Da Vinci Decoded
Henry here. My son Stephen kept after me to read Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code even though I had decided not to read it. When I asked him why, he replied that everyone was reading it, a major movie was about to appear and everyone was talking about it and also that it was a good read. So I read it. Brown’s emphasis on the sacred feminine is a refreshing change from much fiction.
For those who loved it I’m sorry, but I didn’t like it. It is a pretty good yarn, lots of excitement and drama and bloody-mindedness, and it ends up in a good place, but it quite deeply offends my sense of history.
I am a Baptist Minister in good standing with my denomination and do not have any brief for the Vatican or Opus Dei, but for anyone who has read history and had an orthodox seminary education, the story is full of fiction which in a more casual setting I might call lies.
This stretching of the truth is so startling because the first page of the book starts out with the heading Fact. He says: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and sacred rituals in this novel are accurate.”
I don’t know anything about artwork, architecture and a bit about documents and sacred rituals, but this quote sounds like everything in the novel is correct despite my unease. I talked to a few people about the book and it was distressing to realize that some people at least took Brown’s novel as historical fact.
I wondered if I was over reacting when a friend said that she had a book which sets historical fact beside Brown’s fiction. She graciously loaned it to me, and I have enjoyed the author’s historical focus. The book published in 2006 is The Da Vinci Code Breaker, by James L. Garlow. The publisher is Bethany House.
For his first page he quotes several renowned scholars who are offended by Brown’s claim to history. Here are two:
Jack Wasserman a professor of art History and expert on Leonardo Da Vinci: “The writer gives the impression that he‘s also a historian – which he is not. I don’t think he’s so much interested in the truth as in drama and mystery… Just about everything (Dan Brown) says about Leonardo da Vinci is wrong.”
James Halstead, chairman of the Religious Studies department at De Paul University: “For storytelling I give it an A (for) knowledge of Theology and history of the church C- (for) Systematic Theology an F.”
It seems clear that Brown takes some serious liberties with history and that the book should be viewed as a well-crafted work of fiction, rather than a historical tome. The important thing about the book is not its historical inaccuracies but its emphasis on the feminine. Brown is absolutely on the money when he notes that the patriarchal masculine attitude towards women, the environment and life in general has caused many major problems throughout history.