If you are reading this I am assuming you have read Paradise Lost. If you have read Paradise Lost, and not read any other Milton, I suggest you do so because, a) it will give immeasurable insight to certain portions and ideas of PL, and b) Milton thoroughly addresses things which are startlingly prevalent in today's world - but this is a digression. I only ask if you've read other Milton to say that if you have, it is pretty easy to debunk the theory that Satan is the "good-guy".

Lewis, I think rightly, is on the side who think Satan is a bad guy, and not the hero of the work. It is a common tendency for readers who sympathize with Satan to place him as the hero of the work; but Satan only reflects the rebellion of human nature and estrangement from God. Do we empathize with Satan? Of course, and this is to be expected. We are fallen creatures, each with a little "Satan" in us. But I am getting preachy.

Lewis displays his methodical writing ability and analyzes certain historical, theological, psychological implications within PL. It is difficult to sum up, but Lewis reacts against the notion that Satan is the hero, corrects various misinterpretations (as he believes) other critics have attributed to the work, and so on.

Overall, if you're interested in reading criticism about criticism on PL, I would suggest this. And do not be afraid if you aren't extremely knowledgeable with the history of the Church and its doctrine. Lewis is informative without being overly pedantic (but keep in mind, he is a scholar).

While other reviewers have already touched on many key tenets of this fabulous little book, I may be able to enumerate or elaborate a little yet.

The real stuff of this book you must read for yourself, but I can at least adumbrate some general ideas he touches on.

1) A short, lucid, and highly informative introduction to epic _qua_ epic. Style, content, form, all the essentials. What makes Homer Homer: what it means. Where Virgil deviated: why it matters. Where Milton deviates: why it matters. &c.

2) Lovely interaction with contemporary "New Criticism." I. A. Richards meets the classical scholar (Chapter VIII).

3) Quintessential societal and philosophical criticism peppered _throughout_. You wouldn't think you'd be able to quote Lewis on the fatuousness of certain "sacred cow" tenets of "progressive modernity" in a book on Milton, but it's here--and moreover, each little epigrammatic jab is perfectly felicitous and apposite. Only Clive! Each one yields great laughter and reflection.

4) Some _excellent_ and _original_ universal literary criticism. It is my opinion that many excerpts of this book should be included in Literary Theory anthologies. He treats such overarching topics as reading, poetry _qua_ poetry, criticism _qua_ criticism, authorial intent, &c. &c.

5) His criticism of Milton's Satan is pretty much the coolest thing you'll ever read. I'll leave it at that: you must read it for yourself! I've read the chapter on Satan four times it's so good.

That's enough for now. Buy and read!

There are many approaches to criticism of Paradise Lost. None is more in the spirit of the poem as Milton wrote and intended than C. S. Lewis's Preface. Lewis's spirit is in harmony with Milton's and his Preface is a masterful explication of the greatest poem ever written. It is a delight to read and, as Lewis wished, urges one on to read the poem itself, with greater understanding.

This work is considered a classic of Milton criticism. I began the book with great expectations and must admit to being somewhat disappointed. Lewis sets out defining the 'epic' as genre, and explaining why Milton chose this form. He also traces the history of the Epic giving special emphasis on the turning point in the form made by the 'Aeneid'.He also outlines the stylistic peculiarities of Milton which helped give shape to his Epic. The latter part of the book is a discussion of the Themes of 'Paradise Loss' and considers among other things, the relation of Milton's work to the thought of Augustine, the role of Satan in the work, that of Adam and Eve. Lewis tends to the view that the Arian Milton did not attempt to force his own religious views on the Poem, but rather was concerned with the Poem's achieving its artistic and moral end.
There is an important chapter on 'Heirarchy' which shows how for Milton as for Shakespeare this is a key conception in their worlds. Lewis is a chamption of Milton's discipline, and shows how his stylistic brilliance created a continuous motion and form for the poem. The great Miltonian sentence in all its complexities is central here.
There is much to learn from this work about Milton, and also about Lewis.
I find that it did not however provide the kind of overall picture of the meaning of the Poem that I certainly thought it would.

As a man who spent the entirety of his childhood avoiding the repeatedly assigned Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe (i got very good at making my tests look like i'd read it, as im sure many grade school students do when its assigned year after year, i think we even did it in high school), i always associated Lweis' name with BAD. And then i discovered Milton, and his Satan, and Lewis re-entered the picture.

His preface to Paradise Lost is largely a defense, mostly against the attacks of contemporary and irreverant poets like Pound and Eliot who criticized Milton extensively, especially for his Latinate syntax. Lewis engages Eliot specifically in one chapter that reads like a very wordy rap beef. If you ask me, Eliot, certainly the better poet, is out of his element in the crit ring, and Lewis smokes him good, at times you might shout "OHHHHHHHHHHHH"

Far as his approach to the poem, he lays out the foundation for a modern understanding of Milton, namely a reverence for ritual and heritage, and an appreciation of epic and narrative poetry. His chapters on Homer Virgil and Beowulf are valuable and enjoyable reads worth the price of admission themselves. His criticism is highly intelligent but never overwhelming or tangential, it is systematic and thorough while still retaining a smooth readability. Easily one of the most valuable studies of Milton to come out of the 20th century.

C.S. Lewis had one great advantage for truly comprehending Milton's "Paradise Lost": he shared Milton's Christianity. It seems that many modern non-Christian critics of Milton impose concepts on the text which would have been foreign to Milton. Lewis, in contrast, belonged in his whole mindset (according to his own admission) much more to bygone ages than to the twentieth century. Thus he was able to understand bygone poets more than most people today.

Added to this advantage is of course Lewis's gift of having a lucid mind extended by an enchanting pen. His writings, including his academic ones, bristle with a liveliness lacking in most academic circles. "A Preface to Paradise Lost" is no exception in this regard.

As for the content of the "Preface," Lewis first spends eight chapters describing and defending the style of Epic Poetry, to which "Paradise Lost" belongs. He distinguishes between Primary and Secondary Epic and draws parallels to the Roman poet Virgil. The remaining eleven chapters are used to discuss the theological concepts in "Paradise Lost," making particular note of St. Augustine's influence on Milton.

The bottom line of the book is that Milton's poem, more than anything else, embodies concepts found in the Bible and the teachings of the Church, and that the supposed "revolutionary" concepts in Milton have largely been forced upon the text by later critics.

My own experience of reading Milton, for what it is worth, agrees with this view. I studied the Bible and church history quite extensively BEFORE I picked up "Paradise Lost," and I was surprised to find how very unoriginal the poem was in its portrayed concepts (which does not mean that it is a bad poem); almost everything in Milton has its source either in the Bible or in Christian traditions and teachings.

Edward Wagenknecht from "The New York Times" was right to say that in the "Preface," C.S. Lewis's "most valiant service is to protect us against the many students of Milton who have not been able to see the woods for the trees" (taken from the back cover of the book).

A superb academic work - not only for academic readers.

Lewis' interpretation of Satan makes absolutely no sense to anyone who knows the poem - until, that is, you realize that Lewis really believes in the devil and can't stomach the idea of a book that makes him into a hero.

Read this before reading Paradise Lost for a much easier time comprehending the work. Lewis is recognized by most literary scholars for his ability to interpret the language and literature from the Milton's period in literary history. It is clear, easy to read, yet profound in insight. Any reader who is honestly interested in comprehending the depth of Milton's work will appreciate Lewis' analysis; unless, of course, that reader is such a defensive unbeliever that he cannot stomach the idea that the devil might be real, even in literature.

Although a work of extraordinary brilliance and charm, this is not the critical last word on Milton. Lewis is brilliant almost to the point of being overwhelming on everything which is story and narrative and character; his comparison of Adam with Satan, his account of the diabolical cabinet meeting in book two, his description of what eating the apple did to Adam and Eve - the father of all bright epigrammatic wastrels meeting the mother of all [evil], selfish sentimentalists - his observation on Eve's sin, which could have been written by Chesterton, all are outstanding and hit the nail on the head so hard that it rings. And his immense learning is certainly up to the task of disentangling the intellectual background to the story - his account of the correspondence between Augustine's view of the Fall and Milton's, and his observation that both Satan and Abdiel "are good Aristotelians", show his easy, almost careless handling of vast stores of knowledge and understanding.
The problem with this otherwise superlative and certainly indispensable essay is that Lewis, taken with his vision of a common "mere Christianity" embracing Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox, simply misses the extent and significance of Milton's sectarian and heretical opinions. Sure, he knows that Milton was a sort of modified follower of Arius, who denied the divinity of Jesus - that is, that he stood at the outer edges of what is permissible for a Christian to believe - but he does not seem to understand that the consistently materializing imagination of Milton, that almost transforms the Trinity and the Angels into Greek Gods, was a typically Protestant and sectarian reaction against Catholic theology and especially against Thomism, with its wholly spiritual view of Angels. Nor does he give sufficient space to the most sectarian feature of Milton's spirit, the bitterness, amounting almost to bigotry, with which he denounced opposing viewpoints; in spite of the famous passage in the AEROPAGITICUS, he is a bad friend of liberty. Listen to the pointed observations of the historian Eric Voegelin:
"[Milton writes in Of True Religion , 1673:] Catholic worship cannot be tolerated "without grievous and unsufferable scandal giv'n to all consciencious Beholders." And he leaves it to the civil magistrate to consider whether Catholics in England can be tolerated at all, even without public worship. If Catholics should complain that their conscience is violated if the celebration of the mass is not permitted to them, he replies that "we have not warrant to regard Conscience which is not founded on Scripture." . . . . Radical scripturalism has become, in the field of social technique, the instrument through which the conscience of man can be kept within the limits of national jurisdiction.
"Milton goes even further in his scripturalism: he expects everybody to do his duty and to use the opportunity offered by the English Bible translation for becoming thoroughly acquainted with Scripture. "Neither let the Countryman, the Tradesman, the Lawyer, the Physician, the Statesman, excuse himself by his much business from the studious reading thereof. . . ."
Using a modern category, we might say that Milton was a totalitarian National Scripturalist. . . . "
Lewis is possibly too much in love with Milton's masterpiece; certain it is that at the end of this marvellous little tome we may find ourselves wondering why, if Milton is really so wonderful as Lewis makes him, we feel so little need to go and revisit his work; why, indeed, we would much rather re-read Lewis' own PREFACE than Milton himself.

John Milton's Paradise Lost is perhaps the most debated work in western literature. On one side you have those who say that Milton was secretly on the Devil's side. (Due to the realistic portrayal of Satan and the seemingly far off and tyrannical portrayal of God) On the other side you have those who say that Milton's sympathies were with God and the angels. (Due to the loving portrayal of the angels and mankind) C.S. Lewis was of the later camp. In 1942, he stood up against those who said otherwise.

I have a hard time labeling this as a 'preface'; Lewis was obviously writing to the learned elite at Cambridge, not to new readers of Milton. But Lewis does an excellent job of explaining Milton's worldview and how it works in Paradise Lost. His chapters on Primary and Secondary Epics, Miton and St. Augustine, and Hierarchy are EXTREMELY helpful. (Particularly the helpful to American readers is the Hierarchy chapter; we just don't understand what it means to live under and totally submit to a king or emperor.)

I highly recommend this to readers of Lewis or fans of Medieval and Renaissance literature.

Lewis's lectures, though half a century old, speak today with the same clarity, simplicity, and depth of learning as when they were first delivered. His presentation of background information sets the great English epic in its contemporary context--literary, historical, and theological--with a minimum of fuss and footnotes. Some of his negative judgments, such as calling the last two books "an undigested lump of futurity," deserve reconsideration, but on the whole his judgments encourage critical reading rather than bardolatry.

This book was a pleasure to read both before and after reading PARADISE LOST. In fact, one can make a nice trilogy out of PREFACE TO PARADISE LOST, PARADISE LOST, and Lewis's PERELANDRA. Lewis's PREFACE should interest both the general reader and the specialist. Lewis gives a roadmap for working through Milton's epic poem, discussing what an epic is and why Milton chose it, for example, or why Milton used a certain style for writing; he also comments on Milton's theology, medieval hierarchy, and a number of other pertinent subjects with which the reader will probably not be overly familiar. The writing is clear, the discussion lucid and enlightening, and the subjects are interesting. This is certainly worth purchasing.