James Mill, father of JS Mill, was born on the 6th April 1773 (4 years prior to Mary Shepherd, whose salon he attended) into a poor family in a run-down Scottish town. James's mother was ambitious for him, changing their Scottish family name Milne to the English 'Mill'. However, James did have a wealthy patron, Sir John Stuart without whom life would have been very challenging. I doubt James would ever have written anything or been able to bring up his son John in the way he did but for this generous man. This would mean that JS Mill would never have had the opportunity to become the great philosopher and politician that we know today. James went on to study Greek, Philosophy and Theology at Edinburgh University and, as was usual in the 18th century, he started out as a preacher (1798). He soon gave that up and became a writer on philosophy, history, politics, economics, psychology (mind/mental association) and Education. David Hume influenced his Psychology. James was one of the founders of the Ricardian School of Economics and London University which was intended for the middle and lower classes because Oxbridge was too exclusionary.
Since it's the posthumous anniversary of his birthday, I thought it was a good time to discuss James Mill's role as the educator of John and his siblings. As often happens in families, siblings don't always remember the same things in the same way. John was critical of his father and thought him cold, and lacking in emotion, whereas his siblings thought him a wonderful father. John was born in 1806 and shortly after this James became a close friend of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, who was a supporter of gay rights! This relationship lasted throughout their lives, Bentham was pivotal in supporting the family financially. James had more children than he could afford and a journalistic career that didn't pay much. The two families lived next door to each other and spent a great deal of time in each other's company. Bentham sometimes worked in the same room as father and son. So John was used to working with others around him not in isolation as is often thought which is why he was quick to work with Harriet.
As an educator of his children, James spent at least four hours tutoring them and then doing his own work. Not unsurprisingly, the day started very early! Some were critical of the hot-housing that the children, especially John, were experiencing. Personally, I think if the children were not up to it, James would not have been able to succeed in the educational experiment. Children are considerably more capable than adults think. There is no doubt they worked hard but John never felt he was just a sponge absorbing facts. His father always emphasised learning by discovery and critically questioning everything. I can identify with this Socratic method of questioning everything and anything because I was brought up like that from an early age. Its aim is to teach you to think not just absorb knowledge uncritically and without understanding.
My home education, although intensive, was not as demanding as John's. While John could read Plato in Greek by the age of seven, I had only just started learning Latin at that age (Cambridge Course📚). I had a lot of fun and, unlike John, was very physically active and mixed with children of my own age, productively, at theatre school and sports clubs. John, however, led a more isolated life and did very little physical activity although his music education enabled him to play the piano. This surely shows that his father was catering for John's emotional development! Apparently, John only liked playing the piano for Harriet! How romantic! ❤
His father also encouraged a study of great past poets which held him in good stead with Harriet who was a poet herself but it also meant he was confident striking up friendships with poets such as Wordsworth whose company he thoroughly enjoyed! Although the reason for studying poetry may not have been for emotional development but rather rhetoric and activism, it still meant that John would have had an emotional outlet for his feelings, especially since his father encouraged him to write his own poetry. This may be why his writings flow so well.
John would build on his working relationship with his father with Harriet basing this collaboration on the one he shared with him. Working together in the same study space at the same table. My mother and I worked in the same study room too. It creates a bond and a more equal relationship. It also means you have one-on-one attention all the time!
As with me, learning was prioritised by my mother just as James prioritised learning before play with John. However, James was quite a disciplinarian whereas my mother is very liberal and believes discipline comes easily when the child has a close, emotional bond with the parent and both have fun together e.g. Playing lego, dolls, board games, making things and so on. And, of course, leading a social life which allows the child to learn from others and enjoy interacting with them.
Having said that, John seems to have been perfectly capable of an emotionally satisfying relationship with Harriet and staying faithful to only her. That's emotional maturity! Especially since he met her very early on when he was still in his early twenties. He was also able to sustain a working relationship with her and give her credit for the work they did together. Unusual for those days!
John was rational but his father, James, prided himself on being in control at all times and super rational. He was independently minded and a strong anti-clerical, atheistic secularist, as was Bentham. Perhaps philosophers conflate James and his son John by assuming John was also a strong atheist. I'm inclined to see John Stuart Mill as an agnostic or at least a soft atheist who disliked dogma and institutional religion much like Hume and home-educated, radical, free thinker and atheist Harriet Taylor Mill whom he married. They suited each other very well. Even though he didn't mind going to churches and admiring the architecture he was never initiated into religion as a child. He grew up without a religious faith and happily stayed that way although he was not as negative as his father who parted ways with Christianity.
James Mill was always ready to become friends with intellectuals. One such was the political economist Ricardo who had a great deal in common with Adam Smith in this area. Ricardo was a firm favourite with both father and son and his death (1823) was felt deeply by both. It was due to Ricardo that John remained interested in political economy all his life.
James Mill was a loving father who devoted a great deal of time to his children. John looked up to him and respected him deeply. I think John was, however, unnecessarily afraid of his father. James was just ambitious for his son rather like his mother had been with him. James was, nonetheless, very close to his children considering it was the early nineteenth century when fathers had little to do with their offspring, and still don't in many cases!
Although we mustn't forget Marx, who was Mill's contemporary, and also a wonderful father with a very good personal and working relationship with his daughter, Eleanor. However, he didn't demand as much from her as James did of his son, John. Marx was, in many ways, a typical Jewish father, caring, warm and loving.
Nevertheless, I think John's upbringing enabled him to sustain working hard and quickly in adult life. He was prolific! His brain was always functioning at a high level. It shows how bright Harriet must have been to keep up with John and to have such a massive input in their joint work projects. Certainly his feminism wouldn't be up to scratch without her because his father James was not a feminist, as far as I'm aware!
To celebrate James Mill's birthday I've created a sub-group devoted exclusively to him and his writings within the Mill Circle website (wix).
