The Controversies in the Novel The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown - Essay Example

When measured by financial success, there is simply no novel like The Da Vinci Released in 2003, the novel, still in hardcover-only editions, tops various bestseller lists two years later. Sales for The Da Vinci Code have broken all previous sales records for a novel (Nelson, 4). In the first year alone, Witherington reports that Christian presses published more than ten related tests, most of which identified themselves as “debunkings” of The Da Vinci Code (p. 3). Essentially, The Da Vinci Code has become an industry in and of itself. Yet, the engine that drives this industry is not the revelation of hidden secrets, but in its controversial interpretations of on of the world’s most famous artworks, The Last Supper, as Gilmour explains (p. 11). The Da Vinci Code is a novel which derives its plot from an inventive interpretation of art which, despite being divorced from reality, communicates both an appreciation for art and the various meanings which art can convey. Much of the controversy that surrounds The Da Vinci Code emerges out of the assertions at the beginning of the text that “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate” (Brown, 1). Browns claims of authenticity, which have angered Catholics and conservative Christians, adds a sense of authenticity to his text, thus rendering readers highly vulnerable to the unquestioning acceptance of his incredible interpretation of art and his subsequent presentation of it as historical truth. Indeed, the publication during the 2004-05 Christmas season of The Da Vinci Code: Special Illustrated Edition, compounds the sense of historical truth found in the text and the extent to which the novel’s relationship with art is responsible for this. Images, after all, especially within the context of visually attuned cultures, speak of truth. It is this sense of historical truth which textual references to art, compounded by the inclusion of the images in the illustrated edition, which has led both to its incredible success and to the scathing attacks of its critics. While The Da Vinci Code may be a fictitious, as opposed to a historical novel, its persistent reference to artworks and art principles and theories bestows an aura of authenticity upon it. A case in point is its use and interpretation of the principle of divine proportions, which Langdon defines as a numerical principle: “This number PHI … one-point-six-one-eight, is a very important number in art. Who can tell me why?” Stettner tried to redeem himself. “Because its so pretty?” Everyone laughed. “Actually … Stettners right again. PHI is generally considered the most beautiful number in the universe” (Brown, 97). Langdon continues to expound upon the PHI numerical principle, emphasizing that it was embraced by artists as far back as the Ancient Greeks. The reason, according to Brown’s protagonist, Langdon, is that this number summarized measurements in the universe and, accordingly, was referred to as the “divine proportion”(Brown, 99). In direct reference to the stated, and especially in consideration of the awe which Brown inspires in readers as he explains the secrets of this artistic/numerical principle, it is important to point out two things. First of all, according to Welborn, PHI is not a number, as Brown claims, but a ratio. Secondly, contrary to Brown’s claim, it never gained aesthetic value, in the sense of adoption by Western artists as a guide to proportions, until the thirteenth century (Welborn, pp. 56-57). The implication here is that Brown, as stated in the introductory paragraph, relies on the value which readers tend to place on aesthetic theories, especially if associated with the Grand Masters, to lend credence to, and bestow an aura of authenticity upon, his extremely creative interpretation of Da Vince’s The Last Supper. The Last Supper is treated as both clue to and proof of Brown’s conspiratorial interpretation of Church history. Brown claims, not only that Christ and Mary Magdalena were married, but that their marriage symbolized the unification of two royal houses, making their descendants the rightful heirs to the throne of Christendom: “My dear child, it was not Mary Magdalenes royal blood that concerned the Church so much as it was her consorting with Christ, who also had royal blood. As you know, the Book of Matthew tells us that Jesus was of the House of David. A descendant of King Solomon - King of the Jews. By marrying into the powerful House of Benjamin, Jesus fused two royal bloodlines, creating a potent political union with the potential of making a legitimate claim to the throne and restoring the line of kings as it was under Solomon.” … “The legend of the Holy Grail is a legend of royal blood. When Grail legend speaks of the chalice that held the blood of Christ ... it speaks, in fact, of Mary Magdalene - the female womb that carried Jesus royal bloodline” (260). According to Brown, the early Church cast out Mary Magdalene and attempted the eradication of any references to, and evidence of her union with Christ. Throughout history, only a select few had access to this truth and knew of the royal bloodline. There is, in other words, absolutely no proof for Brown’s rather fantastical claims but as he presents his work, at least in appearance, as a historical novel, this claim needs to be substantiated in one way or another. Brown finds his evidence in art and, more specifically, in Da Vinci’s art. Indeed, his interpretation of Da Vinci’s authorship of De Divina Proportione and The Last Supper leaves readers with no alternate interpretation, or reading, of this particular painting. Brown provides readers with a very accurate and highly detailed description of The Last Supper. Indeed, in his repeated descriptions of the painting, he draws attention to characteristics which even those who are familiar with it may have overlooked. As Welborn points out, it is quite likely that art historians and scholars have not, as yet, fully comprehended the depth of meaning which Da Vinci captures in his Last Supper, with the implication being that the painting is open to interpretation (p. 78). Brown engages in the interpretation of the painting and, indeed, The Da Vinci Code is founded upon his interpretation. It is, as such, that the figure to Jesus’ right is presented as the Magdalena, rather than the disciple John, and the V which forms in the empty space between Christ’s figure and that of the Magdalena is interpreted as symbolizing and evidencing the union between them. The theory of divine proportions is brought to bear here for the purposes of adding authenticity to this particular reading of the painting. Brown’s description of the painting is precise and accurate and, as such, lends weight to his novel interpretation of its implications and hidden meaning. Through his exploitation of the effeminate depiction of Thomas, explained by art historian as symbolizing his prepubescent youth, (Hanegraaff and Maier, 49) and his utilization of the aesthetic theory of divine proportions to explains the implications of the angel which both Christ and Magdalena/John are standing/sitting at in relation to the other, Brown presents The Last Supper as proof of a conspiracy. Significantly, Brown does not suggest the possibility of another reading of the figure in the painting or its positioning on the canvas in relation to Christ. Indeed, he attempts to convey the impression that the painting speaks for itself and if countless of millions of viewers had previously not understood the painting that is because they were not discerning enough and did not have the required knowledge. In other words, Brown suggests that he is simply explaining that which the painting is quite obviously stating and is not imposing subjective meaning and biased interpretations upon it. Art historians and theologians dispute Brown’s interpretation of Da Vinci’s artwork and take exception to the fact that he does not allow for an alternate reading of The Last Supper. Olson, for example, maintains that the painting speaks for itself but that which it speaks of is very different to that which Brown assumes. As Olson emphasizes, according to numerous art historians The Last Supper is expressive of Orthodox Christian belief and is nothing other than an artistic rendering of biblical descriptions of the last supper Christ had with his disciples prior to his arrest and crucifixion. Nowhere in the painting is the Magdalena depicted and the figure which Brown argues to be her is, in reality, none other than John (102-103). To further establish the validity of his argument, Olson reviews several other paintings which were executed at the same time and which depicted male youth figures. Conceding that “the figure [to Christs right] is undoubtedly effeminate, as Leonardo depicted the youthful John in the early fifteenth-century Florentine style,” he, nonetheless maintains that it is a male figure (269). Not only does the artwork of the same period similarly depict youth male figures, but Da Vinci’s own St. John the Baptist portrays “young man who is quite effeminate in appearance and who also has flowing hair and delicate hands” (270). What this means is that even though there is no denying the effeminate nature of the figure to Christ’s right, there is very little to be read in this portrayal. The reason, quite simply stated, is that this was a standard and accepted method of portraying young male figures in the paintings of that era. As may have been inferred from the preceding, Brown’s conspiracy theory ultimately makes for interesting and exciting reading but it is certainly not history. That it should be treated as historical fiction and that readers so readily accept Brown’s interpretation of The Last Supper is immediately traceable to the connection between art and this novel. Artwork, especially when it is backed up by a name such as Leonardo Da Vinci, is quite readily accepted as a communicator of factual message. The reason lies in the popular assumption that art speaks to truth and is intended to convey the artist’s message to the masses. In other words, we assume that art must have meaning and that an artist intends the conveyance of a particular message through his artistic renderings. Therefore, we are predisposed to believe interpretations of art and to accept these interpretations as aesthetic truths. It is precisely because of this that however fantastical Brown’s interpretation of The Last Supper is, we accept it. We accept it both because of our predispositions and because of Brown’s highly precise and minutely detailed description of the painting in question. The claims he makes are supported through reference to the painting with the implication being that he provides readers with visual evidence of his claims. Thus, many have absorbed Brown’s interpretation of the conspiracy which this painting speaks of because the reference point here is visual – Da Vinci’s The Last Supper. Works Cited Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. New York: Double Day, 2003. Gilmour, Peter. “Code Controversy Continued.” U.S. Catholic. 71(May2006): 11. Online. Academic Search Premier. Hanegraaff, H. and Paul I. Maier. The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction? Illinois: Tyndale House, 2004. Nelson, Sara. “Figures that Count.” Publishers Weekly. 253(2006): 4. Olson, Carl. The Da Vinci Hoax : Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code. New York: Ignatius Press, 2004. Welborn, Amy. De-Coding Da Vinci: The Facts behind the Fiction of The Da Vinci Code. Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2004. Witherington, Bill. The Gospel Code: Novel Claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci. New York: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004. Read More