Center - Chicago, Illinois
- Stanford Health Care-Stanford Hospital - Palo Alto, California
- UCLA Medical Center - Los Angeles, California
- UCSF Health-UCSF Medical Center - San Francisco, California
- University of Michigan Health-Ann Arbor - Ann Arbor, Michigan

Now reading Time magazine Vol. 118 No. 10: What Makes Meryl Magic (September 7, 1981)…

Just finished watching Angel Heart (1987) and The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981)...

Just finished watching Urban Legend (1998) and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)...

Now listening to Takin' It To The Streets by The Doobie Brothers and Peter Cetera by Peter Cetera...

On Robson Street in Downtown Vancouver. Summer of 2018.

Robson Street is a major southeast-northwest thoroughfare in downtown and West End of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Its core commercial blocks from Burrard Street to Jervis were also known as Robsonstrasse. Its name honours John Robson, a major figure in British Columbia's entry into the Canadian Confederation, and Premier of the province from 1889 to 1892. Robson Street starts at BC Place Stadium near the north shore of False Creek, then runs northwest past Vancouver Library Square, Robson Square and the Vancouver Art Gallery, coming to an end at Lost Lagoon in Stanley Park.

As of 2006, the city of Vancouver overall had the fifth most expensive retail rental rates in the world, averaging US$135 per square foot per year, citywide. Robson Street tops Vancouver with its most expensive locations renting for up to US$200 per square foot per year. In 2006, both Robson Street and the Mink Mile on Bloor Street in Toronto were the 22nd most expensive streets in the world, with rents of $208 per square feet. In 2007, the Mink Mile and Robson slipped to 25th in the world with an average of $198 per square feet. The price of each continues to grow with Vancouver being Burberry's first Canadian location and Toronto's Yorkville neighbourhood (which is bounded on the south side by Bloor) now commanding rents of $300 per square foot.

In 1895, train tracks were laid down the street, supporting a concentration of shops and restaurants. From the early to middle-late 20th century, and especially after significant immigration from postwar Germany, the northwest end of Robson Street was known as a centre of German culture and commerce in Vancouver, earning the nickname Robsonstrasse, even among non-Germans (this name lives on in the Robsonstrasse Hotel on the street). At one time, the city had placed streetsigns reading "Robsonstrasse" though these were placed after the German presence in the area had largely vanished.

Robson Street was featured on an old edition of the Canadian Monopoly board as one of the two most expensive properties.

 

I am still reading the intriguing and informative volume about the devil by Paul Carus

Sacred Tree and Serpent, from an ancient Babylonian cylinder

I will continue to quote from 'Michelangelo: His Life, His Times, His Era' (1921) by Georg Brandes because I enjoyed reading this book and because Brandes also dedicated a number of pages to examining Leonardo da Vinci. I have somewhat of an interest in Leonardo because it's easy for me to understand him and his actions, and I have already acquired a few old books about him. "Michelangelo's whole nature made it impossible for him to see in Raphael anything but an imitator and plagiarist who owed him everything. Contempt and hostility pervaded whatever recognition of merit the younger artist may have elicited. Toward Leonardo Michelangelo can scarcely have felt disdain, but beyond doubt he did entertain a frank hatred of this rival. In versatility both artists were equally outstanding. Both were painters, sculptors, draftsmen, poets. Leonardo apparently also shone in music, but to restore the balance Michelangelo's gifts as an architect were more marked. Both were eminent engineers. Each reached the summit in painting and sculpture. Michelangelo had the good fortune to leave behind many more works than Leonardo, whose creations seemed to be ill-starred and whose genius, moreover, led him to dissipate his energies even more than did Michelangelo. But the main difference is that Michelangelo was content with mastery in the fine arts and notable stature as a poet, while Leonardo superimposed on the artist the thinker, scientist and inventor in the grand manner, his discoveries far outnumbering his works of art. Leonardo's mind was a perpetual ferment. He brooded, searched, probed, analyzed, investigated, dissected everything, even the pigments he used. Then he would collect himself and after the most painstaking preparation discharge his energy in "everlasting" masterpieces that were either destroyed by time or the heedlessness of man or that crumbled of their own accord. Even when he had created something enduring, his spirit persisted in regarding it as unfinished and continued to play with it. Yet the two great men, in the face of their diversity, have many traits in common, vast as may be the gulf between brusqueness and grace, intuition and research. In their art both held fundamentally aloof from orthodox Christianity; both were fond of omitting haloes and all the other ecclesiastic paraphernalia. They shared a delight in studying the human body. When Leonardo represented clothed figures, he first drew their nude outlines, as did Raphael after him - witness Leonardo's drawings for the Adoration of the Kings and the Last Supper. Both showed little concern for contemporary dress, in the representation of which most Florentine painters delighted. When commissions dealt with biblical themes, Michelangelo was drawn to the Old Testament, which he unfolded before us all the way from the majesty of the Creation to the genre paintings of the Ancestors of Christ. Leonardo, on the other hand, turned to the New Testament, when appropriate, though he carefully avoided the Passion and one can scarcely envision him painting a Crucifixion. Under his brush the Last Supper becomes a great love feast and the Madonna and child a pure idyll. Both have a definite affinity for antiquity. But while this was all-encompassing with Michelangelo, setting the whole tone of his art, it was of a lesser significance to Leonardo. His architectural designs show a certain interest in the ancient column orders, which he was fond of combining with Byzantine domes. He derived his figure arrangements from ancient art as well. Oddly enough, we find him complaining on one occasion that he was unable to equal the symmetry of the ancients. Like other masters of the Renaissance, Leonardo, in his architectural endeavors, was influenced by Vitruvius, whom he often cites. In his theories of proportion he proceeded from the principles of the ancient Greek sculptors. In his representations of rearing horses he was inspired by the equine figures on ancient gems - his biting war horses in The Battle of Anghiari are reminiscent in attitude of an ancient cameo showing the fall of Phaethon. Throughout his work one finds small hints of antiquity. One of the figures in the Adoration of the Kings reminds of Praxiteles' Faun, another of a bronze Narcissus in Naples. The hermaphroditic features in not a few of Leonardo's pictures echo the preference, at one period of antiquity, for blending masculine and feminine traits in the figure of Bacchus, to say nothing of Hermaphroditus proper. Leonardo's St. John, in the Louvre, seems indeed of indeterminate sex, as do so many of the youthful male figures Leonardo was fond of drawing. Among their many resemblances, the two titans share a deficiency in education by the standards of their time, in that neither learned Latin in youth. Michelangelo, throughout his life, was preoccupied with so many things that he never found the time to make up for this lack. Leonardo, no less ambitious and more given to study, made an effort in the fourth decade of his life to learn Latin and apparently achieved a certain fluency, since he frequently gives Latin quotations. But it did not come easy, as seen from the word lists he made to aid his memory. Different as were these two incompatible men, they shared a propensity for pursuing vast schemes. We know that Michelangelo flirted with the idea of shaping into human form a huge rock that lay between Carrara and the sea, to serve mariners along the Riviera as a lighthouse. Leonardo, as an architect, was given to similar dreams. He wished to erect a royal tomb, to consist of a man-made mountain measuring two thousand feet across the base, surmounted by a circular temple, the floor of which would have lain at the height of the spires of the Cologne cathedral. The interior was to have been as wide as the nave of old St. Peter's in Rome. Leonardo's architectural plans show a tendency, foreign to Michelangelo, for harnessing mechanical forces to the purposes of beauty. Since Aristotile da Fioravantio, a Bolognese engineer who had lived and worked in Moscow, had moved a tower without damage, Leonardo proposed to the government of Florence a plan for lifting the Baptistry by mechanical power and installing it in an elevated position, with steps leading up to it. The Signoria was cautious enough not to essay such a scheme. In sharp contrast to Michelangelo, Leonardo loved to dwell on the representation of feminine grace. Yet the attitude of both men toward women is not dissimilar. No woman is mentioned by name in any of Leonardo's manuscripts, with only two exceptions: a model, and an aged housekeeper. History tells of not a single liaison involving Leonardo with a woman; and the same thing is true of Michelangelo. He eschewed contemporary fashion, hair dress, foot gear. The toga seemed to him the ideal costume for men. But in contrast to Michelangelo, he delved deeply into the art of portraiture. We possess not a single likeness from Michelangelo's hand. His bronze statue of Julius II was soon melted down, or it was done over Julius' tomb. The drawing of Cavalieri, the only other portrait Michelangelo is known to have made, is lost. We know, however, that he regarded portraiture as a low form of art. On the other hand, nothing has so memorably impressed Leonardo's stature upon posterity as the marvelous portraits he and his disciples have left us especially that wonder of wonders, the Mona Lisa. One has only to regard Raphael's artless pen-and-ink copy of it to sense Leonardo's profound grasp of womanhood. Perhaps he found in woman some part of the mysterious power that dwelt within his own soul. Such is Leonardo, ever and always mysterious, effortless, yet without a trace of mysticism."

I'm still reading 'The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil' (1900) by Paul Carus. This book too has plenty of interesting information, such as the following. "The Old Testament contains many noble ideas and great truths; indeed it is a most remarkable collection of religious books, than which there is none more venerable in the literature of the world. Yet there are tares among the wheat, and many lamentable errors were, even by some of the leaders of the old Israelites, regarded as essential parts of their religion. The writers of the Bible not only made God responsible for, and accessory to, the crimes which their own people committed, e.g., theft (Exodus xi.), and murder and rape (Numbers xxxi. 17-18); but they cherished also the same superstitions that were commonly in vogue among savages. Thus the command. So the temptation of Abraham, the slaughter of the first-born in Egypt, the brimstone and fire rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the evil spirit which came upon Saul, the pestilence to punish David - all these things are expressly said to have come from God. Even the perverse spirit which made the Egyptians err (Isaiah xix. 14), the lying spirit which was in the mouths of the prophets of Ahab (1 Kings xxii. 23; see also 2 Chron. xviii. 20-22), ignorance and indifference (Isaiah xxix. 10), are directly attributed to acts of God. The prophet Zechariah speaks of Satan as an angel whose office it is to accuse and to demand the punishment of the wicked. In the Book of Job, where the most poetical and grandest picture of the Evil One is found, Satan appears as a malicious servant of God, who enjoys performing the functions of a tempter, torturer, and avenger. He accuses unjustly, like a State's attorney who prosecutes from a mere habit of prosecution, and delights in convicting even the innocent, while God's justice and goodness are not called in question. It is noteworthy that Satan, in the canonical books of the Old Testament, is an adversary of man, but not of God; he is a subject of God and God's faithful servant. And why was Christ a better Saviour than the gods and heroes of Greece? Simply because he was human and realistic, not mythological and symbolical; he was a sufferer and a man - the son of man, and not a slayer, not a conqueror, not a hero of the ferocious type, ruthless and bloodstained; he fulfilled the moral ideal which had been set up by Plato, who, perhaps under the impression of Aeschylus's conception of the tragic fate of Prometheus, says of the perfect man who would rather be than appear just: "They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound'; will have his eyes burnt out; and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be hung up at the pale." Alluding to Plato, Apollonius, a Christian martyr, declares: "One of the Greek Philosophers said: The just man shall be tortured, he shall be spat upon, and last of all he shall be crucified. Just as the Athenians passed an unjust sentence of death, and charged him falsely, because they yielded to the mob, so also our Saviour was at last sentenced to death by the lawless." The old Greek saviours simply changed names and became Christian saints, or at least contributed important features to the legends of their lives. Christianity is a religion of peace, but the Western nations are warlike, and at the very beginning of the Christian era the need was felt to have the spirit of belligerency consecrated by religious sentiment and represented in struggling saints and angels. There can scarcely be any doubt that the original doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth was an ethics of peace; not only peacefulness and gentleness of mind in general, but peace at any price, and a non-resistance to evil. The warlike spirit among later Christians and the worship of belligerent archangels and saints were introduced into the writings of the early Church from pagan sources and the importance of this phase of Christianity grew with its expanse among the energetic races of the North. The Teutonic nations, the Norsemen, the Germans, the Anglo-Saxons and their kin, whose conversion is the greatest conquest Christianity ever made, proved no less belligerent than the Greek and Roman, but they were their superiors in strength, in generosity, in fairness toward their enemies, and in purity of morals. The religion of the Teutons was in the main a religion of fighters, and we do not hesitate to say that they, more than any other people on earth, developed the ethics of struggle. War, strife, and competition, are frequently regarded as in themselves detestable and immoral, but the Teutons discovered that life means strife, and that therefore courage is the root of all virtue. Their highest ideal was not to shrink from the unavoidable, but to face it squarely and unflinchingly. Their chief god was the god of war, and their noblest consummation of life was death on the battlefield. They despised the coward who was afraid of wounds and death. They respected and even honored their enemies if they were but brave. They scorned deceit and falsity and would rather be honestly defeated than gain a victory by trickery. And this view did not remain a mere theory with them, but was practised in life. The Teutons were repeatedly defeated by the Romans, by Marius, Caesar, and others who were less scrupulous in their methods of fighting, but in the long run they remained victorious and built a Teutonic empire upon the debris of Rome. The idea of evil played an important part in the religion of the Teutons. Loki, the god of fire, the cunning mischief-maker among the Asas, is believed to have brought sin and evil into the world. In the younger Edda, Loki takes part in the creation of man, whom he endows with the senses, passions, and evil desires. Loki's children are (1) the Fenris wolf, (2) the Jormungander, i.e., the Midgard serpent, and (3) Hel, the queen of Nifelheim, the world of the dead. The worst deed which Loki accomplished was the death of Baldur, the god of light and purity. After that he was outlawed and resided no longer in Asgard. The most remarkable feature of Teutonic mythology is the conception of doomsday or Ragnarok (the twilight of the gods), boding a final destruction of the world, including all the gods. At present the powers of evil are fettered and subdued, but the time will come when they will be set loose. Loki, the Fenris wolf, the Midgard serpent, and Hel, with their army of frost giants and other evil beings, will approach; Heimdall, the watchman of the gods, will blow his horn, and the Asas prepare for battle. The combat on the field Vigrid will be internecine, for the Asas are to die while killing the monsters of wickedness whom they encounter, and the flames of Muspil will devour the wrecks of the universe. The world had a beginning, it therefore must come to an end; but when the world is destroyed a new heaven and a new earth will rise from the wreck of the old one, and the new world will be better than the old one. Leifthraser and his wife Lif (representing the desire for Life and potential Life) remained concealed during the catastrophe in Hodmimer's grove and were not harmed by the flames. They now become the parents of a new race that will inhabit the new abode, called Gimel (the German Himmel), and among them will be found Odhin, with his sons, Thor, Baldur, Fro, and all the other Asas. When Christianity spread over Northern Europe it came into contact with the Teutonic and Celtic nations, who added new ideas to its system and transformed several characteristic features of its world-view. Christianity to-day is essentially a Teutonic religion. The ethics of Christianity, which formerly was expressed in the sentence "Resist not evil," began, in agreement with the combative spirit of the Teuton race, more and more to emphasise the necessity of struggle."

A certain fact is that Final Fantasy XII is one of the video games that I play the most

A still from Final Fantasy XII (2006), directed by  Hiroyuki Ito & Hiroshi Minagawa

Since I recently finished playing Final Fantasy XII for the third time, I think that it's worth reviewing it and explaining why it's one of my favorite video games. The PlayStation 2 is the first home video game console that I bought, and Final Fantasy XII is one of the first video games that I acquired and played. This was over a decade ago. So, the fact that I completed the game for the third time recently isn't surprising. Final Fantasy X, which is one of the best PS2 games and also one of my favorite video games, was released in 2001. But Final Fantasy XII was released in 2006. The development of Final Fantasy X lasted for two years. The development of Final Fantasy XII lasted for five years, which was a very long game development period for that time. Many video game critics on the internet, of which there is a big number, like to praise the works of notable video game designers like Fumito Ueda or Hidetaka Miyazaki, who has become perhaps the most admired video game designer in the last decade or so. I like their video games too, but I think that my favorite designer would be Yasumi Matsuno, if I had to pick a favorite. I think that his fictional stories and design ideas are my favorite. He's responsible for not one but several engrossing and high-quality video games. The stories in the games on which he has worked are some of the most complex and sophisticated in all of gaming. One of the reasons why Final Fantasy Tactics (1997) is a great game is because it features a detailed and epic story written by Matsuno. So, in this video game, the protagonist Ramza Beoulve and his friends, who are normal people and mortals, come into conflict with not only other mortals and their schemes but also with beings of great power (the Lucavi demons) who were thought to be just a legend. I must say that story moments like when Cardinal Delacroix of the Glabados Church uses one of the Zodiac stones to transform into Cuchulainn, when Marach Galthena gets revived from death by the Scorpio auracite on the roof of a castle, or when Ramza confronts Confessor Zalmour Lucianada are very memorable. Similar story elements are fortunately also present in Final Fantasy XII. The heroes of the story have to battle not only against the judges of the Archadian Empire but also against the Occuria, who are actual gods. What Final Fantasy XII has that Final Fantasy Tactics doesn't is the ability for players to revisit the well-designed locations in the game. So, if you want to go to the game's typically beautiful 3D locations again you can do that in most cases. These locations are even more detailed than the locations in Final Fantasy X, and you have the freedom of rotating the camera. I already pointed out on my blog that The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (2017) is a game that features a big map and many beautiful 3D locations, but Final Fantasy XII offers this too with a world full of grand sights. Moreover, every location in Final Fantasy XII has its own music theme. Some of my favorite locations in the game are Rabanastre, Archades, Phon Coast, Necrohol of Nabudis, Nabreus Deadlands, Bhujerba, Lhusu Mines, Salikawood, Zertinan Caverns, Ridorana Cataract, and Stilshrine of Miriam. Final Fantasy XII is one of the most visually impressive video games for the PS2. One of the reasons for this is that the game was made when Square Enix was still in its heyday. Another reason for this is the involvement of Matsuno, who I suspect is a perfectionist and not only a great video game designer. The cutscenes are of a high quality. Another aspect that's worth praising is the English localization, which I think is superb. Would Final Fantasy XII have been an even more impressive game if Matsuno hadn't left development a year before the game's release. Perhaps. But I'm not complaining about the final product. I can't compare the original game to The Zodiac Age, which is a remaster that got released in 2017, because I haven't played it. I already gave my opinion about video game remakes and remasters in an earlier post. Since the original game is closer to Matsuno's vision, I don't even feel like purchasing The Zodiac Age and checking how good it is and how it compares to the original. I can simply say that The Zodiac Age probably "stinks", but I don't like to talk about something that I know little or nothing about. This is why, for example, I haven't said anything about the remake of Silent Hill 2 (2024). Since I haven't played it myself, I don't know how good it really is or if it has any positive aspects. However, I have posted a few reviews of this remake by people who have played it and who are passionate about the original game from 2001. The original is one of the greatest video games of all time, but it's not a particularly special game for me. I've played it two times already, but I didn't play it for the first time when I was a teenager. When I was a teenager, I didn't get to play video games. Perhaps this is a good thing in a way because all I had was a wish to play some PC and PlayStation games, but I didn't own a Nintendo console and Nintendo games. Many people did grow up owning a Nintendo console or another console, and now some of them are making videos on YouTube about how Nintendo games gave them unforgettable memories when they played these games as children and teenagers. Well, the demand is huge not only for new video games but also for retro video games. Some of them are brainy enough to disagree with Nintendo's detestable policies, but they still talk about Nintendo with reverence. This sickens me somewhat, and I'm glad that I didn't grow up playing Nintendo games. Therefore, I don't think that Nintendo is the greatest video game company that has ever existed or that will ever exist. Sure, I like Nintendo games from the past, but I won't talk about this company with reverence. When it comes to Matsuno, I am disappointed by the fact that Final Fantasy XII, which has received universal acclaim from video game critics, was his last great video game and that he didn't get to make more great games. Apparently, Final Fantasy XII was released several months after it could have been released in order to not take away sales from Tetsuya Nomura's Kingdom Hearts II, which is another great video game from an era full of great video games. The golden age of gaming lasted until the beginning of the eighth generation in 2012, but Matsuno's last great game got released in 2006. Well, at least he got to make several great games before burning out or not getting the opportunity to lead another big project the way he wanted.

Now that I'm done praising Final Fantasy XII, I will get back to the book 'Michelangelo: His Life, His Times, His Era' (1921) by Georg Brandes. I recently finished reading it. The author had to say the following in the book. "The picture we have so far been able to form of Michelangelo's temperament is quite incomplete. We have noted his zeal, his capacity for learning swiftly, his love of his family - even though those closest to him scarcely understood him - his vaulting ambition, his almost innate sense of self-assertion and, finally, the arrogance and predilection for taunting his teachers and fellows to which it gave rise. Yet the immense power that slumbered within him was offset by an equally conspicuous weakness. He was necessarily sensitive - in the meaning of receptivity to a wealth of sensory impressions - and this led to sudden attacks of anxiety and embitterment, leading in turn to ill-considered actions that demanded and usually found indulgence. The sculptors of the thirteenth century, who represented the Passion or the death of martyrs in the churches, conceived of suffering as a reflection of divine bliss. All pain was outshone by the gentleness and lovingkindness, the innocence and love here manifested. Christianity, familiar as an article of faith, was triumphant. The early fifteenth century brought a change in sentiment. The somber and tragic elements in Christianity asserted themselves in the representation of suffering, at the expense of faith triumphant. In Italy the theme of the Mother's reunion with her crucified son had originally attracted painters rather than sculptors. Giotto had projected his quiet inwardness, Giovanni Bellini his lofty dignity and grave sentiment into the Madonna's torment. Botticelli, finally, could scarcely outdo himself in expressing her despair. With him Mary falls in a dead faint, while the others present sob uncontrollably. Moving from such representations to the calm of Michelangelo's Pieta, we find our souls deeply touched by the quiet sublimity of overwhelming but muted sorrow that speaks without words and does with a minimum of gesture. This Madonna, composed despite her deep agony, is the noblest expression of an elementary sense that something incomprehensible has happened here, doing violence to nature, senseless in its outrageous horror. Whoever has immersed himself in Michelangelo's first quit relief, the Madonna of the Stairs, knows how austere and melancholy was his emotional cast. But it is not until we confront this wondrous work, the Pieta, that we fathom the full depths of his soul in its unique grandeur. At the age of twenty-four he had plumbed the abyss of sorrow in a single human soul. He had probed it in the soul of a mother who has lost her all, her most precious treasure on earth, the being she not only loved but encompassed with complete devotion. The son whom she had given life in mysterious fashion, whom she worshipped in obscure veneration - his dead body here rests upon her lap, his life wantonly destroyed. Youthfully shy and tender was the sentiment that rendered this lifeless male body so airy and sublime, so delicate and free of the dross of earthly life. And the Madonna herself is treated with the same tender awe. She is intentionally represented as young, scarcely older than her son; for in these mysterious reaches we are not subject to the laws of everyday life. In his old age Michelangelo offered a theologic explanation for this conspicuous youthfulness: the Virgin had never known the life of the senses, which ages and corrodes. Chaste as was her nature, she had kept young by a divine though humanly motivated miracle. The serenity that marks her features would appear supernatural but for the eloquent gesture of the left hand, which reveals that composure has been achieved only at the cost of inward struggle. She suffers as only a higher being suffers. The misfortune that has befallen her fails to disrupt the nobility of her features, does not cloud the purity of her brow, its height emphasized by the form and fall of her kerchief. Despite her desolation, her face remains harmonious, with its fine straight nose, the beautiful closed mouth, the firm strong chin, the inclination of the head - all underlined by the ruffled hem of the robe at her throat. As though enthroned she sits upon the flagstones of Golgatha, at the foot of the cross, shrouded in mourning weeds like the love that carefully enfolds the body on her lap. He lies stretched across her knee, resting in the folds of her cloak, supported by her right hand which reaches under his shoulder, almost reverently shielded with a corner of the cloak, as though the slack body must not be desecrated by any rude contact. Just as none of Michelangelo's Madonnas look straight at the proud or playing child, so the Mother of God in the Pieta does not direct her gaze to the face of her grown and lifeless son. Her eyes are downcast, lost in deep feelings of her own and even deeper thoughts. In the spring of 1501, probably in May, the artist was back home, after an absence of four years. He returned as one who, with a single masterpiece, had proved that at the age of twenty-six he could lay claim to being the foremost sculptor of his country and age, even though at the time a superman like Leonardo was still living and working. Michelangelo's mind was preoccupied with another matter - his encounter with the greatest artist of the age, Leonardo da Vinci, who had returned to Florence after an absence of seventeen years. Leonardo had arrived in the spring of 1501, when Michelangelo was still in Rome. In 1502, as military engineer in the service of Cesare Borgia, he had inspected the strongholds in the Romagna, returning in 1503. The story of his fame pervaded the city. Leonardo, accounted as handsome as he was versatile even as a youth, was now in his fifties, an impressive figure of a man. He dressed unorthodoxly though in exquisite taste, wore, in contrast to the long Florentine robes, a rose-colored cloak that came only to his knees, let his curly and well-tended beard grow down over his chest. Magnificent in appearance, he was an artist of rarest hue, a universal genius, a legend in his own time. His demeanor was courtly, his mastery undisputed, but both his character and circumstances had made him a stranger wherever he went. Under Ludovico Sforza, dubbed Il Moro, he had worked and trained disciples in Milan. His main lesson to them was that art had for its object the totality of the works of nature and man. In this respect he was sharply at odds with Michelangelo's highly personal and instinctive creed that only the human body was a worthy object of art. Leonardo insisted that the variety of things, living and dead, challenged the painter to reproduce the peculiar and the ugly as well as the beautiful and the graceful. In Leonardo's view the artist had to make his soul a mirror reflecting all things, doing justice to all things. Whoever mastered but one field was a poor artist (uno tristo maestro). One senses, in Leonardo's later exposition of his views in his Treatise on Painting, a covert polemic against Michelangelo's diametrically opposite approach. Michelangelo, who all his life maintained that sculpture rather than painting was his profession, insisted in his conversations with Vittoria Colonna, which have come down to us fairly accurately through Francisco de Hollanda, that the art that takes something away, that is to say sculpture, is superior to the art that adds something, to wit painting. These two titanic figures, separated by an age gap of twenty-three years, found it difficult to appreciate, one the other, as is not uncommon in contemporary geniuses of such different stripe, especially when circumstances place them in a state of rivalry. There can be little doubt, however, that Leonardo, whose urbanity and poise were far above envy and jealousy, would have met the rising young genius more than half way, had his willingness to pave the way to an understanding met a response. The fiery spirit that burned within Michelangelo made that impossible. Even outwardly he sensed the contrast he formed to the stately and exemplary figure Leonardo cut. He was ugly, or so he thought, his face disfigured by Torrigiano's blow, uncouth and awkward, indifferent to dress and appearance, inured to wield his strong hands in passionate combat with marble. All his life his arrogance, served by a sharp tongue, made him see only a rival in every genius, junior or senior, who crossed his path. A rival - in his eyes that meant an enemy, to be outshone. He hated Leonardo from the beginning, as ten years later he hated Raphael. His relationships to these two, however, were quite different. In Leonardo Michelangelo encountered the artist in his prime, one from whom he could not help but learn many things, perhaps unconsciously, even as he sought to surpass him. In Raphael Michelangelo, then himself in his prime, saw the aspiring beginner, his character even more alien than that of Leonardo, who zealously and airily appropriated for his own use all that Michelangelo had pioneered in art."

耳をすませば - スタジオジブリ｜STUDIO GHIBLI

https://www.ghibli.jp/works/mimi/

耳をすませば（1995）Whisper of the Heart

Original Story: Aoi Hiiragi
Producer/Screenplay/Storyboard: Hayao Miyazaki
Director: Yoshifumi Kondo
Producer: Toshio Suzuki
Music: Yuji Nomi
Theme Song: Yoko Honna
Voice Cast: Yoko Honna, Issei Takahashi, Takashi Tachibana, Shigeru Muroi, Shigeru Tsuyuguchi, Keiju Kobayashi

Running Time: Approximately 111 minutes

Distributor: Toho
Release Date: Saturday, July 15, 1995

 

Xie Kitchin As Penelope Boothby, Standing (1875) and Edith, Lorina And Alice Liddell In 'Open Your Mouth And Close Your Eyes' (1860) by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.

Extra Thorough Medical Examination (Percussion, Sticky Stethoscope, Eye Testing) 🩺 ASMR Medical RP

Extra thorough refers to really extending most of the triggers I use (percussion, sticky stethoscope, reflex testing, etc) so each one essentially has double the screentime it usually does. We've also got the fishbowl effect with the otoscope and I chose to do a 'follow my instructions' style test with the eye movement that turned out real nice, I think!

This video is indeed on the shorter side than what I usually do; I've been very sick for almost two weeks now and this was all I could handle. Fingers crossed for feeling better so we can get back to our long videos!

Welcome to Your Exam ~ 00:00 – 01:42
Percussing the Chest Wall ~ 01:42 – 04:09
Listening to Your Heart, Lungs & Abdomen ~ 04:09 – 13:09
Percussing the Abdomen ~ 13:09 – 15:11
Testing Your Reflexes ~ 15:11 – 19:29
Looking Inside Your Ears (Fishbowl Effect) ~ 19:29 – 24:40
Inspecting & Palpating the Eyes ~ 24:40 – 25:35
Follow My Instructions (Eye Movement) ~ 25:35 – 29:10
Taking a Look at Your Nose, Mouth, & Throat ~ 29:10 – 31:39
Reviewing Your Exam ~ 31:39 – 32:22
Wrapping up Your Examination ~ 32:22 - 33:58

Triggers include: soft speaking, whispering, pen writing, percussion, explaining, auscultation, guided breathing, sticky stethoscope, reflex testing, otoscope, fishbowl effect, inspection, palpation, titch of crinkly cling wrap sounds, follow my instructions, and eye movement testing.

Hope y'all enjoy, have a whale of a day! :)

Just finished watching Project A Part II (1987) and April Fool's Day (1986)...

Just finished watching Alligator (1980) and Dead Again (1991)...

Now listening to Lovelife by Lush and Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness by Smashing Pumpkins...

On Smithe Street in Downtown Vancouver. Autumn of 2018.

Smithe Street is a prominent street in Downtown Vancouver, British Columbia, running east-west through several key neighborhoods, including Yaletown, the Central Business District (CBD), and the Arts + Events District. It’s named after William Smithe, a former Premier of British Columbia, and is known for its blend of residential, commercial, and cultural significance.

Smithe Street cuts through Yaletown, a trendy, revitalized area that was once an industrial zone. Today, it’s a hub of modern luxury developments, upscale dining, and vibrant nightlife. Developments like One Pacific at 68 Smithe Street are part of Concord Pacific’s newest luxury projects, offering proximity to the Seawall, Roundhouse Community Centre, and Yaletown Canada Line Station. Further east, Smithe Street passes through the CBD, where office workers, food trucks, and high-end shopping on Robson and Alberni streets define the area. It’s a central connection point for SkyTrain routes, the West Coast Express, and the SeaBus to North Vancouver. The Arts + Events District area, intersecting Smithe Street, is rich with cultural landmarks and is walkable to neighborhoods like Gastown, Chinatown, and False Creek.

Properties like One Pacific and The Smithe highlight the street’s appeal for luxury living. These buildings offer modern amenities, stunning views, and easy access to parks, the Seawall, and public transit. Yaletown along Smithe Street is home to popular brunch spots like Chambar, Jam Cafe, and Cafe Medina, as well as The Dirty Apron, a culinary institution. The CBD section features Pacific Centre Mall and high-end boutiques. The street’s location provides quick access to Stanley Park, the West End, and Coal Harbour, making it ideal for outdoor enthusiasts. Gastown’s heritage charm and the Arts + Events District add a cultural layer with galleries and events.

Originally part of Vancouver’s industrial landscape, Yaletown (where Smithe Street is a key artery) has transformed into a model of livability. The mix of brick-and-beam heritage buildings with modern architecture reflects the city’s evolution, tied together by the iconic Seawall and waterfront parks. Smithe Street remains a dynamic part of Vancouver’s real estate market and lifestyle scene. Luxury developments continue to attract buyers, and its central location supports a bustling urban environment. Real estate platforms like REW.ca provide up-to-date listings and strata details for properties like One Pacific, reflecting ongoing interest in the area.