|
By Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel
Afrequent question asked by readers of Dan Brown’s The Da
Vinci Code is “How much of the novel’s depiction of historical
events, people, artwork, and institutions is correct.” The short
answer is “Not much.” In fact, the only thing more amazing than
Brown’s consistent misrepresentation of facts is a widespread
acceptance of his claims, with both reviewers and readers praising
the “research” and “knowledge” supposedly evident in his
novel. The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci
Code examines, in much detail, the lengthy list of claims made in
the Code. Here is a brief look at just a few of the claims made in
Brown’s novel and on his web site.
On a webpage titled “Bizarre True Facts from The Da Vinci
Code . . .”, Brown writes that Leonardo was a “prankster and
genius” who is “widely believed to have hidden secret messages
within much of his artwork.” Widely believed by
whom? It’s difficult to find any reputable art scholar or historian
who would agree with that remark. But according to
Brown, “most scholars agree that even Da Vinci's most
famous pieces—works like The Mona Lisa, The Last Supper,
and Madonna of the Rocks—contain startling anomalies that
all seem to be whispering the same cryptic message.”
First, no scholar would ever refer to the great Italian
artist as “Da Vinci” since his given name was “Leonardo”;
“da Vinci” indicates the province he was from. Secondly,
few, if any, scholars would concur with Brown’s dramatic
assertion. Thirdly, there are no “startling anomalies” in any
of the paintings Brown mentions. Any such anomalies can
only be found in his novel and conspiracy-heavy books
such as The Templar Revelation, which happens to be the
source of almost all of Brown’s “research” into Leonardo.
As for the cryptic message, which one is Brown referring
to? He claims the Mona Lisa is an androgynous self-portrait,
insists The Last Supper depicts Mary Magdalene at
the right of Jesus, and claims Madonna of the Rocks (better
known as The Virgin of the Rocks) depicts John the Baptist
scandalously blessing the Christ-Child.
Brown’s site states that this cryptic message “hints at a
shocking historical secret which allegedly has been guarded
since 1099 by a European secret society known as the
Priory of Sion.” Nevermind that the Priory of Sion was
founded in the 1950s in France by a political radical, that its
mysterious history is an admitted fabrication, and that it has been proven more than once to be a complete hoax.
And yet the Priory of Sion is a central element in the plot
and logic (so to speak) of The Da Vinci Code.
Brown and his main character, symbologist Robert
Langdon, state that “the nuns” of the Confraternity of the
Immaculate Conception gave Leonardo specific dimensions
and themes about a commissioned painting for an altar
triptych. But there were no nuns in the Confraternity; it was
an all-male group, consisting of either brothers, or lay men,
or a combination of both. More importantly, Brown states
that “the nuns” had asked for a painting that would include
Mary, Jesus, John the Baptist, and the angel Uriel, and he
followed that request, but his first painting was filled with
“explosive and disturbing details”.
Actually, Leonardo did not follow the Confraternity’s
directives as to the subject matter of the painting. The original
contract was to include a depiction of God the Father overhead,
with two prophets on the side panels (The Virgin of the
Rocks was the centerpiece). There has been much scholarly
discussion about the exact nature of the contract and what
exactly transpired between Leonardo and the Confraternity.
What is clear is that Leonardo deviated substantially from the
original plan for the subject matter—not that it contained
“several disturbing ‘un-Christian’ anomalies”.
The Da Vinci Code correctly notes that there are two versions
of this painting—the earlier one is in the Louvre in
Paris and the later one is housed at the National Gallery in
London. But Brown describes the painting as a “a five-foottall
canvas”, when it is actually 198 x 123 centimeters, or
about 6.5 feet tall (1.99 meters tall x 1.22 meters wide,
according the Louvre web site). It was originally painted on
wood panel, but was transferred to canvas; the second version
of the painting, in London, is still on a wood panel.
In the novel, the main female character, Sophie, picks up
the painting and moves it will relative ease; it is described
as flexing as she pulls it from the wall. In reality, she likely
wouldn’t have been able to move it or pick it up, and it’s
doubtful that it would flex. Normally, such artistic license
wouldn’t be much of a concern, but Brown insists his
details are accurate, claims that he attended art school in
Spain, and points out that his wife is an art historian. And
yet he is completely wrong about the dimensions of a painting,
even though the information can be obtained in a few
minutes at the library or on the internet. ✥
Download this page as a PDF
|
|
