[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
can be found throughout the textbook .
Mill emphasizes that the Liberty is a carefully constructed piece of
work: None of my writings have either been so carefully composed, or so
28
MI LL AND THE LI BERTY
sedulously corrected as this (1873, p. 249). He first prepared an abbreviated
version of it in 1854, he says, and then decided, while travelling in Italy in early
1855, to convert it into a volume. Despite other pressing business relating to
the East India Company, he and Harriet revised the entire manuscript numerous
times in the interval before her death, reading, weighing and criticising every
sentence (ibid.). The volume was more directly and literally our joint
production than anything else which bears my name (ibid., p. 257). It never
received its final revision . But it remains a highly polished production: [T]here
was not a sentence of it that was not several times gone through by us together,
turned over in many ways, and carefully weeded of any faults, either in thought
or in expression, that we detected in it (ibid., pp. 257 9).
He is also clearly proud of the arguments of the volume. In his view, the
Liberty is likely to survive longer than anything else that I have written (with
the possible exception of the Logic) (ibid., p. 259). Indeed, he sees it as a
fitting tribute to the love of his life: After my irreparable loss one of my
earliest cares was to print and publish the treatise, so much of which was the
work of her whom I had lost, and consecrate it to her memory (ibid., p. 261).
Its present form is apparently the best he can offer: Though it wants the last
touch of her hand, no substitute for that touch shall ever be attempted by me
(ibid.). The first edition was published by Parker in February of 1859, only
three months after Harriet s death. Aside from some minor typos, no revisions
were ever made.
Under these circumstances, it seems incumbent on the reader to treat the
arguments of the essay with due care and respect. Contrary to the suggestions
of many critics, the doctrine of liberty is not some ill-considered musing or
slapdash effort. It deserves, and repays, careful study.
Early reaction
The Liberty seems to have been something of an instant sensation among
English readers. Rees (1956. pp. 1 2) cites some contemporary statements to
that effect. Mill himself speaks of the great impression made by the essay at
29
GENERAL I NTRODUCTI ON
a time [i.e, a critical period] which, to superficial observation, did not seem to
stand much in need of such a lesson (1873, p. 259). The first edition quickly
sold out, and a second edition of 2,000 copies appeared in August 1859, followed
by a third in 1864. Only one more Library Edition was published during Mill s
lifetime, in 1869, largely because an inexpensive and oft-reprinted People s
Edition appeared in 1865. Since his death, the essay has been reprinted numerous
times, in various languages. It is still generally regarded as a classic statement of
the case for individual liberty.
That is not to say that his argument has ever been widely accepted, or
that it is now adequately reflected in the legal and moral systems of advanced
societies such as Britain or the United States. But it remains influential to some
extent and continues to be admired by many who are prepared to be critical of
existing law and morality. H.L.A. Hart noted in 1963, for example, that Mill s
principles [sic] are still very much alive in the criticism of law (1963, p. 15).
Joel Feinberg (1984 8) turns to Mill s principles as he reconstructs them in
his critical assessment of legal rules in an American context. Most recently,
C.L. Ten has argued that Mill s doctrine contains important lessons for modern
multicultural societies, and that [i]t will be a long time before the message of
On Liberty becomes redundant (1995, p. 204).12
At the same time, the fame of the essay should not be taken to imply that
its argument has been fully comprehended by most of its readers. From the
start, most critical notices of the book have been infected by remarkable
confusions and misunderstandings. As J.T. Mackenzie complained in 1880, in
a cogent reply to the smug conservatism expressed by Max Muller during the
previous year, scarcely anybody seems to have understood the plain language
of the text (as reprinted in Pyle, 1994, p. 397). It is difficult to know whether
such incomprehension generated the hostility among philosophers which rather
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]