Brown's Bibliography Supports The Notion That DV Code Got Its Smoking Gun Mistake From DV Legacy
Dan Brown's online bibliography supports the logical conclusion that the Codex Leicester parchment error (see last post) in The Da Vinci Code actually came from my book, The Da Vinci Legacy.
The last post pointed out that in the absence of an affidavit from those involved in the production of The Da Vinci Code, the Random House argument about an alternate source is unsubstantiated hearsay which makes for good PR, but not evidence that is credible enough for a court of law.
While Brown's web bibliography is presented as a "partial" one, the four references expose a profound poverty of research concerning Leonardo -- hardly approaching "extensive." By contrast, my equally "partial" bibliography can be found in Exhibit A, filed with the court. This bibliography consists of ONLY those books which I currently have in my house. There are at least 14 books solely concerned with Leonardo.
Significantly, two of the four Leonardo books that Brown cites in his bibliography make NO mention at all of what the Codex was written on.
The third is not a book at all and the fourth clearly notes that the Codex Leicester was written on linen paper, not parchment.
What of Brown's four references?
The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci by Leonardo da Vinci -- There are many editions of this public domain work. The copy I have makes no mention of the page stock.
Leonardo: The Artist and the Man by Serge Bramly, Sian Reynolds. This makes no mention of page stock.
Prophecies by Leonardo da Vinci -- This is NOT actually a book, something that a search on Amazon, Google and A9 will confirm. However, my copy of The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci indicates it is a minor section in that book and makes no mention of page stock.
Leonardo da Vinci: Scientist, Inventor, Artist, By Otto Letze -- My copy shows that it correctly states that the Codex Leicester was written on linen paper.
In the absence of any valid legal evidence attesting that any research was done at all, we can only guess that a partial bibliography would list the most significant sources first. Given that relatively logical assumption, we can see that none of Brown's references contain the smoking gun error. Therefore it must have been taken from my book , The Da Vinci Legacy.
The last post pointed out that in the absence of an affidavit from those involved in the production of The Da Vinci Code, the Random House argument about an alternate source is unsubstantiated hearsay which makes for good PR, but not evidence that is credible enough for a court of law.
While Brown's web bibliography is presented as a "partial" one, the four references expose a profound poverty of research concerning Leonardo -- hardly approaching "extensive." By contrast, my equally "partial" bibliography can be found in Exhibit A, filed with the court. This bibliography consists of ONLY those books which I currently have in my house. There are at least 14 books solely concerned with Leonardo.
Significantly, two of the four Leonardo books that Brown cites in his bibliography make NO mention at all of what the Codex was written on.
The third is not a book at all and the fourth clearly notes that the Codex Leicester was written on linen paper, not parchment.
What of Brown's four references?
The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci by Leonardo da Vinci -- There are many editions of this public domain work. The copy I have makes no mention of the page stock.
Leonardo: The Artist and the Man by Serge Bramly, Sian Reynolds. This makes no mention of page stock.
Prophecies by Leonardo da Vinci -- This is NOT actually a book, something that a search on Amazon, Google and A9 will confirm. However, my copy of The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci indicates it is a minor section in that book and makes no mention of page stock.
Leonardo da Vinci: Scientist, Inventor, Artist, By Otto Letze -- My copy shows that it correctly states that the Codex Leicester was written on linen paper.
In the absence of any valid legal evidence attesting that any research was done at all, we can only guess that a partial bibliography would list the most significant sources first. Given that relatively logical assumption, we can see that none of Brown's references contain the smoking gun error. Therefore it must have been taken from my book , The Da Vinci Legacy.
posted by Lewis Perdue at 9:55 AM
2 Comments:
What about randomly arriving at this from the dissolveable characteristic of parchment?
It wasn't the Codex Leicester that was being dissolved ... it was in a totally different place and context.
Post a Comment
<< Home