[438] and which he is supposed to develop. This is the third type of individualism^a. Now if we look at our historical situation, then we can say: Christianity^b, and in the whole culture which is dependent on Christianity, the religious form of individualism is IN PRINCIPLE ACCEPTED. Even in the French Revolution, or in the period before it, where a noble lady of the hierarchy of the worldly powers asked her minister how her standing before God is, and he shaked his head a little bit because he didn't believe it was too great!--for many reasons. [little laughter] Then she said: But God^c cannot condemn a member of my class to Hell!--Now that was an

exception. In [ancient] Egypt and before that, the king (who is God Himself) and the aristocracy wouldn't have considered this to be an impossible thing. In this sense the Christian idea of individualism is unconsciously accepted even by every anti-Christian in our culture, except very few who are radical naturalists^d, and have dropped this idea of ULTIMATE relation anyhow. The second type is the predominant one in this country, the rational^e individualism: the individual must decide; everybody has to vote; but in order to make him reasonable, he must be educated. And therefore education^f, as we have discussed in the many lectures on education, is almost the most important act in every democracy^g--it is certainly in this country.

Then the third belongs to the Continental countries, where the unique individuality of everything is emphasized, not only of every individual man but also of every historical period and every social group. Therefore the longing back to the Middle Ages^h, where the romantics believed that an individual culture was present, and this culture was not measured by the principles of reason and criticized as primitive or backward over against the progressive powers of Enlightenmentⁱ, of the individualism of reason^j. Then we can say that this last type has been more reduced than the two others; it had been reduced often to an existence--and a very precarious existence--in Bohemianism, while the higher bourgeoisie has accepted, generally speaking, the rational type of individualism^k, if, as we shall see later, the WHOLE concept^l of the individual in these three senses has not been dropped for the sake of radical collectivism.