Milton wrote Areopagitica to express himself concerning the process of public censoring and licensing of books. However, the writing of a book or pamphlet is usually constrained by social, linguistic and personal conditions, also another kind of censoring. It is at this more individual level that a translator finds him/herself with the power of doing or undoing an original text. This paper presents the idea that translations are contemporary visions of ancient realities that become real and original by means of the interpretation and adaptation by a translator, and to what extent and distance the new text is changed from its original.
    It is clear that Milton chose the form of an oration following the rules of classical rhetoric to convince his addressees, the members of Parliament, to reconsider their decision to censor certain works. He begins by introducing several reasons for defending the free publication of books with the aim of advancing the public good and promoting liberty, thus he very subtly praises the "honourable things of good men". This linguistic strategy allows the author to introduce criticism. Milton justifies certain criticism in terms of improving the public good: "For he who freely magnifies what hath been nobly done, and fears not to declare as freely what might be done better, gives ye the best covenant of his fidelity; and that his loyalest affection and his hope waits on your proceeding." From what perspectives can these ideas be read in the 21st. Century? How do the political reasons of Areopagitica apply to a receiving culture? Is a contemporary adaptation not a kind of censoring?