“sober certainty of waking bliss”

While I have not finished reading “Areopagitica” (I have about 15 pages left) what I have read so far has really interested me - I even laughed at one point! I’m not sure why I understood and enjoyed this piece of Milton’s prose so much more than “Reason of Church Government” and “Apology for Smectymnuus” but perhaps they warmed up my brain for this (better) stuff. I’m going to break down some of this (it helps me understand it, maybe it can help someone else too).

First of all, there is no question to Milton’s point here: in his speech to Parliament, Milton is asking them to lighten up with the book licensing already. His following arguments are broken down so well - well, I can only say how delightful they are to read. He goes back to Greece and Rome, and how these very early societies were pretty much allowed to write about what they wanted…then the Christians took over, and it just got a little bit hairy, heretical books were examined and debated in general councils “and not till then were prohibited, or burnt by the authority of the Emperor” (205). But then Milton recalls that it got a little messier when Martin the Fifth took the throne, as he had people excommunicated on account of their heretical writings and this prety much continued all the way to the Council of Trent (it convened three times between 1545 and 1563, I had to look this one up). Milton points out that by this time, anything that wasn’t to their “palat,” anything they disagreed with (so no longer just heretical material) could be banned.

And then Milton made me laugh. Out loud. “Their latest invention was to ordain that no Book, pamphlet, or paper should be Printed (as if S. Peter had bequeth’d them the keys of the Presse also out of Paradise) unless approv’d and licenc’t inder the hand of 2 or 3 glutton friars” (206). Look, look he’s being funny! and clever!

Then Milton begins discussing the freedom of man and the importance of choice. “Read any books what ever come to they hands, for thou art sufficient both to judge aright, and to examine each matter” (210-211). If God granted people the ability to decide in other matter, why did he not allow people to choose what to read? Soon Milton twists their argument up onto itself; by their own standards, even the Bible would have to be banned. Oh how ironic. I can practically hear Milton’s glee; to me it seemed he had fun writing this one.

Perhaps part of me really enjoyed “Areopagitica” because of Milton’s ideas about good and evil being so entwined that you cannot really eliminated one without eliminating the other. I think I agree with Milton; a person cannot know what good is if they do not know what bad is, therefore you cannot simply take bad away to create people who know only good. It goes back to the binary thing again; you cannot have one without the other. It really bothers me how some parents try so hard to shelter their children from the realities of life on earth. My own parents tried so hard to keep me away from anything that had to do with sex, violence, sex, racism, sexism, you name it. Television and movies were strictly monitored. (I was the only one in my 5th grade class who did not see Titanic in the theater. I saw it 6 years later, when I had finally convinced my mother I should be allowed to see PG-13 movies). They weren’t that crazy. I was allowed to read pretty much anything I wanted, so of course, I read everything and anything I could get my hands on. I learned way way more about sex and love and violence and hatred through the books I read than through anything I ever watched on TV or at the movies. I would say that is still true (as now I am allowed to watch R rated movies too, haha). So while my parents thought they were protecting me by severely restricting my technology consumption (don’t even get me started on my Internet privileges, or lackthereof) they were in fact leading me to an even greater education through reading. My parents were so smart! They were teaching me to learn for myself, to think for myself. Those books (some classics a la To Kill A Mocking Bird and Anne of Green Gables, some not so classics like The Babysitter’s Club and some pirate romance novel I found in the basement) allowed me to absorb radical, new ideas slowly and think them over for myself. I can completely relate to Milton’s point in “Areopagitica”; if people can’t decide for themselves what’s good and bad - or see how they are intertwined, learn to discern for themselves - then they will never really understand what each is and they will never discover true knowledge.

I started this as a comment to one of my own posts, but I think it deserves a whole post of it’s own.

The conversations we had in class yesterday really helped clear up the issue of Milton’s arrogance for me. I realized (I think after reading ‘Lycidas’ and I also think I mentioned this in Milton’s Prose) that Milton didn’t question his abilities or purpose, he only questioned his opportunity to use those abilities to complete his larger purpose. As Professor Campbell said, “He is not humble, but he is not disobedient.” If Milton denied his gifts (bestowed on him by God) he would be, in a sense, denying God and God’s will. I know we talked a lot about this in class, but it really got me thinking. Why did I have such a problem with Milton explaining his credentials? Why was my initial reaction to label him as arrogant and stuck up? Was I jealous? Annoyed? I had such a hard time reconciling the man that was being presented in the prose and the man that wrote the beautifully moving poetry I now like so much. Our class discussion yesterday really helped me figure all this stuff out though, helped me understand Milton and remind me to lighten up.

See, I am one of those people that has wasted so much of my life wondering if I was good enough. Professor Campbell was speaking right to me (without knowing, obviously) when he recalled the anecdote about the paper he got an A on. The professor thought it was good, but was it really good? I won statewide awards for my writing in high school, professors do give me good grades…but somehow I feel like I’ve always just been fooling everyone. This self-doubt does not plague me in other areas of my life. I would call myself a confident, self-assured human being. But, of course, I fall in to this trap when it comes to a talent I seem to possess. I know I’m not alone. I know a lot of my friends constantly sell themselves short, no matter where their skills lie. They aren’t really beautiful or quick-footed or great at listening or imaginative writers. They aren’t naturally gifted. They’re okay. They could be a lot better. Why don’t they view themselves as the best? Couldn’t they be? And even if they’ll never been number one in their field, can’t they be really really good? Why does it take others to see what we cannot see within ourselves? How tragic that we will doubt ourselves and doubt others when we are praised and be ready to agree or accept when we are criticized? Milton is so great because he never doubts his talent, he never doubts himself. And instead of being annoyed or dismissive when encountering his self-promotion, I think we should be celebratory. Here is an awesome, awesome human being who was proud of himself, proud of the hard work he had done and proud of his natural abilities.

Milton would not want us to lord our talents and skill over others, he would not want us to brag about our “credentials”. Instead, I think Milton would want us to accept ourselves for who we are, talents and all. And he’d want us to use them. Maybe that’s what Milton was so afraid of, not dying before he could achieve his goals, but drowning in self-doubt before he could even begin. That’s definitely something I suffer from.

Anyway, what I really wanted to talk about was how Milton was also redeemed after I read the Preface and Chapter 1 of “The Reason of Church Government.” Here were the points he didn’t really make in the autobiographical section (or that I failed to see there). I liked how he starts off with “persuasion certainly is a more winning, and more manlike way to keepe men in obedience then feare.” This, I feel, is something Milton lives by and why he did oppose the monarchy and the direction of the Church’s political power. As a man so supportive of freedom, of course he advocates discussion over threats. Words you are free to oppose or agree with, a threat really provides only one option of response. The other part I found interesting was in Chapter 1: “And therefore all the ancient lawgivers were either truly inspired by Moses…because they wisely forethought that men would never quietly submit to such a discipline as had not more of God’s hand in it than mans.” I’m not absolutely sure what he means here; is it saying that laws have more clout and sway with people with God behind them? or is it that a combination, sort of a collaboration, between God and man creates the most effective system law?

In any case, I have a much greater understanding of Milton and Milton’s prose now (I’m really enjoying “Areopagitica”), at least something more to work with.