Areopagitica is one of
Milton's non-fiction works, and the second Milton's non-fiction that
I read. I am interested in Milton because, since I first read
Paradise Lost, I have felt that he's a special being with interesting
things in his mind. Another reason is the way he delivers his
thoughts. Maybe it's just me, but I feel fire in his writings.
Sometimes I feel rage, zeal, such a spirit that for him words could
hardly serve his purpose. That, plus the boldness in his writings,
make me love his works.
So let's continue to the
book: Areopagitica. The copy that I got started with the edict that
was issued at the time of Milton's life regarding the regulation and
printing of books. Then it continues with Milton quoting Euripid, and
then his treatise begins. First, I'd like to give a brief summary of the book, and then while doing so, I'll write what makes me think it's so interesting.
Firstly Milton stated that
book licensing was first issued by the Catholic Inquisition (Milton
himself was not a Catholic). The Greeks and Romans, fathers of
philosophy, didn't know such idea. One sentence touched my heart more
than the others.
“But that a book, in
worse condition than a peccant soul, should be to stand before a jury
ere it be born to the world, and undergo yet in darkness the judgment
of Radamanth and his colleagues, ere it can pass the ferry backward
into light, was never heard before.”
If a sinful man can freely
be born into the world, why can't a book be freely born to it as
well? If God does not judge a man based on what he might do, why
should men judge a book based on what it may produce?
And on this Milton
couldn't resist being so sarcastic. (How I love the man).
“Sometimes five
Imprimaturs are seen together dialogue-wise in the piazza of one
title-page, complimenting and ducking each to other with their shaven
reverences, whether the author, who stands by in perplexity at the
foot of his epistle, shall to the press or to the sponge.”
Next he stated that just
because a book is bad, it doesn't mean that the book must necessarily
be harmful. Even Moses, Daniel and Paul were educated in Egyptian,
Chaldean, and Roman wisdom but it didn't automatically make them
heretics or something alike. In fact, Paul quoted Greek literatures
when he was in Athens, and by doing so helped the people there
accepting the Bible.
He also wrote that even
God himself never condemns reading of materials as sinful. He quoted
the book of Thessalonians that says, “Prove all things, hold fast
that which is good.” He argued that since God has given men wisdom
and freewill, they should choose for themselves whether to read or
not to read, and further whether to agree or disagree with what they
read. Hence if anyone would burn a book out of hatred, let it be of
his own voluntary act, not a forced act by government instituted
decree.
On the statement that a
bad book might harm less-educated men, Milton wrote:
“And again, if it be
true that a wise man, like a good refiner, can gather gold out of the
drossiest volume, and that a fool will be a fool with the best book,
yea or without book; there is no reason that we should deprive a wise
man of any advantage to his wisdom, while we seek to restrain from a
fool, that which being restrained will be no hindrance to his folly.”
His next argument was that
if the government wants to prevent corruption to the people by their
decree, simply licensing books wouldn't be enough. There would still
be music, dancing, and many other things that the law cannot
regulate. And even if the law were to regulate them all, it would be
nothing but folly, because, please, how could it?
“They are not skilful
considerers of human things, who imagine to remove sin by removing
the matter of sin”
The other thing
that I really like is his argument that licensing would only hinder
the Truth from coming to light. Then his former argument that
licences would not prevent corruption of the mind and this argument
proved to be a double blow for his readers. The government would not
only fail to cast away darkness, it would also block the emerging
light of Truth and science.
“For who knows not that Truth is
strong, next to the Almighty? She needs no policies, nor stratagems,
nor licensings to make her victorious... Give her but room, and do
not bind her when she sleeps.”
Milton also stated that
the Truth might take “more shape than one”, and quoting Paul, he
also showed that he appreciated the voice of conscience, when people
who eat and who don't, who regard a day and who don't may do either
for the Lord. The idea of respecting people's conscience I also find
beautiful.
I know that I have already
written so much. In fact, this might be my longest blog post so far.
But let me ask a few more lines. After reading, I thought, why did he
write this in such zeal and spirit? I don't doubt his good intention,
but is there anything more than that? I found out that he had his own
idea of things, some of them were not in line with either the
government or the church. Was he afraid that his ideas couldn't be
published, and thus covering the 'Truth' he believed in? Only Milton
knew.
Posts
