More on barons in another essay, ‘The humanitarian theory of punishment’. Forgive me if I quote from my thesis:
"In an essay called ‘The humanitarian theory of punishment’, C.S. Lewis (1985a) sets out to demonstrate that any theory of punishment that is not based on merit or desert, such as one aimed at curing the criminal or deterring others, is unjust and not in the interests of the criminal. His reason is that any humanitarian theory removes from punishment the concept of desert, and that this in turn is the only connecting link between punishment and justice: ‘it is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust’ (Lewis 1985a: 97). For those who support the humanitarian theory, Lewis (1985a: 103) has harsh words:
My contention is that CDA, qua humanitarian theory, adopts a similarly patronizing approach to those it construes as being in a sufficient state of unenlightenment to warrant its protection or its ‘resources’ (Fairclough 1992a: 9)."
Compare Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (Vol 1) (‘dictatorship’ for ‘tyranny’). Again from my thesis, I’m afraid:
“Popper’s (1966a) support for piecemeal social engineering (with its aim of reducing suffering by fighting against the greatest evils of society largely through reforming institutions and laws) is contrasted with his hostility to Utopian social engineering (with its aim of promoting happiness by fighting for the greatest good of society through redesigning society as a whole). Popper (1966a: 159) considered the latter to be dangerous for a number of reasons, foremost of which was that ‘the Utopian attempt to realize an ideal state, using a blueprint of society as a whole, is one which demands a strong centralized rule of a few, and which therefore is likely to lead to a dictatorship’ and to violence.”
I think this is from Letters to Children, but I can be (and often am) wrong.
“The real Oxford is a close corporation of jolly, untidy, lazy, good-for-nothing humorous old men, who have been electing their own successors ever since the world began and who intend to go on with it. They’ll squeeze under the Revolution or leap over it when the time comes, don’t you worry.”
So Lewisian to bracket gorse and orchids. The need for balance, the glory of all creation, the rough with the smooth. Indeed, the ‘smooth roughness’ of Aslan’s mane. Lewis.
And it’s “my dear, my very dear Wormwood, my poppet, my pigsnie”. Come to think of it, I have no idea what a “pigsnie” is. Although I can quote most of that last chapter by heart.
Pigsney \Pigs"ney, n. [Perh. a dim. of Dan. pige a girl, or Sw. piga; or from E. pig’s eye.] A word of endearment for a girl or woman. [Obs.] [Written also pigsnie, pigsny, etc.] --Chaucer.
I read “The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition” years ago, and still remember how transported I was by the wonderful writing and extraordinarily persuasive argument.
Later on I decided that it was mostly wrong about the romantic tradition, but that didn’t alter the fact that it’s such a lovely book, you’d rather believe it, than more accurate, but less beautiful accounts.
I’m embarrassed to admit to such fondness for a book of literary criticism, but it is a most truly delightful book.
You may have misunderstood me. My rhetorical question was meant to imply that Cleese was a fantastic choice as Screwtape! I’d like to get hold of that some time.
I hasten to add that I don’t mean to suggest that Lewis was historically inaccurate, he’s too good a scholar for that. But the Allegory of Love was written in the thirties, and by the time I read it, some sixty years later, literary criticism had changed quite a lot, and feminism had certainly prompted new readings and considerations.
I was particularly interested in what is called “the new historicism”, and cultural theory, so as much as I was totally charmed by the book, there were other ways of seeing the texts he was writing about, which in my view, had more to offer in terms of theoretical perspectives.
I’ll look up some specific references for you, but Lee Patterson’s “Negotiating the Past” is a good introduction to new historicism, and I’m fairly sure he has written about courtly love, certainly in the works of Chaucer. I just had a look for my copy so I could be sure about what’s in it, but my books are in chaos as usual … but I did find my copy of “Allegory of Love” by happy chance, so thanks to this thread I think I’ll be re-reading that.
So I understood you to say, and I agreed - the reading had almost the same effect on me that Jim Dale’s readings of Harry Potter did - now every time I reread the book, I hear that voice in my head.
I believe Lewis’ most famous piece of literary criticism was on Paradise Lost. Was that the piece published in the Oxford History of the English Language (OHEL, as he and Tolkien referred to it)?
Lewis’ A Preface to Paradise Lost is, now anyway, a stand-alone book–I don’t know if it has been published elsewise.
Paradise Lost cirticism took a funny path in the 20th century. Remember that, since publication, people (romanticists like Shelley) have been saying that Satan is the hero of the poem, and that its hell is more interesting than its heaven. In the early 20th century, TSEliot (who has his own funny path in regards to works that have religious content) proclaimed that Paradise Lost’s “grand style” was wrong for modern writers–minimalism and imagism were true, and epic style, simile, metaphor and overblown verbiage were unaesthetic. (Eliot subsequently declined to defend his postion on this point when challenged by Lewis and others–said that he wasn’t interested enough in PL to bother.) Lewis was reacting to both of these critical positions in his Preface.
Subsequent critics read Lewis as an old-school defender of Milton from romatic and modernist criticism, divding the critical world into 2 camps.
Stanley Fish, a really big gun of modern lit crit, then did Surprised by Sin, which in true pomo style asks what the role of the reader is in PL.
Note, however, that Preface anticipates in some important respects the post-modern emphasis on the “narrator,” who he is and whether or not he is reliable. Lewis believes that the narrator himself is first seduced by the devil and his rhetoric, but then learns better, and that this is the source of the “devil is hero” position–those who take this position look at the early parts of the book but not the narrator’s progress.
Whether or not you agree with Lewis’ position in Preface, it is much clearer and better written than a lot of the Milton stuff that has come down the pike.
> Was that the piece published in the Oxford History of the English Language
> (OHEL, as he and Tolkien referred to it)?
No, his volume in the OHEL was something different: English Literature in the Sixteenth Century excluding Drama.
Lissla Lislar writes:
> I heard that Puddleglum was based on Lewis’ gardener. Does anyone know it’s it’s true?
That’s the claim in all the biographies I’ve read.
blackhobyah,
I was indeed under the impression that the only problem with Lewis’s take on the medieval romance was that research has continued since his day and there are more recent books that are better places to start.
Lewis once said that any book worth reading only as a child is not worth reading even then. Quite true… I picked up on a lot in the Chronicles of Narnia as a child, but reading them as an adult, I realized I only caught a small fraction of it. Since re-reading, I think one of my favorite passages now is the scene in The Horse and his Boy, where the protagonist (I don’t remember his name) is fleeing through the fog, and he hears a Voice beside him.
“Who are you?”
“Myself.”
“Myself.”
“Myself.”
HS, interesting and informative post. I’ve bought The Discarded Image and intend reading it soon. Will then see if I’m up to the Preface and Allegory of Love!
Genuine question: does ‘dividing’ refer to the critics or to Lewis?
: Thank you.