This is true Liberty when free born men
Having to advise the public may speak free,
Which he who can, and will, deserv's high praise,
Who neither can nor will, may hold his peace;
What can be juster in a State then this?
Having to advise the public may speak free,
Which he who can, and will, deserv's high praise,
Who neither can nor will, may hold his peace;
What can be juster in a State then this?
- John Milton (Areopagitica)
When the Rump Parliament of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate sat to discuss the Licensing Order of 1643, which aimed at pre-publication censorship of books and all written media, John Milton spoke with great fervor in the Assembly,
“It will be primarily to the discouragement of all learning, and the stop of Truth, not only by not exercising and blunting our abilities in what we know already, but by hindering and cropping the discovery that might be yet further made both in religious and civil Wisdom.
I deny not, but that it is of greatest concern in the Church and Commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how books demean themselves as well as men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharpest justice on them as malefactors: for Books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are; nay they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them. I know they are as lively, and as vigorously productive, as those fabulous Dragon’s teeth; and being sown up and down, may chance to spring up armed men.
And yet on the other hand, unless wariness is used, as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, Gods Image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye. Many a man lives a burden to the Earth; but a good book is the precious life-blood of a master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life. It is true, no age can restore a life, whereof perhaps there is no great loss; and revolutions of ages do not oft recover the loss of a rejected truth, for the want of which whole Nations fare the worse.
We should be wary therefore what persecution we raise against the living labors of public men, how we spill that seasoned life of man preserved and stored up in Books; since we see a kind of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdom, and if it extend to the whole impression, a kind of massacre, whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elemental life, but strikes at that ethereal essence, the breath of reason itself, for it slays an immortality rather then a life.”
I wish we had the likes of Milton to advise and counsel the Governments of the states of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Goa, and many others before them, who in their zeal to be populist, have pandered to the demands of a few attention-seeking souls, who make a mountain out of a molehill, and created our own Index Librorum Prohibitum, a sort of list of things that the State views as being a danger to itself and the faith of its subjects.
Why the State will not leave the acquisition of knowledge to its subjects is baffling. It reasons that the people know not what is good and bad, and that the State merely serves to warn them of that which may defile their souls. Again, I refute their claims with Milton’s words:
“To the pure, all things are pure, not only meats and drinks, but all kind of knowledge whether of good or evil; the knowledge cannot defile, nor consequently the books, if the will and conscience be not defiled. For books are as meats and viands are; some of good, some of evil substance; and yet God in that vision, said without exception, Rise Peter, kill and eat, leaving the choice to each mans discretion. Wholesome meats to a vitiated stomach differ little or nothing from unwholesome; and best books to a naughty mind are applicable to occasions of evil. Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction; but herein the difference is of bad books, that they to a discreet and judicious Reader serve in many respects to discover, to confute, to forewarn, and to illustrate.”
To those who seek to pacify and favor their vote bases and tinker with the censor’s scissors, I say, stay off, else you be burned at the very stake at which you burn these repositories of information, repositories which if we examine further may contain a semblance of the Eternal Truth.
“It will be primarily to the discouragement of all learning, and the stop of Truth, not only by not exercising and blunting our abilities in what we know already, but by hindering and cropping the discovery that might be yet further made both in religious and civil Wisdom.
I deny not, but that it is of greatest concern in the Church and Commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how books demean themselves as well as men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharpest justice on them as malefactors: for Books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are; nay they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them. I know they are as lively, and as vigorously productive, as those fabulous Dragon’s teeth; and being sown up and down, may chance to spring up armed men.
And yet on the other hand, unless wariness is used, as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, Gods Image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye. Many a man lives a burden to the Earth; but a good book is the precious life-blood of a master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life. It is true, no age can restore a life, whereof perhaps there is no great loss; and revolutions of ages do not oft recover the loss of a rejected truth, for the want of which whole Nations fare the worse.
We should be wary therefore what persecution we raise against the living labors of public men, how we spill that seasoned life of man preserved and stored up in Books; since we see a kind of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdom, and if it extend to the whole impression, a kind of massacre, whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elemental life, but strikes at that ethereal essence, the breath of reason itself, for it slays an immortality rather then a life.”
I wish we had the likes of Milton to advise and counsel the Governments of the states of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Goa, and many others before them, who in their zeal to be populist, have pandered to the demands of a few attention-seeking souls, who make a mountain out of a molehill, and created our own Index Librorum Prohibitum, a sort of list of things that the State views as being a danger to itself and the faith of its subjects.
Why the State will not leave the acquisition of knowledge to its subjects is baffling. It reasons that the people know not what is good and bad, and that the State merely serves to warn them of that which may defile their souls. Again, I refute their claims with Milton’s words:
“To the pure, all things are pure, not only meats and drinks, but all kind of knowledge whether of good or evil; the knowledge cannot defile, nor consequently the books, if the will and conscience be not defiled. For books are as meats and viands are; some of good, some of evil substance; and yet God in that vision, said without exception, Rise Peter, kill and eat, leaving the choice to each mans discretion. Wholesome meats to a vitiated stomach differ little or nothing from unwholesome; and best books to a naughty mind are applicable to occasions of evil. Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction; but herein the difference is of bad books, that they to a discreet and judicious Reader serve in many respects to discover, to confute, to forewarn, and to illustrate.”
To those who seek to pacify and favor their vote bases and tinker with the censor’s scissors, I say, stay off, else you be burned at the very stake at which you burn these repositories of information, repositories which if we examine further may contain a semblance of the Eternal Truth.
3 comments:
See, I understand that sometimes it becomes imperative for the State to censor or even screen material in order to remove material that may cause problems, but I believe that we must leave the issue of censorship first to the individual, then his family, then his colleagues, then his community and last the State to which he is subservient. The State cannot assume the primacy that it assumes now as a right. It assumes it so because the remaining layers of authority have abdicated their responsibilities to themselves.
I agree that the primacy of the individual in such matters is sacrosanct. But the role of the family in enforcing censorship also must be acknowledged, and to some extent tolerated. Friends are a long way off, and my views on the State's involvement is pretty clear: I want them to stay off my turf! Basically taking a strong libertarian stand here.
I am pleased to see that Milton is still remembered. But the issue is very complex, as you rightly see. For example, Milton's appeal "From Ares' Hill" rests with one key principle: a literate, Puritan public able to tell right from wrong. The liberty advanced by Milton is absolutely right: I would agree with you: the final arbiter should be the individual in the case of literature and ideas. And that is what Milton is talking about...not total freedom for all view-points, all cultures, all forms of media. Areopagitica , when it is remembered, is often quoted as a sign of total freedom. Milton, though, did actually believe in censorship. Censorship is a strange thing. How Milton's Paradise Lost got past the censors and their "Imprimatur" is a mystery...it is political heresy. Having a hierarchical censorship is an interesting idea, but difficult to imagine. When would the differnt levels step in, but then that is exactly the state the world lives in now. I remember the phrase "Nanny State" being used in UK politics, where it was felt necessary to protect adults , like children, from evils. But as Milton would have happily pointed out in fantastic rhetoric...the individual must be allowed a conscience, else s/he loses humanity. Glad there are some idealists, like you, still left. And there is another thorny issue...the difference between idealism and fanaticism...Milton's idealism led to cutting off a King's head...but it was helped by a state's fanaticism. Can a state ever be idealistic, or is that the sole possibiltiy for libertarian soul's like you?
Post a Comment