The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Introduction
• Textual Introduction
• Acknowledgments
• Essays On Philosophy and the Classics
• Whately’s Elements of Logic 1828
• Notes On Some of the More Popular Dialogues of Plato 1834–35
• Editor’s Note
• The Protagoras
• The Phædrus
• The Gorgias
• The Apology of Socrates
• The Charmides
• The Euthyphron
• The Laches
• The Lysis
• The Parmenides
• Two Publications On Plato 1840
• Bailey On Berkeley’s Theory of Vision 1842, 1843
• Grote’s History of Greece [i] 1846
• Grote’s History of Greece [ii] 1853
• Bain’s Psychology 1859
• Grote’s Plato 1866
• Taine’s De L’intelligence 1870
• Berkeley’s Life and Writings 1871
• Grote’s Aristotle 1873
• Appendix: Bibliographic Index of Persons and Works Cited In the Essays, With Variants and Notes

Textual Introduction

J. M. ROBSON

Philosophy and the classics were life-long passions of John Stuart Mill. In his time philosophy had not been professionally categorized, and his writings tend to ignore the boundaries of logic, the philosophy of mind, and ethics, and to reflect his training in the classics. His major philosophical work, of course, is to be found in his System of Logic which, with Utilitarianism, On Liberty, and An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, has more direct interest for philosophers than his other writings. But it is a mistake to ignore such essays as those here gathered, for they give a rich context to the major philosophical works and illuminate central aspects of his non-philosophical writings.

Mill’s only major collection of his essays, Dissertations and Discussions, does not segregate them by subject-matter, but reprints in chronological order (as was customary in the nineteenth century) those he believed to have most abiding interest.¹ In this edition we have gathered essays on related issues for the convenience of readers, but the overlap of subjects in his writings, and the exigencies of volume size, make decisions about inclusion and exclusion both necessary and difficult. For example, to exclude the two mainly historical reviews of Grote’s History of Greece would separate them from his reviews of Grote’s Plato and Aristotle, and both Mill and Grote thought of these writings as a coherent corpus;² the essays on modern philosophy find themselves sharing a volume with those of specific classical interest since neither set alone would be sufficient for a volume. The most unfortunate exclusion is that of Mill’s Preface and notes to his father’s Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, which could not be accommodated here because of their length. In any case, cross-references among the volumes of the Collected Works is inevitable and desirable.

The present collection, spanning Mill’s career from 1828 to 1873, the year of his death, has many unifying characteristics. The links are obvious among the essays on Greek history and philosophy, and the interest there manifested in dialectic and logic bears upon the discussion of Whately’s Logic, while the concern for empiricism and utilitarianism is brought out more directly in the reviews of Bailey, Bain, Berkeley, and Taine. The interlocking interests and careers of Grote, Bain, and Mill provide yet another strong connection, which is even more apparent when one looks at Mill’s edition of his father’s Analysis, to which Bain and Grote contributed extensive notes. The title of this volume might cause disappointment for some classicists: Mill commented very little on Roman history and literature;³ for him the classics that spoke most clearly and strongly to the nineteenth century were Greek.

All the items in this volume, except for five of the “Notes on Some of the More Popular Dialogues of Plato,” which are here published for the first time, appeared in periodicals. Four appeared in the Westminster Review (the reviews of Whately, the two publications on Plato, Bailey’s book on Berkeley’s theory of vision, and Bailey’s reply to Mill’s review).⁴ The other four “Notes on Some of the More Popular Dialogues of Plato” were published in the Monthly Repository. The Edinburgh Review published four reviews (the two of Grote’s History, that of Bain, and that of Grote’s Plato), and the Fortnightly Review three (those of Taine, Berkeley, and Grote’s Aristotle). Of the total, six (the two on Bailey from the Westminster, and the four from the Edinburgh) were republished by Mill in Dissertations and Discussions; the three from the Fortnightly were included by Helen Taylor in the fourth (posthumous) volume of Dissertations and Discussions. Apart from the unpublished Platonic dialogues, there are no known extant manuscripts, except for a fragment of the Taine review and (uniquely) the draft and press-copy manuscripts of the review of Grote’s Aristotle. No proof sheets have survived.

The texts in this edition are those of the last edition which Mill supervised, with variants and corrections established by collation of all versions which appeared in his lifetime; the copy-texts for the final three essays in this volume derive from the periodical versions, but are collated with the text of 1875 to test readings; they have no variants recorded from that reprinting, though the last, “Grote’s Aristotle,” has variants deriving from the collation of its manuscripts.

Reserving mention of specific variants for the discussion of the individual items, one may make a few comments about the changes in the six republished essays. In general, there are more, and more significant, changes in essays written before 1840 (about which time Mill apparently first thought of a collection of them), and, as might be expected, there is a gradual reduction in re-writing as one moves from the earlier essays to those first published in the late 1850s just before the first two volumes of Dissertations and Discussions appeared in the spring of 1859. When he revised those volumes for a second edition in 1867, he introduced few further changes, and revised very lightly the essays published between 1859 and 1866 that were collected in the third volume of Dissertations and Discussions, which was first published in 1867 (with the second edition of Volumes I and II). As the six relevant items (the last two of which appeared in that third volume) have dates of 1842, 1843, 1846, 1853, 1859, and 1866, there are not many substantive variants, and few that reveal more than a desire for semantic or syntactic clarity or elegance.

Accidental variants—basically changes in punctuation, spelling, and initial capitalization—are not here recorded. In general, the frequency of such changes parallels that of the substantives, there being more in the earlier essays, and very few deriving from the second edition of Dissertations and Discussions. In punctuation, the most frequent alteration is the addition of commas, fifty single commas or pairs being added in “Bailey on Berkeley’s Theory of Vision” in Dissertations and Discussions (only one of them for the 1867 version); seventeen were deleted (none in 1867). No other changes appear to permit valid summary, except perhaps the alteration of commas to semi-colons, which is surprisingly frequent in the essays reprinted only in 1867; there is a total of twenty-two instances in the three relevant items, with only one instance of the reverse change. That the printed versions do not tell the full story is brought out in the collation of the manuscripts of “Grote’s Aristotle” with the version in the Fortnightly: for example, 111 commas or pairs were added in the press-copy manuscript, and a further seventy-five in the printed version, and there is considerable evidence of hesitation about the propriety of colons and semi-colons, there being a total of forty-three changes back and forth. (These counts cannot be considered as exact, for some manuscript readings are uncertain and Mill often omits punctuation at the right margin.) In general, initial capitalization is reduced (especially for abstract nouns) as one moves from manuscript through the printed versions, but no inference seems justifiable from the evidence in this volume (except that Mill’s hand must, in some cases—as is evident also in spelling and such substantives as “of,” “or,” and “&”—have given trouble to the printers). Similarly, no valid conclusion seems available from the changes in spelling, many of which, like the punctuation variants, undoubtedly reflect printing-house practice, except that (despite Mill’s inconsistency) the evidence here, and in other cases, suggests that he habitually wrote “chuse” rather than “choose,” “shew” rather than “show,” and in verbals and their cognates favoured “z” over “s” (e.g. “generalize” rather than “generalise”).

The individual essays are fully discussed in Francis E. Sparshott’s Introduction; to that account only a few details need here be added, without apology for the occasional echoing of matters more adequately treated in that Introduction.

The review of Whately, the first published fruit of Mill’s meditations on logic, was not republished by Mill and is not mentioned in his Autobiography, which does however contain reference to Whately’s Logic, an important work in the development of his thought. The existence of the review is signalled in his later works only by the interesting quotation from it found in his System of Logic (Collected Works, VII, 143-4), where he indicates that some of the views therein contained are no longer held by him. (A collation of the quotation reveals the trivial variants recorded on 28.) An examination of the references in the essay supports Mill’s account in the Autobiography of his logical studies in the 1810s and 1820s, with specific allusion to Du Trieu’s Manuductio ad logicam, which he and his friends had reprinted in 1826 for careful study. One correction of a reference may be noted: Mill, probably unconsciously repeating his phrasing at 30 in the footnote on 21, alludes to the Preface to Whately’s Elements of Rhetoric, rather than to page 105n of that work. (References are corrected in this edition, as indicated below.)

The “Notes on Some of the More Popular Dialogues of Plato” fall textually into two groups, though there is no reason to think they were not written at the same time and for the same, presumably pedagogic, purpose. (See the Introduction, xviii-xix above.) The first group of four, those published in the Monthly Repository in 1834 and 1835, does not survive in manuscript and was not republished by Mill.⁵ These are mentioned in the Autobiography where, commenting that his writings in the years 1832-34, excluding those in newspapers, “amount to a large volume” (indicating that the collection bound together in the Somerville College Library, gold-stamped on the spine, “J.S.M./1832-4,” had probably been put together by the time the Early Draft of the Autobiography was written), he says: “This, however, includes abstracts of several of Plato’s Dialogues, with introductory remarks, which, though not published until 1834, had been written several years earlier; and which I afterwards, on various occasions, found to have been read, and their authorship known, by more people than were aware of anything else which I had written, up to that time.”⁶ The earliest extant reference to the dialogues is in a letter of 10 October, 1833, to W. J. Fox, editor of the Monthly Repository, in which Mill, clearly implying a prior discussion, says: “I . . . send three numbers of the Plato for your inspection and judgment. They cannot in any case be used until I return [from Paris] for it is necessary they should be carefully looked over, some passages altered, and some preliminary matter written.”⁷ And on 22 November, 1833, he asked Fox to return them so that he could “make them fit” for the Monthly Repository. Some general knowledge of them and their authorship may have come from Carlyle, to whom he wrote on 2 March, 1834, saying they were “mostly written long ago,” but “might be of some interest & perhaps use, chiefly because they do not speculate and talk about Plato, but shew to the reader Plato himself.”⁸

The second group of five dialogues survives only in manuscript. Though these manuscripts have pencilled numbers, presumably Mill’s, on their first folios, it has not proved possible to discern the rationale of the ordering, and so we have printed the first group in the order they appeared in the Monthly Repository, and the second group in alphabetical order of the titles.⁹ The manuscripts are written on East India Company paper, all folios watermarked 1828 (except the first six of the Lysis, which are 1825). Each was sewn together near the top left corner with green ribbon (now removed). The folios are about 20.7c. by 20c.; Mill folded them lengthwise, and wrote the text on the right half (recto and verso), leaving the left half blank for notes, corrections, and additions, of which there are several in each manuscript. (See the illustration facing 175.) He did not number the folios, of which there are sixteen in the Charmides (16v blank), thirteen in the Euthyphron, seventeen in the Laches, thirteen in the Lysis, and twenty-six in the Parmenides (26v blank).

As F. E. Sparshott comments above, the title “Notes on Some of the More Popular Dialogues of Plato” is misleading, for the bulk is translation, with some notes and commentary (much of it undoubtedly added, in the first group, for publication in 1834, as the dates of the references in the commentary indicate). The translations are not complete, except for the Apology (as Mill notes, 152), there being considerable summary (sometimes signalled by indirect discourse) and many omissions. In general, passages descriptive of action are omitted, while the dialectic is followed closely.¹⁰ The following summary, which gives the major features of Mill’s treatment, will serve as a rough guide for those who wish to compare Mill’s versions with the originals or other translations. It should be noted that the categories are not exact: passages “summarized” (indirect discourse) sometimes include brief direct translations; passages “translated” (direct discourse) similarly may include short summary elements; “condensed” means that while the passage is rendered in direct discourse, some responses and/or questions are omitted or shortened.

The next item, Mill’s review of two publications on Plato, was not reprinted by him, and it is not mentioned in his Autobiography. The bulk of it, indeed, is quotation. After virtually severing his connection with the Westminster in 1840, Mill decided to contribute mainly to the Edinburgh Review. In writing to Macvey Napier, the editor of the Edinburgh, Mill presumably has this review in mind when he says that he had intended (before writing his review of Bailey on Berkeley—the next item in this volume) to give the Westminster nothing “more than one of the small-print notices which that review usually contains.”¹¹ Though slight, it touches on some of his abiding concerns, such as the value of a classical education and the need for social order. One might also note his use of the word “Philistine” (241).

The next item, following Mill’s practice in Dissertations and Discussions, combines his review of Samuel Bailey’s A Review of Berkeley’s Theory of Vision and his reply to Bailey’s rejoinder to that review, A Letter to a Philosopher, in Reply to some recent attempts to vindicate “Berkeley’s Theory of Vision.” Writing to Sarah Austin (22 August, 1842), Mill says:

On 3 October, 1842, Mill mentioned to Macvey Napier his “metaphysical article” in the just-published number of the Westminster, and asked if articles of that sort would suit the Edinburgh. Napier replied, commending the “Bailey,” and Mill responded on 15 October:

Bain recounts in his biography Mill’s telling him of the three-day composition, during a weekend in the country. (Mill was much occupied at this time in making the final revision of his Logic—see the Textual Introduction, CW, VII, lxvii ff.) Mentioning Bailey’s being “much hurt at the time” by some of Mill’s language in the review, Bain goes on to quote the conclusion of Mill’s “Rejoinder” (269 below), where tolerance of the frank expression of intellectual differences is demanded; Bain says that such was Mill’s “principle of composition throughout his polemical career, and he never departed from it. Of Bailey’s reply on this occasion, he [Mill] remarked—‘The tone of it is peevish. But Bailey is, I know, of that temper—or rather I infer it from sundry indications.’ ”¹³ That the controversy remained in Mill’s mind may be seen by his references to Bailey’s views in his Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy (4th ed. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1872), 226, 301n, 308n, 323n, and in his edition of his father’s Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1869), I, 345n, 441.

There are forty-one variants in “Bailey on Berkeley’s Theory of Vision,” thirty-five arising from the revision for the first edition (1859) of Dissertations and Discussions, and six from that for the second edition (1867); there are six in the “Rejoinder to Mr. Bailey’s Reply,” all from 1859. Using a rough classification (which is followed also in the discussion of variants in the other essays, and in the other volumes of this edition), these may be seen as falling into four types, reflecting (1) a change of opinion or correction of fact (including relatively large expansions, deletions, or revisions); (2) the difference in time or provenance between the separate publications; (3) qualifications and minor semantic shifts; and (4) minor verbal, tonal, and syntactic changes. Here all but five may be placed, in almost equal numbers, in the final two categories. Typical of the third category is the change from “his language implies” to “his language seems to imply” (255^p-p); compare the change (260^c-c) from “restored to sight” to “rendered capable of sight.”¹⁴ One of the less interesting of the fourth type of variant may be seen at 249^b, where Mill deleted “or,” before “in other words” in 1859; more interesting (and typical of his revisions in the early 1850s of the Principles of Political Economy and the Logic, as well as of those for the first edition of Dissertations and Discussions) is his substitution at 251^c-c of “person” for “man.” Changes of the first type are here minor as well as infrequent: see, for example, 257^x, where the deletion in 1859 implies a revised interpretation of Bailey’s argument, probably related to the footnote to 255, added in 1859, which calls attention to the time between the versions and so may be placed in the second category. One further variant, that at 267^n-n, deserves citation; the change in 1859 from “an eye” to “our eye” (the earlier version probably resulting from the printer’s misreading of Mill’s hand) is indicated in Mill’s copy of the 1843 article in the Somerville College collection.¹⁵

The next item is Mill’s review of the first two volumes of Grote’s History of Greece, a review that was, in Bain’s words, “in every sense, a labour of love; love of the subject, love of the author, and admiration of the work.”¹⁶ “I hope the first two volumes of the History will soon be out,” Mill wrote to Grote (1 January, 1846); “I long to see them.” Interrupting his writing of the Principles of Political Economy, he wrote a review of the volumes for the Spectator (4 April, 1846, 327-8),¹⁷ and contracted for the Edinburgh article before April. Mentioning these reviews in a letter to Harriet Grote, he says: “I have taken my extracts from the 2nd vol., which has not yet been quoted, I believe, people not having had time to master it. You will see by the article [in the Spectator] that I like it very much. I was excessively sorry when I got to the end of it, and am impatient for the next volume.” He also expressed regret that he had pre-empted the review in the Edinburgh from George Cornewall Lewis, who he hoped would review it elsewhere. (Lewis, in fact, contributed a review of the next volumes of Grote’s History to the Edinburgh Review, XCI [Jan., 1850], 118-52.) In September he told Bain that he had corrected the proofs of the Edinburgh article; in it, he said, there was “no little of the Comtean philosophy of religion. Altogether I like the thing,” he added, “though I wrote it in exactly four days, and re-wrote it in three more, but I had to read and think a good deal for it first.”¹⁸

Because Mill does not directly quote from his Spectator review of Grote’s first volumes, no variants derive from that source; however, the two reviews are organized similarly, many passages are parallel, and the references are frequently duplicated. Of the twenty-three substantive variants in this essay, only two derive from the revision for the second edition of Dissertations and Discussions. Of the twenty-three, four (type [1]) reflect a change of opinion or correction of fact, and three (type [2]) reflect the difference in time or provenance between the versions. Of the first type is 275^b, the footnote dealing with Grote’s use of “feminine” and “masculine” in the Preface to his History. Mill presumably deleted the note in 1859 because Grote modified the objectionable passage in his second edition; Grote’s revision, however, would not seem sufficient to remove Mill’s annoyance, for “sentimental” was substituted for “feminine” and “vigorous” added to “masculine.”¹⁹ The deletion of the long last paragraph of the 1846 version (see 304-5^w), which I have counted as type (1), might well be classed under (2); the change was probably motivated less by a change of mind than by the feeling that the criticism of Grote’s orthography, long after the fact, served no useful purpose. Minor softenings of criticism may also be seen at 293^l-l and 294^m. Unequivocal instances of the second type of variant may be seen at 275^a and 304^v, the references to the publication of Thirlwall’s History and Grote’s remaining volumes being outdated in 1859.

Mill’s favourable notice of Grote’s History is continued in the next item, ostensibly a review of Volumes IX, X, and XI, which also was reprinted in Dissertations and Discussions. He actually includes in it discussion of material from Volumes III-VIII, especially in sections incorporated in 1859 from the reviews of those volumes that he had written for the Spectator in the years between his two Edinburgh notices.²⁰

Bain comments that in this review Mill “enters with enthusiasm into Grote’s vindication of the Athenians and their democratic constitution,” being, he adds, “quite as much as Grote, a Greece-intoxicated man.”²¹ Mill had promised to review the ninth and tenth volumes for the Edinburgh, but, feeling that “they hardly afforded sufficient material,” was happy to add the eleventh. “I think with you,” he writes to G. C. Lewis, “that there is now matter enough for an article, though more might have been made of the subject if there had been a greater amount of dissertation and discussion in the volumes.”²² Glad that Lewis did not want the article for the July, 1853 number, Mill had completed and submitted it by 24 August, commenting to Lewis that it “is as much a review of the book generally as of the last three volumes, but it gives a tolerably full account of their contents; and as the history of Athenian greatness is concluded in them, the occasion is a natural one for surveying the whole history.” He goes on to request proofs as soon as possible, as he planned to be away from London in mid-September.²³

In spite of the laudatory nature of his review, Mill was not in 1853 as Grote-intoxicated as he was Greece-intoxicated, largely because of his and his wife’s recent animosity towards Harriet Grote which inevitably coloured Mill’s relations with the historian. Harriet Taylor Mill obviously took an interest in this review, and, as she frequently did in these years, suggested changes. Writing to her on the day he sent the review to Lewis, Mill says he had revised it “on all points,” and continues: “I have cut the knot of ‘the grandest passage’ by making it ‘the most celebrated’ & have altered the two ‘greatests’ to greatest commonwealth & most distinguished citizen—in the other. The ‘political education’ place which I said I would try to strengthen in ideas instead of in words, I have done so—I hope the proof will come in time for full consideration. . . .”²⁴ The proof must have arrived in time, for he undoubtedly returned it to Lewis with his letter of 19 September, in which he replies to Lewis’s comments:

The coolness to Harriet Grote comes out fully in a later letter to his wife: “Grote is vastly pleased with the article in the Edinburgh—& a propos I found here a letter from M^rs Grote, of complimentation on the article, which though little worthy of the honour of being sent to you I may as well inclose. The impudence of writing to me at all & of writing in such a manner is only matched by the excessive conceit of the letter. Grote alluded to it saying M^rs Grote had written to me after reading the article—I merely answered that I had found a note from her on arriving.” Perhaps this experience lies behind his reaction to the review when it appeared in print; he comments to Harriet that it “reads, to my mind, slighter & flimsier than I thought it would.” Nonetheless, he was pleased to receive £25 for it,²⁶ and seems to have had no hesitation in reprinting it in Dissertations and Discussions in 1859, the year after Harriet Mill’s death.

There are some forty-five variants in this essay, five of them dating from the revision for the second edition of Dissertations and Discussions. The total is high for an essay of this date, artificially high, in fact, for it includes about twenty resulting from the incorporation in 1859 of the passages from Mill’s notices of Grote in the Spectator. These substantially alter the effect of the review,²⁷ which, as mentioned above, did not deal only with the later volumes of Grote, and after 1859 was even less confined to them. Of the other variants, one might notice 328^d, where Mill in 1859 deleted, for unknown reasons that tempt speculation, this sentence: “We have chosen our instances according to our own estimate of their importance, rather than according to their fitness to display the merits of the book.” Also enigmatic, though perhaps belatedly reflecting the influence of his late wife’s objections to his praise of the Greeks, is the deletion at 334^w of his characterization of the Athenians as “the greatest people who have yet appeared on this planet.” Several type (2) changes, reflecting time and provenance, are to be found: see 331^m, 331^o-o, and especially the long passage at 336-7^y. One may also mention the note (319n) signalling Mill’s departures from Grote’s translation from Thucydides of Pericles’ Funeral Oration alluded to in the Introduction, xxxiiin above.

The next essay, “Bain’s Psychology,” was reprinted in Volume III of Dissertations and Discussions (1867), having been published first in the Edinburgh Review in October, 1859, during the key period in Mill’s life when, after partially recovering from the devastating shock of his wife’s death at the end of 1858, he strenuously engaged in writing, revision, and publishing. In 1859 appeared On Liberty, Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform, the first two volumes of Dissertations and Discussions, and three important articles, “Recent Writers on Reform,” “A Few Words on Non-Intervention,” and this review of Bain. Of this last, he says in the Autobiography: “In the course of the same summer [of 1859] I fulfilled a duty particularly incumbent upon me, that of helping (by an article in the Edinburgh Review) to make known Mr. Bain’s profound treatise on the Mind, just then completed by the publication of its second volume” (155). He had, in fact, earlier made a more material effort, in conjunction with Grote, to make the work known. Parker was reluctant to publish The Emotions and the Will because The Senses and the Intellect, the first part of Bain’s “treatise on the Mind,” had been selling slowly since its publication in 1855, and Mill “intimated to Parker that Grote and he would take the liability of any loss [up to £50 each] that the immediate publication would incur, after a reasonable time allowed for sale.”²⁸ Parker agreed, but the sales were such that there was no call on Grote and Mill.²⁹

The connections among Bain, Grote, and Mill of course went back further, and were to continue. They read one another’s works in manuscript, and then reviewed them, consulted and collaborated, and, as appropriate, aided one another’s careers.³⁰ In this specific instance, Bain says that Mill went over the manuscript of The Emotions and the Will “carefully, and made occasional annotations,—which were, of course, valuable. Grote did the same. . . .”³¹ Mill corresponded with Bain about his review, expressing pleasure at Bain’s approbation of its contents, and at its appearance as the first article in the number of the Edinburgh. “It is a considerable thing,” he says, “to have got the Ed. to say that the experience philosophy & the association psychology are getting up again, & to praise & recommend a book on that side of the question.”³²

Textually the review is uncomplicated. Appearing after the publication of the first edition of Dissertations and Discussions, it is typical of those that were republished in Volume III of that work in having few variants (only seven in all), none of them reflecting a change of opinion except perhaps 346^a-a (“inseparable association” substituted for “indissoluble association”), which more probably was prompted by a desire for greater precision.

As F. E. Sparshott indicates (xxxviii above), the next item, the review of Grote’s Plato, was long contemplated, Mill having seen the work in manuscript³³ and reread the whole of Plato in Greek as preparation. Though beset by proof corrections of his own works, he had read Volume I of the Plato by 11 March, 1865, and continued to read the other volumes as they came off the press.³⁴ He had hoped to finish the review before the end of the year, in time for the January number of the Edinburgh, but 1865 was, as far as publishing is concerned, the busiest year of his later life.³⁵ He also made an unplanned and undesired return from Avignon to take part in his successful election campaign, which caused a hiatus in his work from late June till late August. Henry Reeve, the editor of the Edinburgh, agreed to wait until the April number, and Mill continued his study, rereading Grote, and also the crucial Platonic dialogues. He had not started writing by 10 November but, showing his usual dispatch, had written “a great part” of it by the 26th; it was in Reeve’s hands by 30 January, 1866 (at which time Mill consulted Grote about the propriety of viewing the Apology as Socrates’ actual defence), and appeared in the Edinburgh in April.³⁶ Forgetting how busy the year had been, he wrote to Grote before the article was finished, in language surely more than polite: “The chief occupation of this year has been with Plato, Sokrates, and you: and there could not have been, to me, a pleasanter one.”³⁷ As he also said to Grote, he had “seldom” (had he ever?) taken “so much time and pains” over a review, but felt it worthwhile if he had “done any tolerable justice to the subject.”³⁸ It is in fact, even by the crude measure of length, one of his most significant articles.³⁹

Given the date of his essay, only one year before the publication of Volume III of Dissertations and Discussions, the number of variants (twenty) is even larger than the length of the review can quite explain. They are, however, almost all of type (4), minor adjustments of syntax and tone such as those seen at 412^i-i and^j-j. Indeed, given his other preoccupations at the time, and the speed with which the review was written, it may be that these minor changes should be seen as merely the kind that he normally made in manuscript.

The last three items in the volume derive from the final, all too brief, period of Mill’s life from his electoral defeat at the end of 1868 to his death in early May, 1873. While far from lazy, he wrote and published less than in the preceding busy years, and what he did write (apart from “Theism”) has received little attention. His review of Taine, like the two further items in this volume, the reviews of Fraser’s Berkeley and Grote’s Aristotle, is not mentioned in his Autobiography (where Grote’s Plato gets only a passing mention). One must not conclude that he thought them unimportant, for the last section of the Autobiography was written in the winter of 1869-70, before their publication. Bain does not refer to the Taine review (nor, surprisingly, to the two other late reviews) in his John Stuart Mill;⁴⁰ and there is only one mention in Mill’s extant correspondence.⁴¹ Taine and Mill were, however, well aware of and respected one another’s work, as F. E. Sparshott points out, lxix-lxxi above. Textually the article is interesting in that a manuscript fragment has survived. Though it apparently is part of a rough draft, there are no substantive variants (in sixteen places the manuscript has initial capitals, usually on abstract nouns, that were reduced in the Fortnightly). Again like the next two items, it was republished by Helen Taylor in the fourth volume of Dissertations and Discussions in 1875, after Mill’s death.

We know similarly little of the composition of Mill’s “Berkeley’s Life and Writings,” which reflects strongly another of his abiding philosophic interests. Aware of Fraser’s work on the edition as early as December, 1864,⁴² he planned to begin writing a review (already promised to the Fortnightly) after his return to Avignon from a Swiss tour on 21 August, 1871, and was working on it a month later, when he writes to Cairnes that the subject is “very interesting” to him, Berkeley being “one of our greatest names in philosophy.”⁴³ He must have completed it shortly thereafter, for it had to be sent to England and it appeared in the November issue of the Fortnightly. In this essay, there being no manuscript nor reprint in Mill’s lifetime, there are no variants.

His last review, “Grote’s Aristotle,” was also written in Avignon. Mill of course had long known that Grote was writing on Aristotle, and there can be no doubt that he also knew that Bain and Robertson were preparing an edition following Grote’s death. In any event, while reading Brentano’s work (in German) on Aristotle in April, 1872, he was eagerly awaiting the completion of the printing of Grote’s book and mentioned to Brentano that his attention was “in an unusual degree invited to Aristotle.”⁴⁴ Though on 5 October he had still not received a copy, by 9 December his review was finished and in the printer’s hands. As he then knew that it would be in the Fortnightly for January (as it was), and since the press-copy manuscript has a notation that the proofs should be sent to John Morley, the editor of the Fortnightly who retained the manuscript (see below), it would be reasonable to assume that Mill did not read proof, were it not that some of the changes between the press-copy and the printed version can hardly be editorial.⁴⁵

This article is unique textually, in that two manuscripts, a draft and the press-copy, have survived. The draft (Houghton Library, Harvard, MS Eng 1105) is bound with other Mill manuscript fragments, the collection having been donated by Professor George Herbert Palmer, who bought it in Avignon at the sale by the bookseller J. Romanille of those of Mill’s books and papers that were not taken back to England when Helen Taylor returned in 1905. The manuscript is written recto on unwatermarked light blue sheets (c. 40c. × 25c., folded to make 30 folios, 20c. × 25c.), unfolioed by Mill, with the facing versos used for notes, additions, and corrections. The last two folios are a fair copy, in another hand,⁴⁶ of the concluding matter, which is not present in draft form. The press-copy (Library of Congress, Andrew Carnegie Papers, Box 259) was given to Carnegie by John Morley. The unwatermarked purple-blue paper (c. 40.6c. × 26.7c., folded to make 34 folios, c. 20.3c. × 26.7c.), is unfolioed by Mill, who again, as was his practice, wrote the text recto, using the facing versos for notes, additions, and corrections. The first folio shows a direction to the printer to set down the quotations (“extracts”), and there are printer’s signatures throughout, indicating the “takes.”

Because there are so few extant complete manuscripts of Mill’s periodical essays, we have included all the substantive variants between the draft manuscript and the press-copy manuscript, and the latter and the text in the Fortnightly, to give a sense of the kind of revision undoubtedly habitual to Mill. (Were there manuscripts of all his essays, a different policy would be appropriate, as some readers will find the notes disturbingly frequent; we trust that those who do not wish to consult the revisions will find it possible to ignore the indicators.) In all, there are over 560 substantive changes, all but thirty-four of them arising from the rewriting of the draft for the press-copy (which is virtually a fair copy, with very few cancellations). By far the largest number (about 60 per cent) are of type (4), minor changes in syntax and tone; a further 34 per cent are of type (3), qualifications and minor semantic shifts. These are not, of course, without interest of various kinds: see, for example, 475^m-m, where Mill, in regretting Grote’s death, refers in the draft to his feeling as “a complaint against the general conditions of our earthly existence”; he substitutes in the press-copy “only one among the many inherent imperfections of our existence on earth.” Mill’s hesitant carefulness is typified at 485^w-w, where “fairly” was cancelled in the draft, and then restored in the press-copy. Perhaps a hint of his objection to intrusions on personal matters is to be seen in his insertion of “private” with reference to a letter of Grote published by his editors (489^n-n). The substition of “valid” for “true” at 495^x-x is paralleled elsewhere by other verbal refinements of semantic weight. Further, the lengthy addition at 479^z-z is of philosophic interest, as are such additions as that at 505^n-n, where Mill broadens the implications of his discussion to include contemporary philosophic issues. And so on—the selection of pertinent instances is best left to individual taste and insight; to adapt Mill’s suppressed sentence concerning his examples from Grote (see lxxxviii above), “We have chosen our instances according to our estimate of their importance, rather than according to their fitness to display the merits of Mill’s mind or of our methods.” The main general conclusion, in any case, is that the essay was significantly altered and improved by the detailed revision in manuscript.

PRINCIPLES AND METHODS

as throughout theCollected Works, the copy-text for each item in this volume is that of the final version supervised by Mill.⁴⁷ Details concerning the provenance of the texts and related matters are given in headnotes to each item.

Method of Indicating Variants. All the substantive variants are governed by the principles enunciated below. “Substantive” here means all changes of text except spelling, initial capitalization, hyphenation, punctuation, typographical errors, and such printing-house concerns as type font, etc. Changes involving the terminal punctuation of sentences are recorded, as are additions or deletions of parentheses and italics (except in titles). The only substantive changes not recorded are changes from “upon” to “on” (four instances, all in “Bailey on Berkeley’s Theory of Vision”); “although” to “though” (two instances), and “a” to “an” before words beginning with an “h” (five instances, all in “Grote’s History of Greece [I]”). The changes are of three kinds: addition of a word or words, substitution of a word or words, deletion of a word or words. The following illustrative examples are drawn from “Bailey on Berkeley’s Theory of Vision.”

Addition of a word or words: see 249^a-a. In the text, the passage “colour and outline which” appears as “colour ^aand outline^a which”; the variant note reads “^a-a+59, 67”. Here the plus sign indicates that the words “and outline” were added; the numbers following (“59, 67”) indicate the editions of this particular text in which the addition appears. The editions are always indicated by the last two numbers of the year of publication; here 59=1859 (the 1st ed. of Volumes I and II of Dissertations and Discussions); 67=1867 (the 2nd ed. of these volumes). Information concerning the use of this system of abbreviation is given in each headnote, as required. Any added editorial information is enclosed in square brackets and italicized.

When the example above is placed in context, therefore, the interpretation is that when first published (1842) the reading was “colour which”; in 1859 this was altered to “colour and outline which”, and the altered reading was retained in 1867.

Substitution of a word or words: see 255^p-p. In the text the passage “language seems to imply that” appears as “language ^pseems to imply^p that”; the variant note reads “^p-p42 implies”. Here the word following the edition indicator (“implies”) is that for which “seems to imply” was substituted; when the same rules are applied and the variant is placed in context, the interpretation is that when first published (1842) the reading was “language implies that”; in 1859 this was altered to “language seems to imply that”, and (as is obvious from the text) the altered reading was retained in 1867 (the copy-text).

In this volume there are very few examples of passages that were altered more than once: an example is found at 256^u-u. The text reads “will be ^urecognised as^u such”; the variant note reads “^u-u42 deemed to be] 59 perceived to be”. Here the different readings, in chronological order, are separated by a square bracket. The interpretation is that the original reading in 1842, “will be deemed to be such”, was altered in 1859 to “will be perceived to be such”, and in 1867 to “will be recognised as such”.

Deletion of a word or words: see 254ⁱ. In the text, a single superscriptⁱ appears centred between “argument” and “proves”; the variant note reads “42 proves, and”. Here the words following the edition indicator are those deleted; when the same rules are applied and the variant is placed in context, the interpretation is that when first published (1842) the reading was “Berkeley’s argument proves, and proves conclusively”; in 1859 this was altered (by deleting “proves, and”) to “Berkeley’s argument proves conclusively”, and the reading of 1859 was (as is clear in the text) retained in 1867.

Dates of footnotes: see 255n. Here the practice is to place immediately after the footnote indicator, in square brackets, the figure indicating the edition in which the footnote first appeared. In the example cited, “[59]” indicates that the note was added in 1859 (and retained in 1867). If no such figure appears, the note is in all versions.

Punctuation and spelling. In general, these are not normalized, and changes between versions are not recorded. Those changes which occur as part of a substantive variant are included in that variant, and the superscript letters in the text are placed exactly with reference to punctuation. Changes between italic and roman type are treated as substantives, except in foreign phrases and titles of works (which are normalized in italics).

Other textual liberties. Some of the titles of Mill’s essays have been adapted from running titles or otherwise modified for easier identification; full information about the titles is in the headnotes. The dates added are those of first publication. The original footnotes to the titles of the periodical essays, giving bibliographic information, have been incorporated in the headnotes.

Typographical errors and manuscript slips of the pen have been silently corrected in the text; the note below lists them.⁴⁸ Corrections to conform to sources Mill quotes are made only when the sense supports the change and there is corroborating evidence, or a prima facie likelihood, that the printer misread Mill’s hand. To avoid annoyance, “[sic]” is not used to indicate oddities such as inconsistent spellings. In the headnotes the quotations from Mill’s bibliography, the manuscript of which is a scribal copy, are also silently corrected; again, the note below gives the corrections.⁴⁹ While the original punctuation and spelling of each item are retained, the style has been made uniform: for example, periods are added, where necessary, after such abbreviations as Mr.; accents on Greek words are normalized; and italic punctuation following italic passages has been made roman.

Also, in accordance with modern practice, all long quotations have been set in reduced type (and occasionally short ones have been set in normal type). In consequence, it has been necessary occasionally to add square brackets; there is little opportunity for confusion, as editorial insertions (except volume and page references) are in italics. Footnote indicators are placed after punctuation throughout, and dashes when coupled with other punctuation before quotations are deleted. Double quotation marks replace single; in the translations of Plato’s dialogues, where necessary, quotation marks appear at the beginning of a paragraph when the speech is continued from the preceding one. Other changes were specially required in the Platonic dialogues for ease of reading and consistency. Because Mill usually omits the names of the speakers, his practice of using a dash to indicate a transition from one speaker to another has been adopted and made uniform (in the first four, which were published, editorial changes for correctness are included as typographical errors in the list above). Quotation marks for direct speech are used throughout (again only those altered to correct an attribution are considered as typographical errors); they are not in the manuscript dialogues. In those dialogues a few punctuation points have been added (or, rarely, modified) for sense; Mill frequently uses the end of the line for punctuation, and some marks are ambiguous. Also, in the few cases where the immediate context suggests a slip of the pen, initial capitals have been added or deleted. The only other changes made are the italicization of “quâ” (220.34), and those listed as slips of the pen in the note above. Other minor individual changes are listed in the note below.⁵⁰

Mill’s references to sources have been normalized, and additional editorial references (in square brackets) added. For consistency, his references, when they appear at the beginning of passages, have been moved to the end. Where necessary, his references have been silently corrected; a list of the corrections and alterations is given in the note below.⁵¹

Appendix A, the Bibliographic Index, provides a guide to Mill’s citations of individuals, works, and quotations, with notes concerning the separate entries, and a list of substantive variants between his quotations and their sources. Including citations taken from other authors by Mill, there are references to nearly two hundred persons (plus some sixty referred to only in Mill’s translations from Plato) and about two hundred and twenty works (twelve of which are reviewed, and a further sixty-eight quoted from directly or indirectly). In these terms—as in others—Plato is the hero of the volume, there being references (including those to collected works) to thirty-four works; fifteen of Aristotle’s works are mentioned. Indeed, a majority of the references are Classical, with a great preponderance of Greek over Latin. The citations also, when studied in detail, demonstrate the care with which Mill read Grote and Bain, especially the former.

This Appendix serves as an index to persons, works, and statutes (of which, exceptionally, only one is mentioned), so references to them are omitted from the Index proper, which has been prepared by Dr. Bruce L. Kinzer.

[1 ]See the Preface to Dissertations and Discussions, in Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, Collected Works, X (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969), 493-4.

[2 ]See also Mill’s characterization (331 below) of Grote’s History as a “philosophic one”; on the other hand, one might argue that because Mill sees Greek history as “epic” (273), and calls Carlyle’s French Revolution “epic,” the Grote reviews could be placed with that of Carlyle (which will appear with other materials on France) in the “literary” category.

[3 ]“The Latin genius,” Mill says elsewhere, “lay not in speculation, and the Romans did undoubtedly borrow all their philosophical principles from the Greeks.” “Macaulay’s Lays of Ancient Rome,” Westminster Review, XXXIX (Feb., 1843), 113.

[4 ]The last two are here combined in one item, as they are in Mill’s reprinting of them in Dissertations and Discussions.

[5 ]They were republished, unannotated, but with an introduction, by Dr. Ruth Borchard (London: Watts, 1946).

[6 ]Jack Stillinger, ed., Autobiography (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969), 119; cf. Jack Stillinger, ed., The Early Draft of John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1961), 156-7.

[7 ]Francis E. Mineka, ed., The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, Collected Works, XII and XIII (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963), XII, 185. (Henceforth referred to as EL, CW, with volume and page numbers.)

[8 ]Ibid., 189, 218.

[9 ]The pencilled numbers are faint, and have been altered (evidently by the same hand). Apparently they are as follows: Charmides, 6 (altered from 4); Euthyphron, 7 (written over 5, or perhaps 5 written over 7); Laches, 5 (written over 3 or perhaps 3 written over 5); Lysis, 8 (written over 6); Parmenides, 4 (written over 7). If these are correct readings, the intended order, including the published versions, might be taken as Protagoras, Phædrus, Gorgias, Parmenides, Laches, Charmides, Euthyphron, Lysis, and Apology. (Grote wrote an early “Digest of the Dialogues of Plato” [B.L. Add. MSS. 29522, dated by Harriet Grote as “prior to 1832”], in which he follows Schleiermacher; the order of the nine dialogues in that system would be Phædrus, Lysis, Protagoras, Laches, Charmides, Euthyphron, Parmenides, Apology, Gorgias. [Cf. Introduction, xix-xx above.]) When the manuscripts were listed for sale (for £15/15, in an unidentified catalogue cutting; they were bought by Dr. Berg on 29 January, 1944), they apparently were in this order, Parmenides, Lysis, Euthyphron, Charmides, Laches, which does not conform to the altered or original numbering. The first record of them, as item 722 in the Sotheby’s sale of 29 March, 1922, of the property of Mary Taylor, Mill’s step-grand-daughter, gives merely “Notes on Plato, Auto. MS., 85 pp. folio”; they were bought by Maggs for £1/1.

[10 ]Cf. the Introduction, xix, and, for a more detailed account of Mill’s treatment of the Parmenides, xxv-xxviii.

[11 ]EL, CW, XIII, 551 (15/10/42).

[12 ]Ibid., 542-3, 549, 551.

[13 ]John Stuart Mill (London: Longmans, Green, 1882), 76.

[14 ]The latter (which is one of the changes between the versions of 1859 and 1867) may be compared with the passage in “Bain’s Psychology,” 350, where the earlier (and incorrect) form of words is not altered, to show that Mill’s revisions for the 2nd edition of Dissertations and Discussions were less than thorough.

[15 ]Cf. 347b-b, where a similar misreading is probable.

[16 ]John Stuart Mill, 85; cf. the Introduction, xxxi above.

[17 ]This, with his other Spectator reviews, will be found in the volume of newspaper writings in the Collected Works.

[18 ]EL, CW, XIII, 690, 699, 704.

[19 ]In Mill’s copy (Somerville College) of Grote’s History, the offensive passage is heavily underscored in pencil, and “untenable distinction” written in the margin. For further comment, see John M. Robson, “ ‘Feminine’ and ‘Masculine’: Mill vs. Grote,” Mill News Letter, XII (Winter, 1977), 18-22.

[20 ]Spectator, 5 June, 1847, 543-4 (Vols. III and IV), 3 and 10 March, 1849, 202-3 and 227-8 (Vols. V and VI), and 16 March, 1850, 255-6 (Vols. VII and VIII). One passage, dealing with “originality” and “genius,” incorporated from the review of 10 March, 1849, is especially interesting in that it adumbrates the central doctrine of Chap. iii of On Liberty.

[21 ]John Stuart Mill, 94; cf. the Introduction, xvii above.

[22 ]Francis E. Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley, eds., The Later of John Stuart Mill, Collected Works, Vols. XIV-XVII (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), XIV, 104 (4/5/53). (Henceforth referred to as LL, CW, with volume and page numbers.) One wonders whether Mill had the title of his collected essays in mind at this date.

[23 ]Ibid., 107-8.

[24 ]Ibid., 108-9; 24/8/53. For the passages, see 319 and 324 ff. below. In a letter to Harriet of 30/8/53 (ibid., 111), he refers incidentally to his thorough revision of the review.

[25 ]Ibid., 113.

[26 ]Ibid., 123 (6/1/54), 126 (9/1/54), 142 (29/1/54).

[27 ]See, e.g., 329g-g on the Sophists, which incorporates the passageh-h from the Spectator review of 16 March, 1850. Mill could, of course, have incorporated all such passages in his review on its first appearance in 1853 (for passages he did use there, see 318 and 319, both translations quoted from Grote).

[28 ]Bain, Autobiography (London: Longmans, Green, 1904), 251; LL, CW, XV, 582-3 (6/12/58). If their guarantee covered the whole loss, the copyright was to go, through them, to Bain.

[29 ]Sales of The Senses and the Intellect also picked up. (See Bain, Autobiography, 251; Bain, John Stuart Mill, 156; Mill to Helen Taylor, LL, CW, XV, 670 [4/2/60], where he connects the increased sale to his review.)

[30 ]For example, Bain contributed significantly to Mill’s Logic, reviewed it in the Westminster, and then used it as a teaching and examining text. He also wrote publicly in support of Mill’s parliamentary campaign, and wrote biographies of James and of John Stuart Mill. Indeed, he was their main philosophic disciple and heir. He read Grote’s Plato in manuscript and reviewed it, used portions of Grote’s unpublished writings in The Senses and the Intellect and Mental and Moral Science, and edited his posthumous works. Grote, in addition to much else over the years, reviewed Mill’s Examination of Sir William Hamilton, and contributed, as did Bain, many extensive notes to Mill’s edition of his father’s Analysis; he also, with Mill, aided Bain’s career by supporting his applications for professorships and examinerships. Mill, of course, wrote four major reviews of Grote’s works (the last of them edited by Bain), and one of Bain’s (all in this volume). More detail may be found by following up the references in their prefaces and footnotes, as well as in biographies and correspondence. (Cf. the Introduction, lviii above.)

[31 ]Bain, Autobiography, 251-2.

[32 ]See LL, CW, XV, 631 (6/8/59), 639 (15/10/59), 645 (14/11/59).

[33 ]Bain had reported to him on its contents as early as Feb., 1860 (see ibid., 670, and cf. ibid., 640).

[34 ]See ibid., XVI, 1010, 1040, 1061.

[35 ]See the Textual Introduction, Essays on Politics and Society, CW, XVIII (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), lxxxvi; at this time also his correspondence increased sharply.

[36 ]LL, CW, XVI, 1115, 1120, 1143. It may be mentioned that he sent offprints to W. E. Gladstone and J. E. Cairnes (ibid., 1159, 1271).

[37 ]Ibid., 1121.

[38 ]Ibid., 1145 (4/2/66).

[39 ]Compare (in this edition) its sixty-five pages with the ninety-seven of On Liberty, the fifty-six of Utilitarianism, and the fifty-one of his second review of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.

[40 ]Interestingly, further to the shared interests of Mill, Grote, and Bain, in his Autobiography (309) Bain mentions discussing Taine’s work (of which he had made an abstract) with Grote just before the latter’s death in 1871.

[41 ]LL, CW, XVII, 1751-2 (to Taine).

[42 ]Ibid., XV, 970.

[43 ]Ibid., XVII, 1828, 1833.

[44 ]Ibid., 1873 (28/2/72), 1889 (29/4/72).

[45 ]See ibid., 1913 (5/10/72), 1925 (9/12/72), 1929 (18/12/72), and the illustration of the first folio of the press-copy manuscript, facing 475 below. One may also legitimately wonder whether he saw proof of the Berkeley review, which similarly appeared very shortly after Mill commented that it was in the printer’s hands.

[46 ]In a note attached to his Mill manuscript, Palmer mistakenly identifies the hand as Helen Taylor’s.

[47 ]The argument for this practice is given in my “Principles and Methods in the Collected Edition of John Stuart Mill,” in John M. Robson, ed., Editing Nineteenth-Century Texts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), 96-122.

[48 ]In the list, the actual original is reproduced; because in some cases, as explained below, punctuation and format are restyled in this edition, the appearance of the entry may differ from what appears in the text. The entries take the following form: page and line reference to the present text, original wording [corrected wording] [justification for correction, if needed].

15.6-7 ‘a . . . reasoning’ [“a . . . reasoning”] [for consistency]

21.19 Accident. [Accident.”]

45.20 answer? [answer?”]

46.31 spot [spot.”]

48.13 citizens— [citizens.—]

52.1 For [“For]

52.7 ‘Protagoras [Protagoras]

52.30 holiness. It [holiness.—It]

59.14 lifed epended [life depended]

60.2 ignorance—. [ignorance.—]

81.28-9 persuading. And [persuading.”—“And]

82.34-6 It . . . lucky, rejoined Socrates, that . . . speech. [“It . . . lucky,” rejoined Socrates, “that . . . speech.”]

84.2 did—and [did.”—“And]

86.2 mean.’ ‘Have [mean. Have]

87.32 reasonable; but [reasonable.”—“But]

88.2-3 ‘Undoubtedly; any . . . walk.’ ‘But [“Undoubtedly.” “Any . . . walk. But] [to conform to original]

90.40 Precisely.’ ‘Now [Precisely. Now]

99n.5 the [but the] [for sense]

107.8 P. What! [P. “What!]

110.20 whatever. [whatever.”]

111.17-18 health? Evidently . . . health. And [health?” P. “Evidently . . . health.” S. “And]

117.4 upon? [upon?”]

119.23 hand, [hand,”]

126.2 ‘Certainly’ [“Certainly.”]

126.22 guess? [guess?”]

131.36 ‘S. [S.]

133.13 stage. [stage?]

135.9 yourself. [yourself?]

137.24 What [“What]

137.42 ‘C. [C.]

138.4 ‘Yes,’ [“Yes.”]

138.19 Not [“Not]

138.24 S. And [S. “And]

140.8 ordered; [ordered,] [for sense]

140.18 he [we] [as in Source and for sense]

145.16 if, [if] [as elsewhere in sentence]

150n.1-2 in sanum [insanum] [for sense]

156.15 not. [not.”]

158.18 δαιμόνια, [δαιμόνια,”]

167n.1 †[*] [setting alters sequence in this ed.]

169.4 three [thirty] [as in original]

175.6 seems [seem] [slip of the pen]

176.10 Zamolxis [Zalmoxis]

182.18 knowledge of Knowledge [Knowledge of knowledge] [as elsewhere in passage]

183.25 knowledge what [knowledge of what] [slip of the pen]

198.1 man [men] [slip of the pen]

205.22 is not be [is not] [slip of the pen]

205.28 than to [and to]

212.26 himself. [himself?]

212.28 understanding. [understanding?]

218.29 friendship.—Then [friendship.—Yes.—Then] [response needed to indicate change of speaker]

243.19 Chœronea [Chæronea]

247.2-3 Berkeley’s Theory of Vision, [“Berkeley’s Theory of Vision,”] [as in 42; cf. 250]

274.38 inferior [superior] [as in Source]

278.12 æstrus [œstrus]

278.44 copiously [copious] [as in Source]

282n.5 μου [μευ] [as in Source]

282.29 believed, [believed in,] [as in 46, 59]

285n.5 daughter.’ . . . p. 94. [daughter. . . . p. 94.’] [as in Source]

285n.5 Funcii [Funccii] [as in Grote and Grey]

294n.5 περ [πως] [as in Source]

294n.6 ἠ̑τοι [ἠ̑ τοι] [as in 46]

299.21 commencing [commercing] [as in 46, 59, 75, and Source]

318.9 intolerance [tolerance] [as in Source]

320.28 dissents [dissent] [as in Source]

325.32 entail [extort] [as in Source]

331.34 affars [affairs]

333.19 country. [country:] [as in Spectator]

358.3 reflection [repetition] [as in Source]

358.42 part [fact] [as in Source]

370.4 ratification [rectification] [as in Source]

382.4 who [‘who] [as in 66]

390n.7 antipathy,’ &c. [antipathy, &c.’] [as in Source,66]

393.26 agains [against] [dropped character]

395.30 ‘to [to]

429.10 ἔτερον [ἕτερον] [as in Source]

431.3 the subject [the same subject] [as in Source]

434.2 science [Science] [as in Source and for consistency]

439n.10 Remarks [remarks] [as in 66]

446.4 subjects. are [subjects, are] [corrected in 75]

464.14 law or [law of] [as in 75]

465n.7 The [He] [as in 75]

465.13-14 must taken [must be taken]

466.7 any one one [any one]

470n.1 iii [II] [corrected in 75]

478.17 left [left for] [as in Source, both MSS, and 75]

487.15 forms [Forms] [as in both MSS and for consistency]

489.27 predicates. If [predicates; if] [as in Source and both MSS]

492.13 as far [so far] [as in Source, 75]

492.35 than his [than in his] [as in Source and both MSS]

498.15 demonstrations. Unless [demonstrations; unless] [as in Source and both MSS]

501n.6-7 meaning of Protagoras meant [meaning of Protagoras] [incomplete revision in MS]

501n.9 He [he] [incomplete revision in MS]

503.12 to to [to]

505n.10 give [gives] [slip of the pen]

[49 ]The first reading is that of the original, the second (in square brackets) the corrected reading.

39.2 (headnote) Dialogue [Dialogues]

62.3 (headnote) Phœdrus [Phædrus]

151.6 (headnote) f. March [for March]

246.18 (headnote) Vision; [Vision’;]

442.6 (headnote) Tamme’s [?MacMinn reads Tainine’s] [Taine’s]

[50 ]17.15-17 1. ‘Any . . . / 2. ‘Under . . . / 3. ‘May . . . contained.’ [“1. Any . . . / 2. Under . . . / 3. May . . . contained.”]

151.7 “the [The]

227.29 [interpolated comment in parentheses moved to footnote and parentheses removed]

252.4 *** [. . .] 256.12 *** [. . .]

278.2-3 [line space added to indicate 3-page omission in quotation from Grote’s History]

279.15 (Byron) [[Byron [JSM added “(Byron)”]

292.20-1 [line space added to indicate 2-page omission in quotation from Grote’s History]

301.28 [paragraph] ‘Lived no paragraph] lived]

352.6 [line space added, as in 59, offprint; page break in copy-text]

[51 ]21n.8 In the preface to his . . . complains [In his . . . complains [p. 105n [JSM presumably confused his two references to Whately’s Rhetoric]

26n.2 cap. 5 [Cap. 6]

28.12 71 [71-2]

135n.3 page 204 [pp. 204-5]

278.49 572-9 [572-3, 576-9]

285.11 639-42 [639-40, 642]

293.21 234-44 [235-6, 238-45]

294.36 607 [607-10]

298.11 105-6 [104-6]

299.33 298-302 [298-301]

302.31 504-519 [505, 516-19]

359.35 404-6 [404n-406n]

360.3 348 [318]

360.30 p. 380 [pp. 380n-382n]

366.47 556, 557 [555-7]

368.29 p. 570 [pp. 570-1]

381n.2 p. 10, note [pp. 10n-11n]

390n.7 252, note [253n]

390n.10 Ibid. [Ibid., pp. 45-6]

390n.12 44 [73]

390n.13 73 [77]

395n.3 359e [352e]

400n.1 book v [Bk. VI]

407n.1 iv.61 [IV, 6, 1]

410n.1 p. 258 [pp. 258-9]

412n.3 155b[135b]

413n.4 p. 270 [pp. 270-1]

420n.14 58, 59 [53-4]

425n.1 155, 156 [154-5, 156-7]

430n.1 548-551 [549-51]

430n.7 p. 249 [249b]

430n.9 84-93 [88-93]

432n.1 ii [III]

435n.1 517C, 519A [519a, 517c]

439n.9 489 [489-91]

460n.2 p. 184 [pp. 184-5]

470n.1 iii [II] [corrected in 75]

493n.16 i.198 [Vol. I, pp. 196-7] [Harvard MS has i.196-8]

496n.2 847 [897n]

501n.3 ii.151 [Vol. II, pp. 150-1]

508n.1 i.391 [Vol. I, pp. 391-2]]]