The Name of the Rose (Umberto Eco) - review 1

It took lots of energy to read The Name of the Rose. I knew nothing about 15th century Europe, not to mention that the translation was bad (Indonesian version which was translated from English v. which was translated from the original Italian). And I didn’t understand what the main focus of the story was: the murder and the mysterious book, Inquisition and various Christian sects, 15th century political strife in Europe, or Adso’s constant amazement on illustrative depictions of heaven and hell?

But the greatest mystery of all was the title. Why was it called The Name of the Rose? A curious selection indeed, since there wasn’t any rose mentioned in the book. Nevertheless, after thinking long and hard, I finally see how the title possibly relates to the content of the story. Out of convenience, and because it fits my understanding, I’d refer to Shakespeare’s “rose” in Romeo and Juliet to analyze (albeit unscholarly) that relation.

On Romeo and Juliet, Act 2 Scene 2 (the legendary balcony scene), Juliet uttered these words:

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Juliet couldn’t say it more clearly--name is nothing but a jumble of sounds (and symbols, if it’s written). Without the name, Romeo would still be the same person, would he not?

However, some time later, still on the same scene, Juliet negated her declaration by saying:

Yet I know the sound:
Art thou not Romeo and a Montague?

Romeo would always be Romeo Montague, no matter how beautifully he tried to say otherwise. Hence the paradox: name is nothing, but it’s everything. And that, my friends, is a focal point in Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose.

to be continued....