

***
***
***
***
Since semiotics is easily applicable to the Middle Ages, so rich in signs
and a less complex society, I asked him about his fascination with that period
and its importance for our world today.
"The fashion for the Middle Ages, the Medieval
dream, cuts through all of European civilization. The Middle Ages were the
crucible of Europe and modern civilizations: we're still reckoning with things
born thenbanks and bank drafts, administrative structures and community
politics, class struggles and pauperism, the diatribe between state and church,
the university, mystic terrorism, trial based on suspicion, the hospital and
the episcopate, the modern city, modern tourism, how one should respect one's
wife while languishing for one's lovebecause the Middle Ages also created
the concept of love in the West.
"We reconstruct classical antiquity excavating
in the Roman Forum, one props up the Coliseum, cleans up the Acropolis; but
they are not filled up again. Once rediscovered, they are only contemplated.
But that which remains of the Middle Ages can be botched and one continues
to re-utilize it as a container, putting something into it that is not radically
different from what was there originally. I mean a bank is still a bank. And
one adapts as one can Chartres or San Gimignano, but not to venerate them
but to continue to live in them. You pay for a ticket to visit a Greek temple
but you go to a mass in the Milan Cathedral.
"I mean to say here that the dream of the Middle
Ages is acted out on that which can be adapted, not on that which can only
be a museum."
***
He seems to have views on everything that has happened since the Middle Ages.
Umberto Eco's ideas about libraries have often been quoted. He likes to muse
on what a library should and should not be. He has said that he especially
likes the Sterling Library at Yalea neo-Gothic monastery, he calls it.
He deplores the labyrinth-like libraries of Italy and advances theoretical
organizational plans for an ideal library.
He has described how clothes condition man,
recalling how "warriors in past centuries dressed in armor lived exteriorly,
while monks had invented a dressmajestic, fluid, all of a piecethat
left the body free and forgotten (inside and under!). Monks were thus rich
in interior life, and filthy, because their bodies, defended by a dress that
while it ennobled the body also liberated it to think and forget itself."
His irony emerges in full force in his advice
on "intelligent vacations." Noting that people who are not criminals or terrorists
are more exigent in their recreational reading matter, he made a series of
proposals: for people who want to keep up with Third World problems he suggested
the delightful Kitab al-s ada wa'l is'ad, by Abdul'l Al'Amiri, of which
a critical edition of 1957 is available in Teheran. Or, the Zefir Yezirah;
the Zohar naturally, for some good reading on the Cabalistic tradition.
Or you can simply take along to the seashore Die Grundrisse, the apocryphal
New Testament and some unpublished microfiches by the semiologist Peirce.
At another place he reflects on how much it
costs to write a masterpiece, from expensive works like Magic Mountain
(sanatorium, furs, etc.) to Death in Venice (Lido hotels, gondolas
and Vuitton bags) to cheap works like For Whom the Bell Tolls (clandestine
trip to Spain, room and board furnished by Republicans, and sleeping bag with
girl), or Robinson Crusoe (just embarkation costs).
I have listed Eco's diverse subjects also to
underline his predilection for lists. His subjects make up a long list. His
mind catalogues, transforms and applies. I asked him why all those lists in
The Name of the Rose.
"I've always loved the technique of the list.
For many years I made a collection of examples and considered writing a book
on the use of lists, from classic literature down to Joyce. Moreover, the
list is a typical medieval descriptive strategy. Therefore, I used the list
in this book because it is so medieval.
"In the tendency of the list there is something
even more important: it is typical of both primitive epochs and overly cultivated
epochs. When one doesn't yet know, or one no longer knows what is the form
of the world, instead of describing a form, one lists its aspects. One proceeds
by aggregation instead of by organization. In substance, my character Adso
in The Name of the Rose does not understand well what is happening
nor what has happened; therefore, he lists what he sees or what he hears,
and what he believes to have seenand he knows only because he has heard
or read other lists."
Apparently Umberto Eco is the intellectual per
se. He is considered such in Italian and in international society. His analogy
between the intellectual and the critic is a cogent reflection of the role
he sees for himself in society. "I often say that the intellectual is something
like Italo Calvino's Baron Rampante: he sits in the trees but follows and
criticizes things, thus participating in the events of his era. The intellectual's
participation in political life is a critical activity that sometimes can
assume forms of apparently disinterested research, even if as a private citizen
he can be both committed in public life and able to put his knowledge at the
disposition of a party or a group. But his true intellectual function is exercised
not when he speaks for his party or group but when he speaks against it. It's
easy to criticize enemies. The problem is to criticize friends. "The role
I would like to play is of one who through his analyses signals something
that is not functioning, in areas where too little has been said.
"Yet, I try to remember that while society needs
its poets and wants to hear their opinions, it's however a false position.
Poets speak through their works and are worth little at conferences where
they usually say stupid things. My success as a novelist gives me a halo of
authority but when I do agree to speak I try to speak as an essayist not a
novelist." Finally one must speak with Umberto Eco about power relationships,
which he claims were the background for The Name of The Rose. The role
of European intellectuals was a powerful one in the post-WWII era. Europe
was coming out of war and Fascism and was politically divided down the middle
between progressives (Socialists and Communists) and Conservatives (Fascists
and Christian Democrats). Progressive intellectuals were at the heart of the
protest movements of 1968 in Italy, France and Germany. The question of power
was paramount.
Eco says that Michel Foucault elaborated the
most convincing notion of powerpouvoir or poterein
circulation: power is not only repression and interdiction but is also incitement
to speak and the production of knowledge. Secondly, power is not one single
power. It is not massive. It is not a unidirectional process between one entity
that commands and its subjects. Power is multiple and ubiquitous. It is a
network of consensuses that depart from below. Power is a plurality. Power
is the multiplicity of relationships of strength. For the semiologist, language
is always closely linked to power.
Eco's theory is that the criticism of power
has degenerated because that criticism has become massive. Mass criticism
of power spawned ingenuous notions that powerthe systemhad one
center, symbolized by the evil man with a black mustache manipulating the
working class. As an example of the misunderstanding Eco recalls the theorists
of European terrorism who wanted to strike at the heart of the state.
The danger, Eco says, is confusing power and
force. Force is causality. And causality is reversible. That reversal is called
revisionism. On the other hand, to change power is to make a revolution. For
example, man decides that woman will wash the dishea symbolic relationship
of force based on the consensus of the subject. That relationship is changed
if the woman refuses to wash the dishesthat is revisionism. Compromises
are revisionistic. Revolution, however, is the sum total of a long series
of revisions, the violent overturn of progressive revisions. Society becomes
a universe devoid of a center. Everything is periphery. There is no longer
the heart of anything. Only romantic terrorists of the Red Brigades thought
that the state had a heart and that the heart was vulnerable.
"On the other hand, multinational empires exist
today. They are not an invention of protesters or terrorists. I don't want
to moralize and say that multinationals are bad. They are the form that modern
industrial organization has taken in capitalistic society. It's also true
that multinationals are always disturbed by local events and local political
decisions. Look at what happened in Chile. And now in many places. This is
one of the problems of our times. Don't ask me for a solution. I just note
it."
Gaither Stewart
Rome, Italy
November, 2000
![]()
Gaither Stewart. a native of Asheville, North Carolina, has lived most of his life in Europe. He served as Italian correspondent for the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad and wrote for publications in various countries. Recently, he lived over a year in Mexico to research and work on a novel that takes place in Italy and Mexico. He recently returned home to Rome.