 Individualism, a reader, edited by George H. Smith and Marilyn Moore, narrated by James Foster. One of the individual man and the highest ends of his existence, Wilhelm von Humboldt. Chapter 2 of the Sphere and Duties of Government, translated by Joseph Colthart, London John Chapman, 1859. Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1767 to 1835, was a German man of letters and educator who made significant contributions to linguistics. After Humboldt finished writing The Sphere and Duties of Government, titled The Proper Sphere of Government in a Later Translation, in 1792, some chapters were printed in a German periodical. A complete German edition did not appear until 1852, followed by an English translation that was published in 1854 by the English free thinker and libertarian John Chapman. The English version influenced J. S. Mill, who quoted from it in On Liberty. As Mill would later do, Humboldt argues that freedom and cultural diversity are essential to the development of individuality which, in turn, is essential to happiness. The true end of man, or that which is prescribed by the eternal and immutable dictates of reason and not suggested by vague and transient desires, is the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole. Freedom is the grand and indispensable condition which the possibility of such a development presupposes. But there is, besides another essential, intimately connected with freedom it is true, a variety of situations. Even the most free and self-reliant of men is thwarted and hindered in his development by uniformity of position. But as it is evident, on the one hand, that such a diversity is a constant result of freedom and on the other, that there is a species of oppression which, without imposing restrictions on man himself, gives a peculiar impress of its own to surrounding circumstances, these two conditions of freedom and variety of situation may be regarded in a certain sense as one and the same. Still it may contribute to perspicuity to point out the distinction between them. Every human being then can act with but one force at the same time, or rather our whole nature disposes us at any given time to some single form of spontaneous activity. It would therefore seem to follow from this that man is inevitably destined to a partial cultivation since he only enfeebles his energies by directing them to a multiplicity of objects. But we see the fallacy of such a conclusion when we reflect that man has it in his power to avoid this one's sightedness by striving to unite the separate faculties of his nature often singly exercised, by bringing into spontaneous cooperation at each period of his life the gleams of activity about to expire and those which the future alone will kindle into living effulgence, and endeavouring to increase and diversify the powers with which he works by harmoniously combining them instead of looking for a mere variety of objects for their separate exercise. That which is effected in the case of the individual by the union of the past and future with the present is produced in society by the mutual cooperation of its different single members. For in all the stages of his existence each individual can exhibit but one of those perfections only which represent the possible features of human character. It is through such social union therefore as is based on the internal wants and capacities of its members that each is enabled to participate in the rich collective resources of all the others. The experience of all even the rudest nations furnishes us an example of a union thus formative of individual character in the union of the sexes. And although in this case the expression as well of the difference as of the longing for union appears more marked and striking it is still no less active in other kinds of association where there is actually no difference of sex. It is only more difficult to discover in these and may perhaps be more powerful for that very reason. If we were to follow out this idea it might perhaps conduct us to a clearer insight into the phenomena of those unions so much in vogue among the ancients and more especially the Greeks among whom we find them countenanced even by the legislators themselves. I mean those so frequently but unworthily classed under the general appellation of ordinary love and sometimes but always erroneously designated as mere friendship. The efficiency of all such unions as instruments of cultivation wholly depends on the degree in which the component members can succeed in combining their personal independence with the intimacy of the common bond. For whilst without this intimacy one individual cannot sufficiently possess himself as it were of the nature of the others, independence is no less essential in order that the perceived be assimilated into the being of the perceiver. Now it is clear to apply these conclusions to the respective conditions for culture, freedom, and a variety of situations that on the one hand individual energy is essential to the perceived and perceiver into which social unions may be resolved, and on the other a difference between them neither so great as to prevent the one from comprehending the other nor so inconsiderable as to exclude admiration for that which the other possesses and the desire of assimilating it into the perceiver's character. This individual vigor then and manifold diversity combine themselves in originality and hence that on which the consummate grandeur of our nature ultimately depends, that towards which every human being must ceaselessly direct his efforts and on which especially those who design to influence their fellow men must ever keep their eyes is the individuality of power and development. Just as this individuality springs naturally from the perfect freedom of action and the greatest diversity in the agents it tends immediately to produce them in turn. Even inanimate nature which proceeding in accordance with unchangeable laws advances by regular grades of progression appears more individual to the man who has been developed in his individuality. He transports himself as it were into the very center of nature, and it is true in the highest sense that each still perceives the beauty and rich abundance of the outer world in the exact measure in which he is conscious of their existence in his own soul. How much sweeter and closer must this correspondence become between effect and cause this reaction between internal feeling and outward perception when man is not only passively open to external sensations and impressions, but is himself also an agent. If we attempt to confirm these principles by a closer application of them to the nature of the individual man, we find that everything which enters into the latter reduces itself to the two elements of form and substance. The purest form beneath the most delicate veil we call idea. The crudest substance with the most imperfect form we call sensuous perception. Form springs from the union of substance. The richer and more various the substance that is united, the more sublime is the resulting form. A child of the gods is the offspring only of immortal parents, and as the blossom swells and ripens into fruit and from the tiny germ embedded in its soft pulp the new stalk shoots forth laden with newly clustering buds, so does the form become in turn the substance of a still more exquisite form. The intensity of power, moreover, increases in proportion to the greater variety and delicacy of the substance, since the internal cohesion increases with these. The substance seems as if blended in the form and the form merged in the substance, or, to speak without metaphor, the richer a man's feelings become in ideas and his ideas in feelings, the more lofty and transcendent his sublimity, for upon this constant intermingling of form and substance or of diversity with the individual unity, depends the perfect interfusion of the two natures which co-exist in man, and upon this is greatness. But the force of the generation depends upon the energy of the generating forces. The consummating point of human existence is the flowering of these forces. In the vegetable world the simple and less graceful form of the fruit seems to prefigure the more perfect bloom and symmetry of the flower which it precedes, and which it is destined gradually to unfold. Everything conspires to the beautiful consummation of the blossom. That which first shoots forth from the little germ is not nearly so exquisite and fascinating. The full thick trunk, the broad leaves rapidly detaching themselves from each other, seem to require some fuller and fairer development. As the eye glances up the ascending stem, it marks the spiring grades of this development. More tender leaflets seem longing to unite themselves and draw closer and closer together, until the central callix of the crowning flower seems to give the sweet satisfaction to this growing desire. But destiny has not blessed the tribe of plants in this the law and process of their growth. The flower fades and dies, and the germ of the fruit reproduces the stem, as rude and unfinished as the former, to ascend slowly through the same stages of development as before. But when in man the blossom fades away, it is only to give place to another still more exquisitely beautiful. And the charm of the last and loveliest is only hidden from our view in the endlessly receding vistas of an inscrutable eternity. Now, whatever man receives externally is only as the grain of seed. It is his own active energy alone that can convert the germ of the fairest growth into a full and precious blessing for himself. It leads to beneficial issues only when it is full of vital power and essentially individual. The highest ideal, therefore, of the coexistence of human beings seems to me to consist in a union in which each strives to develop himself from his own in most nature and for his own sake. The requirements of our physical and moral being would doubtless bring men together into communities, and even as the conflicts of warfare are more honorable than the fights of the arena and the struggles of exasperated citizens more glorious than the hired and unsympathizing efforts of mere mercenaries, so would the exerted powers of such spontaneous agents succeed in eliciting the highest and noblest energies. And is it not exactly this which so unspeakably captivates us in contemplating the life of Greece and Rome and which, in general, captivates any age whatever in the contemplation of a remote one? Is it not that these men had harder struggles to endure with the ruthless force of destiny and harder struggles with their fellow men? That greater and more original energy and individuality constantly encountered each other and gave rise in the encounter to ever new and beautiful forms. Every later epoch, and in what a rapid course of declension must this now proceed, is necessarily inferior in variety to that which it succeeded. In variety of nature the boundless forests have been cleared, the vast morasses dried up, in variety of human life by the ever increasing intercommunication and union of all human establishments. It is in this we find one of the chief causes which render the idea of the new, the uncommon, the marvelous so much more rare, which make a fright or astonishment almost a disgrace and not only render the discovery of fresh and till now unknown expedience far less necessary but also all sudden, unpremeditated and urgent decisions. For partly the pressure of outward circumstances is less violent while man is provided with more ample means for opposing them. Partly this resistance is no longer possible with the simple forces which nature bestows on all alike fit for immediate application. And, in fine, partly a higher and more extended knowledge renders inventions less necessary and the very increase of learning serves to blunt the edge of discovery. It is, on the other hand, undeniable that whereas physical variety has so vastly declined, it has been succeeded by an infinitely richer and more satisfying intellectual and moral variety, and that our superior refinement can recognize more delicate differences and gradations and our disciplined and susceptible character, if not so firmly consolidated as that of the ancients, can transfer them into the practical conduct of life, differences and gradations which might have wholly escaped the notice of the sages of antiquity, or at least would have been discernible by them alone. To the human family at large the same has happened as to the individual, the rudor features have faded away, the finer only have remained. And in view of this sacrifice of energy from generation to generation we might regard it as a blessed dispensation if the whole human species were as one man, or the living force of one age could be transmitted to the succeeding one along with its books and inventions, but this is far from being the case. It is true that our refinement possesses a peculiar force of its own, perhaps even surpassing the former in strength just in proportion to the measure of its refinement, but it is a question whether the prior development through the more robust and vigorous stages must not always be the antecedent transition. Still, it is certain that the sensuous element in our nature, as it is the earliest germ, is also the most vivid expression of the spiritual. While this is not the place, however, to enter on the discussion of this point, we are justified in concluding from the other considerations we have urged that we must at least preserve with the most eager solicitude all the force and individuality we may yet possess and cherish ought that can tend in any way to promote them. I therefore deduce, as the natural inference from what has been argued, that reason cannot desire for man any other condition than that in which each individual not only enjoys the most absolute freedom of developing himself by his own energies in his perfect individuality, but in which external nature even is left unfashioned by any human agency but only receives the impress given to it by each individual of himself and his own free will according to the measure of his wants and instincts and restricted only by the limits of his powers and his rights. From this principle, it seems to me that reason must never yield ought save what is absolutely required to preserve it. It must therefore be the basis of every political system and must especially constitute the starting point of the inquiry which at present claims our attention. This has been Individualism, a Reader, edited by George H. Smith and Marilyn Moore, narrated by James Foster. Copyright 2015 by the Cato Institute. Production copyright 2015 by the Cato Institute.