In Milton’s 1644 tract, Areopagitica, he discusses what is wrong with the liberal case for free speech, namely undue faith in value and power of reason, as well as smug intolerance. He hopes to identify the practice of censorship within Roman Catholicism. He believes that there is a great value in reading and that knowledge slows the spread of sin. Milton says that the licensing of books must be seen for what it is—a partial and ineffectual attempt to prevent wrongdoing. For control to be effective, all sources of sin must be addressed. In addition, one has to consider how difficult it is to judge writings wisely. Can anyone truly judge a writing or a work without bias? Don’t we all have our own biases, even if we don’t know they exist?
In Milton’s case, his religious conviction greatly influenced his writings and his view on life. However, one facet of his life that I call into question was his marriage and relationship with his wife. He married his first wife when she was around fifteen years old, which, contrary to popular belief, was not the age that most women married (they were around twenty to twenty-three years old). There was an almost seventeen-year age gap, so it wasn’t any surprise when she left him to live with her parents for the next three years. During this time, he began writing his tracts on divorce, which detailed how marriage is not just a means to an end (i.e. procreation), but a loving commitment between two people who make each other happy. To be denied this right would be an affront to one’s personal liberty. Although these views were radical for the time, it demonstrates how Milton’s writings and personal views were so easily influenced by the events in his life. While most people hold his beliefs on marriage today, that was not the dominant idea in those times. Milton’s strong desire to divorce his child bride shows how easily changeable his viewpoints were and leads one to query the validity of Milton’s arguments. Can his writings on free speech ever be applied in a secular dispute surrounding First Amendment rights? While I believe his points on truth and knowledge are still applicable, I question if we are able to use his work in any case that doesn’t pertain to religion.