If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.
subheader
May 3, 2006

Dear Concerned Citizen,

by Sandra Miesel

side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar People often ask, "How much of The Da Vinci Code is true?" I wearily answer that Paris is in France, London is in England, and Leonardo da Vinci painted pictures. Let's look at four areas where Dan Brown's history is bunk.

Constantine the Great

First is his treatment of Constantine the Great (d. 337), first Christian emperor of Rome. After adopting the Christian God as thanks for a dramatic military victory in 312, Constantine initially seems to have imagined him as the "the Highest Divinity" among other gods. But he swiftly gave tolerance, favor, and subsidies to Christians, even before becoming sole Roman emperor in 324.

These moves were not, as Dan Brown claims, an effort to curry favor with the "new Vatican power base." Not only were Christians just a small and unimportant minority of the population, the pope wouldn't reside at the Vatican for another thousand years. As historian A.H.M. Jones says, Constantine "would not on any rational calculation of his interest have chosen to profess Christianity."

The emperor called bishops to the Council of Nicea in 325 to settle disputes among Christians, not between Christians and pagans. He provided free transportation, served as honorary chairman, and proposed homoousion, "of the same essence" to describe the relationship between the Son and the Father. He didn't invent the Divinity of Christ, choose the canonical Gospels, nor rewrite the New Testament.

Constantine did continue to control all pagan cults through his imperial office of pontifex maximus--a title still held by the pope. Yet he forced no conversions and didn't devise a hybrid religion as Dan Brown claims. Neither was baptism forced upon him while dying. The emperor had delayed his baptism, as many adults did in those days. He'd had been planning an elaborate ceremony when he fell mortally ill. The Eastern Churches honor him as a saint, "the Thirteenth Apostle."

Knights Templar

Then Dan Brown grossly distorts the history of the Knights Templar by making them secret goddess-worshippers destroyed by the cruel Catholic Church. The real Templars were an order of warrior monks founded in 1118 to protect pilgrims in the Holy Land. This wasn't, as Brown absurdly alleges, a cover to excavate documents about Jesus and Mary Magdalene on Temple Mount.

Far from being masters of esoteric mysticism, the Knights were largely an illiterate bunch. They didn't invent Gothic architecture and their several round churches aren't proclamations of crypto-paganism.

The Templars lost their reason for existence in 1291 when Muslims drove the Crusaders from the Holy Land. But they retained great wealth which King Philip IV of France coveted. Having persuaded himself that the Knights were depraved heretics, he had all members in France arrested in 1307. After horrible tortures, a hundred of them confessed to idolatry and immorality, crimes that persuaded the pope to suppress the order in 1312. Scores of Templars, including their last Grand Master, were burnt at the stake. None of this happened in Rome as Dan Brown describes because the pope of the time, who was dominated by the French king, resided in Avignon.

Priory of Sion

Dan Brown piles on a further distortion by making the Knights mere puppets of the Priory of Sion, a secret organization that since medieval times has protected the holy bloodline descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Many notable figures from politics, science, and the arts including Leonardo da Vinci supposedly belonged. For a rare original touch, Brown also makes them worshippers of the divine feminine through sexual rites.

But the Priory of Sion was a hoax perpetrated by a convicted French conman named Pierre Plantard. In 1956, he and several friends had established a short-lived club of that title named for a hill in France, not Temple Mount. Plantard and his confederates later prepared phony genealogies and other documents "proving" his descent from Christ via the Merovingian dynasty of France. His great secret was supposed to shake the foundations of Christendom and make him king of France. These claims became of basis of Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln (1982) but were definitively debunked by BBC in 1996. Plantard was forced to admit his fabrication to a French court and died in 2000. So the con game was over before Dan Brown commenced his novel, but somehow he failed to notice this.

Leonardo da Vinci

Brown's wildest distortions cluster around the life and work of Leonardo da Vinci. Exploiting the artist's enigmatic image was crucial to the project. Brown makes Leonardo a "flamboyant homosexual" with occult tastes whose contempt for Christianity inspired him to hide hostile coded messages in his paintings.

Leonardo may have experienced same-sex attraction but he can scarcely be called flamboyant about it. He despised occultism, including the mystic pretensions of alchemy. There was much to criticize in the Renaissance Church but he died and was buried with full Catholic rites.

Brown is flatly wrong on Leonardo's output (seventeen acknowledged paintings, not an "enormous" number and not all religious), his patronage (secular as well as clerical, one not "hundreds of lucrative Vatican commissions"), the medium and location of the Last Supper (it was painted directly on a monastery's dining room wall; it isn't a fresco in the monastery's church), and even the size of the Madonna of the Rocks (six and a half rather than five feet high).

Brown's allegations about the paintings' content are just as wrong. That's St. John, not Mary Magdalene, to the right of Jesus in the Last Supper. He's painted as an effeminate young man according to the taste of the time. Leonardo's St. John the Baptist is--unconventionally--just as womanish. The Eucharistic aspect of the scene is expressed by Christ's hands near bread and a wineglass. No central "Grail" is needed.

The Mona Lisa is traditionally identified as a portrait of a Florentine lady. Perhaps it's just Leonardo's idea of feminine beauty. There's no reason to imagine it as an androgynous portrait of the self-pleasuring artist. The Louvre's Madonna of the Rocks and the National Gallery's copy the Virgin of the Rocks feature the Infant Jesus blessing baby St. John, an unusual but hardly heterodox subject.

Considering how Dan Brown makes hash of historical facts, who would trust his historical speculations?

rate_this_article
content share

Responses to tothesource articles:

I want to affirm your report on the DaVinci Code and the surrounding controversy. You explain the facts well and help expose the lie of the heretical movement that underlies Dan Brown’s story. It seems that many have not understood the point. While the book is fiction, Dan Brown has claimed that he has done extensive research and that all of his historical “facts” are true. Anyone who knows any church history and reads the book will laugh at this claim. Dan Brown has a serious axe to grind against the Roman Catholic Church and it spills over into two of his novels. The DaVinci book is poorly researched with out of context historical theories strung together in a strange juxtaposition to form a bizarre conclusion. Brown writes a good little potboiler, which he admits is fiction but in his claim to have researched the truth he has stretched the truth beyond the breaking point. I think DaVinci himself would have had a good laugh at the result. Blessings, - John Walker

While I agree that we only give more publicity to The DaVinci Code as we attempt to remind people it is fiction and that the claims made in the story have no basis in fact, many readers—even Christians--will take those claims as fact. Good storytelling makes the untrue sound believable. Perhaps a parallel example is the popularity of the Left Behind series of books which go far beyond what can be read in scripture. - M. B. R.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.

Click for a Printer Friendly Version
top
left links right
 
The recorded lectures of Dr. Kenneth Bailey
'Da Vinci Code' ban proposed by Heath
FIRST-PERSON: Why is Da Vinci so successful?
Pierre Plantard Profile
Peddling Plantard today
Da Vinci Outreach
Da Vinci Code resources: Preachingtoday.com
Book Which Counters Errors in 'The Da Vinci Code' Receives Official Approval from the Catholic Church
 
bottom
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe email a friend
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
wesley smith   Sandra Miesel
Sandra Miesel holds masters’ degrees in biochemistry and medieval history from the University of Illinois. Since 1983, she has written hundreds of articles for the Catholic press, chiefly on history, art, and hagiography. She regularly appears in Crisis magazine and is a columnist for the diocesan paper of Norwich, Connecticut. Sandra has spoken at religious and academic conferences, appeared on Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), and given numerous radio interviews. Outside the Catholic sphere, she has also written, analyzed, and edited fiction. Sandra and her husband John have raised three children.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org