Much has been said about how the title of Dan Brown’s book, The Da Vinci Code, betrays his lack of scholarly research. After all, any knowledgeable art historian would know that the great master’s name was “Leonardo,” not “da Vinci.” The latter means “from Vinci,” and merely indicates a place of origin.
Today, I noticed that Brown repeatedly refers to the alleged spouse of Jesus as “Magdalene.” Not “Mary Magdalene,” and not “the Magdalene” – just Magdalene. I presume that this is yet another error on his part, as this surname is commonly understood to mean “of Magdala,” thereby indicating her hometown.
I wanted to double-check though, lest I speak too hastily. Can anyone refute or corroborate this view?
Well, the thing about The da Vinci Code is that it is a novel, i.e. a work of fiction. Scholarly attention to detail isn’t the objective of a novelist. The novelist wants first of all to tell a good story in an interesting manner.
All of this hoo ha about the book reminds of people who get all tied up in the trivia of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
<< Sigh >> Do we have to go over this yet again?
** Dan Brown himself claimed that his book was based on accurate scholarly research. ** In fact, when he appeard on Good Morning America, he was asked: “if you were writing it as a nonfiction book, how would it have been different?” Dan Brown responded:
“I don’t think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book, to disprove this theory, and after numerous trips to Europe and two years of research, I really became a believer.”
Finally, even if Brown had not claimed that the “facts” presented in his book were accurate, it would still be legitimate to ask if his use of the name “Magdalene” was accurate.
So please, let’s have no more of this nonsense that “It’s just fiction!” That’s simply irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Many last names, particularly in Western and Northern Europe, are place-of-origin surnames. The German “von,” the Dutch “van,” and the French “du” or " d’ " all (can) mean “from” or “of.” English place-of-origin names are less common, and leave out the “from” bit, but are nontheless actual last names. And, as much as those art historians might not like it, “da Vinci” has become a de facto last name for Leonardo. Similarly, “Magdalene” would be Mary’s last name if English (without the “the”).
So… when writing in English (Brown’s language) to his intended audience (normal English-reading peoples), and using the standard practice of referring to historical figures by their last names, I’d say it would put many readers off by writing “the Magdelene” all the time.
I don’t think that really answers the question, though. The question, after all, is whether “Magdalene” can be legitimately considered to be her name. Sure, it might put readers off by referring to her as “the Magdalene,” but that’s a different issue altogether.
Besides, it’s a false dilemma. If “the Magdalene” sounds too pompous, then he could have simply called her “Mary Magdalene,” as the vast majority of writers do.
BTW, Mary Magdalene was not from Western or Northern Europe. She also lived over a millenium before the European nations started to adopt the use of family names. I really don’t think we can take the naming conventions of Western or Northern Europe and then graft them onto her.
Why not? We do it all the time.
The reason she’s identified as Magdalene is to distinguish her from the other Marys in the Bible. Few Biblical figures have surnames, but the abundance of Marys forced the issue. I’ve always heard her simply called “Mary Magdalene” like it was her first and last name. Occationally, I’d see “Mary, the Magdalene” in older translations, but the “ene” suffix already means “of.”
What else would you have Brown use? It is exceedingly rare to refer any character in a book, both fiction and non-fiction, by his or her full name, as it makes for a difficult read. To use only “Mary” would traditionally indicate Jesus’s mom.
[pink panther theme] peDANT…peDANT…peDANt peDANT peDANT…[/ppt]
Come on, now. Who painted the Mona Lisa? DaVinci, of course! 90% of people (all statistics pulled out of my deriere), including museum tour guides, will refer to the guy as DaVinci. It’s not like you saw the cover of the book and thought, “DaVinci? The glassblower? The butcher? Which man from Vinci could this book possibly be about?”
Again, were you confused by the reference? Could there be anyone else on god’s green earth he was referring to as Magdalene? Sophie Magdalene from third grade, perhaps?
Yes, you’re technically correct on both points. And Christ wasn’t Jesus’s last name, either, it was a title. He should properly be referred to as either “Jesus” or “The Christ”. But, Christ, man! We all know who we mean!
The man got enough meaningful stuff “wrong”. Nitpicking like this just makes you look like a bully.
Hey now! There’s no afternoon better spent than one with a bunch of Holmes fans arguing about the details of The Game. A close runner-up are hardcore Wodehouse fans, and let us not neglect those who pour over every detail of the Hornblower and Aubrey/Maturin novels. Followers of George Lucas’ paltry collection of vapid space-opera films have nothing on these fanatics.
Never mind the historical accuracy–or manifest lack thereof–of Brown’s novel. It’s turgid, tortured, tiresome prose is enough to make anyone question the value of reading his work. Go read Kazantzakis’ The Last Temptation of Christ instead.
I have just returned from an art museum, where I saw a Da Vinci. Except it wasn’t a Leonardo, it was Jerry, Derek or Bud or something (actually, some classical Italian name but I can’t remember what).
I agree that she should not have been referred to as “Magdalene”. I also think the book is so awful that it should never have been written in the first place.
Right. And that guy in the Bible that everyone makes such a big deal about? His name wasn’t really “Jesus”. It was Yeshua Bar-Joseph. Just think about the thousands of books where this glaring historical error is repeated.
I just read the book and would have to agree that the thing was not very well written. I was struggling with the characters; when Teabing (who is supposed to be an Oxford scholar and has more snottiness than a two year old with a head cold) used the word “momentarily” in the context of “I’ll tell you about that momentarily”, Brown kinda lost me. If the characters are supposed to be erudite, then they need to remain true to type. It’s a nitpick, but it’s the sort of detail that is very distracting to me.
You’re conflating two separate issues. Sure, people would understand who “da Vinci” is. That doesn’t make it his real name, though.
Is this being pedantic? If you say so. Personally, I prefer to think of this as fighting ignorance. (Obviously, it’s taking longer than we thought.)
Once again, you’re conflating the two issues. People might understand who “Magdalene” is, but that doesn’t mean that it was her name.
Bully? As opposed to, say, people who browbeat SDMB posters who question whether Dan Brown used the name correctly?
You have a rather strange definition of the term.
You raise a legitimate point; however, I think there’s a major difference between the two cases. For one thing, “Jesus” is at least a legitimate transliteration of the name “Yeshua.” And second, it is at least customary to refer to him as “Jesus,” even within scholarly circles. Virtually every English encyclopedia or history book will refer to him by that name. The same cannot be said for scholarly references that refer to “Magdalene” or “da Vinci.”
Nobody denies that. Nobody’s questioning whether she was called “Mary Magdalene.” Rather, the issue is whether she should be properly referred to as “Magdalene” alone, without the first name.
Remember, there’s a difference between the surname and the family name, which only became customary over a millenium later.
How about “Mary Magdalene”? That has a nice ring to it, and it’s what the vast majority of authors use. Besides, it’s not as though he had to mention her name every minute or so, and that there was a pressing need to shorten his book as a result.
I like to think of myself as normal (in the engineering sense, i.e. orthogonal) to the rest of humanity. It rationalizes my inability to sustain social relationships and my intolernance for the bulk of popular culture.
