This article studies John Stuart Mill’s unfinished “ethology” or a science of the formation of character from the perspective of intellectual context in nineteenth-century Britain. Although Mill’s “ethology” has been discussed by scholars like Carlisle (1991), Ball (2010), and Rosen (2013), they seem to have failed to understand two significant points. First, they neglect the fact that Mill himself quoted positively the Rev. Sydney Smith’ work on an inquiry into the formation of female character. I will argue instead on the reason why Smith’s “Female Education” (1810) was regarded as an important article by Mill. Second, the scholars ignore the fact that Mill was not able to complete his “ethology” at least by the time he published Subjection of Women (1869). My argument places particular emphasis on the following passage in it. “since no one, as yet, has that knowledge, (for there is hardly any subject which, in proportion to its importance, has been so little studied), no one is thus far entitled to any positive opinion on the subject”. I conclude therefore that Mill’s “ethology” was not completed in his lifetime as his unfinished project. However, Mill in the Subjection of Women developed a radical departure from Smith’s aristocratic view of women, and presented the philosophical view that all women ought to be free and independent individuals.
