Fall of a Hero, Triumph of a Villain: An Analysis of Umberto Eco’s Choices Regarding the Characters William of Baskerville and Bernard Gui in The Name of the Rose

Courage, intellect, and good results: 3 typical qualities which could easily be attributed to the hero of any story. Take cunning, manipulation, and eventual failure, and you have your self the standard villain. In The Name of the Rose, Umberto Eco has decided to take upon the usual “good triumphs more than bad” theme, and twist it in such a way that readers have their apparent hero, William of Baskerville, eventually failing in all he sets out to do, and his nemesis, Bernard Gui, succeeding. Why would Eco so deliberately choose to have such a reversal of the usual roles, and how is it that he manages to pull it off so effectively? To be able to answer such inquiries, we need to appear closely at the author’s chosen literary methods.

William of Baskerville is clearly Eco’s representation of Sherlock Holmes in The Name of the Rose, and Holmes’ adversary, Moriarty, is embodied in the character of Bernard Gui. All through the novel, readers see continual demonstrations of William’s similarity to Holmes. He is a detective, has the Watson-kind character of Adso of Melk, and has a Moriarty-esque opponent, Bernard Gui. Gui is an Inquisitor, the very same job William when had. In truth, they were element of the exact same team. However, William left the Inquisition, realizing that his rational, enlightened and humanistic character was not suited to the job, and that he was unable to bring himself to condemn people to their deaths based upon the mere suspicion of heresy.

It is intriguing to see that when faced with his rival, William fails. The very first of quite a few situations happens at the debate on the poverty of Christ: initially, William’s task is to shield Michael of Cesena, guaranteeing that he is not required to attend the pope at Avignon (exactly where he would certainly be executed on the grounds of becoming a heretic), and basically, to make sure the meeting with the papal delegation runs as smoothly as achievable. It is exciting to see William’s first and foremost mission fail: the meeting final results in chaos, and Michael in the end ends up in Avignon, in mortal peril. In this case, Bernard Gui, sent by the Pope in the hope of causing such disorder, has succeeded.

Gui’s victory in this sense relates to another of his achievements: he is an inquisitor, and the job of an inquisitor is to find heretics and sentence them to their deaths. Whilst at the abbey, Bernard Gui uncovers numerous “heretics” some of which are totally innocent. This truth is irrelevant, as all that matters is that Bernard Gui is undertaking his job. In possessing these men and women killed, he is doing his job effectively, and is therefore productive when once more. Possessing had Michael of Cesena finish up in Avignon soon following his arrival warns readers that this character is swift on the path to good results, whereas by the very same point, William of Baskerville seems to be on a losing streak.

Following having failed to hold the meeting with the papal delegation in order, and thus getting Michael of Cesena in Avignon, “fearing for his life”, William’s second significant activity is to resolve the mysteries surrounding the murders that occur at the abbey. Mostly, the abbot asks William to investigate the unsolved death of Adelmo, the very first in a series of an eventual seven. One particular of the abbot’s first remarks is: “I was extremely pleased to understand that in numerous circumstances you decided the accused was innocent” , a statement which tells readers not only that William’s humanitarian nature was a key aspect in his leaving the Inquisition, but also that his character is totally opposite from that of Bernard Gui.

By the point of this character’s introduction, there have been four murders, and William has only managed to determine the situations after these 4 men and women are dead, which naturally is also late: he is appointed to resolve the mystery, and therefore avert any additional deaths, but when again, fails in performing so. Even so, by means of his use of logical thought and superior intellect in solving the crimes (albeit also late), readers see additional similarities to the character of Sherlock Holmes, 1 who is also renowned for his use of the same qualities.

Searching at the stories (and indeed character) of Sherlock Holmes, readers can see possibly why Eco would decide on to have his hero fail so often throughout his novel, rather than succeed in the typical epic style. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the well-known Sherlock Holmes series, truly had the character of Holmes killed off in a struggle with his nemesis, Moriarty:

A few words might suffice to tell the small that remains. An examination by authorities leaves small doubt that a private contest in between the two males ended, as it could hardly fail to end in such a predicament, in their reeling over, locked in every other’s arms. Any attempt at recovering the bodies was definitely hopeless, and there, deep down in that dreadful caldron of swirling water and seething foam, will lie for all time the most hazardous criminal and the foremost champion of the law of their generation. …whom I shall ever regard as the ideal and the wisest man whom I have ever recognized.

Via this excerpt, it can be seen that Holmes, a much-loved character, is ultimately defeated. The narrator, Watson, is left with the memory of Holmes as an intelligent and smart man, equivalent to the style in which Adso regards William throughout the course of the novel. Indeed, the only reason that the character of Holmes was revived was due to popular public demand . In Holmes’ defeat, we see the author’s original intention to have his villain triumph over his hero, and can see that Eco’s selection to have a Sherlock Holmes-esque character benefits in a similar story in The Name of the Rose.

The Name of the Rose is undoubtedly heavily influenced by religion: it contains several references to the Bible (for the most component to the Books of Genesis and Revelations), and the theme that evil will often prevail more than good can be seen in several Psalms:

His methods are usually prosperous he is haughty and your laws are far from him he sneers at all his enemies. He says to himself, “Nothing will shake me I’ll constantly be happy and never have trouble.”

This Psalm hints at the concept that very good doesn’t often triumph, as do the following numerous lines:

Do not fret when males succeed in their methods, when they carry out their wicked schemes…A small although, and the wicked will be no much more even though you look for them, they will not be found…. The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them.

Eco’s use of religious allusions all through the novel might really nicely issue into why he chooses to have William fail exactly where Gui succeeds. Using references to the Bible, which alludes to the idea that good does not necessarily often overcome evil, he can have his story portray the identical idea, exactly where, even though the hero fails in numerous elements although the villain succeeds, William is still observed as heroic. He gains understanding and understanding, and in that sense, regardless of almost everything else, he is remembered as the hero.

The way in which Umberto Eco chooses to go against the classic “successful hero” story can be observed as a result of a lot of influences, from William of Baskerville’s indubitable similarity to Sherlock Holmes to influences from the Bible. Even though William ultimately fails in each activity he is assigned, and Bernard Gui triumphs in all of his, readers nonetheless come away from the book obtaining the impression of the former as the hero, which is the principal goal. Via his use of literary strategies and allusions to other stories, Eco manages to reverse the traditional roles of hero and villain and nonetheless have them retain their titles, regardless of their various victories or defeats. This provides readers a far much more interesting story than that generally described by the mundane formula of “good hero defeats evil villain” by transposing the usual roles and nevertheless managing to have William seem the hero, Umberto Eco has produced a outstanding feat of literature.