Censorship and the Blending of Good and Evil

I was looking at articles that had to do with censorship today, and I found one talking about the censorship in Iran. Apparently the government and Culture Ministry have a tight lockdown on who can publish and what is allowed to be published. One thing I found interesting is the fact that authors aren't allowed to even mention God, whether they would be denouncing him or praising him. He can't be mentioned at all. Likewise, they can't mention alcohol, even if they are talking about its harmful effects. This made me think about a passage in Aeropagitica, where Milton is talking about good and evil. Milton says, " Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up together almost inseparably." Milton uses this idea to show the useless force of censorship. 

In regards to this idea of good and evil being inseparable, it shows how censorship doesn't really work because in order to truly protect the masses from evil or things deemed bad, good things would have to be censored as well. I can see this in the article I read. The Iran Culture Ministry went an extra step to remove all things remotely related to something deemed bad. So an author couldn't make any references to something like alcohol, because it was seen as something not good for the people. It didn't matter if the author was denouncing alcohol or simply talking about it. It was all terrible in the eyes of the censors. In a weird way, I can see where the censors were coming from. They wanted to take away all mentions of alcohol to protect the readers. It wouldn't really work, but I can understand their reasoning. 

What I don't understand was their reasoning behind not allowing authors to mention God at all. They couldn't even praise him because the Culture Ministry felt that only certain authors who were faithful revolutionary followers were worthy to mention God. That to me is less of a concern for the masses and more of a political movement. And I think that's where one of the biggest issues with censorship lies. Once it becomes mixed with politics, censorship is no longer about the masses; it's about the people in power. 

That's something I think Milton was arguing against, which was how censorship doesn't serve the purpose of the people. Rather, it serves the purpose of the censors, the government. I hadn't thought about how political censorship really is. Most of the time, it's not the state of the masses, but the power granted to the censors that becomes the driving force for censorship. Seeing that, I feel like I understand a little better what Milton was fighting against. 

Here's a link to the article: 

http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-censorship-culture/25134795.html

Lucifer Incarnate?

In his recent post, Greg claims that Lucifer was (consciously and/or unconsciously) writing autobiographically through the person of Lucifer in Paradise Lost. It's hard to miss the parallels between Milton's political tracts and Lucifer's speeches, so it's not surprising that Greg and others have come to this conclusion. However, I would argue - as I said in the comment section of Greg's post - that these parallels are, in the very least, Milton's attempt to explore how his generally virtuous rhetoric was turned to vicious ends during the Interregnum. Following this line of thought, I figured Cromwell to be the most likely counterpart to Paradise Lost's Lucifer. At present, I'm investigating the parallels between Cromwell and Lucifer. Evidence in favor of this view is already starting to stack up.

In upcoming posts, I expect I'll explore these topics further. For now, here are a few obvious parallels:

1. The early careers of both Lucifer and Cromwell are marked by positive notoriety.
2. Both figures proclaimed their intentions to be exclusively in the interest of liberty.
3. While Cromwell's rhetoric may have began in earnest and Lucifer most certainly did not, both persons became more despotic than the monarchs they railed against once they gained power.

I should note that I don't think Milton intends this to be a simple Cromwell = Lucifer construct, but that he pulls extensively from Cromwell's character and career in creating Lucifer. In general, I think Lucifer (in PL) represents in aggregate those who, in one way or another, perverted the virtues that Milton espoused in his political writing.

Also, I watched an interesting biographical documentary produced by the BBC (above). If you were in class on Monday, many bits of info from the documentary will be old news, but I thought it offered some interesting detail about Cromwell as Lord Protectorate. Watch the first few minutes, and then jump to 26:00 if you don't have time for the whole thing.

Reevaluating Authority: Milton, Sola Scriptura, and Papal Praxis

Milton's political and religious works underscore key ideological tenets within the broader movement of Reformation Puritanism.

In "Of Reformation," Milton emphasizes the Puritan concept of sola scriptura, or the idea that truth is to be found only through study of the scriptures. Milton writes that truth may be had in "searching, trying, examining all things, and by the spirit discerning that which is good." Thus, the authority of truth comes not through episcopal figures, interpreting the texts, but by the personal and direct manifestations of the Holy Ghost. For Milton, this idea of personal truth and spiritual direction plays into the most fundamental aspects of belief and practice. Milton even goes so far as to suggest that the English king might learn better governance by a similar policy. He suggests that the king "betake himself to the old and new testament and receive direction from them how to administer both church and commonwealth," an idea that simultaneously undermines the authority of the prelacy, questions the legitimacy of the monarchy, and reinforces the fundamental Puritan principle of sola scriptura.

Milton's Bravery

Milton utilizes so many flowery and witty things in his work, and that has somewhat annoyed me, but after class on Monday I realized just what a risk he was taking. So I went back to the introduction on On Reformation, and this is what it said: "others—notably William Prynne, Henry Burton, and John Bastwick—had opened their mouths against bishops and been punished with imprisonment, branding, and the loss of their ears."

Speaking out against prelates meant risking his physical self, not just a little slap on the wrist and a "don't do that again." By the time Milton was writing those really radical treatises on divorce and freedom (which don't seem that radical now simply because we have those nice things), he was really pressing his luck. We talked about the Restoration of the king during Milton's lifetime, and I just did a quick internet search about it. Apparently he had a few friends willing to hide him that summer, and it is the only reason he wasn't arrested.

The Political Christian

Sure, Milton wrote a LOT of poetry. But he also wrote a lot concerning the idea of liberty in a society that believed in Christianity. Here's a list of his works, courtesy of Christ's College Milton website.

Milton was a product of his time—a time that included the English Civil War and the regicide. Milton, very tied to republican ideologies, was an active member of the Commonwealth. According to scholar Rosanna Cox, "Milton's texts and ideas," in the context of the time period, wrote about what "constituted liberty and the terms on which it could exist."

But goodness, it's just hard to keep people free, what with the ease of going back to oppressive systems.