General Introduction
Albert D. Pionke
The University of Alabama
At twelve volumes and over 7000 pages, George Grote’s History of Greece is the longest and physically bulkiest work in the John Stuart Mill Library, “the largest ever to appear on the subject in English by a single author,” and “one of the chief monuments of mid-Victorian intellectual life” (Demetriou, “In Defence of the British Constitution” 293; Turner 213). Appearing in two-volume installments roughly every two years between 1846 and 1856, it greatly overshadowed fellow liberal Connop Thirlwall’s eight-volume History of Greece (1835-1844) and entirely demolished the authority of conservative William Mitford’s The History of Greece (1784-1818), which Mill had read “continuously” as a boy, his sympathies “always on the contrary side to those of the author” (CW 1.15). Grote’s revisionist account of the virtues of Athenian democracy, implicitly both the forerunner of and model for modern British liberal society, “spurred a new appreciation for classical republicanism that transformed the field of ancient Greek historiography from its roots,” quickly becoming “the standard textbook for Greek history” at Cambridge, as well as a frequent authoritative reference “in the political debates of the period” (Demetriou, Brill’s Companion 7-8, 2; Kumar 88). Even now, “students of Greece are not likely to go back any farther than Grote’s History in their secondary research” (Roberts 208).
Students of the History itself most often return to Grote’s close imbrication with the Mill family to account for the ideological thrust of his enduring interest in classical Greece. An advanced intellectual disciple of James Mill since 1819, Grote hosted John Stuart Mill and his coterie, including regular meetings of both the Utilitarian Society and the Society for Students of Mental Philosophy, at the house on Threadneedle Street he had begun to occupy after his marriage to Harriet Lewin in 1820. As recalled in the early draft of Mill’s Autobiography, “The head quarters of me and my associates was not my father’s house but Grote’s, which I very much frequented. Every new proselyte and every one whom I hoped to make a proselyte, I took there to be indoctrinated. Grote’s opinions were at that time very much the same both in their strong and their weak points as those of us younger people, but he was of course very much more formed, and incomparably the superior of all of us in knowledge and present abilities” (CW 1.110). The conversation of these like-minded young men turned frequently to “Grecian history,” then unsatisfactorily interpreted by Mitford (H. Grote 49).
Whether one believes John Stuart Mill—who claims it “had been commenced at my father’s instigation” (CW I.98)—or Harriet Grote—who writes that, in “the autumn of the year 1823,” she suggested to her husband that he “write a new History of Greece himself” and that his “studies became chiefly directed towards it from that time forward” (49)—George Grote’s History of Greece was first conceived in this heady intellectual ferment of the early 1820s. By April 1826, Grote’s research had progressed far enough to allow him to publish what Mill would describe as “a very complete exposure and castigation of Mitford,” in the form of “Institutions of Ancient Greece” for the Westminster Review (CW 1.99). And by February 1831, the History had become such a central fixture in the intellectual life of the Grote home that Mill had begun to refer to it as his friend’s “opus magnum” and Harriet had projected that it would, by itself, “create” her husband’s “reputation” (67).
However, the passage of the First Reform Bill, Grote’s successful campaign to serve as Radical MP for the City of London—a position he retained through 1841—and his directorial responsibilities at the family banking-house, meant that Grote’s scholarly reputation would have to wait for at least a decade. By 1842, according to Harriet, he was once again “closely employed upon the first volume of his ‘History of Greece,’” and in 1843 he retired from Grote, Prescott & Company in order “to devote his time and faculties to the opus magnum that all other considerations, pecuniary ones included, became secondary, as well in his wife’s view as his own, to this main object” (153). It seems telling that even after a decade of deferral the project retained Mill’s Latinate moniker, suggesting perhaps his continued interest and encouragement.
Certainly, once it began to appear, Mill was a dedicated reader of and publicist for Grote’s History. As will be detailed in the following sections, he reviewed each of the first four pairs of volumes upon publication, writing with the advantage of freshly printed, then inscribed first-edition copies presented to him by Grote; additionally, he reviewed volumes nine, ten, and eleven together in a single longer essay. Mill also added his own contributions, in the form of nearly 1200 examples of marginalia, of which roughly two-thirds are verbal annotations. These notes range in length from a single letter, indicating an error of orthography, to one or more sentences, sometimes agreeing with but more often challenging whatever conclusions appear on the corresponding printed page. As will be documented below, slightly more than 150 of these annotations had a perceptible effect on subsequent editions of Grote’s History, meaning that they not only were made for Mill’s own gratification as a reader but also were shared with the author in the interests of copyediting, factchecking, rephrasing, rendering more accurate with respect to then-current scholarship, and otherwise improving the “opus magnum” in which both had been invested for decades. Documenting the effects of Mill’s marginalia on Grote’s text has required a painstaking comparison of each marginally annotated page in Mill’s personal copy of the first edition with the corresponding page in each subsequent edition. Tables recording Mill’s annotations, Grote’s original and revised text, and relevant excerpts from Mill’s letters, which sometimes allow the date at which the annotations were made to be approximated, are presented at the end of each volume-pair-specific introduction.
Volumes VII and VIII Introduction
Albert D. Pionke and Riley Hines
The University of Alabama
Volumes seven and eight of Grote’s History were published at the beginning of March 1850 and a copy, inscribed on the title page of volume seven to “John S. Mill Esq With the Author’s Compliments,” added to Mill’s growing first edition. Mill reciprocated quickly, with his review in the Spectator appearing already on March 16, 1850. Returning to the format of his earlier notices for volumes one through four, Mill wrote only one review of volumes seven and eight and included no lengthy quotations. He did, however, continue his fulsome praise, describing Grote’s account of the “decline and fall” of the Greek empire as a “still more interesting and impressive recital” than his previous account of that empire’s growth and stability in volumes five and six (CW XXV.1158).
In revealing the extent to which this final stage of imperial mismanagement “was habitually in the hands of the rich and great,” Grote also offers “the triumphant vindication, so far as historical evidence goes, of Democracy,” both in the oppositional role accorded to demagogues such as Cleon and in the social and intellectual skepticism fostered by the Sophists (CW XXV.1160, 1161). Mill’s ready admission that ancient Greek democracy was only ever imperfectly realized, “since women, slaves, and a multitude of permanent residents of all ranks and classes were not citizens, were ‘unknown to the constitution,’” actually reinforces his present political point, that Britain cannot afford to stop at half measures in its own process of political liberalization if it wishes to avoid allowing its own conservative oligarchs to precipitate a similar decline and fall (CW XXV.1161).
Mill closes his review with a discussion of Grote’s final chapter on Socrates, “which, after so much that is valuable, is in our estimation the most instructive chapter in the book” (CW XXV.1164). Grote would, himself, return to the topic of Athenian intellectual history in his three-volume Plato, and the Other Companions of Socrates (1865), elaborating upon this singular chapter’s account “of the peculiarities of the Socratic teaching, and of the urgent need, at the present and at all times, of such a teacher” (CW XXV.1164). Lest readers in 1850 miss the urgency of the subject, Mill closes his review with the assertion that, “Socrates occupies an unique position in history; and the work which he did requires to be done again, as the indispensable condition of that intellectual renovation, without which the grand moral and social improvements, to which mankind are now beginning to aspire, will be for ever unattainable.” (CW XXV.1164).
Mill’s personal copy of Grote’s History attests to the care with which he read and reread volumes seven and eight, which together contain 219 individual examples of marginalia (not counting Grote’s authorial inscription), of which 173 are verbal annotations in Mill’s hand and 46 are nonverbal marks. This roughly 79% to 21% ratio of verbal to nonverbal marginalia approaches the proportion of annotations to marks found in volumes five and six, suggesting that whether writing one review or two, Mill remained equally invested in reading, commenting, and querying.
Twenty-four of the nonverbal marks are evidently connected to an annotation on the same page, almost always located on the same lines (i.e., an interlinear underlining with annotation in the outer margin), leaving only twenty-two examples of nonverbal marginalia whose provenance or purpose leaves much room for doubt. That Grote interpreted marginal question marks unaccompanied by annotations as indications that he ought to consider revising is apparent in more than one instance: on volume seven, page 484, Grote’s original text, marked by interlinear underlining and a marginal question mark, “ended by inflicting on his country that cruel wound which destroyed so many of her citizens as well as her maritime empire,” was revised in the 1851 second edition to read “ended by bringing ruin on the greatest armament ever sent forth by Athens, as well as upon her maritime empire”; similarly, on volume eight, page 37, Grote’s original explanation of the motives behind the extra-judicial murder of Hyperbolus was pared down in 1851 to remove the sentence, immediately adjacent to Mill’s marginal question mark, “As he was not a Samian, and had moreover been in banishment during the last five or six years, he could have had no power either in the island or the armament, and there his death served no prospective purpose.” These two instances offer a measure of assurance that the other nonverbal marks were also made by Mill, some within the first year of his receipt of both volumes.
As they had in earlier volumes, Mill’s verbal marginalia sometimes also catalyzed Grote’s revisions. Of the 173 annotations made by Mill, 37, or roughly 21%, appear to have prompted a change in a subsequent edition of the History. Thirty-two of these changes appear already in the 1851 second edition of volumes seven and eight, meaning that the associated verbal marginalia, like the questions marks mentioned above, must have been added by Mill and shared with Grote during the first year in which Mill owned the volumes. The preponderance of revisions undertaken for the immediately subsequent edition renders in even more extreme form the shift evident between volumes one through four and volumes five and six: from slightly less than one-third of total annotation-associated revisions made to the next printed editions of volumes through four (18 of 60 in volumes one and two, 10 of 32 in volumes three and four); to three-fourths (18 of 24) of Grote’s marginalia-inspired revisions to volumes five and six appearing in the immediately subsequent edition.
The scope of Mill’s marginalia and Grote’s changes to the 1851 edition ranges from simple editorial corrections—“enjoyed” replacing “enjoined” on VII.119, “Goggylus” corrected to “Gongylus” on VII.363, and a second “defendant” corrected to “plaintiff” on VIII.410—to more substantive elaborations, excisions, and revisions. Thus, Mill’s two marginal annotations on VII.112—”only if an Enomoty was a constant number” and “Perhaps the lochage could redistribute his lochus into enomoties”—prompted Grote to elaborate and clarify his description of this smallest subdivision of the Spartan army to better respond to the questions posed by Cambridge classicist Peter Paul Dobree and to attempt to account for the agency of individual commanders. Similarly, on VIII.508, Mill’s brief annotation reminding Grote that, prior to the Persian invasion of Greece, the Athenians “gave up the produce of the Laureion mines for a fleet,” prompted Grote to add a new, if somewhat grudging, footnote to this effect.
Another of Grote’s revisions in the footnotes reveals a similarly reluctant acquiescence. On VII.294, next to the final paragraph-length quotation in a footnote that had begun on VII.292 which compared the Athenian reaction to the mutilation of statues of Hermes in 415 BCE to the English reaction to the supposed Roman Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II in 1678, a fiction manufactured by Titus Oates, Mill had written “pity to quote Lingard” about the latter. The reference here is to John Lingard, Roman Catholic priest and author of The History of England (1819-49), written with scrupulous regard for primary sources but intended to convince English readers of the pernicious effects of the Protestant Reformation. Mill was familiar enough with Lingard’s work to refer to him incidentally in his 1844 Edinburgh Review essay, “Michelet’s History of France,” in which he wrote that Michelet’s opinions about “the Papal Church” can “scarce hope for ready acceptance . . . from the greater number of English readers,” who are likely to “confound” them with those of Lingard (CW XX.239). Clearly, Mill thought that readers of volume seven of the Grote’s History might allow their religious prejudices to cloud their judgment of Grote’s larger point, which was that, given their religious beliefs, the Athenians’ fears that the state was in peril as a result of a desecration that had actually occurred were actually more reasonable than Englishmen’s later hysteria over a plot that never was.[1] Grote responded to Mill’s annotation by replacing the paragraph from Lingard with a paragraph from Whig politician and Foreign Secretary under Lord Grenville Charles James Fox’s History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II (1808). He also added an entirely new paragraph drawing the reader’s attention to his substitution and excusing his earlier choice by remarking that Lingard’s judgment of the 1678 debacle “is noway more severe than that of Hume, or Mr. Fox, or Mr. Macaulay.”
Grote made only four total revisions to volumes seven and eight in response to Mill’s marginalia annotations in subsequent editions, two in 1855 and two in 1862, all in volume seven and all relatively minor. In the 1855 edition, Mill’s marginal “doubtful” on VII.90 beside Grote’s critique of a translation by Thirlwall prompted him to excise an overconfident sentence without otherwise altering the spirit of his critique; and Mill’s correction of “describing” to “ascribing” on VII.222 is readily incorporated on VII.221 of the 1855 edition. In 1862, Mill’s interlinear “a” together with a marginal “a/” on VIII.151 prompted Grote to reconjugate “demandu” as “demanda”; and his “conf. 320” next to a passage concerning competing speeches made by Nicias and Alcibiades about the war with Sicily led Grote, once again, to excise an overly speculative sentence. That there were so few changes made in 1855 and 1862 suggests that they may have been simply overlooked in 1851, when neither would have exceeded Grote’s evident readiness to revise.
Although there are no instances in volumes seven and eight in which Mill’s marginalia directly reproduce passages from his letters, there are individual annotations suggesting that Mill is commenting with the benefit of his first-hand experience in Italy and Greece in 1854-1855. On VII.298, for instance, Grote’s description of Syracusan forces camping overnight beside the river Symathus prompts Mill to agree that, “The Symathus flows very near to Katana.” Later, on VII.396, an account of Greek forces “situated on an outlying eminence belonging to the range called Parnês . . . commanding an extensive view of that plain as well as of the plain of Eleusis” inspires Mill to recall, “Moreover, it is almost the only place in the Attic highlands from which this view can be had.” Similar annotations apparently made from memory of Greek or Italian geography appear on VII.558, VIII.47, VIII.117, and VIII.150; the last of these does appear alongside a textual addition made in 1851, but given that Mill’s geographical comment does not have an obvious relationship to Grote’s added cross-reference, their proximity may be coincidental rather than causal. The presence of these annotations apparently grounded in personal observation does support the hypothesis advanced in introductions to earlier volumes, that Mill read and annotated Grote’s History at least twice, once upon immediate receipt and again sometime between his return home from Greece in 1855 and Grote’s completion of the revised, eight-volume edition in 1862. That none of the geographical annotations in volumes seven and eight prompted revision may be because none noted errors in the printed text, or there may be some significance for the revision process of the absence of parallel passages in Mill’s letters.
The table below features all of Mill’s annotations and Grote’s revisions to volumes seven and eight. The left column lists the volume and page on which each annotation appears. The second column from left features Grote’s original text, if that text was subsequently revised; it is otherwise left blank. Mill’s annotations appear in the third column from left. The middle columns, in this case columns four through six from left, record whether or not a revision occurred in the passage already quoted and in which edition; the new volume and page number of the revised text are provided if different from that cited at left. Grote’s revised text appears in the far-right column (the absence of any relevant passages from Mill’s letters has led to the omission of the “Relevant References” column included in previous introductions). Of course, individual page images featuring Grote’s printed text and Mill’s marginalia, along with transcriptions and closeup photos, remain available for viewing via the regular user interface of Mill Marginalia Online.
| Volume.Page in 1st ed. | Grote’s original text (if later revised) | Mill’s annotation | Revision evident in 3rd ed, 1851 (Y or N) | Revision evident in 4th ed, 1855 (Y or N) | Revision evident in new ed, 1862 (Y or N) | Grote’s revised text (if any) |
| VII.25 | is this proved? | N | N | N | ||
| VII.29 | conf 110 | N | N | N | ||
| VII.38 | Argos | N | N | N | ||
| VII.51 | v. Lucian de Gymnasies. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.77 | unquestionally Alkibiades If there was a final prize to be competed for by the victors in former races, what reason is there to suppose that these victors all had prizes? | N | N | N | ||
| VII.90 | Dr. Thirlwall translates it (Hist. Gr. vol. iii. ch. xxiv. p. 331)―”they began their march on a day which they had alwaysbeen used to keep holy.” But surely the words πάντα τὸν χρόνον must denote some definite interval of time, and can hardly be construed as equivalent to ἀϵί. Moreover the words, as Dr. Thirlwall construes them, introduce a new fact which has no visible bearing on the main affirmation of the sentence. | doubtful | N | Y, VII.90 | now, V.58 | Dr. Thirlwall translates it (Hist. Gr. vol. iii. ch. xxiv. p. 331)―”they began their march on a day which they had always been used to keep holy.” But the words on this construction introduce a new fact which has no visible bearing on the main affirmation of the sentence. |
| VII.90 | A stronger argument was that Thirlwall’s interpretation strains the meaning of ανειν, and that it requires us to interpret the present participle in an aoristic sense | N | N | N | ||
| VII.98 | No doubt the Dervenk in which the Turkish invading army was annihilated in 1822. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.101 | perhaps rather of having pledged them to peace + “equitable satisfaction.” | N | N | N | ||
| VII.110 | The Neodamodes were the Brasidian enfranchised Helots conf 29 | N | N | N | ||
| VII.112 | Thucydides states two distinct facts. 1. Each Enomoty had four men in front. 2. Each Enomoty varied in depth, according as every lochagus chose.―Now Dobree asks, with much reason, how these two assertions are to be reconciled? Given the number of men in front,―the depth of the Enomoty is of course determined, without any reference to the discretion of any one. These two assertions appear distinctly contradictory; unless we suppose (what seems very difficult to believe) that the Lochage might make one or two of the four files of the same Enomoty deeper than the rest. Dobree proposes, as a means of removing this difficulty, to expunge some words from the text. One cannot have confidence, however, in the conjecture. | only if an Enomoty was a constant number | Y, VII.112 | now, V.71 | Thucydides states several distinct facts. 1. Each Enomoty had four men in front. 2. Each Enomoty varied in depth, according as every lochagus chose. 3. Each lochus had four pentekosties, and each pentekosty four enomoties.―Now Dobree asks, with much reason, how these assertions are to be reconciled? Given the number of men in front, and the number of enomoties in each Lochus―the depth of the Enomoty is of course determined, without reference to the discretion of any one. These two assertions… | |
| VII.112 | These two assertions appear distinctly contradictory; unless we suppose (what seems very difficult to believe) that the Lochage might make one or two of the four files of the same Enomoty deeper than the rest. Dobree proposes, as a means of removing this difficulty, to expunge some words from the text. One cannot have confidence, however, in the conjecture. | Perhaps the lochage could redistribute his lochus into enomoties | Y, VII.112 | now, V.71 | …One cannot have confidence, however, in the conjecture. Another solution has been suggested, viz. that each lochagus had the power of dividing his lochus into more or fewer enomoties as he chose, only under the obligation that four men should constitute the front rank of each enomoty: the depth would then of course be the variable item. I incline to believe that this is what Thucydides here means to indicate. When he says, therefore, that there were four pentekosties in each lochus, and four enomoties in each pentekosty―we must suppose him to allude to the army as it marched out from Sparta; and to intimate, by the words which follow, that each lochagus had the power of modifying that distribution in regard to his own lochus, when the order of battle was about to be formed. This, at any rate, seems the least unsatisfactory solution of the difficulty. | |
| VII.113 | flute players? | N | N | N | ||
| VII.119 | …enjoyed abstinence from prolonged pursuit against a defeated enemy. | enjoined | Y, VII.119 | now, V.76 | …enjoined abstinence from prolongded pursuit against a defeated enemy. | |
| VII.139 | “having been about to” | N | N | N | ||
| VII.146 | At the time when the resolution was adopted at Athens, to take a vote of ostracism suggested by the political dissension between Nikias and Alkibiades, about twenty-four years had elapsed since a similar vote had been resorted to; the last example having been that of Perikles and Thucydides son of Melesius, the latter of whom was ostracised about 442 B.C. | Damon? | Y, VII.146 | now, V.93 | [new footnote added―1/2placed after “Thucydides”] 1/2I ought properly to say, the last example fairly comparable to this struggle between Nikias and Alkibiades, to whom, as rival politicians and men of great position, Perikles and Thucydides bore a genuine analogy. There had been one sentence of ostracism passed more recently; that against Damon, the musical teacher, sophist, and companion of Perikles. The political enemies of Perikles procured that Damon should be ostracised, a little before the Peloponnesian war (Plutarch, Perikles, c. 4). This was a great abuse and perversion of the ostracism, even in its principle. We know not how it was brought about: nor can I altogether shut out a suspicion, that Damon was sentenced to banishment, as a consequence either of trial or of non-appearance to an accusation―not ostracised at all. | |
| VII.149 | Now as all the Melian population were slain immediately after the capture of the town, there remained only the Athenian envoys through whose report Thucydides could possibly have heard what really passed. | not all. see 156. | Y, VII.150 | now, V.95 | Now as all the Melian prisoners of military age, and certainly all those leading citizens then in the town who had conducted this interview, were slain immediately after the capture of the town, there remained only the Athenian envoys through whose report Thucydides could possibly have heard what really passed. | |
| VII.150 | bad authority. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.151 | demandu | a | N | N | Y, V.96 | demanda |
| VII.151 | demandu | a/ | N | N | Y, V.96 | demanda |
| VII.157 | Yet the speech of Pericles at the beginning of the war is very out- spoken on a principle somewhat similar. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.169 | like Dest Mahomed. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.173 | witness their existing remains. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.174 | collated? | N | N | N | ||
| VII.206 | The distinction taken by Dr. Arnold between what was illegal and what was merely irregular, was little marked at Athens: both were called illegal―τοὺς νόμους λύϵιν. The rules which the Athenian assembly, a sovereign assesmbly, laid down for its own debates and decisions, were just as much laws as those which it passed for the guidance of private citizens. The English House of Commons is not a sovereign assembly, but only a portion of the sovereign power: accordingly the rules which it lays down for its debates are not laws, but orders of the House: a breach of these orders, therefore, in debating any particular subject, would not be illegal, but merely irregular or informal. The same was the case with teh French Chamber of Deputies, prior to the revolution of February 1848: the rules which it laid down for its own proceedings were not laws, but simply le réglement de la Chambre. It is remarkable that the present National Assembly now sitting (March 1849) has retained this expression, and adopted a réglement for its own businessl though it is in point of fact a sovereign assembly, and the rules which it sanctions are, properly speaking,laws. Both in this case… | rules laid down for its own voluntary observance. | Y, VII.206 | now, V.132 | The distinction taken by Dr. Arnold between what was illegal and what was merely irregular, was little marked at Athens: both were called illegal―τοὺς νόμους λύϵιν. The rules which the Athenian assembly, a sovereign assesmbly, laid down for its own debates and decisions, were just as much laws as those which it passed for the guidance of private citizens. Both in this case… | |
| VII.207 | The speech just made, bringing the expedition again into question, endangered his dearest hopes both of fame and of pecuniary acquisition; for his dreams went farther than those of any man in Athens―not merely to the conquest of all Sicily, but also to that of Carthage and the Carthaginian empire. Opposed to Nikias… | conf. 320. | N | N | Y, V.133 | The speech just made, bringing the expedition again into question, endangered his dearest hopes both of fame and of pecuniary acquisition. Opposed to Nikias… |
| VII.222 | But it seems plain that he is here describing, to his countrymen generally, plans… | ascribing | N | Y, VII.221 | now, V.142 | But it seems plain that he is here ascribing, to his countrymen generally, plans… |
| VII.222 | conf. 328 | N | N | N | ||
| VII.232 | [unreadable] | N | N | N | ||
| VII.235 | Notice had been sent round to all the allies;―forces were already on their way to the rendezvous at Korkyra;―the Argeian and Mantineian allies were arriving at Peiraeus to embark. So much the more eagerly did the conspirators proceed in the other part of their plan―to work that exaggerated religious terror, which they had themselves artificially brought about, for the ruin of Alkibiades. | not certain that those who took advantage of it were those who did it. | Y, VII.235 | now, V.151 | Notice had been sent round to all the allies; forces were already on their way to the rendezvous at Korkyra; the Argeian and Mentineian allies were arriving at Peiraeus to embark. So much the more eagerly did the conspirators proceed in that which I have stated as the other part of their probable plan; to work that exaggerated religious terror, which they had themselves artificially brought about, for the ruin of Alkibiades. | |
| VII.258 | [plus sign] because they were generally appointed to commands. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.274 | The application of torture to witnesses and suspected persons, handed down from the Roman law, was in like manner recognised, and pervaded nearly all the criminal jurisprudence of Europe until the last century. I hope that the reader, after having gone through the painful narrative of the proceedings of the Athenians after the mutilation of Hermae, will take the trouble to peruse by way of comparison the Storia della Colonna Infame by the eminent Alexander Manzoni, author of ‘I Promessu Sposi.’ This little volume… | rather vain hope | Y, VII.274 | now, V.175 | The application of torture to witnesses and suspected persons, handed down from the Roman law, was in like manner recognised, and pervaded nearly all the criminal jurisprudence of Europe until the last century. I could wish to induce the reader, after having gone through the painful narrative of the proceedings of the Athenians concerning the mutilation of the Hermae, to peruse by way of comparison the Storia della Colonna Infame by the eminent Alexander Manzoni, author of ‘I Promessi Sposi.’ This little volume… | |
| VII.280 | not if his later account is true | N | N | N | ||
| VII.289 | The same demand for legal punishment would have been supposed to exist in a Christian Catholic country, down to a very recent period of history―if instead of the Eleusinian mysteries we suppose the Sacrament of the Mass to have been the ceremony ridiculed… | Sacrifice | Y, VII.289 | now, V.185 | …the Sacrifice of the Mass to have been the ceremony ridiculed… | |
| VII.289 | bad Catholic theology | N | N | N | ||
| VII.292 | murder of Sir E. Godfrey? | N | N | N | ||
| VII.294 | [paragraph-length quotation from John Lingard’s History of England (1809-1849) judging the fallout from the fallacious 1678 Roman Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II as “partial trials and judicial murders” in which “the voice of reason and the claims of justice were equally disregarded.”] | pity to quote Lingard. | Y, VII.294 | now, V.188 | [paragraph-length quotation from Charles James Fox’s History of the Early Part of James II (1808) judging the same events as “an indelible disgrace upon the English nation” in which judges, “whose duty it was to guard . . . against . . . the national ferment . . . were scandalously active in confirming [prosecutors and juryment] in their prejudices and inflaming their passions.”] [new paragraph then inserted]: I have substituted the preceding quotation from Mr. Fox, in place of that from Dr. Lingard, which stood in my first edition. On such a point, it has been remarked that the latter might seem a partial witness, though in reality his judgment is noway more several than that of Hume, or Mr. Fox, or Lord Macaulay. | |
| VII.295 | not very likely that the Sikans of other towns would ransom at a high price those of Hykkara, nor that any Sikans had 120 telents to spare for such a purpose see 381. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.298 | The Symaethus flows very near to Katana. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.319 | From Carthage nothing was obtained; why, we do not know; for we shall find the Carthaginians, six years hence, invading Sicily with prodigious forces; and if they entertained any such intentions, it would seem that the presence of Nikias in Sicily must have presented the most convenient moment for executing them. To the Sikels, Egestaeans, and all the other allies of Athens, Nikias sent orders for bricks, iron bars, clamps, and everything suitable for the wall of circumvallation, which was to be commenced with the first burst of spring. | but not to help Athens | Y, VII.319 | now, V.204 | From Carthage nothing was obtained. To the Sikels, Egestaeans, and all the other allies of Athens, Nikias also sent orders for bricks, iron bars, clamps, and everything suitable for the wall of circumvallation, which was to be commenced with the first burst of spring. | |
| VII.322 | rather, had been thought to be so. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.325 | You will thus get into your own hands the live and dead stock of Attica, interrupt the working of the silver mines at Laureion, deprive the Athenians of their profits from judicial fines as well as their landed revenue, and dispose the subject-allies to withhold their tribute. | why fines? | Y, VII.325 | now, V.207 | [1 placed after the word “fines” and new footnote added] 1 The occupation of Dekeleia made is necessary for the larger number of Athenians to be almost incessantly under arms. Instead of a city, Athens became a guard-post, says Thucydides (vii. 28). There was therefore seldom leisure for the convocation of that numerous body of citizens who formed a Dikastery. | |
| VII.325 | The real patriot… | lover of country | Y, VII.325 | now, V.208 | [underlined “patriot” was not altered, but another prior instance of patriot was altered – original lines read: I who once passed for a patriot1.] I who once passed for a lover of my country. | |
| VII.328 | conf. 207. + 222. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.329 | Yet you may be meant to conquer Carthage (p. 207) | N | N | N | ||
| VII.333 | an inapplicable phrase | N | N | N | ||
| VII.333 | In a former chapter the quarter Tycha is spoken of as if it already existed | N | N | N | ||
| VII.363 | …the Corinthian admiral Goggylus… | Gongylus? | Y, VII.363 | now, V.232 | …the Corinthian admiral Gongylus… | |
| VII.366 | round, not over Euryalus. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.380 | doubtful translation | N | N | N | ||
| VII.381 | evidence that the Hykkarian prisoners were sold, not ransomed. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.382 | A pleasanter tale than this | N | N | N | ||
| VII.396 | Moreover it is almost the only place in the Attic highlands from which this view can be had | N | N | N | ||
| VII.419 | not properly a declivity. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.439 | can this be so? | N | N | N | ||
| VII.461 | Other people before us have invaded foreign lands, and after having done what was competent to human power, have suffered what was within the limit of human endurance. | ανθρωπεια? | Y, VII.461 | now, V.294 | Other people before us have invaded foreign lands, and by thus acting under common human impulse, have incurred sufferings within the limit of human endurance. | |
| VII.463 | at Akrae? | N | N | N | ||
| VII.484 | evil? | N | N | N | ||
| VII.508 | Perhaps the Athenians had attended the Isthmia all through the war. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.521 | very significant that βεβαίοις | N | N | N | ||
| VII.544 | perhaps the last meant tributary towns or districts, having native governments such as doubtless the Greek cities, when tributary to Persia, were. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.558 | on the edge of the cliffs. | N | N | N | ||
| VII.558 | But the fort, or some large + strong fort thereabouts, still exists + there can be no doubt about its situation. Leake having seen the place cannot well be wrong Perhaps however this fort is the Dionysian fort on Euryalus | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.xvii | 2 | |||||
| VIII.7 | This looks as if part of the pay was withheld ες δμηρειαν perhaps only the current instalment | | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.21 | Among these clubs were distributed most of “the best citizens, the good and honourable men, the elegant men, the well-known, the temperate… | men of note | Y, VIII.21 | now, V.367 | Among these clubs were distributed most of “the best citizens, the good and honourable men, the elegant men, the men of note, the temperate… | |
| VIII.24 | Ipso, the feeling must have [unreadable] changed in the time of Demosthenes | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.25 | to [intervening text unreadable] the A [remaining text unreadable]? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.27 | The man of highest rank + dignity feared in the ranks when he did not happen to have a command. as Alkibiades at Delium. Pericles at Tanagra. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.31 | Perhaps they received pay from home. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.39 | not the meaning of μὴ παρούση. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.47 | There is now no grove there, but the tomb of Otfried Müller on the summit | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.59 | κατὰ κράτος seems rather to mean “with a high hand.” | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.63 | To stand by each other. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.73 | would not this sense have been expressed in the nominative. όϊ τε πεντακισχιλίοις ? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.73 | but this was implied by the power reserved of convoking them | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.74 | conf. 49 | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.79 | …a special fort at Ectioneia… | e | Y, VIII.79 | now, V.403 | …a special fort at Eetioneia… | |
| VIII.93 | for Phrynichus? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.103 | I will here add that ὅποσοι ὅπλα παρέχονται means persons furnishing arms, not for themselves alone, but for others also (Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 4, 15). | ambiguous. | Y, VIII.103 | now, V.419 | I will here add that ὅποσοι ὅπλα παρέχονται means persons furnishing arms either for themselves alone, or for others also (Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 4, 15). | |
| VIII.109 | instigator of | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.117 | they profess to shew his tomb near the shore S. of Piræus | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.136 | x There may have been intrigues at the Court of Susa involved in these movements of ships. Tissaphernes can have had no power of his own to order up the Phenician ships to Aspendus. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.137 | the first καὶ favours this interpretation. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.140 | The Athenians at Delphinium would not be able to inform Thrasyllus in time. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.140 | how could the scouts in Lesbos fail to see him? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.141 | not very conclusive with Thucydides | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.141 | The αλλα is a strong argument on Arnold’s side. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.143 | would ἔλαθον have been used if the interpretation in the text was correct? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.143 | a very weak argument with Thucydides | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.144 | not conclusive | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.150 | From each coast a mole was thrown out, each mole guarded at the extremity by a tower, and leaving only an intermediate opening, covered by a wooden bridge. 1 Diodor. xiii. 41. It is probable that this fleet was in great part Boeotian; and twelve seamen who escaped from the wreck commemorated their rescue by an inscription in the temple of Athene at Koroneia; which Inscription was read and copied by Ephorus. By an exaggerated and over-literal confidence in the words of it, Diodorus is led to affirm that these twelve men were the only persons saved, and that every other person perished. But we know perfectly that Hippokrates himself survived, and that he was alive at the subsequent battle of Kyzikus (Xenoph. Hellen. i. 1, 23). | It is not now broader than a small river. | Y, VIII.150 | now, V.449 | …he was alive at the subsequent battle of Kyzikus (Xenoph. Hellen. i. 1, 23). Respecting the danger of sailing round the promontory of Athos, the reader is referred to a former chapter of this work, wherein the ship-canal, cut across the Isthmus by order of Xerxes, is described; together with an instructive citation from Colonel Leake’s Travels. See ch. xxxviii. of this History. | |
| VIII.151 | very narrow | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.156 | retook it. vide aute. (?) | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.195 | conf. 172. Had Thasos again revolted? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.216 | Sicilian expedition? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.216 | [unreadable] | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.216 | Lysias? see p. 233 | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.223 | perhaps it refers to the antecedent period | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.233 | Leon? see p. 216. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.241 | Some may have gone down early in the battle? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.244 | Lysias for Leon | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.269 | alleged | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.270 | like prétendre | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.274 | more likely one of the three who were dead or absent. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.277 | Accordingly the speech which Diodorus represents Diomedon to have made in the assembly, after the vote of the assembly had been declared, cannot be true history:―”Athenians, I wish that the vote which you have just passes may prove beneficial to the city. Do you take care to fulfill those voise to Zeus Soter, Apollo, and the Venerable Goddesses, under which we gained our victory, since fortune has prevented us from fulfilling them ourselves.” It is impossible that Diomedon can have made a speech of this nature, since he was not then a condemned man; and after the condemnatory vote, no assembly was held. | But it was probably declared in assembly. | Y, VIII.277 | now, V.531 | …and after the condemnatory vote, no assembly can well have been held; since the sentence was peremptory, that the generals, if condemned, should be handed over to the Eleven. The sentiment, however, is one so natural for Diomedon to express, that he may well be imagined to have said something of the kind to the presiding Archon or to the Eleven, though there was no opportunity for saying it to the assembled people. | |
| VIII.278 | [plus sign] Diomedon + Thrasyllus two of the principal preservers of the democracy | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.285 | [Chapter LXIV ends] “Whatever be the grandeur of your victory, we can neither rejoice in it ourselves, nor allow you to reap honour from it, if we find that you have left many hundreds of those who helped in gaining it to be drowned on board the wrecks without making any effort to save them, when such effort might well have proved successul.” [Chapter LXV begins] The victory of Arginusae gave for the time decisive mastery of the Asiatic seas to the Athenian fleet… | It is quite inartistic to make no halt at the end of the war. | Y, VIII.285 | now, V.535 | [Chapter LXIV ends] …have proved successful.” And the condemnation here pronounced, while it served as a painful admonition to subsequent Athenian generals, provided at the same time an efficacious guarantee for the preservation of combatants on the wrecks or swimming for their lives after a naval victory. One express case in point may be mentioned. Thirty years afterwars (B.C. 376) the Athenian admiral Chabrias defeated, though not without considerable loss, the Lacedaemonian fleet near Naxos. Had he pursued them vigorously, he might have completed his victory by destroying all of most of them; but recollecting what had happened after the battle of Arginusae, he abstained from pursuit, devoted his attention to the wrecks of his own fleet, saved from death those citizens who were yet living, and picked up the dead for interment1. [Footnote] 1 Diodor. xv. 35. Γϵνόμϵνος δὲ (Χαβρίας) ἐπὶ τοῦ προτϵρήματος, καὶ πάσας τάς τῶν πολϵμίων ναῦς φυγϵῖν ἀναγκάσας, ἀπέσχϵτο παντϵλῶς τοῦ διωγυοῦ, ἀναμνησθϵὶς τῆς ἐν Ἀργινούσαις ναυμαχίας ἐν ᾕ τοὺς νικήσαντας στρατηγοὺς ὁ δῆμος ἀντὶ μϵγάλης ϵὐϵργϵσίας θανάτῳ πϵριέβαλϵν, αἰτιασάμϵνος ὅτι τοὺς τϵτϵλϵυτηκότας κατὰ τὴν ναυμαχίαν οὐκ ἔθαψαν, ϵὐλαβήθῃ μή ποτϵ τῆς πϵριστάσϵως ὁμοίας γϵνομένης κινδυνϵύσῃ παθϵῖν παραπλήσια. Διόπϵρ ἀποστὰς τοῦ διώκϵιν, ἀνϵλέγϵτο τῶν πολιτῶν τοὺς διανηχομένους, καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἔτι ζῶντας διέσωσϵ, τοὺς δὲ τϵτϵλϵυτηκότας ἔθαψϵν. Εἰ δὲ μὴ πϵρὶ ταύτην ἐγένϵτο τὴν ἐπιμέλϵιαν, ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἂπαντα τὸν πολϵμίων στόλον διέφθϵιρϵ. Here Diodorus, in alluding to the battle of Arginusae, repeats the mistake which he had before made, as if the omission there concerned only dead bodies and not living men. But when he describes what was done by Chabrias at Naxos, he puts forward the preservation of living citizens not merely as a reality, but as the most prominent reality of the proceeding. [Chapter LXV begins] The victory… | |
| VIII.299 | Of this suspicion both Konon and Philokles stand clear. Adeimantus was named as the chief traitor, and Tydeus along with him2. Konon even preferred an accusation against Adeimantus to this effect3, probably by the letter written home from Cyprus, and perhaps by some formal declaration made several years afterwards… [Footnote] 2 Xenoph. Hellen. ii. 1, 32; Lysias cont. Alkib. A. s. 38; Pausan. iv. 17, 2; x. 9, 5; Isokrates ad Philipp. Or v. sect. 70. Lysias, in his Αόγος Ἐπιτάφιος (s. 58), speaks of the treason, yet not as a matter of certainty. | Is it true that he alone was spared? | Y, VIII.300 | now, V.546 | Of such a suspicion . . . [Footnote] . . . yet not as a matter of certainty. We cannot make out distinctly how many of the Athenian generals were captured at Ægospotami. | |
| VIII.319 | until a settlement was made of the government. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.323 | Here the chapter should end | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.372 | Lysias and his brother had carried on a manufactory of shields at Athens. The Thirty had plundered it; but some of the stock probably escaped. | They must have had establishments somewhere else. | Y, VIII.373 | now, V.592 | Lysias and his brother had carried on a manufactory of shields at Athens. The Thirty had plundered it; but some of the stock may probably have been saved. | |
| VIII.398 | chronology incorrect | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.400 | qu. democracy? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.406 | they seem to have been chosen by the δημος. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.410 | This answers one of my former questions. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.410 | …upon which the defendant is allowed to speak first, before the defendant. | plaintiff. | Y, VIII.410 | now, VI.9 | …upon which the defendant is allowed to speak first, before the plaintiff. | |
| VIII.423 | when had the law of Pericles been abrogated? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.431 | perhaps. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.432 | was present at Mantineia, vol. 7 but not in command. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.435 | doubtful presumption: depending on who were the judges. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.435 | The last is said to have been too successful v. ante vol 4. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.435 | Mme de Sevigné + others preferred Pradon to Racine. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.436 | It is hardly possible to destroy a Greek theatre: they all exist still. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.437 | usually reckoned 19 : I suppose the Alkistis + Kyclops cave counted as satyrical dramas | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.438 | who were the judges? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.441 | conf. 435 | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.442 | two Æschyli 1. Dantesque 2. Miltonic. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.443 | quite in the spirit of old times. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.455 | hærets | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.468 | Whole. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.468 | An universal unity. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.481 | superior speculative intellect | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.488 | …his quarrel is not less with the statesman… | e | Y, VIII.488 | now, VI.58 | …his quarrel is not less with the statesmen… | |
| VIII.496 | if | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.496 | It was not unnatural that dikasts should fear the men who studied oratory, as being clever enough to impose upon them – + should dislike those who taught such cleverness. Does not every public speaker, even now, represent himself (when he can) as a “plain man” etc vide Antony’s speech in Shakespeare. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.497 | but they might be | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.497 | qu? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.500 | [Same as recorded below] | qu. | Y, VIII.504 | now, VI.68 | [Same as recorded below] | |
| VIII.500 | Protagoras spoke―Πᾶσαν ἔχων φυλακὴν ἐπιϵικϵίης τὰ μὲν οὔ οἱ Χραίσμησ’, ἀλλὰ φυγῆς ἐπϵμαίϵτο, ὄφρα μὴ οὕτως Σωκρατικὸν πίνων ψυχρὸν πότον ‘ Αίδα δύῃ. It would seem, by the last line, as if Protagoras had survived Sokrates. | The epithet might be antedated; as when in p. 530 you suppose a Sophist talking about an undisclosed Napoleon. It is Timon, not Protagoras, who calls the hemlock “Socratic” “Socratic.” | Y, VIII.504 | now, VI.68 | [“It would seem, by the last line, as if Protagoras had survived Sokrates.” deleted] | |
| VIII.501 | [scratchthrough] The sentiment is most unplatonic. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.501 | only the ordinary Socratic playfulness | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.506 | We have not the least reason for presuming that Gorgias agreed in the opinion of Protagoras―”Man is the measure of all things:” and we may infer even from Plato himself, that Protagoras would have opposed the views expressed by Thrasymachus in the first book of the Republic. | the anti noumenal doctrine seems to imply it. | Y, VIII.510 | now, VI.72 | We do not know how far Gorgias agreed in the opinion of Protagoras―”Man is the measure of all things:” and we may infer even from Plato himself, that Protagoras would have opposed the views expressed by Thrasymachus in the first book of the Republic. | |
| VIII.508 | Nor do I believe that the contemporaries of Miltiades would have been capable of such heroism; for that appellation is by no means too large for the case. I doubt whether they would have been competent to the steady self-denial of retaining a large sum in reserve during the time of peace, both prior to the Peloponnesian war and after the peach of Nikias―or of keeping back the reserve fund of 1000 talents, while they were forced to pay taxes for the support of the war―or of acting upon the prudent, yet painfully trying, policy recommended by Perikles, so as to sustain an annual invasion without either going out to fight or purchasing peace by ignominious concessions. | They gave up the produce of the Laureion mines for a fleet. | Y, VIII.512 | now, VI.74 | [New footnote added at “support of the war1“] Two years before the invasion by Xerxes, the Athenians did indeed forego a dividend about to be distributed to each of the citizens out of the silver mines of Laureium, in order that the money might be applied to building of triremes. This was honourable to them in every way: but it is by no means to be compared, for self-denial and estimate of future chances, to the effort of paying money more than once out of their pockets, in order that they might leave untouched the public fund of 1000 talents. | |
| VIII.509 | …with full notice to defendants and full time of defence measured by the clock… | hourglass | Y, VIII.513 | now, VI.74 | …with full notice to defendants and full time of defence measured by the water-glass… | |
| VIII.527 | But they might have esoteric teachings also. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.531 | [plus sign] at first, But he shakes hands afterwards. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.531 | Hobbes, minus the contract. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.537 | is | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.538 | ministerers or ministrators. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.538 | trumpery [unreadable] | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.544 | If it be true generally, as Voltaire has remarked, that “any man who should come to preach a relaxed moraity would be pelted,” much more would it be true of a sophist like Protagoras, arriving in a foreign city with all the prestige of a great intellectual name, and with the imagination of youths on fire to hear and converse with him,―that any similar doctrine would destory his reputation at once. Numbers of teachers have made their reputation by inculcating overstrained asceticism; it will be hard to find an example of success in the opposite vein. | they were always unpopular. | Y, VIII.549 | now, VI.97 | [New footnote added at “in the opposite vein2“] In an able and interesting criticism of these volumes (in the ‘Quarterly Review,’ No. clxxv. Art. ii. p. 53) the general drift of my remarks on the Sophists is stated in the following terse and perspicuous manner:―”It is enough here to state, as briefly as possible, the contrast between Mr. Grote’s view and the popular representation of the Sophists. According to the common notion, they were a sect; according to him, they were a class or profession. According to the common view, they were the propagators of demoralizing doctrines, and of what from them are termed ‘sophistical’ argumentations. According to Mr. Grote, they were the regular teachers of Greek morality, neither above nor below the standard of the age. According to the common view, Socrates was the great opponent of the Sophists, and Plato his natural successor in the same combat. According to Mr. Grote, Socrates was the great representative of the Sophists, distinguished from them only by his higher eminence, and by the peculiarity of his life and teaching. According to the common view, Plato and his followers were the authorized teachers, the established clergy of the Greek nation,―and the Sophists the dissenters. According to Mr. Grote, the Sophists were the established clergy, and Plato was the dissenter―the Socialist, who attacked the sophists (as he attacked the poets and the statesmen) not as a particular sect, but as one of the existing orders of society.” | |
| VIII.549 | e. g. Kebês + Æschines | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.564 | not so examined | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.566 | why not? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.577 | Arguments | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.577 | I do not think this well rendered in the text. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.577 | τε? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.578 | These two attributes, of the discussions carried on by Sokrates, explain the epithet attached to him by Timon the Sillographer, that he was the leader and originator of the accurate talkers― | qu. the word accurate. | Y, VIII.584 | now, VI.120 | …that he was the leader and originator of the accurate talkers or precisians― | |
| VIII.578 | precise? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.580 | Is it clear that the Eliatics had not reached thus far? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.591 | in which of the dialogues? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.602 | Know what thou canst work at Carlyle’s version. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.609 | But he had eminently the power of bringing minds into the parturient condition | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.623 | May not the ignorance, to which Socrates referred, have meant, not merely the not knowing what is right, but also the not knowing this what is right is most conducive to happiness? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.630 | the lot | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.654 | or possibly of one who over rated the magnanimity of his judges, for no appeal could have been more effective with high- minded men | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.659 | were they to prove this by murdering him? Having found him guilty, they could not regard it in that light. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.665 | quite a mistake as to all four. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.673 | not dormant- There were many other instances. | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.674 | any? | N | N | N | ||
| VIII.676 | 53 | N | N | N |
Works Cited
Demetriou, Kyriakos N., ed. Brill’s Companion to George Grote and the Classical Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Demetriou, Kyrlacos. “In Defence of the British Constitution: Theoretical Implications of the Debate over Athenian Democracy in Britain, 1770-1850.” History of Political Thought 17.2 (Summer 1996): 280-97.
Grote, George. A History of Greece. 12 vols. London: John Murray, 1846-1856 [revised edition, 8 volumes, 1862].
Grote, Harriet. The Personal Life of George Grote: Compiled from Family Documents, Private Memoranda, and Original Letters to and from Various Friends. London: John Murray, 1873.
Mill, John Stuart. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Ed. John Robson, et. al. 33 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963-1991.
Roberts, Jennifer Tolbert. Athens on Trial: The Antidemocratic Tradition in Western Thought. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994.
Turner, Frank M. “The Debate over the Athenian Constitution.” Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain. New Haven: Yale UP, 1981. 213-63.
Frank M. Turner. “The Triumph of Idealism in Classical Studies.” Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993), pp. 322-61.
Notes
[1] This episode is also of a piece with Grote’s earlier arguments, in volumes one and two, attributing the flaws in Athenian culture and institutions to the lingering effects of religious superstition. Since Grote’s History is invested in constructing an analogical relationship between ancient democratic Athens and Victorian liberal Britain, this exposure of what Frank Turner describes as “the residual pernicious influence of myth, religion, and superstition that had originated in earlier era” is also intended to serve as a caution to modern policy makers: “In attacking the historical validity of ancient Greek myth, Grote was also implicitly criticizing the historical validity of the myths that undergirded the Christian tradition. Every part of his analysis of Greek myth had a Christian analogue” (Turner, “Triumph” 329, 334).