Thomas Elyot on counsel, kairos and freeing speech in Tudor England

What makes speech free? It is usually taken that speech is ‘ free ’ if it is not met with punishment from governing authorities. 1 ‘ Freedom of Speech ’ involves a right to speak without fear of governmental reprisal. A focus on the debates surrounding ‘ liberty of speech ’ in the Tudor period, however, leads us to another way of considering the ‘ freedom ’ of speech: that it is not the absence of punishment which makes speech free, but rather the choice to speak freely regardless of such reprisal. 2 In this way, the discussion shifts from the limits and boundaries of free speech to the way in which speaking truth is itself freeing, regardless of the consequences. In Tudor England, these debates centred on the delivery of political counsel. There was both a ‘ paradox of counsel ’ and a ‘ problem of counsel ’ in Tudor England. The paradox existed in the expectation that rulers must take counsel to legitimise their rule, even though such counsel — if obligatory — could limit their power. The problem came from the perspective of the counsellors themselves: they ought to speak truth to power but doing so in non-ideal circumstances could lead to that counsel being ignored