The da Vinci Camp

I read The da Vinci Code some time ago, before it became a "sensation", much less a motion picture. I thought it was crap – and not just because of the absurd plot, but because it was so appallingly written. It was one of the few books that I very nearly failed to finish reading, it was so bad. And I have no intention of seeing the film, a resolve strengthened by the fact that the reviews have been uniformly negative.

What really interests me – as a “practicing” Christian – has been the church’s apparent need to explain away da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper. One of the assertions made in the novel is that the figure sitting on Christ's right is Mary Magdelene, because the individual in question is very "effeminate". The church somehow feels the need to "explain" that this figure is effeminate because it was a Renaissance artistic convention to paint the disciple John - the so-called "beloved disciple" - in effeminate terms in order to convey his status as "beloved".

Which is fine as far as it goes – but I believe there is a much simpler explanation. Given the "effeminate man" appears in numerous other da Vinci works, many of which have nothing to do with religious (Christian) themes, it is patently obvious that there was more at work than artistic convention. Putting it bluntly, (and this is a point on which many da Vinci scholars agree) da Vinci was a gay man who had a predilection for effeminate young men. This being the case, it seems clear to me that da Vinci was in the habit of incorporating the "effeminate man" into a number of his artistic works. Thus, the figure in the Last Supper painting which Dan Brown asserts is Mary Magdelene and the Church asserts is a stylised St John is in fact da Vinci's representation of the "ideal" (gay) lover – a “beloved” disciple if you will, but not as either the church or Brown intend.

Not that I expect either the church or conspiracy theorists to accept this suggestion. The former because of its regrettable history of reacting neurotically to the question of human sexuality; the latter because it destroys their elaborately constructed proxies for engagement with the real world. But given the propensity of artists from all ages and cultures to insert the objects of their affection into their work, why would da Vinci be any different?

The other aspect of the “controversy” that engages me is what I regard as the really objectionable feature of the novel/film. For me, what is objectionable is not the absurd claims made about the relationship between Christ and Mary Magdalene (and the associated conspiracy theory), but the fact that all the fuss actually distracts attention away from the fascinating, powerful, and utterly relevant story about who Mary really was.

Now, I don't buy the assertions that Jesus and Mary were either married or in a sexual relationship; however, it is clear from an honest analysis of the canonical gospels (and other sources, such as the Gnostic gospels of Thomas and Mary) that Mary Magdalene was a central figure in the disciple group - possibly even Jesus' most trusted confidant. This contrasts powerfully with the false image of Mary as a repentant prostitute - which itself is just an emblem of the church's historical neurosis on the subject of sex. I think the issue of who Mary really was and the role she played in the life of the disciple group is much more relevant and interesting than some purile conspiracy theory fantasy.

Talk to you soon,

BB

Quote for the day: Cheer up - the worst is yet to come. (Adlai Stevenson)