The Da Vinci Code's ignorance of art

With a book that has its foundation in the art of Leonardo Da Vinci, one would expect at least a general understanding of art. You would also expect the writer to get at least basic facts right. If you expected that going into The Da Vinci Code, you were sorely disappointed.

The misstatements and outright falsehoods start from the very name of the book. If you wanted to talk about a code that I had written, you could say "Aaron's code" or "Aaron of Two or Three's code." You could not say "of Two or Three's code," it would make no sense and would not give you all the information you need.

It is the same with Leonardo Da Vinci. Da Vinci is not his last name, it just says he is from the town of Vinci. Yes, this is a minor issue, but it speaks to the larger issue of the book being careless with facts - even the issues that it claims are facts in the opening page of the book.

Leonardo
First, the book portrays him as being strongly anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. The truth is we don't know his beliefs. He did believe in a creator God, whom he called "the Light of all things." So he was hardly an atheist or agnostic.

We also do not know of his sexual orientation. Dan Brown feeds the speculation that Leonardo was gay, but there is no real evidence to support that either. At one point he was charged with sodomy, but the charges were dropped because of lack of evidence.

In one of his oddest claims, Brown says that Leonardo, while being anti-Catholic, produced "hundreds of lucrative Vatican commissions." The only problem is, besides his drawings, Leonardo produced less than 30 paintings. He also could not have been the recipient of numerous commissions for Pope Leo X because he didn't spend much time in Rome. Most of his life was split between Milan and Florence. At the age of 60 he tried to go to Rome, but younger artist like Michelangelo and Raphael were already there, so he went to France.

The Louvre
The central location of the DVC is also home to another error. La Pyramide and La Pyramide Inverse play prominent roles in the plot line of the book and are very intriguing structures, but Dan Brown had to make them even more interesting by making up false facts about them. The book claims that per the specific instructions of French President Francios Mitterand, La Pyramide was built with exactly 666 panes of glass - using the number many claim to be the Antichrist's number. In reality, the pyramid has 673, which I guess is close enough for Brown.

Vitruvian Man
Early in DVC a body is positioned in such a way so as to point Robert Langdon to this 1487 illustration by Leonardo. Langdon sees the circle, symbolizing feminine protection, around the dead male body which "completes Da Vinci's intended message - male and female harmony."

Needless to say this is wrong. In the first century, Vitruvius wrote what he believed was the perfect architectural proportions, which he believed were also applicable to humans. He held that if a perfectly proportioned figure were placed within a square whose corners were touching the boundaries of a circle, then the exact center of both circle and square would be at the figure's navel.

Leonardo came the closest to achieving this proportion in this drawing, but only the circle is centered exactly on the navel. So clearly it had nothing to do with "male and female harmony."

Madonna of the Rocks/Virgin of the Rocks
Brown uses these two paintings to push his alternative theories, but he gets numerous facts wrong.

Madonna is on display at the Louvre (Virgin is at the National Gallery in London). During their escape from the Louvre, Sophie Neveu uses Madonna as a priceless shield. While doing this, Brown describes the painting as 5 feet tall. The Louvre disagrees. They say the painting is 6.5 feet tall. He can't even get the right height of a painting, but his theories of history are as viable as the New Testament?

One area where Brown is correct is that the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception commissioned Leonardo to paint the scene, but the nuns were not happy with the finished product and had him paint another one - Virgin of the Rocks. But that is where Brown's facts cease.

For starters the Confraternity was an all-male organization at that point. They did not like Leonardo's finished painting, but simply because he didn't follow their precise instructions about the content.

The key to Brown's conspiracy is relying on the art ignorance of his readers. He claims that Madonna shows John the Baptist giving a blessing to Jesus and an threatening hand of Mary going to John. But he confuses John and Jesus, most likely getting this misinterpretation from the discredited book, The Templar Revolution.

The most common and accepted interpretation is that Jesus is blessing John and Mary has her hand over Jesus in a protective manner, not over John in a threatening way. In becomes clear in the Virgin, where John is given the traditional staff, a symbol for John the Baptist. Also in the second painting the angel Uriel is no longer pointing to John the Baptist.

But the changes made are not dramatic in any way, so it seems unlikely that the first would have contained anything so outrageous and shocking.

The Last Supper
In DVC, Brown calls The Last Supper the most famous "fresco" in the world. A fresco is a painting applied to a surface while the plaster is still wet. The Last Supper is actually a mural because Leonardo's perfectionism would not allow him to work quickly enough for his painting to qualify as a fresco.

Here is another case of Brown finding a meaning in a painting that no art historian agrees with and that Leonardo himself disagrees with.

Brown, through Sir Leigh Teabing, gives the evidence for placing Mary Magdalene in the painting in the place of John the apostle. There is no grail or communion cup on the table, indicating that Mary was the grail. The figure seated to the left of Jesus has a feminine look, so it must be Mary. The composition of the painting makes a negative space "M" around Jesus and a "V" between Jesus and the supposed Mary, again indicating Mary Magdalene as the grail.

There are so many things wrong with this. The idea of a "Holy Grail" did not come about until a poem in 1170. Nothing in the Bible indicates there was a special cup or grail. So Leonardo leaving it out, would indicate his dedication to portraying the painting as closely to the Biblical accounts as possible.

Most art historians agree that Leonardo is painting the Last Supper events describe in John's Gospel, where he reveals that one of his disciples is going to betray him. This gives us two good pieces of evidence that refute the DVC's claims.

In John, he describes himself as sitting next to Jesus, close enough to lean on him. The fact that John appears feminine is not uncommon. Many Renaissance paintings show men as angelic even androgynous. John the apostle was especially depicted as young and feminine is many paintings of the time period.

But somehow if John actually was Mary Magdalene, where was John? If Leonardo wanted to include Mary, why not simply include her and John. But we only find 13 people in the painting. Who makes more sense to include, apart from the conspiracy theories?

As to the "V" symbolizing the female womb and the "M" for Mary, the Gospel of John's description again helps us in this instance. Most art historians believe the painting captures the moment when Jesus announces a traitor is among them. This is why you see the disciples recoiled away from Jesus and the shock on their faces. The openness around Jesus clearly identifies him as the central figure and foreshadows the disciples deserting him and having to face the cross alone.

Brown also points out Peter's hand across "Mary's" throat and then a knife in his other hand, as clues that Peter was jealous of Mary. Nothing can be determined by the hand pointing across her throat. I'm not even sure when dragging a finger across the throat was meant as a threat, but it is obvious that it is not a threatening gesture here.

The knife in Peter's hand actually brings us to the most important evidence we have about The Last Supper - Leonardo's own notes. In his notes he explains that one disciple turn his hand and the knife in it so quickly that it knocks over a glass of wine. Most art historians interpret the knife as foreshadowing the way Peter would defend Jesus in the garden, not as any animosity toward Mary.

And Leonardo's notes should knock down the final nail in Brown's conspiracy theory - Leonardo clearly marks the figure sitting at the right hand of Jesus as John - no more controversy.

Mona Lisa
This classic painting is probably the most famous piece of art and the most abused by Dan Brown's novel.

During a flashback sequence, Robert Langdon recalls a discussion of the painting with a group of prison inmates studying art. Contrary to what DVC says, Leonardo gave no reason as to why he brought the painting to France and he certainly did not take it everywhere he went.

Nor is woman's smile the "world's most documented insider joke." No reputable art historian claims to know the reason behind the smile. Brown claims that the painting portrays an androgynous being, representing Leonardo's own sexuality and that is the reason for the smile.

He also claims the title, Mona Lisa, is an anagram of Amon and L'isa - Egyptian deities that represented male and female fertility. So even the name of the painting tells us that it was meant to point toward androgyny.

Several problems exists with this. L'isa is not an alternative spelling of Isis, as DVC claims. Second, Amon was the god of air, not fertility and his goddess was Mut not Isis, whose consort was Osiris.

Also, Leonardo never gave the painting the name Mona Lisa. It has never been known as that in Italy (La Gioconda) or in France (La Joconde). The name originates about 30 years after Leonardo's death in a biography by Giorgio Vasari, who calls the painting "Lady Lisa" or "Mona Lisa." He named it that because believed the woman in the painting was Lisa Gheradini del Giocondo, which is why the Italians call it La Gioconda.

It would be fairly hard for Leonardo to pass on some mysterious code or explanation in a name he never gave a painting.

Conclusion
This post could go on almost as long as the novel itself, detailing all the details missed, facts misstated and issues made up in The Da Vinci Code, but this should illustrate the absurdity to trust anything with in this very much fiction novel, despite the claims that all descriptions of artwork in the book are accurate. Clearly, that is not the case for the Code.

Comments

[Cineaste]

The Last Supper...

Looks like a chick to me. Look how big that guys hands are compared to "her" head and body.

click here for closeup image

[Aaron]

Again, John was often painted as younger, more feminine than the rest of the disciples. It was very common place for this. As an example check out "The Mond Crucifixion" by Raphael.

In the painting, Mary, Jesus mother, and Saint Jerome are on one side of the cross. On the right side of the painting, Mary Magdalene is kneeling and John is standing behind her. John is very feminine, almost as much as Mary. But from the description of the painting you know who John is. It is the same way in the Last Supper, Leonardo's notes let us know the figure in question is not a woman.

Besides if that's Mary in the Last Supper, where's John?

[Kristin]

I think it's great that you've done this and write all the facts out - but don't you think that aside from giving the actual facts, you're also pushing to make Dan Brown look like a criminal when all he is, is a fictional writer, creating and inventing - yes, inventing - to engage his audience, and maybe (even probably) to make money out of it. There's no harm in it, the people who read it and have been 'hoodwinked' about it don't really care that the facts were wrong, or anything like that - in fact, most people don't even care about the Grail, they quickly move on and get involved with their own lives again after enjoying a novel with a good conspiracy theory. That's all. So like I said, it's nice to read the real facts (that's what I was after, as I knew there were discrepancies), but it's all well and good to do that, but keep the obvious venom and distaste out of your words as it spoilt an otherwise informative and interesting read.

PS. Also, a good bit of advice: Try not to foist your views on others, just offer the facts and people will decide. Some people may take the way you've written this as offensive, because they will feel stupid that they've thought Dan Brown had it right. By just stating what was right over what was wrong without inflecting a mocking intonation, I think you'll find you would've had a lot more readers and a lot more comments! :)

[John]

You people are whacked. HELLO? IT'S FICTION!!! He never claimed it to be real, but people are so offended that others might hold an opinion different from their own that they tear it apart as if he were stating it as historical fact. Get a life.

[Aaron]

Why the uptick in comments on this?

Anyway, John I completely understand people having different opinions than I do. I have no problem with that. I do have problems with people having different facts than I do and Brown supposes different facts than reality.

Why do I say facts instead of fiction because Brown says the same thing on the inside of the book. He says: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" As I have demonstrated in this post that is entirely inaccurate.

Also many readers of the book believe the assertions made by Brown's characters to the point that a beliefnet.com survey found 27% believed that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, a survey in Canada found one in three believe there are decedents of Jesus alive today and a secret society is trying to keep that a secret, a more recent survey found that 17% of Canadians and 13% of Americans believe that Jesus' death on the cross was faked and that He was married with a family.

So while you and I may know that it is fiction, millions of people in North America do not. For them I present the actual facts.

[Steph]

Hi...I have read through this as well as the comments and i agree with the general feeling of them all. Facts have been prooved and disprooved many times thoughout history equally. While some remain taught and believed no matter how many "facts" illustrait their forgery. The human mind is to ask questions, to wonder about everything, as different people have quoted "Are our dreams only dreams or do i wake up to find my dream is real?". You can dispute this "fact" as much as you like but the truth is that sometimes facts are irrelivent.
Sometimes, we just want to dream. It is obvious you are passionate about Leonardo "Of Vinci" plainley though your knowledge of his prooven life. I miself have always wondered about him. A though has even passed my mind that Leonardo himself was a sort of prophet. His untimely knowledge for the world is unlike any anyone had seen previously or since. He has been imortalised forever more.
A wise person once said, "Do not judge me until you are perfect". The only person who can truely correct faulse statements made in The Da Vinci Code is Leonardo himself. You stated that you do not even know Leonardo's sexual orientation and so you hold not right to disagree with Brown's belief in the matter as you obviously do.
Did you also know that the Mona Lisa has something like 13 layres of paint underneith the picture we see? While i know our actions, meaningful or not, are not usually noted for what the DO mean but we both know Leonardo was no ordinary person. He saw something different when he woke up. Maybe he could read people too for what they were, or maybe he just had a vision. Maybe yet again he had a plan for his life. He could have known his actions could mean something and so, planed them to create a message to be figured out by someone in the future. Who knows for sure?
In your very first opinion about the book you wrote "With a book that has its foundation in the art of Leonardo Da Vinci, one would expect at least a general understanding of art." While you seem to think you yourself do, you may need to be reminded of the basis on opinions about art in itself. To recite facts about history is one thing, but when it comes o art, opinion differs from one person to another. Everyone sees something different when they look between a frame. Some see a mess ov colour. Some see a dipiction of feeling, some see themselves even and some see a message. Who is to dictate what is right and wrong without expressing their own oppinion? Do you think you could? Is that why you have taken time to discriminate what some else has seen in pictures made soley to be wondered about and the source of thought?
Do you want to know what i think? The last supper. If as you say, Jesus has just told his deciples that their is a traitor among them, maybe John had already fled, knowing he had been found out, thus, explaining Marys apearance. I am not asking you to believe me but accept the idea as valid because I, just like you, am ignorant of both the exact happenings at the time as well as Leonardo's reasons for painting them.
Although you might be reading this thinking i am attempting to discriminate your beliefs, or even not reading it at all, i would just like to say that if you are asking others to believe what you say (which you are) then you need to begin by accepting what other people say in turn. You cannot give random information. If, as you stated Brown rote, La Pyramide was not built with 666 panes of glass but 673, who are we to believe you? Where are your facts? Where did you gather information to tell you that this was incorrect. While some people have the nature which allows them to take both constructive ant not criticism with good humor and either use it or ignore it, others wont. IT IS HUMAN TO QUESTION. You have to help answer question before people can ask them.
For example. If i told you Titan has similar qualities to Earth before oxygen brought life to it's surface ywould you blindly believe me? Probably not given the fact that you ave questioned every fact (practically) in the Da Vinci Code. But would you believe me if i told you this information was in a report made in 2004 that also stated that Titan’s hydrocarbon rich elements are the building blocks for amino acids necessary for the formation of life. Much more convincing. But your topic of debate is one much harder. While you can give poepl these facts, proove them again and again, find direct quotes and facts against them, you cannot tell people what they dont want to hear. Good luck with your persuit of truth if it is one you wish to find. But remember, discrimination of anothers thoughts is unacceptable. The mind is a persons last santuary. Breaking in is a job most give up as imposible, but the attempt in itself is sameful. You hold the right to your oppinion, I have the right to mine, Brown has the right to his. You can't change that and anyone who reads this will have no respect for your oppinion because you have shown the lack you hold for others.

[sofiya]

aaron, plz shut up
ur wrong :)

[Aaron]

Somewhere, this post must be getting Google hits or linked on a DVC supportive website. But to answer some of the issues for Steph and I guess Sofiya, even though she didn't ask, here goes:

Is part of art subjective? Of course it is. You and I can disagree on whether or not a painting is great or not. You may like something and I may hate it or I may find beauty is something you think is trite. The same can be said for people's opinions of books, movies, tv shows, etc. If Brown had wrote a book with opinions about Leonardo or even Jesus, I would not care less. As you said he (and you and I) can hold whatever opinions we want. The problem is historical and current facts that have nothing to do with opinions.

As to the La Pyramide and the 666 panes of glass. You can go to Wikipedia which has several links and articles that refute what they call the "urban myth."

There are numerous other things that are not up to interpretation: the height of Madonna of the Rocks, what Leonardo's own notes say about the knife in Peter's hand, John's presence (and by extention Mary's absence), the incorrect Egyptian gods used to push the Mona Lisa conspiracy theory, he even has dates, street names and driving directions in cities wrong.

Agan, that can be sloppy research - as a writer myself I understand that. But here is my problem. I have people attacking me for giving facts and the consensus of art historians on my own blog - defending Brown's work. It's okay if you thought is was a great book. I thought it was an good book and a decent movie. But the "facts" of the book cannot be defended. Brown is wrong on so many levels and about so many things.

The other problem I have is his opening to the book. Before we get to the "FICTION" part that people keep reminding me about, Brown says, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Clearly that's not the case. He's not stating an opinion. He's saying these things are "accurate" and he is obviously not accurate.

[Amanda]

Hello I'm new at this site, so bare with me.
I have one of the original sketchings of "Arch of Titus" It is in fairly good condition and has the original frame to it. I was just wondering how much it could be worth or if some one would direct me to an appraiser of fine art.
My mom got it from her grandmother (whom collected fine art) before she died.
This is important to me, and I thank you.

[CMD]

If you're looking for "fact" you should probably consider reading non-fiction. Apparently you've confused fiction and non-fiction.

[Pellegri]

People who are touting the "it's just fiction" doctrine would be advised to read this page:

History vs. The Da Vinci Code on "It's Just Fiction".

It's by an atheist scholar of history, so he has no "personal stake" in refuting the book's claims about Christianity--except the fact that Brown's claims fly in the face of accepted history, and base their "knowledge" on very suspect sources.

Aaron, a couple of quick points--
1. The book is actually The Templar Revelation--trivial, I know, but I've been reading another book by one of its authors, so it came up. HvtDVC has more information here.
2. A lot of the theories put forward about "threatening gestures" in the paintings, Mona Lisa being a coded symbol of the artist's own sexuality, the "M" in The Last Supper, that it's probably Mary Magdalene and not John the Beloved sitting next to Jesus, and so on, are taken almost verbatim from Lynn Picknett's Mary Magdalene: Christianity's Hidden Goddess. The Grail-centric additions are, I'm assuming, either something Brown invented or something he picked up from somewhere else. And, as an aside to the "fiction, not fact!" people, this book that Brown cites is marketed as fact, not fiction, and makes many of the same claims he does.

[shruti]

Hi i think the facts given here r very informative. I guess the controversy surrounding this book is mainly bcos it claims that Jesus was an 'ordinary' man just like the others.The author here is quite or should I say 'very' disturbed with all these claims. But can we take a look at Dan Brown s note at the end of the book?
He says most of the data in stated in this book is 'factual'...take a note..he never said that it was accurate. Probably bcos he knew that he would have to face the music once people start protesting.Come on..why cant we just leave all this as it is. Dan Brown never claimed that what he wrote was right and that is what it should be. We never research and go out of bounds when we read other novels. I mean we get information like this even in Sidney Sheldon novels. I think the purpose of the novel was to entertain us with the help of art. Instead of using the usual sci-fi angles,he made use of art and history to catch our attentions and we must appreciate him for that. Look at the response he got. The younger generation would not have paid attention to history if it would not have been for him.

[Aaron]

CMD - I enjoy both styles of books and again would really have no problem with the fiction work if it didn't start off claiming that his facts were accurate when they weren't.

Pellegri - Thanks for the correction on the book title. While many apparently do not want to admit that Brown was wrong. I will humbly admit when I make a mistake and this is one of those (prevalent) times. I appreciate the links to other articles by non-Christians pointing out the same issues that I had with Brown's work.

shruti - I'm not disturbed at all by Brown's claims. Christianity has survived 2,000 years. It's not going to be brought down by a novel, regardless of how popular that book becomes.

My point in writing this post was to illustrate to individuals that much of what Dan Brown said is wrong, including information that can be easily researched and proven or disproven. It's a matter of fact not feelings.

The reason I felt the facts should be demonstrated is that fiction is a powerful tool for an idea. Countless movements have been fueled by a work of fiction. The story carries ideas which inspire and motivate people who believe in what the author is saying.

My previous comment shows that according to a number of polls a fair percentage of people believe the fiction that Brown is presenting. My own purpose here is to present the facts, so that those individuals do not jump to conclusions based on faulty information.

[shruti]

Ya.. I can understand. I m frm India.Here the book didn generate much of a controversy as it did abroad. But nevertheless it was the hot topic of discussion for many months. As u said,many people tend to jump into conclusions when they read fiction like these, and that is what some of the people here did. But Christians will forever be Christians right? As u said earlier,the foundation of Christianity is based on 2,000 years of solid faith. Nothing would make them doubt their faith. But I understand that Dan Brown hurt the feelings of the Christian community and also tainted the image of the Opus Dei. But as it was claimed to be a work of fiction he chose to be in the background for most of the time. I wanted to ask u,what do u think about the involvement of Opus Dei? And are the so-called Dossiers secrets true?

[None of your Business]

Not only was Leonardo Gay, he was a petafile as well. Why else would he allow Salai to stay with him at such an early age, especially when he had very little or no artistic talent? Leonardo almost put himself in the poor house over this boy. And lets not forget Francesco Melzi, what was he doing following him around like a lost pet? I don't care if he got married shortly after Leonardo's death, no one ever says why. It could have been to appease his father. I think that you sound very angry that Dan Brown made the claims that he did, why is that?

[dave]

Steph,
You are an ignorant ass.
Using a book that is the foundation of the christian mythology is asinine.
Dave

[Bookworm95]

Er, hello? what the flip's the big fuss about? whether dan brown is right with his facts or wrong, it just a flipping book! i mean, you open the front cover, you read it, you close it! it's remarkably simple. and if you have any problems with it, keep it to urself and tell it to someone privately WHO CARES,not air on a world-wide site!! Oh, and stephanie, i agree with you, but he's not necessarily wrong. And also, whoeva keeps on writing humongously flipping long emails, quit it 4 god's sake!!!
P.S. by the way, where i am it's 4:22P.M.
P.P.S. i am not being crabby!

[Carlos Idelone]

This discussion is interesting, because it brings up the slippery nature of what we call "facts"! Do they really exist? Do you believe the newspaper? The T.V.? Dan Brown's book? The Bible? The Qu'uran? The further the distance in time and/or space the more blurry things become. Aaron, give me a break! If Leonardo was going to paint Mary Magdelan at the last supper, do you think he would leave that in writing somewhere? Not unless he wanted to be toasted over a Catholic camp fire. You have heard of Galilleo ? Being homosexual in public, was also a little uhh... frowned upon in those times, I hear, so I don't think ol' Leo'd be jumpin' on any couches in public about his lust for Salai or Francesco. (Thanks to None of Your Business, above for these juicy "facts" ! ) Oh yeah, Aaron ol' man, I believe in GOD (the incomprehensible), but I'm "against" both the Catholic and "Christian" cultures/religions. Just like Leonardo ? I don't think Jesus would have agreed with the inquisition, or the bombing of Iraq... . I believe religions are only man-made organizations, with all our inherent un-GOD-like weaknesses. I think Dan Brown actually did do a good job revealing the brutality of the Catholic church, even though his statistics may have been faulty. Hey! I also believe, what he said about the Romans re-writing the story of Jesus, when they adopted "his" teachings, as their religion. I mean, the religion, which they ripped off from the Greeks had about a gazillion gods, so you couldn't expect them to have their official state-sanctionned religion based on some lowly Jewish schmuck, who wasn't at least the son of a god ?!! Good work Dan ! You ripped off some pretty interesting sources. Uh, didn't they try to sue you by the way... . If so-called Christians started following Jesus' teachings, instead of debating theology, they just might make this world a better place. No more S.U.V.'s though (just to start a very, very, very long list!.) Oh yeah! Credit, where credit is due... the Amish people actually are doing pretty well as "Christians". My apology to Bookworm95 for this "humongously long e-mail". Did you mean 4:22 am... ? Lastly, being an artistic sort of fellow, I have to admire some of the creative spelling on this site. As Beavis or Butthead (My real heroes!) might say, it's like cool, heh, heh, heh.

[trina]

did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps the inaccurate information was intentional so as to elict this type of aggravated response and in turn increase the number of readers? during his peak, more people listened to howard stern who despised him than those that loved him. controversy attracts attention. attention in the marketing business equals profits. and in this case the profites are not solely for brown. all of the controversy has caused people all over the world to search out sites such as this to satisfy their own curiosity in addition to purchasing texts confirming and objecting to statements made by brown. at the very least, brown has successfully sold renewed interest in art and history to a younger generation.

[Trevor Wood]

In m.h.o. the figure to the left of Jesus is John the Beloved, not Mary Magdalene. I think he is portrayed as looking quite feminine not only to highlight John's youth, but also because Da Vinci may have been privy to another peice of esoteric knowledge - that John the Divine/Beloved was/is the twin soul-mate of Jesus, and is the feminine pricipal of Christ. Aha! another but entirely different Johannian Heresy! A difficult concept for most to grasp, John reresenting the Feminine, but this as nothing to do with physical gender whatsoever. When Christ returns (soon) during the Age of Aquarius, it will be John Christ, not Jesus Christ. Jesus represented the Male aspect, or principle, in turn representing the intellect. Since then we have had 2000 years of mankind attempting to intellectualize spiritual truth - the result being religious division, fragmentation, dis-harmony and war. With the coming return of Christ in her Femine role, harmony will be restored. For it is only with both the intellect and the femine intuition, that we can correctly interpret spiritual truth. See White Eagle, 'The Living Word of St. John', and 'The Lightbringer'.

[Aaron]

Don't you just love Google that brings all these "ideas" together.

First we have what Brown said was true. Then we have who cares if it was true. Then we have well maybe it was a little true, down with the Christians. And on and on and on, until we arrive at the Feminine John who is coming back during the Age of Aquarius to be John Christ.

All I did was point out that Brown lied in his book. He said all the historical and artistic information he provided in the book was true - it was clearly not. You can keep debating about motives or whatnot, but the facts are the facts. Brown didn't know what he was talking about. Sure, the book's a good read, but it's full of mistakes - not even going into his "history" of Christianity.

[GR]

Here's news: If you inscribe a square in a circle so that the corners of the square all touch the circle, the center of the square and the center of the circle will, perforce, be in exactly the same place. Works for rectangles generally, by the way. Thus, you are either mistaken in the principle you attribute to Vitruvius, or you are mistaken in your claim that da Vinci only managed to get his figure's navel lined up with one of the centers. (Presumably, it is the former.)

I hope this gentle serving of your own medicine may have a salutary effect on your high-handed ways.

[a.kay]

Aaron,
First of all, let me say that I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to do this. I know that it takes a lot of research and knowledge of art, history, and religion. I knew there would be discrepancies in the DVC, because of the fact that it is just fiction, but I didn't think it would be to this degree. It was helpful to see the facts. I am not a Christian and almost believed half the things the books said. So I really wish that people should back off a bit. If they don't like the offensive tone, then they should find another blog to read!
But seriously, Aaron, you should relax a little too. I mean, so what if people are stupid enough to believe every thing the book said and not even take the time to research it a little? And I do think that you were a little harsh. I mean, you made me feel like a complete idiot for even reading the book.
P.S. even though the book has false information, it is still a good fictional read.

[Aaron]

a.kay,
I agree that the book is an exciting fiction read. I enjoyed reading it and in no way want to come across as if anyone who reads it is stupid. I would be condemning myself. The reason why I wanted to be so forceful, again I apologize if it came across as too forceful, is that as you said, you "almost believed half the things the book said." Others have said similar things. That is why I wanted to demonstrate the facts - not to belittle anyone but to inform them.

GR,
Perhaps I worded it poorly, but if you examine Leonardo's drawing the square is outside of the circle on the bottom half. He had to move it to line it up with the navel and get the proportions right. From Wikipedia:

In drawing the circle and square he correctly observes that the square cannot have the same center as the circle, the navel, but is somewhat lower in the anatomy.

[Bob]

ummm... it is a fictional book

[Bob]

also you are quoting Wikipedia. which by the way is the worst source of information ever because anyone can edit it. just FYI

[Bob]

And further more the section where it says "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." is on page one of the book... page one of the FICTIONAL book. It’s not on the title page. It’s not in the acknowledgements. No, it is on page one.

[poop jace]

This is a SWEET sight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Benjamin9]

"ummm... it is a fictional book". ------->

Yes, that is the point. Entertainment spewed from Hollywood.