Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose
Fifth Day: Prime (pp. 335-48)
The debate about the poverty of Jesus and his apostles
Study Pages


Preceding study page is "Fourth Day: Night"
Click here to return to the study page index.
Click here to return to the ENG 510 syllabus.
Address questions and comments to Professor Anderson.

"The fog . . . now like a milky blanket" (p. 335): Fog is used as a narrative detail and a symbolic image elsewhere. In Fourth Day: Compline, at page 309, Salvatore moves about the monastery in the night fog, pursuing carnal desires. In Sixth Day: Terce, at page 427, when Adso falls asleep during the Dies irae at Malachi's funeral and has a vision of the Underworld, he finds himself in a "fog of the soul . . . a region not of this world." On the morning of the debate about the poverty of Jesus, the fog of the previous (fourth) day now becomes "a milky blanket that totally covered the high plane" (p. 335), obscuring the shape of things, making material things seem like shadows. The fog in this case has four possible symbolic meanings:

(1) Fog is a commonplace image of a complex and bewildering debate, especially one like this, where the issues are obscured by political agendas and rivalries.

(2) Fog in detective fiction is a sign of great danger and suspense, as in Arthur Conan Doyle's Hound of the Baskervilles, chapters 13-14. There, the November fog conceals Stapleton's criminal activity on the moor at night, "when the powers of darkness are exalted," and Sir Henry Baskerville almost loses his life to the "hound of hell," because of the fog.

(3) The fog is an objective correlative of Adso's sadness; this corresponds with Eco's later use of fog as symbolic of Adso's spiritual state when he falls asleep at Malachi's funeral (p. 427).

(4) The fog perhaps discloses that material objects are really only shadows of universal Ideas in the Platonic sense. Adso's experience in the fog seems to confirm the Platonic theory of universals, in contrast with the nominalism of William of Occam.

Tympanum images of Christ and his apostles (p. 336): The tympanum sculpture, showing the twelve apostles "with various objects in their hands," provides a symbolic allusion to the debate about the poverty of Jesus and his apostles. Do the apostles "own" the objects that they have in their hands?

"The session was opened by Abo" (p. 338): Beginning of the formal debate on the poverty of Jesus and his apostles, between the Spritiual Franciscans, led by Ubertino of Casale, and the Papal legation from Avignon, led by Bernardo Gui. "Is it heretical to assert that Christ and the apostles had none of the things that come into use in human life either in regard to ownership or of dominion over them?" Controversy about this evolved into a heated debate from 1321 through 1323. The Franciscans maintained that Jesus and his apostles neither owned nor controlled material property of any kind, as an example to show that the Church should not possess material things. The Papal Court at Avignon, under Pope XXII, and the Dominican Order, argued that the Franciscan doctrine of the poverty of Jesus was heretical. The best primary source in English translation is Hervaeus Natalis, The Poverty of Christ and the Apostles, trans. John D. Jones (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999). This volume contains a treatise by the Master General of the Dominican Order, Hervaeus (who died in 1323), and a Vatican scribe's summary of the positions of several Franciscans, including those of two cardinals, Vital du Four, and Bertrand de la Tour. In their works, Hervaeus and the Franciscans argue rigorously, basing their arguments on biblical and patristic texts, and exploring the nature of poverty, the relation of poverty and wealth to the possibility of spiritual perfection, the relationship between ownership, rights, and the use of property, and the justification of providing for the future.

Mendicant friars were by no means unanimous in their views about poverty. The Dominicans, in particular, did not accept the view that absolute poverty was a prerequisite to religious perfection. St. Thomas Aquinas, in Contra pestiferam doctrinam retrahentium pueros a religionis ingressu ("Against the Pestiferous Teachong of those who would prevent Boys from Entering the Religious Life"), written ca. 1270 (and translated into English as An Apology for the Religious Orders, trans. J. Procter [Westminster, MD: Newman, 1950]), argues that poverty is not advisable for persons living in a religious community, but common possessions are necessary, as prescribed in the Benedictine Rule. Thomas does believe that a religious, in order to advance in spiritual perfection, must give up personal control and interest in wealth; but for him, the requirement of poverty does not mean living without the basic necessities of life. Material things are to be used in the context of humble obedience.



Cum inter nonnullos [schoasticos viros] (p. 339), "Since among several [learned men]": Papal bull of John XXII in 1323, spoken of earlier in the Prologue at p. 13, in an initial summary of historical events that led to the debate on the Franciscan doctrine of the "absolute poverty" of Jesus and his apostles. Papal bulls take their titles from the initial words of their texts. In "Cum inter nonnullos," Pope John XXII condemned as heretical the Franciscan doctrine that Jesus and his apostles neither owned nor had control over any material things. Specifically, this Papal bull condemned the doctrine of the poverty of Jesus as espoused by in a Franciscan council at Perugia in 1322. For notes on the debate about the poverty of Jesus, see commentary on Fifth Day: Prime.

Ubertino's argument about the poverty of the apostles is based on Acts 4: 32-37: Apostles held property in common and used it to minister to the poor.

"If any man will sue thee at law" (p. 341): Ubertino's allusion is to Matthew 5: 38-42, where a contrast is developed between the old law of Moses, which requires "an eye for an eye" (Exodus 21: 22-25 and Leviticus 24: 19-22). The spirit of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is lost on Alborea, who disrupts the debate by assaulting Jerome Bishop of Kaffa, "by the logic of an eye for an eye." Essentially the same message is found in variant form in Luke 6: 27-35).

"Peter says to the Lord that to follow him they have left everything" (p. 341): Ubertino alludes to Matthew 19:23-30.

"bread and fishes" (p. 341): Ubertino alludes to one of Jesus' miracles, in which five loaves of bread and two fishes are multpilied in order to feed a large crowd of people who had followed him into the wilderness in order to hear his teachings (Matthew 14: 13-21).

"as Paul says in 1 Timothy (p. 341): Ubertino alludes to 1 Timothy 6: 6-10.

"apostles . . . possessed farms in Judea" (p. 342): Jean d'Anneaux's argument is based upon an interpretation of Acts 4: 34-37).

"Jesus was man and God at the same time" (p. 343): The doctrine of communicatio idiomatum was still a topic of theological controversy in the 12th and 13th centuries. Abelard had claimed that the "humanity" of Christ is not that of a concrete individual man (Christus ut homo non est hoc aliquid). Peter Lombard followed Abelard in this view (Sententiae III, cap. 10).

Eco's immediate source for Jerome's a forteriori argument was a "summary of Franciscan Positions Concerning the Poverty of Christ and the Apostles," a scribe's summary of responses made to a request by Pope John XXII for opinions from theological experts when he was formulating the bull Cum inter nonnullos.

"the logic of an eye for an eye" (p. 345): the allusion is to the spirit of the Law of Moses, in contrast with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: Exodus 21: 22-25 and Leviticus 24: 19-22. The irony of the scene is that the debate about the poverty of Jesus, a concept based upon ideas expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, degenerates into a brawl in the chapter house, following the logic of the Old Law of Moses.

Jerome, Bishop of Kaffa (pp. 342-43): When William of Baskerville first heard that the Bishop of Kaffa was to be part of the delegation, arguing in favor of the Franciscan view concerning the absolute poverty of Jesus, he remarks that the man is "an idiot" (p. 55). His idiocy is illustrated by his contribution to the debate. First, he attempts an a forteriori argument: if it is evident that Jesus was both divine and human, how much more is it evident that Jesus was absolutely poor. He follows this with an argument ad hominem, that it is impossible to deny this doctrine of the Franciscans, because the Franciscans have distinguished themselves as missionaries in pagan or Moslem lands. Through the agency of the Bishop's illogical arguments, the debate degenerates into a brawl.

Eco's source for Jerome of Kapha's a forteriori argument is a summary of Franciscan positions concerning the poverty of Jesus, submitted to Pope John XXII when he was considering his bull Cum inter nonnullos. The summary was submitted to the pope, along with Hervaeus Nivalis' treatise on the Poverty of Christ and his Apostles, and was published in Felice Tocco's La quistione della poverta nel secolo XIV (Naples, 1910), pp. 51-87. Among these summaries is the following [p. 58]:

"A Brief Summary of the Felicitous Remarks of the Bishop of Capha

"Is it heretical to assert that Christ and the apostles did [not] have something in common? The response is 'No', as is evident from the words and deeds of Christ, the authority of the saints, and the determinations of the Church, all of which have already been cited. In response to the question properly sought--whether it is heretical to assert that it is clearer in Scripture that Christ [had] something in common than that he was God and human--the response is 'Yes'. For, it is clearly contained in Scripture that Christ is true God and true man, but nowhere is it expressly found that Christ had something in common. Thus, it is evident that this sort of assertion is the greatest heresy."

The next study page is Fifth Day: Terce (pp. 349-57)).