I’d like to share various items of news that I’ve received over the past few hours.
First, I’ve just heard from Ignatius Press that the Chinese edition of my biography of Alexander Solzhenitsyn will be published next month. The translation into Mandarin is the first Ignatius title ever to be translated into a Chinese language and published in China. This is, therefore, a significant cultural development and I am honoured to be the author of the book that has made this pioneering breakthrough beyond the bamboo curtain. Hopefully, Solzhenitsyn’s example will be an inspiration to the people of China that there is an alternative to communism and to secular fundamentalism. I also hope that the great Russian’s Christian witness will prove inspirational to a country that is in need of evangelization.
I’ve also just received news that the Spanish edition of my book, Through Shakespeare’s Eyes (POR LOS OJOS DE SHAKESPEARE) has just been published. I hope the book does well in the Spanish-speaking world.
Moving from books to TV, I heard this morning that the rough cut of the special on The Hobbit that I filmed with Kevin O’Brien at EWTN in April is now complete. “It’s looking very good,” says the show’s producer, “I think it will turn out to be a great show.” I understand that it is scheduled to be aired in December to coincide with the release of the second of Peter Jackson’s film adaptations.
Finally, my appearance on EWTN’s “Bookmark” with Doug Keck has just been aired. The first part of the interview focuses on my book, Bilbo’s Journey; the second part focuses on Shakespeare on Love. For those who missed it, here’s the link to the show: http://bcove.me/2yx56ijp
Joseph,
Where on earth you find the time to do it all I simply cannot imagine.
I take for granted that you don’t sleep or eat; but even allowing for that, I can’t see how there are enough hours in the day.
James, Romeo’s love for Rosaline and his love for Juliet are essentially the same. One of the most common errors is to assume that they are different, the first false, the latter true. I refer you to my book in which this issue is addressed in depth but I’ll also address this in a separate post on this site.
Dear Joseph,
I think of all Shakespeare’s plays R+J has the most catholic references. ‘The ‘palm’s kiss’ comes to mind for some reason. There are many many Catholic actions, sayings -so in that sense I agree with that it is one of Shakespeare’s most catholic plays.
And all the Friar stuff of course.
But it was the question that Doug posed to you that got me thinking. Namely, how could it be that a Catholic play would end in suicide? Now,your answer was that Shakespeare was showing the dangers of a passionate IMMATURE love. A love based simply on passion. But that (in my opinion) doesn’t characterize the love that R And J have for each other. The whole feel of the play is a celebration of young love. Remember also that Romeo has been in love just before the beginning of the play-so isn’t Shakespeare showing this this is a REAL mature love (abeit between two young people) in contrast to his earlier infatuation.
There’as a bit in Chesterton where he’s talking about Chaucer. And he writes something like-(it’s at the end of a litany of attribures-) that he was ‘saner than Shakespeare’.
I t has always stuck in mind. Why?
Because Shakepseare, because of the time he was living was slightly uinhinged, I believe.
Chesterton again-he says somewhere that King Lear is ‘delirious’. The ravings of a mad man.
I want to say that it is very A great, AND laudable thing-this movement to establish that Shakespeare was Catholic.
There is NO DOUBT that he was CATHOLIC from the historical evidence..
But his artistic work is DIFFERENT. Because of the Persecution of the time.
It’s not the same as Chaucer.
It’s not ‘sane’.
The ‘code ‘ is enough. There is a lot of the ‘code’ in Romeo and Juliet.
To try and shcemetize the plays into catholic plays is impossible.
James, I discuss Chesterton’s comparison of Chaucer to Shakespeare and to Milton (in fact, the precise quote to which you are referring) in my books, The Quest for Shakespeare (pp. 198-199) and Through Shakespeare’s Eyes (pp. 184-185). Shakespeare was emphatically not unhinged. He was eminently sane. In fact, there have been few saner men in history. He lived in unhinged times and vented his spleen, as far as he was able within the constraints of totalitarian law, against those times. He did so from a profoundly orthodox, i.e. profoundly sane, perspective. Dare I suggest that you read my books? Your quibbles would be addressed and, I believe, answered were you to do so.
I must read your books.
‘in fact, the precise quote to which you are referring’ well that shows that great minds think alike?
I suppose what I am saying is that a person coming out of a production of Romeo And Juliet-their first words wouldn’t be–‘Now I must find out about this Catholic religion’.
Whereas if you gave them Brideshead Revisted- they may.
It’s not a scholarly point at all.
It’s the use of the word Catholic and catholic (no capital letter) that’s the problem.
Doug said most people would say ‘who cares?’ after being told that Shakespeare was Catholic. As Devil’s advocate he said-‘isn’t he more universal than that? ‘To which you replied (something like) ‘well catholic means universal’.
But Catholic PRACTICE is not universal.
There is a confusion of terms here.