Although it is a work of imagination, it seems to me to make great
efforts at verisimilitude in dress and facial features. If you compare
it with other alleged "portraits" you will see what I mean.
It also (to my mind) displays an artistic quality lacking from other
such "portraits".
But Karen's point is well taken.
Mike Deakin
Karen Dee Michalowicz wrote:
>
> St. Andrews has a site for mathematics history. However, we must be very,
> very careful about pictures of mathematicians. For example, often we see
> Hypatia pictured as a very light skinned, European looking woman. Who knows
> what Hypatia really looked like. I suspect closer to those who live on the
> shores of the Mediterranean today. But, I don't know. I try to use
> engravings, for example, Tartaglia in his book. Photos would only be
> available for those in the l9th and 20th centuries. Of course, we have
> pictures from paintings, again, for example Ada Lovelace.
>
> Just beware.
>
> Karen Dee Michalowicz
>
> P.S. What did Euclid really look like? Was there really a Euclid? Hummm