Areopagitica; A speech of Mr.

John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing, to the Parlament of

England is a 1644 prose polemic by the English poet, scholar, and polemical author John Milton
opposing licensing and censorship.[1] Areopagitica is among history's most influential and
impassioned philosophical defences of the principle of a right to freedom of speech and expression.
Many of its expressed principles have formed the basis for modern justifications.

The Areopagus, viewed from the Acropolis

Areopagitica was published 23 November 1644 at the height of the English Civil War. It takes its title
in part from Areopagitikos (Greek: Ἀρεοπαγιτικός), a speech written by Athenian orator Isocrates in
the 5th century BC. (The Areopagus is a hill in Athens, the site of real and legendary tribunals, and
was the name of a council whose power Isocrates hoped to restore.) Some argue that it is more
importantly also a reference to the sermon which St Paul preached against ignorance and idolatry in
Athens, recorded in Acts 17:18–34.[2]

Like Isocrates, Milton had no intention of delivering his speech orally. Instead, it was distributed via
pamphlet, defying the same publication censorship which he argued against. As a Protestant, Milton
had supported the Presbyterians in Parliament, but in this work he argued forcefully against
Parliament's 1643 Ordinance for the Regulating of Printing, also known as the Licensing Order of
1643, in which Parliament required authors to have a license approved by the government before
their work could be published.

This issue was personal for Milton, as he had suffered censorship himself in his efforts to publish
several tracts defending divorce (a radical stance which met with no favour from the
censors).[citation needed] Areopagitica is full of biblical and classical references which Milton uses to
strengthen his argument. This is particularly fitting because it was being addressed to the Calvinist
Presbyterians who comprised Parliament at that time.[3]

According to George H. Sabine, the Areopagitica was based on an engaged public:

Its basic principle was the right and also the duty of every intelligent man as a rational being, to
know the grounds and take responsibility for his beliefs and actions. Its corollary was a society and a
state in which decisions are reached by open discussion, in which the sources of information are not
contaminated by authority in the interest of party, and in which political unity is secured not by
force but by a consensus that respects variety of opinion.[4]

Argument[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding
citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2016)
(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Before presenting his argument, Milton defends the very idea of writing a treatise such as
Areopagitica. He compliments England for having overcome the tyranny of Charles I and the
prelates, but his purpose is to voice his grievances. Milton defends this purpose, holding that to
bring forth complaints before the Parliament is a matter of civil liberty and loyalty, because
constructive criticism is better than false flattery.[5] He concludes his introduction by encouraging
Parliament to obey "the voice of reason" and to be "willing to repeal any Act" for the sake of truth
and upright judgment.[5]

Origins of licensing system[edit]

Milton begins with historical evidence noting that Ancient Greece and Rome did not adhere to the
practice of licensing. In some cases, blasphemous or libellous writings were burnt and their authors
punished, but it was after production that these texts were rejected rather than prior to it. Milton's
point is that, if a text is to be rejected, it should first be "examined, refuted, and condemned" rather
than prohibited before its ideas have even been expressed. Milton points out that licensing was first
instituted by the Catholics with the Inquisition. This fact appealed to Parliament's religious beliefs
since it was dominated by Protestants, and there were conflicts between the Protestants and
Catholics in England; see Protestant Reformation. Milton provides historical examples of the
aftermath following the Inquisition, including how there were popes in Rome beginning in the 14th
century who became tyrannical licensers. For example, Pope Martin V became the first to prohibit
the reading of heretical books, and then in the 16th century the Council of Trent and Spanish
Inquisition prohibited texts that were not even necessarily heretical, but only unfavorable to the
friars.

Use of books and reading[edit]

Milton precedes his argument by discussing the purpose of reading. He mentions that Moses, David,
and Paul were all learned, which reminds his Protestant audience that being learned involves
reading "books of all sorts". He argues that this includes even the "bad" or heretical books, because
we can learn from their wrongs and discover what is true by considering what is not true. Milton's
point is that God endowed every person with the reason, free will, and conscience to judge ideas for
themselves, so the ideas in a text should be rejected by the reader's own choice, not by a licensing
authority. Also, the mind is not corrupted simply by encountering falsehood. Milton points out that
encountering falsehood can actually lead to virtuous action, such as how St. Paul's converts had
privately and voluntarily burned Ephesian books considered to be "magick".

Usefulness of licensing order[edit]

Milton then argues that Parliament's licensing order will fail in its purpose to suppress scandalous,
seditious, and libellous books: "this order of licencing conduces nothing to the end for which it was
fram'd". The order was meant to rectify manners by preventing the spread of an "infection" caused
by bad books. Milton objects, arguing that the licensing order is too sweeping, because even the
Bible itself had been historically limited to readers for containing offensive descriptions of
blasphemy and wicked men. Milton also points out that Parliament will not protect the ignorant
from bad books by this Order, because the books would more likely have been read by the learned
anyhow. Furthermore, whatever bad ideas were written can still be taught through word of mouth
or otherwise, so "infection" or corruption is not prevented. Milton’s point is that licensing books
cannot possibly prevent societal corruption (it is "far insufficient to the end which it intends"), so
there is no viable stopping point: "If we think to regulat Printing, thereby to rectifie manners, we
must regulat all recreations and pastimes, all that is delightful to man". Finally, Milton also points
out that, if there are even licensers fit for making these judgments, then the possibility of error in
licensing books is still great, and the amount of time that the job would take is impractical.

Harmfulness of licensing order[edit]

Milton argues that licensing is "a dishonour and derogation to the author, to the book, to the
priviledge and dignity of Learning". This is because many authors will produce a written work with
genuinely good intentions only to have it censored by what amounts to a subjective, arbitrary
judgment of the licenser.

Milton also thinks that England needs to be open to truth and understanding, which should not be
monopolised by the government's standards. Faith and knowledge need exercise, but this Order will
lead to conformity and laziness. Licensing will hinder discovery of truth by the government's
prejudice and custom, because there will always be more truth to be found that we do not yet know
of. Milton thinks that licensing could potentially hinder God's plans, since it gives the licenser the
power to silence others.

Conclusion[edit]

Milton recognises individual rights, but he is not completely libertarian in Areopagitica as he argues
that the status quo ante worked best. According to the previous English law, all books had to have at
least a printer's name (and preferably an author's name) inscribed in them. Under that system,
Milton argues, if any blasphemous or libellous material is published, those books can still be
destroyed after the fact. "Those which otherwise come forth, if they be found mischievous and
libellous, the fire and the executioner will be the timeliest and the most effectuall remedy, that
mans prevention can use." Milton seeks a means by which to ensure that authors and publishers
remain culpable for any "mischievous" or "libellous" work that they produce. Regardless, Milton
certainly is not without remorse for the libellous author, nor does he promote unrestricted free
speech. In addition, he admits that his tolerance is limited: "I mean not tolerated Popery, and open
superstition, which as it extirpats all religions and civill supremacies, so it self should be extirpat".

Critical response[edit]

Areopagitica did not persuade the Presbyterians in Parliament to invalidate the prepublication
censorship component of the Licensing Order of 1643; freedom of the press in this sense was not
achieved until 1695. However, as Milton's treatise has been overwhelmingly praised, understanding
his audience moves us toward an understanding of why it was unsuccessful. Milton and the
Presbyterians had together abolished the Star Chamber under Charles I, but now that they were not
being oppressed and they held the power, the Presbyterians in Parliament no longer held to their
defence of freedom of the press. Through the Licensing Order of 1643, they were set on silencing
the more radical Protestants, the Independents as well as works supporting the King which had
begun to appear in London. Milton's treatise is his response to that licensing order, which clearly
came at a time when he and the Parliament were already at odds.[6]

In addition, by the time Milton wrote Areopagitica he had already unsuccessfully challenged
Parliament in other areas of privilege and right. Milton's divorce tracts proved too radical for his
immediate day, as did this work. Milton's ideas were ahead of his time in the sense that he
anticipated the arguments of later advocates of freedom of the press by relating the concept of free
will and choice to individual expression and right. Milton's treatise "laid the foundations for thought
that would come after and express itself in such authors as John Locke and John Stuart Mill".[7]

However, although Milton's ideas were initially resisted by the Puritans, they were incorporated into
the official charter of the Puritan church within a few years. The Westminster Confession of Faith,
written between 1643-1650, allows for divorce on two grounds: infidelity and abandonment (see
W.C.F., Chapter 24, Section 5).

The Westminster Confession of Faith states: "Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract,
being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.
In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and
after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead."

The Westminster Assembly or Synod was a broad representation of the "Puritan" community in
Britain at that time.[8] 120 members were leaders in the Church of England, 30 were lay delegates
and 6 were commissioners from the Church of Scotland.

Another example of its influence is in that of the United States Constitution, which includes the
prohibition against prior restraint, or pre-publication censorship. This prohibition is necessary
because, as Milton recognised in Areopagitica, to threaten censorship prior to publication would
have a chilling effect on expression and speech, or in Milton's view, it would interfere with the
pursuit of truth as it relates to a providential plan.

Quotations[edit]

For Books are not absolutely dead things, but doe contain a potencie of life in them to be as active
as that soule was whose progeny they are; nay they do preserve as in a violl the purest efficacie and
extraction of that living intellect that bred them.

... as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, Gods
Image; but hee who destroyes a good Booke, kills reason it selfe, kills the Image of God, as it were in
the eye. Many a man lives a burden to the Earth; but a good Booke is the pretious life-blood of a
master spirit, imbalm'd and treasur'd up on purpose to a life beyond life.
 And though all the windes of doctrin were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field,
we do injuriously by licencing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falshood
grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the wors, in a free and open encounter.

He that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits and seeming pleasures, and yet abstain,
and yet distinguish, and yet prefer that which is truly better, he is the true wayfaring Christian.

I cannot praise a fugitive and cloister'd vertue, unexercis'd & unbreath'd, that never sallies out and
sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortall garland is to be run for, not
without dust and heat.

Lords and Commons of England, consider what Nation it is whereof ye are, and whereof ye are the
governours: a Nation not slow and dull, but of a quick, ingenious, and piercing spirit, acute to invent,
suttle and sinewy to discours, not beneath the reach of any point the highest that human capacity
can soar to.

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.

The Stamp Act of 1712 (cited either as 10 Ann. c. 18 or as 10 Ann. c. 19[1]) was an act passed in
the United Kingdom on 1 August 1712 to create a new tax on publishers, particularly of
newspapers.[2][3][4] Newspapers were subjected to tax and price increased. The stamp tax was a
tax on each newspaper and thus hit cheaper papers and popular readership harder than wealthy
consumers (because it formed a higher proportion of the purchase price). It was increased in
1797, reduced in 1836 and was finally ended in 1855, thus allowing a cheap press. It was
enforced until its repeal in 1855.[5] The initial assessed rate of tax was one penny per whole
newspaper sheet, a halfpenny for a half sheet, and one shilling per advertisement contained
within.[6] The act had a potentially chilling effect on publishers; Jonathan Swift was a frequent
publisher of newspapers, and complained in a letter[7] about the new tax. Other than newspapers,
it required that all pamphlets, legal documents, commercial bills, advertisements, and other
papers issued the tax.[8] The tax is blamed for the decline of English literature critical of the
government during the period, notably with The Spectator ending the same year of the tax's
enactment.[9] It would see increasingly greater taxes and wider spectrum of materials affected
until its repeal in 1855.

Contents
[hide]

 1Provisions of the Act

o 1.1The Newspaper Tax
 2Background
 3References
Provisions of the Act[edit]
The Act raised £5,536 worth of stamps within the first year of operation.[10] This duty would be
further increased throughout its lifetime, with the maximum tax of four pence on all newspapers
and three shillings and six pence on all advertisements.[2] Publications which were sponsored by
the government, or received sponsorship after the act, would be exempted from the tax.[10]

The Newspaper Tax[edit]

The newspaper tax would be expanded through the Six Acts to include all publications which
sold for less than six pence, contained an opinion about news, or which were published more
frequently than every twenty-six days.[11] It was repealed on 1 July 1855.[12]

Background[edit]
The tax was implemented with the stated intention of raising funds for the English state lottery, to
monitor the circulation of newspapers and other periodicals, and to restrict publication of writing
intended to "excite hatred and contempt of the Government and holy religion".[11] All periodicals
were already required by law to state the address and name of the owner, making taxation easily
enforced on publishers, and allowing the government to see where legally printed publications
were coming from. In order to exempt themselves from the tax, periodical authors pledged their
patronage to members of the Parliament of Great Britain, leading to publications rising and falling
based on the party in power and a general distrust in periodicals of the time.[10]
British essayists were critical of the tax and the effect it had on British literature. According to
English writer Samuel Johnson, "A news-writer is a man without virtue who writes lies at home
for his own profit. To these compositions is required neither genius nor knowledge, neither
industry nor sprightliness, but contempt of shame and indifference to truth are absolutely
necessary."[13][14] These essayists often saw retribution for their published words; Henry
Hetherington, a prominent radical, was imprisoned for claiming the tax was a tax on knowledge,
and his printing presses were ordered to be destroyed. Many others greeted the arrival of the
stamps with outrage and violence. Most called for a boycott and some organized attacks on the
customhouses and homes of tax collectors. After months of protest, and an appeal before the
British House of Commons, Parliament voted to repeal the Stamp Act in March 1766