The exposition scripted that the Chapel was built by the Knights Templars in 1446. And during the search of Langdon and Neveu, it was under the care of Marie, the wife of Sauniere, making her the grandmother of Neveu. The secret of the Chapel was never revealed and the ending unfolded where Langdon and Neveu fell in love with each other.

The story’s plot and subplot are enmeshed with images, religious images, that disturb the Catholic readers. What for instance are these symbols which have been the preoccupations of modern fiction from the time of The Waste Land of T.S. Eliot and Ulysses of James Joyce to Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain and William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury?

We must be constantly reminded that these modern fictionists traversed the unconscious mind, the irrational, the intuitive, and the primitive. And with what? The myths.

These stories rooted in the universal culture which they ordinarily copied from other writers are intertwined to every probable direction a writer is committed to proclaim. For instance, in the works of William Shakepeare, the greatest writer of his generation, were noted sweeping borrowings from Giovanni Fiorentino, Arthur Brooks, and Saxo Grammaticus. This was necessary to give Shakespeare’s believability an excellent shot in the arm. The presentation of literature is based on Plato’s principle that it is an imitation of life. How can the copy of the past be relevant to the present times with the sense of commonness if a fictionist does not carry on the practice?

In The Da Vinci Code, elements of the Holy Bible are taken as symbols like Holy Grail, Mary Magdalene, and Jesus Christ, among others, and are passed with historical facts to amount to stable cohesion of the used images.

While the example of Langdon and Neveu were on search of the initial clues found on the body of Sauniere, they came across Da Vinci’s Madonna of the Rocks and a lengthy explanation of the painting was given. That there are two version of the Madonna is true but that the seemingly clawed left hand of the Virgin holding an imagined head and an angel trying to stop her is purely speculative. But Brown does not stop there. He bombards his reader with research information on the Mona Liza and proves through Langdon, an expert on religious symbols, that she is neither male or female but a combination of both, a carry-over of Da Vinci’s homosexuality, a perfect expression of Hermes and Aphrodite in the representation of Amon, the Egyptian god of masculine fertility, and Isis, its counterpart in the feminine, with the ancient pictogram L’ISA, so, Amon L’isa or Mona Liza. Da Vinci’s emphasis of the lower background of the painting as pointed out by Brown intimates to him the serious category of the information he holds on Da Vinci.

After this, Brown commences to develop the materials of particularity between Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ through the Last Supper. The actual Da Vinci painting which used a new frisco showed signs of decay as early as 1517. “After repeated attempts at restoration, the mural survives only as an impressive ruin.” (L.T. Lorimer, et al) But in the Code, Da Vinci’s Last Supper was perfect, it had an addition though: the presence of Mary Magdalene at the right side of Jesus and the jealousy of Peter. The imaginary discourse followed explaining the espousal relationship between Magdalene and the Christ and the bloodline that followed thereafter. And this is likewise rebuffed, it one views the surviving Philippe de Champaigne’s The Last Supper (Detroit Institute of Art).

Consumed in establishing a condition of conflict in the narrative to give credence between the Church and paganism, the author uses the historical figure of Constantine into the story: that the Roman emperor changed the religious trend from the alleged natural worship to Christ’s supremacy for the sake of political gain.

While that its partially true, the infusion into action of its claim of irreversible adherence of Constantine’s Catholicism and politics is without basis on historical record. It’s really the other way around. The primacy of ruling the empire was the main reason Constantine embraced Christianity. He did not change Christ from the pagan concept of his mortality to one immortality as assured by the fiction while parading that the emperor caused the burning of earlier Bibles and making his own and its opposition becoming “heretics.”