So I finished reading it a few days ago, and as a mystery and a thriller, I thought it was just OK. BUT as far as a book with an interesting and thought provoking take on religion, history and art, I thought it was great. great. great.
...and I'll admit that my jaw dropped and my eyes went HUGE when I looked at "The Last Supper" again.
What do you think?
<T>
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I haven't read it...from what I've heard, the idea is too ridiculous for suspension of disbelief.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mac I must disagree. Much of the suspense in the book are, will he take us "there" to that spot we assume the story will go that is absurd.
Then he calmly brings us back to reality.
It is much more realistic than say, Hudson Hawk, and does bring up a lot of historical questions about periods in history that I am uncertain on.
I enjoyed it.
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
I watched Dan Brown on CSPAN (on weekends both CSPAN stations devote their air time to books and authors) and he discussed the thing about "The Last Supper" and the chalice. Any way, it is not so farfetched as one would think at first blush. There is a society that takes these theories quite seriously, and it is not without merit. It's been a while since I listened to the book, so I don't remember the name of the society he referenced, but I believe it does exist. I think it would be fun to do a google search on that society and see what pops up.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Sorry to be a snob, but from an art history perscpective, this book is absolute crap. This guy has never studied art history at a university level. Plus, it's cheesier than all get-out.
Posted by kelly smith (Member # 5075) on :
wow i really loved the book. Even if the stuff about "the last supper" wasn't exactly accurate, it made me think. Plus i learned alot about paganism, and christianity, and a whole bunch of other stuff that i never would have known. I found the whole thing pretty facinating, even if the plot was a bit far fetched.
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Well, high literature, it ain't, no Pulitzers here. And the plot was so contrived as to be ludicrous more times than I'd like to think about (did a lot of mental groaning while I was listening). *But* I didn't gong it and I found it entertaining, and thought the proposition that the chalice of life is really a woman to be interesting (and certainly metaphoric). As it is, being the non-believer and skeptic that I am, I'm much more willing to accept the metaphor than a virgin birth or a cup that gives everlasting life.
[ October 03, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: unohoo ]
Posted by qkslvrwolf (Member # 5768) on :
I enjoyed the book tremendously, mostly because of its revelations, fictional or not, about early christian culture, the goddess cult, etc. If even part of what the book laid out is accurate, it...I don't know. If Mary Magdelene had been the head of the church rather than peter, I think the world would be a better place.
I also love telling local christians that mary magdelene wasn't a whore, but was in fact the wife of jesus christ. I really love it.
Plus, it makes a lot more sense.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I haven't read the book yet but I just finished reading this interesting article arguing that Mary Magdalene authored the Fourth Gospel.
Personally, knowing that Jesus loved and married a woman makes me feel closer to him. I hope this view doesn't offend anyone, but I was wondering if anyone else felt this way?
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
I really enjoyed this book too (once I finally got it; everyone in NH is reading it right now I swear!) Granted some of it was stretching it but the way all the clues were tied together and written so that they weren't ridiculusly simple to figure out was fun. I don't know all that much (read: none) about the goddess aspect of early Christianity and Mary Magdelene but it seemed reasonable the way the book put it and like others have said, I find it easier to believe that Jeasus was a mortal man with a wife than the literal son of God born of a vergin.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
unahoo and others, the Masons are said to believe that Mary Magdalen and Jesus Christ were married and had at least one child. Since they are a "secret" society (though many of their secrets have been out over the past centuries) it is difficult to tell what they believe unless you are a member. Even then, there are 33 degrees of initiation, with more secrets gradually being revealed as you move on to the next degree.
Note that the Catholic Church persecuted as heretics and killed many people for holding these or similar beliefs in France and elsewhere, as well as surpressing most mention in historical records, so the truth is impossible to determine today.
There are certainly many, many references to a wedding or bride of Christ in the occult, gnostic, alchemical, tarot and kabbalistic traditions, as well as much weirder stuff.
Some believe that descendants of Christ founded the Merovingian dynasty of France, and that Christ's descendants will have an impact on the future of humanity. This was explored in a bizarre, fictional way in the film Dogma.
quote: A few paragraphs later, Starbird says "In the town of les Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer in France, there is a festival every May 23 to 25 at a shrine in honor of Saint Sarah the Egyptian, also called Sara Kali, the "Black Queen." Close scrutiny reveals that this festival, which originated in the Middle Ages, is in honor of an "Egyptian" child who accompanied Mary Magdalen, Martha, and Lazarus, arriving with them in a small boat that came ashore at this location in approximately ad 42....A child of Jesus, born after Mary's flight to Alexandria, would have been about twelve years of age at the time of the voyage to Gaul recorded in the legend." (p. 60-61) So here we have the news that Jesus and Mary had a daughter, and she was "Egyptian", and black
quote: Rosslyn Chapel is seen by many as the 'missing link' that demonstrates continuity between the Knights Templars and the Freemasons.
The Knights Templar
The Knights Templar - or Order of the Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon, to give the formal title - were an order of knights formed during the Crusades, rising to become the most powerful and wealthy institution in medieval Europe after the Church itself. They were literally warrior-monks, a monastic order (based on the Cistercians, with whom they had close ties) given special dispensation to fight and to shed blood. They were the most feared Christian fighting force of their day, respected even by the Assassins. However, to many people today the Templars are hugely exciting and mysterious, believed to have been the guardians of some great, occult secret.
After two centuries of unrivalled power in Europe and the Holy Land, the Order was suppressed in the early years of the 14th century on charges of heresy, blasphemy and obscenity. This move was initiated by Philip IV of France, who gave secret orders that all Templars in France be arrested at dawn on Friday, 13 October 1307. Similar action was taken against the Order in the rest of Europe, and the Pope declared it abolished in 1312. The last Templar Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, was roasted to death in Paris two years later.
However, there is good evidence that the Templars did not disappear, but simply went underground and continued in secret. The evidence reveals that the fugitive knights settled in Scotland, which at the time of the suppression had been excommunicated, and so lay outside the authority of the Pope.
cool occult website with lots on Masons aka Sons of the Widow and other X-file stuff. The Knights Templars are one of the roots of the Freemasons.
From the same website, concerning the Illuminati, the secret rulers of the world:
quote: A FORCE for evil or a force for good? A movement whose benevolent aim is human advancement, or whose sinister purpose is the enslavement of mankind to the capricious whims of a self-perpetuating elite?
A left wing conspiracy or a right wing conspiracy, a mysterious esoteric cabal whose lore of occult knowledge is based on ancient mystery cults - or simply a gigantic hoax, a fabrication stemming from the over-heated imaginations of conspiracy theorists?
Such is The Illuminati - a subject which has attracted vociferous claims and counter-claims down through the centuries. It has been blamed/credited - depending on who is grinding which particular axe at which particular time - for everything from wars and revolution to assassination and manipulation of global economies. ‘The Illuminati’ is conspiracy theory par excellence – as a subject it is the mother of all conspiracy theories.
Complex in the extreme, it is yet possible to discern a thread running through the subject of The Illuminati – a thread which establishes a link among The Illuminati, Freemasonry, ancient rituals of death and resurrection – and a mysterious warrior cult whose origins lie deep in the snow-capped mountains of Afghanistan.
[ October 05, 2003, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I hate to bring this thread up after it fell off the first page some decades ago, but I just did finish this book last week.
I'm forced to agree that as a work of fiction, I wasn't really impressed. But I should qualify that by mentioning that I really don't enjoy suspense/mysetery/thrillers (with the exception of Harry Potter, I guess, which touches other more important genres more suited to my personal taste). I've just never really enjoyed finding out at the end of a book that the answer was there all along, but the author simply omitted parts or perspectives of earlier scenes that would have given it away. Like finding out that one of the main characters is really the bad guy. Which, of course, makes the plot of the book a device for the conclusion of the book. I hate that.
But like others, I found the alternate histories concerning Christianity highly entertaining. Most of us knew already that a lot of the Christian religion was canabalized from other pagan religions. Some of us would agree that nearly ALL of it was.
In essence that is what this book suggests, as well. However there is one specific point the book discusses that I would like to examine with the scrutiny of a Hatrack audience.
During Langdon and Teabing's crash course on the Early Church, they both concur that it is a historically proven fact that at the Council of Nicea the first accepted Bible was constructed, choosing from the hundreds of manuscripts that were written about Jesus Christ the four gospels which most reflected Christ as an immortal God-being rather than a human being. The book argues that it is historically provable that at the Nicean Council (called for by the pagan Emperor Constantine) the divinity of Jesus was decided upon as a basic tenet of Christianity.
The reasons for that were many and they all seemed quite plausible at the time, but I have to wonder: can historians really prove that Jesus Christ was not believed to be divine until after that time? Has anyone ever heard of this kind of evidence outside of this work of fiction?
[ October 13, 2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Rasputin (Member # 5409) on :
quote: can historians really prove that Jesus Christ was not believed to be divine until after that time?
Caleb, this is impossible to resolve because almost all of the source documents have been systematically destroyed by the Catholic Church and others. Heinlein has pointed out that the divinity and even the existance of Christ is impossible to determine because for centuries to question either was a death sentence. This is why the Dead Sea scrolls are such important artifacts, because they are original source documents, that escaped destruction and supression by early Christians. This may explain the Churchs' reluctance to fully release the original texts, I have no way of knowing. Some linguists recently circumvented this and released most of the texts in an unauthorized version, IIRC. I don't know much about it other than a couple of press releases. Morbo
[ October 13, 2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Rasputin ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
*sigh*
But the characters made it sound like historical fact!
Well that brings me to another thing I didn't like about the book. Brown asserts by the end that the Priory of Sion (secret society that protects the documents that prove Christ was a mortal--and married--man) holds that the documents should NEVER be released to the public. And I thought the reasoning behind that was really really bad. It was just an excuse not to finish the quest, really. I mean seriously: if that was their stated goal, why not simply destroy the Sangreal?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This is hard to explain, but I will try.
One of the tenets of "magic" is "tween"ness, or being between one thing and another. Midnight is magical because it is neither one day nor another. Same with the solstice, etc.
Being neither A nor B, but having the attributes of both is the best way I can describe it.
So by not proving the Church wrong you do no damage to the faith of those who believe. By not destroying the Grail you do no damage to those seeking it. You prove neither A nor B, but have something with the attributes of both.
Besides, the power of the Grail is the mystery and the quest, not the artifact itself.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I'd have to disagree.
quote:By not destroying the Grail you do no damage to those seeking it.
By keeping the documents and the sarcophagus intensly hidden, you most certainly do damage to those who are seeking it, especially if "it" represents the truth.
By your same logic the Priory could simply destroy the Grail and still do no damage to those who sought it, because the mystery and the magic are what matters.
For that matter, the Priory's other sacred charge was to keep Christ's lineage safe, presumably to to protect the line of Kings (Brown asserts that it is historically provable that Mary Magdelene herself was of noble descent). If these documents are never to be released, then how could you ever prove someone was the rightful heir to the Judaic throne (this is the implied end of their protection over the Merovingian line)? Or conversely, could you not simply destroy the Grail and ensure that Christ's descendents are never discovered?
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Anyone read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum? Fascinating book about the occult, conspiracy, history and religion. Loved it, personally.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I'm intrigued, EG. Does the book cover much of the same material in a more factual way?
Or at least, does it support it's claims with evidence rather than fiction? Brown's book I thought was highly plausible, but difficult to accept based on its lack of authenticity; re: fiction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Foucault's Pendulum is considerably better than The DaVinci Code, but is MUCH more challenging; huge chunks of the book are written in other languages, as Eco likes tormenting his intended audience. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Which languages are those?
I can muddle through most Germanic or Latin languages, but Hebraicly literate I am not.
But if you're saying the English portions are worth it, I'm seriously interested in exploring this subject in depth. Any other suggestions?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The Lost Bible by J.R. Porter. It’s a collection of excerpts from books that weren’t included in the canon, with commentary. It also traces the influence that many of them had in popular piety and art.
Backgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson includes major sections on political, social, and cultural influences, Greek and Roman religions and philosophy, and what was going on in Judaism at the time. Also literary references to Christianity in non-Christian sources, archeology, and the legal status of early Christianity.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
*takes notes*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, it's a good thing Dana never uses her powers for evil. I mean, she could list a whole bunch of fake books that don't exist, and Caleb would go crazy. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*takes notes*
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I love theological archeology.
I can't think of the name of the female Irish Saint with the same name as the female Irish goddess. Both had a tendancy to wear blue. Their attributes and histories have been muddled together. Whether she was a real Saint, named after this good goddess, or a goddess that the church absorbed when it arrived is a fun theological debate.
*takes more notes*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You mean Brigit?
Posted by Ksig (Member # 5625) on :
I read that book a little while ago, i loved it! But what's really good is the book angels&demons excelent thought provocing book. It really got me interested in art. And it's really believable. His wife specializes in that type of stuff.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
It was an interesting idea. I always knew Mary Magdelene wasn't a prostitute. My mother told me that when I was a kid.
Also, it doesn't seem wildly improbable that Jesus was married. It would've been subject for criticism if he hadn't been. A man pretty well had to get married; it was an insult to his father to stay single.
And I looked at the Last Supper again, and the person they claim is female looks remarkably female to me. She has features like the other women Leonardo da Vinci drew, and, which is more telling, her skin is a good bit lighter than that of the other apostles.
It's weird. Several very Christian people have gotten very angry at me for saying that Leonardo da Vinci painted a woman into his Last Supper picture. I don't know why, honestly. Leonardo da Vinci put a woman in his picture, therefore there must have been a woman at the Last Supper? How does that follow?
Jen
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
ABC has a documentary on Jesus, Mary and the Da Vinci code on right now, 8pm ET.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:This film wonders if such a story, put forth as fiction in Brown's book, might actually have fact behind it. As it happens, it doesn't. The film's hostess, Elizabeth Vargas, interviews Catholic priests and Protestant evangelicals as well as art historians and biblical scholars, none of whom can produce any conclusive proof on the question of Jesus' putative marriage. Much screen time—far too much—is devoted to Brown himself, who is presented as a kind of historian; he expresses his belief in the theory with great animation but without any real scholarship or evidence to back it up.[quote]So... was Jesus married and is that a woman? Um, no. But we won't tell you for hours!
Now, whether or not Jesus was married may still be debatable/unknowable, but I sleep soundly, well-assured that while we don't know, Da Vinci sure didn't either.
[ November 05, 2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
I read this book back in July when it first came out. And, as many have stated here, though a work of fiction, it does show the early church cannibalizing from paganism.
As for the Holy grail being a woman, or even the just the divine feminine, is also true.
Unfortunately, I didn't know about the documentary until now, and it's too late to watch it.
I just bought a book called "Polarity Magic: the Secret History of Western Philosophy"
I'm only on page 40, but it really is facinating.
Christianity seems to take too much onto the masculine divine and demonizes the feminine. I'm not knocking anyone who's Christian, it just never sat well with me as a personal belief. I'm a person who likes balance, and in paganism I find the balance between both of the sexes.
It's really a beautiful thing.
Oh yeah, my mom said when she was about 10 and in bible school, the pastor had shown the class a slide projection of DaVinci's Last Supper. She said she asked "who's the lady next to Jesus?" and he got very angry with her. Since she was so young, she did not question him. After all, he was the minister. (edited to add story)
[ November 03, 2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Starla* ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You didn't miss much--it wasn't a very good documentary. Sean Hannity was beside himself this afternoon on talk radio, angrily dismissing the idea that Christ could have been married, because he would be "tainted" by sex and woman, and similar nonsense.
quote:Christianity seems to take too much onto the masculine divine and demonizes the feminine.
Starla I have heard this is why the female is placed on the left side during Christian marriage ceremonies. The left=sinister=evil vs the right=literally, correct or good = dexter is a weird dichotomy noted by some thinkers. Linguistically, it's clear that "left" has evil attributes and connotations. Some weird theories have been advanced for the cause behind this, I don't remember them in detail. I have no source for this, if anyone wants to research it, be my guest. Try googling "evil left womanfolk." Hmmm, no, that only calls up Berkeley lesbians' websites...
[ November 04, 2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
I was dissapointed that the documentary was cut due to the football game here in NH so thanks for telling us it wasn't good Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: the documentary was cut due to the football game here in NH
The Masons and the Sons of the Priory strike again!! Is there no end to their accursed perfidy!?!?!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: in paganism I find the balance between both of the sexes.
I hope you mean neo-paganism. The paganism that was to be found among the ancient tribes of Anywhere On Earth was decidedly NOT egalitarian in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
The documentary was ridiculous.
They edited it so as to pose more questions than answers, which is what you'd expect from an ABC documentary. Rather than concentrating on facts, the show spent almost all of its time asking for people's (mostly non-historians, including the author of The DaVinci Code) opinions.
They looked only momentarily at DaVinci's The Last Supper, and pointed out almost NONE of the embedded information in the painting. They also failed to explore any of DaVinci's other works, which have been shown to bear similar themes. Neither did they explore the works of Jean Cocteau or any of the other individuals whom the Priory of Sion claim to have been former Grand Masters of the order.
They were stunningly unfair to Provencial Magdalene legends and the various sites in the South of France that tell her story. Many times in the program they said "there is absolutely no evidence" where that was clearly a matter of opinion--or melodrama--to anyone who's spent the time to research her history.
I was more than disappointed.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Caleb gave a pretty good review of ABC's documentary. It was totally watered down, probably out of fear of giving offense.
quote: They were stunningly unfair to Provencial Magdalene legends and the various sites in the South of France that tell her story. Many times in the program they said "there is absolutely no evidence" where that was clearly a matter of opinion--or melodrama--to anyone who's spent the time to research her history.
Very true.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
quote: I hope you mean neo-paganism
Yes, I most certainly do.
As for the documentary. Now I'm glad I didn't waste my time on it---I was stargazing for astronomy. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: can historians really prove that Jesus Christ was not believed to be divine until after that time?
Maybe I'm confused about what you are asking, but the whole point of having the meeting in Nicea was to end the battles between Arius and Alexander.
quote:Arius, a priest in Alexandria, held that Jesus was a creation of the Father. "There was a time when the Son was not," sang he and his followers, setting their theology to catchy tunes. The first being to be created, Jesus was nonetheless only a creature, according to Arius. He was not eternal. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria had condemned Arius' doctrine, saying that Jesus, the Word, existed eternally with the Father, was divine, and could not be created. Alexander and his aide, Athanasius, believed that by denying Christ's deity, Arianism threatened the core of Christian faith. Alexander had Arius removed from his post. Arius sought and won support from other bishops of the East. The conflict was on! Rioting ensued. Now this council had been called at Nicea to settle the controversy.
Maybe I'm confused about the question. Are you talking about Jesus as God's son type of divinity, or the trinity type of divinity? I believe the trinity divinity was originated (or finalized) with the Nicene Creed, though that was hardly the only thing discussed there.
quote:They had deliberated for nearly seven weeks, not only about the Arian heresy. An Arabic translation of the canons discussed at Nicea, found in the sixteenth century, shows that they debated on 84 subjects, ranging from the date of Easter (they set the day as the first Sunday, not coinciding with the Passover, after the first full moon following the vernal equinox) to determining whether the clergy could marry (the clergy were enjoined to marry before ordination, but not afterward).
It took them 7 weeks to discuss 84 topics? Man, it takes us about 3 days to discuss that many topics.
quote: Sean Hannity was beside himself this afternoon on talk radio, angrily dismissing the idea that Christ could have been married, because he would be "tainted" by sex and woman, and similar nonsense. quote:
Ain't that great. We've got a world where Hannity is judging God.
Maybe Hannity will write "The Newest Testament".
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
It really is a shame........
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I admit this topic has interested me. However, my conclusion is two-fold. First, I believe that Christ very well could have been married. Latter-day Saints, for their own theological reasons, have been arguing that possibility ("possibility" mind you) for almost a century. Instead of "De-Divinidizing" Jesus, as most who disagree with the marriage say it does, it actually makes him closer to Godhood.
As for DaVinci Code, I haven't read the book or care to try. Even if DaVinci did have some hidden idea that Jesus was married, it hardly makes him an authority on the truth of the matter. Its not like he lived anywhere near the time of Jesus Christ. The only two theories of such a view I have heard of is some kind of document with lots of signatures whose content is never explained, and a picture of a feminized male in the last supper.
The feminization of males is not an aboration of art within the context of religious painting. It is very common for an artist of DaVinci's time to represent the "good, pure, and beautiful" of humans as having female visages. There is more than one painting from that era that has a feminized Jesus Christ. In fact, if it was going to represent a woman there would be no question it was such. They painted them nice and big and round. A thin woman represented sickness and poverty. The more interesting question would be why artists would use the feminine when socially females were considered of lesser value and perhaps evil by nature.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I remember once or twice bringing up the idea that Christ could have been married; I didn't see it as a big deal either way. The people I spoke to about it looked startled, and the campus minister simultaneously amused and horrified. (I periodically come up with weird theological ideas ranging from the mildly odd to the bizarre; rarely do I mean them seriously.)
I did think that there was a legitimate translation of the term "magdalen" as "prostitute", though "person from Magdala" was just as likely.
As for Leonardo, I agree with the last guy. What's he know about the matter?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
**SPOILER ALERT**
In the book it is not DaVinci who argues for the wife of Christ. It is a long series of people, with historical documentation (hidden away as a threat/safety net against the Catholic Church).
The book tries to portray DaVinci as one of a long line of artists, Troubadours, etc who are offering this alternative view point about Christ in their art work.
That is why so many artists of the period portrayed good and sweet and innocent men with feminine features. It was the power of the Feminine.
PS: Ron Howard is directing the film.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
What you guys don't understand, if you've only watched the documentary and haven't done any independent research, is that there is an astounding amount of evidence to suggest that Leonardo DaVinci belonged to a secret society that did believe Mary Magdalene to be, among other things, married to Jesus Christ. From what we know about Jewish culture of that time it makes sense, too: in fact, for Jesus NOT to have been married would have been quite the social taboo. Which isn't evidence, really, especially since Jesus' ministry was breaking traditional taboos left and right. However, we know that it would have been common not to mention a man's wife in that time period, and we also know that it would have been UNcommon to have an unmarried preacher and for no one to make any comment about it whatsoever; the prospect was scandalous.
As to the authority and/or truth of what DaVinci may or may not have known, we cannot be sure at this time. The documents that the Priory claims to protect are not available for our review.
What we can say for sure is that DaVinci was a genius and he didn't have accidents in his paintings. He was exceptionally skilled at painting the differences between the sexes, both subtly and not-so subtly. When looking at the last supper there are MANY elements of the painting that are unorthodox, and ALL of them tie into the Mary Magdalene secret, whether or not that secret has any truth to it.
The figure to the left of Christ is a woman; I am sure of that. He painted it in such a way that it would not be obvious, and yet it would be to anyone who looks closely enough. The Magdalene's clothes, for instance, are the inverted colors of Jesus' robes. Red on Blue vs. Blue on Red. These colors have meaning. As does the clearly dilineated space between the two figures... aside from forming the sign of the chalice AND forming a deliberate "M" shape in the center of the table, closer review of the painting reveals that several of the other disciples are making threatening gestures toward the Magdalene--a hand slices across her neck, for example. Elsewhere a dagger/knife is being held by a disembodied hand. One could say that it appears the disciples are trying to pull her away from Christ.
Whether the whole thing is true or not I won't/can't say. Whether or not DaVinci believed it to be true is another subject altogether, and I have become convinced (though not through Dan Brown's book, I should add) that he did.
I'm currently doing some research on Magdelene legends from the South of France; most of my opinions on this matter were formed from "The Templar Revelation", if anyone is interested.
[ November 05, 2003, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote: She has features like the other women Leonardo da Vinci drew, and, which is more telling, her skin is a good bit lighter than that of the other apostles.
Jen, you are absolutely right. She glows.
*astonished that I never saw this before
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
And - obviously,
Keep in mind that Da Vinci was not AT the true "last supper" (since Christ died in 33 AD, and Da Vinci wasn't born until 1452 AD), so his painting is purely of his own imagining.
In fact, this is true to all paintings of Christ. We have no depictions of Jesus from anyone who actually personally saw him -- so they are all just a growing, changing "artist's conception" of how they think he looked. In some ways, I suppose you could say all "images" of Christ are just graven images, since we have no true picture of his looks.
FG
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:The figure to the left of Christ is a woman; I am sure of that. He painted it in such a way that it would not be obvious, and yet it would be to anyone who looks closely enough. The Magdalene's clothes, for instance, are the inverted colors of Jesus' robes. Red on Blue vs. Blue on Red. These colors have meaning. As does the clearly dilineated space between the two figures...
I wouldn't argue they don't have meaning, but I will argue that recognition of a meaning doesn't explain what that meaning is. All we are left with is our own interpretations without a key to unlocking the symbols.
quote:aside from forming the sign of the chalice AND forming a deliberate "M" shape in the center of the table,
I don't believe it forms either a chalice or an M, and much less of a chance for an M formation. It is an uncomplete M that I believe has more artistic than symbolic uses. The lines allow for the viewer to go from Christ to Peter and back to Christ. If anything it represents the authoritative relationships between the two. I believe the related colors of the clothing solidify this relationship.
quote:closer review of the painting reveals that several of the other disciples are making threatening gestures toward the Magdalene--a hand slices across her neck, for example.
Hardly several. The attention isn't on the Peter figure, but on Christ who just told them something shocking. Almost all of them are pointing, again, to Christ. Even the eyes of the one with the "slicing hand" is looking directly toward Christ. At least on of them is pointing toward themself. Others have hands up as if realing from the idea of the accusation.
quote:Elsewhere a dagger/knife is being held by a disembodied hand. One could say that it appears the disciples are trying to pull her away from Christ
I just don't see the dagger. And, it doesn't appear the disciples are trying to pull her/him away from Christ. They are trying to pull themselves away in case they are the ones who are the culprit.
Besides, why aren't there 13, rather than 12, disciples? One of them, if Mary was there, would be missing. Before you say that Judas has left, that would go against the Scriptures where he left after this particular event. People in DiVinci's time would catch this anomily fast.
Perhaps the modern art era has lasted so long that we see its methods where none existed.
[ November 06, 2003, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
I liked that book.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Before you say that Judas has left, that would go against the Scriptures where he left after this particular event. People in DiVinci's time would catch this anomily fast.
Would those same people quickly register the anomaly that there is no cup of Christ in the painting, even though it's a painting of the Last Supper? They didn't seem to notice that for a long time.
I would remind you that you needn't prove or disprove DaVinci's beliefs in order to disagree with them. The evidence suggests that he was a part of this order and elements of several of his paintings confirm this. You can interpret the paintings differently if you wish; certainly your interpretation is the one DaVinci INTENDED to create, as the hints and clues and unorthodoxies of his paintings would have been outright heresy in his day.
We also know that DaVinci was an occultist and a homosexual, one for whom unorthodox ideas about the Church would certainly be par for the course.
Now, if you really want me to--if you really are open to the possibility--I could go into further detail about DaVinci's work to support this hypothesis. But I'm not that invested in trying to convince you that DaVinci's hidden message is really there, because it would have little bearing on whether or not you agreed with that message. If you're truly interested, however, just ask. The facts are there to support the hypothesis.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
It has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with DaVinci about a married Jesus. For me, the marriage of Jesus is a question I don't find very important.
quote:You can interpret the paintings differently if you wish; certainly your interpretation is the one DaVinci INTENDED to create
This is what I am getting at. You seem to be in agreement then that he intended a particular interpretation. My argument is that there is no other interpretation MEANT beyond what he intended as you acknowledge he did have "orthodox" intentions. I just can't help seeing this as all a conspiracy theory equal to U.F.O.s and Roswell. They are great fun to investigate, but there remains more imagination than facts.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:We also know that DaVinci was an occultist and a homosexual
Really? How interesting is that! Can you point me to some links (or give me book titles)? I wasn't aware of this at all.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I made a mistake. It is supposed to be John and not Peter. Still, that doesn't change my observations.
Notice that upon restoration the similar colors of his cloak do not match what Jesus wears. Of course, maybe the restorationists are part of the conspiracy.
[ November 06, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
LOL, Occasional.
It's funny that you link to a painting of John the Baptist in a typical DaVinci gesture; a gesture that is in itself a large part of these theories about his artwork.
You will also find that the Priory has some pretty strange beliefs about John the Baptist.
Anyway, if you find the topic interesting I suggest doing some independent research on it rather than just looking at the art and dismissing it as UFO-like theories. Until you see the big picture it will be easy to dismiss pretty much everything about the story, much like the creators of the "documentary" from which this thread was born. If it is true that DaVinci was putting hidden messages into his paintings, they are HIDDEN messages, and require a lot of footwork (fortunately a lot has been for us and we can just read their accounts) to uncover; you can't just look at the screenshots and judge for yourself, because you don't even know what to look for.
You may be right, of course, but to look at the painting and say that there's nothing amiss without studying the reasons for why people think that something else is going on is simply to see the painting as DaVinci intended for people ignorant of his secret to see it.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: You seem to be in agreement then that he intended a particular interpretation. My argument is that there is no other interpretation MEANT beyond what he intended as you acknowledge he did have "orthodox" intentions.
Occasional
Caleb's argument seems to be that Da Vinci intended multiple interpretations of The Last Supper painting. Even straight-forward artists often put multiple interpretations into their work. Most artwork has a minimum of 3 levels of symbolic depth. Is it any surprise that one of the masterworks by one of the most respected artists in history would have multiple interpretations/meanings?
Anyway, the South of France legends concerning Mary Magdalane are more intruiging than deciphering one painting, as Caleb pointed out.
[ November 06, 2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Either I am not communicating myself well, or you are refusing to understand what I am saying because of your pre-occupation with your theories.
Believe all the theories about DaVinci you want I suppose. I, on the other hand, refuse to accept them as anything more than fanatical fantasies that see Communists or aliens (so to speak) in every shadow. I don't need to see the big picture because I don't believe there is any. All these HIDDEN clues are nothing more than self-delusional games of connect the dots.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
They are not "my" theories nor am I preoccupied with them, Occasional. Don't jump to conclusions, occasionally it's hard to jump back.
I do try to keep an open mind concerning things. The legends concerning Mary Magdalena are fascinating. Da Vinci's The Last Supper is just one piece of the puzzle.
But you just keep puttering around with surface observations, don't concern yourself with any symbolic meanings or analysis in depth. Just don't forget, your refusal to see the big picture is a belief too.
[ November 08, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Believe all the theories about DaVinci you want I suppose. I, on the other hand, refuse to accept them as anything more than fanatical fantasies that see Communists or aliens (so to speak) in every shadow. I don't need to see the big picture because I don't believe there is any. All these HIDDEN clues are nothing more than self-delusional games of connect the dots.
Occasional, I really hate to rain on your parade, but do you realize that you just said that anyone who doesn't agree with what you believe is stupid and delusional? Isn't that just the slightest bit arrogant?
Some people believe, others do not - in any matter that is not conclusively settled, not just the ideas under discussion in this thread. One group is not inherently smarter or better than the other. So, you know, can you dial down the rhetoric just a bit? Please? Thanks.
Now...I just finished reading "The DaVinci Code" this morning. Fun book. A bit contrived in places as far as the "whodunnit" aspect goes, but it kept me turning the pages. I loved the idea at the end that it isn't the finding of the Grail that is really the important thing, but the journey toward it and how the individual grows in the context of the search. Anyway, that's how I interpreted what Sophie's grandmother tells Landgon. And like the art talked about in the book, that is one of the coolest things about any kind of art - it is open to the interpretation of the individual.
And for those who mentioned "Focault's Pendulum" earlier - great book. It has been a few years since I read it; I think I'm going to have to go back and revisit it now.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I didn't say stupid, but I did say delusional and fanatical. Arragant? Most likely. But, those are my opinions and no amount of accusations of arrogance is going to change that fact any more than my rhetoric is going to change other people's minds on their theories (or theories built from other people's theories).
quote:(you)don't concern yourself with any symbolic meanings or analysis in depth.
Oh, but I do. However, unlike you and others I am not impressed their really are particular meanings in the symbols and deeper analysis. Its not that I don't see what you are saying. Its that I don't believe what you are seeing is really what you are saying.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Just finished listening to the audiobook version myself. A quick question: If there really is a true descendant of Christ that can be proven by historical documents, and her/his identity is revealed to the public, what do you think will happen? Will there be people flocking to her to make her the queen of the world? It seems silly, but if you are a devout Christian and you are given convincing evidence that there is a living descendant of the founder of your religion still on the planet, how does that affect your faith?
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I didnt read all the responses to this, but I heard that the Davinci code was essentially stolen from another book called Michelangelos Theory or something along those lines. My friend said she read the Michelangelo book. I dunno if this is true just what I heard.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pretty much nothing in the book is accurate OR original, I'm afraid. The people reading it are mostly chumps.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
OSC reviewed a book about Early Christianity this week. I think it would have been fun if he had compared it with Da Vinci Code. I don't plan to read it, though I may not be able to avoid it if I get it for Christmas. But I've been interested by the thread because there was a reproduction of the Last supper in our chapel and I always thought that the supposed John the Beloved looked like a girl. The way the author of the book of John refers to itself is interesting as well.
I was watching the Frontline about the early Christians, and I thought it was crap. They played an X files track whenever they said the word "Apocalyptic", which was a lot. They also jumped right past any of the text of the New Testament on several issues. Like saying it was Paul, not Peter who instituted the Baptism of Gentiles. I don't think he would have had enough influence early on to accomplish that, offerings or no. In any case, it seemed disingenuous of them to not even mention the biblical explanation, to have their panel of experts explain it away.
All text that supported their view was valid, all text that contradicted them was a "reaction" revealing the true issue. Of course, I'm sure all those scholars actually make their living disagreeing with one another.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
My problem is (particularly with the documentary orgy that erupted after its release) is that few of their "biblical scholars" ...um... are.
I get irate when there are several well-known, respected scholars who could shine light on topics like these (and have, for any interested in reading non-fiction)are bypassed for what amount to the local kooks. It takes more than a degree to make a scholar.
Ack. It just frustrates me.
Q.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Not much at all, Beren. Though I have considerable doubts that Jesus was ever married or had children, his status was unique. I'm fairly certain that there is no literal hereditary quality involved; if there were, I think we would have heard a lot more about it.
Oh, and I think I remember reading something that indicated that two millennia later, most people should be descended from Jesus one way or another if that were true. Though I suppose perhaps population barriers might confine the genes to the Middle East, in which case we should have an awful lot of miracle-working Jews and Arabs running around if it were hereditary.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
That's a good point Maccabeus. Jesus is probably not going to pass on his hereditary qualities like a Marvel Comics mutant. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
*chuckle*
So my point is, if there are any descendants of Jesus running around, what does it matter?
Posted by efrum (Member # 6030) on :
Bragging rights! Oh, and think of the royalties you'd get from bible sales alone
efrum
[ December 17, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: efrum ]
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
I really think there's no reason to believe Jesus was married or had kids. The Bible explains that God created woman because "It's not good for man to be alone", plus he points out that the two become one flesh. Of course that last one isn't literal, but I consider the institute of marriage as something that helps make both participants more complete. Jesus had no need of completion, being perfect in and of himself. Not that it would have been wrong or weird for him to be married, I just don't think he was.
You'd think there would be a more obvious mention of it somewhere.
Plus, there are places in the letters to the churches where it's explained that not all men are strong enough to forego sex or marriage in order to focus more on God, but I know that Jesus was. Not that it proves he wasn't married, it just shows that the Bible considers the ability to abstain for life as a strength.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:They also jumped right past any of the text of the New Testament on several issues. Like saying it was Paul, not Peter who instituted the Baptism of Gentiles
No, you did. Even if you ignore the extra-biblical records of the time, the baptism of Cornelius that you're going to argue established the doctrine of the baptism of gentiles is acknowledged in one of the Pauline letters and in Acts as a one time exception thing, not the establishment of a practice. It's kind of like people claiming that Kosher food restrictions were lifted because of Peter's dream regarding Cornelius. It only works if you ignore everything except the particular passage you're referencing.
edit: There is no controversy over who was the real "Apostle to the Gentiles". Even the Catholic Church, which has a vested interest in making Peter seem as good as possible acknowledges Paul's contribution and Peter's vacilation on the idea of incorporating Gentiles into Christianity.
[ December 19, 2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Finally started reading this book -- peer pressure, just about everyone else in my office has read/is reading it, and I was getting left out of literary conversations -- and my problems with the book don't stem from the subject matter or the conspiracies or the religious secrets.
Judging solely from this book, Dan Brown isn't a terribly good writer.
Granted, that's not very fair without judging it against his other works, but so far the ideas are keeping me reading despite the lousy craftmanship. I'm on Chapter 34 and perhaps three hours have elapsed. Not because so much has happened, but because every single realization, every single memory of any character at all must be spelled out, mostly in flashback form. I noticed it within the first few pages.
It was the weekend, and I had loaded the book on my Palm to begin when it struck me how no one in the book says much of anything, preferring instead to remember it. Apparently every utterance is accompanied by the characters drifting off in their own world for hours of subjective time. "This is annoying," I said to my wife Teresa, who agreed.
"I hate stories like that," she said.
It was true; for years she had despised reading and only come to it after losing a bar bet. It was only after she grew bored of the crossword puzzles that she worked by the thousands that she turned to the world of books and, to her surprise, found them to her liking. What would her English teacher think of her now, years after he mocked her for her hatred of the printed word?
Frank Allright was a stern teacher, one who ruled his class with an iron fist and brooked no interruptions or frivolity. His students would learn, by God, and woe be to him that dared pop a bubble or drop a pencil within his eyesight. He knew that the future of these children was frail and uncertain, and it was up to him to forge them into hardened critics of words in order to face the world unbowed. It was this goal that he took to bed at night, and this goal that was on his lips when he arose in the morning. Even his beloved sister came second to his destiny.
She didn't understand, his sister, and she kept trying to draw him away from the lonely scholastic life and into the bright sunlight of Paris; a tricky thing that, since they lived in central Florida. Yet she could never forget what she saw ten years ago on that fateful day when she came home early. She never forgot it. Never, not even for a little bit, it wws just that bad. Really, really bad.
She left Florida and went on to write crossword puzzles for a small publisher. Unbeknowst to anybody, Teresa amused herself with these puzzles in a bizarre connection of coincidence that makes little sense and advances the plot not a whit.
Teresa sat up and asked, "Does he do this all through the book?"
"I'm afraid so," I said. I was hoping against hope that she wouldn't remember what Mr. Allright's sister saw more than 25 years ago, since then she'd get all mopey and put her frowny pajamas on.
Jeez, guy. Don't tell me what someone thinks, show me. Don't tell me why a character responds the way he does, let their response tell me all I need to know.
So far it's more like Dan Brown read this great book called "The DaVinci Code" and now he's telling me about it. "See, he said no, but she doesn't think he's telling the truth. She used to do stuff like that with her grandfather when she was a little girl, right (seven paragraphs about childhood memories deleted), and so right away she knows what he really meant. Now she's gonna look over here and... hey, she found the clue! Isn't that cool?"
Damn. I really need to submit more stuff if this is what stays on the bestseller lists...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
An example from the book:
quote:Approaching the door, Bishop Aringarosa would never have imagined the shocking news he was about to receive inside, or the deadly chain of events it would put into motion. It was not until an hour later, as he staggered from the meeting, that the devastating implications settled in. Six months from now! he had thought. God help us!
It might be a personal preference, but to me narration just doesn't have the immediacy or the impact as action. This reads like the announcer in a radio show filling the gaps betwen dialogue. And too much information is just given to me. Compare with this:
"An hour later a very different Bishop Aringarosa emerged. Gone was the arrogance and disdain; instead his face showed the strain of a man fighting to remain calm and composed while his carefully-constructed world falls to ashes. He staggered to the car, still shaken from the implications that he was only just beginning to understand.
"Six months, he thought. God help us all."
Not deathless prose, but I've shown that the meeting was not what he expected, that it's rocked him completely, and whatever it is it affects more than just him. I don't want to hear about deadly chains of events, I want to see them as they happen.
Seriously, read the book in a pompous and declarative voice, you'll sound just like the narrator from an Ed Wood movie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chris, your problem is that YOUR piece wasn't written for dumb people, while The DaVinci Code was.
No one ever got rich overestimating the American adult.
Posted by Posable_Man (Member # 5105) on :
Chris...LOL!
Posted by GZ (Member # 6077) on :
I enjoyed the book’s puzzles (although the characters, with all their "expertise," were a bit slow on the up take, or took unnecessarily complicated paths to simple answers) and the ideas were interesting, so it was a fun read in the end, but I heartily agree Dan Brown has some writing issues.
Someone should sic the POV police on him.
Do NOT put me in somebody’s head, and have him look at a clue or puzzle, and then WITHHOLD information that that character knows just to keep the tension up. That isn’t tension, its reader frustration created by cheating the system, plain and simple. I about chucked the book at the wall over it in the beginning.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I found Brown's writing full of unnecessary pauses. Stilted. Irritating.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Sorry but I felt compelled to dig this thread out of the ashes, because I just finished reading Angels and Demons and The DaVinci Code both by Dan Brown this week.
I have taken a big interest in these books and a few others, namely the highly controversial works of Laurence Gardner, who has several strange titles of distinction and importance, such as:
Prior of the Celtic Church's Sacred Kindred of St Columbia Chivalric genealogist Noble Guard of the House of Stewart Chancellor of the Imperial and Royal Court of the Dragon Sovereignty, which embodies the Knights Templars of St Anthony
Make no assumptions, I view both of Dan Browns' works (Angels and Demons and Davinci Code) as fiction, and I do not profess to believe Gardners' works to be fact, but much of the content of both authors aligns very well! What is worth mentioning is that Gardner claims that his data is factual, but difficult to prove because of oppression from the Roman Catholic Church.
Things I found interesting about the works of Brown, Gardner, other works, and other popular culture:
The family names bearing the Sang Real that Brown listed in DaVinci Code is claimed to be the Stewart Royal Family of Scotland by Gardner, and this Royal House thrives today. One of them even endorses Gardner's book: The Genesis of the Grail Kings.
What Brown leaves out of his books is that Gardner, and others, notably Zecharria Sitchin, believe that the Nephalim of Genesis are "angels" but more correctly what we would call aliens that began a royal bloodline with Adam and Eve, and that Jesus and his supposed descendants all stemmed from the same lines. Worth noting is that Gardner claims that Abraham of the Old Testament, Jesus, and Modred (of Arthurian legends) were the only 3 "monastic kings" of history who united the 2 major bloodlines that branched between Cain and Abel.
If anyone has read the work of David Icke, he is more paranoid than anyone I know or have studied. He claims that Gardner and several people of prominence are in fact descendents of aliens, but of the shape-shifting kind that can turn into reptilian aliens at will, and that have a dubious distinction of feeding on human flesh. He challenges Gardner to sue him for slander in more than one of his books.
Zeccharia Sitchin, who claims to be a translator of Jewish Religious Works, is also a member of the Trilateral Committee. His books outline the arrival of the nephalim and their work on earth. He also claims that the tower of Babel was mans' attempt to recreate a rocket that the nephalim used for interstellar travel, and that the "gods" were angered and caused the tower to be destroyed...
Star Wars mentions the droid factory in Episode II to be on a planet called Geonosis, which is a blatent reference to Freemasonry.
One of my relatives that has been traced back to Europe is a De Bullion of France that bears the same name to the King de Bullion of DaVinci Code who reigned in the 11th century and began the Priory of Scion. I wonder if that name is factual or fiction? My ancestor was an offspring of French countess and a Swiss nobleman, but who fled to the US and denounced her title.
Do not get me wrong, many geneologies claim to have royal bloodlines and royal ancestors, but one of my cousins, a catholic priest, did most of confirmation of what has become family lore and published it, making the entire sum of our heritage much easier to follow.
Sadly, Father Richard passed on, but his work lives on and I have a copy of the book he put together. Strangely enough, the small little provincial Church in Lucinda is a bit of a local architectural marvel. The entire Church boasts an alaborate construction with no inner pillars of any kind. Somehow, the original designers used the design of the roof and the four walls to support all that weight, noticably without any arches or other supporting structures either.
Sorry to ramble! but I hoped you enjoyed these books of Brown as much as I did!
[ February 11, 2004, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Also worth mentioning: My cousin Richard lists his last residence in Lisle, IL. This is a monestary in Lisle that is a neat architectural treasure in itself. BannaOJ can hopefully vouch for me on this one.
If you check out the photo of St Joseph's it is no wonder why the locals called it Little Europe.
Enjoy.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
so maybe I'm of the blood line of Jesus and King Arthur....(not mordred, mordred is actually the son of merlin.)
Cool and sweet, radiant and wonderful. Awesome.
<T>
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I prefer to think that I'm of the bloodline of Tom Davidson from Fenton, a genuinely good man who lived a good life.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Its been my experience that you erase any blood line, or else the cops can track you straight from the body to your spider hole/current residence of choice.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
One of my dad’s uncles traced our family back many generations, hoping to find royalty.
He found pirates. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
There's a difference?
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Thor,
Strangely enough, Gardner claims that Mordred and Arthur were factual figures of history. That would mean that in the lineage they were indicated to belong in, they were both descendents of Jesus. Then again, Gardner could claim just about anything.
Another interesting sidenote is that there is a british publication that reports its findings near each big election. In the last US presidential race, both Bush and Gore claimed royal bloodlines all the way back to Charlemagne. This means they are distant cousins! Rumor has it that the presidential candidate who has the more prestigious lineage has won the presidency every time.
Rumors also claim that Clinton may have been an illegitimate Rockefeller...I just wonder if Kerry or any of the other Democratic candidates have any such claims?
Thanks for reading. I agree with keeping some skeletons in the dark, but couldn't help revealing my paternal ancestors. But if you enjoyed those, you should hear about the maternal side. That side of the family is like something out of the Alvin Maker universe!
[ February 13, 2004, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the first mention of Mordred wasn't until a while after the Arthur tales had been around a while, and he seemed to be on the same side as Arthur in the fragment we have.
This is just vague recollection from a journal article somewhere, though. Could very well be wrong.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And the plot was so contrived as to be ludicrous more times than I'd like to think about (did a lot of mental groaning while I was listening). *But* I didn't gong it ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)