I’ve received an e-mail from someone asking about the difference between the Ignatius Critical Editions, of which I am series editor, and other critical editions of classic works of literature. The text of the e-mail is given below. My response follows.
Dear Mr. Pearce,We are so happy to find Catholic study guides to classic works!
We have many old copies of classics and are wondering if the study guides will work with those books?
What is the difference between your critical edition and other editions? Is the wording of the texts of the classics different in different editions or is it the critical commentary that is different?
Thank you for your help …
My Response:
Although the Ignatius Critical Edition study guides are designed specifically for the Ignatius editions there will be much in them that will be helpful as you endeavor to glean a tradition-oriented perspective of these classic works of literature.
The Ignatius Critical Editions guarantee a tradition-oriented, i.e. orthodox Christian, perspective of the works, excluding much of the feminist, “queer”, postmodern, relativist, sordid, anti-Christian nonsense that proliferates in secular editions of these works. Each edition contains an introduction to the work by a contemporary scholar and a selection of critical essays focusing on various aspects of the work. Each edition also contains the full unexpurgated text of the work itself, for which a new gloss is provided.
I hope this helps.
More:
Ignatius now provides what the Norton canon of critical editions once provided before succumbing to the Zeitgeist: Religious references aside (not dismissed–that’s different from “aside”), Ignatius approaches literary criticism in ITS OWN TERMS. I put that in all caps, though I know it’s frowned upon, because it’s so very important for students of literature. Historicism approaches the study of literature in TERMS OTHER THAN LITERARY. In looking at literature in ancillary political, sociological, economic terms–and NOT in literary terms–criticism treats literature as a mere historical artifact. Thus, the study of literature ITSELF is obliterated, and literature itself is thereby destroyed.
At its cultural height, he USSR attempted the destruction of creative (as opposed to performing) art, but they failed. The creativity in the Russian spirit was too strong–Yevtushenko, Pasternak, Solzhenitzyn. We, however, succeeded where they failed. (They began their dismantling of creative art by re-defining it in social and political terms…sound familiar?)