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 I and II Introduction

Albert D. Pionke

The University of Alabama

 

Grote completed writing volumes one and two of the History in December of 1845, afterwards sending it to his publisher, John Murray, for typesetting and printing.  Already in a letter dated January 1, 1846, Mill then wrote to “hope the first two volumes of the History will soon be out; I long to see them” (CW XIII.690).  And Grote subsequently gratified his friend by giving him a freshly printed copy with the half-title page of volume one inscribed to “John Stuart Mill Esq With the Author’s best regards.”  Mill’s first review of Grote’s History was featured in the Spectator on April 4, 1846, less than one month later, and it describes the long-awaited “opus magnum” as “the first attempt at a philosophic history of Greece,” in which both the enumeration of “mere facts” is accompanied by “some attempt to show how and why they came to pass” and the “mere narrative” composed of those facts is traced back to its “causes and agencies . . . the influences of Grecian institutions and of Grecian opinions and feelings” (CW XXIV.867, 868, 868-69).  Mill also positions Grote as a historian relative to Mitford, whose “wretched scholarship” betrays an “intensity of prejudice” amounting to “Antijacobin phrensy” (CW XXIV.867-68); Thirlwall, “a thorough scholar” but no “thinker,” whose “impartiality seems rather that of a person who has no opinion, than of one who has an unbiased opinion” (CW XXIV.868); and Barthold Georg Niebuhr, the German father of modern historiography, with whom Grote is judged a peer according to both his conclusions and methods (CW XXIV.869).[1]  Inviting readers to judge the worth of Grote’s claims for themselves, Mill also refers them to chapters 16, 17, and 19—which correspond to pages 460-654 of volume one and pages 47-78 of volume two—and provides citations from volume two, pages 527-30 and 298-302.

On April 1, 1846, three days before his Spectator review was to appear, Mill wrote to Harriet Grote that “McV. Napier has now, some days since, accepted my offer to review your History (for the “Edinburgh Review”). He wishes that it should not be later than the October number, and by that time I expect to have it ready” (CW XII.699).  In fact, Mill’s thirty-five-page review essay, with running header “Grote’s History of Greece,” appeared as predicted and echoes his earlier encomiums on Grote’s monumental “attempt at a philosophic history of Greece” and its worth relative to the earlier works of Mitford, Thirlwall, and Niebuhr (CW XI.275).  Mill further positions individual points from volumes one and two of the History relative to three recent publications—Grote’s own Westminster Review article on “Grecian Legends and Early History” (1843), Karl Otfried Müller’s Introduction to a Scientific System of Mythology (1844), and William Sleeman’s Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official (1844)—ongoing debates about the authorship of Homer’s Iliad, and works from a range of Classical authors, including Herodotus, Homer, Plato, and Plutarch.  He also quotes frequently and at length from the History.  Mill’s critiques are selective and measured, focusing on Grote’s unself-conscious gendering of facets of the Greek mind, the collapse of personification and allegory in Grote’s discussion of deities Atê and Litæ, and the inconsistency with which Grote maintains his “considerable innovations in the English orthography of Greek names, on the principle of keeping nearer to the Greek” (CW XI.304).

All three points led to perceptible revisions in the second edition of volumes one and two, which appeared in 1849.  On December 6, 1848, Grote confided to his and Mill’s mutual friend, George Cornewall Lewis, that he had been told by his publisher that “all the copies of my first two volumes are gone off, and that he wishes me to prepare a second edition of those two. Accordingly, I am going to attack them with this view, as soon as the fifth and sixth volumes are off my hands” (H. Grote 188).  Accordingly, on January 2, Grote acknowledged to Lewis his receipt of the latter’s “two papers of memoranda and remarks,” admitted to thereby “getting thus rid of several errors which you brought to my view,” and limited himself to producing “only a second edition, and not a new book under that name,” meaning that he planned to make alterations that “are neither large nor serious” (H. Grote 190).  As printed, the second edition included a new preface, in which Grote credits “the remarks and corrections of various critics, contained in reviews both English and Foreign” for helping him to amend “some positions which had been pointed out as erroneous, or as advanced upon inadequate evidence” (History, 2nd ed. I.xix).  He also “desire[s] to notice two valuable publications” with which he had been unfamiliar at the time of his original 1846 publication date: the first is the exactly contemporary “Essay on Primæval History, by John Kenrick,” which Grote credits with “acute reflection” on the “general features of legend, not only in Greece but throughout the world”; and the second is “Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official, by Colonel Sleeman—first made known to me through an excellent notice of his History in the Edinburgh Review for October 1846” (History, 2nd ed. I.xx).[2]  Such an explicit allusion to Mill’s review essay signals Grote’s readiness to revise in response to Mill’s feedback, not just, as turns out, for the second edition of 1849, but also the fifth, entirely reset edition of 1862, which appeared in eight volumes.

Whether in a set of memoranda similar to Lewis’s that has subsequently been lost or via a loan back of the inscribed first edition he had received in 1846, Mill evidently made available to Grote his own marginalia in the History.  In fact, Mill’s personal copies of volumes one and two together contain 340 individual examples of marginalia, including 204 nonverbal marks and 136 verbal annotations.  The intent and timing of the former remains difficult to determine precisely, especially when it does not appear obviously associated with the latter (e.g., on p. II.422, the underlining of the printed word “fifth” adjacent to the marginal annotation “fourth as we say”), but one standalone mark does appear directly connected with Mill’s Edinburgh Review essay: summarizing Grote’s twentieth chapter, on the “State of Society and Manners as exhibited in Grecian Legend,” Mill includes a lengthy quotation that begins at the paragraph break near the bottom of II.104; at precisely this point in his personal copy is a marginal dash (see CW XI.297).[3]  Similarly, each of the critiques offered in the October review essay appears to be connected to an annotation made by Mill in his personal copy (for which see, in the order discussed above, I.xvii, I.14, and I.xx).  An additional fifteen annotations correspond precisely with revisions undertaken by Grote for the 1849 edition of volumes one and two, and therefore were almost certainly made by Mill prior to January 1849.

Mill’s personal copy of the History includes, clumsily glued into the back of volume two, an appendix that was both circulated as a pamphlet and subsequently added to the third (1851) and fourth (1854) editions of volume two.  Intended to counter the criticisms made by Scottish classical scholar William Mure, author of A Critical History of the Language and Literature of Antient Rome (1850), this supplemental addition also contains two nonverbal marks and three annotations in Mill’s hand, indicating that Mill must have returned to Grote’s text at least one more time in the 1850s. That he did so to effect is suggested by the fact that Grote removed the appendix and associated footnote referring to it from the 1862 revised edition.[4]

The 1862 edition of the History features an additional thirty-eight revisions in volumes one and two alone that correspond precisely with Mill’s annotations.  Seven are editorially necessary corrections to the original text and therefore well within the limits Grote had set for himself in 1849: if the annotations identifying these errors had existed then, he presumably would have acted upon them.  An additional seventeen of the annotations and associated revisions concern the human and natural geography of ancient Greece, and eleven of these duplicate passages from the letters that Mill wrote to his ailing wife Harriet while on his 1854-1855 trip to France, Sicily, and Greece.  Therefore, they cannot have been added to Mill’s copy of the History prior to the second half of 1855.

In total, 60 of the 136 annotations Mill made to his personal copy of volumes one and two of Grote’s Historycorrespond with and at times even dictate the exact revisions Grote made to the text between 1849 and 1862.  The empirical evidence provided by marginalia in the pasted-in appendix to volume two and the sometimes-identical wording of Mill’s letters home and his annotations on Greek places prove that Mill must have read and annotated volumes one and two at least twice and shared his annotations with Grote each time.  Clearly, the “opus magnum” remained a powerful point of connection between them for a significant percentage of both men’s lives.

The table below features all of Mill’s annotations and Grote’s revisions to volumes one and two.  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 seven 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 2nd ed, 1849   (Y or N) 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)
I.xvii And it must be confessed that what may be called the feminine attributes of the Greek mind—their religious and poetical vein—here appear in disproportionate relief, as compared with the masculine capcities—with those powers of acting, organising, judging, and speculating, which will be revealed in the forthcoming volumes. untenable distiction Y, I.xvii now I.x And it must be confessed that what may be called the sentimental attributes of the Greek mind—their religious and poetical vein—here appear in disproportionate relief, as compared with its more vigorous and masculine capcities—with those powers of acting, organising, judging, and speculating, which will be revealed in the forthcoming volumes.
I.xvii that this is not sufficiently brought out in the first two volumes N N N N
I.xx why only then? The circumflex as thus used is not truly with the rules and limitations of the circumflex as an accent. N N N N [The prefatory guidelines for treating Greek names remain unchanged, but Grote does adhere to his own rules much more stringently throughout the second and subsequent editions.]
I.10 Who is this Pallas. N N N N
I.10 four sons? N N N N
I.14 Deities whose allegorical origin is more distinctly indicated:—Atê, the Litæ, Eris, Thanatos, Hypnos, Kratos, Bia, Ossa, &c. Personification of abstractions is not allegory. Y, I.14 now I.9 Dieties whose personality is more faintly and unsteadily conceived:—Atê, the Litæ, Eris, Thanatos, Hypnos, Kratos, Bia, Ossa, &c.
I.20 yes the origin of all the Gods in Ουφανας and Γαια is surely physico theology. N N N N
I.77 The impression is still there N N N N
I.85 [unreadable] was not so in the Homeric times: an additional proof of the later date of the Theogony. N N N N
I.98 not so much so. N N N N
I.101 recesses? N N N N
I.103 In his displeasure he withheld from mankind the inestimable comfort of fire, and the race would have perished, had not Promêtheus stolen fire, in defiance of the command of the Supreme Ruler, and brought it to men in the hollow of a ferule. ναρθηξ an umbelliferous plant. Lighted [unreadable] is stuck into it still, to illuminate vaults + caves (or into reeds) N N N Y, I.65 In his displeasure he withheld from mankind the inestimable comfort of fire, so that the race would have perished, had not Promêtheus stolen fire, in defiance of the Supreme Ruler, and brought it to men in the hollow stem of the plant callen giant-fennel. The place of heath was taken by palmetto & asphodel, with daphne, thistles, & the bushy root leaves of a large umbelliferous plant universal in Sicily, which the people call fennel but wrongly: it may be what used to be called fennel giant. (XIV.369; March 11, 1855)
I.106 men N N N N
I.106 the other element, a conviction of the vast mischief arising to man from women, whom yet they cannot dispense with, is frequently and strongly set forth in several of the Greek poets—by Simonidês of Amorgos and Phocylidês, not less than by the notorious misogynist Euripidês. quere as to Euripides N N N Y, I.67 The other element, a conviction of the vast mischief arising to man from women, whom yet they cannot dispense with, is frequently and strongly set forth in several of the Greek poets—by Simonidês of Amorgos and Phokylidês, not less than by Euripidês.
I.106 e N N N N
I.109 725 N N N N
I.115 at the ancient and renowned Hêræon between Mycênæ and Argos, no. Prof. Ross has found its remains which are between Mycenae + Tiryns. N N N Y, I.73 at the ancient and renowned Hêræon between Mykênæ and Tiryns,
I.117 That the scene should be laid in the Argeian territory appears natural, when we recollect that both Argos and Mycênæ were under the special guardianship of Hêrê, and that the Hêræon between the two was one of the oldest and most celebrated temples in which she was worshiped. It is not between Argos + Mycenae but between both + Tiryns or Nauplia N N N Y, I.74 That the scene should be laid in the Argeian territory appears natural, when we recollect that both Argos and Mykênæ were under the special guardianship of Hêrê, and that the Hêræon near Mykênæ was one of the oldest and most celebrated temples in which she was worshiped.
I.124 The massive walls of this city, like those of Tiryns, of which remains are yet to be seen, were built for him by the Lycian Cyclôpes. splendid N N N Y, I.79 The massive walls of this city, like those of Tiryns, of which a large portion yet remains, were built for him by the Lykian Cyclôpes.
I.128 The story indicates that Herakles was either a real man, whoso the [unreadable] required to be so accounted for or a creation of copious poetic art. N N N N
I.129 the Athênian philosopher Prodikos Keian N N N Y, I.82 the Keian philosopher Prodikos
I.209 [three-paragraphs appended to note acknowledging the conflicted accounts of the life of Œneus, ending with “But it seems more reasonable to consider him as the eponymous hero of Œniadæ in Ætôlia.”] Acarnania? N N N Y, I.129 commentary appended to note eliminated, see p. I.129
I.227 a fortiori as it stands quit aloof from Argos between Mycenæ + Tiryns. N N N N
I.267 Apollod. iii. 14, 1; Herodot. viii.55; Ovid, Metam. vi.72.  The story current among the Athenians represented Cecrops as the judge of this controversy (Xenoph. Memor. iii. 5, 10). [followed by additional paragraph citing Pausanias, Herodotus, and Sophoclês on legends surrounding the impressed rock] they are shown still. N N N Y, I.164 Apollod. iii. 14, 1; Herodot. viii.55; Ovid, Metam. vi.72.  The impression of Poseidon’s trident is still shown on the rocky floor of the Erechtheum at Athens.  The story current among the Athenians represented Kekrops as the judge of this controversy (Xenoph. Memor. iii. 5, 10). [additional paragraph eliminated]
I.270 Why is this legend located at Daulis? N N N Y, I.165 note enlarged, but not clearly in response to Mill’s annotation
I.282 probably the invention of a late writer. N N N N
I285 bottom margin he was probably thinking of the attempt to carry off Persephone. N N N N
I.358 outer margin the subject of the Toro Farnese. N N N N
I.361 The exact place where this event happened, called the Divided Way, was memorable in the eyes of all literary Greeks, and is specially adverted to by Pausanias in his periegesis. it is in itself a very marked place. N N N Y, I.223 (text moved to note) The spot called σχιστὴ ὁδὁς (the Divided Way) where this event happened was memorable in the eyes of all literary Greeks, and is specially noticed by the traveller Pausanias, who still saw there (x.5, 2) the tombs of Laĩus and his attendant.  It is moreover in itself a very marked place, where the valley which runs north and south, from Daulis to Ambrysus and Antikyra, is met half way from the westward at right angles, but not crossed, by the ravine, which ascends from the Krissæan plain, passes under Delphi, reaches its highest point at Arakhova above Delphi, and then descends towards the east. Soon after passing Arachova we reached the summit of the pass & saw quite down to the Lake Copais & the plain of Boeotia; & of this we had better & better views as we advanced in our route; which was a rapid descent of two or three hours, till we met another valley ascending from the Corinthian gulf, in the part of it called the bay of Aspraspitia, & the abrupt sides of this valley forced us to turn to the left & ascend it—this fork being exactly the place fixed on by the Greek tragic poets as the spot where Œdipus met his father Laius without knowing him, & killed him in a fray. At the top of this second valley we wound over a mountain pass & came out at the head of the broad valley of Boeotia which comes quite up to the foot of Parnassus. At the root of the mountain is the ancient Daulis, now the village of Davlia (the scene of the tragic adventure of Philomela)11 & here we put up for the night. (XIV.446; May 12, 1855)
I.388 grandfather N N N N
I.394 Admêtus, from Pheræ and the lake Bœbêis, with 11 Eumelus, son of N N N Y, I.243 Eumêlus, from Pheræ and the lake Bœbêis, with 11
I.401 One of the eminences near Napoli still bears the name of Palamidhi. The citadel. He was son of the Eponym, Nauplius. N N N Y, I.247 The marked eminence overtopping Napoli still bears the name of Palamidhi. We arrived at Nauplia in time to ascend to the lofty mountain-citadel (the strongest fortress in Greece) before dark, & the view from it round the head of the Gulf & into the interior was magnificent. (XIV.434; May 2, 1855)
I.415 then Euryalus, Peneleus, Leitus, Ascalaphus + Ialmenus must have been immortal too. Lemp. 318. N N N N
I.460 probably the poets invented most of it. N N N N
I.467 not that [remaining text unreadable] N N N N
I.467 Certainly not, gentlemen of the Dikastery, “O Dikasts” is better N N N Y, I.289 Certainly not, men of the Dikastery;
I.467 not to mention their extreme absurdity paradoxicalness is a more correct translation N N N Y, I.289 not to mention that they are in themselves so extravagant
I.482 Even this was not invariable sequence – only unpreventableoccurence N N N N
I.484 There is one standing now in Euboea which requires eight. N N N N A clear mountain brook or river winds down in the midst among a perfect forest of the noblest plane trees—one, a single trunk (not several from one root like the one we admired yesterday) was the most gigantic tree I ever saw: Dawson measured it round with his outstretched arms & it took eight lengths. (XIV.440; May 5, 1855)
I.493 Nor was it alone as an ethical and social critic that Xenophanês stood distinguished. only N N N Y, I.304 It was not merely as an ethical and social critic that Xenophanês stood distinguished.
I.504 But we see, by the defence which Xenophôn as well as Plato gives for him, that the Athenian public really considered him, in spite of his own disclaimer, as homogeneous with Anaxagoras and the other physical inquirers, because he had applied similar scientific reasonings to moral and social phenomena: they looked upon him with the same displeasure as he himself felt towards the physical philosopher, and we cannot but admit that in this respect they were unfortunately more consistent than he was. Rather because they thought he applied them to physical phenomena. N N N Y, I.310 According to the remarkable passage recently cited from Xenophôn, it will appear that Sokratês agreed with his countrymen in denouncing physical speculations as impious,—that he recognised the religious process of discovery as a peculiar branch, co-ordinate with the scientific,—and that he laid down a theory, of which the basis was, the confessed divergence of these two processes from the beginning—thereby seemingly satisfying the exigences of religious hopes and fears on the one hand, and those of reason, in her ardour for ascertaining the invariable laws of phænomena, on the other.  We may remark that the theory of this religious and extra-scientific process of discovery was at that time sufficiently complete; for Sokratês could point out, that those anomalous phænomena which the gods had reserved for themselves, and into which science was forbidden to pry, were yet accessible to the seekings of the pious man, through oracles, omens, and other exceptional means of communication which divine benevolence vouchsafed to keep open.
I.517 Sophoclês, the prime political genius of Grecian tragedy, qu. poetical? Y, I.519 now I.317 Sophoklês, the most illustrious ornament of Grecian tragedy,
I.531 How is it consonant to nature (he asks), that Hêraklês, being, as he was, according to the statement of the Greeks, a man, should kill many thousand persons? still N N N Y, I.326 How is it consonant to nature (he asks), that Hêraklês, being, as he was, according to the statement of the Greeks, still a man (i.e. having not yet been received among the gods), should kill many thousand persons?
I.552 This passage does not so much imply a belief that the stories were true, as a wish to discourage nice inquiry into whether they are so or not. N N N N
I.583 Mr. Halked h[slash] Y, I.588 now I.360 Mr. Halhed
I.594 But he found himself immeasurably overdone by the priests outdone? N N N Y, I.368 But he found himself immeasurably outdone by the priests
I.610 temple of Theseus at Athens N N N N
II.54 The distinction which Mr. Clinton draws between an upward and a downward chronology is one that I am unable to comprehend. I [unreadable] he has an intelligible meaning N N N Y, I.438 The distinction which Mr. Clinton draws between an upward and a downward chronology is one to which I cannot assent.
II.58 It is obvious that when they began recording, they would not content themselves with the one cotemporary name but would need all previous names according to their belief N N N N
II.74 inverted commas wrong. N N N N
II.77 [paragraph beginning, “Karl Müller, in an ingenious Dissertation on the Parian marble . . .”] repetition vide propra p. 48. Y, I.78 now I.452 paragraph eliminated
II.85 credat! N N N N
II.88 At present it is enough to remark that the epithets of good men, best men, habitually applied afterwards to the aristocratic parties, descend from the rudest period of Grecian society. The better classes. the better sort of people N N N Y, I.460 At present it is enough to remark that the epithets of good men, best men (the better classes, according to a phrase common even now), habitually applied afterwards to the aristocratic parties, descend from the rudest period of Grecian society.
II.90 The chiefs, kings, princes, or Gerontes—for the same word in Greek designates both an old man and a man of conspicuous rank and position—compose the Council [footnote inserted providing two relevant passages from the Iliad] seniores. seigneurs. N N N Y, I.461 The chiefs, kings, princes, or Gerontes—for the same word in Greek designates both an old man and a man of conspicuous rank and position—compose the Council [footnote now includes an additional sentence following the Greek citations: “So also the modern words Seigneur,Signore, from Senior; and the Arabic word Shaik.”]
II.113 Antigone Electra Iphigenia Merope Melanippe Polysena Phaedra Dejaneira Cassandra Medeia Alkestis Hypermnestra Ariadne Canace N N N N
II.121 Hesiod, i. 166 Herod. Y, II.122 now I.481 Herodot. i. 166
II.126 In all the ruder tribes of India. N N N N
II.127 δοũυαs δίκην; N N N N
II.131 Δωμαὶ Δμωαὶ; Y, II.132 now I.487 Δμωαὶ
II.136 not at all. N N N N
II.140 bronze? N N N N
II.143 or he may be referring to a transition state during which the spear was hurled as the pilum was by the Roman legionaries. N N N N
II.148 + It is small, though strong. Perhaps what remains is only the Acropolis. N N N N
II.154 In order to bring this lunar period more nearly into harmony with the sun, they intercalated every year an additional month second N N N Y, I.502 In order to bring this lunar period more nearly into harmony with the sun, they intercalated every second year an additional month
II.156 the shroud of Achilles? N N N N
II.174 but the name itself might give umbrage to Kleisthen N N N N
II.175 The many different cities which laid claim to the birth of Homer (seven is rather below the truth, and Smyrna and Chios are the most prominent among them) is well-known at N N N Y, I.515 That many different cities laid claim to the birth of Homer (seven is rather below the truth, and Smyrna and Chios are the most prominent among them) is well-known
II.243 24 N N N N
II.243 But the ninth book is far worse: it not only degrades the hero, but also overthrows the fundamental scheme of the poem. =F77. Y, II.244 [slight change made, but not evidently as a result of Mill’s note] now p. I.559 But the ninth book overthrows the fundamental scheme of the poem.
II.281 From the southern face of Olympus, Pindus strikes off nearly southward, forming the boundary between Thessaly and Epirus, sending forth about the 39th degree of latitude the lateral chain of Othrys, which takes an easterly course, forming the southern boundary of Thessaly, and reaching the sea between Thessaly and the northern coast of Eubœa. along the north side of Phthiotis. N N N Y, II.2 From the southern face of Olympus, Pindus strikes off nearly southward, forming the boundary between Thessaly and Epirus, sending forth about the 39th degree of latitude the lateral chain of Othrys—which latter takes an easterly course, reaching the sea between Thessaly and the northern coast of Eubœa. We passed between the north end of Euboea & the narrow strip of Greek territory which lies between this channel & the [442] Turkish frontier & is known as Phthiotis: when we had passed Euboea & the entrance of the Euripus we entered the Gulf of Zeitun or Lamia which runs northwest. The whole way we had the mass of Parnassus visible on the left, much more clearly & nearer at hand than ever before, & the snowy tops of Œta & Othrys ahead. The range of Othrys forms the northern boundary of the Greek kingdom. (XIV.441-42; May 7, 1855)
II.282 the rugged and lofty Isthmus of Corinth The Isthmus proper is extremely low. N N N Y, p. II.3 the high ground which first sinks down into the depression forming the Isthmus of Corinth By degrees the Acro Corinth raised its globose mass in front of us, & getting clear of the roots of Geraneia, we came on the comparatively level ground of the Isthmus, with its splendid views of both sides of the Corinthian Gulf: Parnassus, Helicon &c on the north, & the mountains of the Peloponnesus on the south, including the massive lofty & snowy summit of Olonos (as the guide says), Khelmos as I suspect, which rivals Parnassus in apparent height. (XIV.455; May 19, 1855)
II.284 I saw mica schist nowhere but on Penteli[?] N 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 & fragments of fine crystalline marble before. (XIV.428; April 21, 1855)
II.284 [second paragraph of note on “the geological and minerological character of Greece” appeals to the authority of “Professor [Ludwig] Ross” on the way in which “the character of the Greek limestone . . . First determined in early times the polygonal style of architecture, which has been denominated (he observes) Cyclopian and Pelasgic”] However the grand specimen of Cyclopean + Pelasgic architecture, Mycenae + Tiryns are not limestone at all but a breccia or conglomerate of pebbles. N N N Y, II.5 paragraph eliminated
II.285 near Corinth + [unreadable] on the hills are a loose decomposing matter which makes the streams run white. N N N N
II.286 springs are rare springs are very frequent in the Morea. N N N Y, II.6 Springs are not numerous.
II.287 The rivers more to the southward are unequal and inferior; Kephisus and Asôpus in Bœotia, Alpheius in Elis and Arcadia, Pamisus in Messenia, maintain each a languid stream throughout the summer; while the Inachus near Argos, and the Kephisus and Ilissus near Athens, present a scanty reality which falls short still more of their great poetical celebrity.  Of all those rivers which have been noticed, the Achelôus is by far the most important; Asopus certainly not near Plataea. It stood in pools in the middle of May. Alpheius must be always a river of some size. Spercheius is a considerable river: Euritus a fine mountain stream N N N Y, II.6 The rivers more to the southward are unequal and inferior.  Kephisus and Asôpus in Bœotia, Pamisus in Messenia, maintain each a languid stream throughout the summer; while the Inachus near Argos, and the Kephisus and Ilissus near Athens, present a scanty reality which falls short still more of their great poetical celebrity.  The Alpheius and Spericus are considerable streams—the Achelôus is still more important. We gradually descended among woods & over fine grassy slopes into the valley of the Alpheus, & a great pleasure it was to see a real river in Greece (XIV.465; May 27, 1855); After crossing this plain we entered the pass of Thermopylae, between Œta & the gulf: first crossing the Spercheius, a river of some size, the first real river I have seen in Greece. (XIV.443; May 9, 1855)
II.287 Inachus absolutely dry before the end of April 1855. N N N N
II.287 [no footnote appended to assertion of the importance of the Achelôus] part of the Echinades now rise [unreadable] of dry land at the mouth of the Achelous. N N N Y, II.6 [new footnote, which reads, “Most of the Echinades now rise out of dry land, which has accumulated at the mouth of the Achelôus.”] The vale of Elis opened itself out, & facing us were the scattered rocky isles of the Echinades, many of them now joined to the mainland of Acarnania by the great deposits of sand brought down by the Achelous. (XIV.422; April 18, 1855)
II.289 the upper end of the valley of Mantinea is a lake every year till it dries up. N N N N Doubtless these valleys without outlets are common enough elsewhere, but in the north they become permanent lakes, being filled up to the level at which they can find a passage. We had to go a long way round this lake, which considerably lengthened our day’s journey. We came to the site of Mantinea (XIV.458; May 22, 1855)
II.291 hardly any exist now. N N N N We crossed the plain or valley from Thebes to the port of Cithaeron, up & across which there is a really well made winding carriage road: but (cosas de Grecia) between Cithaeron & Thebes it is little but a track, & on the side next Athens it has been so left unrepaired & is so worn by rain & watercourses that it is hardly practicable for carriages. (XIV.450-51; May 15, 1855)
II.291 all Roman or Turkish N N N N
II.293 scarcely. qu. east? N N N N
II.308 Ἤπειρος continent. N N N N
II.312 Juvarunt r [slash] Y, II.316 now II.22 Jurarunt
II.314 Heredotus + Hippocrates were both from Dorian towns. N N N N
II.316 + the exact reverse of what happened to the Normans in Normandy + in Sicily; whose children adopted the language of their mothers. N N N N
II.318 fifth by the ancient mode of numeration fourth by the modern. N N N N
II.333 nor does it seem to be me? Y, II.337 now II.36 nor does it seem to me
II.335 See the argument of Cicero in favour of divination, of one of the characters in the dialogue. N N N Y, II.37 See the argument in favour of divination placed by Cicero in the mouth of his brother Quintus,
II.348 ύπερ Τνρσηνων. can that be near the Thermaic Gulf? N N N N
II.348 qu. as to the unnamed N N N N
II.350 [speculative paragraph on the origins of the Greek language, which begins, “The wider range of experience now acquired teaches us that adoption of a new language is not so easy as Herodotus supposed it to be; and that what takes place when two nations differing in speech come to dwell together, is, not effacement of the one language and substitution of the other, but confluence and corruption of both;”] not always. Gaelic, Irish, Welsh etc. Y, II.354 now II.46 [entire paragraph has been rewritten, and now begins, “Confining myself to historical evidence, and believing that no assured results can be derived from the attempt to transform legend into history, I accept the statement of Herodotus with confidence as to the barbaric language spoken by the Pelasgiancs of his day, and I believe the same with regard to the historical Leleges—but without presuming to determine anything in regard to the legendary Pelasgians and Leleges,”]
II.354 how did the Greeks get the Phoenician alphabet? N N N N
II.355 Is this treatise Aristotle’s? N N N N
II.356 outer margin the Magyars the Czechrs the Roumanen. are cases in point. also the Germans in Allemands who call themselves Deutche. the Cymri or Welsh. N N N N
II.357 a N N N N
II.366 nor do the Thessalonian cities seem to have possessed that breed of free and tolerably equal citizens class? Y, II.370 now II.57 nor do the Thessalonian cities seem to have possessed that congregation of free and tolerably equal citizens
II.369 The words ascribed by Xenophon (Hellen. vi. 1, 11) to Jason of Pheræ, as well as to Theocritus (xvi. 34), attest the numbers and vigour of the Thessalian Penestæ, qu? N N N Y, II.58 The words ascribed by Xenophon (Hellen. vi. 1, 11) to Jason of Pheræ, and the lines of Theocritus (xvi. 34), attest the numbers and vigour of the Thessalian Penestæ,
II.382 the latter, with its once fertile plain, lay immediately under the sacred rock of the Delphian Apollo not exactly. A deep gorge ascends from the plain to Delphi. N N N Y, II.66 the latter, with its once fertile plain, was in proximity to the sacred rock of the Delphian Apollo Delphi is one of the very few places in Greece of which the views in Wordsworth’s Greece give a more favourable idea than the truth: it is however fine, backed by a very precipitous cleft portion of Parnassus & looking down into the broad valley with a narrow gorge at the bottom of it, rapidly ascending from right to left. (XIV.445; May 10, 1855)
II.382 a very wide use of the term Parnassus. N N N N
II.387 why not a conquest by the Ætolians? N N N N
II.390 A copy of Forchhammer’s map will be found at the beginning of the present volume. end Y, II.394 now II.71 A copy of Forchhammer’s map will be found at the end of the present volume.
II.391 The direct road from the passes of Phocis southward into Bœotia went through Chæroneia, leaving Lebadeia on the right and Orchomenus on the left hand, and passed the south-western edge of the lake Kopaïs near the towns of Koroneia, Alalkomenæ, and Haliartus—all situated on the mountain Tilphôssion, an outlying ridge connected with Helicon by the intervention of Mount Leïbethrius: the Tilphossæon was an important military post commanding that narrow pass between the mountain and the lake which lay in the great road from Phocis to Thebes. there is nothing that can be called mountain between Helicon + the lake. All those mentioned are low hills. N N N Y, II.72 The direct road from the passes of Phokis southward into Bœotia went through Chæroneia, leaving Lebadeia on the right and Orchomenus on the left hand, and passed the south-western edge of the lake Kopaïs near the towns of Koroneia, Alalkomenæ, and Haliartus.  Here stood, between Mount Helikon and the lake, on the road from Phokis to Thebes, the important military post called Tilphossion.
II.392 South-west of Thebes, occupying the southern descent of lofty Helicon towards the inmost corner of the Corinthian Gulf, and bordering on the south-eastern extremity of Phocis with the Phocian town of Bulis, stood the city of Thespiæ: x quite separate from Helicon- there is a valley between. N N N Y, II.72 South-west of Thebes, bordering on the south-eastern extremity of Phokis with the Phokian town of Bulis, stood the city of Thespiæ. We had the choice of two roads, one through Thespiae, the other over part of Helicon (XIV. 448; May 13, 1855)
II.392 southward of the Asôpus, between the river and Mount Kithæron, were Platæa and Tanagra: Tanagra is rather towards Parnes. N N N Y, II.72 Southward of the Asôpus, but northward of Kithæron and Parnes, were Platæa and Tanagra: We soon got clear of the gorges of Parnes & descended into the plain or valley of Tanagra (XIV. 437; May 4, 1855); Mill did not arrive at Plataea until the 13th
II.395 A Podesta couldnot be of their own city. N N N N
II.397 First came Megara, stretching across the isthmus from sea to sea, and occupying the high and rugged mountains called Oneia and Geraneia: is not this south of the Isthmus? + surely never can have belonged to Megara. Y, II.401 now II.76 First came Megara, stretching across the isthmus from sea to sea, and occupying the high and rugged mountain-ridge called Geraneia: Megara itself is a rather imposing looking village or small town, on the face of a hill, looking across a belt of country to the Gulf of Salamis. It lies on a neck of comparatively flat land between the two Gulfs: forming a broader isthmus outside the isthmus lying between the beautiful Geraneia (which is the mountain of the isthmus) to the southwest, & Cithaeron to the north east. (XIV.454; May 18, 1855)
II.399 the middle portion of it, called the Hollow Elis, being for the most part fertile, though the tracts near the sea were more sandy and barren. not now – at [unreadable] Pyrgos + Catakolo N N N Y, II.77 the middle portion, called the Hollow Elis, being for the most part fertile. In a beautiful evening I rode to the little port of Pyrgos called Katacolo. The country is of a rich verdure even close to the sea, (XIV. 467; May 29, 1855)
II.401 or no N N N N
II.409 over N N N N
II.410 [unreadable] and Sapienza? N N N N
II.422 At what time its agonistic festival, recurring every fifth year at the first full moon after the summer soltice, first began or first acquired its character of special sanctity, we have no means of determining: fourth as we say N N N Y, II.92 At what time its agonistic festival, recurring every fourth year at the first full moon after the summer soltice, first began or first acquired its character of special sanctity, we have no means of determining.
II.437 the sea looks very close to it when you are there. N N N N
II.438 The exact site of the temple of Artemis Limnatis, near the summit of Mount Taygetus, has recently been verified by Professor Ross. incorrectly expressed. conf. 559. It is no doubt in the only pass of Taygetus, from a little north of Mistra to Calamata Y, II.442 now II.102 [text and accompanying citation from Ross eliminated]
II.444 Αχαρναί Αχαρνενς- an exception N N N N
II.491 respecting [remaining text unreadable] N N N N
II.511 they had been married long enough to have two or three other children, while they had scarcely see each apart by daylight. other Y, II.520 now II.150 they had been married long enough to have two or three children, while they had scarcely see each other apart by daylight.
II.513 By what steps so large a proportion as two-fifths of the landed property of the state came to be possessed by women, he does not clearly explain to us: there were (he says) many sole heiresses,—the dowries given by fathers to their daughters were very large,—and the father seems to have had unlimited power of testamentary bequest, which he was disposed to use to the advantage of his daughter over his son.  But the first two reasons are not very satisfactory, and the third is hardly available to any great extent, unless admit in conjunction with it a peculiar sympathy and yielding disposition towards women in the Spartan mind,—a disposition of which Aristotle also speaks, and which he ascribes to the warlike temper of both the citizen and the state,—Arês bearing the yoke of Aphroditê. Equality of treatment would do even more than give two fifths – since there must have been more daughters than sons, owing to deaths in war Y, II.522-23 now II.151-52 By what steps so large a proportion as two-fifths of the landed property of the state came to be possessed by women, he partially explains to us.  There were (he says) many sole heiresses,—the dowries given by fathers to their daughters were very large,—and the father had unlimited power of testamentary bequest, which he was disposed to use to the advantage of his daughter over his son.  Perfect equality of behest or inheritance between the two sexes, without any preference for females, would accomplish a great deal: but  besides this, we are told by Aristotle that there was in the Spartan mind a peculiar sympathy and yielding disposition towards women, which he ascribes to the warlike temper of both the citizen and the state—Arês bearing the yoke of Aphroditê.
II.513 [no further text in above-quoted paragraph] When all property is hereditary, none acquired, it will naturally in a warlike community, with a law or custom of equal division by inheritance, accumulate in the hands of women. Y, pp. 522-23 now p. II.152 [above-quoted paragraph continues]  But apart from such a consideration, if we suppose on the part of a wealthy Spartan father the simple disposition to treat sons and daughters alike as to bequest,—nearly one half of the inherited mass of property would naturally be found in the hands of daughters, since on an average of families the number of the two sexes born is nearly equal.  In most societies, it is the men who make new acquisition: but this seldom or never happened with Spartan men, who disdained all money-getting occupations.
II.542 he must often have acquired by war. N N N N
II.543 x A dissertation full of conclusions has been grounded (by Enfantin) on a similar misunderstanding of ^the same phrase in the words of Christ before Pilate. N N N N
II.551 Le N N N N
II.551 In reference merely to the territory called La Magne, Maina. N N N Y, II.177 In reference merely to the territory called Maina,
II.551 the lower part of the peninsula of Tænarus, western N N N Y, II.177 the western part of the peninsula of Tænarus,
II.553 P [slash] N N N N
II.558 rests N N N N
II.563 [unreadable] Elis N N N N
II.584 Mantineia is inthe plain. N N N N
II.600 a N N N N
II.615 this description would serve well for Kleonæ N N N N
II.631 [In the 3rd edition, Grote inserted a footnote on II.52: “Colonel Mure has animadverted upon this reasoning, in Appendix J. to the third volume of his History of Greek Literature.  For some remarks in reply to his observations, I refer the reader to Appendix No. I. at the end of this volume.”  Grote’s appendix occupies pp. 629-38 in both the 3rd and 4th editions.] not conclusive NA N N Y [The note referring to Appendix on II.52 of 3rd and 4th editions has been removed, and the appendix itself has been excised, although whether in response to Mill’s specific annotations or not is difficult to determine.]
II.631 outer margin He would perhaps say that the lists are true up to the gods, but not further. NA N N Y [unreadable] see above
II.638 interlinear and outer margin succeeding? NA N N Y [unreadable] see above

 

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] Copies of Niebuhr’s Romische Geschichte (1827) and its English translation as The History of Rome (1844), both with marginalia, are also held in Somerville’s John Stuart Mill Collection.

[2] Kenrick’s Essay was published in London by B. Fellowes in 1846.

[3] None of the nonverbal marks corresponds to either of the two lengthy passages—in order of citation, II.527-30 and II.298-302—excerpted for inclusion in the 1846 Spectator review.

[4] Grote’s footnote appears on II.52 in the third and fourth editions: “Colonel Mure has animadverted upon this reasoning, in Appendix J. to the third volume of his History of Greek Literature. For some remarks in reply to his observations, I refer the reader to Appendix No. I. at the end of this volume.” Grote’s appendix occupies pp. 629-38 of volume two in both the third and fourth editions.  That Grote chose to remove this material is likely the consequence not just of Mill’s brief annotations, but also of Mure’s own pamphlet-sized response, Remarks on Two Appendices to the Second Volume, Third Edition of Mr. Grote’s History of Greece (1851), which includes thirty pages of closely printed text—featuring pointed rebuttals such as ““I desire no better corroboration than Mr. Grote himself in these two self-contradictory passage supplies, of my assertion, that the rules by which his own researches are guided differ widely from those by which he judges the researches of others” (4)—and was almost certainly a more effective deterrent to Grote’s desire for controversy. The full text of Mure’s pamphlet, which runs to 44 scanned pages, is reproduced on the British Library website.