Annie Besant: Proposing New Government and Law Changes

Purpose of English Republicanism

Both English Republicanism and Is the Bible Indictable? (1884) were written by Annie Besant as arguments to social problems she observed. She made her work easily accessible, charging very little. As well as being easily bought, Besant’s work was also easily understood. Her language and references were appropriate for the general public of her time. Besant’s main reason for writing English Republicanism was to urge readers to accept the inevitable, which was that England would become a Republic. She wanted to teach readers of the benefits of having a Republic while acknowledging the problems with their current situation, the Crown. Besant believed that the government in England was already very close to being a Republic, they just needed to inform the people of this so that they could rise up and be ready to take control when the throne is finally empty. She was for a nation ran by the people. By saying the people, Besant did not just main the higher class. She was for the advancement of the general public, introducing the idea that one of a Republic’s strongest assets was that it encouraged the education, in all areas including politics, of the general public. Besant believed that a Republic was the best form of government for any country, especially her England. She wanted to let the people, all the people, know and understand this form of government and she wanted them to make the decision to accept it, rather than continue to be forced to accept the government. This take on change is similar to what we have seen throughout this sphere. A change cannot be made fully until the original problem is seen. Besant furthers this thought to also include the importance in understanding the effects of the change.

Synopsis of Is The Bible Indictable? and the purpose behind it

Besant begins by introducing a court case: The case was The Queen against Bradlaugh and Besant. Sir Alexander Cockburn was the Lord Chief Justice. In a note readers learn that the case was brought upon Bradlaugh (a close friend of Besant) and Besant because they published, and refused to stop publishing, a book by Dr. Knowlton about the prevention of pregnancy. After this introduction she quickly moves into a discussion about the unfair treatment of certain books compared to others. She bring to the reader’s attention how books that are cheap and easily bought by the poor are said to be indecent and are banned, where books on similar or even the same topics go unobjected if they are priced higher and marketed for upper classes. She alludes to the fact that the law as it stands seems to say that the poor are evil minded and corrupt and should not be tempted by these indecent books, while the rich need similar writings because they are helpful and necessary. The law, Besant believes, had taken it too far. Its marks for what was to be considered indecent could in fact be found in the most celebrated of literature and reading. She mentions authors whose books, under the law, would be considered obscene; for example, Swift, Fielding, Byron, and Shakespeare.

Besant goes on to accuse The Bible, under this law, of being obscene. She spends a lot of time recounting specific places throughout The Bible that could be seen as obscene, though she is careful to never give details about why it is indecent. She is also careful to often mention the trial and her current situation throughout her scrutinization of The Bible to remind readers why this is important and avoid coming across as simply lashing out against The Bible. In fact, after all of her examples, she lets the reader know that she is in no way aimed to bring down The Bible, or any other work, she just wanted to prove to readers that the Lord Chief Justice’s new law is unfair. By bringing The Bible into her argument so heavily, she is able to propose towards the end of her writing that it may be in the best interest of Christians for them to join her side seeing as how “easily assailable” (14) their sacred book is under this new law. From there she goes on to invite the police to charge those selling the books she has pointed out as obviously being obscene, as it is according to the law, and to prosecute them all. Or, if they will not, she suggests that they drop the case against herself and Bradlaugh. She ends by saying, “...I call on those who love freedom and desire knowledge, to join with us in over-ruling by statute the new judge-made law” (15). Here, the point to her entire argument is wrapped up. She wants all books to be seen as equal, and for the people to use their sense and see that this law is unfair.

Throughout both works, I saw connections to Gilman. For example, both women wrote to benefit the entirety of society, not simply one sex or social class. Both women also seem to bring about androgynous thinking. In fact, in Besant’s work, it is never mentioned or important that she is a woman writing. The arguments stand for themselves as worthy and right. Both women also were writing during strives for women’s suffrage in their respective countries. I am curious to know what Besant would have thought about Gilman’s ideas in Politics and Warfare.

Besant source: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/c/c-besant.html