Alexander CekalaTruth or falsity: The Da Vinci Code
As a history student the evils of popular history have been drilled into me. Now, that means I feel like I am committing a crime when I write a historical article on the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
Still, I felt that history needed some defence and so here is, very briefly, a bit of a look at the history behind the Da Vinci Code. If you want more there is a lot of detail on the web, or if I get enough comments requesting more I will consider it worthwhile to write a second article.
Before I continue I think the important thing to note is that a lot of the Da Vinci Code is unfounded or unlikely, even if not definitely false. Some of this unlikely stuff is actually presented as very likely in the book. See the wikipedia article Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code for a bit more detail.
Now, I will go through a few topics that Dan Brown has presented opinions that go against the mainstream opinion.
The Real Priory of Sion: While theoretically there is no evidence suggesting that Brown's view of the priory MUST be false (that I know of...there could well be) it is never-the-less incredibly unlikely.
The general opinion is that the Priory was a hoax and that it was created in 1956. All of the documents that claim it existed for much longer are seen as hoaxes that have been accepted by few but the authors of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", a book which itself is not seen as serious historical research, but rather as a pseudo-historic conspiracy theory.
There are also, reportedly, many letters between the leaders of the Priory discussing the fact that it is a hoax. Generally it seems there is no reason to believe this...not unless you're desperate for conspiracy.
Now, I'm not saying that no conspiracies take place, but that doesn't mean that you can rely on documents widely shown to be fakes and if you do you surely have to acknowledge them as possibly, not probably, true.
Mary Magdalene: Once again, while this is hard to disprove, there is also very little evidence that it is true. The biggest piece of evidence is in the Gospel of Philip and the wikipedia article !here! has a section on this. I'll leave people to judge this one for themselves, as there's just a bit too much involved in it.
Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa: Leonardo da Vinci is an area of many unsupported (although not necessarily disproved) claims in the books and not the least of these is the claim that the Mona Lisa is painted as a self portrait. Historians generally believe that the Mona Lisa was based on an actual woman, Lisa Gherardini. Once again, there seems to be a lack of accountability.
In writing this article I have to make a few disclaimers:
1.) I had much less time to research it then Dan Brown did to research his book - therefore if he could get so much wrong the chances are some of this is inaccurate. You have been warned.
2.) I realise this book is fiction, but lots of people seem to feel that much of it is fact, so I felt the need to respond to it.
I hope you enjoy it and I beg forgiveness for selling my historical soul,
Adam
Still, I felt that history needed some defence and so here is, very briefly, a bit of a look at the history behind the Da Vinci Code. If you want more there is a lot of detail on the web, or if I get enough comments requesting more I will consider it worthwhile to write a second article.
Before I continue I think the important thing to note is that a lot of the Da Vinci Code is unfounded or unlikely, even if not definitely false. Some of this unlikely stuff is actually presented as very likely in the book. See the wikipedia article Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code for a bit more detail.
Now, I will go through a few topics that Dan Brown has presented opinions that go against the mainstream opinion.
The Real Priory of Sion: While theoretically there is no evidence suggesting that Brown's view of the priory MUST be false (that I know of...there could well be) it is never-the-less incredibly unlikely.
The general opinion is that the Priory was a hoax and that it was created in 1956. All of the documents that claim it existed for much longer are seen as hoaxes that have been accepted by few but the authors of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", a book which itself is not seen as serious historical research, but rather as a pseudo-historic conspiracy theory.
There are also, reportedly, many letters between the leaders of the Priory discussing the fact that it is a hoax. Generally it seems there is no reason to believe this...not unless you're desperate for conspiracy.
Now, I'm not saying that no conspiracies take place, but that doesn't mean that you can rely on documents widely shown to be fakes and if you do you surely have to acknowledge them as possibly, not probably, true.
Mary Magdalene: Once again, while this is hard to disprove, there is also very little evidence that it is true. The biggest piece of evidence is in the Gospel of Philip and the wikipedia article !here! has a section on this. I'll leave people to judge this one for themselves, as there's just a bit too much involved in it.
Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa: Leonardo da Vinci is an area of many unsupported (although not necessarily disproved) claims in the books and not the least of these is the claim that the Mona Lisa is painted as a self portrait. Historians generally believe that the Mona Lisa was based on an actual woman, Lisa Gherardini. Once again, there seems to be a lack of accountability.
In writing this article I have to make a few disclaimers:
1.) I had much less time to research it then Dan Brown did to research his book - therefore if he could get so much wrong the chances are some of this is inaccurate. You have been warned.
2.) I realise this book is fiction, but lots of people seem to feel that much of it is fact, so I felt the need to respond to it.
I hope you enjoy it and I beg forgiveness for selling my historical soul,
Adam
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
If it was true, it would be a shake-up, no? The blood of Jesus Christ kicking around Europe, eating croissants and relaxing on nude beaches?
I'd be interested to know what Dan Brown actually got historically accurate in the Da Vinci Code
Dan Brown got a few things right. I believe there was a historic figure called da Vinci, although his first name wasn't Leonardo...oh well, close enough
Adam