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 V and VI Introduction
Riley Hines and Albert D. Pionke
The University of Alabama
Volumes five and six of Grote’s History appeared in print in December of 1848. The following month, having received a copy inscribed “With the Author’s best regards,” Mill wrote enthusiastically to his friend, “I have just finished reading the two volumes with the greatest pleasure and admiration. The fifth volume seems to me all that we had a right to expect, and the sixth is splendid! I mean to read them again at leisure, and I shall then note one or two very small points to talk about, which I do not now remember. Every great result which you have attempted to deduce seems to me most thoroughly made out” (CW XIV.3). In fact, Mill was so pleased with volumes five and six that he found it “impossible to do them anything like justice in the space of a single paper” and consequently wrote two reviews for the Spectator, published on consecutive weeks on March 3 and 10, 1849 (CW XXV.1128).
Mill’s first review focuses largely on Grote’s revaluation of three of Athens’ most prominent public figures. Pericles is confirmed as “unrivalled in eloquence, eminent in all the requirements, talents, and accomplishments of his country . . . a thorough democrat in principle and conduct, yet never stooping to even the pardonable arts of courting popularity” (CW XXV.1123). He is, in short, a model of the modern Radical politician that Mill had hoped Grote would be while MP for Westminster. By comparison, Nikias, whom Aristotle had placed “above all other names in Athenian history,” appears “a far inferior statesman, whom Mr. Grote is…the very first to appreciate correctly” (XXV.1123-24). Quoting extensively from volume six of the History, Mill allows Grote to explain how “the facts before us completely belie” Aristotle’s “lofty…estimate” and instead confirm that Nikias represents little more than “the oligarchical party in its previous state of quiescence and torpidity, accommodating itself to a sovereign democracy” (CW. XXV.1124). In fact, Nikias was held in high esteem only because he was “thoroughly incorruptible as to pecuniary gains” even as he made “judicious employment of a large fortune with a view to popularity” (CW XXV.1124-5). Pejoratively labeling him “the leading champion of the conservative party of his day,” Grote aligns Nikias with more recent politicians, such as the previous Prime Minster, Sir Robert Peel, who had little choice but to go along with the presently liberal sentiments of Victorian England, even if they did not themselves believe in those sentiments (CW XXV.1125).
Grote’s diminution of Nikias accompanies his rehabilitation of Cleon, the first member of the commercial classes to lead the Athenians during the Peloponnesian wars and “usually taken as the representative of everything hateful that can be ascribed to the character of a successful demagogue” (CW XXV. 1126). Noting that “we have seen Mr. Grote accused of being prejudiced in his favor” by a review in the Athenaeum, Mill defends his friend’s scrupulous “impartiality,” which he demonstrates through two lengthy quotations, also taken from volume six (CW XXV.1126). Cleon, Grote asserts in the second cited passage, is best described as “a man of the Opposition, whose province it was to supervise and censure official men for their public conduct,” making him politically akin to the Radicals in the post-Reform Parliament (CW XXV.1127). In illustrating that Cleon is better than he has been made out to be, Grote effectively echoes one of Mill’s earlier sentiments that “readers who only know Athens and Greece through the medium of writers like Mitford” have much “to unlearn” and that the History “contains lessons applicable to other times and circumstances” (CW XXV.1125).
Mill opens his second review with another reference to volume six, afterwards highlighting Grote’s observations on the “liberality and tolerance of Athenian social life” by citing passages from both volumes (CW XXV.1130). According to Mill, these passages not only display the “individual genius which made Athens illustrious” but also tear down the “deep-rooted prejudices…fostered by the modern enemies of popular government” concerning both Athenian democracy and “the rise, progress, and fullest development of her maritime empire” (CW XXV.1131). Regarding the latter, Mill takes pains to explain the defensive and, in principle, egalitarian roots of Greek colonial expansion, which, in allowing subsidiary states to preserve their local forms of government, even if those forms continued to be “oligarchical,” demonstrated a much greater commitment to democratic ideals than did the “the subsequent supremacy of Sparta” (CW XXV.1133). It is difficult not to detect traces of Mill’s official position in the office of the Examiner of Indian Correspondence in this careful defense of a largely hand-off approach to colonial administration. This second review closes with a statement on what readers can expect Grote to cover in his next volume and more praise for the History’s achievements in “exploring the sources of Grecian history,” investigating the “facts previously unknown or misrepresented,” and acting as a “storehouse from which future writers may draw their materials” (CW XXV.1134).
Unlike his Spectator review of volumes three and four, Mill’s reviews of volumes five and six contain numerous quoted passages that can then be linked to marginalia found in his personal copies. Of the six passages cited across the two reviews, four have corresponding annotations. In fact, there are three annotations, all editorial in nature, associated with the single quotation of volume six, pages 332-34 featured in Mill’s first review: one queries whether Grote’s reference to invectives directed at Sir Robert Walpole actually refers to his brother, Horace, instead; and the other two revisions designed to make the text more succinct. Among the other annotations, one suggests a word change, two supply Grote’s text with additional information or facts, one requests confirmation of a fact, and one directly opposes Grote’s claims. Although it is impossible to say exactly whether or not Mill made these annotations when reading the volumes for the first time, it seems likely that he added his commentary while in the process of writing his 1849 reviews, which deploy the corresponding passages from Grote with notable care. Nevertheless, none of these annotations resulted in any perceptible revisions in Grote’s subsequent editions.
Of the 199 individual marginalia found in this set of volumes, 161, or 81%, are verbal annotations and 38, or 19%, are nonverbal marks; this represents the largest proportion of verbal to nonverbal categories of marginalia found thus far in the History. The length of the verbal annotations ranges anywhere from one letter to fifty-four words, and they are written in Greek, English, or a combination of the two. As with the previous volumes, Mill’s annotations can be categorized by function: editorial corrections, editorial queries, copyedits, and geographical/factual corrections. Volumes five and six also contain many instances where Mill either added onto Grote’s statements or contested his text.
Of the eighteen annotations that directly correlate with revisions made in Grote’s 1851 edition, only five are spelling or editorial corrections and two are instances where Mill attempts to strengthen Grote’s text. In addition to these, seven are editorial queries. One of the queried passages―a footnote that begins on page 480 of volume five―is excised completely from the text and does not appear in any subsequent editions. Another four annotations actively disagree with Grote’s text. On page 197 of volume six, for instance, Grote includes a footnote that reads, “I am not sure that I have rightly translated δικαιοῦντϵς μὴ ἀφαιρϵθῆναι αὐτὴν―but neither Poppo, nor Göller, nor Dr. Arnold, say anything about these words, which yet are not at all clear.” In response to this footnote and Grote’s translation, Mill has written, “decidedly not,” supplying his own translation as “‘claiming not to lose such a country’ – or ‘determined not to let themselves be deprived of such a country.’” In his 1851 edition, Grote appears to have taken Mill’s translation, revising his footnote to read, “A friend suggests to me, that they ought to be translated, ‘standing upon their just right not to be deprived of her’ (i. e. by allowing the enemy to conquer). This translation is more literal and straightforward; perhaps it is better: yet I am not so thoroughly convinced that my former translation is wrong, as to expunge it from the text.” Evidently, Grote went back and forth on this translation, especially since he revised it in each of his subsequent editions, eventually cutting the reference to Poppo, Göller, and Dr. Arnold, as well as his “friend.” Mill’s last two annotations that resulted in revisions of the 1851 edition provided Grote with additional information to enhance his text.
For the 1854 edition, only four annotations correspond with Grote’s revisions. Two of those four, which are found on page 197 of volume six, were discussed in the previous paragraph and one is a spelling correction. The last annotation is another instance where the text that Mill commented on was cut almost completely by Grote. In response to a footnote on page 378 of volume six that discusses Thucydides, Mill has written, “this does not satisfy me.” Although it is impossible to determine why Grote decided to cut almost the entire footnote, it is interesting that he did not attempt to amend his statement rather than erase it. Grote’s 1862 edition contains even fewer annotations at a total of two. These two annotations, which appear on page 197 of volume six, were revised a total of three times. While it is unclear whose advice Grote followed in his last edition, especially since he declined to mention any of his peers, his translation was changed from “Such is the city on behalf of which these warriors have nobly died in battle, vindicating her just titles to unimpaired rights―and on behalf of which all of us here left behind much willingly toil” to “Such is the city on behalf of which these citizens, resolved that it should not be wrested from them, have nobly fought and died―and on behalf of which all of us here left behind must willingly toil.”
Within these two volumes, five of Mill’s annotations can be linked to passages from letters dispatched home from Greece in April and May of 1855. As one example, on page 175 of volume six, Grote describes the invasion route of Spartan king Archidamus, who “did not think fit to pursue the straight road which from Thria conducted directly to Athens across the ridge of Mount Ægaleos.” In response to this text, Mill has underlined the phrase “across the ridge” and written in the outside margin, “through a very low pass.” In a letter dated April 19, 1855, Mill discusses that low pass: “The way to Eleusis is across the properly Athenian plain, bounded by Mount Hymettus on the east, Pentelicus & Parnes on the north, & Ægaleos on the west, through which by the short low pass of Daphne we passed to the bay of Eleusis.” The majority of these annotations comment specifically on Grote’s mistakes when describing the geography and landscape of Greece, with one reading “not true now” in response to a quotation, on page 99 of volume five, from Dr. Clarke that discusses a causeway that “scarcely admits two horsemen abreast of each other.” Interestingly, despite their basis in Mill’s first-hand experience of Greece, none of these annotations resulted in revisions by Grote, who, in earlier volumes of the History, had been willing to correct such geographical errors.
The table below features all of Mill’s annotations and Grote’s revisions to volumes five and six. 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 second column from right, and relevant passages from Mill’s letters, if extant, appear in the rightmost column. 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, 1854 (Y or N) | Revision evident in new ed, 1862 (Y or N) | Grote’s revised text (if any) | Relevant References in Mill’s Collected Works (vol.pg; date) |
| V.21 | justly receivest not | N | N | N | |||
| V.34 | a palankeen | N | N | N | |||
| V.37 | The river may have been in pools, which might easily be drunk up | N | N | N | |||
| V.47 | Æ. may have put down the original Doriskus number as the number at Salamis. Besides why may not Æ have exaggerated? He probably went only on popular belief. | N | N | N | |||
| V.48 | But an Eastern army always has many more followers than soldiers | N | N | N | |||
| V.60 | They could not admit it to be a judgement without becoming themselves implicated, or at least without recalling Demaratus. | N | N | N | |||
| V.63 | η πολίς but not τὸ ἀστις | N | N | N | |||
| V.68 | Poros? Mothone? | N | N | N | |||
| V.68 | They are not Greeks, but Albanians. | N | N | N | |||
| V.71 | Laureium, | N | N | N | |||
| V.71 | much slag is still lying about. | N | N | N | |||
| V.78 | this passage does not prove the statement in the text. | N | N | N | |||
| V.80 | No doubt the work meant that they should save themselves by sailing away + settling elsewhere. | N | N | N | |||
| V.95 | not here at Thermopylae which is high up the Malian Gulf. | N | N | N | We got, by the aid of the mayor’s deputy, the best & most spacious lodging we have yet had, in a newly furnished house―two very tolerably large though scantily furnished rooms (but we carry a table with us) from the balcony of which we look over the gulf full upon Parnassus, Œta & Thermopylae. (XIV.442; May 7, 1855) | ||
| V.99 | not true now. | N | N | N | But Leonidas8would not know the place again, for in the 2350 years which have since passed, the Spercheius has brought down so much soil that it has converted the narrow pass into a broad flat, partly marsh, partly covered with scrub, through which the river winds its course in a very slanting direction & at last falls into the gulf. The side of Œta rises very steep, but covered with copse. The place of the ancient pass is fixed by some hot sulphurous springs which now as then gush out from the foot of the mountain, & also by the tumulus which was raised to contain the sluice. The foot of the mountain is a perfect shrubbery of oleander, agnus castus, & wild vine in addition to the usual shrubs of the country. (XIV.443; May 9, 1855) | ||
| V.106 | The key mark of the decline of that great maritime + colonizing city. | N | N | N | |||
| V.106 | [unreadable] | N | N | N | |||
| V.111 | doubtless he was only an enemy to the gods of his enemies: parcere subjectis (deis) | N | N | N | |||
| V.123 | and these Thebans were of the opposite party to the Theban Government and may have been earnest in the cause | N | N | N | |||
| V.125 | Instituted of course before the treason of Pausanias. + once instituted could not perhaps (being a religious institution) be altered | N | N | N | |||
| V.129 | This was probably true also. The Greek fleet could have beaten the Persian if the plan of Demaratus had been adopted. | N | N | N | |||
| V.139 | inscription | N | N | N | |||
| V.153 | the plateau of Livadi? | N | N | N | |||
| V.166 | Yet it might very well grow out of the same story imperfectly remembered or heard. | N | N | N | |||
| V.191 | Thrace is bitterly cold. | N | N | N | |||
| V.197 | see page 257 | N | N | N | |||
| V.199 | low tide is an expression not applicable to the Ægean Herodotus describes this curent as a kind of Pharaoh’s Red Sea catastrophe | N | N | N | |||
| V.208 | Isokratês states that the Athenians condemned many persons to death for medism (in allusion doubtless to Themistoklês as one), but he adds―”even now they imprecate curses on any citizen who enters into amicable negociation with the Persians”―ἐν δϵ τοῖς συλλόγοις ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἀρὰς ποιοῦνται, ϵἴτις ἐπικηρυκϵύϵται Πϵρσαις τῶν πολιτῶν. It is difficult to believe that in his time any such imprecation can have been included in the solemnities whereby the Athenian meetings were opened. | Why? | Y, V.211 | now, III.493 | …Πϵρσαις τῶν πολιτῶν. This must have been an ancient custom, continued after it had ceased to be pertinent or appropriate. | ||
| V.208 | [Same as passage recorded above] | It is more difficult to believe that he would have made this assertion untruly | Y, V.211 | now, III.493 | [Same as passage recorded above] | ||
| V.211 | It appears that Mardonius was at this moment in secret correspondence with the Argeians, who, though professing neutrality, are said to have promised him that they would arrest the march of the Spartans beyond their own borders. We may reasonably doubt whether they ever made such a promise; but at any rate, the suddenness of the march as well as the greatness of the force prevented from fulfilling it; and they were forced to content themselves with apprising Mardonius instantly of the fact, through their swiftest courier. | this may have been one reason of the rapid march | Y, V.214 | now, III.495 | …borders. If they ever made such a promise, the suddenness of the march, as well as the greatness of the force, prevented them from fulfilling it, and may perhaps have been so intended by the Ephors, under the apprehension that resistance might possibly be offered by the Argeians. At any rate, the latter were forced to content themselves with apprising Mardonius instantly of the fact, through their swiftest courier. | ||
| V.214 | But did not the Persian mean merely that the worst of all suffering is to be helplessly aware of impending calamity? | N | N | N | |||
| V.219 | over a very low [unreadable], or rather pass. (Dryoskephaloe) dividing Kithaeron from Parnes. | N | N | N | |||
| V.221 | rolling country | N | N | N | |||
| V.221 | These declivities are very gentle slopes. | N | N | N | |||
| V.225 | There is but one pass visible; the one mentioned below. | N | N | N | |||
| V.225 | Dryoskephaloe the pass leading to Eleutherae + Attica | N | N | N | |||
| V.257 | see page 197 | N | N | N | |||
| V.273 | The whole story of Phalaris has been told in a previous volume | N | N | N | |||
| V.281 | See Lucian’s Ass + his Pseudomantis for accounts of itinerant shewers of ϊερα in his day. | N | N | N | |||
| V.287 | war | N | N | N | |||
| V.311 | By summoning those citizens whom Hiero had planted in his new city of Aetna, as well as various troops from his dependent allies, he found himself at the head of 15,000 men, and master of the interior strongholds of the city―the island of Ortygia with Achradina, while the great body of the revolted Syracusans were assembled in the outer city called Tychê. Though superior in number, yet being no match in military efficiency for the forces of Thrasybulus… | was there any Tychê then? | Y, V.314 | now, III.558 | …at the head of 15,000 men, and master of the innter city; that is, the islet of Ortygia, which was the primitive settlement of Syracuse, and was not only distinct and defensible in itself, but also contained the docks, the shipping, and command of the harbor. The revolted people on their side were masters of the outer city, better known under its later name of Achradina, which lay on the adjacent mainland of Sicily, was surrounded by a separate wall of it own, and was divided from Ortygia by an intervening space of low ground used for burials. Though superior in number… | ||
| V.317 | a | N | N | N | |||
| V.385 | Therefore none of these places were yet emancipated. | N | N | N | |||
| V.386 | ⅒ or ⅕ was probably the royal share. | N | N | N | |||
| V.386 | It was no doubt the satraps who amened and altered the [unreadable] | N | N | N | |||
| V.387 | There is a place shewn for it, on the coast, near Phalerum. | N | N | N | |||
| V.407 | Did not Athens pay her own share to the 460? + cease to pay when the treasury was moved from Delos to Athens? | N | N | N | |||
| V.421 | a | N | N | N | |||
| V.423 | a battle with Argos + Tegea + another with all Arcadia except Mantinea These indicate important political combination vide Herod. ix. 35. | N | N | N | |||
| V.426 | what duplication is there here? | N | N | N | |||
| V.428 | eartnestness | [eartnestness changed to “earnestness”] | Y. V.432 | now, IV.70 | earnestness | ||
| V.440 | why not quote it? | N | N | N | |||
| V.448 | who could [unreadable] be? | N | N | N | |||
| V.455 | The passage implies that he ἐπωϕεἰλησε during the time that Athens would not allow the tribute to be collected. It remained on the books of the Persian Government as an outstanding balance. | N | N | N | |||
| V.455 | besides, some such as Myus Magnesia + Lampsacus probably still paid tribute + as they paid it on the same assessment Herodotus might naturally say the assessment still subsisted. | N | N | N | |||
| V.456 | He must have known | N | N | N | |||
| V.456 | The passages above cited from Thucydidês appear to me to afford positive proof that the Greek cities on the Asiatic coast (not those in the interior, as we may see by the case of Magnesia give to Themistoklês) paid no tribute to Persia during the continuance of the Athenian empire. | Myus? Lampsacus? who [unreadable] to Themistokles + both of them on the coast. | Y, V.460 | now, IV.88 | The passages above cited from Thucydidês appear to me to afford positive proof that the Greek cities on the Asiatic coast paid no tribute to Persia during the continuance of the Athenian empire. | ||
| V.457 | how could they so talk if it was inscribed on a pillar in a public place at Athens? | N | N | N | |||
| V.476 | They might be subject to an annual rendering of account. ευθυνη. though they did not go out of office the result was unfavourable. | N | N | N | |||
| V.477 | not all. The Areopagus continued to be judge of homicide | N | N | N | |||
| V.481 | …it is assumed that these bodies had before judged gratuitously. But it appears to me that the words ought to be translated “Periklês first constituted the paid dikasteries:” that is, the dikasteries as well as the pay were of his introduction. It is evident from this whole passage that Aristotle did not suppose the dikasteries, either gratuitous or paid, to have been constituted by Solon, but to have been foreign to the purpose of that lawgiver, and to have been novelties emanating from Periklês and Ephialtês, at the same time that the judicial function of the senate of Aeropagus were cut down. 1Deinarchus… | would not that have been τὰ δὲ δικαστής [unreadable] τὰ ρισθοφόςα? | Y, V.485 | now, IV.104 | [text has been deleted] | ||
| V.494 | [plus sign] Probably it consisted. or they took care that it should consist. of their partisans. | N | N | N | |||
| V.497 | this + the note on Elpinike in p. 450 might advantageously be merged in one. | N | N | N | |||
| V.511 | conf. note: pp. 516[slash]7. | N | N | N | |||
| V.514 | hardly applicable. these were not lawless outrages but lawful tyranny. | N | N | N | |||
| V.516 | conf. note p. 511. | N | N | N | |||
| V.i16 | 41 | ||||||
| V.er | 2.6.60 | ||||||
| VI.15 | son in law | N | N | N | |||
| VI.29 | I found where it must have been | N | N | N | [Begun at Athens] The Acropolis with its four temples (though the Propylaea is not really a temple) combines magnificently with the hills about―& of the distant mountains, Pentelicus & the island of Ægina are the finest, except the group at the Isthmus which are glorious. (XIV.427; April 20, 1855) | ||
| VI.31 | descending with a vengeance – on the face of the mountain cut deep by wheelmarks. | N | N | N | We made the best possible use of it by ascending Pentelicus. It is about two hours carriage drive to a monastery among the roots of the mountain & two hours more climbing among thickets. The approach to the mountain is at this season a green waste, grassy, bushy & flowery. The mountain, a very elegant broad based pyramid is wholly of the beautiful marble to which it gives its name―I never scrambled for four hours over blocks and fragments of fine crystalline marble before. We passed numerous quarries all the way up, some of them still worked; they have been wrought into marble cliffs rivalling in height & boldness those of the Simplon. (XIV.428; April 21, 1855) | ||
| VI.31 | the greater part of the cost must have been the sculptured ornaments. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.51 | might it not be without the consent of Athens? see the quotation in the note | N | N | N | |||
| VI.51 | how does this appear? | N | N | N | |||
| VI.58 | Probably Athens left to the autonomous allies all cases affecting only their own citizens | N | N | N | |||
| VI.61 | was there any similar institution fee on any suit by an Athenian citizen? | N | N | N | |||
| VI.62 | omit [the word “the” suggested to be ommitted] | N | N | N | |||
| VI.64 | Else it were bad indeed! | N | N | N | |||
| VI.71 | Palê | N | N | N | |||
| VI.96 | κατά γήν proves the point. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.104 | bad excuse | N | N | N | |||
| VI.155 | I may be permitted to illustrate this by a short extract from the letter of M. Marrast, mayor of Paris, to the National Assembly, written during the formidable insurrection of June 25, 1848, in that city, and describing the proceedings of the insurgents: “Dans la plupart des rues longues, ètroites, et couvertes de barricades qui vont de l’Hotel de Ville à la Rue St. Antoine, la garde nationale mobile, et la troupe de ligne, ont dû faire le siège de chaque maison ; et ce qui rendait l’oeuvre plus périlleuse, c’est que les insurgés avaient établi, de chaque maison à chaque maison, des communications intérieures qui reliaient les maisons entre elles, en sorte qu’ils pouvaient se rendre, comme par une allée couverte, d’un point éloigné jusqu’au centre d’une suite de barricades qui les protégeaient” (Lettre publiée dans le Journal, le National, June 26, 1848). | It was in the same mode that Zaragoza was defended against the French. | Y, VI.155 | now, IV.144 | …(Lettre publiée dans le Journal, le National, June 26, 1848.) A similar establishment of internal communication between adjoining houses in the street, was one of the most memorable features of the heroic defense of Saragossa against the French, in the Peninsular War. | ||
| VI.175 | through a very low pass | N | N | N | The way to Eleusis is across the properly Athenian plain, bounded by Mount Hymettus on the east, Pentelicus & Parnes on the north, & Ægaleos on the west, through which by the short low pass of Daphne we passed to the bay of Eleusis (formed out of the Gulf by the island of Salamis) which forms the southern boundary of the Thriasian plain now green with corn in ear & vines in full leaf. (XIV.426-27; April 19, 1855) | ||
| VI.175 | He must have gone through the gap between Ægaleos + Parnês. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.180 | easterly? | N | N | N | |||
| VI.196 | actively | N | N | N | |||
| VI.197 | “Such is the city on behalf of which these warriors have nobly died in battle, vindicating her just title to unimpaired rights2―and on behalf of which all of us here left behind must willingly toil. 2Thucyd. ii. 42. πϵρὶ τοιαύτης οὖν πόλϵως οἵδϵ τϵ γϵνναίως δικαιοῦντϵς μὴ ἀφαιρϵθῆναι αὐτὴν μαχόμϵνοι ἐτϵλϵύτησαν, καὶ τῶν λϵιπομένων πάντα τινὰ ϵἰκὸς ἐθέλϵιν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς κάμνϵιν. I am not sure that I have rightly translated δικαιοῦντϵς μὴ ἀφαιρϵθῆναι αὐτὴν―but neither Poppo, nor Göller, nor Dr. Arnold, say anything about these words, which yet are not at all clear. [text and footnote included] | decidedly not. | Y, VI.197 | Y, VI.199 | Y, IV.270 | [1851 version follows]…not at all clear. A friend suggests to me, that they ought to be translated, “standing upon their just right not to be deprived of her” (i. e. by allowing the enemy to conquer). This translation is more literal and straightforward ; perhaps it is better : yet I am not so thoroughly convinced that my former translation is wrong, as to expunge is from the text. [1854 version follows] “Such is the city on behalf of which these citizens, resolved that it should not be wrested from them, have nobly fought and died3―and on behalf of which all of us here left behind must willingly toil. 3Thucyd. ii. 41. πϵρὶ τοιαύτης οὖν πόλϵως οἵδϵ τϵ γϵνναίως, δικαιοῦντϵς μὴ ἀφαιρϵθῆναι αὐτὴν, μαχόμϵνοι ἐτϵλϵύτησαν, &c. I have thought it right to alter the translation of this passage, since my last edition. [1862 version follows]”Such is the city on behalf of which these citizens, resolved that it should not be wrested from them, have nobly fought and died3―and on behalf of which all of us here left behind must willingly toil. 3 Thucyd. ii. 41. πϵρὶ τοιαύτης οὖν πόλϵως οἵδϵ τϵ γϵνναίως, δικαιοῦντϵς μὴ ἀφαιρϵθῆναι αὐτὴν, μαχόμϵνοι ἐτϵλϵύτησαν, &c. | |
| VI.197 | [Same as passage recorded above] | claiming not to lose such a country – or “determined not to let themselves be deprived of such a country’ | Y, VI.197 | Y, VI.199 | Y, IV.270 | [Same as passage recorded above] | |
| VI.198 | daring + knowing to do their duty + reverencing it in their conduct. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.205 | of | N | N | N | |||
| VI.221 | conf. 248 | N | N | N | |||
| VI.223 | very feeble translation | N | N | N | |||
| VI.228 | surely an unjust and unwise disfranchisement | N | N | N | |||
| VI.229 | Qu. if descendants through the female line were part of the gens: though the case of Perikles himself proves that the ἀγος could be transmitted in the female line. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.233 | ἀξιὠματι personal consideration but see note. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.233 | his estimation. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.234 | doubtful translation | N | N | N | |||
| VI.236 | Perhaps Ephialtes gave greater personal offence. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.241 | This would have been an imitation of what already existed at Athens. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.248 | conf. 221 | N | N | N | |||
| VI.253 | had it fallen off since it sent 1000 hoplites to Marathon? Or were the other Plataeans serving with the Athenian forces? | N | N | N | |||
| VI.254 | strange that it took so long. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.257 | If bricks could be made there Plataea must have been quite in the plain. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.257 | in the much colder climate of Thrace. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.267 | I doubt if there is such a portion. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.279 | ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτῶν γην must mean “towards their own country” orig. the interior of the Gulf, which was all theirs – Boeotia, Megaris, Corinth, Sicyon, Pellene etc. or perhaps τὴὺ έαυτῶν γῆν means the land near where they were orig. inside the strait, in oppostition to the land near where the Athenians were outside it | N | N | N | |||
| VI.280 | [plus sign] yes, but here it is upon the principal nominative of the sentence – which is not the case in the passage under consideration. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.310 | Did not the Olympic armistice admit of their coming? | N | N | N | |||
| VI.315 | But if so, why have either foot unshod? | N | N | N | |||
| VI.315 | to make the least noise possible. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.318 | pass | N | N | N | |||
| VI.328 | he had no speech to introduce with his text. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.333 | was it Sir Robert? or his brother Horace | N | N | N | |||
| VI.334 | to | N | N | N | |||
| VI.334 | An Athenian Cobbett. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.339 | rather of criticising them See Note. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.349 | This epigram does not make it clear that Paches actually outraged the women It only says that he killed their husbands in hopes of doing so. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.360 | but not in the operations of Phormion – which seems odd. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.374 | bust | r[slash] | Y, VI.378 | now, IV.383 | burst | ||
| VI.378 | 1 Thucyd. Iii. 82…The many obscurities and perplexities of construction which pervade these memorable chapters, are familiar to all readers of Thucydides, even since Dionysius of Halikarnassus, whose remarks upon them are sufficently severe (Judic. De Thucyd. p. 883)…”Sharp and reckless attack was counted among the necessities of the manly character: secret conspiracy against an enemy was held to be sade precaution, ―a specious pretence of preventing him from doing the like.” | this does not satisfy me: | N | Y VI.379 | now, IV.384 | 1 Thucyd. Iii. 82…The many obscurities and perplexities of construction which pervade these memorable chapters, are familiar to all readers of Thucydides, even since Dionysius of Halikarnassus, whose remarks upon them are sufficently severe (Judic. De Thucyd. p. 883). [Majority of footnote has been deleted] | |
| VI.386 | Aristotle meant that these three were moderate aristocrats – the political type he preferred. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.390 | So a Russian noble lets out his serfs | N | N | N | |||
| VI.392 | conjurationes | N | N | N | |||
| VI.411 | The manoeuvre which appears to satisfy in all Livy’s battles. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.420 | There may have been more panoplies taken than men killed | N | N | N | |||
| VI.420 | But only 200 of these had been slain | N | N | N | |||
| VI.421 | Should it not be ὁιπερ the conjunction – whither? | N | N | N | |||
| VI.436 | this does not agree well with the locality as described p. 496-7. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.445 | This may have been inserted later. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.455 | …his mistrust of the statement was a more general suspicion… | e | Y, VI.459 | now, IV.433 | …his mistrust of the statement was a mere general suspicion… | ||
| VI.463 | conf. 470 Many more than 120 must have been Spartans | N | N | N | |||
| VI.470 | conf. 463. The Spartans cannot have been all among the survivors. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.472 | Cambronne respecting | N | N | N | |||
| VI.474 | Where were the Helots? | N | N | N | |||
| VI.474 | unless it be the conflagration of the woods. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.475 | In the letter which he sent to announce the capture of Sphakteria and the prisoners to the Athenians, it is affirmed that he began with the words―Κλέων Ἀθηναίων τῇ Βουλῇ καὶ τῷ Δήμῳ χαίρϵιν. This was derided by Eupolis, and is even considered as a piece of insolence, though it is difficult to see why (Schol. ad Aristophan. Plut. 322; Bergk, De Reliquiis Comœdiæ Antiquæ, p. 362). | perhaps an unusual form? | Y, VI.479 | now, IV.446 | In the letter which he sent to announce the capture of Sphakteria and the prisoners to the Athenians, it is affirmed that he began with the words―Κλέων Ἀθηναίων τῇ Βουλῇ καὶ τῷ Δήμῳ χαίρϵιν. This was derided by Eupolis, and is even considered as a piece of insolence. We must therefore presume that the form was unusual in addressing the people: though it cetainly seems neither insolent, nor in the least unsuitable, after so important a success (Schol. ad Aristophan. Plut. 322; Bergk, De Reliquiis Comœdiæ Antiquæ, p. 362). | ||
| VI.486 | no such thing in Corfu. Thucydides merely says μετεωδον τι. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.487 | this second capitulation of the same sort granted by Eurymedon seems intended to lay the foundation of a breach of faith | N | N | N | |||
| VI.493 | …under the Libyan prince Inanes | rus [“Inanes” changed to “Inarus”] | N | Y, VI.493 | now, IV.457 | …under the Libyan prince Inarus | |
| VI.496 | the coast by Monemvasia + Epidaurus Limêra is accessible | N | N | N | |||
| VI.528 | especially in Thucydides of whose stile this is a leading feature. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.535 | him | N | N | N | |||
| VI.539 | On this ground, the Bœotians might reasonably complain of the seizure of Delium: though I apprehend that no impartial interpreter of Grecian international custom would have thought them warranted in attaching it as a condition to their grant of the burial-truce when solicited | what? [‘it’ is underlined] | Y, VI.543 | now, IV.485 | On this ground, the Bœotians might reasonably complain of the seizure of Delium: though I apprehend that no impartial interpreter of Grecian international custom would have thought them warranted in requiring the restoration of the place, as a peremptory condition to their granting of the burial-truce when solicited. | ||
| VI.566 | Here Thucydides describes himself as “the other general along with Eukles, of the region of or towards Thrace.” There cannot be a clearer designation of the extensive range of his functions and duties. I adopt here… | not conclusive. He would naturally name the affair from its most important incident. | Y, VI.570 | now, IV.503 | Here Thucydides describes himself as “the other general along with Eukles of the region of or towards Thrace.” There cannot be a clearer designation of the extensive range of his functions and duties. The same words τοῦ ἑτέρου στρατηγοῦ are used respecting the two joint commanders Hippokrates and Demosthenes (Thucyd. iv. 67 and iv. 43). I adopt here… | ||
| VI.585 | Next, the words ἀντίπαλα καταστήσαντος do not refer, in my judgement, to the future gains of Brasidas, or to their magnitude and comparative avail in negotiation. The words rather mean―”if he should set out in open contest and hostility that which he had already acquired”―(thus exposing it to the chance of being lost)―”if he should put himself and his already acquired gains in battle-front against the enemy.” | αντιπαλα καταστησας to stake. | Y, VI.589 | now, IV.515 | …The words rather mean―”if he should stake in open contest and hostility that which he has already acquired”―(thus exposing it to the chance of being lost)―”if he should put himself and his already aqcuired gains in battle-front against the enemy.” | ||
| VI.586 | In the phrase κινδυνϵύϵιν (or κινδυνϵύσϵιν, for there seems no sufficient reason why this old reading should be altered) καὶ κρατήσϵιν, the particle καὶ has a disjunctive sense, of which there are analogous examples―see Kühner, Griechische Grammatik, sect. 726, signifying substantially the same as ἢ: and examples even in Thucydidês, in such phrases as τοιαῦτα καὶ παραπλήσια―(i. 22, 143)―τοιαύτη καὶ ὅτι ἐγγύτατατούτων, v. 74―see Poppo’s note on i. 22. | like “to stand and fall together” “to wax andwane” etc. | Y, VI.590 | now, IV.516 | …―see Poppo’s note on i. 22. Also i. 118. καὶ παρακαλούμϵνος καὶ ἄκλητος―whereκαὶ must be used disjunctively, or equivalent to ἢ: since the two epithets expressly exclude each other. | ||
| VI.601 | or he may have thought the truce prevented him from fighting. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.604 | the truce prevented. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.610 | Is it not rash to assume that the speeches in Thucydides are correct reports even down to such details as this? It is very unlikely that Brasidas would speak in this way to Helots + Chalkidians. The speech is most likely a mere vehicle for the thoughts of the historian. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.611 | not necessarily. The appeal is like that which might be made even under modern ideas, to the actual origin of power in superior prowess | N | N | N | |||
| VI.616 | not so. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.620 | armistice | N | N | N | |||
| VI.647 | a | N | N | N | |||
| VI.647 | The Athenian Agnon, the real founder and originally recognized Œkist of the city, was stripped of all his commemorative honours and expunged from the remembrance of the people; his tomb and the buildings connected with it, together with every visible memento of his name, being destroyed. Full of hatred… | Agnon was not yet dead. Thucydides says nothing of a tomb – he says. τα Αγνωνεια οικοδο- μηματα και ειπ μνημοσυνον αι see p. 693. and elsewhere. | Y, VI.651 | now, IV.554 | The Athenian Agnon, the real founder and originally recognized Œkist of the city, was stripped of all his commemorative honours and expunged from the remembrance of the people; the buildings, which served as visible memento of his name, being destroyed. Full of hatred… | ||
| VI.653 | would not the bridge have prevented? | N | N | N | |||
| VI.657 | Hippeis is better. | N | N | N | |||
| VI.673 | conf. 647 | N | N | N | |||
| VI.675v | 123.. 197 | N/A | N/A | N/A | |||
| VI.675v | 63 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
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.