26
titles whereas before there had been only three; the number of pamphlets published “grew
exponentially”; the number of
people able to read doubled; and more and more people
owned books.
59
So, despite the censorship laws, many
philosophes
were able to get their
work published, though they had to be secretive and were still often
punished for what
they wrote. Therefore, it is not surprising that many called for a widening of toleration
and freedom.
Many
philosophes
argued for greater toleration and freedom of expression, but
these
philosophes
can be divided into two different “Enlightenment parties.” On one side,
philosophes such as Voltaire and Montesquieu were part
of the Moderate Enlightenment,
whereas Bahrdt argued in the vein of the Radical Enlightenment. In general, the
moderates were in favor of keeping some restrictions on freedom of expression. They
wanted changes in the current system of censorship and often favored toleration and
freedom for elite thinkers only out of a fear that the masses were incapable of using
reason. On the other hand, radicals wanted complete freedom of expression for everyone,
allowing only the minimum restraints required to maintain order.
As Jonathan Israel puts
it, “[the] Radical Enlightenment unreservedly endorsed freedom of expression, thought,
and the press, seeing this as what best aids discussion and investigation, through debate,
law-making, and social amelioration” for every individual.
60
Essentially, radicals were in
favor of a complete overhaul of the censorship system that existed at the time.
Moderate
and radical thinkers had vastly different ideas of what should be allowed and for whom,
which meant that they often were not fond of each other’s ideas. Be that as it may, both
59
Helena Rosenblatt, “Rousseau, Constant, and the Emergence of the Modern Notion of Free Speech,” in
Freedom of Speech: The History of an Idea
, ed. Powers, 133.
60
Israel,
Democratic Enlightenment
19-20.
27
groups were strongly opposed to censorship, and it is censorship that helped shape these
two strains of thought, because “all across
the continent, albeit with varying degrees of
intensity, unacceptable views were suppressed and publishers, printers, and booksellers,
as well as authors of books embodying illicit ideas punished.”
61
Despite their differences, both moderates
and radicals had a common foe, and
they had to work within the system to make their arguments for toleration and freedom of
expression. Some of those arguments include several appeals to religion as well as the
promotion of commerce. For example, some arguments said that the “free circulation of
ideas leads to the finding of (Protestant) truth and the refutation of (Roman Catholic)
error.”
62
If people were sure that what they believed is true, then they had nothing to fear
from
a free press, because debate would lead to “the public affirmation of truth.”
63
Other
arguments claimed that censorship of the press could lead to cultural stagnation; freedom
to read what one likes would lead to knowledgeable and disciplined subjects; books
would still be published illegally and people might read something simply because it was
forbidden; government control of the press could lead to expensive and bad books; a free
press could prevent arbitrary government because it enabled
the people to be informed;
and giving people some freedom could prevent more extreme action, such as rioting and
rebellion.
64
Of course, this is just a sampling of some of the types of arguments used by
the
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: