Home Chapter 5. Censorship in Classical Antiquity
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Chapter 5. Censorship in Classical Antiquity

View more publications by Rutgers University Press
Democracy Ancient and Modern
This chapter is in the book Democracy Ancient and Modern
92The semantic field of the word “censorship” tends to be a narrow one today, and its emotional overtone is negative. The narrowness is enshrined in the Oxford English Dictionary (though not the pejo-rative tone). All that my 1955 edition of the Shorter OED has to say is: “The office or function of a censor; official supervision.” And under “censor” there are four entries: 1) the Roman official of that name, and in a transferred sense, “one who has the supervision of the conduct of a body of people as in some colleges”; 2) an official who inspects books, journals, plays, and so forth or who censors private correspondence (as in wartime); 3) the “obsolete” sense of “a critic; a faultfinder”; and 4) the Freudian sense.For the historian and the sociologist, however, this, will not do on several grounds. A definition of “censor” and “censorship” is inadequate that has no place for either Mary Whitehouse (who is decidedly not obsolete), or the power of what anthropologists have taught us to call “taboos,” or the possibility of manipulating the law of libel or the law of blasphemy for purposes of censorship, or the economic restraints that may prevent publication and distribution of books, journals and so forth. The narrow administrative definition A slightly revised version of a lecture originally published in the Times Literary Supplement, July29, 1977.chaPteR 5Censorship in Classical Antiquity
© 2019 Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

92The semantic field of the word “censorship” tends to be a narrow one today, and its emotional overtone is negative. The narrowness is enshrined in the Oxford English Dictionary (though not the pejo-rative tone). All that my 1955 edition of the Shorter OED has to say is: “The office or function of a censor; official supervision.” And under “censor” there are four entries: 1) the Roman official of that name, and in a transferred sense, “one who has the supervision of the conduct of a body of people as in some colleges”; 2) an official who inspects books, journals, plays, and so forth or who censors private correspondence (as in wartime); 3) the “obsolete” sense of “a critic; a faultfinder”; and 4) the Freudian sense.For the historian and the sociologist, however, this, will not do on several grounds. A definition of “censor” and “censorship” is inadequate that has no place for either Mary Whitehouse (who is decidedly not obsolete), or the power of what anthropologists have taught us to call “taboos,” or the possibility of manipulating the law of libel or the law of blasphemy for purposes of censorship, or the economic restraints that may prevent publication and distribution of books, journals and so forth. The narrow administrative definition A slightly revised version of a lecture originally published in the Times Literary Supplement, July29, 1977.chaPteR 5Censorship in Classical Antiquity
© 2019 Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick
Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.36019/9781978802360-007/html?licenseType=restricted&srsltid=AfmBOooWo_DljQ6dqeSlsUKLYHoDjBrV4OTnsjnpItTWR4RIjgduq8ZY
Scroll to top button