Julia Smith investigates the myths behind the best-selling book and the new blockbuster film.
If you haven’t heard of The Da Vinci Code, you must have spent the last three years living in a hole, under a rock, on the moon. And if you have heard of it, it’s probably been in more than title. The Da Vinci Code has rocked every part of the world, from the highest echelons of the Catholic Church to America’s Federal Appeal Court. Selling 50 million copies in the past three years, and translated into over 44 languages, The Da Vinci Code has been a literal global phenomenon. Now at the peak of its success, the bestselling paperback has been made into a movie, which is partly the reason for its recent success. Had it stayed in book form, the problems would be over now. But frankly, they may have already started.
Released in 2003, The Da Vinci Code hit the top of The New York Times Bestseller list in its first week. And why was this? Was it because of its superb writing? Was it because of its exhaustive research? Or was it because it was the first popular book to state that Christianity was based on a lie? The story concerns a symbologist, Robert Langdon, and a French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, as they run from danger in order to discover a secret which has been left to them by Sophie’s grandfather. A secret which, unfortunately, has now been ruined by the popular press. I will keep the crux of the story quiet for those readers who don’t already know it… This is the secret which gives the book its controversial plot. A plot so unique that people have found it utterly irresistible. A plot so worryingly real that anyone will do everything to silence the public, Dan Brown and Hollywood.
A War of Religion and Literature
Originally released in 2003, The Da Vinci Code was popular from the beginning. However, as word spread about a potential movie being made, Dan Brown became a target for every other author who had ever broached the subject of The Holy Grail. This began in August 2005 with the author, Lewis Perdue. Perdue had released a book (Daughter of God) in 2000 which focused on the same subjects as The Da Vinci Code. Originally bringing the case against Brown in August 2005, the case wasn’t cleared up until recently. The reason was that Perdue appealed against the New York courts system when Brown was found not guilty of plagiarism. He then took the case to the American Federal courts with hopes of getting an injunction to prevent the sale of Brown’s book. Suffice to say he lost the case; just weeks after Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh also went home empty-handed.
The writers of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, a factual book on the subject, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh were angry at Dan Brown for what they saw as the plagiarism of their 1982 book. And so in the spring of this year, some two years after The Da Vinci Code was released, they decided to take action. Suing their own publishers, Random House, Baigent and Leigh brought the shy Brown to London and into a blazing media spotlight. Accusing Brown of plagiarism, it was also suggested that Brown ‘made fun of them’ in the book itself. One character; ‘Leigh Teabing’, is named after Leigh, while ‘Teabing’ is an anagram of Baigent. This was initially thought of as a snide insult to the authors, but it was quickly pointed out that Brown did this as a homage. Fortunately for Brown, Leigh and Baigent lost their case, and were ordered to pay Random House’s legal bill as well as their own, by a judge who included his own cryptological message in his final court report. Brown is now facing another court case, brought against him by Russian historian, Mikhail Anikin.
Luckily for Brown, the Catholic Church isn’t allowed to profit on their indignation as money-hungry authors are. However, that hasn’t stopped the repeated speeches and angry debate focused on Brown by the Catholic Church. Unfortunately for them, the public can only see their indignation as proof that something in the book has to have struck a chord. Opus Dei, however, a sub-section of the Catholic Church, has been almost supportive of Brown’s paperback. Originally speaking out against their position in the book as power-hungry murderers, they are now thankful for the book’s success, as it has meant increased interest in their society. Unfortunately for the ‘goodies’ of The Da Vinci Code, there is no one to speak up for them. The Knights Templar haven’t officially existed for years, and the Freemasons (whom the knights supposedly became a part of) are notoriously secretive. Furthermore, The Priory of Sion (the protectors of the Grail in Brown’s book) only officially existed for 60 years some 300 years ago, so they aren’t around to support Brown’s book either.
The Weaving of Fact and Fiction: can we believe everything we read?
There is something wholly remarkable about these court cases brought by authors, and the indignation of the Catholic Church. Firstly, Brown declares in the preface of his book that he has researched the subject of The Holy Grail, and gives a bibliography of the books he has used. This acts as a disclaimer to any facts he may have used from other books; however, most authors seem to find that is their route to profiting from Brown’s success. But how can you claim plagiarism when every other book in the bibliography claims the same information as you? Secondly, despite all this research, this book is sold as a piece of fiction, therefore the Catholic Church really doesn’t really have anything to complain about. And so we have authors accusing Brown of stealing ideas that they personally never developed, and a church who is vilifying a fictional book. But when all this silliness is put aside, there is still a raging war, which has caused people to write any number of books on Brown and his Da Vinci Code, making their own profit by jumping on Brown’s bandwagon. And the basis for this rage? One simple line in the preface of The Da Vinci Code: Brown declares that the information contained in the novel is “believed to be accurate”.
It seems like such a small thing to declare, “believed to be accurate”, with the accent on the word believed. Unfortunately, many people believe that Brown is misleading the reader on this basis. The Da Vinci Code contains a great deal of theoretical information about The Holy Grail. However, as Brown writes it, this information seems true - something that doesn’t agree with historians who feel Brown is making false claims and encouraging the public to believe them. These claims seem to stem from Brown’s own belief in the information, which, in the content of the book, he writes as though it is real and accurate. In their defence, historians agree that the book is a work of fiction; however, because Brown has declared these theories as gospel, they are afraid that people will blindly believe them.
The Da Vinci Code includes a number of theories on The Holy Grail and also on the secret societies involved in its history. However, there is little real evidence to back up the theory. What Brown got right and wrong is set out below. If you would like to wait until you have seen the film to find out what is fact and what is fiction (thus making the film a little more interesting), then look away now…
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene
History says: The lost gospel of Mary Magdalene turned up in 1945 under the Egyptian desert, along with the other Gnostic gospels. There is nothing to suggest they were ever hidden away.
Brown says: Mary was erased from Christian history because she was a woman, which is unlikely as her story was discovered along with a number of other gospels. But he does correctly point out that she was never a prostitute, and that it is possible that she and Jesus were romantically linked.
The Priory of Sion
History says: This was a coven of people who only existed between 1690-1756; whether or not they had anything to do with The Holy Grail is unclear.
Brown says: That documents that showed up in France post-WWII detailing the history of the Grand Masters (including Leonardo Da Vinci) of The Priory of Sion are true. But according to historians, the papers are clearly false, badly-forged historical documents.
Opus Dei
History says: They do exist, and we know they do – Tony Blair met with them.
Brown says: They are a rich, power-hungry section of the Catholic Church, who seek to suppress the legend of The Holy Grail. This is open to opinion. They are an incredibly rich society, but, since The Holy Grail is purely myth, for the moment any thing Brown says is pure accusation.
The Knights Templar
History says: The knights were a society of men whose work it was to defend Christians on their way to the Holy Land. They supposedly all died out many hundreds of years ago. Historians say that many people fabricate stories about the Templar to fill in pieces of history; as there is little known about them, nothing can be proved or disproved. But it has been suggested that the society became absorbed into the Freemasons.
Brown says: The Knights Templar discovered the Sangreal documents describing The Holy Grail and its whereabouts, and used them to blackmail the Catholic Church. However, the knights were then found, and many killed, on a Friday 13th no less (legend has it that this is how the superstition began), a few of the knights escaping, taking the Sangreal documents to the Rosslyn chapel in Scotland.
Rosslyn (the location of The Holy Grail?)
History says: Rosslyn, ‘The Cathedral of Codes’, was built in 1466 by Sir William Sinclair. A mish-mash of Templar carvings and freemasonry work, it is full of detail and coding but nothing that says anything important. Sinclair had no affiliation with the Templar.
Brown says: Rosslyn was built by a Scottish man who had associations with the Templar. And it was named after ‘The Rose Line’, the meridian line which runs through the earth. Brown associates this with ‘The Blood Line’ or ‘The Royal Blood’, other names for ‘The Holy Grail’. The name, Rosslyn, actually has nothing to do with ‘The Rose Line’, which does actually exist.
Da Vinci’s The Last Supper
History says: A painting produced by Da Vinci for private financiers.
Brown says: A painting displaying coded imagery about The Holy Grail. He also reports that the disciple who is believed to be John is actually Mary Magdalene, and that the other disciples in the picture are making threatening gestures towards her. Some art historians can justify the strange oddities in the painting. However, Brown’s argument is far more convincing – John does really look like a woman!
Unfortunately for Brown and all his research, his constant reliance on these theories as full-blown truth is quickly annoying, and bewildering for much of the historical community. Brown’s other book, Angels and Demons, confuses history and fiction in a similar way. However, in Angels and Demons, it is much more rampant, casting negative accusations against people who did exist. He also mixes up the meanings behind Rome’s sculptures and paintings; the mistakes are too numerous to mention. Unlike The Da Vinci Code where Brown is pushing theory as truth, in Angels and Demons, he is creating theory which has no realistic evidence, once again misleading the reader. You may wonder why the public should be so misled by a fictional book. But the fact is that every single element Brown names does exist - the people, the sculptures, the paintings. But then he puts them in a context which doesn’t exist. This is what historians can’t stand, not the use of real information, but the manipulation of its meanings.
Where the Truth Lies…
If The Da Vinci Code is theory mixed with fiction, then surely that theory must have come from somewhere. It can’t merely come from the historians that are now vilifying Brown and making profit from rebuking his book. If they were so passionate about the story of The Holy Grail, they would be theorising and searching for it right now. No, there has to be people out there, real Grail-hunters, who, while everyone is exploiting the 20th century court and media systems, are still searching for the truth.
In the court case brought against Random House by Leigh and Baigent, it came about that there is a man behind the character of Robert Langdon. A welsh physicist by the name of Dr. Robert Lomas. Lomas is an expert in freemasonry and is in regular contact with Brown, whose next book is based on the idea of the Washington Freemasons. Lomas, although used by Brown as a basis for the character of Robert Langdon in both Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code, has no wish to profit off his friend’s good work.
The second, and most important, man behind the theory of The Holy Grail (and essentially The Da Vinci Code) is one Henry Lincoln, the co-writer of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail. Interestingly enough, Lincoln had no wish to sue Random House or Brown and left the court case to his colleagues. Further more, his reason for not doing so is that he clearly states that he, Baigent, and Leigh were pursuing a subject that many others had researched before them. Therefore, if Brown was guilty of plagiarism, so were they. But most interestingly, Lincoln has little interest in the suing of an American author because he is still searching for The Holy Grail. Lincoln has been researching an area in the south of France where Mary Magdalene was believed to have lived, the town of Rennes-le-Chateau and its nearby churches and mountain peaks. Map points here mark out the sign of the pentacle on an aerial map (the pentacle is an important symbol for a number of reasons, but is strongly associated with the legend of The Holy Grail and The Knights Templar). Lincoln has found this phenomenon in a number of local areas, and has begun further research with Erling Haagensen, who is researching Bornhole Island in the Baltic Sea, known as ‘The Templar Island’. The two men have discovered numerous scientific phenomena to suggest that Bornhole and Rennes-le-Chateau are key areas in the history of The Knights Templar and The Holy Grail. What is more is that even after suggesting that medieval maps were based on spirituality, i.e. distances between religious buildings, the information the men have discovered is still shocking. Not only have they discovered what could be evidence of The Knights Templar, but also information that would re-write the history of medieval astronomy and map-making. So, although The Da Vinci Code may be based on theory, out there is the potential to turn all this theory into fact.
When All is Said and Done…
Despite all the arguments and accusations floating around at the moment, there is no denying that Brown has written a very entertaining book, one which has been based on something that has the potential to be truth. Even if people don’t believe it, at least it will open their eyes to what is possible. Even many historians agree that Brown has done a great thing, opening the public’s eyes to great possibilities, leading them to ask questions and not merely accept the information that is given to them by the Catholic Church, by history etc. It has encouraged the growth of visitors to the Louvre in Paris and The Rosslyn chapel outside Edinburgh. Yes, Brown may have made a few factual errors, but now everyone is going to these places to find out for themselves. The Catholic Church is saying that people enjoy conspiracy theories and they are letting this interfere with their beliefs. Which is true, some people do let their paranoia run away with them, but exactly how do the Catholic Church think its flock are going to be converted so easily by a paperback? Maybe they are just afraid, afraid of a shy school teacher. Condensing every theory of The Holy Grail into one easy-to-read story, Brown has opened the pathway to knowledge and that may be the one thing that makes the Catholic Church uneasy.
|
