The Original Da Vinci Code?
August 7, 2006 – 10:46 amThe original Da Vinci Code?
With the international success of the bestselling novel The DaVinci Code, esoteric subjects have been enthusiastically received by a large audience.
The Holy Blood - Holy Grail - Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln (1982)
Written as a follow up to a BBC documentary, this is the book where the authors presented an ‘audacious’ and groundbreaking hypothesis : theories which of course have achieved notoriety in the shape of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. It’s funny - on the back cover ( it did cause a fair amount of hoo-ha when it was released) Newsweek said ‘ A brilliant thriller in the making’ - and of course, as we know, some people came along and did just that. Definitely worth a read. Of course for all Templar and Grail enthusiasts but nowadays anyone who wanted to know about where some of the ideas presented in the fictional Da Vinci Code had their roots ( and enough information and bibliography is presented in the text for people to take their own research further and draw their own conclusions about the subject matter) Again - they make it clear that theirs is a startling hypothesis and a set of speculations about historical events.
The Rule of Four - Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason
I am fascinated with ancient and mediaeval texts and a good mystery at the same time so this was right up my street. It’s focus is the mysterious, lengthy, erudite and anonymous Renaissance text - the Hypneromatochia Poliphili
“A mysterious coded manuscript, a violent Ivy League murder, and the secrets of a Renaissance prince collide in a labyrinth of betrayal, obsession, and genius..”
Next on my reading list:
Robert Richardson : The Unknown Treasure: The Priory of Sion Fraud and the Spiritual Treasure of Rennes-le-Château (Houston, TX: NorthStar, 1998)
10 Responses to “The Original Da Vinci Code?”
This was the book that caused all the furore in the recent court case. I’ve also always been fascinated by the Templar/Cathar/Magdelene history.
By Leighton Cooke on Aug 7, 2006
Me too
By sonia on Aug 7, 2006
I havne’t read either of those two books. Of course I’ve read Dan Brown’s. I prefered to read the illustrated versions. It was cool seeing the actual thing he was talking about while I was reading.
So, have you compared the Holy Grail book with Dan Brown’s yet? Whaddya think?
BTW, Nice blog! I love the variety you present. Keep it up!
By Bengali Fob on Aug 8, 2006
Thanks FOB
Well Da Vinci Code was a fast-paced thriller - as you well know - and a piece of fiction. The Holy Grail is certainly an interesting text if you are curious about where some of the ‘facts’ in the Da Vinci Code are ’sourced’.
{ or shall we say..if one had read the HBHG, and one wanted to weave a fictional tale around it, one might have come up with something just like the Da Vinci Code..Dan Brown was one smart guy.. HGHB had all the ‘hallmarks of a thriller’ after all!Fascinating stuff -even if one doesn’t see any credibility in the HGHB speculations. And there is the section of the population who find any mention of ancient manuscripts and ’secrets’ linked into Grail Romances terribly excting..}
But of course the Holy Grail is what some people call ‘pseudo-history’ - { i love that phrase - what isn’t pseudo-history? it’s all a matter of perspective surely - some of what passes for as history is probably someone’s speculations) and the authors do make it clear that it they aren’t setting forth their hypotheses as ‘fact’ therefore do not refer to it as a work of ‘history’. Rather they were interested in certain questions which they feel are unanswered through history ( and they generally are - but that of course again depends on one’s viewpoint - some people like to think there are no loose ends..ha) and for through various lines of reasoning ( which they set out) come to certain ’shocking’ conclusions - which are of course open to debate. {and boy have they been debated!}
What’s interesting is that their research started off when one of the authors read a tantalizing book by Gerard de Sede - “L’Or de Rennes” …and got entangled with the mystery surrounding the Rennes-le-Chateau, which in itself is the subject ( and has been for a while - now of course it’s gone through the roof..) of much speculation, hoo-ha and ‘conspiracy theories’.
Umm - lots of fun if you’re into that sort of thing. Some people really resent the ‘appropriation’ of Templar history but then who hasn’t appropriated some Templar history?
By sonia on Aug 9, 2006
The Grail legend is really part of the history of ideas and so is open to all kinds of post modern interpretation. It seems to fill a gap in people’s spiritual needs and their desire for an alternative history. As an incurable romantic I just love all the mystery. As I’m minding the squat and very busy two of my close friends went to Ecotopia (also my radio colleagues) so I’ll be off to the bookstore for a good read. Rennes-le-Château here I come at least in the mind.
By Leighton Cooke on Aug 9, 2006
“The Grail legend is really part of the history of ideas and so is open to all kinds of post modern interpretation.”
Absolutely.
By sonia on Aug 9, 2006
Having read HBHG shortly after it came out, I was delighted with The Da Vinci Code. It was like someone had written a book just for me. As to the extensive footnotes and references in HBHG, I have consulted as many as I could find and found that Baigent et. al. were very scrupulous about their sources. In other words, they didn’t make this stuff up.
The powers that (shouldn’t) be are understandably a bit panicky that Da Vinci has once again drawn attention to its non-fiction predecessor. This panic has little to do with whether Mary Magdalene bore Jesus’ children, which question cannot possibly be answered through the veil of time. The true controversy hidden behind the sensationalist lineage question is quite accessible through extant documents, mostly canonical.
Quietly hidden in the book-selling flash of templars, treasures and lovers is this question, asked in an almost offhanded way in either HBHG or its sequel The Messianic Legacy (forgive my memory - it has been 20 years): Was St. Paul dutifully advancing the causes and ideas of Jesus, or was he usurping Jesus’ name and reputation to push his own agenda?
Having done considerable research on this in the late ’80s and early ’90s I rather think the latter. The picture of Jesus that emerged in that research is what has got the Christian churches in such a snit.
By SadButTrue on Aug 12, 2006