James Mill | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | James Milne[1] (1773-04-06)6 April 1773 Northwater Bridge, parish of Logie Pert,Angus, Scotland |
| Died | 23 June 1836(1836-06-23) (aged 63) Kensington, London, England |
| Spouse | Harriet Burrow |
| Children | John Stuart Mill |
| Education | |
| Alma mater | University of Edinburgh |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | Modern philosophy |
| Region | Western philosophy |
| School | Associationism Classical liberalism Economic liberalism Ricardian economics Utilitarianism |
| Main interests | Psychology Ethics Economics |
| Notable works | The History of British India (1817) |
James Mill (bornJames Milne;[1] 6 April 1773 – 23 June 1836[2]) was a Scottishhistorian,economist,political theorist andphilosopher. He is counted among the founders of theRicardian school of economics.[3] He also wroteThe History of British India (1817) and was one of the prominent historians to take a colonial approach.[4] He was the first writer to divide Indian history into three parts: Hindu, Muslim and British,[5][2] a classification which has proved surpassingly influential in the field of Indian historical studies.
Mill was the father ofJohn Stuart Mill, a noted philosopher ofliberalism andutilitarianism, and a colonial administrator at theEast India Company.
James Milne, later known as James Mill, was born in Northwater Bridge, in the parish of Logie Pert,Angus, Scotland, the son of James Milne, ashoemaker and small farmer. His mother, Isabel Fenton, of a family that had suffered from connection with theStuart rising,[which?] resolved that he should receive a first-rate education, and after the parish school they sent him on to theMontrose Academy, where he remained until the unusual age of seventeen and a half. He then entered theUniversity of Edinburgh, where he distinguished himself as a Greek scholar.[2]
In October 1789, he was ordained as aminister of the Church of Scotland, but met with little further success. According to John Stuart Mill'sAutobiography, his father, though "educated in the creed of Scotch Presbyterianism, had, by his own studies and reflections, been early led to reject not only the belief in Revelation, but the foundations of what is commonly called Natural Religion."[6] From 1790 to 1802, while supporting himself by various tutorships, he also pursued various historical and philosophical studies. With little prospect of a career in Scotland, in 1802, he went to London in company withSir John Stuart ofFettercairn, then member of parliament forKincardineshire, and devoted himself to his literary work. From 1803 to 1806, he was editor of an ambitious periodical called theLiterary Journal, which tried to give a summary view of all the leading departments of human knowledge. During this time, he also edited theSt James's Chronicle, published by the same proprietor. In 1804, he wrote a pamphlet on the corn trade, arguing against a tariff (or 'bounty') on the export of grain. In 1805, he published a translation (with notes and quotations) ofAn Essay on the Spirit and Influence of the Reformation of Luther byCharles de Villers on theReformation, and an attack on the alleged vices of the papal system. About the end of this year, he began work onThe History of British India, which was to occupy him for twelve years, rather than the three or four that he had expected.[2]
In that year, too, he married Harriet Burrow, whose mother, a widow, kept what was then known as anestablishment for lunatics inHoxton. They took a house inPentonville where their eldest sonJohn Stuart Mill was born in 1806.[2]
.jpg)
In 1808, he became acquainted withJeremy Bentham, who was twenty-five years his senior and, for many years, his chief companion and ally. He adopted Bentham's principles in their entirety, and determined to devote all his energies to bringing them before the world. Between 1806 and 1818, he wrote for theAnti-Jacobin Review, theBritish Review andThe Eclectic Review; but there is no means of tracing his contributions. In 1808, he began to write for the more prominentEdinburgh Review, to which he contributed steadily till 1813, his first known article being "Money and Exchange". He also wrote on Spanish America, China,Francisco de Miranda, theEast India Company, and freedom of the press. In theAnnual Review for 1808, two articles of his are traced – a "Review of Fox's History", and an article on "Bentham's Law Reforms", probably his first published notice of Bentham. In 1811, he co-operated withWilliam Allen (1770–1843), aQuaker andchemist, in a periodical called thePhilanthropist. He contributed largely to every issue – his principal topics being Education, Freedom of the Press, and Prison Discipline (under which he expounded Bentham'sPanopticon). He made powerful onslaughts on the Church in connection with theBell and Lancaster controversy, and took a part in the discussions that led to the foundation of theUniversity of London in 1825. In 1814, he wrote a number of articles, containing an exposition ofutilitarianism, for the supplement to the fifth edition of theEncyclopædia Britannica, the most important being those on "Jurisprudence", "Prisons", "Government"[2] and "Law of Nations".
The History of British India was published in 1818, and obtained a great immediate and enduring success.[8] It brought about a matching change in the author's fortunes, and in the year following, he was appointed an official in India House in the important department of the Examiner of Indian Correspondence. He gradually rose through the ranks until, in 1830, he was appointed head of the office, with a salary of £1900, raised in 1836 to £2000. His great work on economics, theElements of Political Economy, appeared in 1821 (3rd and revised ed. 1825).[2][9]
From 1824 to 1826, Mill contributed a number of articles toThe Westminster Review, the organ of the Radical party, in which he attacked theEdinburgh and theQuarterly Reviews, and the ecclesiastical establishment. In 1829, appeared theAnalysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind. From 1831 to 1833, Mill was largely occupied in the defence of the East India Company, during the controversy attending the renewal of its charter, he being in virtue of his office the spokesman of its Court of Directors. For theLondon Review, founded bySir William Molesworth in 1834, he wrote a notable article entitled "The Church and its Reform", which was much too sceptical for the time and injuredThe Westminster Review. Mill himself was anatheist.[10] His last published book was theFragment on Mackintosh (1835).[2]
Mill was a proponent of British imperialism, justifying it onutilitarian grounds.[11] He considered it part of acivilising mission for Britain to impose its rule on India.[11] Mill saw his own work for the East India Company as important for the improvement of Indian society.[11] Mill portrayed Indian society as morally degraded and argued that Hindus had never possessed "a high state of civilisation".[12]
Mill preferred to take a more theoretical approach to social subjects than theempirical one common at the time. His best known literary work is hisHistory of British India, in which he describes the acquisition of theIndian Empire by England and later theUnited Kingdom. In the work, he characterises Indian society as barbaric and Indians as incapable of self-government.[11] He also brings political theory to bear on the delineation of theHindu civilization, and subjects the conduct of the actors in the successive stages of the conquest and administration of India to severe criticism. The work itself, and the author's official connection with India for the last seventeen years of his life, effected a complete change in the whole system of governance in the country.[2] Mill never visited the Indian colony, relying solely on documentary material and archival records in compiling his work. This fact has led to severe criticism of Mill'sHistory of India by notable economistAmartya Sen.[13]
According toThomas Trautmann, "James Mill's highly influentialHistory of British India (1817) – most particularly the long essay "Of the Hindus" comprising ten chapters – is the single most important source of British Indophobia and hostility to Orientalism".[14] In the chapter titled General Reflections in "Of the Hindus", Mill wrote "under the glosing exterior of the Hindu, lies a general disposition to deceit and perfidy".[15] According to Mill, "the same insincerity, mendacity, and perfidy; the same indifference to the feelings of others; the same prostitution and venality" were the conspicuous characteristics of both the Hindoos and the Muslims. The Muslims, however, were perfuse, when possessed of wealth, and devoted to pleasure; the Hindoos almost always penurious and ascetic; and "in truth, the Hindoo like the eunuch, excels in the qualities of a slave". Furthermore, similar to the Chinese, the Hindoos were "dissembling, treacherous, mendacious, to an excess which surpasses even the usual measure of uncultivated society". Both the Chinese and the Hindoos were "disposed to excessive exaggeration with regard to everything relating to themselves". Both were "cowardly and unfeeling". Both were "in the highest degree conceited of themselves, and full of affected contempt for others". And both were "in physical sense, disgustingly unclean in their persons and houses".[16]
Max Müller argued against the opinion that Indians were an 'inferior race', not only because such a view was wrong but because it made an Englishman's life there a 'moral exile'. One source of such mistaken notions and 'poison' had been, and still was, Mill'sHistory of British India, which in his view was 'responsible for some of the greatest misfortunes' that had happened to India. Those who were going out to rule India 'should shake off national prejudices, which are apt to degenerate into a kind of madness'.
Mill also played a great part in British politics, and was a dominant figure in the establishment of what was called "philosophic radicalism". His writings on government and his personal influence among theLiberal politicians of his time determined the change of view from theFrench Revolution theories of the rights of man and the absolute equality of men to the claiming of securities for good government through a wide extension of the franchise. It was under this banner that theReform Bill was fought and won. HisElements of Political Economy followed up the views of his friendDavid Ricardo. By 1911, theEncyclopædia Britannica described it as being of mainly historical interest, "an accurate summary of views that are now largely discarded".[2] Among the more important of its theses are:[2]
By hisAnalysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind and hisFragment on Mackintosh Mill acquired a position in the history of psychology and ethics. He took up the problems of mind very much after the fashion of theScottish Enlightenment, as then represented byThomas Reid,Dugald Stewart andThomas Brown, but made a new start, due in part toDavid Hartley, and still more to his own independent thinking. He carried out the principle of association into the analysis of the complex emotional states, as the affections, the aesthetic emotions and the moral sentiment, all which he endeavoured to resolve into pleasurable and painful sensations. But the salient merit of theAnalysis is the constant endeavour after precise definition of terms and clear statement of doctrines. He had a great effect onFranz Brentano who discussed his work in his own empirical psychology.[17] TheFragment on Mackintosh severely criticizes the alleged flimsiness and misrepresentations of SirJames Mackintosh'sDissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy (1830), and discusses the foundations of ethics from the author's utilitarian point of view.[18]
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Mill, James".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 453–454. Endnotes: "Mill, James",A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature, 1910 – viaWikisource
