C.S. Lewis wrote this in his preface to "On the Incarnation" by Athanasius. Does /lit/ agree?

[Anonymous No.13972226]

>There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said.

>The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator.

>The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.

>This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.

>Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet.

>A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light.

The rest of it is here

https://reasonabletheology.org/cs-lewis-on-reading-old-books/

[Anonymous No.13972236]

Because people and writing from a time and culture so different from my own are more difficult to understand. Having an expert from my own time provide additional background and context is very helpful.

[Anonymous No.13972249]

>>13972226
>The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator.
Is this real?

[Anonymous No.13972291]

Yes secondary works are bad, and Plato is not that hard of a read if you want get, unless you really want to good really deep.

[Anonymous No.13972294]

>>13972226
I would agree with reading Plato first. I think secondary literature on is very helpful (even necessary) but there's no reason not to confront Plato head on. It's much easier to wrap your head around what the secondary literature is saying if you're already familiar with the originals.

[Anonymous No.13972334]

>For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that “nothing happens” when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.
Based Lewis . I discovered the same thing when I started using the Westminster Confession as a devotional work.

[Anonymous No.13972477]

>>13972334
Yeah, I found my own faith deepening when I delved into Scholastic Theology in my Medieval literature class as an undergrad. As somebody who had received a pretty subpar religious education, it was incredible to see men much smarter than I was almost seamlessly melding Faith and Reason in their theological inquiries. It's almost an encouragement: if people this smart can be so devout, why can't I?

[Anonymous No.13973297]

page 8

[Anonymous No.13974399]

page 9

[Anonymous No.13975679]

bump