Analysis: At this point, William figures out that the deaths following the trumpets of the apocalypse was a coincidence as opposed to a pattern. He asks Jorge why he decided to play along with the notion of the seven trumpets that would eventually lead him to the secret room in the library. Jorge explains that it was God’s doing and he was merely a vessel upon which the actions were carried at. The seven trumpets of the apocalypse were believed by Jorge to be a sign that the book he was guarding would be capable of bringing about the Antichrist.
Connections: Jorge’s idea that a divine pattern dictated his actions and that he was merely a vessel upon which God acted out his divine will is reminiscent of any religious conflict in the world. People firmly believe that their God wants them to murder others for having an opposing viewpoint. These people believe that due to their righteous intentions, their sins will be forgiven. These people then carry out with religious fervor some of the most gruesome acts of recorded history.
How could a benevolent god want those actions to be done? Text: “No, to be sure. But laughter is weakness, corruption, the foolishness of our flesh. It is the peasant’s entertainment, the drunkard’s license; even the church in her wisdom has granted the moment of feast, carnival, fair, this diurnal pollution that releases humors and distracts from other desires and other ambitions. … Still, laughter remains base, a defense for the simple, a mystery desecrated for the plebeians. The apostle also said as much: it is better to marry than to burn. Rather than rebel against God’s established order, laugh and enjoy your foul parodies of order, at the end of the meal, after you have drained jugs and flasks.
Elect the king of fools, lose yourselves in the liturgy of the ass and the pig, play at performing your saturnalia head down. … But here, here”—now Jorge struck the table with his finger, near the book William was holding open —”here the function of laughter is reversed, it is elevated to art, the doors of the world of the learned are opened to it, it becomes the object of philosophy, and of perfidious theology” (507) Analysis: At this point in the novel, William asks Jorge why he became so intent on hiding Aristotle’s lost novel on laughter.
Jorge explains that the book justifies laughter as an art, a philosophy, a theology. This view of laughter was ludicrous and would be the downfall of society and the beginning of the apocalypse. This insight into the character of Jorge echoes back to a previous debate held in the scriptorium about laughter. Ironically, Jorge was one of the most adamant to speak against laughter, and when William used the people who took part in the conversation on laughter as suspects he dismissed Jorge due to his age and blindness.
Connections: Jorge’s reflection on laughter as sinful goes against what I believe of laughter. I have often found that laughter is the best medicine for pushing back the darkness in life. When someone is having a bad day, making them laugh or smile is often all they need to feel better. Laughter is not a sin, but it is a gift to those who are struggling through hard times and need some reason to cheer up about the current state of their affairs. Laughter is a divine medicine, not a tool that Satan uses to tempt others into damnation.
Jorge’s view on laughter seems ludicrous when looked upon with a modern view. Text: “It’s true,” Benno said, smiling for the first time, his face growing almost radiant. “We live for books. A sweet mission m this world dominated by disorder and decay. Perhaps, then, you will understand what happened on that occasion. Venantius, who knows … who knew Greek very well, said that Aristotle had dedicated the second book of the Poetics specifically to laughter, and that if a philosopher of such greatness had devoted a whole book to laughter, then laughter must be important.
Jorge said that many fathers had devoted entire books to sin, which is an important thing, but evil; and Venantius said that as far as he knew, Aristotle had spoken of laughter as something good and an instrument of truth; and then Jorge asked him contemptuously whether by any chance he had read this book of Aristotle; and Venantius said that no one could have read it, because it has never been found and is perhaps lost forever. And, in fact, William of Moerbeke never had it in his hands.
Then Jorge said that if it had not been found, this was because it had never been written, because Providence did not want futile things glorified. (120) Analysis: William asks Benno to recount in his own words the events of the previous day. He explains to William and Adso the conversation about laughter and its power for good or evil depending on your viewpoint. He explains Jorge’s aversion to it while Venantius deemed it to be important. This conversation with Benno serves as foreshadowing through where Jorge will have Malachi kill Venantius due to him coming into possession of Aristotle’s second book on the Poetics of laughter.
Benno shows that they have two different views on laughter. Future reading provides more context to the conversation when it is realized that Jorge was hiding the book on laughter. Connections: Benno recounting what he remembers about events that William and Adso were present for reminds me of many famous dialogues in mystery shows. The detective asks the suspect to recount events that the detective already knows about in hopes that the suspect will nervously give something away about their true intentions.
In this case, Benno does not give up any damning information about himself as the suspect in most systery cases seems to do. This scene also introduces a core belief of a main character that is needed in order to understand them later. Every movie has an explanation for why their villain became villainous and what it means for their life. Text: “Weren’t we told he was called Abbas agraphicus because of that strange defect, or illness, which made him unable to write? Then who wrote these pages? His assistant librarian, I would say.
But if by chance this assistant librarian were then named librarian, he would then have continued writing, and we would have figured out why there are so many pages here in the same hand. So, then, between Paul and Robert we would have another librarian, chosen about fifty years ago, who was the mysterious rival of Alinardo, who was hoping, as an older man, to succeed Paul. Then this man died, and somehow, contrary to Alinardo’s expectations and the expectations of others, Robert was named in his place. (470)
Analysis: William demonstrates to Adso his powers of deduction to show a curious gap in the history of the library. Due to the handwritings present in the book and the changes in handwriting as the librarian changed. This gap points to an unknown librarian that the reader later finds out was Jorge until Robert was named in his place due to his willingness to comply and Jorge’s blindness. This deduction was one of the major keys that William used to solve the mystery of the library and discover who was behind the murders that had been plaguing the monastery.
Connections: William’s investigation through the use of evidence and logic reminds me of the way in which science is often done in the real world. In both cases you start with an initial hunch that drives some further investigation. You observe what you can using all of the methods available to you in order to draw conclusions about what you cannot observe. Scientists use this to explain things such as antimatter, quarks, the human mind, and more. While they can’t be observed directly, the environment and context can be observed in order to reach a valid conclusion.
