Dr. Barton: Why I do not use Dr. Langdon's books

As a professor of Symbology, I naturally come across Dr. Langdon's books a lot. Most of my students read them, and as Dr. Langdon is something of a celebrity, they take his word as law. Unfortunately Dr. Langdon can be something of a monomaniac. He has a fascination with pagan symbolism of the Sacred Feminine, and some of his research into pagan symbolism is both important and useful to people like myself. However, despite his oft-repeated statement that "symbols mean different things to different people," there are times when I feel he comes perilously close to identifying symbols as a sort of universal language. Take the simplest of all symbols, the circle. Dr. Langdon seems to identify it as usually, if not always, a symbol of the Sacred Feminine. Unfortunately that is not the case. The circle can also be a symbol of eternity - it has neither end nor beginning - and is used as such in some cultures. It is also possible fo a symbol to lose its meaning and to be used by a later culture for decorative purposes only (this is particularly obvious in my own field of study, the symbolism of Victorian Churches). Consider the niche. Originally intended to hold a statue, niches are often used by Victorian architects simply to break up an area of masonry.
Or we might consider the eye. I often wear a sweater with an eye symbol on it. I like to ask my classes what the eye means. Sometimes I get smart-alec answers by would-be Robert Langdons, who assure me it's an erotic symbol, but more often that not I get various answers depending on the culture of the student. Mediterranean students identify it as a charm to ward off the evil eye, for example. But in 17th Century protestant iconography the eye is used as a symbol of the all-seeing gaze of God.
But I must be fair to Langdon. He is by no means as much of a monomaniac as the British historian Sir Leigh Teabing.
I ought also to point out that Dr. Langdon is a member of the 'History of Religions School' (no, I am not going to give the German), and therefore expects to find a thread linking all the religions of the world. But that is not really my field.

Sir Richard Arcos makes an observation

Dr. Langdon is of the opinion that the political term 'left-wing' is a reference to the 'sacred feminine'. Now, I am only a dabbler in all sorts of things, but I think Dr. Langdon must have missed his Political Science lecture on the day when it was explained that left and right wing referred to the placing of the Jacobin and Girondist factions in the first French National Assembly. But then, he is symbologist, not a political scientist. Reading one of Dr. Langdon's books the other day I was rather amused to read the absurd statement that Constantine was baptised on his death-bed, 'when he was too weak to resist.' Is the old mug unaware that the baptiser in this case was not the evil church, but the Arian heretic Eusebius of Nicomedia?

Of which more later, I have to do the work of the Church.

No, not bumping off Dr. Langdon (or even burning his books), interviewing an applicant for membership. Toodle-oo.

[While the post is materially correct, I do not approve of Sir Richard Arcos engaging in personalities. But he can't help that.]

[Sir Richard Arcos is a 'character'. I can vouch for that from the time I helped him to deal with a mysterious murder in London that was connected with my speciality. He speaks his mind.]

[Thank you for the observation on the Left Wing, Sir Richard! So it all goes back to the seating arrangements! Well, I'm not the political sort.]

Dr. Trevelyan's introduction

Like many academics and ministers in the world, I am aware of Dr. Robert Langdon's work in the area of symbology, and particularly in his Grail work. I have become concerned that too many people are reading Dr. Langdon's work uncritically, as if his 'results' were proved (which they are not). The public need to be informed of the gross errors of fact and method in the Harvard Professor's work.
The correct method would be to assemble a team of international experts, but such a team would take months to assemble. Instead I have asked some friends of mine who happen to work in interested disciplines to assist me. Our method will be for each of us to contribute posts, with comments by the others colour-coded. The colours are chosen by the contibutors. As moderator of the blog, I shall comment in red. Dr. Barton has decided to comment in Pink. Sir Richard Arcos is commenting in Green. Dr. Rainy is commenting (as a Scots presbyterian) in blue. Miss Schlegel is commenting in Grey.

Contributions will be sought from other friends of ours. Each writer is responsible for his or her own work.

[Apparently I'm responsible. Surely Dr. Trevelyan meant to say I'm irresponsible. His wife thinks that]

[So do I]

Introducing Dr. Trevelyan

Dr. Norman Trevelyan, D.D., L.L.D., Ph.D., etc. is Professor of Religious Archaelogy at New College, Edinburgh. He has published books detailing his excavations at Samaria, Jerusalem, Babylon, Nineveh, and other places. In addition to these he has published on such widespread topics as Biblical criminology, the psychology of conspiracy theory, and the religious symbolism of the Hittites. He is married with eight children, and is an elder at Free St. George's.
Dr. Trevelyan was born in Mumbai (Bombay), the son of an English father and an Indian mother. He is a crack-shot, an expect swordsman, a horseman of considerable skill and a licenced pilot. Some have compared him to Indiana Jones, a comparison he publically laughs at and privately enjoys. He lives in Edinburgh's New Town when he is not out digging things up.

Welcome

Dan Brown's book 'The Da Vinci Code' has become just a little bit popular in recent months. In the framework of a break-neck thriller, Dan Bown has presented a virulent, incredible (and we use the word in its original sense) attack on historic Christianity.

The Brown opposes the Roman Catholic Church is something we have no objection to. But his opposition reaches a lot further than just the Roman Church.

Ah, comes the objection, but Dan Brown's book is a work of fiction! True O sage, O onion. And that is why, to answer Dan Brown's objections, we bring you...

Dr. Trevelyan's Da Vinci Conversation

Let me explain. Here we intend to use a semi-fictional format to answer Dan Brown. The comments, though containing factual information, will be presented in a fictional manner. If it was not for this, I would simply be referring you to some other sites. In our next post you will be introduced to our cast.