This is response to part of Prabhu Guptara's extensive post Guptara: "The fact is that the Puritans hated SOME arts they considered dissolute (e.g. the theatre - a position which, by the way, has become valid again today, as some theatre is now as corrupt and corrupting once again in our own day as it was in theirs)" That is a sweeping statement! I don't know in what way theater is corrupt and corrupting today. It is thriving on all levels all over the world and adding to the global cultural milieu. Theatre lovers are happy with revivals of Shakespeare as well as modern plays, thank you. Guptara: "Above, I have extensive (and nearly exhaustive) references to such matters, in JSM's autobiography relating to most of his life. Readers will find no trace of parental "tyranny", "puritanical hatred of the arts" (or indeed of Scotch or Presbyterian hatred of the arts). The autobiography specifically rebuts the "popular notion (that) Benthamites ... are enemies of poetry" and documents in massive detail JSM's knowledge of poetry and liking for poetry (BTW, JSM continued to esteem the essays he had himself penned on the theory of poetry)." A nuanced reading of the Autobiography leaves a distinct impression of a father-son relationship which was at the very least oppressive for the son. In the post-depression period, Mill can be said to have successfully managed his illness (without Freudian psychotherapy!). But his mental crisis was very real. In the chapter on his mental state, he writes: "My father's tone of thought and feeling, I now felt myself at a great distance from: greater, indeed, than a full and calm explanation and reconsideration on both sides, might have shewn to exist in reality. But my father was not one with whom calm and full explanation on fundamental points of doctrine could be expected, at least with one whom he might consider as, in some sort, a deserter from his standard....He knew that the habit of thinking for myself, which his mode of education had fostered, sometimes led me to opinions different from his and he perceived from time to time that I did not always tell him how different (emphasis in the original). I expected no good, but only pain to both of us, from discussing our differences: and I never expressed them but when he gave utterance to some opinion or feeling repugnant to mine, which would have made it disingenuousness on my p[art to remain silent." I would also like to quote from John M. Robson's Introduction to the Autobiography: "Mill's account has focused comment on the causes of this depression and on its alleviation. His own explanation of its inception has generally seemed inadequate, as concentrating too exhaustively on his analytic habit of mind; however, he himself does not underplay emotional causes, but makes clear to the attentive reader that his father's devaluation of 'feeling' had left him unequipped to deal with non-rational personal motivation. The explanation also has value as pointing to a constant problem in Benthamite utilitarianism, the difficulty of connecting the goal (general happiness) with the motive (individual happiness)." In passing, referring to Scottish Presbyterians, Guptara writes: "...and many such groups are growing again in our post-secular times". If the post-secular times have already arrived and are here to stay, what are we in for in this century? Cheers, Sumitra Shah