GATHERING THE SCATTERED BODY OF MILTON'S AREOPAGITICA

Vincent Blasé modifies this position to assert that Parliament reinstated government control over printing out of concern "about disunity in its own ranks and the effectiveness of Crown propaganda" (3), but either way Milton has to position himself before a governing body already opposed to his own agenda - the reduction of centralized control over the press. Parliament did not adopt this agenda without cause. A well worded tract could easily instigate a riot in Milton's day, a fact his audience would readily understand. It is only reasonable that Milton would begin by meeting his audience where they were:

I deny not, but that it is of greatest concernment in the Church and Commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how Bookes demeane themselves as well as men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharpest justice on them as malefactors. (Patrides 200)

A favorable stance toward control was the point from which Milton had to reason because it was the position of those whom he addressed, especially if we read the Areopagitica as formal oration, "whose primary function must always be to secure a favorable atmosphere for the speech's reception" (Sirluck 172).

Milton used an idea already accepted by his audience, that books must be watched as closely as people, as the basis for the more significant parallels drawn between people and books, books as the "breath of reason itself, the image of God." That Milton began from a position favorable to control to move toward rhetoric that would free the book should tell us where his main sympathies lay. Milton's call to his audience in the conclusion of the Areopagitica is for a return to a previous ordinance, the first ordinance governing printing after the abolition of the Star Chamber decree, dated January 29, 1642 (a mere six months after the abolition of the Star Chamber). The only restriction under this decree was the name and consent of the author prior to printing (Sirluck 160). Milton's advocacy of book burning at the end of the Areopagitica is for printed materials that "otherwise" come forth, "those that otherwise come forth, if they be found mischievous and libellous, the fire and the executioner will be the timeliest and most effectuall remedy" (Patrides 247). Does this imply that "mischievous" books with the author's and printer's name stamped upon it should be excluded from the fire? If so, Milton is a greater advocate of freedom of the press than more recent readings allow.

So I am one of the more polite dinner guests who wants the reasons for our speaker's bigotry to be understood. Perhaps I am explaining Milton away. While the extent to which Milton favored a free press will be a continuing subject of debate, taking into account the intellectual history and historical circumstances surrounding the Areopagitica at least directs readers to privilege Milton's positive statements about books over negative statements. Here is where readings like Cable's invariably fail. Milton's negative imagery, for her, "gives us only a moment's grasp of an elusive potential danger" (Cable 120). This is true for a reader today encountering nothing but Milton's text. For the Parliament, British readers, and Milton himself (Milton's primary audiences), that grasp of a potential danger was far from elusive. It was all they had, and that is why they were so favorable to censorship. Like Cable, Fish gives equal weight to negative statements in the Areopagitica by disassociating them from historical context, a strategy necessary for his deconstruction but one that leads to absurdity and misunderstanding. Milton's intent, when defined in terms of primary audience, was clearly to support at least some measure of freedom of the press, however contradictory his arguments appear to the modern reader.