The Da Vinci Hoax (6)

The Errors

There are simply so many basic factual and historical errors in Dan Brown's "meticulously researched and very accurate" novel that one cannot deal with all of them without writing a sizeable book. At the end of this essay I have included some references for those who wish to look into it further. Suffice to say Brown shows little competence in art history, secular history, or Christian history. His claimed extensive research could hardly be sloppier. I will take examples from each of these categories to illustrate.

Art History

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)

Brown writes that Leonardo was a "prankster and genius" who is "widely believed to have hidden secret messages within much of his artwork" (just like Walt Disney, who "made it his quiet life's work to pass on the Grail story to future generations," see pp. 261-62). Widely believed by whom? It would be difficult to find any reputable art historian who would agree with that unfounded remark.

Da Vinci

The problems begin with the title of the book itself. The title, The Da Vinci Code, is not precise. His name was not "Da Vinci" in spite of the fact that Brown constantly refers to the Renaissance artist in that manner. Leonardo was the illegitimate son of a Florentine notary (Ser Piero) and a local peasant woman. He was born before modern naming conventions developed in Europe. He is "Leonardo ser Piero da Vinci," which simply means "Leonardo son of [Master] Piero, from Vinci". Neither he nor anyone else called him "from Vinci" (Da Vinci). He signed his works "Leonardo" or "Io, Leonardo" ("I, Leonardo").

Mona Lisa

Brown contends that the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci as an androgynous self-portrait (p. 120) and that its title is a coded reference to the names of the Egyptian gods Amon and L'Isa (pp. 120-121). The name symbolizes his belief in a male/female principle in all of us. Problems:

1. While it is not certain who is represented in the portrait, most art historians (e.g. Jane Turner, The Dictionary of Art) have long suspected the Mona Lisa to be of Lisa Gherardini (wife of Francesco del Giocondo). This was largely confirmed in 1991 with the publication of the 1525 death inventory of Leonardo's assistant of 30 years, Gian Giaconno Caprotti, which included the portrait.

2. At any rate the title "Mona Lisa" was not chosen by Leonardo and so cannot reflect some esoteric belief supposedly held by him. The title was not applied to the painting until the 19th century. "Mona" is a contraction of "madonna" (meaning 'lady' or 'madam'). Lisa is the name of the most likely subject of the painting. The painting is also commonly known as "La Gioconda" in Italian (Lisa Gherardini's married surname, the feminine form of "Giocondo").

The Last Supper



Much of Brown's argument centers around Leonardo's famous Last Supper, which he presents as a coded message that reveals the truth about Jesus and the Grail. Brown points to the lack of a central chalice (i.e. grail) on the table as proof that the Grail is not a material vessel. The figure seated next to Christ, he maintains, is not a man at all (i.e. not the apostle John) but a woman (Mary Magdalene). She is meant to be understood as the Grail. Brown observes the figure has obviously feminine characteristics.

1. Brown notes there are glass cups in front of all the characters in the painting but no central chalice. This proves nothing since Leonardo may have wanted to portray a simple table setting. And the sharing of the cup of wine that Jesus consecrated does not mean it had to be the only cup on the table, just the only one passed around.

2. That aside, there is a simpler explanation as to why there is no traditional style chalice on the table. The painting is not portraying the episode at the Last Supper when Christ instituted the Eucharist (when Christ took bread and wine and transformed it into His Body and Blood). Following a Florentine artistic fashion of the time (Leonardo studied and worked for years in Florence) the painting shows another episode from the Last Supper: Christ announcing to His apostles, "One of you will betray me" (John 13:21). That is why the dramatic representation of the apostles. Brown even states that the theme of the painting was the moment Christ announced His betrayal (p. 235).

3. If the person beside Jesus is Mary Magdalene then where is the twelfth apostle John? There are six figures on each side of Christ framing Him, in other words the twelve apostles. If the person to Christ's right were Mary Magdalene then there should be thirteen persons besides Jesus in the portrait.

4. The person sitting next to Jesus is not Mary Magdalene but John portrayed in the common Renaissance style as a rather effeminate beardless youth (see the obviously male figure in Leonardo's St. John the Baptist). As the author of an article in Slate magazine puts it: "What any art historian could tell [Brown] is that the figure, always thought to be St. John the Apostle, resembles other Leonardo portraits of biblical figures as effeminate men. If Da Vinci thought John looked like a girly man, that's one thing. But a girlish-looking figure in a painting isn't proof that Mary was present at the Last Supper, let alone that Jesus and Mary were married. (Sian Gibby, "Mrs. God," Nov. 3, 2003).

Virgin of the Rocks

As Brown notes there are two versions of The Virgin of the Rocks (Brown refers to by the less common title, The Madonna of the Rocks), the earlier version at the Louvre in Paris and the later version at the National Gallery in London. He is more interested in one at the Louvre.

1. As historical background, Brown states that the Louvre version was commissioned by the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception, whom the author erroneously identifies as a group of nuns (p. 138). They were in fact a Franciscan brotherhood.

2. Neither is there any evidence for his contention of it being rejected by them because Leonardo "had filled the painting with explosive and disturbing details." There is evidence of a dispute over Leonardo having failed to follow the Confraternity's directives. The original contract for the triptych was to include God the Father overhead and two prophets on the side panels. A lawsuit followed over payments, initiated by Leonardo and Ambrogio de Predis (who painted the outside panels) that was resolved after ten years in the artists' favour.

3. Brown reverses the identity of the infants in the painting. Experts have always understood the infant on the left, under the arm of the Virgin Mary, as John the Baptist and the infant on the right, next to the angel Uriel, as the Christ Child. John the Baptist is kneeling before Christ and receiving His blessing not vice versa as Brown contends (p. 138).

4. The novel states the Louvre version of the Madonna of the Rocks is "a five-foot-tall canvas" (p. 131). A quick check on the Internet or in any art encyclopedia would have shown our well-researched author that the painting is actually six-and-a-half feet in height. It was originally painted on wood panel but transferred to canvas.

5. Normally such an error as the size of a painting can be overlooked as relatively minor. But remember Brown assures his readers at the very beginning that his depictions of artwork are accurate (i.e. to be trusted). This, and so many other errors, go to show how truly sloppy a researcher Brown is. How can one trust his more involved and controversial assertions to be accurate if he cannot even get basic, easily verified information correct?

6. In the acknowledgments to his novel Dan Brown describes his wife, Blythe, as an "art historian." Why did she not correct him on these matters, since in the plagiarism trial he had testified that she did much of the research? Maybe it is because investigators have been unable to find any record of her having worked professionally as an art historian. Brown also claims that while in college he went to Europe to study art history at the University of Seville in Spain, where he first began seriously studying the works of Leonardo da Vinci. Yet, the January/February 2006 issue of the Spanish-language magazine Epoca, states, "He was never registered at this university, unless he attended one of the Fall courses for foreign students at the Faculty of Geography and History." It appears Brown cannot even get the facts to his own life straight!

"Flamboyant Homosexual"

Brown matter-of-factly announces that Leonardo da Vinci was a "flamboyant homosexual" (p. 45). While gay advocates like to claim Leonardo for themselves the historical record is less certain. The main incident that gives credence to the claim happened while he was apprenticing in Florence. At that time in Florence one could put anonymous accusations in a wooden box (called tamburo) in front of the Palazzo Vecchio. Florence had its own vice squad at the time called the "Officers of the Night." On April 8, 1476 Leonardo (then age twenty-four) and three others were accused by an anonymous person of having homosexual relations with a model/prostitute named Jacopo Saltarelli, 17. The procedure ended with an acquittal for all the accused due to a lack of evidence. This story is the only reference to homosexuality connected with him. Leonardo had few friends and never married. The few close friendships he did have with the opposite sex tended to be with older women, and appear to have been platonic. Leonardo's sexual life remains unknown. Whatever it may have been, one could hardly describe him as a "flamboyant" homosexual.

Nature Worshipper and Practitioner of the "Dark Arts"

Brown represents Leonardo as a "worshipper of Nature's divine order." This is not substantiated by any respected biographical source. His notebooks indicate a fascination with nature and many other things, but as Carl Olson tells us, they are devoid of any supernatural or religious element. The earliest biography of Leonardo by Giorgio Vasari (Lives of the Artists), did initially report his "cast of mind was so heretical that he did not adhere to any religion", but this is vague and most historians do not consider the author a reliable source. Vasari's work covers nearly 80 artists and combines plausible and rather fanciful stories. In his definitive second edition (1568) he excised this sentence as being based more on gossip than on fact. Biographer D. M. Field states, "Leonardo was not a very religious man, but he was not antagonistic to religion or even to the Church" (Leonardo Da Vinci, 2002). This concurs with the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica assessment that "Leonardo had never been either a friend or an enemy of the Church." In his will Leonardo made provisions for masses to be said and candles to be offered in three different churches for his soul, including Saint Florentin, where he desired to be buried.

Brown further claims Leonardo "had a tendency towards the darker arts…he believed he possessed the alchemic power to turn lead into gold and even cheat God by creating an elixir to postpone death" (p. 45). But Leonardo's Notebooks strongly criticize alchemy. The director of a museum dedicated to the artist, Alessandro Vezzosi, tells us that "Leonardo was severely critical of the pseudo-sciences and the occult: astrology, necromancy, chiromancy, and alchemy" (Leonardo da Vinci: The Mind of the Renaissance 1997).

Prolific Artist

Brown makes reference to Leonardo's "enormous output" of Christian art and that he had "hundreds of lucrative Vatican commissions." In fact he was only in Rome from 1513-1516 but was not in good health during much of that time (he died in 1519). He received only one commission during his stay, which he never completed. As for Brown's claim that Leonardo was a prolific artist - he was not. Leonardo was more notorious for his unfulfilled commissions and meagre production. Only seventeen existent paintings, four incomplete, are commonly attributed to him (Encyclopedia of World Art, 1964). He did leave hundreds of drawings and sketches (of everything from human anatomy to plants to mechanical designs) in the 7,000 surviving pages of his private notebooks. A codex of a small portion of them was not published until 1817. Leonardo seems to have been both a perfectionist and a procrastinator.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17