the old restraints. Thus there appeared a Modest Plea for the Due regulation of the Press, in Answer to reasons lately printed against it, humbly submitted to the judgment of authority, by Francis Gregory, D.D., and Rector of Hambledon, in the County of Bucks: London, 1698'; 'A Letter to a Member of Parliament showing the Necessity of regulating the Press: Oxford, 16991'; and other similar appeals. But they were made in vain. In later times there have been some who have sighed or cried aloud for the old supervision, or, at least, have been prone to believe that the absence of it begat not so much liberty as license. Thus Hume writes of the event of 1694, projecting, it may be thought, his own views into his account of it :

'To the great displeasure of the King and his Ministers, who seeing nowhere, in any Government during present or past ages, any example of such unlimited freedom, doubted much of its salutary effects, and probably thought that no books or writings would ever so much improve the general understanding of men as to render it safe to entrust them with an indulgence so easily abused.'

'And the present moment,' remarks the author of the Curiosities of Literature, first published 1791-1817, after quoting the above words, 'verifies the prescient conjecture of the philosopher. Such is the licentiousness of our press that some, not perhaps the most hostile to the cause of freedom, would not be averse to manacle authors once more with an Imprimatur.'

And so there will be always some who will forget, under the pressure of certain disadvantages, all the blessings that a Free Press has conferred upon us, who, in the sun, will see nothing but spots, or, in the spring time, a mere carnival of east winds. Moreover, is the abuse of a thing to be truly and permanently cured by restraining the use of it? If a man handles his sword awkwardly, so that he wounds his friends and himself rather than the enemy, will his dexterity be improved by taking his weapon from him? Or shall we not better teach him a more judicious management?

1 The pamphlet especially referred to is A Letter to a Member of Parliament, showing that a restraint on the Press is inconsistent with the Protestant religion, and dangerous to the liberties of the nation.'

But, to return to the Areopagitica, it may appear perhaps, from the account given above of the end of Press-licensing, that Milton did little or nothing towards the achievement of it, inasmuch as the general question with which his work deals was not at all discussed when that end came. But it would be rash for this reason to conclude that Milton spent his strength for nought. It is, in fact, impossible to estimate what the influence of his discourse may have been between 1644 and 1694. The influence of a book is not to be judged so much by the quantity, as by the quality, of its readers. And one can scarcely doubt that the words of the Areopagitica sank deep into the hearts of the better spirits of the time. To them it was addressed, and only to them was it fully intelligible. It could not be expected to have a large general circulation, but it was held a sovereign work in its own sphere. It was regarded as a central spring, to which others might resort.

'Hither as to their fountain other stars

Repairing, in their urns draw golden light.'

We have noticed its influence upon Mabbott; and so in other cases we find its arguments reproduced. Thus a pamphlet called 'A Just Vindication of Learning, or an Humble Address to the High Court of Parliament in behalf of the Liberty of the Press, by Philopatris: London, 1679,' is neither more nor less than a mutilated copy of the Areopagitica. A work entitled 'Reasons humbly offered for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, 1693,' is simply an abridgment of it.

Nor is our estimate of the result of the Areopagitica to be limited by the year 1694. All that it had to teach was not finally taught when the licensing system formally ceased; nor was it then to be thrown away, like a ticket that has served its purpose. It was published separately in 1738, in 1772, in 1792, in 1819, in 1868; with the 'Tractat of Education' in 1780; with other tracts in 1809. Mirabeau's tract, 'Sur la Liberté de la Presse,' 1788, is merely a reproduction of it. 'Le titre de ce morceau, très singulier, où j'ai suivi de beaucoup plus près mon Auteur que ne voudront le croire ceux qui ne consulteront pas l'original, et où j'ai plutôt retranché qu'ajouté; ce titre est:

Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicens'd Printing; to the Parliament of England'.'

Lastly, our judgment of what power the Areopagitica has exercised in the world must not confine itself to the Printing Press and its history; for the work is indeed not only a magnificent protest in behalf of unlicensed books, but an immortal defence of Free Thought. Jeremy Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying, Locke's Letters on Toleration, John Stuart Mill's Liberty-these are works of no temporary and transient value, however they may have been called forth by passing circumstances; and amongst these, and not the least amongst them, is to be ranked the Areopagitica. It is inspired by the very spirit of freedom. It is the own voice of a mind resolute to be free and fetterless, and to dare usurpation to its face.

SECTION V. THE PRESENT EDITION.

The text of the present edition is that of the original edition of 1644, with only one intentional difference, viz. warfaring, for wayfaring, on p. 18; on which see the note. It was printed in the first instance from Mr. Arber's Reprint, and then collated with the 1644 edition, of which Mr. Arber's reprint was found to be an extremely faithful reproduction, the corrections that had to be made being very few and very slight.

For the rest, I have to express great obligations to Holt White's edition of 1819, as indeed every one must who studies the Areopagitica. His 'Prefatory Remarks, Copious Notes, and Excursive Illustrations,' are a very storehouse of information, of which frequent mention is made in the Notes, where I have, I believe, always acknowledged any debt incurred in this and all other cases. Next in value to Holt White's volume is Mr. Lobb's 'Modern Version of Milton's Areopagitica, with Notes, Appendix, and Tables: Calcutta, 1872.' Possibly enough, if Mr. Lobb designed his work for Indian readers, he was right in translating the original into modern English; but there can scarcely be any Englishmen who would accept Mr. Lobb's 1 See Buckle's Civilization, ii. 225.

version, however vigorously executed, in exchange for Milton's own. The notes contain much valuable matter; it is a pity they are not made more accessible by a better arrangement. ‘Milton's Areopagitica, a Commentary,' privately printed, by Mr. R. C. Jebb, the Public Orator of Cambridge, for a copy of which I have to thank the author, contains some excellent suggestions. There is also an edition by Mr. T. G. Osborn, Head Master of New Kingswood School, Bath, with some notes that are 'mainly taken from sources obvious and easily accessible and make no pretensions to original or extensive research.'

Lastly, I must do myself the pleasure of thanking my friend, Mr. Skeat, the well-known Old English scholar, for various valuable suggestions. I have also to thank for sundry kind services the Rev. G. W. Kitchin, of Christ Church, Oxford; Professor Morley, University College, and Dr. Morris, King's College School, London; Professor Seeley, Cambridge; and Professor Ward, Owens College, Manchester.

I OPPIDANS ROAD, PRIMROSE HILL, LONDON;

August 1st, 1874.

In the second issue of 'the present edition' certain misprints have been corrected, one or two notes withdrawn as unnecessary, and a few additions made.

I had intended to add some remarks on the fact that Milton himself, after writing this 'discourse,' acted as a Licenser of the Press. But the urgent demand for this edition leaves no time now for this consideration.

I may just say that though I have given here the original orthography, I am by no means of opinion this should always be done in reprinting old books for school or for general use. Mr. R. C. Browne, in his well-known useful edition of Milton's English Poems, has, I do not doubt, acted judiciously in modernising the spelling. But it will be allowed that occasionally an exacter reproduction should be given; and here is one.

Oct. 8, 1878.

This Third Edition is a mere reprint of the Second.

I had intended to consider here at some length the fact hastily mentioned in the Preface to the Second Edition-that Milton himself, after writing this 'discourse,' acted as a Licenser of the Press. But this fact is so fully discussed by Professor Masson in the fourth volume, pp. 324-335, and pp. 432, 433, of his exhaustive and invaluable work 'The Life of Milton in Connexion with the History of his Time,' that little remains to be said, or rather, if one went into the subject, one could only repeat what has been already written: therefore I will merely briefly state how the case really stood, referring the reader for an ampler account to Professor Masson's volume.

Milton acted as a 'Licenser of the Press,' merely so far as this he was for a time-from the beginning of the year 1651 to the beginning of 1652—connected as a sort of supervisor with one of the current journals published in the interest of the Commonwealth. Each one of these organs had a censor attached to it. The Several Proceedings in Parliament was inspected, so to speak, and allowed by Mr. Henry Scobell, the Clerk of the Parliament; A Perfect Diurnall of some Passages of the Armies, by Mr. John Rushworth, the Army Secretary; A Briefe Relation of Some Affairs and Transactions, by Mr. Gualter Frost, the General Secretary of the Council of State. And just in the same way the Mercurius Politicus was entrusted to the discretion of Mr. John Milton, Latin Secretary to the Council for their Letters to foreign Princes and States. There is no sign of Milton's acting as a Press-licenser in any other way. He was 'often employed to report on papers or pamphlets after they were published '-to officially review them in fact; but not to authorize or license them.

It thus appears that Milton's 'licensing' meant little, or nothing, more than acting as a superior-a final-editor to one of the newspapers issued by the party to which he belonged. We presume that the unfriendliest eye could scarcely discover in such a function anything irreconcilable with the views so nobly and ardently asserted in the Areopagitica.

KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON,

Jan. 7, 1882.