What do you think?
Rate this book
The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature
In The Discarded Image, C.S. Lewis paints a lucid picture of the medieval world view, providing the historical and cultural background to the literature of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. It describes the "image" discarded by later years as "the medieval synthesis itself, the whole organization of their theology, science and history into a single, complex, harmonious mental model of the universe." This, Lewis’s last book, has been hailed as "the final memorial to the work of a great scholar and teacher and a wise and noble mind."
208 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1964
656 people are currently reading
7876 people want to read
About the author
C.S. Lewis
1,032 books47.9k followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.
Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]
Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.
Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 478 reviews
June 25, 2018
To me, this might be C. S. Lewis' best book. I will have to cop to not really liking the Narnia books (too allegorical and those British schoolchildren are pretty annoying), and while I do quite like his "Space Trilogy" I think that Lewis was much better as a writer of academic non-fiction than he was as a fiction writer. Here Lewis is able to tackle a huge subject: medieval cosmology and worldview, and bring both his wide reading and ability to make things understandable to the "common man" to the table.
In his emminently readable way Lewis starts by setting the stage, asking his audience (this was originally a series of lectures given to non-academics) to imagine a world according to the view proposed by the ancients and medievals. He also asks us not to judge this view, for many of its assumptions are no less strange than the ones we hold ourselves and our own belief that many of these ancients were foolish and superstitious, unable to distinguish between fact and metaphor in their depiction of the universe, is both pompous and mistaken.
We then move on to Lewis' discussion of the classical roots of medieval thought and belief, the hallowed place of the auctores in this conception, and the development of the medieval worldview with the melding of classical and Christian thought. We see the major figures taken as authorities and the views that came to be accepted regarding the universe and its inhabitants. The modes of medieval education are also covered, which help to delineate the subjects they thought most important and the major components that went to make these up.
Lewis always keeps things light and accessible, but has a breadth of knowledge and love for his subject that really shines through. I'd consider this book a great introduction to the thoughts and beliefs that the medievals had about their universe and then I'd move on the the "Space Trilogy" to see how Lewis incorporated these ideas into a science fiction tale that at least partially takes this cosmology as true as part of its basic premise. Great stuff.
(In some ways I'd see this as a good companion piece to E.M.W Tillyard's The Elizabethan World Picture)
In his emminently readable way Lewis starts by setting the stage, asking his audience (this was originally a series of lectures given to non-academics) to imagine a world according to the view proposed by the ancients and medievals. He also asks us not to judge this view, for many of its assumptions are no less strange than the ones we hold ourselves and our own belief that many of these ancients were foolish and superstitious, unable to distinguish between fact and metaphor in their depiction of the universe, is both pompous and mistaken.
We then move on to Lewis' discussion of the classical roots of medieval thought and belief, the hallowed place of the auctores in this conception, and the development of the medieval worldview with the melding of classical and Christian thought. We see the major figures taken as authorities and the views that came to be accepted regarding the universe and its inhabitants. The modes of medieval education are also covered, which help to delineate the subjects they thought most important and the major components that went to make these up.
Lewis always keeps things light and accessible, but has a breadth of knowledge and love for his subject that really shines through. I'd consider this book a great introduction to the thoughts and beliefs that the medievals had about their universe and then I'd move on the the "Space Trilogy" to see how Lewis incorporated these ideas into a science fiction tale that at least partially takes this cosmology as true as part of its basic premise. Great stuff.
(In some ways I'd see this as a good companion piece to E.M.W Tillyard's The Elizabethan World Picture)
January 18, 2024
In every period the Model of the Universe which is accepted by the great thinkers helps to provide what we may call a backcloth for the arts. But this backcloth is highly selective.
An excellent work from C. S. Lewis's day job. A must read for students of history as well as literature. Takes the reader into the worldview of literate people of that era. Not only what they read, but how they viewed reality. Some surprises.
Medieval art was deficient in perspective, and poetry followed suit. Nature, for Chaucer, is all foreground; we never get a landscape.
Much more accessible than other scholarly books of the same genre, yet fascinating insights to a time and place so different from our own that it might as well be science-fiction or fantasy. Make no mistake, this is not easy reading. It is the survey work of the impact of the Medieval model of reality on the literature of the period, not of the model nor of the literature.
One gets the impression that medieval people, like J R R Tolkien’s Hobbits, enjoyed books which told them what they already knew.
Modern authors should review this work before presuming to write period pieces of this era. Many of their stories involve modern characters set in the Middle Ages. The reader is jarred by the anachronism, even though he or she may not realize why.
With this attitude goes the characteristically medieval type of imagination. It is not a transforming imagination like Wordsworth’s or a penetrative imagination like Shakespeare’s. It is a realising imagination.
Upon third reading: Every time I re-read The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature my opinion of it and its author rises.
Upon fourth reading: Just because the Medieval model was wrong should not prevent us from learning from it. And that we should understand that our modern model is also in constant revision and correction. A factor, in both cases, is that the model influences the posing of questions as much as it provides answers. “Each is a serious attempt to get in all the phenomena known at a given period, and each succeeds in getting in a great many. But also, no less surely, each reflects the prevalent psychology of an age almost as much as it reflects the state of that age’s knowledge.” He used the popularity of science fiction stories as impelling the search for extra-terrestrial beings in the early twentieth century. Perhaps current astrophysics’ pursuit of m- and string theories is as due to the unacceptability of a finite universe as any evidence to the contrary.
An excellent work from C. S. Lewis's day job. A must read for students of history as well as literature. Takes the reader into the worldview of literate people of that era. Not only what they read, but how they viewed reality. Some surprises.
Medieval art was deficient in perspective, and poetry followed suit. Nature, for Chaucer, is all foreground; we never get a landscape.
Much more accessible than other scholarly books of the same genre, yet fascinating insights to a time and place so different from our own that it might as well be science-fiction or fantasy. Make no mistake, this is not easy reading. It is the survey work of the impact of the Medieval model of reality on the literature of the period, not of the model nor of the literature.
One gets the impression that medieval people, like J R R Tolkien’s Hobbits, enjoyed books which told them what they already knew.
Modern authors should review this work before presuming to write period pieces of this era. Many of their stories involve modern characters set in the Middle Ages. The reader is jarred by the anachronism, even though he or she may not realize why.
With this attitude goes the characteristically medieval type of imagination. It is not a transforming imagination like Wordsworth’s or a penetrative imagination like Shakespeare’s. It is a realising imagination.
Upon third reading: Every time I re-read The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature my opinion of it and its author rises.
Upon fourth reading: Just because the Medieval model was wrong should not prevent us from learning from it. And that we should understand that our modern model is also in constant revision and correction. A factor, in both cases, is that the model influences the posing of questions as much as it provides answers. “Each is a serious attempt to get in all the phenomena known at a given period, and each succeeds in getting in a great many. But also, no less surely, each reflects the prevalent psychology of an age almost as much as it reflects the state of that age’s knowledge.” He used the popularity of science fiction stories as impelling the search for extra-terrestrial beings in the early twentieth century. Perhaps current astrophysics’ pursuit of m- and string theories is as due to the unacceptability of a finite universe as any evidence to the contrary.
March 22, 2021
Lewis's treatise on Medieval Cosmology which ends on this lovely quote:
"I take it to be part and parcel of the same great process of Internalisation18 which has turned genius from an attendant daemon into a quality of the mind.
Always, century by century, item after item is transferred from the object’s side of the account to the subject’s. And now, in some extreme forms of Behaviourism, the subject himself is discounted as merely subjective; we only think that we think. Having eaten up everything else, he eats himself up too. And where we ‘go from that’ is a dark question."
"I take it to be part and parcel of the same great process of Internalisation18 which has turned genius from an attendant daemon into a quality of the mind.
Always, century by century, item after item is transferred from the object’s side of the account to the subject’s. And now, in some extreme forms of Behaviourism, the subject himself is discounted as merely subjective; we only think that we think. Having eaten up everything else, he eats himself up too. And where we ‘go from that’ is a dark question."
Currently reading
March 19, 2025I published an essay based on the preface.
Helpful lecture here.
Ch. 1: The Medieval Situation
CSL defends and distinguishes the Medieval mind from superstitious savagery by demonstrating its bookish quality. Beliefs arose, not merely from absorbing community behavior, but from the authority of auctours. They also loved systems and worked hard to harmonize sources and arrange details into hierarchies. CSL aims to persuade readers that the Medieval Model of the Universe was its supreme and central work of art.
Ch. 2: Reservations
For Medievals, the status of the Model was held loosely. [CSL seems to mean by "backcloth" what Charles Taylor means by "social imaginary."]
Ch. 3: Selected Materials: The Classical Period
CSL skips the heavy hitters re: necessary sources for understanding medieval lit (Bible, Virgil, Ovid), focusing on the Dream of Scipio (in Cicero) and works by Lucan (similar ascent, and laughter at trifles), Statius (Natura personified), and Apuleius ("middle spirits" or daemons). Accounts of ascensions from the earth contribute to a sense of smallness within the greater order. Apuleius provides two principles: 1) the triad (already mentioned wrt middle spirits), and 2) plenitude (space demands inhabitation).
Ch. 4: Selected Materials: The Seminal Period
Chalcidius (4c philosopher who translated and commented on Plato's Timaeus) rejected the anthropocentric cosmology of Genesis; his influence on the Medieval Model is anthropo-peripheralism: "we watch 'the spectacle of the celestial dance' from its outskirts." (Alanus ab Insulis went further by describing humans as suburban: if the Empyrean is the central castle-city, and the angels are the knights, then we terrestrials live outside the city walls. As Dante describes it, the spatial order inverts the spiritual order, so that the spatial center/hub of the geocentric model [earth] is really at the rim of spiritual importance.)
Macrobius (4–5c) wrote a commentary on the dream of Scipio (in Cicero's Republic) and covers topics such as the four "elements" (aether, air, water, earth) and five species of dreams (including Cicero's somnium). The elements section paints earth as an "offscouring of creation"—a kind of "cosmic dust-bin," leading to the more "mystical, ascetic, world-renouncing theology of neo-Platonism" in which the act of creation itself is a kind of fall from a transcendent position or focus (very different from Roman paganism). The section on dreams is important because the highest meaning of somnium, the altitudo, shows Macrobius's shift in spiritual focus from Cicero. Whereas Cicero's version posits a heaven for civic leaders (and says, "Nothing—nothing anyway that goes on on earth—is more pleasing to God than those councils and communities of men bound together by law which we call commonwealths"), Macrobius interprets Cicero's parenthetical "nothing anyway that goes on on earth" as a way to make room for higher concerns—concerns that are "religious, not secular; individual, not social; occupied not with the outer life but with the inner life." Macrobius joined Cicero in believing that while the body entombs the soul, the soul can return to heaven; but Macrobius denies the direct influence of stars on earthly activities.
Pseudo-Dionysius
Boethius
Ch. 5: The Heavens
CSL wonders if there was something about the mistaken-but-beautiful medieval model that was so perfect that it was claustrophobic. Everything made sense and was in a neat little box, so that you could never really get outdoors, in a sense. So his next chapter is about escaping that claustrophobia.
Ch. 6: The Longaevi
This is a chapter on fairies (making the world mysterious again). Cf. Alexandre Koyré's claim (1957) that moving "from the closed world to the infinite universe" is immensely disturbing.
Ch. 7: Earth and Her Inhabitants
Ch. 8: The Influence of the Model
Helpful lecture here.
Ch. 1: The Medieval Situation
CSL defends and distinguishes the Medieval mind from superstitious savagery by demonstrating its bookish quality. Beliefs arose, not merely from absorbing community behavior, but from the authority of auctours. They also loved systems and worked hard to harmonize sources and arrange details into hierarchies. CSL aims to persuade readers that the Medieval Model of the Universe was its supreme and central work of art.
Ch. 2: Reservations
For Medievals, the status of the Model was held loosely. [CSL seems to mean by "backcloth" what Charles Taylor means by "social imaginary."]
Ch. 3: Selected Materials: The Classical Period
CSL skips the heavy hitters re: necessary sources for understanding medieval lit (Bible, Virgil, Ovid), focusing on the Dream of Scipio (in Cicero) and works by Lucan (similar ascent, and laughter at trifles), Statius (Natura personified), and Apuleius ("middle spirits" or daemons). Accounts of ascensions from the earth contribute to a sense of smallness within the greater order. Apuleius provides two principles: 1) the triad (already mentioned wrt middle spirits), and 2) plenitude (space demands inhabitation).
Ch. 4: Selected Materials: The Seminal Period
Chalcidius (4c philosopher who translated and commented on Plato's Timaeus) rejected the anthropocentric cosmology of Genesis; his influence on the Medieval Model is anthropo-peripheralism: "we watch 'the spectacle of the celestial dance' from its outskirts." (Alanus ab Insulis went further by describing humans as suburban: if the Empyrean is the central castle-city, and the angels are the knights, then we terrestrials live outside the city walls. As Dante describes it, the spatial order inverts the spiritual order, so that the spatial center/hub of the geocentric model [earth] is really at the rim of spiritual importance.)
Macrobius (4–5c) wrote a commentary on the dream of Scipio (in Cicero's Republic) and covers topics such as the four "elements" (aether, air, water, earth) and five species of dreams (including Cicero's somnium). The elements section paints earth as an "offscouring of creation"—a kind of "cosmic dust-bin," leading to the more "mystical, ascetic, world-renouncing theology of neo-Platonism" in which the act of creation itself is a kind of fall from a transcendent position or focus (very different from Roman paganism). The section on dreams is important because the highest meaning of somnium, the altitudo, shows Macrobius's shift in spiritual focus from Cicero. Whereas Cicero's version posits a heaven for civic leaders (and says, "Nothing—nothing anyway that goes on on earth—is more pleasing to God than those councils and communities of men bound together by law which we call commonwealths"), Macrobius interprets Cicero's parenthetical "nothing anyway that goes on on earth" as a way to make room for higher concerns—concerns that are "religious, not secular; individual, not social; occupied not with the outer life but with the inner life." Macrobius joined Cicero in believing that while the body entombs the soul, the soul can return to heaven; but Macrobius denies the direct influence of stars on earthly activities.
Pseudo-Dionysius
Boethius
Ch. 5: The Heavens
CSL wonders if there was something about the mistaken-but-beautiful medieval model that was so perfect that it was claustrophobic. Everything made sense and was in a neat little box, so that you could never really get outdoors, in a sense. So his next chapter is about escaping that claustrophobia.
Ch. 6: The Longaevi
This is a chapter on fairies (making the world mysterious again). Cf. Alexandre Koyré's claim (1957) that moving "from the closed world to the infinite universe" is immensely disturbing.
Ch. 7: Earth and Her Inhabitants
Ch. 8: The Influence of the Model
June 21, 2017
Probably Lewis's least read work. In my opinion it is his most important book.
Generally, fans of Lewis admire his apologetics or his fiction but can't approach his genius with either. True, he was a very gifted communicator. But what these people don't seem to understand is Lewis was not a modern man, and they are.
It is puzzling, seeing as he was very open and forthright about being a dinosaur of sorts. But his erstwhile devotees can't accept that it is his medieval mind that made him so fresh and poignant for modern readers.
This book introduces you to medieval cosmology. If you want to understand why everything Lewis wrote is actually an apology not just for generic Christianity, but for a medieval Christianity, read this book.
Generally, fans of Lewis admire his apologetics or his fiction but can't approach his genius with either. True, he was a very gifted communicator. But what these people don't seem to understand is Lewis was not a modern man, and they are.
It is puzzling, seeing as he was very open and forthright about being a dinosaur of sorts. But his erstwhile devotees can't accept that it is his medieval mind that made him so fresh and poignant for modern readers.
This book introduces you to medieval cosmology. If you want to understand why everything Lewis wrote is actually an apology not just for generic Christianity, but for a medieval Christianity, read this book.
November 6, 2024
Lewis, my friend, you didn't disappoint. I can only imagine how wonderful it would be to have Lewis teach you about medieval literature.
October 11, 2022
To try to get into the Medieval or Early Modern mindset and understand its literature and culture without a guide like The Discarded Image is, increasingly, an exercise in frustration and errors undetected. The Early Modernists (the self-styled "Renaissance") were, for all their posturing, still essentially Medieval in worldview, but by late Modernism advances of natural science and mass evolution of personal values brought about such a paradigmatic shift that to comprehend, let alone appreciate, the cultural heritage of western Europe could no longer be done without specific training. For though the symbols themselves remain intelligible and for the most part are still in use - symbols of language, depictions of celestial bodies, gods and heroes, the natural world, architecture, and so on - the meaning we take and convey through them has radically changed.
Lewis propounds the sources and unfolds the elaborated elegance of Medieval thought in this book. It is introductory rather than exhaustive, accessible rather than complete; but you'll find yourself looking at the world a little differently, wondering, after you read it.
Lewis propounds the sources and unfolds the elaborated elegance of Medieval thought in this book. It is introductory rather than exhaustive, accessible rather than complete; but you'll find yourself looking at the world a little differently, wondering, after you read it.
June 7, 2022
I don't understand it all, but I recognize its significance. This is essential reading for understanding medieval cosmology. Lewis is a great guide, as always. And in his wonderfully Lewisian way, as he talks about the medieval model of the universe, he simultaneously exposes how far we've fallen and how much we've lost in our modernity.
(The Literary Life Podcast’s 2 for '22 Reading Challenge: Inklings – By an Inkling)
(The Literary Life Podcast’s 2 for '22 Reading Challenge: Inklings – By an Inkling)
August 1, 2016
C S Lewis' introduction to Medieval and Renaissance literature focuses on the medieval world view. He outlines medieval cosmology, beliefs about humanity and attitudes to the classical past and to scholarship in general, summarising the principal classical and late classical/early medieval authors through whose work the seminal ideas of the period were transmitted.
Lewis was a natural teacher and his explanations are refreshingly free from the obscurism that is so prevalent in much literary criticism. It's not an easy book to read since it expects a level of cultural awareness that is by no means universal nowadays. I needed the aid of Wikipedia and the Concise Oxford Dictionary on more than one occasion.
Nevertheless, I found this a very rewarding read and I was a little surprised to realise how much of my mindset is completely medieval.
Lewis was a natural teacher and his explanations are refreshingly free from the obscurism that is so prevalent in much literary criticism. It's not an easy book to read since it expects a level of cultural awareness that is by no means universal nowadays. I needed the aid of Wikipedia and the Concise Oxford Dictionary on more than one occasion.
Nevertheless, I found this a very rewarding read and I was a little surprised to realise how much of my mindset is completely medieval.
December 7, 2025
Update 2025: This is even better than I remember.
---------------------------------------
Lewis is more writing an introduction into medieval way of thinking than introduction to medieval literature. It's not a bad thing, just an observation. If you know nothing of Middle Ages, you will be really lost. I have some knowledge on the matter and in the things that I'm thin in, I would get lost. For this reason, I almost gave it 4 stars, but that Epilogue was amazing, so 5 stars.
---------------------------------------
Lewis is more writing an introduction into medieval way of thinking than introduction to medieval literature. It's not a bad thing, just an observation. If you know nothing of Middle Ages, you will be really lost. I have some knowledge on the matter and in the things that I'm thin in, I would get lost. For this reason, I almost gave it 4 stars, but that Epilogue was amazing, so 5 stars.
May 18, 2009
Excellent. World class.
March 13, 2021
A recent article by Stratford Caldecott on The Imaginative Conservative blog got me intrigued about this book: a work published by CS Lewis' within his academic specialty of medieval and renaissance literature. I was aware this book existed, but recent forays into classical educational models sparked an interest in being able to approach literary works of the past with a good sense of the "mental furniture" that ordinary members of past audiences possessed. While I was more or less familiar with the basic concept of a geocentric universe surrounded by spheres of increasing ontological importance, I've nowhere else encountered such an interesting and succinct exposition of the pre-enlightenment worldview. Part of what makes this so interesting is that it is a sympathetic exposition. Certainly, Lewis does not advocate returning to these perspectives as an alternative to contemporary astrophysics, but he does offer reasons for why letting the same spirit of wonder and enchantment inform us now is a good idea. Furthermore, he also does a very convincing job of dispelling the notion that "The medievals thought to universe to be like that, but we know it to be like this". Contemporary mathematical descriptions of the universe present a very different sort of "explanation" than the medieval worldview did, as Lewis explains in the following passage from the Epilogue:
"The nineteenth century still held the belief that by inferences from our sense-experience (improved by instruments) we could 'know' the ultimate physical reality more or less as, by maps, pictures, and travel-books, a man can 'know' a country he has not visited; and that in both cases the 'truth' would be a sort of mental replica of the thing itself. Philosophers might have disquieting comments to make on this conception; but scientists and plain men did not much attend to them. Already, to be sure, mathematics were the idiom in which many of the sciences spoke. But I do not think it was doubted that there was a concrete reality about which the mathematics held good; distinguishable from the mathematics as a heap of apples is from the process of counting them. We knew indeed that it was in some respects not adequately imaginable; quantities and distances if either very small or very great could not be visualized. But, apart from that, we hope that ordinary imagination and conception could grasp it. We should then have through mathematics a knowledge not merely mathematical. We should be like the man coming to know about a foreign country without visiting it. He learns about the mountains from carefully studying the contour lines on a map. But his knowledge is not a knowledge of contour lines. The real knowledge is achieved when these enable him to say 'That would be an easy ascent', 'This is a dangerous precipice', 'A would not be visible from B', 'These woods and waters must make a pleasant valley'. In going beyond the contour lines to such conclusions he is (if he knows how to read a map) getting nearer to the reality. It would be very different if someone said to him (and was believed) 'But it is the contour lines themselves that are the fullest reality you can get. In turning away from them to these other statements you are getting further from the reality, not nearer. All those ideas about "real" rocks and slopes and views are merely a metaphor or a parable, permissible as a concession to the weakness of those who can't understand contour lines, but misleading if they are taken literally'. And this, if I understand the situation, is just what has now happened as regards the physical sciences. The mathematics are now the nearest to the reality we can get. Anything imaginable, even anything that can be manipulated by ordinary (that is, non-mathematical) conceptions, far from being a further truth to which mathematics were the avenue, is mere analogy, a concession to our weakness. Without a parable modern physics speaks not to the multitudes. Even among themselves, when they attempt to verbalize their findings, the scientists begin to speak of this as making 'models'. But these 'models' are not, like model ships, small-scale replicas of the reality, Sometimes they illustrate this or that aspect of it by an analogy. Sometimes, they do not illustrate but merely suggest, like the sayings of the mystics. An expression such as 'the curvature of space' is strictly comparable to the old definition of God as 'a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere'. Both succeed in suggesting; each does so by offering what is, on the level of our ordinary thinking, nonsense."
It is just this sort of writing, the vivid analogies that shed so much light, Lewis' delightful style and insight, that make this book such a worthwhile endeavor.
Nowhere else is this more clear than in his description of the understanding of angels that prior ages possessed. Beginning with the Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius, Lewis traces the connection between the choirs of angels and the heavenly spheres (viz. the orbit of each of the planets)--"Each sphere, or something resident in each sphere, is a conscious and intellectual being, moved by 'intellectual love' of God". This concept is played out in literary form in Lewis Space Trilogy, particularly in Perelandra where the "spirit" of Venus and Mars are present on the crowning of the First Parents of Perelandra. If you have ever had an interest in understanding how angels were understood prior to the chubby babies of the Romantic era, Lewis would provide you with an excellent starting point.
Despite the immense erudition of this scholarly introduction, I can't help but be most thankful for the passages where Lewis sets aside the academic tone and shifts into the imaginative. He describes what it was like for a medieval person to walk outside at night and look up at the stars, equipped with a highly developed and extremely delightful set of concepts that are both far more different and far more similar to ours than I ever understood before. It is this ability to not just dissect his subject but rather sympathetically enter into the perspective of another age that makes this work so worthwhile, and such an excellent example of Lewis' genius. Imagine what it would have been like to be his student!
A largely under-appreciated work. Do yourself a favor, and take a nighttime stroll with the good professor.
"The nineteenth century still held the belief that by inferences from our sense-experience (improved by instruments) we could 'know' the ultimate physical reality more or less as, by maps, pictures, and travel-books, a man can 'know' a country he has not visited; and that in both cases the 'truth' would be a sort of mental replica of the thing itself. Philosophers might have disquieting comments to make on this conception; but scientists and plain men did not much attend to them. Already, to be sure, mathematics were the idiom in which many of the sciences spoke. But I do not think it was doubted that there was a concrete reality about which the mathematics held good; distinguishable from the mathematics as a heap of apples is from the process of counting them. We knew indeed that it was in some respects not adequately imaginable; quantities and distances if either very small or very great could not be visualized. But, apart from that, we hope that ordinary imagination and conception could grasp it. We should then have through mathematics a knowledge not merely mathematical. We should be like the man coming to know about a foreign country without visiting it. He learns about the mountains from carefully studying the contour lines on a map. But his knowledge is not a knowledge of contour lines. The real knowledge is achieved when these enable him to say 'That would be an easy ascent', 'This is a dangerous precipice', 'A would not be visible from B', 'These woods and waters must make a pleasant valley'. In going beyond the contour lines to such conclusions he is (if he knows how to read a map) getting nearer to the reality. It would be very different if someone said to him (and was believed) 'But it is the contour lines themselves that are the fullest reality you can get. In turning away from them to these other statements you are getting further from the reality, not nearer. All those ideas about "real" rocks and slopes and views are merely a metaphor or a parable, permissible as a concession to the weakness of those who can't understand contour lines, but misleading if they are taken literally'. And this, if I understand the situation, is just what has now happened as regards the physical sciences. The mathematics are now the nearest to the reality we can get. Anything imaginable, even anything that can be manipulated by ordinary (that is, non-mathematical) conceptions, far from being a further truth to which mathematics were the avenue, is mere analogy, a concession to our weakness. Without a parable modern physics speaks not to the multitudes. Even among themselves, when they attempt to verbalize their findings, the scientists begin to speak of this as making 'models'. But these 'models' are not, like model ships, small-scale replicas of the reality, Sometimes they illustrate this or that aspect of it by an analogy. Sometimes, they do not illustrate but merely suggest, like the sayings of the mystics. An expression such as 'the curvature of space' is strictly comparable to the old definition of God as 'a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere'. Both succeed in suggesting; each does so by offering what is, on the level of our ordinary thinking, nonsense."
It is just this sort of writing, the vivid analogies that shed so much light, Lewis' delightful style and insight, that make this book such a worthwhile endeavor.
Nowhere else is this more clear than in his description of the understanding of angels that prior ages possessed. Beginning with the Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius, Lewis traces the connection between the choirs of angels and the heavenly spheres (viz. the orbit of each of the planets)--"Each sphere, or something resident in each sphere, is a conscious and intellectual being, moved by 'intellectual love' of God". This concept is played out in literary form in Lewis Space Trilogy, particularly in Perelandra where the "spirit" of Venus and Mars are present on the crowning of the First Parents of Perelandra. If you have ever had an interest in understanding how angels were understood prior to the chubby babies of the Romantic era, Lewis would provide you with an excellent starting point.
Despite the immense erudition of this scholarly introduction, I can't help but be most thankful for the passages where Lewis sets aside the academic tone and shifts into the imaginative. He describes what it was like for a medieval person to walk outside at night and look up at the stars, equipped with a highly developed and extremely delightful set of concepts that are both far more different and far more similar to ours than I ever understood before. It is this ability to not just dissect his subject but rather sympathetically enter into the perspective of another age that makes this work so worthwhile, and such an excellent example of Lewis' genius. Imagine what it would have been like to be his student!
A largely under-appreciated work. Do yourself a favor, and take a nighttime stroll with the good professor.
Read
December 20, 20252025:
I remember being confused by a lot of this in 2022 and thinking Lewis maybe would have structured this differently or explained more if he had written it for a popular audience. Probably from encountering a lot of this material in other milieus since (like Dcn. Seraphim Rohlin podcasts), this read flowed better as I re-tread the ground. An Experiment in Criticism might still be his best non-fiction, but this is my favorite.
Imagine an edition where all the sources Lewis references are included in appendices.
2022:
Chapter 1: The Medieval Situation
Medieval Europeans were not superstitious, romantic savages. They were scholarly organizers who based their knowledge on books, predominantly Greek and Latin classics. The romantic strain they received from barbarian ballads of knights slaying dragons to save princesses; it was important and valuable, but not central to their thought. The central work of art and organization was their cosmological model.
Chapter 2: Reservations
The medieval model as it existed in the mind of artists is not the same as the history of medieval science, in the same way that Freud affected 20th century literature more than Einstein. The model was in tension with Christianity. Medievals held the model loosely; Galileo caused trouble not by agreeing with Copernicus but by insisting he was right.
Chapters 3 and 4 are a survey of notable writers and works, demonstrating the development and affect of the model. Lewis thought the highest of Plotinus, then Boethius, whose "Consolation of Philosophy" he calls one of the most popular and influential Latin books of all time. "To acquire a taste for it is almost to become naturalised in the Middle Ages."
Chapter 5 outlines the elements and the spheres (heavenly bodies).
Chapter 6 lists the "longlivers": elves, fairies, nymphs, etc.
Chapter 7 is mostly the Earth, beasts, and souls.
Chapter 8 examines the influence of the model on art. The medievals' worst fault was tedium: everything had a place and meaning in their cosmos, so they felt everything was interesting. Their greatest virtue was the ease of their poetry; it feels not at all straining or self-conscious.
The Epilogue might be the best chapter. Lewis grants that the medieval model was flawed in that it is not true. However, neither is our modern model. You may have "trusted the science" in Newton's day, only to be proved wrong by Einstein. Since Lewis's death, quantum theory has apparently contradicted Einstein.
Any model of the universe is a map: it describes reality, but it is not itself reality. A model can never represent reality completely, just as a map is a shadow of a place.
The popular conception is that Darwin produced biological evolution theory by his observations. But the dominant thought had switched from devolution to evolution before Darwin; the revolutionaries and romantics demanded a developing world, for which the scientists then found evidence. Another example of philosophy driving science: In the 19th century, most astronomers did not believe in alien life. With the advent of space travel and science fiction, by the mid-20th century most astronomers believed in the inevitability of aliens.
Lewis ends by calling not for a return to the medieval model, but a return to the medieval humility.
I remember being confused by a lot of this in 2022 and thinking Lewis maybe would have structured this differently or explained more if he had written it for a popular audience. Probably from encountering a lot of this material in other milieus since (like Dcn. Seraphim Rohlin podcasts), this read flowed better as I re-tread the ground. An Experiment in Criticism might still be his best non-fiction, but this is my favorite.
Imagine an edition where all the sources Lewis references are included in appendices.
2022:
Chapter 1: The Medieval Situation
Medieval Europeans were not superstitious, romantic savages. They were scholarly organizers who based their knowledge on books, predominantly Greek and Latin classics. The romantic strain they received from barbarian ballads of knights slaying dragons to save princesses; it was important and valuable, but not central to their thought. The central work of art and organization was their cosmological model.
Chapter 2: Reservations
The medieval model as it existed in the mind of artists is not the same as the history of medieval science, in the same way that Freud affected 20th century literature more than Einstein. The model was in tension with Christianity. Medievals held the model loosely; Galileo caused trouble not by agreeing with Copernicus but by insisting he was right.
Chapters 3 and 4 are a survey of notable writers and works, demonstrating the development and affect of the model. Lewis thought the highest of Plotinus, then Boethius, whose "Consolation of Philosophy" he calls one of the most popular and influential Latin books of all time. "To acquire a taste for it is almost to become naturalised in the Middle Ages."
Chapter 5 outlines the elements and the spheres (heavenly bodies).
Chapter 6 lists the "longlivers": elves, fairies, nymphs, etc.
Chapter 7 is mostly the Earth, beasts, and souls.
Chapter 8 examines the influence of the model on art. The medievals' worst fault was tedium: everything had a place and meaning in their cosmos, so they felt everything was interesting. Their greatest virtue was the ease of their poetry; it feels not at all straining or self-conscious.
The Epilogue might be the best chapter. Lewis grants that the medieval model was flawed in that it is not true. However, neither is our modern model. You may have "trusted the science" in Newton's day, only to be proved wrong by Einstein. Since Lewis's death, quantum theory has apparently contradicted Einstein.
Any model of the universe is a map: it describes reality, but it is not itself reality. A model can never represent reality completely, just as a map is a shadow of a place.
The popular conception is that Darwin produced biological evolution theory by his observations. But the dominant thought had switched from devolution to evolution before Darwin; the revolutionaries and romantics demanded a developing world, for which the scientists then found evidence. Another example of philosophy driving science: In the 19th century, most astronomers did not believe in alien life. With the advent of space travel and science fiction, by the mid-20th century most astronomers believed in the inevitability of aliens.
Lewis ends by calling not for a return to the medieval model, but a return to the medieval humility.
January 7, 2019
“The old Model delights me as I believe it delighted our ancestors," says Lewis. "Few constructions of the imagination seem to me to have combined splendor, sobriety, and coherence in the same degree…. [But] I agree. It was not true" (216).
This was a huge hurdle for me. I could enjoy this book and its explosively eye-opening key, Michael Ward's Planet Narnia, all day and revel in the symbolism. But is it true? No. Bummer. Instant deflation. If it isn't true, what's the point? If Jupiter isn't really the glorious high king and the Moon has nothing to do with silver and Mercury doesn't actually love fleet dispatch and beautiful words, why bother? I'd been duped. I'd been suckered into stepping over the bounds of appropriate, rational enjoyment of fiction. Only reality, the truth, could have my wild appreciation.
Lewis neatly smacks this folly upside the head.
Why did I need the Model to be true in order to be a fan? Because I'm a modern. I was comparing the medieval Model to the current scientific model which I (does a fish know he's wet?) of course "knew" to be true. But today's science is just another model—limited, imperfect—and will also be replaced one day.
"We can no longer dismiss the change of Models as a simple progress from error to truth," Lewis points out. "No model is a catalogue of ultimate realities, and none is a mere fantasy… I think [the modern model] is more likely to change when, and because, far-reaching changes in the mental temper of our descendants demand that it should" (222-23).
That clinched it for me. The lasting value of the medieval Model derives not from mere beauty; I care too much about truth to be satisfied with raw aesthetics. Rather, I see value once I realize that all models are mere descriptions. None are pure fiction, but none encompass all the facts either. They are like poems, paragraphs, songs about history: they each describe reality without being reality itself.
Hence we must stay humble and admit that modern science does NOT know or explain or even describe everything sufficiently. In this seat of humility, we’re in a position to appreciate yesterday’s Model the same way we appreciate Jane Austen or the Book of Kells or beautiful Grecian robes: not because they are still in fashion, but because they are beautiful and are part of our history, our heritage, in every way.
Since we will always be limited to a finite Model, we can delight in all finite Models—especially one such as this, in beauty, order, and intricacy so like the cosmos it describes.
This was a huge hurdle for me. I could enjoy this book and its explosively eye-opening key, Michael Ward's Planet Narnia, all day and revel in the symbolism. But is it true? No. Bummer. Instant deflation. If it isn't true, what's the point? If Jupiter isn't really the glorious high king and the Moon has nothing to do with silver and Mercury doesn't actually love fleet dispatch and beautiful words, why bother? I'd been duped. I'd been suckered into stepping over the bounds of appropriate, rational enjoyment of fiction. Only reality, the truth, could have my wild appreciation.
Lewis neatly smacks this folly upside the head.
Why did I need the Model to be true in order to be a fan? Because I'm a modern. I was comparing the medieval Model to the current scientific model which I (does a fish know he's wet?) of course "knew" to be true. But today's science is just another model—limited, imperfect—and will also be replaced one day.
"We can no longer dismiss the change of Models as a simple progress from error to truth," Lewis points out. "No model is a catalogue of ultimate realities, and none is a mere fantasy… I think [the modern model] is more likely to change when, and because, far-reaching changes in the mental temper of our descendants demand that it should" (222-23).
That clinched it for me. The lasting value of the medieval Model derives not from mere beauty; I care too much about truth to be satisfied with raw aesthetics. Rather, I see value once I realize that all models are mere descriptions. None are pure fiction, but none encompass all the facts either. They are like poems, paragraphs, songs about history: they each describe reality without being reality itself.
Hence we must stay humble and admit that modern science does NOT know or explain or even describe everything sufficiently. In this seat of humility, we’re in a position to appreciate yesterday’s Model the same way we appreciate Jane Austen or the Book of Kells or beautiful Grecian robes: not because they are still in fashion, but because they are beautiful and are part of our history, our heritage, in every way.
Since we will always be limited to a finite Model, we can delight in all finite Models—especially one such as this, in beauty, order, and intricacy so like the cosmos it describes.
June 9, 2019
In the very last chapter, Lewis makes the following remark: “On the lowest intellectual level, people who find any one subject entirely engrossing are apt to think that any reference to it, of whatever quality, must have some value.” In reference to Medieval literature, this was not me. I have worked my way through several works of this time period and cannot think of a single one that I have given more than 3 stars (the one exception being some excerpts of Aquinas). I have not found them engrossing.
I tend to operate from the principle of approaching first sources before going to secondary sources. Lewis does not object to this approach, but raises the following point: “ To be always looking at the map when there is a fine prospect before you shatters the ‘wise passiveness’ in which landscape ought to be enjoyed. But to consult a map before we set out has no such ill effect. Indeed it will lead us to many prospects; including some we might never have found by following our noses.”
The works of other time periods have struck a chord with me without needing a map but, at this point, I needed both Lewis’s remark as well as his work.
The book is fairly short, but the list of objectives he accomplishes in this short frame is quite long. His greatest objective is to set forth a “Model”, the tapestry against which medieval art was painted. As one could point to Freud as a thread in the tapestry of the 20th century, so Lewis chooses those cultural influencers whose thoughts made their way in to numerous areas of Medieval life, whether or not their works were or remain widely read.
The same conversational ease with which Lewis wrote apologetics is here. In the preface he says, “Frequent researches ad hoc sadly impair receptive reading, so that sensitive people may even come to regard scholarship as a baleful thing which is always taking you out of the literature itself. My hope was that if a tolerable (though very incomplete) outfit were acquired beforehand and taken along with one, it might lead in.” The obvious mastery of material combined with the ability to teach helps Lewis complete his objectives admirably.
I tend to operate from the principle of approaching first sources before going to secondary sources. Lewis does not object to this approach, but raises the following point: “ To be always looking at the map when there is a fine prospect before you shatters the ‘wise passiveness’ in which landscape ought to be enjoyed. But to consult a map before we set out has no such ill effect. Indeed it will lead us to many prospects; including some we might never have found by following our noses.”
The works of other time periods have struck a chord with me without needing a map but, at this point, I needed both Lewis’s remark as well as his work.
The book is fairly short, but the list of objectives he accomplishes in this short frame is quite long. His greatest objective is to set forth a “Model”, the tapestry against which medieval art was painted. As one could point to Freud as a thread in the tapestry of the 20th century, so Lewis chooses those cultural influencers whose thoughts made their way in to numerous areas of Medieval life, whether or not their works were or remain widely read.
The same conversational ease with which Lewis wrote apologetics is here. In the preface he says, “Frequent researches ad hoc sadly impair receptive reading, so that sensitive people may even come to regard scholarship as a baleful thing which is always taking you out of the literature itself. My hope was that if a tolerable (though very incomplete) outfit were acquired beforehand and taken along with one, it might lead in.” The obvious mastery of material combined with the ability to teach helps Lewis complete his objectives admirably.
January 18, 2019
People forget that Lewis was a scholar of Medieval and Renaissance literature. He did not spend all his time writing installments of the Narnia saga or volumes of Christian apologetics. He also taught and then wrote books like An Experiment in Criticism, Studies in Words and the present title, which attempts, of all things, to recreate for the sympathetic reader the medieval universe, the perspective and mental furniture (if you will) of our ancestors.
I consider this a profound and delightful book. I could barely set it down and I stayed up late several nights in a row reading it. I had previously read Plato’s Timaeus and I had read Virgil and I had even read (and perhaps was one of the few these days to enjoy) Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy; I had also read my share of Dante and Spenser and Malory, even the Cloud of Unknowing and a healthy dose of Aquinas; so I thought I had a sort of grip on the subject matter already, but Lewis managed to surprise me wonderfully.
This is one of those rare books that gives you another pair of eyes. It is not possible to read it with care and to step outside on a clear night and look up at the stars in the same old way ever again. This is a book to read and re-read with gratitude. It is one of the best things Lewis wrote.
I consider this a profound and delightful book. I could barely set it down and I stayed up late several nights in a row reading it. I had previously read Plato’s Timaeus and I had read Virgil and I had even read (and perhaps was one of the few these days to enjoy) Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy; I had also read my share of Dante and Spenser and Malory, even the Cloud of Unknowing and a healthy dose of Aquinas; so I thought I had a sort of grip on the subject matter already, but Lewis managed to surprise me wonderfully.
This is one of those rare books that gives you another pair of eyes. It is not possible to read it with care and to step outside on a clear night and look up at the stars in the same old way ever again. This is a book to read and re-read with gratitude. It is one of the best things Lewis wrote.
June 18, 2025
March 2022 Review
This book is "Lewis the academic" speaking, not Lewis the popular lay theologian. So it's honestly not as enjoyable as some of his other works, just because it doesn't prompt as much discussion. Besides the sections on the four humors and the heavenly spheres (basically a Ptolemaic conception of the universe), it's a lot of references and name-dropping. There's a reason this isn't one of his more popular works.
January 2014 Review
Incredibly detailed and researched book, therefore most of the references went over my head. It was, as always, enjoyable to hear Lewis's relaxed tone and thoughtful musings. The subjects move by pretty fast, but amidst the short and concise lists, and random Greek and Latin thrown in, it was nice to still discover a few astute and insightful premises. A testament to how widely read and well educated Lewis was.
This book is "Lewis the academic" speaking, not Lewis the popular lay theologian. So it's honestly not as enjoyable as some of his other works, just because it doesn't prompt as much discussion. Besides the sections on the four humors and the heavenly spheres (basically a Ptolemaic conception of the universe), it's a lot of references and name-dropping. There's a reason this isn't one of his more popular works.
January 2014 Review
Incredibly detailed and researched book, therefore most of the references went over my head. It was, as always, enjoyable to hear Lewis's relaxed tone and thoughtful musings. The subjects move by pretty fast, but amidst the short and concise lists, and random Greek and Latin thrown in, it was nice to still discover a few astute and insightful premises. A testament to how widely read and well educated Lewis was.
March 24, 2022
Showed up with my extremely limited medieval lit & history knowledge and (with the help of friends) walked away with maybe 5% of the total insight C.S. Lewis offers here. But, as always with Lewis, that 5% has rocked my world and made it well worth the difficulty. Lewis helped me as a modern give the medieval model of the universe the respect it deserves.
January 30, 2023
I know that this book is about a very specific topic (which might seem irrelevant to most people in our modern era), but it is also about PARADIGM, and this is a big, timeless theme. I can honestly say that this is one of those books whose "big idea" has informed my way of thinking about all of life in general, to a surprising degree. The book itself is a challenging read. You must put on your thinking cap from time to time. But hang in there with it, because he summarizes well towards the end, and the last chapter (or 2 or 3) are worth the effort. This subject (medieval lit in particular) was a first love of Lewis, and what he spent most of his life teaching. You catch a little bit of that spirit in this book (and if you love Lewis, this is almost like sitting in on his university classes, which is a bit of a kick!). This is a book about how we find meaning... how we see and explain the world around us... and why we must be careful about clinging to these "images" that we construct for ourselves.
Lewis sees and communicates his admiration of the way that these fragile "lenses" worked so long for so many, holding together a culture for an era. I think that he does a good job of communicating the beauty and wisdom of a culture that we today do not spend much time or effort attempting to understand. It is easy to dismiss former patterns of thinking, after "enlightenment" comes along... but Lewis reminds us that we ALL have broken lenses. Future generations will surely be studying our own "discarded images." So, then... how shall we live? What wisdom can we learn from studying those who have lived before us? This is one of the reasons we study history at all, and if you can find a history professor who makes it all relevant and interesting, all the better.
I would suggest reading this with his fiction work, Til We Have Faces. Till We Have Faces. I think Till We Have Faces is possibly his best fiction work (although of course I do love The Chronicles of Narnia!). Although the setting is located in an ancient, pagan culture (rather than the Middle Ages or Renaissance), ) it seems to flesh out the theme of The Discarded Image (how an imperfectly formed paradigm eventually fails, and lenses fall off, and suddenly life - and cultures - shift and change). In my mind, these two books are woven together, and each one helped me to make better sense of the other.
Lewis sees and communicates his admiration of the way that these fragile "lenses" worked so long for so many, holding together a culture for an era. I think that he does a good job of communicating the beauty and wisdom of a culture that we today do not spend much time or effort attempting to understand. It is easy to dismiss former patterns of thinking, after "enlightenment" comes along... but Lewis reminds us that we ALL have broken lenses. Future generations will surely be studying our own "discarded images." So, then... how shall we live? What wisdom can we learn from studying those who have lived before us? This is one of the reasons we study history at all, and if you can find a history professor who makes it all relevant and interesting, all the better.
I would suggest reading this with his fiction work, Til We Have Faces. Till We Have Faces. I think Till We Have Faces is possibly his best fiction work (although of course I do love The Chronicles of Narnia!). Although the setting is located in an ancient, pagan culture (rather than the Middle Ages or Renaissance), ) it seems to flesh out the theme of The Discarded Image (how an imperfectly formed paradigm eventually fails, and lenses fall off, and suddenly life - and cultures - shift and change). In my mind, these two books are woven together, and each one helped me to make better sense of the other.
July 10, 2012
Mr. Schlect gave me my ticket for the medievalism train back in sophomore year. Had I known then where this train would lead me and what a crazy ride it was, I may have declined to climb aboard. Now that I’m here, I might as well enjoy it and in The Discarded Image Lewis does a good job of helping me out.
Never has there been a better explanation in literature of why the Dark Ages weren’t actually dark. Lewis explains, in vibrant prose, how Medievalism was a natural outgrowth of Classicism. Modern man has the tendency to reject new ideas, old ideas, or foreign ideas until they are proved true. A sort of guilty until proven innocent ethic. The medievals, on the other hand, were unwilling to rule out any idea unless it was successfully proven false. The result is what we see as superstition or fanciful thinking, but in reality it’s more of a wary agnosticism. For example, modern men would prefer to say that faeries don’t exist. Why? Because it’s only those crazy superstitious ancients and writers of “fairy tales” who tell us they do. What’s more, no one’s yet proven it to them personally. No doubt the greatest affront. The medieval, on the other hand, would rather err on the side of caution. With all that’s been written about faeries across all the ages, it’s a much wiser thing to say they might exist than to be punished by one for disbelief.
So the medievals—-far from being superstitious kooks—-were organizers, arrangers, cataloguers, and critique-ers of the works that came before and we should not snub our noses at them simply because of chronology.
Never has there been a better explanation in literature of why the Dark Ages weren’t actually dark. Lewis explains, in vibrant prose, how Medievalism was a natural outgrowth of Classicism. Modern man has the tendency to reject new ideas, old ideas, or foreign ideas until they are proved true. A sort of guilty until proven innocent ethic. The medievals, on the other hand, were unwilling to rule out any idea unless it was successfully proven false. The result is what we see as superstition or fanciful thinking, but in reality it’s more of a wary agnosticism. For example, modern men would prefer to say that faeries don’t exist. Why? Because it’s only those crazy superstitious ancients and writers of “fairy tales” who tell us they do. What’s more, no one’s yet proven it to them personally. No doubt the greatest affront. The medieval, on the other hand, would rather err on the side of caution. With all that’s been written about faeries across all the ages, it’s a much wiser thing to say they might exist than to be punished by one for disbelief.
So the medievals—-far from being superstitious kooks—-were organizers, arrangers, cataloguers, and critique-ers of the works that came before and we should not snub our noses at them simply because of chronology.
June 19, 2013
C. S. Lewis specialized in Medieval and renaissance literature, and this book is a short, fun, and interesting introduction to the subject. This book demonstrates the extent of Lewis's knowledge, as he quotes from, and refers freely to, authors that range all the way from Cicero to Hegel and back again. This book gives a great introduction to Medieval Literature and how it interacted with medieval philosophy, literature, cosmology, poetry, etc. This is a great book to read for anybody who is interested in the medieval way of viewing the world. One warning, be prepared for an adventure. C. S. Lewis explains that the medievals viewed the world in much the same way that a person would view the world if they were standing in a clearing beside a river in the middle of the forest. The world seems so big, and the observer seems so small, and yet, there is no fear of this fact, but a calm acceptance of one's place in the universe. It is an adventure to be lived, a journey to be taken.
September 28, 2024
Fascinating stuff, I especially liked the parts describing the medieval view of the cosmos and the continuity between the classical and medieval worldview.
December 28, 2024
Lewis is like fine wine: the older, the better.
May 4, 2025
Published posthumously in 1964 just a year after C.S. Lewis’s death, “The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature” is a wonderful book even if its title is far from accurate. Anyone who goes into the book expecting an introduction to literature will be sorely disappointed. You won’t learn what the “Canterbury Tales” and “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” are about; ironically for an “introduction,” Lewis mostly assumes you’re at least passingly familiar with the so-called Great Books from roughly 500-1500 A.D. Instead, he builds a comprehensive, synthetic medieval “model” of the universe that will help you inhabit the medieval imagination – from assumptions about cosmology to science, history, the human body, psychology, the liberal arts, and more. To do this, he doesn’t go to scientific texts of the time but gleans everything he can from imaginative literature.
What will make the book difficult for contemporary readers is that much of Lewis’s material comes from a lifetime immersion in the literature of the period. The usual suspects – Augustine, Aquinas, Lucan, Apuleius, Boethius, etc. – all make appearances. But just as many insights are drawn from authors that aren’t read by anyone but classicists: Statius, Claudian, Chalcidius, and Pseudo-Dionysus. It is still very much worth the effort. Just know that you’ll have to hand yourself over to Lewis’s literary interpretations and inferences, which isn’t a big ask when the author in question was a medievalist himself, as Lewis was.
To unpack the medieval mind, Lewis suggests that we remember two things: the intense bookishness of their intellectual life and their extraordinary talent for categorization, organization, and classification. There is no contradiction a medieval scholar could not reconcile if they wished to. Their intense bookishness led them to treat their ancient forebears with a bit too much credulity – surely one of the reasons why Aristotle remained the go-to author for many subjects even two millennia after his death. Lewis argues that the same credulity also allowed for a seamless blending of pagan and Christian which we recognize as uniquely medieval.
The tidy world-building connected every aspect of their hierarchical world in a Great Chain of Being, with everything reflecting the divine unity of God himself, redounding down to the nine choirs of angels and eventually humans and animals. Each have their place: from the Earth to the final sphere, the Primum Mobile, which God alone can touch and imparts all motion to the spheres below it. The medieval model postulates four substances – cold, hot, moist, and dry – the combinations of which gave us words that we still use to describe human dispositions like sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic.
In an epilogue that is a literary and cultural parallel to Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Lewis writes that the medieval image he describes has since been discarded for a more modern one, and that the modern one will eventually be displaced as well. In much the same way that Einstein’s idea of gravity replaced Newton’s in the light of new evidence, the prevailing ideas we use to make sense of our world slowly change with cultural norms and values.
The contemporary world, even the worldview of contemporary religious people, is highly secularized. Freedom of conscience and a wall of separation between church and state are mostly taken for granted, but these would have been wildly foreign concepts to most people during the period Lewis discusses. While the greatest medieval and Renaissance literature will always appeal to our imaginations, “The Discarded Image” is a short book that goes a very long way in recreating the complex intellectual architecture that shaped that literature. It thereby bridges a gap to an earlier time that can seem so utterly different from our own. Read it not as an introduction but as a companion piece to everyone from Cicero to Boccaccio and it’s sure to constantly reveal new facets and nuances to the literature we already love, but Lewis can help us appreciate anew.
What will make the book difficult for contemporary readers is that much of Lewis’s material comes from a lifetime immersion in the literature of the period. The usual suspects – Augustine, Aquinas, Lucan, Apuleius, Boethius, etc. – all make appearances. But just as many insights are drawn from authors that aren’t read by anyone but classicists: Statius, Claudian, Chalcidius, and Pseudo-Dionysus. It is still very much worth the effort. Just know that you’ll have to hand yourself over to Lewis’s literary interpretations and inferences, which isn’t a big ask when the author in question was a medievalist himself, as Lewis was.
To unpack the medieval mind, Lewis suggests that we remember two things: the intense bookishness of their intellectual life and their extraordinary talent for categorization, organization, and classification. There is no contradiction a medieval scholar could not reconcile if they wished to. Their intense bookishness led them to treat their ancient forebears with a bit too much credulity – surely one of the reasons why Aristotle remained the go-to author for many subjects even two millennia after his death. Lewis argues that the same credulity also allowed for a seamless blending of pagan and Christian which we recognize as uniquely medieval.
The tidy world-building connected every aspect of their hierarchical world in a Great Chain of Being, with everything reflecting the divine unity of God himself, redounding down to the nine choirs of angels and eventually humans and animals. Each have their place: from the Earth to the final sphere, the Primum Mobile, which God alone can touch and imparts all motion to the spheres below it. The medieval model postulates four substances – cold, hot, moist, and dry – the combinations of which gave us words that we still use to describe human dispositions like sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic.
In an epilogue that is a literary and cultural parallel to Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Lewis writes that the medieval image he describes has since been discarded for a more modern one, and that the modern one will eventually be displaced as well. In much the same way that Einstein’s idea of gravity replaced Newton’s in the light of new evidence, the prevailing ideas we use to make sense of our world slowly change with cultural norms and values.
The contemporary world, even the worldview of contemporary religious people, is highly secularized. Freedom of conscience and a wall of separation between church and state are mostly taken for granted, but these would have been wildly foreign concepts to most people during the period Lewis discusses. While the greatest medieval and Renaissance literature will always appeal to our imaginations, “The Discarded Image” is a short book that goes a very long way in recreating the complex intellectual architecture that shaped that literature. It thereby bridges a gap to an earlier time that can seem so utterly different from our own. Read it not as an introduction but as a companion piece to everyone from Cicero to Boccaccio and it’s sure to constantly reveal new facets and nuances to the literature we already love, but Lewis can help us appreciate anew.
May 16, 2025
This is C.S. Lewis at his most scholarly.
He easily discusses medieval cosmology with impressive insight and understanding. While occasionally too intellectual for me to follow, overall this was a very fascinating read. I especially found the latter half very easy to follow (and hard to put down because of how interesting it was)!
My biggest takeaway is a sense of the staggering amount of how much I have to learn. Not just how far I am from understanding the medieval authors, but also how far I (and all humanity with me) are from understanding our world.
This book has totally changed how I think about the relationships began science and worldview and psychology. I'll be thinking about this book for a long time, I'm sure.
Definitely one I'd like to reread.
He easily discusses medieval cosmology with impressive insight and understanding. While occasionally too intellectual for me to follow, overall this was a very fascinating read. I especially found the latter half very easy to follow (and hard to put down because of how interesting it was)!
My biggest takeaway is a sense of the staggering amount of how much I have to learn. Not just how far I am from understanding the medieval authors, but also how far I (and all humanity with me) are from understanding our world.
This book has totally changed how I think about the relationships began science and worldview and psychology. I'll be thinking about this book for a long time, I'm sure.
Definitely one I'd like to reread.
April 4, 2022
If you've ever, like me, heard that Lewis was a Medieval Literature professor and thought to yourself, "I wish I could hear his lectures on that topic," this is the book for you. I enjoyed learning about literature of the time, he had very well thought-out ideas and points. It dovetails nicely with my current (first time) read of the Divine Comedy.
May 27, 2018
This is a fairly niche book, so probably not one I'll widely recommend (but I'll know it when I find the right reader who will benefit from this book!)
I've been worried lately about how easily we become dismissive about the laughable "scientific" ideas of our ancestors. Thanks to our advancements with lenses and technology, we can see ever smaller and ever larger and farther away phenomena and this gives us a clearer view of how the world works; but if we forget that much of our scientific understand is just a theory (and a theory that might well be disproved and mocked by even more knowledgable generations to come!), we might be tempted to see ourselves as in a position to mock those who came before us.
It's not hard to find writers and thinkers who applaud us for how advanced we are; Lewis (and Chesterton--see The Everlasting Man) are those rare thinkers who remind us to appreciate the elegance and complexity of the old models that laid the foundation for our current models. Though we may have "discarded" those models, Lewis thinks it worth spending time thinking about the models medievals used to explain how outer space worked, how our bodies interacted with our souls, and how our virtues were developed (among other things). Each chapter depicts a medieval model in just enough detail to help us appreciate their thoughtfulness and, at least for me, reminds me that our models are usually built on assumptions and theories which reflect our own biases. Or as Lewis puts it: "Our model reflects the prevalent psychology of an age almost as much as it reflects the state of that age's knowledge" (222). After all, "nature gives most of her evidence in answers to the questions we ask her" (223).
I was fascinated by his explanation of medieval astronomy as being governed by a "kindly enclyning" rather than by obeying laws (which is our contemporary metaphor.) I loved how the medievals anthropomorphized everything--giving each planet character qualities that reflect human tendencies that be used either for good or bad purposes.
I loved the questions they asked that I had never thought to ask, like How can the ethereal soul act upon physical matter? (Their idea was the "spirit" which was just sufficiently material to act on body but so fine it could be influenced by the immaterial soul. How elegant an explanation is that?) Or the distinctions they made between the Rational soul and the Sensitive soul, how they divided the materials of the world not into elements but into categories (existence = stones, existence w/ growth = vegetables, existence w/ growth and sensation = animals, existence w/ growth, sensation, and reason = humans). I love the idea of their categories and the way it filled the earth with poetic possibility.
I envy their system in some ways, because we lack such a coherent theory about how humans interact with the world around us, and we certainly lack any sort of consensus on how best to educate the human mind and develop the human soul. Their model may not be best, but at least it is a model.
I could go on. I took notes. Lewis' ideas are going with me and will inform how I read Chaucer and Shakespeare and a whole host of others. Lewis' perspective gives context and a solid does of intellectual humility that will make it harder to dismiss older models and easier to hold my current models with a healthy does of skepticism. After all, even my models are built on the shoulders of those who went before us, those who knew more about the world first-hand, and they are subject to change in the hands of those who go after us.
I've been worried lately about how easily we become dismissive about the laughable "scientific" ideas of our ancestors. Thanks to our advancements with lenses and technology, we can see ever smaller and ever larger and farther away phenomena and this gives us a clearer view of how the world works; but if we forget that much of our scientific understand is just a theory (and a theory that might well be disproved and mocked by even more knowledgable generations to come!), we might be tempted to see ourselves as in a position to mock those who came before us.
It's not hard to find writers and thinkers who applaud us for how advanced we are; Lewis (and Chesterton--see The Everlasting Man) are those rare thinkers who remind us to appreciate the elegance and complexity of the old models that laid the foundation for our current models. Though we may have "discarded" those models, Lewis thinks it worth spending time thinking about the models medievals used to explain how outer space worked, how our bodies interacted with our souls, and how our virtues were developed (among other things). Each chapter depicts a medieval model in just enough detail to help us appreciate their thoughtfulness and, at least for me, reminds me that our models are usually built on assumptions and theories which reflect our own biases. Or as Lewis puts it: "Our model reflects the prevalent psychology of an age almost as much as it reflects the state of that age's knowledge" (222). After all, "nature gives most of her evidence in answers to the questions we ask her" (223).
I was fascinated by his explanation of medieval astronomy as being governed by a "kindly enclyning" rather than by obeying laws (which is our contemporary metaphor.) I loved how the medievals anthropomorphized everything--giving each planet character qualities that reflect human tendencies that be used either for good or bad purposes.
I loved the questions they asked that I had never thought to ask, like How can the ethereal soul act upon physical matter? (Their idea was the "spirit" which was just sufficiently material to act on body but so fine it could be influenced by the immaterial soul. How elegant an explanation is that?) Or the distinctions they made between the Rational soul and the Sensitive soul, how they divided the materials of the world not into elements but into categories (existence = stones, existence w/ growth = vegetables, existence w/ growth and sensation = animals, existence w/ growth, sensation, and reason = humans). I love the idea of their categories and the way it filled the earth with poetic possibility.
I envy their system in some ways, because we lack such a coherent theory about how humans interact with the world around us, and we certainly lack any sort of consensus on how best to educate the human mind and develop the human soul. Their model may not be best, but at least it is a model.
I could go on. I took notes. Lewis' ideas are going with me and will inform how I read Chaucer and Shakespeare and a whole host of others. Lewis' perspective gives context and a solid does of intellectual humility that will make it harder to dismiss older models and easier to hold my current models with a healthy does of skepticism. After all, even my models are built on the shoulders of those who went before us, those who knew more about the world first-hand, and they are subject to change in the hands of those who go after us.
February 3, 2022
I felt a bit like an outsider listening in on a technical conversation: this is a discipline-specific book, and for someone like me, who is a novice in Medieval thought, it can be a bit hard to follow. But not impossible, which I think speaks to Lewis’s skill as a teacher (I.e., if he could communicate a high-level academic work with such clear pros that even a novice can follow, how effective he must have been when he actually did had students in view).
Lewis paints a picture of Medieval cosmology in this book. It can’t be replicated point for point, but there are many aspects of it that are most definitely superior to the drab immanent domain we late-moderns describe as “the natural universe.” There’s something soul-stirring and profoundly biblical about thinking of the cosmological structure not as empty “space,” but rather as “heavens” teaming with life and movement—seen and unseen.
Lewis paints a picture of Medieval cosmology in this book. It can’t be replicated point for point, but there are many aspects of it that are most definitely superior to the drab immanent domain we late-moderns describe as “the natural universe.” There’s something soul-stirring and profoundly biblical about thinking of the cosmological structure not as empty “space,” but rather as “heavens” teaming with life and movement—seen and unseen.
March 21, 2023
An incredibly helpful book for understanding the Middle Ages and renaissance literature as well as the worldview behind it. Highly recommended for those attempting to give themselves a self taught classical education. Especially loved the chapter on longaevi.
April 26, 2016
This book ranks as one of the later books of C.S. Lewis, and certainly one of his less well-known books, but in retrospect, looking back on his entire career as a prolific writer and as an intellectual [1], this book must surely be reckoned by those who are familiar with it as one of the most important books in his oeuvre because of the way in which this volume brings together so many of the aspects of Lewis’ thinking and, perhaps even more importantly, the influences that formed his own writing. While on the one hand this book is ostensibly a work introducing some of the more obscure but important writers and sources of the medieval scientific worldview as it made its presence known in the literature of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, it also has a lot to say, albeit implicitly, about the writing of C.S. Lewis himself. Specifically, this book demonstrates the intellectual debt that Lewis owed to the poets and philosophers of the neo-Platonic and Hellenistic Christian traditions of late antiquity and to the layered and highly mannered perspective of the High Middle Ages and later, and to the way that his own writings were immensely layered and also with the perspective of filling the empty spaces with various intermediaries between God and man, and taking with the utmost seriousness discarded worldviews that are beautiful to behold, elegant in their complicated machinery, unfamiliar in their alien perspective, and not strictly true for all of their beauty and elegance.
In terms of its contents and structure, this book is organized in a topical and somewhat chronological sense. Lewis is clearly selective in his choice of which writers to focus on—at slightly more than 200 pages, this book is definitely an introduction and not in any way an exhaustive discussion of the writing of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, which would be so bloated and unweidly as to be virtually unreadable by any but the most masochistic of scholars. The book begins with a discussion of the Medieval situation, where Lewis attempts to reconstruct the medieval world in its glory and reality for those moderns who see the world through vastly different eyes. He then, rather sensibly, discusses his reservations to broad and sweeping generalizations that will inevitably be made in the course of the introduction, as a way of warning the reader not to take his words or claims more broadly than he makes them. The next two chapters then examine various selected materials from the classical period and late antiquity, which Lewis calls the ‘seminal’ period. In the classical period he speaks of the Somnium Scipionis by Cicero, Lucan, Satitus’ and Claudian’s view of Lady Natura, and the De Deo Socratis by Apuleius. For late antiquity, Lewis chooses to focus on the writings of Chalcidius, Macrobius, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Boethius. Most readers, unless they are extremely well-read in the writings of the late Roman and early Medieval world, will be unfamiliar with almost all of these writers. After having examined various early influences for the writing of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Lewis then speaks about the parts of the universe and the operations and inhabitants of the heavens, like angels and demons, spends a short chapter talking about the Longaevi, the longlivers of the world of fairy like elves, fey, dwarves, and gnomes, and then more lengthy chapter talking about earth and her inhabitants like beasts, the human soul, the rational soul, the sensitive and vegetable soul, the relationship of the soul and body, the human body and the human past, and the seven liberal arts of medieval education (the trivium of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric and, very briefly, the quadrivium of astronomy, music, geometry, and arithmetic, the first of which Lewis spends some time on and the remaining three he deals with briefly. The work then finishes with a discussion of the pervasive influence of the Medieval model on the writing of later people, including, at least implicitly, Lewis himself [2].
In reading a this book, the reader will likely be left with a variety of feelings. On the one hand, this book is extremely complicated, especially if one reads this book with at least one eye towards understanding the way that it gives various clues about the importance of the medieval model on Lewis’ own writings, especially the importance of the planets as conceived by medieval poets in Lewis’ own poetry as well as his space trilogy and the Chronicles of Narnia. On another level, the book is a sign of the author’s immense and obscure reading, impressive but without showing off too visibly, although the obscurity of the materials discussed is likely to put the reader in the disadvantageous position of not being familiar with the writings and thus dependent either upon what Lewis quotes or refers to from them or in the equally frustrating position of trying to find available translations of this immensely obscure material to read for themselves. Those readers who have limited interest in the thinking of Hellenistic Christians or outright pagan poets and philosophers, and who have no tolerance of the enduring pagan influence on writers and thinkers who consider themselves to be Christians will likely have little interest in this book’s examination of the persistence of pagan thinking within the ‘Christian’ medieval worldview, nor with Lewis’ obvious admiration of such heathen thought. Although this is a greatly important work in understanding Lewis’ thought and the influences upon his thought, it is likely to be a work that deters most readers, making its obscurity as readily understood as it is lamentable.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[2] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
In terms of its contents and structure, this book is organized in a topical and somewhat chronological sense. Lewis is clearly selective in his choice of which writers to focus on—at slightly more than 200 pages, this book is definitely an introduction and not in any way an exhaustive discussion of the writing of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, which would be so bloated and unweidly as to be virtually unreadable by any but the most masochistic of scholars. The book begins with a discussion of the Medieval situation, where Lewis attempts to reconstruct the medieval world in its glory and reality for those moderns who see the world through vastly different eyes. He then, rather sensibly, discusses his reservations to broad and sweeping generalizations that will inevitably be made in the course of the introduction, as a way of warning the reader not to take his words or claims more broadly than he makes them. The next two chapters then examine various selected materials from the classical period and late antiquity, which Lewis calls the ‘seminal’ period. In the classical period he speaks of the Somnium Scipionis by Cicero, Lucan, Satitus’ and Claudian’s view of Lady Natura, and the De Deo Socratis by Apuleius. For late antiquity, Lewis chooses to focus on the writings of Chalcidius, Macrobius, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Boethius. Most readers, unless they are extremely well-read in the writings of the late Roman and early Medieval world, will be unfamiliar with almost all of these writers. After having examined various early influences for the writing of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Lewis then speaks about the parts of the universe and the operations and inhabitants of the heavens, like angels and demons, spends a short chapter talking about the Longaevi, the longlivers of the world of fairy like elves, fey, dwarves, and gnomes, and then more lengthy chapter talking about earth and her inhabitants like beasts, the human soul, the rational soul, the sensitive and vegetable soul, the relationship of the soul and body, the human body and the human past, and the seven liberal arts of medieval education (the trivium of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric and, very briefly, the quadrivium of astronomy, music, geometry, and arithmetic, the first of which Lewis spends some time on and the remaining three he deals with briefly. The work then finishes with a discussion of the pervasive influence of the Medieval model on the writing of later people, including, at least implicitly, Lewis himself [2].
In reading a this book, the reader will likely be left with a variety of feelings. On the one hand, this book is extremely complicated, especially if one reads this book with at least one eye towards understanding the way that it gives various clues about the importance of the medieval model on Lewis’ own writings, especially the importance of the planets as conceived by medieval poets in Lewis’ own poetry as well as his space trilogy and the Chronicles of Narnia. On another level, the book is a sign of the author’s immense and obscure reading, impressive but without showing off too visibly, although the obscurity of the materials discussed is likely to put the reader in the disadvantageous position of not being familiar with the writings and thus dependent either upon what Lewis quotes or refers to from them or in the equally frustrating position of trying to find available translations of this immensely obscure material to read for themselves. Those readers who have limited interest in the thinking of Hellenistic Christians or outright pagan poets and philosophers, and who have no tolerance of the enduring pagan influence on writers and thinkers who consider themselves to be Christians will likely have little interest in this book’s examination of the persistence of pagan thinking within the ‘Christian’ medieval worldview, nor with Lewis’ obvious admiration of such heathen thought. Although this is a greatly important work in understanding Lewis’ thought and the influences upon his thought, it is likely to be a work that deters most readers, making its obscurity as readily understood as it is lamentable.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[2] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 478 reviews