A review by nonabgo
Numele trandafirului by Umberto Eco

4.0

I first read [b:The Name of the Rose|119073|The Name of the Rose|Umberto Eco|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1415375471l/119073._SY75_.jpg|3138328] when I was in highscool. It was a mandatory read for my Universal literature class and, as with most mandatory reads, I hated it. It didn't help that I also hated the teacher, whom I considered (and still do) a poser who lived to be adulated by high-schoolers. He had these ideas to teach philosophical novels to 16 year-olds who barely understood them, but thought they would be cool if they bragged about reading "hard" stuff. Anyways.

While I still don't think this is a novel fit for teenagers, I can appreciate it more now. It will never be one of my absolute favourite books, for the simple fact that I think religion is the devil and the Catholic Church did more bad than good throughout its existence (with some very gruesome examples in this book)… but alas, I can, for the most part, detach from my beliefs and appreciate it as the great piece of literature that it is.

I see a lot of reviews from people who stop at the crime part and think the rest of the book is simply pointless and just a way for Eco to show off about his erudition. There's simply too much Latin for some people. I disagree (I also actually studied Latin in school, and probably being European makes it just sort of normal to see it in writings). To me, the mystery is solely an excuse to discuss about the historical context of the era. Yes, Guglielmo is sort of a Middle Ages Sherlock Holmes, he employs logic and evidence-based deductions to uncover the mystery and that aspect of the novel is alert and interesting and reveals a mind ahead of its times. Undressed of the philosophical discourse, the novel would not have been more than your regular run-of-the-mill murder-mystery.

However, the main part of the novel is a deep dive into the politics and religious beliefs of the time - the first more than the latter, because any history buff knows that most politics during those times were shaped, in reality, by the Church, who would use religion as merely a means to gain more power and wealth (not unlike in some countries today - see Poland).

The entire debate on whether Jesus was wealthy or not is not a religious debate, but simply a means to decide (or justify) whether the Church should hold possessions or not, and to what extent. It may appear to be a philosophical and doctrinal debate and that's how the characters rationalize it, but in reality (and very much admitted by Guglielmo as well), it's all about maintaining the Church's power over the people by amassing wealth and creating law. In the end, however subtle and despite his involvement in the Church, Guglielmo hints at the inconsistencies of the faith, and even Adso, immature and ecstatic as he is, realises that, if properly dissected, the Church's logic actually demonstrates that God does not exist.

I think having Adso as the storyteller was a stroke of genius from Eco's part. He is merely a novice and a teenager, but - and particularly because of this - he is able to observe things with fresh eyes, not yet corrupted by the Church. The fact that he comes from an order that values possessions, but is actually a disciple of a Franciscan, an order that preaches humility and poverty, makes him a great unbiased (who occasionally questions his faith) observer. Eco even states at some point that he chose to tell the story through Adso's eyes because he was so young that he could recount the events with a photographic memory, but didn't understand them - consequently did not try to explain, thus he did not misinterpret them.

Adso is also quite funny, bringing an innocence that breaks the seriousness of both the events in the Abbey and the religious debates. For such a dark book, having the storyteller insert self-deprecating humour in the story is a much needed breather.

„I sat in church, near the central door, as the Masses were said. And so I fell devoutly asleep and slept a long time, because young people seem to need sleep more than the old, who have already slept so much and are preparing to sleep for all eternity.”


The book is also a praise of knowledge and science. Knowledge is power, but it can also lead to a lot of harm if fallen in the wrong hands. But who is responsible of maintaining the knowledge and is it really beneficial, on long term, to hide it from those who could use it unwisely, or should it be free for everyone? In the end, hiding knowledge turns out to be worse. Humans are rational and curious beasts and hiding something only makes people want it more. But knowledge is also power and some people (in this case, the Church) doesn't want to share that power and lose control of the masses. We have a saying in my language, the books make you unstupid; thus harder to be manipulated.

The ending was simply heart-breaking for me. It hit me hard and saddened me. But it was the natural and only possible ending.

It's not a book for everyone, don't be fooled by the movie. Don't expect an easy read. The mystery is but a small part of it. It's great as historical fiction, the Middle Ages being an era so easily bypassed by writers (probably because it's not an easy period to write about).