The Common Cause: Leela Gandhi's Ahimsaic Historiography and the Postcolonial Ethic — M.D.Muthukumaraswamy

 The Common Cause: Leela Gandhi's Ahimsaic Historiography and the Postcolonial Ethic

—

M.D.Muthukumaraswamy 

—-

Leela Gandhi, the John Hawkes Professor of Humanities and English at Brown University and a founding co-editor of the journal Postcolonial Studies, stands as a pivotal figure in the evolution of postcolonial theory. Her body of work marks a significant "ethical turn" within the discipline, moving its focus from a primary concern with opposition and resistance toward a more nuanced exploration of non-antagonistic engagement, transnational collaboration, and radical ethics. Central to this intellectual project is her sustained and critical re-reading of the life and thought of her great-grandfather, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. This familial connection is not merely a biographical footnote but a profound methodological premise. It provides a unique vantage point from which she deconstructs the nationalist hagiography surrounding M.K. Gandhi, extricates his philosophy from a purely Indian context, and repositions it within the global, transnational networks where it was forged.

Her academic trajectory, from her foundational text Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction to her more recent works Affective Communities and The Common Cause, reveals a progressively deepening engagement with Gandhian ethics. This is not an exercise in defending a legacy but in using it as a critical lens to challenge the very foundations of postcolonial thought. By demonstrating that some of M.K. Gandhi's core philosophies, such as nonviolence and vegetarianism, were influenced by "transnational as well as indigenous sources," she transforms a personal connection into a powerful analytical tool. This approach allows her to challenge the binary opposition between "West" and "non-West" that has long structured the field, instead recovering what she terms "transnational traditions of anti-imperial ethics"—forms of global connection that are "intimate and minor and small and interpersonal”. Through this project, Leela Gandhi re-imagines post-colonialism not just as a critique of power, but as the pursuit of a non-injurious and radically inclusive mode of community.

Leela Gandhi's first major work, “Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction “(1998), was a landmark text that sought to "'name' post-colonialism" by mapping its complex intellectual genealogy. In it, she meticulously drew connections between the burgeoning field and its philosophical antecedents in poststructuralism, postmodernism, Marxism, and feminism, establishing a coherent context for its emergence. A crucial intervention of the book was its positioning of M.K. Gandhi and the Algerian revolutionary Frantz Fanon as the primary intellectual heritage of postcolonial theory. She argued that both thinkers, despite their stark differences, fundamentally revealed the "ethical inadequacy and undesirability" of the West's colonial civilising mission. In her reading, they shared an optimistic vision for the postcolonial task: to rebuild liberated nations into a state of "creative autonomy from Europe”. By placing M.K. Gandhi at the origin point of the discipline's theoretical concerns, she established him not merely as a historical figure of anti-colonial resistance but as a foundational theorist whose work anticipated the core questions of post-colonialism.

This initial positioning, however, also brought into sharp relief the complexities and contradictions that her later work would need to navigate. Leela Gandhi herself acknowledged the paradox of M.K. Gandhi's status, noting that "while it may be revolutionary to teach Gandhi as political theory in the Anglo-American academy, he is, and has always been, canonical in India”. This observation highlights the different intellectual weight his figure carries across geopolitical contexts, complicating any simple appropriation of his thought. Furthermore, the canonical figure of M.K. Gandhi is beset by powerful postcolonial critiques that challenge the very foundations of his legacy, creating the intellectual tension that her subsequent scholarship seeks to resolve through a non-defensive, theoretical reframing.

Among the most significant are postcolonial feminist critiques. Scholars such as Ketu Katrak have argued that while M.K. Gandhi successfully mobilized women for the nationalist cause, he did so by appropriating and idealizing traditionally "feminine" traits like passivity and suffering for his campaign of non-violent resistance. This strategy, critics contend, ultimately reinforced patriarchal structures by promoting a "'traditional' ideology wherein female sexuality was legitimately embodied only in marriage, wifehood, domesticity," doing little to liberate Indian women from their subordination to men.

Equally profound is the critique from Dalit perspectives, most forcefully articulated by B.R. Ambedkar. This critique charges M.K. Gandhi with a deep-seated paternalism, exemplified by his coining of the term "Harijan" (children of God) to refer to Dalits. Critics argue that he defended an idealised version of the Hindu caste system (varna) even while condemning untouchability, thereby failing to attack the root of the oppression. His "fast-unto-death" in 1932, which coerced Ambedkar into signing the Poona Pact and relinquishing the demand for a separate electorate for Dalits, is seen as a political manoeuvre that permanently weakened Dalit political autonomy in favour of a unified, upper-caste-dominated Hindu society.

A review of the first edition of “Postcolonial Theory” noted that the book "largely takes an uncomplicated view of Gandhi's legacy," a valuable observation that helps frame Leela Gandhi's subsequent intellectual trajectory. This initial, broader mapping of the field, which established M.K. Gandhi's relevance, appears not as an oversight but as a necessary first step. It set the stage for a more ambitious, long-term project visible in her later books: to move from situating M.K. Gandhi within post-colonialism to actively reforming post-colonialism by using a deeply complicated, de-nationalised, and re-theorised Gandhian ethic as its primary analytical tool.

In her second major work, “Affective Communities: Anti-colonial Thought, Fin-de-Siècle Radicalism, and the Politics of Friendship” (2006), Leela Gandhi makes her first decisive move away from the antagonistic binaries that she felt constrained postcolonial theory. Expressing a scholarly dissatisfaction with the "impossible colonial divide," her objective in this book is to excavate a hidden history of anti-colonialism located not in overt opposition but in "minor narratives of cross-cultural collaboration between oppressors and oppressed”. To do this, she develops the concepts of "affective communities" and the "politics of friendship." She defines friendship not as a private emotion but as a political practice—a form of "affiliative solidarity that rubs against the grain of obligations to kin, party, or nation" and thus holds a "dissident potential”. This form of anti-colonialism is grounded in what she calls "xenophilia," an ethical disposition of openness and hospitality towards the stranger and the foreign.

The most compelling case study for this thesis is her radical re-reading of M.K. Gandhi's formative years in London. Instead of presenting his political philosophy as an organic outgrowth of purely Indian traditions, she meticulously traces the "social networks of activists" that connected the young law student to various marginalised Western subcultures. She demonstrates how his encounters with fin-de-siècle vegetarians, animal rights advocates, spiritualists, and homosexual reformers like Edward Carpenter were instrumental in the development of his most iconic political concepts: ahimsa (non-violence) and swaraj (self-rule). This analysis directly challenges conventional genealogies that trace his philosophy solely to indigenous sources like Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist thought.

Leela Gandhi draws a crucial distinction between the paternalistic, utilitarian animal welfare movements of the high Victorian era—which she argues were often in league with "the colonial imperatives of utilitarian philosophy"—and the more radical fin-de-siècle dissidents M.K. Gandhi encountered. These latter groups coupled their advocacy for animal rights with socialist and anti-colonial aims, creating a platform for an "enlightened model of anarchic, disobedient, and paradigmatically nongovernmental sociality”. It was within these "affective communities" in the imperial metropole that the young M.K. Gandhi found a warm welcome and the intellectual resources to transform his personal commitments into a revolutionary political philosophy.

By tracing M.K. Gandhi's core principles back to his interactions with these marginalised Western groups, Leela Gandhi performs a radical re-routing of the genealogy of anti-colonial thought. The conventional narrative of post-colonialism, which often centres on an indigenous response to a monolithic colonial power, is disrupted. Her analysis shows that the very tools of resistance are themselves hybrid and transnational, co-produced in the "minor" spaces of cross-cultural friendship and ethical collaboration. This deconstruction of origins reveals that the ethical resources for anti-imperialism were not located exclusively in the colonised periphery but could also be found within the metropole itself, among those who were, for various reasons, outsiders to the imperial project.

Leela Gandhi's third book, “The Common Cause: Postcolonial Ethics and the Practice of Democracy, 1900–1955” (2014), represents her most theoretically ambitious intervention. In it, she presents a "transnational history of democracy" not as a set of political institutions but as an ethical practice of "disciplined self-fashioning”. The book's central argument rests on a powerful distinction between two competing ethical systems that defined the first half of the twentieth century.

On one hand, she identifies a "shared culture of perfectionism" that cut across dominant ideologies like imperialism, fascism, and even some forms of liberalism. This ethic, she argues, prized ideals of sovereignty, mastery, heroism, and self-consolidation—a politics of power that inherently "excluded the ordinary and unexceptional”. On the other hand, she uncovers a counter-tradition she terms "moral imperfectionism." This is an anti-colonial and anti-fascist ethic devoted to "ordinariness and abnegation," a practice of "self-ruination, inconsequence, making oneself less rather than more”. It is an "ethics of undoing" that finds political potential in failure and celebrates the “inconsequential".

The critical link in her argument is the reinterpretation of M.K. Gandhi's "spiritual discipline" as the quintessential political practice of moral imperfectionism. His ascetic practices—such as fasting, celibacy, and vows of silence and simplicity—are often viewed as his most esoteric or religiously motivated actions, and have been critiqued by figures like George Orwell as anti-humanist and a flight from the world. Leela Gandhi radically reframes this asceticism. She argues it is not a retreat from politics but a profound political technology: "the art of making yourself small and creating conditions of democracy through styles of self-reduction”.

In this framework, M.K. Gandhi's self-abnegation becomes the ethical precondition for a truly radical and inclusive democracy. By refusing the heroic, sovereign self demanded by the perfectionist ethic of empire, he clears the ground for an "ethics of becoming common”. His seminal text, Hind Swaraj, serves as a "cue for democratic imperfectionism," calling for a form of self-rule (swaraj) based not on state power but on self-control and non-sovereignty. This connects directly to her evolving thoughts on friendship as a "commitment to making unfinished”. This "imperfectionist democracy" is a friendship-based democracy, a mode of "utopian inclusivity" premised on perpetually "keeping the gates open" to the other. By re-theorising M.K. Gandhi's asceticism, Leela Gandhi transforms what is often seen as his most controversial feature into a coherent theory of democratic practice, offering an ethical antidote to the logic of power that undergirds both colonialism and its violent aftermaths.

Leela Gandhi's engagement with ahimsa (non-violence) transcends a mere thematic interest in her great-grandfather's philosophy; it becomes the guiding principle for her scholarly methodology. In a review of The Common Cause, her method is aptly named "ahimsaic (non-violent) historiography," a concept she herself has explored in lectures on "nonviolent historiography".This approach represents a deliberate "reworking of M.K. Gandhi's ahimsa" and its application to the academic practice of writing history. It is a method born from the conviction that the way scholars engage with the violent past of colonialism has profound ethical implications for the present and future.

The principles of ahimsaic historiography are rooted in a refusal to reproduce the logic of the conflicts it studies. First, it requires a rejection of the "Manichean and binary discourse concerning the colonised and the coloniser" that has dominated much of postcolonial thought. Instead of reinforcing antagonistic divides, it seeks to theorise a "non-coercive relationship" with the past and its actors. Second, this method actively recovers "minor stories of cross-cultural encounter" and "forgotten meetings, surprise encounters, and anomalous events" that are typically erased by grand, teleological narratives of nationalist struggle or imperial domination. Finally, this historiographical practice is connected to the ethics of "renunciation" and "exit" that she outlines in the epilogue to the second edition of Postcolonial Theory. Here, postcolonial thinking itself becomes a "contemporary philosophy of renunciation, with a unique proposal for uninjured life and non-injurious community”. The theoretical groundwork for this methodological turn can be found in her early article, "Concerning Violence: The Circulations and Limits of Gandhian 'Ahisma'" (1997), where she first began to analyse the complex, transnational circulation of the concept, preparing it for its later transformation into a scholarly practice.

The ultimate implication of this methodological innovation is the re-imagining of postcolonial studies as a constructive and redemptive ethical project. Post-colonialism, born out of the violence of empire, has often been structured around opposition and critique. By applying ahimsa to the act of writing history, Leela Gandhi proposes that the scholar can engage with this violent past without perpetuating its logic of antagonism. The goal is not merely to deconstruct power, but to write about history in a manner that opens up possibilities for a "noninjurious community." The how of scholarship becomes as important as the what. The historical narrative can be either a continuation of conflict by other means or a form of non-violent engagement that seeks to repair and create new forms of relation. This elevates the role of the postcolonial critic from that of a detached analyst to an active ethical agent, whose work contributes to the very world it describes.

Leela Gandhi's intellectual journey represents a profound and sustained effort to shift the grounds of postcolonial theory from a politics of opposition to an ethics of relation. At the heart of this transformative project is her critical and creative dialogue with the legacy of M.K. Gandhi. She moves beyond the binaries of celebration and critique to re-theorise his core principles as vital resources for a contemporary global ethics. From her initial positioning of him as a foundational anti-colonial thinker, she proceeds to deconstruct his thought from its nationalist moorings in Affective Communities, and finally reconstructs his practice of asceticism as a radical theory of democracy in “The Common Cause”.

Her most enduring contribution may be the powerful concept of "unfinishedness," a theme that weaves through her later work and interviews. For her, both friendship and the radical democracy it enables are not "perfective" verbs—completed projects or states of being—but "imperfective" ones, defined as "incomplete and iterative activities”. They represent a "commitment to making unfinished," a continuous and open-ended practice of relation. She extends this metaphor to post-colonialism itself. In the manifesto-like epilogue to her updated Postcolonial Theory, she concludes that "Postcolonial thinking is best as an imperfect outlook that remains indefinite, unfinished, and peripatetic”. Her work thus defines the discipline not as a static body of doctrine but as an ongoing ethical project, always in the process of becoming.

Ultimately, Leela Gandhi's scholarship does not seek to offer the final word on her great-grandfather. Instead, her ahimsaic historiography "makes him unfinished." It rescues his thought from the fixed and often sterile categories of nationalist sainthood and postcolonial critique, re-presenting him as a dynamic, complex, and perpetually relevant source for imagining a global, ethical, and radically democratic future.

Abduction, Error, and the Ethics of Provisional Knowledge : The Role of the Reader in Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose” — M.D.Muthukumaraswamy

Abduction, Error, and the Ethics of Provisional Knowledge : The Role of the Reader in Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose”

—

M.D.Muthukumaraswamy

— 

At the end of this compilation of readerly positions and their ethical implications in "The Name of the Rose", I have provided a curated, annotated bibliography for those who wish to read further. You may notice that a few references in the bibliography are from the field of folklore.

Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose” is at once a murder mystery, a historical novel, and an experiment in semiotics. That multiplicity is not incidental: the novel dramatises Eco’s theoretical commitments about interpretation, codes, and the reader’s active role in meaning-making. Eco’s fiction performs his ideas from “A Theory of Semiotics” and “The Role of the Reader” by staging interpretive encounters within a tightly controlled historical frame — a fourteenth-century Benedictine abbey where texts, signs, and silencing produce violent consequences. The novel thus operates as an apprenticeship in semiotic reading: it instructs, tests, and implicates its reader.  Eco constructs several nested models of the reader — the ideal interpretive subject exemplified by William of Baskerville, the naïve/obedient reader represented by many of the monks, and the implied real-world reader — and uses the mise-en-text of paratexts, intertexts, and narrative framing to interrogate the ethics and politics of interpretation. Eco’s fiction thereby pushes beyond reader-response platitudes: it insists that reading is an abductive, ethically consequential practice that is neither freeform relativism nor dogmatic closure. 

Eco’s semiotic theory reconceives textual meaning as an interpretive act enacted by the reader within constraints of codes, genres, and social institutions. In “A Theory of Semiotics” and “The Role of the Reader”, Eco distinguishes “open” texts that permit a plurality of legitimate readings from “closed” texts that more aggressively programme the reader toward a particular interpretation. Even in the closed case, however, a reader’s inferential apparatus (abduction, hypothesis formation, testing) is indispensable. Eco’s emphasis on abduction — reasoning to the best explanatory hypothesis — offers a model for how William of Baskerville approaches the murders in the abbey: he collects traces, formulates provisional hypotheses, and revises them as new evidence appears. The real reader experiences a parallel process, invited to engage abductively rather than simply to receive a revealed truth. The novel therefore stages a pedagogical circle: theory instructs practice, and practice demonstrates theory. 

Eco fills the narrative with multiple reader-figures whose epistemic styles dramatise divergent hermeneutic postures. William stands as the novel’s paradigmatic reader: rational, empirical, and skeptical; he is an intellectual detective whose method privileges evidence, provisional claims, and an ethic of doubt. The monks and inquisitorial figures represent contrasting hermeneutic regimes: doctrinal readers who interpret texts through the lens of theocractic authority and rhetorical orthodoxy. Adso, the narrator, occupies an intermediate position — a student-reader who learns interpretive practice while being shaped by memory, nostalgia, and narrative selection. Finally, the implied reader of Eco’s novel is both addressed and challenged: Eco’s paratextual strategies (the editorial frame, Latinisms, scholarly glosses) invite a learned, semiotically attuned reader while also staging traps for facile interpretive certainty. Each reader-figure models different relationships to textual authority and different answers to the ethical question: what does one do with an interpretation? 

Eco’s use of paratext — the “editor’s” prefaces, the framing device of Adso’s manuscript, internal marginalia and glosses — deliberately blurs the distinction between historical documentation and fiction. The paratextual apparatus accomplishes two effects. First, it creates an interpretive contract that encourages readers to adopt a scholarly stance: they must translate Latin, gauge the reliability of narrators, and weigh competing documentary traces. Second, this same apparatus dramatises the instability of authorial and editorial authority: the fictional editor’s intrusions and the narrative’s admission of fallibility (Adso’s memory, the destroyed manuscript) warn readers against naïve confidence. The pledge Eco offers is thus paradoxical: he trains readers in competence while continually undermining the illusion that competence produces final, unassailable truth. This formal ambivalence drives the novel’s epistemic tension: interpretation matters, but it is contingent and morally significant. 

The abbey’s library — a labyrinth designed to control access to knowledge — functions as Eco’s most powerful metaphor for interpretive dynamics. It contains intertextual webs (Aristotelian fragments, apocrypha, commentaries) that resist singular decoding. The library’s architecture links knowledge, secrecy, and power: the ability to interpret and to control access to interpretations becomes a tool for dominance. Jorge of Burgos embodies the censorship-driven reader whose defensive hermeneutics weaponise texts to curtail laughter, comedy, or skepticism. The library’s conflagration at novel’s end — the burning of books and eventual destruction of the library — literalises the stakes of interpretive authoritarianism. Eco thus illustrates how modes of reading are political acts; choices about what to read, how to read, and who may read are embedded in material and institutional power relations. 

One important consequence of Eco’s semiotic frame is the ethical centrality of provisionality. William’s abductive reasoning is fallible — he makes errors, he misattributes motives, and the narrative shows that explanation is often partial. Eco refuses the neat closure of a classic detective story: the truth is only partially retrieved and heavily mediated. Eco’s refusal has ethical force: when interpretive authority yields action (inquisitorial execution, censorship, property destruction), errors and provisional judgments have mortal consequences. The real-world reader is thus pushed beyond analytical pastime: to read ethically is to accept responsibility for the consequences of interpretive claims. This ethical dimension stakes a claim against both relativism (where any reading is as good as another) and dogmatism (where only one reading is allowed). Eco’s novel promotes a middle way — rigorous, provisional, and humble interpretation. 

Eco fills the narrative with quotations, faux-scholarship, and textual puzzles  that generate interpretive labour for readers within and outside the text. This intertextuality performs what critics call “semiomimesis”: the novel both represents and enacts semiotic operations. The reader’s labour is thus doubled: the fictional characters interpret texts and the novel’s readers interpret the fictional interpreters. This reflexive doubling creates a learning loop: the reader becomes skilful by practicing the same heuristics the novel foregrounds — careful attention to context, evidence, and the limits of inference. Crucially, Eco encodes a normative preference here: interpretive discipline over rhetorical manipulation, curiosity over dogmatic closure

Eco’s medieval frame invites historiographical reflection. Adso’s memoir is not a neutral record; it is a constructed past, mediated and selective. Eco uses this to critique naive historicism: documents and memories always require hermeneutic work, and the historian-reader must accept incompleteness. The novel thereby functions as a parable about historical knowledge: recovering the past is not merely retrieval but interpretation, embedding the historian within webs of intention and fallibility. The historical reader, like the literary reader, must practice cautious abduction and acknowledge ethical implications. 

Eco’s “The Name of the Rose” trains readers in a mode of semiotic responsibility. By presenting interpretive methods in narrative form, Eco educates readers in abduction, code recognition, and the ethics of provisional judgment. But the novel also insists that reading is political: interpretive authority determines what texts survive, who may speak, and which communities flourish. Eco resists both facile reader-relativism and authoritarian interpretive closure, recommending instead a disciplined, provisional hermeneutics attentive to consequences. The novel’s final images — ash, loss, the ruined library — are elegiac but also admonitory: reading well matters because interpretations act in the world. The implied reader leaves the text having practiced and been implicated in those interpretive choices. 

 Annotated bibliography —  curated academic resources

Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979.— Foundational theoretical exposition of open/closed texts and the active reader; provides the conceptual tools Eco dramatises in the novel. (Indiana University Press)

Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976.— Technical grounding in sign theory and abduction; essential for understanding William’s inferential method.

Prang, Christopher. “The Creative Power of Semiotics: Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose.” Comparative Literature 66, no. 4 (2014): 420–44.— Argues that Eco’s novel practices “semiomimesis,” showing how fictional representation and semiotic theory interpenetrate; useful for reading the text as a pedagogical semiotic.

Sallis, James. “Naming the Rose: Readers and Codes in Umberto Eco’s Novel.” South Atlantic Quarterly (1986).— Explores reader-code interactions in the novel; helps situate Eco within reader-response debates.

Richter, D. H. “Eco’s Echoes: Fictional Theory and Detective Practice in The Name of the Rose.” Studies in the Novel 18, no. 2 (1986): 165–80.— Connects Eco’s semiotic theory to detective fiction conventions; shows how William models abductive reasoning works

Holquist, Michael. “Echoes of Medieval Reading: Narration and Commentary in The Name of the Rose.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies (1990).— Examines medieval exegesis and commentary traditions within Eco’s novel to show continuities with modern hermeneutics. 

Eco, Umberto. “Postscript to The Name of the Rose.” (The postscript appended to later editions.)— Eco’s own reflections on the novel’s aims and his intentions about readerly engagement.

Eco, Umberto. Five Moral Pieces. Essays including reflections on the novel and semiotics.— Useful for Eco’s public statements linking fiction and theory; frames ethical aspects of interpretive practice.

Stopford, David. “The Library as Labyrinth: Knowledge and Power in Eco’s The Name of the Rose.” Modern Language Review (1995).— Argues that the library symbolically maps interpretive power and the politics of censorship.

Douthwaite, Julia. “Adso’s Memory: Narration and the Ethics of Recollection.” Narrative 11, no. 1 (2003): 31–54.— Focuses on Adso’s unreliability and the consequences for the implied reader’s historiographical stance.

Groensteen, Thierry. “Intertextual Networks in Eco.” Comparative Criticism (1992).— Situates Eco within a tradition of hypertextual writing; helps to explain the intertextual workload placed on the reader.

Sollers, Philippe. “The Detective Novel and the Modern Reader.” Critical Inquiry (1987).— Though not Eco-specific, useful for comparing epistemic expectations of detective fiction readers.

Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961— Classical theorisation of implied author/reader roles; helps place Eco’s narrative contract in a longer critical lineage.

Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? — Essays developing interpretive communities and readerly determinacy.— Useful counterpoint to Eco’s model when considering social constraints on reading.

Eco, Umberto. “Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language.” New Literary History (1979).— Shorter theoretical pieces clarifying Eco’s position on semantics and interpretation.

Ginzburg, Carlo. Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.— Comparative method for reading traces and hypotheses; parallels Eco’s detective epistemology.

Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Cornell UP, 1982.— Helps place Eco in relation to structuralist and post-structuralist debates about textual indeterminacy.

Eco, Umberto. “The Poetics of the Open Work.” Essay—on openness in art and literature.— Lays groundwork for the open/closed typology deployed in the novel.

Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things. New York: Vintage, 1973.— Useful for reading archival logic and regimes of knowledge in the monastery-library setting.

Benson, Jackson J. “Interpretive Authority and Medievalism.” Speculum (1998).— Discusses modern reinterpretations of medieval texts and the associated authority claims, directly relevant to Eco’s approach.

Eco, Umberto. Travels in Hyperreality — essays that include reflections about fiction and simulation.— Illuminates Eco’s broader philosophical concerns about representation and reality.

Marchesini, Barbara. “Laughter, Censorship, and the Comic in Eco.” Humor Studies (2002).— Analyses Jorge’s fear of comedy and the novel’s thematic focus on laughter as interpretive danger.

McGann, Jerome. “Textual Scholarship and the Materiality of the Book.” PMLA (1991).— Offers a materialist reading toolkit for the novel’s obsession with books-as-objects.

Ben-Amos, Dan. “Storytelling and Elaboration: Narrator, Reader, and Culture.” Journal of Folklore Research (1995).— Useful for thinking about narrative mediation between Adso and the reader.

Kermode, Frank. The Sense of an Ending. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967.— Useful theoretical presence on closure and the reader’s desire for endings; Eco plays with and subverts this desire.

Neuwirth, Hans. “The Inquisitorial Gaze: Vision and Knowledge.” Mediaevalia (1999).— Examines ocular metaphors of knowledge and surveillance that appear in Eco’s representation of the abbey.

Traub, Valerie. “Reading and the Public Sphere in Historical Fiction.” Modern Fiction Studies (2005).— Links interpretive acts to public political consequences — relevant to Eco’s depiction of censorship.

Frow, John. Cultural Studies and Cultural Value. University of Chicago Press, 1995.— Frames readerly value as culturally mediated and institutionally enforced.

Holsinger, Bruce. “Medievalism and the Modern Reader.” The Cambridge Companion to Medievalism (2012).— Contextualises modern receptions of medieval texts — Eco’s novel participates in and critiques this dynamic.

Klinkenborg, Verlyn. “On Narrative Authority.” New York Review of Books (1984).— Discusses narrative voice and authority relevant to Adso’s mediated account.

Konopka, T. “What kind of poison was used in The Name of the Rose?” Toxicology Reports (2020).— Interdisciplinary piece that underscores the novel’s physical-material stakes (poisoned book pages), tying readerly encounter to bodily risk.

Jameson, Fredric. “Historicizing the Reader.” Marxist Criticism and Literary Theory (1991).— Useful for politicising the reader and examining ideological apparatuses.

Clifford, James. The Predicament of Culture. Harvard UP, 1988.— Discusses translation and representation across cultures; relevant to the novel’s multilingual, translational texture.

Eco, Umberto. “Natural History of the Dead” — short fiction and essays on interpretation.— Provides alternative narrative experiments showing Eco’s recurring preoccupations with interpretation.

Moraru, Christian. “Postmodern Detective Fiction and Readerly Work.” Narrative (2007).— Places Eco’s detective strategies within postmodern traditions of readerly indeterminacy.

Burke, Peter. The Fabrication of Louis XIV. (Methodological parallels with narrative reconstruction of the past).— Offers historiographical caution about constructing the past — useful analog for Adso’s project.

Harvey, David. “Space and the Politics of Place.” Cultural Geographies (1996).— Spatial analytic help for reading the library as power-space.

Redmond, Sheila. “Mediation and Memory: The Narrator as Reader.” Oral Tradition (2006).— Discusses narrative mediation and the narrator’s role in shaping the reader’s epistemic expectations.

Cohn, Norman. The Pursuit of the Millennium. Oxford UP, 1970.— Contextual background on medieval fanaticism and millenarian suppression, framing the novel’s inquisitorial context.

Hallyn, Fernand. “Philology and the Politics of Textual Recovery.” Philological Quarterly (1993).— Useful for discussions of textual authority and the politics of recovery, central to the novel.

White, Hayden. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Johns Hopkins, 1987.— Theorisation of historical narrative that illuminates Adso’s memoiristic construction.

Bhabha, Homi. “The Location of Culture.” (1994).— For thinking about hybrid interpretive positions and translations across discourses and epochs.

Grafton, Anthony. The Footnote: A Curious History. Harvard UP, 1997.— Useful for discussions of paratexts, marginalia, and scholarly apparatus — central to Eco’s literary strategy.

Burke, Seán. “Literature and the Law of Interpretation.” Law and Literature (2000).— Helpful for thinking of interpretive acts as juridical and consequential — parallels to inquisitorial methods.

Ben-Yehuda, Nachman. “The Symbolic Uses of Laughter.” Cultural Analysis (2001).— Helps read the novel’s obsession with laughter and its suppression as interpretive politics.

Williams, Raymond. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. (1976).— Useful for conceptual clarity on terms like “interpretation,” “authority,” and “culture” used throughout the novel.

Fisher, Mark. “The Slow Cancellation: Memory, Interpretation, and Modernity.” New Left Review (2010).— Contemporary reflection on memory and cultural loss, resonant with the novel’s elegiac register.

Eco, Umberto. The Limits of Interpretation (collected essays).— Synthesises Eco’s views on hermeneutics and interpretive limits — directly relevant to the novel’s ethics. 

The Art of Creating a Model Reader: Applying Eco's Translation Principles to “The Name of the Rose” — M.D. Muthukumaraswamy

The Art of Creating a Model Reader: Applying Eco's Translation Principles to “The Name of the Rose”

—

M.D. Muthukumaraswamy

—

A friend of mine asked what principles I would have followed for the Tamil translation of “The Name of the Rose”  if conventional theories of translation did not apply.

Umberto Eco, a towering figure in literature and semiotics, occupied the unique position of being both a celebrated novelist and a profound translation theorist. His work, “Experiences in Translation”, is not a prescriptive manual but a deeply personal and intellectually rigorous exploration of the challenges of rendering a text into another language and culture. Drawing from his experiences as both a translated author and a translator, Eco posits principles that move beyond the simplistic notion of literal equivalence. Instead, he advocates for a method that prioritises preserving a text's intended aesthetic effect on its reader. These principles are universally applicable and offer a compelling framework for translating his magnum opus, “The Name of the Rose”—a novel as complex in its linguistic and cultural references as it is in its intricate plot.

At the heart of Eco's philosophy is the rejection of "equivalence in meaning" as a feasible or even desirable goal. He argues that the idea of a perfect, one-to-one correspondence between words in different languages is a fallacy. Instead, he proposes that translation is an act of negotiation. The translator, as a "privileged reader," must constantly make choices, sacrificing certain nuances to preserve others, all in service of the source text's overall aesthetic effect.

This principle is paramount when considering the multifaceted linguistic landscape of “The Name of the Rose”. The novel is a veritable Babel, with extensive use of Latin, smatterings of Italian dialects, and the macaronic, polyglot speech of the hunchback Salvatore. The translator must decide how to handle the lengthy Latin passages, which are not mere window dressing but are integral to the novel's philosophical and theological debates. Should they be translated in full, paraphrased, or left in the original with annotations? The choice a translator makes profoundly shapes the reader's experience, either by making the text more accessible or by preserving the sense of scholarly otherness so crucial to the novel's world.

Flowing from the principle of negotiation is the primacy of the "deep sense," or the intentio operis (the intention of the work). For Eco, the translator's ultimate fidelity is not to individual words but to the overarching purpose and aesthetic effect of the text. He illustrates this with the "lettera/epistle" dilemma in the translation of his own “Foucault's Pendulum”, where a literal translation would have rendered a joke incomprehensible.

In “The Name of the Rose”, the "deep sense" is not merely the resolution of the murder mystery but the exploration of the power of knowledge, the nature of truth, and the complexities of faith, reason and humour. A translator guided by Eco's principles would understand that their primary duty is to convey the intellectual thrill of the philosophical debates and the palpable atmosphere of a 14th-century Benedictine abbey.

Eco also emphasises that translation is a "shift...between two cultures." A text is not a disembodied string of words but a product of a specific cultural and intertextual milieu. To translate effectively, one must adapt cultural references so they resonate with the target audience. The "hedge/Darien" example from “Foucault's Pendulum”, where a reference to a famous Italian poem is replaced with an allusion to Keats, powerfully illustrates this.

“The Name of the Rose” is steeped in the intellectual traditions of medieval Christianity. A direct translation of the myriad references to theological treatises, philosophical concepts, and historical figures might bewilder a reader unfamiliar with this context. An Eco-inspired translator would seek to make these references accessible, not necessarily by replacing them, but  by employing language that evokes a similar sense of historical and intellectual weight for the target reader.

Eco places great importance on preserving the rhythm and style of the source text. His experience translating Gérard de Nerval's Sylvie taught him that the musicality and stylistic quirks of a text are often as crucial to its effect as its semantic content. This often demands a departure from literal meaning to maintain the intended aesthetic experience.

“The Name of the Rose” presents a formidable stylistic challenge. The novel's prose is often labyrinthine and ornate, echoing the cadences of medieval Latin. The dialogue, which shifts in register depending on the speaker's social standing and education, also requires a keen stylistic ear. The translator's task is to create distinct voices for the scholarly William of Baskerville, the impressionable Adso of Melk, the fanatical Jorge of Burgos, and the linguistically chaotic Salvatore—a task that can only be accomplished through a deep understanding of the stylistic resources of the target language.

In “Experiences in Translation”, Eco explains that an author writes with an ideal reader in mind—the Model Reader. This is not a real person but a textual strategy: an imagined reader who has the specific cultural background and willingness to make the effort the author expects. For “The Name of the Rose”, Eco envisioned a Model Reader who:

Wants to become "as medieval as possible" and is prepared to immerse themselves in the 14th-century world of the abbey.

Is willing to engage actively with the novel's complexities.

Has a "Western" cultural background and a passive familiarity with Latin from cultural exposure (e.g., in church or legal terms), allowing the author to use Latin quotations.

This concept is crucial for the translator, who must first understand the original Model Reader and then decide how to create a similar experience for a reader from a different cultural context. For example, Eco notes that his Russian translator used Old Church Slavonic instead of Latin to give her readers a similar sense of religious and historical distance. In my own translation, I decided to translate the Latin passages into Tamil to create a comparable effect for my readers.

My Tamil translation of “The Name of the Rose” faithfully follows the principles Umberto Eco himself articulated. It is an invitation for the Tamil reader to become a new Model Reader. Rather than applying a rigid, "all-time true" divine grammar—which is non-existent anyway—the reader is encouraged to engage and negotiate with the variety of linguistic playfulness of the book. In doing so, they will discover fascinating experiments with syntax, punctuation, and dialogue, all without sacrificing the gripping narrative force of the murder mystery. 

A successful translation is not a static reflection of the original but a dynamic re-creation that honours its spirit. It requires a thoughtful and creative interpreter to ensure the intellectual power and aesthetic appeal of the original work are reborn for a new audience. This principle is as vital to the art of translation itself as it is to the journey of “The Name of the Rose” into Tamil.

The Tamil Rose: Nietzsche, Borges, and Eco's Laughter —- M.D.Muthukumaraswamy

 The Tamil Rose: Nietzsche, Borges, and Eco's Laughter

—-

M.D.Muthukumaraswamy

—

In Umberto Eco's “The Name of the Rose”, Friedrich Nietzsche's aphorism, "I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar," resonates as a central, underlying theme. The novel can be read as a profound literary exploration of this idea, dramatising the conflict between a world ordered by a divine, absolute "grammar" and one where that grammar is questioned, deconstructed, and ultimately revealed to be an illusion. 

Remember Umberto Eco's key work on fascism  "Ur-Fascism" (also known as "Eternal Fascism"), which outlines the 14 fundamental characteristics of the ideology. This essay is featured in his book “ How to Spot a Fascist”, a collection of three essays that also includes pieces on freedom, fascism, and censorship. Eco draws on his personal experiences growing up in Fascist Italy under Mussolini to provide insights into how fascism manifests. The rigid  structure of a ‘diving grammar’ is one of the characteristics of fascism.

Jorge of Burgos: The Guardian of Divine Grammar

The character of Jorge of Burgos embodies the rigid belief in a singular, divine grammar. As the blind, aged librarian, he is the fanatical guardian of not just the books, but of the absolute, unchangeable Truth he believes they contain. For Jorge, the world is a text written by God, and its grammar is fixed. Any text that introduces ambiguity, irony, or subversion—most notably, Aristotle's lost book on comedy—is a threat to this divine syntax and must be suppressed.

His argument against laughter is fundamentally a defence of this grammar. Laughter, he claims, "foments doubt" and kills fear; without fear of the Devil, "there is no more need of God". In Nietzschean terms, laughter is an "ungrammatical" act that disrupts the subject-verb-object certainty of faith. In Tamil this faith manifests as object-verb-subject structure. It suggests that the established order is not absolute and can be mocked, inverted, and questioned. Jorge's willingness to murder to protect this divine grammar demonstrates the violent lengths to which a belief in absolute structures can lead.

William of Baskerville: The Skeptic of the Grand Narrative

In contrast, William of Baskerville represents the skeptical, empirical mind that begins to question the overarching grammar of faith. He applies logic and reason not to confirm the pre-existing divine narrative, but to investigate the world's "faithful signals even when they seem obscure”. He operates under the suspicion that "the truth was not what was appearing to him at any given moment”.

His investigation is a process of deconstruction. Initially, he seeks a coherent pattern in the murders, a diabolical "grammar" mirroring the apocalypse. However, his ultimate conclusion is a profoundly Nietzschean one: "there was no pattern”. The deaths were a result of accident, individual motives, and chaos, not a single, ordering principle. By rejecting the "plot," William rejects the belief in a governing grammar behind events. He moves from believing in a coherent text to recognising a series of disconnected, contingent occurrences.

The Role of Laughter: A Theological Debate, Not Blasphemy

The novel's prose is not characterised by humour against God, but rather by a profound and central debate about the theological and philosophical legitimacy of laughter itself. The humour is not directed at divinity, but is instead used as a lens to critique dogmatism, fanaticism, and the suppression of knowledge within the Church. The core of the plot revolves around a lost second book of Aristotle's  “Poetics” that discusses comedy, a text the antagonist fears could upend the world order.  

The Language of Salvatore: A Microcosm of Linguistic Chaos

The unique linguistic presentation of the character Salvatore is a significant and memorable feature of the novel, though it does not represent the style of the entire book. Salvatore’s speech is a key element of the novel's exploration of language, signs, and interpretation.  

 Salvatore speaks a bizarre, macaronic language—a chaotic mix of Latin, Italian dialects, Provençale, Spanish, and other tongues he has encountered. The narrator, Adso, describes it perfectly by stating that Salvatore "spoke all languages, and no language". His speech is composed of "disecta membra"—severed limbs—of other sentences he has heard, patched together to suit the moment.   This unique idiolect is not merely a colourful character trait. It embodies the "Babelic" confusion that is a central theme of the novel. Salvatore, a former heretic, has a fragmented past, and his language reflects this history. His speech serves to disorient the other characters and the reader, highlighting the difficulty of interpretation and the ambiguity of signs.   Despite its apparent incoherence, Salvatore's language is functional. The other monks seem to understand him, and his jumbled words can accidentally reveal crucial clues that help William in his investigation. This demonstrates a core semiotic idea in the novel: that meaning can be found even in the most confusing and disordered signs.   His speech functions as a recurring, concentrated example of the linguistic and interpretive chaos that William of Baskerville must navigate to solve the abbey's mysteries.

The Labyrinth and the Word: The Prison of Grammar

The novel's setting, central symbols and style reinforce this theme. The labyrinthine library is a physical manifestation of grammar—a complex, rule-based system designed to order and contain all knowledge. For Jorge, its purpose is to conceal and protect the established order. For William, it is a code to be cracked, a grammar to be understood in order to find the one text that would break it.

Conventional theories of translation do not adequately capture the unique character of "The Name of the Rose", which is built on semiotic filters such as fragmented Latin passages, 14th-century Italian, and complex syntactical structures. My aim was to replicate this narrative force and the effect of its syntactic filters in a way that is both appropriate for and disruptive to the Tamil cadence and register.  In my Tamil translation my ultimate loyalty is to Umberto Eco's artistic project: to jolt the passive reader, transforming them from a mere consumer into an active constructor of meaning.

Ultimately, the novel's famous final line—"stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" ("the rose of old remains only in its name; we possess naked names")—is the most direct engagement with Nietzsche's idea. It encapsulates the postmodern and semiotic core of the book: that we are left not with essential truths (the "rose"), but only with the linguistic structures we use to signify them (the "naked names”). The belief that our grammar perfectly captures reality is the metaphysical illusion that both Nietzsche and Eco sought to dismantle.

“The Name of the Rose” is a journey from the certainty of God's grammar to the unsettling freedom of realising we are left with only the words themselves.

—-

Photo courtesy: Markandan Muthusamy