Notes
Mill, Autobiography, 1873, in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill [CW], 33 (vols.), F. E. L. Priestley and J. M. Robson (eds.), University of Toronto Press, Vol. I, p. 55.
Halévy 1929, p. 417. For the contextual based analysis on the reception of Bentham’s Plan, see Schofield 2006, pp. 162-65. For the detailed outlook of “philosophic radicals,” see Thomas 1979.
Bentham, 1817, p. 440. See also Schofield 2006, p. 147.
Bentham, 1817, p. 441.
Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, p. 57.
Ibid., pp. 136-37.
Drawing a comparison between John Mill and Bentham has been widely studied by either philosophical or historical angles in areas as diverse as moral philosophy, ethics, religion, and political thought. For instance, the traditional interpretation had argued that “John Stuart Mill was brought to recognize the limitations of classical utilitarianism but was nevertheless unable entirely to emancipate himself from the influence of his father and Bentham, which the result of that he remained an inconsistent and merely eclectic thinker in whose work no coherent doctrine can be found.” (Gray and Smith, 1991, p. 1).
Alexander Bain called Mill “a Greece-intoxicated man” (Bain 1882, p. 94). Despite that there is no specific and comprehensive work dedicated to antiquity within Mill’s writings, their influences to his significant works such as System of Logic, On Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government and Utilitarianismare has been interestingly researched (Demetriou 2013; Irwin 1998; Loizides 2013; Urbinati 2002). Mill started learning Greek and Latin in his childhood under the direction of James Mill. On reaching the age of twelve, he began to read classical works of antiquity. Reading the Latin and Greek books with his father was “worth studying not for the language merely, but also for the thoughts” (Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, p. 23). Later, he decided to translate the Dialogues of Plato, and published them with numerous annotations. While he was devoted to political and social reform as a member of a group of philosophical radicals, a deep attention to ancient history and philosophy remained present throughout his life.
Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, p. 147. For the detailed and convincing analysis on the development of Mill’s political thought, see Sekiguchi 1989.
Ibid., pp. 177-78.
Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 312-16, p. 316.
Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, IV,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 289-95, pp. 289-90.
It should be noted that this comparative method implies Saint-Simon’s influence on Mill.
Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, I,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp.227-34, pp. 232-33.
Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, II,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 238-45, p. 238.
Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 1],” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 304-07, p. 304.
Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” p. 312, see also “The Spirit of the Age, IV,” CW, XXII, p. 290.
Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” CW, XXII, p. 312.
Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, IV,” CW, XXII, p. 291.
Mill, “The Spirit of the Age, V [Part 2],” p. 315.
Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 236-37.
Mill, “Attack on Literature,” in Examiner, 1831, CW, XXII, pp. 318-27, p. 326.
Mill, “Death of Jeremy Bentham,” in Examiner, 1832, CW, XXIII, pp. 467-473, pp. 468-69.
Ibid., p. 469.
Ibid., p. 470.
Ibid., p. 471.
Ibid., pp. 471-72.
Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 206-07. See also J. S. Mill to Thomas Carlyle, 02/08/1833, The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1812-1848, F. E. Mineka (ed.), in CW, XII, p. 172.
Ibid., pp. 7-8.
Ibid., pp. 14-5.
Ibid., p. 16.
Mill, “Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy,” 1833, CW, X, pp. 3-18, p. 16.
Ibid., pp. 17-8n.
Mill, “Bentham,” in London and Westminster Review, 1838, CW, X, pp. 75-115, p. 95.
Ibid., p. 105.
Ibid., pp. 106-07.
Ibid., p. 108.
J. S. Mill to Thomas Carlyle, 05/10/1833, in The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1812-1848, F. E. Mineka (ed.), CW, XIII, p. 181.
J. S. Mill to Thomas Carlyle, 12/01/1834, CW, XIII, p. 204.
Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 214-15.
J. S. Mill to Edward Lytton Bulwer, 23/11/1836, CW, XII, p. 312.
Mill, “Bentham,” CW, X, p. 79.
Ibid., p. 78.
The encounter with Tocqueville also provided Mill to reconsider his theory of democracy. After studying Democracy in America, Mill’s political and theoretical standpoint had shifted from “pure democracy” to the modified form of it and the transformation continued to Considerations on Representative Government in 1861 (Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 199-201).
Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 238, 240-41.
Kinzer 2014, p. 16.
[Mackintosh] 1818, pp. 168-70.
Both of them were disagreements to Mackintosh with the support for Benthamite reform. However, as Loizides offers the precise analysis, there were explicit differences between them: their meanings of “universal interest” and their directed targets differed. The elder Mill’s view was aimed at “a general anti-reform, Tory audience” with emphasis on Benthamite account of universal interest, but Grote targeted “a pro-reform, even if moderate, Whig audience” by presenting universal interest based on common interest (Loizides 2014, p. 79).
Grote, 1821, pp. 89-91.
Ibid., pp. 111-12, 135.
Ibid., pp. 116-19.
Grote 1821, p. 52. See also, Loizides 2014, p. 78.
Grote’s political life including the detailed argument in parliament, see Kinzer 2014.
Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 202-3.
In the early draft of Autobiography, Mill expressed the disappointment to Grote: “The years which he withdrew from his History and spent in the House of Commons were almost wasted. Except an annual motion for the ballot (to which he continued to stick after the change of times had made it no longer desirable) and an honorable stand made now and then against a bad measure, such as the Irish and Canada Coercion Bills, Mr. Grote was almost an inactive member of parliament. [...] His standing and social position would have enabled him to create a real Radical party, for which the materials then existed.” These passages were deleted in the final version (ibid., pp. 202, 204).
Turner 1981, p. 213.
Grote 1826, p. 277.
Grote 1826, p. 281.
There are two core essays to indicate Mill’s consideration of ancient politics through Grote, which are “Grote’s History of Greece, I” (1846) and “Grote’s History of Greece, II” (1853) posted in Edinburgh Review. The rest of five articles were published in Spectator from 1846 to 1850, which have some similar passages to the other two essays in Edinburgh Review. In addition, Mill and Grote published the review articles on Henry Tayler’s The Statesman under the joint authorship. It explicitly claimed that the movements of parliamentary reform, which was founded by Bentham, is efficient for increasing the feelings of duty as citizen among people. By criticizing Tayler’s ignorance to studying ancient classics, they both claimed that learning them would provide people to attain “the idea of the commonwealth, as the supreme object of his duty and solicitude, attracted to itself the strongest emotions in the bosom of every virtuous man.” (J. S. Mill, “Tayler’s Statesman,” (with George Grote), in CW, XIX, p. 625. See also Demetriou 2013, p. 190). From the perspective of Mill, this article shows that a certain similarity to emphasizing the internal cultivation for political reform, which was presented in “Bentham” (1838) and later his discussion.
J. S. Mill to Harriet Grote 01/04/1846, CW, XIII, p. 699.
Bain 1882, p. 85. Bain was a Scottish philosopher and logician who commenced to communicate directly with John Mill in 1841, and assisted him by reading the proofs of System of Logic. Engaging the utilitarian circle, Bain subsequently became tight with Grote as well (ibid., pp. 62-66, 82-84). He later edited The Minor Works of George Grote (1873), and published Mill’s critical biography in 1882.
See also Turner 1982, p. 9; Irwin 1998, p. 426.
For the full analysis and convincing arguments, see Turner 1982 and Lozides 2013, ch. 1.
Mill also pointed out some issues on History of Greece written by Conop Thirlwall with comparison of Mitford (Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece [1],” in Spectator, 1846, CW, XXIV, pp. 867-75, pp. 867-68; “Grote’s History of Greece, I,” in Edinburgh Review, CW, XI, pp. 273-305, pp. 275, 277).
Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I,” CW, XXIV, pp. 867-68.
Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I,” CW, XI, p. 275; “Grote’s History of Greece [1],” CW, XXIV, p. 867.
Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I, ” CW, XI, pp. 303-04.
Grote, A History of Greece, II, 1846, p. 110.
Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, I, ” CW, XI, p. 297.
Interestingly, the second article in 1853 did not cover the actual volumes which were supposed to be reviewed by Mill. Grote recognized this fact but he satisfied with it (Harriet Grote 1878, p. 220). It seemed that they shared similar political interests as radicals was the reason why Grote did not show an apparent complaint to it (see CW, XI, “Introduction” by F. E. Sparshott, pp. xxxiv, xxxiii).
Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, Ⅱ,” in Edinburgh Review, 1853, CW, XI, pp. 309-37, p. 324.
Ibid., p. 324.
Ibid., pp. 331-32. C. f. Grote, A History of Greece, VI, 1851, p. 178.
Ibid., p. 325; Grote, A History of Greece, IV, 1849, p. 239.
Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, Ⅱ,” CW, XI, p. 325.
Ibid., pp. 314-15, 324.
Mill, Considerations on Representative Government, CW, XIX, pp. 373-577, p. 411. The quote seemingly referred to Grote’s History (see note of the editor, ibid). The similar passage appeared in Grote’s review article in Spectator: Athenian government was “a government of unlimited publicity, and freedom of censure and discussion. Public officers were subject to effective responsibility. The tribunals, being multitudinous and appointed by lot, were, like modern juries, generally incorrupt. And there was no distinction in political rights and franchises between poor and rich, lowborn and highborn. That the Athenian institutions on the whole were eminently favourable to progress, is shown by the splendid development of individual intellect during the three or four generations that this form of society lasted (“Grote’s History of Greece [5],” in Spectator, 1850, CW, XXIV, pp. 1157-64, p. 1161).
Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, p. 412. Mill also uses the resembling explanation to it. He considers that “a regulated popular government” could only established within “the bounds of a single city-community.” (ibid., p. 378).
For the comparison between Mill and Bentham, see Rosen 1983, ch. X; Engelmann 2008.
Ibid., pp. 374-76.
Mill seemed to referred to Bentham’s Leading Principles of the Constitutional Code (ibid., p. 390n).
Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, pp. 390-92.
Bentham 1817, pp. 489-90. For the excellent analysis on Bentham’s parliamentary reform, see Schofield 2006, ch. 6.
Ibid., pp. 542-43.
Ibid., pp. 452-59.
Ibid., p. 491. Mill also evaluated the secret ballot in Athenian constitution in this chapter. Considering its effect and defect, Mill concludes it was “a valuable instrument of order” for the Athens (ibid., pp. 490-91).
Ibid., p. 502.
Ibid., p. 501.
Ibid., p. 473. See also Mill, “Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform,” in CW, XIX, pp. 313-39, pp. 323-34. In this article, Mill acknowledges the universal suffrage as “an ultimate aim,” however, he objected it because “[t]he opinions and wishes of the poorest and rudest class of labourers may be very useful as one influence among others on the minds of the voters, as well as on those of the Legislature; and yet it might be highly mischievous to give them the preponderant influence, by admitting them, in their present state of morals and intelligence, to the full exercise of the suffrage” (ibid., p. 334).
Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, pp. 473-79.
Mill’s critical understanding about the property qualifications can be confirmed in the article of “Grote’s History of Greece”. He considers that men of rank and fortune produced the danger of being corrupted in Athenian polis (Mill, “Grote’s History of Greece, Ⅱ,” CW, XI, pp. 327-28).
Mill, Considerations, CW, XIX, p. 481.
Demetriou 2013 stimulates the comparison between Grote and Mill.
J. S. Mill to Alexander Bain, 08/06/1859, CW, XV, p. 631.
Haut de page