A title serves the useful purpose of labeling a literary work. They might just have been numbered, e.g., "Poul Anderson's Novels, No. 1" etc. An earlier convention was just to name a work after its opening phrase which thus became a title.
Do we think about the meaning of a title?
Does Plato's Republic describe a republic?
Is Dante's Comedy a comedy?
Who is CS Lewis' The Great Divorce between? (Heaven and Hell.)
The orbit in Poul Anderson's Orbit Unlimited is a mere twenty light years.
Why A Circus Of Hells?
Why Theater Of Spies?
Should a future translation of the Rubaiyat be entitled Quatrains?
Stieg Larsson's Man Som Hatar Kvinnor ("Men Who Hate Women") was translated as The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
Usually we just use the title to refer to the book and do not think about what it means.
11 comments:
Titles are often the publisher. I originally intended the BC books to have titles taken from Roosevelt's speeches, for example -- THEATER OF SPIES was to be IN THE ARENA.
Poul had WAR OF THE WING-MEN imposed on him instead of THE MAN WHO COUNTS.
IN THE ARENA. An alternative title. Fascinating.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Mr. Stirling: This once, at least, I think your publisher was partly right. THEATER OF SPIES is more dramatic and eye catching than IN THE ARENA.
Paul: The idea of naming a work from an opening word or sentence still survives in the Catholic Church. Many official documents and Papal encyclicals take their names from the opening words of the Latin text. Such as ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS of Pope Benedict XVI (I hope I got it right).
Sean
Sean,
Since it seems to be about the Church of England, I will look it up.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I hope this document issued by Benedict XVI interests you. There was also Leo XIII's analysis of and judgment of Anglican orders in his encyclical APOSTOLICAE CURA in 1896.
Sean
Sean,
I am interested in the ways that traditions, having separated, can try to come back together again. In these specific cases, the former Anglicans have to accept specifically Catholic doctrines. It is unlikely that two entire churches will re-merge on this basis.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Unlikely, for several reasons. One of them being the many splits within Anglicanism itself, where you can see groups like the high church, low church, and "liberal'/Modernists. The first range from merely those who want some dignity and ceremonial in Anglican services to those who are very close to being Catholics. Low church Anglicans insist they are PROTESTANT and resist pro-Catholic influences. "Liberal"/Modernists are those who keep watering down the binding force of any kind of Christian doctrine within Anglicanism.
I remember reading of how the Catholic theologians at the ARCIC discussions complained that they didn't know for sure what Anglicans BELIEVED, that Anglicans could not seem to make up their minds what they believed was true. That contributed to ARCIC being broken off.
But the chaos within Anglicanism has finally disgusted many of its members enough that they concluded they had to leave and go where the logic of their beliefs led them, the Catholic Church. What Benedict XVI strove to do was to make room for former Anglicans to keep elements of their former church that did not contradict Catholic doctrine.
Sean
Sean,
The C of E is as divided as the British Labour Party. It is 4 religions: high; low; middle; broad.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree, altho I would consider that any SERIOUS middle/broad church Anglicans to be more low church than not. And "liberal"/Modernists has been nothing but a disaster for Anglicanism. It would be better to repeal the 1559 Act of Supremacy and let the different wings within Anglicanism to separately go their natural ways.
We even see a hint of that kind of conflict in Stirling's THE PESHAWAR LANCERS! Mention was made of how a convocation of the Anglican Church of the Angrezi Raj was meeting and debating whether or not to adopt variouus Hindu ideas. You can easily imagine how that would horrify many devout Anglicans! To go that way would inevitably mean Anglicanism would no longer even be Christian. And mention was made of the Catholic Crown Prince of France politely but firmly rejecting that kind of syncretism.
Btw, did you see the comment I left in the combox to your ARC Cover LEtter blog piece where I discussed how intra-German quarrels led to Prussian state sponsorship of the theory of Q/Markan Priority? I also mentioned Bismarck's Kulturkampf in that comment.
Sean
Sean,
I did see it. I will go back and have another look.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The Kulturkampf was a bad mistake by Bismarck! It was one of few times when he let his emotions or prejudices override his better judgments.
Sean
Post a Comment