The lawyer representing two historians who accuse Dan Brown of copying their work in his best-seller "The Da Vinci Code" said on Tuesday he suspected the author had lied in his evidence.
The 41-year-old Brown, in the witness box for the second day, was forced to defend his assertion that he had not read "The Holy Blood, and the Holy Grail" when he came up with the idea for his religious thriller.
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, co-authors of the 1982 Holy Blood book who are suing Brown's British publisher Random House, say he lifted their ideas wholesale.
Part of Brown's defence has been to say that he had already written the synopsis for The Da Vinci Code, one of the most successful novels ever with sales of around 40 million copies, before he became familiar with the Holy Blood book.
"You acquired a copy of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' before you accept in your evidence you did," said the historians' lawyer Jonathan Rayner James. Brown countered that neither he nor his wife and assistant Blythe had used ideas from the book for his synopsis.
There are seven books listed in the partial bibliography for the Da Vinci Code synopsis, written in January, 2001, but Holy Blood is not among them.
"That is the clear piece of evidence to me that Holy Blood, Holy Grail was not around when I wrote the synopsis," said Brown, adding it would have been in his interest to add the work to his bibliography in order to impress his publisher.
When Rayner James pointed out that the Holy Blood book was referred to as "essential reading" in another work Brown used for his research before writing his synopsis, he replied: "I had everything I needed for that synopsis. I'm in a synopsis phase. I'm looking at the big picture, not the details."
Brown admits that he used Holy Blood when he wrote The Da Vinci Code, but that it was only one of several sources and he did not copy its "central themes".
Both books share the idea of Jesus marrying and having a child by Mary Magdalene and their bloodline being protected by the mysterious Priory of Sion, a theory greeted with outrage by some Catholic leaders.
"I have never been shy about saying Holy Blood, Holy Grail is part of this," Brown said. "The whole Teabing section of the book - those are the sorts of snippets of information that Holy Blood, Holy Grail is very good on."
Leigh Teabing, a character in the novel, is an anagram of the two claimants in the case, and the 1982 work is referred to directly in the narrative.
The court heard discussions on the difference between British and US punctuation and spelling, as Brown sought to prove documents attributed to his wife were not her work.
Again Blythe emerged as a key partner in Brown's phenomenal success, researching and suggesting plot ideas as he wrote. Notoriously publicity shy himself, Brown has spoken on her behalf throughout the trial to protect his wife from the glare of media attention. He explained how he and his wife would often communicate via e-mail even when in the same building.
"It may sound very cold, but that's often how we communicate at home," he said.
Brown is expected to be in the witness box until Wednesday and the case is due to wind up next Monday. It could take several weeks before Mr Justice Smith gives his judgement.
Comments
Comments are closed.