From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Front page image[edit]

Hi - I've uploaded the front page of my copy, but it's from 1933 - the original aman is bad would be better. There are plenty out there, but are any of the images free? - Gobeirne 07:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Found one, and have changed the image accordingly. I've also made a greyscale version if anyone prefers it... - Gobeirne 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


This is my first edit, but please change "Milton had no intention of delivering his speech verbally" to "Milton had no intention of delivering his speech orally." The former sentence implies he would forgo the use of words (draw pictures?), but I think the intention is to say he would not speak the text of his speech. Recall: verbally→with words (via any media), orally→with speech. 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Tim


This section doesn't look like part of an encyclopedia. While the opinions in that section may be valid, do they abide by NPOV and all that? The known facts of the Areopagitica should be enough. How people do or do not intepret it or use it is a bit of a stretch. There is no question about "misusing" Milton. Maybe misintepret, but intepretation of any text is up to the reader, and not to be defined by an encyclopedia. Oderic (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Oderic here. This sentence: "However to use Milton in defense of our modern constitutions and their emphasis on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, is to misuse Milton entirely. Milton's concepts are ones which do not mirror those of the modern world" is way too strong and utterly unecessary, seems also like a POV statement (there are plenty of ways that Milton's argument, even being theological, is valid in today's world as we grapple with fundamentalist censorship that is newly on the rise all over the world; not to mention Milton's argument is applicable by *analogy* to secular problems of personal freedom vs state censorhip. It would be best, as Oderic says, to rephrase that section entirely and just leave the content stating what Milton's argument was, without these POV interpretations and issues. Hulahoo (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also notes that the claim that the conceptual basis of Aeropagitica mirrors 'the modern Christian world' lacks credibilty, not least in presenting a rather rose-tinted view of 'modern' Christianity as a homogenous entity with a consistent and uniform set of values. Conservapedia, anyone? Beyond that, its a contextually dubious statement. English Anglicans would not generally regard Milton as merely mirroring modern Christianity but rather as a highly influential figure in the development of Anglican thought, i.e. a part of an unbroken intellectual tradition stretching back to the Reformation and beyond, to Wycliffe and the Lollards. If anything, the 'context' of Aeropagitica is more than adequately dealt with in the main biographical entry for Milton, which references both it religious context and its relevance to the 1st Amendment, There seems to little value in labouring those points here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity MoT (talkcontribs) 07:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

note: Did major revision. I don't see this as a controversy, as everyone here on the talk page is agreed, so I am going to edit the relevant section. I see little relevant information, so I will keep only the last paragraph. I'll also change the title to reflect the change. Its going to be significantly shorter, but won't have lost any actual, relevant information, and will hopefully have a higher signal to noise ratio. PLEASE EDIT afterwards though, I am by no means a good writer, but I'll try my best, as this is my first major revision on wikipedia. Nate 16:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Added Section to detail the history of Milton's argument in the United States Supreme Court. Could likely stand as its own section, but needs citations to foriegn law as well. Will try to gather and add soon. Once that data is compiled, will add and reformat into new section on Legal Impact of Areopagitica. -Spinozaium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinozaium (talkcontribs) 01:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Long S[edit]

Hey dude, guys, anybody, let t'article with lot of "long s" (ſ) because i read t'Areopagitica's first edition: t'original title, t'front, have Areopagitica: A ſpeech of Mr. John Milton for the liberty of unlicenſed printing to the Parliament of England! A sample are t'quotes:

For books are not abſolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that ſoul whoſe progeny they are; nay, they do preſerve as in a vial the pureſt efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.
As good almoſt kill a man as kill a good book: who kills a man kills a reaſonable creature, God's image; but he who deſtroys a good book, kills reaſon itſelf, kills the image of God, as it were, in the eye.
And though all the winds of doctrine were let looſe to play on the earth, ſo Truth be in the field, we do injuriouſly by licensing and prohibiting miſdoubt her ſtrength. Let her and Falſehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worſe in a free and open encounter?
I cannot praiſe a fugitive and cloiſtered virtue, unexerciſed and unbreathed, that never ſallies out and ſees her adverſary, but ſlinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without duſt and heat.

It'serious, very important t'people learn as t'text was written originally.

Sylverfalls (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)