Juxtaposition In The Name Of The Rose Essay

In The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, a monk, William, and his novice, Adso, visit an Italian abbey and are asked by the abbot to investigate a recent suicide. As they interview monks and conduct their search, several monks are murdered, and they find two of the dead monks, Berengar and Adelmo, had had an illicit homosexual relationship prior to Adelmo’s suicide and Berengar’s murder. Through irony, setting, and juxtaposition, Eco uses the monks’ attitudes toward homosexuality as a means of exposing hypocrisy in the monastery, which ultimately serves to show that Christianity is manipulated by its followers to serve their own interests.
To become a monk in a 14th century Italian abbey, the setting of this novel, a novice must shadow a monk …show more content…
As the novel progresses, they begin to believe there is some connection between the murders and Berengar and Adelmo’s relationship. To learn more, William asks the cellarer about homosexuality in the abbey. Embarrassed, the cellarer replies that, “’Berengar was suspected of harboring passions that… are not proper for a monk,’” eventually revealing that there were “’whisperings’” among the monks that “’Berengar was impelled by carnal desire for those of his own sex’” (159). The cellarer claims his discomfort comes from his belief that “’there is a hierarchy of depravity as there is of virtue” and that Berengar’s feelings were “’against nature’” (159). The monks’ belief that “’the sin of sodomy is far worse than other forms of lust’” is ironic because they have no reason to believe that there is any type of hierarchy, as it is not a part of their vows, nor is it supported by Biblical scripture (159). Rather, this belief comes from their own feelings. They are manipulating both their vows and scripture to support their own disgust for homosexual …show more content…
The setting of the novel, an Italian abbey in the 14th century, provides context for the monks’ beliefs on homosexuality and their understanding of Biblical scriptures and monastic duties. The juxtaposition of the monks’ responses to heterosexual and homosexual sex provides an ironic means of recognizing the hypocrisy evident throughout the monastery. This hypocrisy is further shown by the abbey’s wealth, which is ironic considering monks are meant to live in simplistic poverty. It is further developed by Adso’s narration describing his own homosexual desires and by frequent references to homosexual sex being more sinful than heterosexual sex, though both are equally forbidden by the monks’ vow of chastity. These elements combine to show that the monks manipulate Christianity for their own benefit, condemning behaviors they disagree with while forgiving those that they perceive to be slightly less