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.[8] 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.[8]
Origins of licensing system
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 argues that a work should be "examined, refuted, and condemned" rather than prohibited before examination. 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. 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 unfavourable to the friars.
Use of books and reading
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
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 regulate 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
Milton argues that licensing is "a dishonour and derogation to the author, to the book, to the privilege 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
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 effectual 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 extirpate, provided first that all charitable and compassionate means be used to win and regain the weak and the misled.
According to Nicholas McDowell, the second part of the forecited statement is usually left out by those quoting the first part to show that Milton was, at heart, a religious bigot, and that his ideas about free speech and intellectual liberty have little to teach us about liberalism today. (Whether the second half of the statement is actually an effective mitigation to the bigotry is a question eminently suited for discussion.)[5]
