1842—PrussiancensorshipCOMMENTSON
THELATESTPRUSSIANCENSORSHIPINSTRUCTIONWrittenbetweenJanuary15andFebruary10，1842。FirstpublishedinthesymposiumAnekdotazurneuestendeutschenPhilosophieundPublicistik，Bd。I，1843Wearenotoneofthosemalcontentswho，evenbeforetheappearanceofthenewPrussiancensorshipdecree，exclaim：TimeoDanaosetdonaferentes。Onthecontrary，sinceanexaminationofalreadypromulgatedlawsisapprovedinthenewinstruction，evenifitshouldprovenottoagreewiththegovernment抯views，wearemakingastartwiththisatonce。Censorshipisofficialcriticism；itsstandardsarecriticalstandards，hencetheyleastofallcanbeexemptedfromcriticism，beingonthesameplaneasthelatter。
Certainlyeveryonecanonlyapproveofthegeneraltrendexpressedintheintroductiontotheinstruction：揑norderalreadynowtofreethepressfromimproperrestrictions，whichareagainsttheintentionsoftheAll—Highest，HisMajestytheKing，byasupremeorderissuedtotheroyalstateministryonthe10thofthismonth，hasbeenpleasedtodisapproveexpresslyofanyundueconstraintontheactivityofwritersand，recognisingthevalueandneedoffrankanddecentpublicity，hasempoweredustodirectthecensorsanewtodueobservanceofArticleIIofthecensorshipdecreeofOctober18，1819。？Certainly！Ifcensorshipisanecessity，frankliberalcensorshipisstillmorenecessary。
Whatmightimmediatelyarousesomesurpriseisthedateofthelawcited；itisdatedOctober18，1819。What？Isitperhapsalawwhichconditionsoftimemadeitnecessarytorepeal？Apparentlynot；forthecensorsareonlydirected？anew？toensureobservanceofit。Hencethelawhasexisteduntil1842，butithasnotbeenobserved，forithasbeencalledtomind搃norderalreadynow？tofreethepressfromimproperrestrictions，whichareagainsttheintentionsoftheAll—Highest。
Thepress，inspiteofthelaw，hasuntilnowbeensubjectedtoimproperrestrictions？thatistheimmediateconclusiontobedrawnfromthisintroduction。
Isthisthenanargumentagainstthelaworagainstthecensors？Wecanhardlyassertthelatter。Fortwenty—twoyearsillegalactionshavebeencommittedbyanauthoritywhichhasinitschargethehighestinterestofthecitizens，theirminds，byanauthoritywhichregulates，evenmorethantheRomancensorsdid，notonlythebehaviourofindividualcitizens，buteventhebehaviourofthepublicmind。Cansuchunscrupulousbehaviourofthehighestservantsofthestate，suchathoroughgoinglackofloyalty，bepossibleinthewell—organisedPrussianstate，whichisproudofitsadministration？Orhasthestate，incontinualdelusion，selectedthemostincapablepersonsforthemostdifficultposts？Or，finally，hasthesubjectofthePrussianstatenopossibilityofcomplainingagainstillegalactions？AreallPrussianwriterssoignorantandfoolishastobeunacquaintedwiththelawswhichconcerntheirexistence，oraretheytoocowardlytodemandtheirobservance？
Ifweputtheblameonthecensors，notonlytheirownhonour，butthehonourofthePrussianstate，andofthePrussianwriters，iscompromised。
Moreover，themorethantwentyyearsofillegalbehaviourofthecensorsindefianceofthelawwouldprovideargumentumadhominemthatthepressneedsotherguaranteesthansuchgeneralinstructionsforsuchirresponsiblepersons；itwouldprovidetheproofthatthereisabasicdefectinthenatureofthecensorshipwhichnolawcanremedy。
If，however，thecensorswerecapable，andthelawwasnogood，whyappealtoitafreshforremovaloftheevilithascaused？
Orshould，perhaps，theobjectivedefectsofaninstitutionbeascribedtoindividuals，inorderfraudulentlytogivetheimpressionofanimprovementwithoutmakinganyessentialimprovement？Itisthehabitofpseudo—liberalism，whencompelledtomakeconcessions，tosacrificepersons，theinstruments，andtopreservethethingitself，theinstitution。
Inthiswaytheattentionofasuperficialpublicisdiverted。
Resentmentagainstthethingitselfbecomesresentmentagainstpersons。
Itisbelievedthatbyachangeofpersonsthethingitselfhasbeenchanged。
Attentionisdeflectedfromthecensorshiptoindividualcensors，andthosepettywritersofprogressbycommandallowthemselvespettyaudacitiesagainstthosewhohavefallenoutoffavourandperformjustasmanyactsofhomagetowardsthegovernment。
Yetanotherdifficultyconfrontsus。
Somenewspapercorrespondentstakethecensorshipinstructionforthenewcensorshipdecreeitself。Theyaremistaken，buttheirmistakeispardonable。
ThecensorshipdecreeofOctober18，1819，wastocontinueonlyprovisionallyuntil1824，anditwouldhaveremainedaprovisionallawtothepresentdayifwehadnotlearntfromtheinstructionnowbeforeusthatithasneverbeenimplemented。
The1819decreewasalsoaninterimmeasure，withthedifferencethatinitscaseadefiniteperiodofexpectationoffiveyearswasindicated，whereasinthenewinstructionitisofunlimitedduration，andthatatthattimelawsonthefreedomofthepressweretheobjectofexpectationwhereasnowitislawsoncensorship。
Othernewspapercorrespondentsregardthecensorshipinstructionasarefurbishingoftheoldcensorshipdecree。Theirerrorwillberefutedbytheinstructionitself。
Weregardthecensorshipinstructionastheanticipatedspiritofthepresumablecensorshiplaw。Insodoingweadherestrictlytothespiritofthe1819censorshipdecree，accordingtowhichlawsandordinancesareofequalsignificanceforthepress。（Seetheabove—mentioneddecree，ArticleXVI，No。2。）
Letusreturntotheinstruction。揂ccordingtothislaw，？namely，ArticleII，搕hecensorshipshouldnotpreventseriousandmodestinvestigationoftruth，norimposeundueconstraintonwriters，orhinderthebooktradefromoperatingfreely。？Theinvestigationoftruthwhichshouldnotbepreventedbythecensorshipismoreparticularlydefinedasonewhichisseriousandmodest。
Boththesedefinitionsconcernnotthecontentoftheinvestigation，butrathersomethingwhichliesoutsideitscontent。Fromtheoutsettheydrawtheinvestigationawayfromtruthandmakeitpayattentiontoanunknownthirdthing。Aninvestigationwhichcontinuallyhasitseyesfixedonthisthirdelement，towhichthelawgivesalegitimatecapriciousness，willitnotlosesightofthetruth？Isitnotthefirstdutyoftheseekeraftertruthtoaimdirectlyatthetruth，withoutlookingtotherightorleft？WillInotforgettheessenceofthematter，ifIamobligednottoforgettostateitintheprescribedform？
Truthisaslittlemodestaslight，andtowardswhomshoulditbeso？
Towardsitself？Verumindexsuietfalsi。Therefore，towardsfalsehood？
Ifmodestyisthecharacteristicfeatureoftheinvestigation，thenitisasignthattruthisfearedratherthanfalsehood。ItisameansofdiscouragementateverystepforwardItake。Itistheimpositionontheinvestigationofafearofreachingaresult，ameansofguardingagainstthetruth。
Further，truthisgeneral，itdoesnotbelongtomealone，itbelongstoall，itownsme，Idonotownit。Mypropertyistheform，whichismyspiritualindividuality。Lestylec抏stl抙omme。Yes，indeed！
Thelawpermitsmetowrite，onlyImustwriteinastylethatisnotmine！
Imayshowmyspiritualcountenance，butImustfirstsetitintheprescribedfolds！Whatmanofhonourwillnotblushatthispresumptionandnotprefertohidehisheadunderthetoga？UnderthetogaatleastonehasaninklingofaJupiter抯head。Theprescribedfoldsmeannothingbutbonnemineamauvaisjeu。
Youadmirethedelightfulvariety，theinexhaustiblerichesofnature。
Youdonotdemandthattheroseshouldsmellliketheviolet，butmustthegreatestrichesofall，thespirit，existinonlyonevariety？
Iamhumorous，butthelawbidsmewriteseriously。Iamaudacious，butthelawcommandsthatmystylebemodest。Grey，allgrey，isthesole，therightfulcolouroffreedom。Everydropofdewonwhichthesunshinesglistenswithaninexhaustibleplayofcolours，butthespiritualsun，howevermanythepersonsandwhatevertheobjectsinwhichitisrefracted，mustproduceonlytheofficialcolour！Themostessentialformofthespiritischeerfulness，light，butyoumakeshadowthesolemanifestationofthespirit；itmustbeclothedonlyinblack，yetamongflowerstherearenoblackones。Theessenceofthespiritisalwaystruthitselfbutwhatdoyoumakeitsessence？Modesty。Onlythemeanwretchismodest，saysGoethe，andyouwanttoturnthespiritintosuchameanwretch？OrifmodestyistobethemodestyofgeniusofwhichSchillerspeaks，thenfirstofallturnallyourcitizensandaboveallyourcensorsintogeniuses。Butthenthemodestyofgeniusdoesnotconsistinwhateducatedspeechconsistsin，theabsenceofaccentanddialect，butratherinspeakingwiththeaccentofthematterandinthedialectofitsessence。Itconsistsinforgettingmodestyandimmodestyandgettingtotheheartofthematter。Theuniversalmodestyofthemindisreason，thatuniversalliberalityofthoughtwhichreactstoeachthingaccordingtothelatter抯essentialnature。
Further，ifseriousnessisnottocomeunderTristramShandy抯definitionaccordingtowhichitisahypocriticalbehaviourofthebodyinordertoconcealdefectsofthesoul，butsignifiesseriousnessinsubstance，thentheentireprescriptionfallstotheground。ForItreattheludicrousseriouslywhenItreatitludicrously，andthemostseriousimmodestyofthemindistobemodestinthefaceofimmodesty。
Seriousandmodest！Whatfluctuating，relativeconcepts！Wheredoesseriousnessceaseandjocularitybegin？Wheredoesmodestyceaseandimmodestybegin？Wearedependentonthetemperamentofthecensor。Itwouldbeaswrongtoprescribetemperamentforthecensorastoprescribestyleforthewriter。Ifyouwanttobeconsistentinyouraestheticcriticism，thenforbidalsoatooseriousandtoomodestinvestigationofthetruth，fortoogreatseriousnessisthemostludicrousthingofall，andtoogreatmodestyisthebitterestirony。
Finally，thestartingpointisacompletelypervertedandabstractviewoftruthitself。Allobjectsofthewriter抯activityarecomprehendedintheonegeneralconcept搕ruth？Evenifweleavethe，subjectivesideoutofaccount，viz。，thatoneandthesameobjectisrefracteddifferentlyasseenbydifferentpersonsanditsdifferentaspectsconvertedintoasmanydifferentspiritualcharacters，oughtthecharacteroftheobjecttohavenoinfluence，noteventheslightest，ontheinvestigation？Truthincludesnotonlytheresultbutalsothepathtoit。Theinvestigationoftruthmustitselfbetrue；trueinvestigationisdevelopedtruth，thedispersedelementsofwhicharebroughttogetherintheresult。Andshouldnotthemannerofinvestigationalteraccordingtotheobject？Iftheobjectisamatterforlaughter，themannerhastoseemserious，iftheobjectisdisagreeable，ithastobemodest。Thusyouviolatetherightoftheobjectasyoudothatofthesubject。Youconceivetruthabstractlyandturnthespiritintoanexaminingmagistrate，whodrawsupadryprotocolofit。
Oristherenoneedofthismetaphysicaltwisting？Istruthtobeunderstoodasbeingsimplywhatthegovernmentdecrees，sothatinvestigationisaddedasasuperfluous，intrusiveelement，butwhichforetiquette抯sakeisnottobeentirelyrejected？Italmostseemsso。Forinvestigationisunderstoodinadvanceasincontradictiontotruthandthereforeappearswiththesuspiciousofficialaccompanimentofseriousnessandmodesty，whichofcourseisfittingforthelaymaninrelationtothepriest。Thegovernment抯understandingistheonlystatereason。True，incertaincircumstancesoftime，concessionshavetobemadetoadifferentunderstandinganditschatter，butthisunderstandingcomesonthesceneconsciousoftheconcessionandofitsownlackofright，modestandsubmissive，seriousandtedious。IfVoltairesays：揟ouslesgenressontbons，exceptelegenreennuyeux？，inthepresentcasethegenreennuyantbecomestheexclusiveone，asisalreadysufficientlyprovedbythereferencetothe損roceedingsoftheRhineProvinceAssembly？
WhynotratherthegoodoldGermancurialisticstyle？Youmaywritefreely，butatthesametimeeverywordmustbeacurtseytotheliberalcensorship，whichallowsyoutoexpressyourequallyseriousandmodestopinions。Indeed，donotloseyourfeelingofreverence！
Thelegalemphasisisnotontruthbutonmodestyandseriousness。
Henceeverythingherearousessuspicion：seriousness，modestyand，aboveall，truth，theindefinitescopeofwhichseemstoconcealaverydefinitebutverydoubtfulkindoftruth。揟hecensorship，？theinstructionstatesfurther，搒houldthereforebynomeansbeimplementedinanarrow—mindedinterpretationgoingbeyondthislaw。？BythislawismeantinthefirstplaceArticleIIofthe1819decree，butlatertheinstructionreferstothe搒pirit？ofthecensorshipdecreeasawhole。Thetwoprovisionsareeasilycombined。ArticleIIistheconcentratedspiritofthecensorshipdecree，thefurthersubdivisionandmoredetailedspecificationofthisspiritbeingfoundintheotherarticles。Webelievetheabove—mentionedspiritcannotbebettercharacterisedthanbythefollowingexpressionsofit：ArticleVII。"ThefreedomfromcensorshiphithertoaccordedtheAcademyofSciencesandtheuniversitiesisherebysuspendedforfiveyears。"
*10。揟hepresenttemporarydecisionshallremaininforceforfiveyearsfromtoday。BeforetheexpiryofthistermthereshallbeathoroughinvestigationintheBundestagofhowthekindofprovisionsregardingfreedomofthepressproposedinArticle18oftheBundesaktecouldbeputintoeffect，andtherebyadefinitedecisionreachedonthelegitimatelimitsoffreedomofthepressinGermany。？Alawwhichsuspendsfreedomofthepresswhereithashithertoexisted，andmakesitsuperfluousthroughcensorshipwhereitwastobebroughtintoexistence，canhardlybecalledonefavourabletothepress。Moreover，§；10directlyadmitsthatprovisionallyacensorshiplawwillbeintroducedinsteadofthefreedomofthepressproposedinArticle18oftheBundesakteandperhapsintendedtobeputintoeffectatsometime。Thisquidproquoatleastrevealsthatthecircumstancesofthetimecalledforrestrictionsonthepress，andthatthedecreeowesitsorigintodistrustofthepress。Thisannoyanceisevenexcusedbybeingtermedprovisional，validforonlyfiveyears？unfortunatelyithaslastedfor22years。
Theverynextlineoftheinstructionshowshowitbecomesinvolvedinacontradiction。Ontheonehand，itwillnothavethecensorshipimplementedinanyinterpretationthatgoesbeyondthedecree，andatthesametimeitprescribessuchexcess：揟hecensorcanverywellpermitafrankdiscussionalsoofinternalaffairs。？Thecensorcan，buthedoesnothaveto，thereisnonecessity。
Eventhiscautiousliberalismverydefinitelygoesnotonlybeyondthespiritbutbeyondthedefinitedemandsofthecensorshipdecree。Theoldcensorshipdecree，tobeexact，ArticleIIcitedintheinstruction，notonlydoesnotpermitanyfrankdiscussionofPrussianaffairs，butnotevenofChineseaffairs。揌ere，？namely，amongviolationsofthesecurityofthePrussianstateandtheGermanFederatedStates，theinstructioncomments，揳reincludedallattemptstopresentinafavourablelightpartiesexistinginanycountrywhichworkfortheoverthrowofthestatesystem。？IsthisthewayafrankdiscussionofChineseorTurkishnationalaffairsispermitted？AndifevensuchremoterelationsendangertheprecarioussecurityoftheGermanFederation，howcananywordofdisapprovalaboutinternalaffairsfailtodoso？
Thus，ontheonehand，theinstructiongoesbeyondthespiritofArticleIIofthecensorshipdecreeinthedirectionofliberalism？anexcesswhosecontentwillbecomeclearlater，butwhichisalreadyformallysuspiciousinasmuchasitclaimstobetheconsequenceofArticleII，ofwhichwiselyonlythefirsthalfisquoted，thecensorhoweverbeingreferredatthesametimetothearticleitself。Ontheotherhand，theinstructionjustasmuchgoesbeyondthecensorshipdecreeinanilliberaldirectionandaddsnewpressrestrictionstotheoldones。
Intheabove—quotedArticleIIofthecensorshipdecreeitisstated：揑tsaim？（thatofthecensorship）搃stocheckallthatiscontrarytothegeneralprinciplesofreligion，irrespectiveoftheopinionsanddoctrinesofindividualreligiouspartiesandsectspermittedinthestate。"In1819，rationalismstillprevailed，whichunderstoodbyreligioningeneraltheso—calledreligionofreason。Thisrationalistpointofviewisalsothatofthecensorshipdecree，whichatanyrateissoinconsistentastoadopttheirreligiouspointofviewwhileitsaimistoprotectreligion。
Foritisalreadycontrarytothegeneralprinciplesofreligiontoseparatethemfromthepositivecontentandparticularfeaturesofreligion，sinceeachreligionbelievesitselfdistinguishedfromthevariousotherwould—bereligionsbyitsspecialnature，andthatpreciselyitsparticularfeaturesmakeitthetruereligion。InquotingArticleII，thenewcensorshipinstructionomitstherestrictiveadditionalclausebywhichindividualreligiouspartiesandsectsareexcludedfrominviolability，butitdoesnotstopatthisandmakesthefollowingcomment：揂nythingaimedinafrivolous，hostilewayagainsttheChristianreligioningeneral，oragainstaparticulararticleoffaith，mustnotbetolerated。？TheoldcensorshipdecreedoesnotmentiontheChristianreligionatall；onthecontrary，itdistinguishesbetweenreligionandallindividualreligiouspartiesandsects。ThenewcensorshipinstructiondoesnotonlyconvertreligioningeneralintotheChristianreligion，butaddsfurtheraparticulararticleoffaith。AdelightfulproductofourChristianisedscience！Whowillstilldenythatithasforgednewfettersforthepress？Religion，itissaid，mustnotbeattacked，whetheringeneralorinparticular。Ordoyouperhapsbelievethatthewordsfrivolousandhostilehavemadethenewfettersintochainsofroses？Howadroitlyitiswritten：frivolous，hostile！Theadjectivefrivolousappealstothecitizen抯senseofdecorum，itistheexotericwordfortheworldatlarge，buttheadjectivehostileiswhisperedintothecensor抯
ear，itisthelegalinterpretationoffrivolity。Weshallfindinthisinstructionmoreexamplesofthissubtletact，whichoffersthepublicasubjectivewordthatmakesitblushandoffersthecensoranobjectivewordthatmakestheauthorgrowpale。Inthiswayevenlettresdecachetcouldbesettomusic。
Andinwhataremarkablecontradictionthecensorshipinstructionhasentangleditself！Itisonlyahalf—heartedattackthatisfrivolous，onewhichkeepstoindividualaspectsofaphenomenon，withoutbeingsufficientlyprofoundandserioustotouchtheessenceofthematter；itispreciselyanattackonamerelyparticularfeatureassuchthatisfrivolous。
If，therefore，anattackontheChristianreligioningeneralisforbidden，itfollowsthatonlyafrivolousattackonitispermitted。Ontheotherhand，anattackonthegeneralprinciplesofreligion，onitsessence，onaparticularfeatureinsofarasitisamanifestationoftheessence，isahostileattack。Religioncanonlybeattackedinahostileorafrivolousway，thereisnothirdway。Thisinconsistencyinwhichtheinstructionentanglesitselfis，ofcourse，onlyaseemingone，foritdependsonthesemblancethatingeneralsomekindofattackonreligionisstillpermitted。Butanunbiassedglancesufficestorealisethatthissemblanceisonlyasemblance。Religionmustnotbeattacked，whetherinahostileorafrivolousway，whetheringeneralorinparticular，thereforenotatall。
Butiftheinstruction，inopencontradictiontothe1819censorshipdecree，imposesnewfettersonthephilosophicalpress，itshouldatleastbesufficientlyconsistentastofreethereligiouspressfromtheoldfettersimposedonitbytheformerrationalistdecree。Foritdeclaresthattheaimofthecensorshipisalso搕oopposefanaticaltransferenceofreligiousarticlesoffaithintopoliticsandtheconfusionofideasresultingtherefrom？Thenewinstruction，itistrue，iscleverenoughnottomentionthisprovisioninitscommentary，neverthelessitacceptsitincitingArticleII。Whatdoesfanaticaltransferenceofreligiousarticlesoffaithintopoliticsmean？Itmeansmakingreligiousarticlesoffaith，bytheirspecificnature，adeterminingfactorofthestate；itmeansmakingtheparticularnatureofareligionthemeasuring—rodofthestate。
Theoldcensorshipdecreecouldrightlyopposethisconfusionofideas，foritleftaparticularreligion，itsdefinitecontent，opentocriticism。
Theolddecree，however，wasbasedontheshallow，superficialrationalismwhichyouyourselvesdespised。Butyou，whobasethestateevenindetailsonfaithandChristianity，whowanttohaveaChristianstate，howcanyoustillrecommendthecensorshiptopreventthisconfusionofideas？
TheconfusionofthepoliticalwiththeChristian—religiousprinciplehasindeedbecomeofficialdoctrine。Wewanttomakethisconfusionclearinafewwords。SpeakingonlyofChristianityastherecognisedreligion，youhaveinyourstateCatholicsandProtestants。Bothmakeequalclaimsonthestate，justastheyhaveequaldutiestoit。Theybothleavetheirreligiousdifferencesoutofaccountanddemandequallythatthestateshouldbetherealisationofpoliticalandjuridicalreason。ButyouwantaChristianstate。IfyourstateisonlyLutheran—Christian，thenfortheCatholicitbecomesachurchtowhichhedoesnotbelong，whichhemustrejectasheretical，andwhoseinnermostessenceiscontrarytohim。Itisjustthesametheotherwayround。If，however，youmakethegeneralspiritofChristianitytheparticularspiritofyourstate，youneverthelessdecideonthebasisofyourProtestantviewswhatthegeneralspiritofChristianityis。YoudefinewhataChristianstateis，althoughtherecentperiodhastaughtyouthatsomegovernmentofficialsareunabletodrawthelinebetweenthereligiousandthesecular，betweenstateandchurch。Inregardtothisconfusionofideas，itwasnotcensorsbutdiplomatswhohad，nottodecide，buttonegotiate。Finally，youareadoptingahereticalpointofviewwhenyourejectdefinitedogmaasnon—essential。IfyoucallyourstateageneralChristianstate，youareadmittingwithadiplomaticturnofphrasethatitisun—Christian。Henceeitherforbidreligiontobeintroducedatallintopolitics？butyoudon抰wantthat，foryouwanttobasethestatenotonfreereason，butonfaith，religionbeingforyouthegeneralsanctionforwhatexists？orallowalsothefanaticalintroductionofreligionintopolitics。Letreligionconcernitselfwithpoliticsinitsownway，butyoudon抰wantthateither。
Religionhastosupportthesecularauthority，withoutthelattersubordinatingitselftoreligion。Onceyouintroducereligionintopolitics，itisintolerable，indeedirreligious，arrogancetowanttodeterminesecularlyhowreligionhastoactinpoliticalmatters。Hewhowantstoallyhimselfwithreligionowingtoreligiousfeelingsmustconcedeitthedecisivevoiceinallquestions，ordoyouperhapsunderstandbyreligionthecultofyourownunlimitedauthorityandgovernmentalwisdom？
Thereisyetanotherwayinwhichtheorthodoxspiritofthenewcensorshipinstructioncomesintoconflictwiththerationalismoftheoldcensorshipdecree。Thelatterincludesundertheaimofthecensorshipalsosuppressionof搘hatoffendsagainstmoralityandgoodmanners？TheinstructionreproducesthispassageasaquotationfromArticleII。Itscommentary，however，whilemakingadditionsasregardsreligion，containsomissionsasregardsmorality。Offendingagainstmoralityandgoodmannersbecomesviolationof損roprietyandmannersandexternaldecorum？Onesees：moralityassuch，astheprincipleofaworldthatobeysitsownlaws，disappears，andinplaceoftheessenceexternalmanifestationsmaketheirappearance，policerespectability，conventionaldecorum。Honourtowhomhonourisdue，werecognisetrueconsistencyhere。ThespecificallyChristianlegislatorcannotrecognisemoralityasanindependentspherethatissacrosanctinitself，forheclaimsthatitsinnergeneralessencebelongstoreligion。Independentmoralityoffendsagainstthegeneralprinciplesofreligion，buttheparticularconceptsofreligionconflictwithmorality。
Moralityrecognisesonlyitsownuniversalandrationalreligion，andreligionrecognisesonlyitsparticularpositivemorality。Hence，accordingtothisinstruction，thecensorshipmustrejecttheintellectualheroesofmorality，suchasKant，FichteandSpinoza，asirreligious，asviolatingpropriety，manners，andexternaldecorum。Allthesemoralistsstartoutfromacontradictioninprinciplebetweenmoralityandreligion，formoralityisbasedontheautonomyofthehumanmind，religiononitsheteronomy。
Letusturnfromtheseundesirableinnovationsofthecensorship？ontheonehand，theweakeningofitsmoralconscience，ontheotherhand，therigorousheighteningofitsreligiousconscience？towhatismorewelcome，theconcessions。It揻ollowsinparticularthatwritingsinwhichthestateadministrationisassessedasawholeorinitsindividualbranches，lawsthathavebeenorarestilltobepromulgatedareexaminedfortheirinnervalue，mistakesandmisconceptionsrevealed，improvementsindicatedorsuggested，arenottoberejectedbecausetheyarewritteninaspiritthatdoesnotagreewiththegovernment抯views，aslongastheirformulationisdecentandtheirtendencywell—meaning？Modestyandseriousnessofinvestigation？boththenewinstructionandthecensorshipdecreemakethisdemand，butfortheformerdecorousformulationisaslittlesufficientastruthofcontent。Foritthetendencyisthemaincriterion，indeeditisitsall—pervadingthought，whereasinthedecreeitselfnoteventhewordtendencyistobefound。
Nordoesthenewinstructionsaywhatconstitutestendency，buthowimportantitisforitmaybeseenfromthefollowingextract：揑nthisconnectionitisanindispensablepremisethatthetendencyofremonstrancesexpressedagainstmeasuresofthegovernmentshouldnotbespitefulormalevolent，butwell—intentioned，andgoodwillandinsightarerequiredofthecensorsothatheknowshowtodistinguishbetweentheonecaseandtheother。Consideringthis，thecensorsmustalsopayspecialattentiontotheformandtoneofwritingsforthepressandinsofaras，owingtopassion，vehemenceandarrogance，theirtendencyisfoundtobepernicious，mustnotallowthemtobeprinted。？Thewriter，therefore，hasfallenvictimtothemostfrightfulterrorism，andissubjectedtothejurisdictionofsuspicion。Lawsagainsttendency，lawsgivingnoobjectivestandards，arelawsofterrorism，suchaswereinventedowingtotheemergencyneedsofthestateunderRobespierreandthecorruptionofthestateundertheRomanemperors。Lawswhichmaketheirmaincriterionnotactionsassuch，buttheframeofmindofthedoer，arenothingbutpositivesanctionsforlawlessness。
BetterlikethatRussianTsartohaveeveryone抯beardcutoffbyCossacksinhisservicethantomakethestateofmindduetowhichIwearabeardthecriterionforthecutting。
OnlyinsofarasImanifestmyselfexternally，enterthesphereoftheactual，doIenterthesphereofthelegislator。Apartfrommyactions，Ihavenoexistenceforthelaw，amnoobjectforit。Myactionsarethesolethingbywhichthelawhasaholdonme；fortheyarethesolethingforwhichIdemandarightofexistence，arightofactuality，owingtowhichthereforeIcomewithinthesphereofactuallaw。Thelawwhichpunishestendency，however，punishesmenotonlyforwhatIdo，butforwhatIthink，apartfrommyactions。Itisthereforeaninsulttothehonourofthecitizen，avexatiouslawwhichthreatensmyexistence。