Untitled - Sexey's School Moodle

that with regard to such material and the law “the legal category of obscene libel …
criminalizes the production of any text as “obscene” that appears likely to produce
[undesirable] readerly effects” (80). In other words, if, like pornography, a text is
potentially capable of sexually arousing the reader, it could be prosecuted for obscene
libel.
129
Yet an earlier discussion regarding the circulation of cultural capital as it pertains
to authorship and readership had suggested that the efforts to prosecute The Monk were
ideologically biased and were not aimed at the novel, but more specifically at its author.
Some commentators, such as Watt and Gamer, observe that it was in light of Lewis’
political status that institutional authorities sought to censor his novel (Watt 92-3, Gamer
82). It was particularly contemptuous for a Member of Parliament to write of these
matters with no moral restraint; add to that the context of “political paranoia” which
characterized the end of the eighteenth century, and the text was considered to hold an
element of sedition, an incitement to rebellion that was immediately transferred to the
author. Kelly refers to Lewis’ ties with many of the Jacobins and outlines the different
levels of social criticism contained in the novel:
Lewis’ depiction of society is also very close to that of the more
liberal novelists of the time, including … the English Jacobins …
[c]ertain social practices and institutions are clearly shown to be
hostile to rich selfhood, whether virtuous or vicious … But just as
clear is the way excessive institutionalized power and order, as in a
monastery or in an autocratic state, pervert individual natures,
enforce outward conformism but inward rebellion, or destroy
virtuous and authentic individuality. (58)
This statement makes it clear that it is Lewis’ liberal views of society that are the subject
of the attacks against the novel. In addition, Kelly’s outline of the novel’s social