Father of Six

Adso of Melk is assigned to tutelage under William of Baskerville. (Now there is some prime suggestion.)

Adso is a Benedictine and William is a Franciscan. Is there any conflict or contradiction between these two organizations?

A-ha! William consumes a mysterious roadside plant, especially during moments of tension and states that what is good for an old Franciscan is bad for a young Benedictine. (!)

“Beauty of the cosmos derives not only from unity in variety, but from variety in unity.”

William is naturally and obviously Holmesian. But is he of a higher developed intellect than Holmes? His keen powers of observation lend to powers of deductive reasoning. But William applies learned knowledge, and his “well read” being to the scenes he observes to create a more textured hypothesis. The horse Brunellus - by way of Isidore of Seville - is a description of a horse of beauty and William applies this prior knowledge to his assessment of his current situation, all in order to make an impression.

“Wine, cheese, olives, bread, and excellent raisins.”

‘ “I see your point,” is William’s way of promptly and politely concealing his dissent or puzzlement.” ‘

“Clemency is more scandalous than the crime itself.”
- Can you say O. J. Simpson?

The novel begins with an “editor’s” description of how he came to be in possession of a manuscript.

There are huge, chunky paragraphs pf Latin, largely untranslated, but deftly worked into the continuing narrative.

Here is a parenthetical example - but in French - again untranslated.

I’ve finished the first chapter, the story of the editor/translator and his now third edition of the manuscript original, written by Adso of Melk. I am slightly irritated at the untranslated Latin and French segments, and as I start the next chapter I am slightly aware that I might not be completely in grasp of the literary events.

I began the journey, the odyssey, of reading “The Name of the Rose” by Umberto Eco on January 21st.

I purchased an “Everyman’s Library” edition with a gift card given to me by my Little League football team at our banquet last Saturday night.

Two things struck me as challenging as I read the Introduction, written by a certain David Lodge. It reads -

“It is recommended that first time readers of … do not read the introduction beyond the break on p. xiv until they have finished the novel.”

This footnote is a challenge - to read the book in order to return and read the rest of the Introduction. Right, this guy is so presumptuous that he is implying that his introduction is as important and majestic as the novel. Alternatively, it is also a temptation, of which I usually find difficult to avoid.

Secondly, in the last paragraph of this virginal part of the introduction, Mr. Lodge discusses the challenges most readers face within the first 100 pages, of which friends and editors of Eco’s recommend he shorten because they were “very difficult and demanding.”

Eco refuses, explaining that the pages were a “penance or initiation,” and those readers who were successful would “learn how to read the book, and would not be able to stop reading, having reached this point.”

One additional aspect of both Eco and the novel is that in some perverted way they intrigue me with the utter Catholicism of it all. Perhaps the what and why of the intrigue will be revealed in later discussion.

I intend these entries - T.N.o.t.R., Pt.x, etc. - to be a sort of commentary of my thoughts and ideas as I read this book. If anyone has comments, or has themselves read the book, please provide feedback and commentary as I go along. It is my intent to read, and thereby post every day until I have completed the novel.