Umberto Eco took Ileraclitus at his wordrnand perhaps “moved” some pages fromrnL. Pawel and J. Bergier’s Le matin desrnMagiciens (1960) to his Foucault’s Pendulumrn(1989), appropriating them (PartrnII. Chapter VII) in not too discreet arnmanner.rnThese arc not merely insinuations.rnOriginality moves to the second floorrnwhen the intent of artistic creation is tornreduce the multiplicitv of reality’s phenomenarnto a single ground, to Freudianrn”lust,” to Schopenhauer’s vitalistie, biologicalrnpanting. In this way differencesrnbecome nullified, goodness equivalentrnto wickedness, love to sin, Christ tornJudas. There is scorn for any suggestionrnof truth because everything is up forrnridicule. Of course, according to suchrnlogic, e’cn this assertion becomes ridiculous.rnIndeed, as Aristotle pointed out,rnenen the statement “truth does not exist”rnamounts nevertheless to the affirmationrnof a truth, since the effort to freernoneself from metapln sics alwavs requiresrnanother metaphvsic. At one point in thernbook. Friar William shows his true hand:rn”What I wanted to sav is that there isrnlitfle difference between the ardor of thernSeraphim and the ardor of Lucifer, sincernthe arc born alwas from a drasticrnexplosion of the will. . . . I dread notrnknowing the distinction anv longer.” AsrnPascal obser’ed, it is onl- the fool whorncannot grasp the differences betweenrnthings.rnIt is known that nominalism originatedrnwith John Roscelin at the end ofrnthe 11th centur, and arose from therneoniction that “universals”—ideas orrnessences—v’ere merel- names, not realit.rnThis ma’ well explain the “laughter”rnof eontcmporar nominalists. AugustornDel Noee opined in his letter to Quadrellirnthat “the fashionable nihilism of todayrnis a gay nihilism, in the two senses that itrnis smug and that it has as its symbol homosexuality.rn… Such a nihilism is exaet-rn1 the reduction of every value to thern’alue of exchange.'” Is this a return tornthe “gay science” of Nietzsche? Willrnlaughter dissolve moral reflection? Thernanswer lies in that historic rupture withrntradition: the Enlightenment.rnEco cunningly defines himself as arnperson of “Byzantine Enlightenment—rnone who does not exclude the possibilityrnthat een in that labyrinth which is thernuniverse of signs—in which we are immersedrn—there is a hidden explanation.”rnNeerthcless, as is the case with all Enlightenmentrntpes, he rejects the decisivernthing, namely, evil or sin. The Name ofrnthe Rose is an invitation to laugh at everything,rnabove all sanctity, sin, and thernIncarnation.rnFor Father Sommavilla, “the bookrnseeks to acknowledge the ridiculous substancernof all reality, the confusion of thernhighest values with the lowest.” There isrna passage in the novel that makes thisrnclear: “to attempt to redeem (with a diabolicalrnreversal) the highest through thernacceptance of the lowest.” Here gnosticismrnrears its head and leads author andrnreader to that incomprehensible gardenrnof signs and meanings. But gnosticism isrnthe inveterate enemy of truth, as the Fathersrnof the Church had pointed out—rnfrom St. Ircnaeus of Lyon to St. Augustine;rnand in the 20th century, from EricrnVoegelin to Augusto Del Noee.rnEmblematic, therefore, is Eco’s contentionrnfliat “if God exists, it is the Godrnof St. Thomas Aquinas; with him onerncan reason. We have studied the samernbooks. We arc both former students ofrnthe same university.” Beneath the alibirnof a facile irony lie the “seeds” of a nostalgiarnfor the Christian truth not yetrncompletely canceled by gnostic dualism.rnThus even the work and the life of UmbertornEco confirm the maxim of LouisrnPasteur: “A little science alienates onernfrom God; more science brings one tornHim.”rnThe loss of a center and the death ofrnlight in modern art have a “religious” origin.rnAs in the famous “Prologue inrnHeaven” of Goethe’s Faust, the questionsrnof our secularized age proceed fromrnuneasiness with God. The root of thernevils that besiege us is not “social” butrn”metaphysical.” It grows in the spirit andrnis nurtured bv an equivocation that separatesrnthe soul from the body. The resultsrnof this line of thinking are apparent inrnEco himself, who responded to the Progressives’rndefeat in Italy’s March 1994rnelection by declaring: “Cazzo! I’abhiamornpresa nel culo per mille anni” Ifrnthings are as Eco believes—if “we havernonly bare names” and no longer reality—rnthen his obscene comment (that “wernhave taken it in the backside for 1,000rnyears”) is appropriate. In fact, it is onlyrnsymptomatic. For the nominalist intellectualrnof the left there remain onlyrn”bare words” and vulgarity, obscene language,rnindeed coprolalia.rnBut, thank God, in order to contemplaternthe authentic white rose of revealedrntruth, there is the third Canto, thernParadise of Dante Alighieri’s “divinerncomedy,” rather than an elaborate neo-rnEnlightenment fiction whose apotheosisrnis dissolution.rnPostscript from the translator: It mayrnbe recalled that Umberto Eco, togetherrnwith Jacques Derrida and 38 other intellectuals,rnsigned a document called “ThernAppeal to Vigilance” that was publishedrnm Le Monde on July 13, 1993. The documentrndeplores the rise of conservatismrn(which these intellectuals called thern”far right”) as a threat to democracy andrnhuman lives on one hand and as thernemergence of a new fascism on thernother. The signatories resolved to form arncommittee that would “out” any institutionsrn(publishing houses, the press, universities)rnthat have a connection with thernfar right. They also resolved to refuse allrncollaboration in journals, collectivernworks, radio and TV programs as well asrnin eolloquia directed and organized byrnpeople with such political beliefs. Thisrntyrannical zealotry has fortunately beenrndeplored by honest journals of the Amer-rnDispatches fromrnThe Last DitchrnAnarcho-pessimists,rncrypto-Copperheads,rnpost-neo-Objectivists,rnand other enemies of thernpermanent regimernopining monthly, fromrnindividualist and EuropeanrnAmerican perspectives, onrnthe end of civilizationrnWrite for free issuernTrial subscription (4 issues), $15rn12 issues, $42 24 issues, $77rnWTM EnterprisesrnP.O. Box 224 Dept. CHrnRoanoke, IN 46783-0224rnJUNE 1995/39rnrnrn