For the past three years, GW Foote & Co. Ltd have been working on a project to digitise the complete run of print versions of the Freethinker from 1881 to 2014. This project has now been completed and everyone can access this extraordinary back catalogue free of charge here.

In the first instalment of this series, I explained my own interest in freethought literature and my continuing career as a part-time bookseller for over 40 years. I have had the privilege of handling thousands of freethought books, pamphlets, journals, and other ephemera. However, the occasions when I have come across past issues of the Freethinker have been remarkably few. I have handled early bound volumes just twice and even later examples are rare, with dealers often demanding prices best described as speculative. I have asked myself why this is and guess that the attitude to newspapers is generally that you read them and then throw them away.

What is more, the printed Freethinker was always published in a relatively large format—the first copies were foolscap size (approximately 34 x 20 cm). This lasted for many years and made them difficult to store. The copies I have come across have almost always been bound volumes sold at the end of the calendar year. There were two types of these, one leather bound and one bound in sturdy green cloth. The former did not age well, with the leather cracking and the boards detaching, but the latter stood the test of time. I am delighted to say that one of the two sets I have handled still adorns my bookshelves and continues to provide me with hours of instruction, distraction, and entertainment.

If you agree that the Freethinker has been the dominant voice of British secularism and freethought for 143 years, and that secularism and freethought are central to a free and democratic society, then the Freethinker is precious, and it is troubling that up to now the archive has been so difficult to access. For most, it has meant an arduous physical visit to a copyright library. This is why the conclusion of the GW Foote & Co. digitisation project is cause for cheers and celebration.

As a tentative pointer to what readers might enjoy about the archive, I offer the following comments on the Freethinker’s history and an indication of what I have discovered over the years in my own printed collection.

In a previous article, I wrote of George Willam Foote’s (1850-1915) early life, his founding of the Freethinker in 1881, and his year-long imprisonment for blasphemy. An additional matter that deserves recognition is that Foote’s actions involved a large element of self-sacrifice. He was a cultivated, bookish man, a librarian with refined literary tastes who wrote beautifully. For him, the abrasive, satirical, and outrageous style of the new journal was initially alien. However, he was so incensed by the treatment of the President of the National Secular Society (NSS), Charles Bradlaugh, and the deprivation of Bradlaugh’s right to sit as an MP for Northampton, that he determined to take the fight to the ‘bigots’.

He was also influenced by the established tone of freethought publications, epitomised by George Jacob Holyoake’s (1817-1906) writings which were thoughtful, worthy, totally lacking in humour, and, for many, rather boring. Foote reasoned that humour was a devastating weapon when employed against pompous authority figures in the established church and against religion in general. He reasoned that nobody takes seriously an individual or idea that has been laughed at and he also noted the satirical power of cartoons, which he was to employ with great effect and which led to his conviction for blasphemy. Some things never change; cartoons have not lost their power to provoke in the modern world.

Foote’s years as editor were not only characterised by his pungent attacks on the religious and religion. After his accession to the NSS Presidency in 1890, the Freethinker emerged as the NSS’s ‘in-house’ journal, acting as a type of noticeboard providing details of lectures, meetings, and publications. I particularly enjoy Joseph Mazzini Wheeler’s tightly written historical and biographical articles. Here was a man who grasped the significance of the intellectual and historical traditions of freethought. It is a great pity that his poor health and early death scuppered his plans to write a history of those traditions.

By the beginning of the First World War, Foote was ailing. Although he nominally remained editor, he had relocated to Westcliff-on-Sea for the sea air and occasionally commuted into London. Much of the actual editorial work and writing was being carried on by his sub-editor and loyal deputy, Chapman Cohen (1868-1954). Cohen formally took over the editor’s position and became President of the NSS when Foote died in 1915. He was known to a generation as CC, remaining editor until 1951. The Freethinker had had just two editors in its first 70 years. 

Like Foote, Cohen came to dominate the journal and make it his own, but there were differences in approach, substance, and style.  By the time of Cohen’s accession, the days when freethought was associated with radical political campaigns and working-class activism were long past. CC had little or no contact with politicians and always resisted political interventions in his many public meetings. His writings were characterised by a relatively sober critique of the illogicality, contradictions, and self-serving nature of religion and the religious. His arguments were rooted in philosophy, natural and social science, and literature. Foote’s biting satire was no more, and the cartoons long forgotten.

To my mind, Cohen’s greatest attribute was his ability to make the logical case for freethought in terms accessible to general readers. He never talked down, he just wrote logically and clearly in elegant, plain English that all could understand. Forty years ago, when I started book dealing, there were a few older customers who knew him. More than once I heard him described as ‘my greatest teacher’. To this, I would add that there was not a freethinking argument advanced by Bertrand Russell that CC had not made before. This is not to belittle Russell; rather, it is to recognise Cohen. For those who want to understand the case for atheism and the dangers of religion, just go to the Cohen years in the archive.

Before moving on, I must recognise CC’s sheer hard work. Each week through the 1920s and 30s he edited 12 or 16 foolscap pages, some of which he wrote. He corresponded with readers, provided the NSS with leadership, and spent his weekends speaking publicly. In the summer, that meant ‘outdoors’, in parks and public spaces. From September to April, he was ‘indoors’, travelling the country giving lectures (sometimes three in a single weekend). For example, during the 1919-1920 indoor season he spoke at no less than 34 venues on more than 50 occasions. This was a pattern and level of activity that he maintained throughout the interwar years.

One contributor whose writings will be enjoyed by those with an interest in freethought and radical history is Herbert Cutner (1881-1969), although he did not restrict himself to historical subjects. He began his contributions in 1920 and by 1959 had had his 1,000^th article published.

Since Cohen’s resignation the turnover of editors has been more rapid, at times too rapid, although an important exception was Barry Duke’s 24-year tenure beginning in 1998. One editor who had a particular impact on me was Bill McIlroy (1928-2013), who served three separate terms totalling more than 14 years. As well as commissioning some important historical essays, and networking with individuals such as politicians Tony Benn and Michael Foot and academics Edward Royle and David Berman, Bill had a talent for punchy, witty headlines. Here are some examples to whet the appetite. ‘Pious Indoctrinators Tighten Grip on Classroom Captives’ (July 1988); ‘Embryology Bill: “Pro-Life” Dirty Tricks Campaign Aborted’ (May 1990); ‘Patten Links Crime Rate with Decline in Fear of Fire and Brimstone’ (May 1992).

Another relatively recent contributor who should be mentioned is Jim Herrick (1943-2023), a stalwart of the freethought and secularist movement in general, editor of the Freethinker from 1977 to 1981, and contributor on a diverse range of subjects over many years. I have particularly enjoyed Jim’s theatre reviews and historical articles. An invaluable contribution is his centenary history of the journal, Vision and Realism: A Hundred Years of the Freethinker, published in 1982.

So, the Freethinker lives on as a contemporary digital magazine rooted in its historical archive. Not everything published in its pages over the past 143 years has been impressive, although much of it is. But for me, it is a kind of intellectual treasure trove hidden away for too long and unavailable to even its most fervent supporters. There is nothing quite like it, with its alternative and critical take on religious belief, contemporary events, and social developments. It is also a testament to those who have gone before and who have on occasion sacrificed their own interests rather than surrender their intellectual freedom. The digital archive will be invaluable in keeping this intellectual tradition, once termed ‘the best of causes’, alive for a long time to come.

Editor: The Freethinker digital archive is a great achievement, the work of many hands. Though it, like the Freethinker today, is free to read, many resources were put into it and donations from readers are much appreciated. Anyone who donates over £500 will not only have our immense gratitude but will be publicly recognised, with their name proudly displayed in the archive itself (if they so desire). For technical reasons, please get in touch with us if you wish to donate £500 or more rather than using our usual donation form. Meanwhile, enjoy the archive.

The post Books from Bob’s Library #4: The ‘Freethinker’—over a century of issues now available as a digital archive appeared first on The Freethinker.

Chapman Cohen’s name is rarely heard today, yet for 34 years he was president of the National Secular Society (1915 -1949) and for 36 years served as editor of this magazine (1915 – 1951). Nobody has ever written more about freethought than ‘CC’.  He was arguably a real philosopher whose talents included the ability to explain abstract ideas in a language ordinary people could understand. It may be worth adding that he never received any recognition in academic circles. At the time, his working-class origins made that hard enough to attain; his association with an organisation like the NSS, which some regarded as disreputable, and with the editorship of the infidel Freethinker, made it impossible.

Despite holding the office of NSS president longer than anybody else ever has, Cohen rarely used the terms ‘secular’, ‘secularist’ or ‘secularism’, preferring ‘freethought’ and ‘freethinker’.  This may well have reflected his philosopher’s perspective, but also have indicated a preference for such a positive and relatively perspicuous term.  Contrast that with ‘secularism’, whose meaning is often seen as obscure or ambiguous.

The synthesis of much of Cohen’s writings is found in his wonderful 18 Pamphlets for the People.  Number 7, entitled ‘What is Freethought?’, was written shortly before the Second World War. Like the others, it occupied 16 tightly written pages of plain English. To summarise Cohen’s summary, freethought has no creed and is anathema to dogma. It stands not for the sanctity of opinion, but the right to express opinion: ‘Its essence lies in the denial of authority in the sphere of opinion.’  It follows that whatever opinion a person holds should be their own, otherwise they are a mere echo. 

As such, freethought may be regarded as virtuous, but it is also essential. Humanity’s progress depends on a variation in ideas, a sort of philosophical evolution, as new theories and ideas replace older redundant or obsolescent forms. Cohen tells us that true revolutionaries are not those who hurl bombs, but those who pioneer new ideas. He argues that real improvement in society depends on the creation of an environment hospitable to new ideas. From this perspective, Galileo, Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin were the true revolutionaries. ‘Free speech’ was a term employed less frequently in Cohen’s era, but it is clear from what he says that free speech is intrinsic to freethought. The two are inseparable, and equally important to human progress.

One of the NSS’s most eminent associates was the philosopher Bertrand Russell, whose connection to the organisation stretched over many years. It was on an NSS platform in 1927 that Russell gave a lecture which became the text of one of his most famous, or notorious, essays, ‘Why I am Not a Christian’.  He was also on the NSS’s Distinguished Members’ Panel, and prominent in supporting campaigns like those for secular education and abortion law reform.

In his 1944 work, The Value of Free Thought. How to Become a Truth Seeker and Break the Chains of Mental Slavery, Russell echoed Cohen’s arguments. ‘What makes a freethinker is not his beliefs but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not, he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought he finds a balance of evidence in their favour, then his thought is free.’

In the same essay Russell argues that the search for truth and the conquest of fear are at the heart of freethought. To him the creed of freethought is optimistic; its adherents strive for a better world.

Cohen’s belief in freethought also explains his contempt for organised or ‘revealed’ religion.  For him, the very purpose of a priesthood was to exercise authority over others’ beliefs, repress freethought and thus arrest human progress. It should be stressed that freethought is not synonymous with atheism, which is generally taken to mean the denial of a deity’s existence. Thomas Paine, for example, was a freethinker and strong critic of the established church or ‘priesthood’, despite being a deist who believed in God. Like Cohen, he valued intellectual independence, proclaiming in The Age of Reason, ‘My own mind, is my own church.’ An advantage of ‘freethought’ is that it is more positive than ‘atheism’, and does not have the negative connotations that have always dogged the latter.

As for the relationship between freethought and secularism, as I mentioned above, the word ‘secularism’ is ambiguous and has been defined in different ways in different eras. G.J. Holyoake is generally given credit for coining the term, but his conception was far broader than that generally accepted today. For example, in an 1853 debate Holyoake outlined three secularist principles. First, that secularism gives precedence to the duties of this life rather than those that might pertain to ‘another world’.  Second, that science is superior to ‘spiritual dependency’. Third, that morality has social origins rather than ‘spiritual authority’. One might go so far as to suggest that ‘humanism’ closely resembles Holyoake’s conception of secularism. 

The NSS has defined secularism more narrowly to mean something which ‘works for the separation of religion and state and equal respect for everyone’s human rights so that no one is either advantaged or disadvantaged on account of their beliefs.’ Cohen’s ‘right to express opinion’ seems to sit comfortably with the idea that ‘no one is either advantaged or disadvantaged on account of their beliefs.’ The NSS tells us that secularism requires the separation of Church and state in the interests of fairness and equality. Secularism might well seem attractive to freethinkers, although freethought itself has a philosophical dimension absent from secularism, which, at least as the NSS defines it, is a purely political concept. Another way of putting it is that secularism is a political idea rooted in the philosophical concept of freethought. It is time for secularists to acknowledge and celebrate this intellectual heritage.

On the career of Chapman Cohen and his conception of freethought, see further this YouTube video made using a 1932 78 rpm recording of Cohen talking about ‘The Meaning and Value of Freethought’.

The post Freethought and secularism appeared first on The Freethinker.

The image of the week is a ticket to a talk given by Chapman Cohen in Manchester at a time when he was both President of the National Secular Society and Editor of The Freethinker. Historically, these positions were often occupied by the same person, although the magazine has always been funded independently. ‘Are we civilized?’ was a good question to ask on the eve of World War II – as also today.

The post ‘Are we civilized?’ Image of the week, 21st March 2022 appeared first on The Freethinker.

In Cohen’s view, ‘freedom of conscience’, as advocated by the Archbishop, ‘ought to mean that in matters of opinion there should be at least equal freedom of expression, with the understanding that with some questions that freedom cannot be absolute.’ But in fact the Church’s understanding of ‘freedom of conscience’ extended to religious privileges, such as enforcing blasphemy laws on non-believers, keeping bishops in the House of Lords, and requiring the King to swear a coronation oath in which he had to ‘avow his belief in a special form of religious belief.’

This article was written at a time when the ideas and values of civilised society were being threatened on all sides. The abuses of the War would eventually lead to the drafting of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). In both of these documents, ‘freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ is a separate right from ‘freedom of expression’. In contrast, Cohen here analyses freedom of conscience as effectively a form of freedom of expression. He notes the extent to which religious organisations can use ‘freedom of conscience’ as an excuse for imposing their views on others, thereby restricting freedom of expression for them. The clash between the two rights continues today.

The post From the archive: What is freedom? appeared first on The Freethinker.