NOTES TO CHAPTER 13
1 In France, by contrast, agriculture occupied not only half the total number of‘‘economically active’’ (engaged in market work) individuals but also almost half the ‘‘economically active’’ women.
The predominance of agricultural employment signaled the predominance of a more family-based economic system. The nineteenth-century French censuses are neither detailed nor consistent, and do not break out ‘‘domestic service’’ as a specific occupation. However, the fact that only 20 percent of French women with occupations in 1866 were in the larger category of Services suggests that paid domestic service was less widespread than in England and the United States. Kin-based forms of domestic service, in which female relatives worked in return for their room and board, were probably more significant. B. R. Mitchell, International Historical Statistics, Europe, 1750—1993, 4th edn (1998), Table B1, p. 149. See also Jacques et Michel Dupaquier, Histoire de la Demographie. La statistique de la population des origines a 1914 (Paris: Librarie Academique Perrin, 1985).2 Edward Higgs, ‘‘Women, Occupations, and Work in the Nineteenth Century Censuses,” History Workshop 23 (1987), 59—80; See also B. R. Mitchell, British Historical Statistics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
3 John Stuart Mill, Autobiography (New York: Oxford University Press, 1952), p. 195.
4 Joseph Schumpeter explained that, ‘‘J. S. Mill was exactly what is meant by an evolutionary socialist.” See his Principles of Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford, 1954), p. 531. Mark Blaug, on the other hand, insisted that, ‘‘Despite his sympathetic treatment of socialist arguments, however, he Mill]was not socialist. Indeed, he is a perfect example of what we mean when we call someone a ‘classical liberal’.” See his Economic Theory in Retrospect, 4th edn, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p.
220. On Mill as authoritarian, see Maurice Cowling, Mill and Liberalism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1963); Joseph Hamburger, John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999); Linda C. Raeder, John Stuart Mill and the Religion of Humanity (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2002).5 Neil de Marchi, ‘‘The Success of Mill’s Principles,’’ History of Political Economy 6:2 (1974), 119-57.
6 Robert L. Heilbroner, for instance, describes Mill’s doctrine as ‘‘English to the core: gradualist, optimistic, realistic, and devoid of radical overtones.’’ See his The Worldly Philosophers (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1961), p. 110. E. K. Hunt writes that Mill looked forward to the day that the rich would simply become less greedy, and give the poor their due. See his History of Economic Thought. A Critical Perspective (Belmont: Wadsworth, 1979), p. 179.
7 Joseph Schumpeter, though clearly sympathetic to Mill’s socialism, could not bring himself to mention his feminism, and describes him in effeminate terms, e.g. ‘‘that impression of stunted growth and lack of vital strength that comes to us from many passages in the imposing work of his life,’’ and ‘‘the note of hysteria in the Preface to the essay On Liberty.’’ See his History of Economic Analysis, p. 528.
8 John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, Books I and II, based on the seventh edition (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965), p. 205.
9 Mill, Principles, IV, p. 759.
10
Ibid., p. 769.
11As he put it, ‘‘The ideas and institutions by which the accident of sex is made the groundwork of an inequality of legal rights, and a forced dissimilarity of social functions, must ere long be recognized as the greatest hindrance to moral, social, and even intellectual improvement.’’ Ibid., p. 765.
12 Mill, Principles, Appendix G, p.
1030. For the remainder of their correspondence, see F. A. Hayek, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor. Their Correspondence and Subsequent Marriage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951).13 John Stuart Mill, Dissertations and Discussions (London: John D. Parker, 1859), vol. II, p. 411. On Harriet Taylor’s distinctive contributions, see Michele Pujol, ‘‘The Feminist Thought of Harriet Taylor,’’ 82—102 in R. W. Dimand and E. L. Forget, eds, Women of Value. Feminist Essays on the History of Women in Economics (Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar, 1995).
14 Harriet Taylor, ‘‘The Enfranchisement of Women,’’ in John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor, Essays on Sex Equality, ed. Alice Rossi (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970), p. 105.
15 Ibid.
16 Richard W. Krouse, ‘‘Patriarchal Liberalism and Beyond: From John Stuart Mill to Harriet Taylor,’’ pp. 145—72 in Jean Bethke Elshtain, ed., The Family in Political Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); Gertrude Himmelfarb, On Liberty and Liberalism: The Case of John Stuart Mill (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974).
17 Josephine Kamm, John Stuart Mill in Love (London: Gordon and Cremonesi, 1977), p. 129.
18 John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women, with an introduction by Wendell Carr (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1970), p. 11.
19 Ibid., p. 13.
20 Ibid., p. 37. See also p. 80, where Mill writes, ‘‘All the selfish propensities, the selfworship, the unjust self-preference, which exist among mankind, have their source and root in, and derive their principal nourishment from, the present constitution of the relation between men and women.’’
21 Ibid., p. 16.
22 Mill writes, ‘‘All men, except the most brutish, desire to have, in the woman most nearly connected with them, not a forced slave, but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favourite. They have therefore put everything in practice to enslave their minds.’’ Ibid., p.
16.23 Ibid., p. 43.
24 Carol Christ, ‘‘Victorian Masculinity and the Angel in the House,’’ pp. 146—62 in Martha Vicinus, ed., A Widening Sphere. Changing Roles of Victorian Women (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977).
25 Wendell Carr, from his introduction to Mill, Subjection of Women, pp. xx.
26 In the Principles, he wrote ‘‘It cannot, however, be considered desirable as a permanent element in the condition of a laboring class, that the mother of the family (the case of single women is totally different) should be under the necessity of working for a living, at least elsewhere than in their place of abode’’ (II, p. 394). In The Subjection of Women he wrote, ‘‘In an otherwise just state of things, it is not, therefore, I think, a desirable custom, that the wife should contribute by her labour to the income of the family’’ (p. 48).
27 Mill, Subjection of Women, p. 28.
28 Krause, ‘‘Patriarchal Liberalism,” p. 168.
29 For a discussion of Mill’s ‘‘fence-sitting” with respect to divorce see Kamm, John Stuart Mill, p. 200.
30 See Michele Pujol, Feminism and Anti-Feminism in Early Economic Thought (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1992).
31 Martineau, ‘‘Female Industry,’’ Edinburgh Review 222 (1859), p. 300. See also her ‘‘Independent Industry of Women,’’ in Yates, ed., Harriet Martineau, pp. 224—9.
32 Lee Holcombe, Victorian Ladies at Work (Newton Abbot, Devon: David and Charles, 1973), p. 10; ‘‘Household Education,’’ in Yates, ed., Harriet Martineau, pp. 95—6.
33 Barbara Bodichon, Women and Work (New York: C.S. Francis, 1859) p. 29. See also the discussion of Bodichon in Pujol, Feminism and Anti-Feminism.
34 Lee Holcombe, ‘‘Victorian Wives and Property,’’ pp. 3—28 in Martha Vicinus, ed., A Widening Sphere. Changing Roles of Victorian Women (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977), p. 11.
35 Kamm, John Stuart Mill in Love, p. 151.
36 Mill, ‘‘Speech Before the House of Commons,’’ May 20 l867, reprinted in Susan Groag Bell and Karen M. Offen, eds, Women, the Family and Freedom (Stanford: Stanford University Press), p. 486.
37 Kamm, John Stuart Mill in Love, p. 183; Martineau, ‘‘On the Contagious Diseases Acts,’’ in Yates, ed. Harriet Martineau, pp. 247, 259.
38 Jane Lewis, Women in England 1870—1950: Sexual Divisions and Social Change (Sussex: Wheatsheaf, 1984), p. 89.
39 Holcombe, ‘‘Victorian Wives and Property,’’ p. 27.