Watch the movie The Name of the Rose, based on Umberto Eco’s book and directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud. How is the inquisitor Bernard Gui characterized? Does it match the image of the medieval inquisitors as we have studied them in this unit? Explain why.  

 

First of all, The Name of the Rose was a fantastic movie, despite my doubts early on. I expected the film to center around Bernard Gui as the main character, but he did not make his appearance until the very end. Based on the limited scenes that Bernard Gui participated in, in conjunction with the evocative back story provided by William of Baskerville in his confession to his apprentice, Adso, Bernard was bull-headed and perhaps, intentionally ignorant, of the facts of the case. It was his way or no way – death to anyone who dared speak out against him. I think this characterization fits with how we think of inquisitors in modern society, but it is completely opposite of the medieval inquisitors’ characterizations, based on real evidence, that we have studied in this unit.

 

I was more moved by the mystery of the book and William’s quest to solve the crimes than I was impressed by the portrayal of the inquisitor. It seems William is much more suited to the characterization of the medieval inquisitors we have studied because he does not act irrationally – he does his job. This is my understanding of how medieval inquisitors were supposed to act, but as time went on, they became hard-pressed by their superiors to set examples and make people afraid of magic, with the intent that patrons would come whole-heartedly to Christianity and give up their old customs, which threatened the existence of a new religion. William reminded me of an early scientist, almost like Sherlock Holmes, in his dedicated search for clues to the many deaths. Bernard, on the other hand, took testimony (during obvious duress) and did no research to find the real reasons for the crimes. He just attributed them to witchcraft and nearly killed an innocent girl. (Spoiler Alert): The film portrayal suggests she survived somehow, so I’d like to believe that. I still wonder why that particular book, out of the many books that were banned from the Bible throughout time, held such importance. Surely other texts used humor, as well?