The above book is quite a difficult read…so I have treturnedto it to re-read, and each time I discover something new. Anyway, I recall that while Brother William of Baskervilleis busy tracking down the guy who is murdering the monks, thereis a serious theological debate going on…the very important question of “did Christ own his clothes”? was being debated.
My question: was this theological question resolved? As Ecco pointed out, if Christ had actually OWNED something, then the way was clear for the Church to be rich…however, if the Christ was poor, and eschewed all ownership, then the implication (obviously) was that the Church should be poor!
Anyway, amid the excitement of figuring out who the killer was(the old abbot), was this question ever resolved?
And, was Ecco slyly poking fun at medieval catholic theology as well?
Yes, I think he’s mocking the theological hair-splitting that affected the Medieval church in the wake of Thomas Aquinas. I don’t know if the debate was ever resolved, but I think the point was: who cares? It’s a case of not seeing the forest for the trees while plague, war, and starvation are raging outside the monastery walls,
I’m going to be snotty and point out that this is going to sink like a stone, while threads about Harry Potter and The Hobbit multiply like bunnies.
Also, I’ve just started a great book for Medieval cultural background called “A Distant Mirror” by Barbara Tuchmann. I think I’ll reread the “Name of the Rose” when I’m done. You might also want to brush up on your semiotics when reading Ecco.
And here’s a link to a tangentially related Cecil column: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_132.html
I also liked the fact that the monks lived quite well (by the standards of the time). They were clothed and well fed…while the peasants lived horrible lives. I wonder how Walter Scott couldromanticise this period (the early Middle Ages)-it must have been a HORRIBLE time for you (unless you were a priest or member of the nobiloity!
I don’t think the debate was resolved… after all (this is going by memory, haven’t read it in a while), didn’t some of the monks/priests involved in it killed, either by the fire or by the witchcraft trial (or at least their reputations tarnished)?
I found the other religious debate, about whether or not Jesus laughed and the Aristotle book to be more interesting.
You know life sucks when priests are considered to have it great… because they have decent (if very dull) clothing and they eat regularly.
The Dominicans continued to be a recognized order at the end of the book when the narrator closes off. I’d guess the orders beliefs in the poverty of Christ survived the examination.
Franciscans. Damn it!:smack:
Off point, but I read there’s going to be a new movie version of NAME OF THE ROSE. Odd that they’d film an unfilmable book twice. (I guess up next will be a Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston vehicle of FOUCAULT’S PENDULUM- Topol guest stars as En Sof.)
More pointless trivia: The blind librarian, Jorge de Burgos, was an eponymous homage to Jorges Luis Borges, Eco’s good friend and idol. In addition to being one helluva writer (and medeival and cabbalist enthusiast) himself, Borges was a blind librarian.
Are you familiar with Eco’s determination of Macs as Catholic and PCs as Protestant? It’s probably just long enough a short article to worry the people who strive to keep SDMB legal, so I’ll just post a link:
I read the book and I saw the film.
I thought the film did a half-way decent job of covering the basics of the story and I liked it.
Making a new film version?
Can’t imagine why, but sure - go ahead.
Actually - Peter Jackson could probably do a bang up job.
Regarding the specific question from the OP…I remember the discussion, but like others have said, it was a long time ago and I don’t recall if they came to any conclusion in the book. But I do recall thinking at the time that it was quite a stretch to go that far to rationalize making profit off the poor - but like many other ex-Catholics, I considered it an apt example of Vatican policy.
I don’t get involved in those threads myself, but I still think this comparison to be snotty rather than meaningful.
A thread about a minor side point in a 20-year-old book - a point that most people who have read the book, including me, don’t ever remember - will hardly get as much attention as whatever is hot and currently popular.
Your point might also have been better served if you had spelled “Ecco” and “Tuchmann” correctly.
This is a smallish hijack, but I’ve always found the name “Umberto Eco” facinating, because . . .
“Eco” means “echo” in Italian.
Umberto echoed would be “Umberto Umberto”
In other words, Humbert Humbert.
Snug,
In a collection of short stories I think called “Misreadings” he has a story called “Granita” about a main character, Umberto Umberto, who has a fetish for old ladies.
Feel better now?
I am not making this up.
Ah, yes. An excerpt:
Granita. Flower of my adolescence, torment of my nights. Will I ever see you again? Granita. Granita. Gran-i-ta. Three syllables, the second and third forming a diminutive, as if contradicting the first. Gran. Ita."
“My name is Umberto Umberto. When the crucial event occured, I was submitting boldly to the triumph of adolescence. . .”
continues
“. . . And in the frame of the doorway I saw her, the face of the remote Norn of my natal shock, the cascading enthusiasm of her laciviously white locks, the stiffened body that stretched the stuff of the little, thread-bare black dress into acute angles, the legs now thin and bent opposing arcs, the fragile line of her vulnerable femur outlined under the ancient modesty of the venerable skirt.”
The insipid maiden who was our hostess made a show of tolerant politeness. She raised her eyes to heaven as she said, “she’s my granny. . .”
A remake without Sean Connery’s brogue? “Shimply unthinkable, Adsho.”