Question: Is there any evidence that the Levellers were influenced by Milton's *Areopagitica* (1644)? I couldn't check your book (which I read when it came out) because I am in Washington and it is in Austin, but it seemed to me that the timing would have allowed for that influence.
And then there is the excellent theory that Roger Williams influenced Milton, for they had become friends (through their mutual printer) when he came back to London to secure Rhode Island's first charter in 1642, as I recall.
A few months BEFORE John Milton's Aeropagitca the prominent Leveller William Walwyn published "Good Counsell to All those that heartily desire the glory of God, the freedome of the Commonwealth, and the good of all vertuous men" in which he wrote:
"these allow not things to be compared, they take liberty to speake what they please in publike against opinions and judgements, under what nick-names they thinke fittest to make them odious, and write and Print, and licence the same, wresting and misapplying the Scriptures to prove their false assertions; but stop all mens mouthes from speaking, and prohibit the Printing of any thing that might be produced in way of defence and vindication; and if any thing bee attempted, spoken or published without authority or licence, Pursuivants, fines and imprisonments, are sure to wait the Authors, Printers and publishers."
Moreover, we should not forget that Milton ended up working as a censor under Cromwell who brutally suppressed The Levellers. As I write in my book on the history of free speech: "It is surely one of the injustices of the history of free speech that
Milton—for all his importance and eloquence—should be remembered
as the great seventeenth-century champion of free speech, while
most have forgotten the names Lilburne, Overton, and Walwyn."
I'm not sure of the answer to your question. But my understanding is that the Levellers's view of free speech was more expansive than Milton's. Milton opposed prior restraints—which was still radical for his time—but said those books "which otherwise come forth, if they be found mischievous and libellous, the fire and the executioner will be the timeliest and the most effectual remedy, that mans prevention can use."
Excellent takedown of Dabhoiwala's chronology here. The Leveller connection is especially devastating becuase it flips the entire privilege narrative on its head. I remember reading some of Lilburne's trial transcripts in grad school and being struck by how modern his arguments sounded, almost like reading a FIRE brief from 2023 transplanted to the 1650s. The fact that these arguments came from persecuted radicals rather than comfortable elites really does matter for understanding whether robust free speech is inherently about protecting power.
I'm glad that you are calling out these, unfortunately, frequent mistakes made by people who are more interested in demonising what they see as linked— falsely or not—to the Western liberal tradition, and who have zero interest in rigorous research and in-depth analysis if it contradicts their ideology.
I thoroughly enjoyed your book, Jacob, and I’ll be writing a commentary soon.
Heard you on 5th column!
Thanks for the correction Jacob. Excellent work as usual.
To put (perhaps) too obvious a title on this genre of history.
Who needs chronological facts when…
—some old dead white guys can be pilloried.
Question: Is there any evidence that the Levellers were influenced by Milton's *Areopagitica* (1644)? I couldn't check your book (which I read when it came out) because I am in Washington and it is in Austin, but it seemed to me that the timing would have allowed for that influence.
And then there is the excellent theory that Roger Williams influenced Milton, for they had become friends (through their mutual printer) when he came back to London to secure Rhode Island's first charter in 1642, as I recall.
(Apologies for the digression.)
A few months BEFORE John Milton's Aeropagitca the prominent Leveller William Walwyn published "Good Counsell to All those that heartily desire the glory of God, the freedome of the Commonwealth, and the good of all vertuous men" in which he wrote:
"these allow not things to be compared, they take liberty to speake what they please in publike against opinions and judgements, under what nick-names they thinke fittest to make them odious, and write and Print, and licence the same, wresting and misapplying the Scriptures to prove their false assertions; but stop all mens mouthes from speaking, and prohibit the Printing of any thing that might be produced in way of defence and vindication; and if any thing bee attempted, spoken or published without authority or licence, Pursuivants, fines and imprisonments, are sure to wait the Authors, Printers and publishers."
Moreover, we should not forget that Milton ended up working as a censor under Cromwell who brutally suppressed The Levellers. As I write in my book on the history of free speech: "It is surely one of the injustices of the history of free speech that
Milton—for all his importance and eloquence—should be remembered
as the great seventeenth-century champion of free speech, while
most have forgotten the names Lilburne, Overton, and Walwyn."
I'm not sure of the answer to your question. But my understanding is that the Levellers's view of free speech was more expansive than Milton's. Milton opposed prior restraints—which was still radical for his time—but said those books "which otherwise come forth, if they be found mischievous and libellous, the fire and the executioner will be the timeliest and the most effectual remedy, that mans prevention can use."
Excellent takedown of Dabhoiwala's chronology here. The Leveller connection is especially devastating becuase it flips the entire privilege narrative on its head. I remember reading some of Lilburne's trial transcripts in grad school and being struck by how modern his arguments sounded, almost like reading a FIRE brief from 2023 transplanted to the 1650s. The fact that these arguments came from persecuted radicals rather than comfortable elites really does matter for understanding whether robust free speech is inherently about protecting power.
I'm glad that you are calling out these, unfortunately, frequent mistakes made by people who are more interested in demonising what they see as linked— falsely or not—to the Western liberal tradition, and who have zero interest in rigorous research and in-depth analysis if it contradicts their ideology.
I thoroughly enjoyed your book, Jacob, and I’ll be writing a commentary soon.
Thanks Karin! Looking forward to reading your commentary.