# An Outline of the History of Libertarian Thought, Part II: From the Radical Whigs to the German Enlightenment **URL:** **By** David Hart **Published:** June 1, 1982 --- “However compromised, his defense of the market and his optimistic view of human progress are worthy of serious attention by modern liberals.” ## IV. The Radical Whigs and the American Revolution ## Key Introductory Readings David L. Jacobson (ed.), _The English Libertarian Heritage: From the Writings of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon_ (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965). Introduction. Bernard Bailyn, _The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution_, (Harvard University Press, 1967). Especially Part II, “Sources and Tradition” and Part III, “Power and Liberty: A Theory of Politics.” Cecilia Kenyon (ed.), _The Anti-Federalists_ (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965). The Introduction. The two most widely-read polemical Radical Whig authors were Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard. By means of their anti-clerical and anti-military essays, known collectively as _The Independent Whig_ and _Cato’s Letters_ (written between 1720–23), they kept alive the Radical Whig traditions of natural rights, suspicion of the ever-encroaching nature of State power, and justified rebellion. Gordon and Trenchard were able to transmit these revolutionary ideas in popular form to the American colonies. One must savor the strong defense of liberty made by Trenchard and Gordon in the original; the complete _Letters_ have been reprinted by Da Capo Press as John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, _Cato’s Letters: Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects_, 2 vols. (N.Y., 1971). A useful selection from both the _Independent Whig_ and _Cato’s Letters_, and a good introduction to their ideas, is found in _The English Libertarian Heritage: From the Writings of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon_, ed. David L. Jacobson (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965). On Trenchard’s opposition to standing armies see Lois G. Schwoerer, “_No Standing Armies!_”: _The Antiarmy Ideology in 17th Century England_ (John Hopkins University Press, 1974). Also see Caroline Robbins, _The 18th Century Commonwealthman_ (New York: Athenaeum, 1968), pp. 115–125. Thomas Hollis was an important connecting link between the English Commonwealthman tradition and the American Revolution. Hollis distributed libertarian tracts in both England and America and subsidized the publication of American revolutionary pamphlets, as well as reprinting the classics of the 17th century Commonwealthman tradition (such as Sidney and Locke). He was instrumental in supplying radical republican and libertarian literature to libraries in France, Switzerland, Italy, and to Harvard University. Caroline Robbins has written on “The Strenuous- “Whig: Thomas Hollis of Lincoln’s Inn,” _William and Mary Quarterly_, 3rd series, no. 7 (1950), pp. 407–53. See also Colin C. Bonwick, _English Radicals and the American Revolution_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1977). The radical libertarian nature of the American revolutionaries has only been recently acknowledged by historians. The pathbreaking work showing the connection between 17th-century English commonwealthmen and the American Revolution is Bernard Bailyn’s collection of revolutionary pamphlets. Drawing upon Caroline Robbins’ work, his “General Introduction” to the _Pamphlets of the American Revolution 1750–1776_, vol. 1: 1750–1765, ed. Bernard Bailyn and Jane N. Garrett: (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1965) shows the “transforming libertarian radicalism” of the American Revolution in the writings of such revolutionary leaders as Jonathan Mayhew, Thomas Fitch, James Otis, Oxenbridge Thacher, Daniel Dulany and John Dickinson. An expanded version of the Introduction was published as _The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution_ (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1967) and in summary form Bailyn’s thesis can be found in his “The Central Themes of the American Revolution: An Interpretation,” in S. Kurtz and J. Hudson, eds., _Essays on the American Revolution_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973). > It is the Nature of Power to be ever encroaching, and converting every extraordinary Power, granted at particular Times, and upon particular Occasions, into an ordinary Power, to be used at all Times, and when there is no Occasion; nor does it ever part willingly with any Advantage. > > — John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, February 9, 1722, _Cato’s Letters_ The ideological war against the British empire and the monarchy was continued by the radicals Thomas Paine and Richard Price. Paine is best remembered for his popular tract, _Common Sense_ (1776), which attacked monarchical government and urged an immediate declaration of independence from the crown and the formation of a Republic, as well as for his passionate defense of the French Revolution, _Rights of Man_ (1791, 1792). The dissenting clergyman, Richard Price, a self-styled “Honest Whig,” defended natural rights, justice, and the right of a people to rebel against oppression, in his _Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty . . . and the Justice of the War in America_, also published in 1776. Paine’s rousing pamphlets can be found in the sometimes inaccurate edition of Philip S. Foner, _Life and Major Writings of Thomas Paine_ (Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1974). The two best biographies are these by Alfred Owen Aldridge, _Man of Reason_ (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1959) and David Freeman Hawke, _Paine_ (N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1974). Eric Foner’s _Tom Paine and Revolutionary America_ (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1976) and C. C. Bonwick, _English Radicals and the American Revolution_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1977) are also useful studies. For a very useful critical survey of the literature on Paine see A. O. Aldridge’s “Thomas Paine: A Survey of Research and Criticism since 1945,” _The British Studies Monitor_ 5, 1975, pp. 3–29. Selections from Price’s works can be found in B. Peach (ed.), _Richard Price and the Ethical Foundations of the American Revolution_ (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1980). See also Carl B. Cone, _Torchbearer of Freedom: The Influence of Richard Price on 18th Century Thought_ (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, KY, 1952) and D. O. Thomas, _The Honest Mind: The Thought and Work of Richard Price_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977). The so-called Anti-Federalists (really “True Republicans” or radical Jeffersonian democrats) fought against the creation of a strong national government, as embodied in the Constitution. Men such as Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and John Taylor opposed the ratification of the Constitution which created a Federal government with the powers to impose taxes at will and to create a standing army (which would consume taxes and could be used to create a new tyranny). It also provided a financial apparatus capable of dispensing privilege (thus creating a new aristocracy), and granted the office of the president such power that the office-holder could in effect, become a monarch. Although the Anti-Federalists lost the battle of Constitutional ratification to the Federalists, they were successful in creating the Bill of Rights (their attempt to undo the gains of the nationalists and to protect the rights of the individual against the inevitable encroachment by the State). The best collection of Anti-Federalist tracts is found in Cecilia Kenyon, _The Anti-Federalists_ (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966). Kenyon’s “Introduction” is useful, along with her “Men of Little Faith: The Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Representative Government,” _William and Mary Quarterly_, Vol 12 (1955), pp. 3–43. (Her use of the label “Men of Little Faith” refers to the typically libertarian, Commonwealthman lack of faith in the ability of a constitution to contain State power.) See also the collection by John D. Lewis, _Anti-Federalists versus Federalists: Selected Documents_ (San Francisco: Chandler Publ. Co., 1962). For a sympathetic neo-Beardian analysis see Jackson Turner Main, _The Anti-Federalist: Critics of the Constitution 1781–1788_ (New York: W. W. Norton, 1974), and Robert A. Rutland’s _The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Anti-Federalists and the Ratification Struggle_ (University of Oklahoma Press, 1966). On the Bill of Rights as the legacy of the Anti-Federalists, see Herbert J. Storing, _What the Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution_ (University of Chicago Press, 1981). (Storing’s definitive seven-volume edition of _The Complete Anti-Federalist_ has recently been published by the University of Chicago Press.) One of the most uncompromising and radical Anti-Federalists was John Taylor, whose _Inquiry_ into the _Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States_ (1814), ed. Loren Baritz (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969) offers penetrating insights into the misuse of government power inevitable under the Constitution. His comment on the role of the State in creating a privileged class via national banking and funding are particularly acute and prophetic. John Taylor and George Mason were among the Radical Republicans (including John Breckenridge, Richard Henry Lee, Nathanien Macon, George Logan, and John Randolph of Roanoke) who opposed Jefferson’s movement away from the radical Whig position. On John Taylor see Robert E. Shalhope, _John Taylor of Caroline, Pastoral Republican_ (University of South Carolina Press, 1980). The radical views of George Mason can best be enjoyed by reading his papers, edited by Robert A. Rutland, _The Papers of George Mason 1725–1792_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970). On his life, see Rutland’s _George Mason: Reluctant Statesman_ (Williamsburg, Virginia: Colonial Williamsburg, 1961). Finally, on the Radical Republicans, one should consult the uneven but often brilliant work by Charles A. Beard on a slightly later period, _Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy_ (New York: Free Press, 1965), especially Chapter XII, “The Politics of Agrarianism.” On the American Revolution in general see the extensive bibliographies compiled by Murray N. Rothbard in his _Conceived in Liberty_, 4 vols. (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 195), and his “Modern Historians Confront the American Revolution,” _Literature of Liberty_, vol. 1, no. 1 (1978), pp. 16–41. ## V. The French Enlightenment ## Key Introductory Readings Peter Gay, _The Enlightenment: An Interpretation_, vol. 2, _the Science of Freedom_ (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977). Chapter 7, “The Science of Society,” pp. 319–96, for a discussion of the _philosophes’_ insights into sociology and the humane sciences; Chapter 8, “The Politics of Decency,” pp. 397–447, on the powerful sense of natural right and justice of so many enlightenment thinkers. Keith Michael Baker (ed.), _Condorcet: Selected Writings_, (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1978). Baker’s introduction is a good guide to Condorcet’s thought and his historical setting. Eli Heckscher, “Mercantilism,” in the _Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences_ (New York: Macmillan, 1933), vol. 10, pp. 333–39. A short statement of Heckscher’s classic views on the mercantilist system. If the 17th century witnessed the failure of the liberal Leveller revolution, then the 18th century can be said to embody its partial victory in the form of the American Revolution, and the Radical Enlightenment in France, England, Scotland, and Germany. Across the Atlantic, the Enlightenment’s influence in America is sympathetically traced by Henry F. May in _The Enlightenment in America_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), especially in the section “the Revolutionary Enlightenment 1776–1800.” Peter Gay, in his excellent two-volume history of Enlightenment thought, _The Enlightenment: An Interpretation_, volume one: _The Rise of Modern Paganism_; volume two: _The Science of Freedom_ (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977), has called the Enlightenment “the revolution of reason.” Central to his interpretation is the vital connection between the rise of critical intelligence and reason on the one hand, and the autonomy and liberty of the individual on the other. Gay even goes as far as to claim, with some justification, that the idea of the free market and _laissez faire_ was basic to Enlightenment thought; that Adam Smith’s _Wealth of Nations_ (1776) should be considered the “cardinal document of the Enlightenment.” A useful essay on Gay’s view of the Enlightenment is Chris Tame’s “The Revolution of Reason: Peter Gay, the Enlightenment, and the Ambiguities of Classical Liberalism,” _Journal of Libertarian Studies_, vol. 1, no. 3, (1977), pp. 217–27. On the continent of Europe, the Enlightenment had a profound influence in France. In the thought of the Physiocrats it produced what some have called the first theoretical awareness of the role of natural law in economics, and thus of the severe limitations on policy-makers in the economic sphere. See in particular the essay by O. H. Taylor, “Economics and the idea of ‘Jus Naturale’,” _Quarterly Journal of Economics_, vol. 44, no. 2 (1930), pp. 205–41, reprinted in his book _Economics and Liberalism_ (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1955), pp. 70–99. For the English case, see W. D. Grampp, “The Liberal Elements in English Mercantilism,” _Quarterly Journal of Economics_, vol. 66 (1952), pp. 465–501, and Alfred F. Chalk, “Natural Law and the Rise of Economic Liberalism in England,” _Journal of Political Economy_, vol. 59, no. 4, (1951) pp. 332–47. One of the most important economists in France during this period was Richard Cantillon. His major contributions to economic thought include the doctrine of the harmony of interests, the important role of the entrepreneur in economic activity, an awareness of the macro-economic effects of State-monetary policy, opposition to the State privileged banking system, and an early formulation of Say’s Law. Cantillon’s _Essai sur la nature de commerce en général_ (1755) was translated and edited by Henry Higgs for the Royal Economic Society (London: Macmillan 1931, reprinted 1959). On Cantillon, see Joseph J. Spengler, “Richard Cantillon: First of the Moderns,” _Journal of Political Economy_, vol. 62 (1954), pp. 281–95, 406–24; W. Stanley Jevons, “Richard Cantillon and the Nationality of Political Economy,” _Contemporary Review_, vol. 39 (1881), pp. 61–80 and the important introduction by Hayek to the German translation of Cantillon’s _Essai_ (Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1931). Drawing upon Cantillon’s insights, the Physiocrats François Quesnay and Anne Robert Jacques Turgot advocated a policy of _laissez faire_, the reduction and more equitable distribution of the tax burden, and the elimination of the crippling mercantilist restrictions on trade and commerce (see especially Turgot’s “Mémoire sur les prêts d’argent,” pp. 154–202 and “Lettres sur la liberté du commerce des grains,” pp. 393–398, in _Oeuvres de Turgot et documents le concernant_, vol. 3 (Paris: Alcan 1913–23). On the Physiocrats in general, see Ronald L. Meek, _The Economics of Physiocracy: Essays and Translations_ (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, _The Origins of Physiocracy: Economic Revolution and Social Order in Eighteenth Century France_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1976). The leading French authority on Physiocracy is Georges Weulersse; see _Les Physiocrates_ (Paris: C. Doin et Cie., 1931). (Interested readers may also consult his four-volume history of Physiocracy.) Although the priority the Physiocrats gave agricultural over industrial or mercantile production now seems quaint and without theoretical foundation, the Physiocratic school should be remembered for their opposition to economic privilege, restrictions on trade, and their hard-core defense of _laissez faire_ economic policy. One of the most consistent and radical of the Physiocrats was the mathematician, philosopher, and politician Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet. A radical supporter of Turgot’s _laissez faire_ economic policies, Condorcet was in some ways even more radical than Turgot. For example, Condorcet demanded the elimination of forced labor; he was suspicious of reform carried out by the bureaucrats themselves; and he advocated the suppression of all seigneurial dues (he weakened in advocating compensation). See A. Condorcet-O’Connor and F. Arago, eds., _Oeuvres de Condorcet_, 12 vols. (Paris, 1847–49), vol. 11, pp. 59–86. In many pamphlets and essays, Condorcet advocated the extension of the franchise (eventually adopting universal suffrage); the recognition of equal rights for women (“On the Admission of Women to the Rights of Citizenship” (1790), in Keith Michael Baker _Condorcet: Selected Writings_ (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1976), pp. 97– 104); the spread of trade, free markets, and the industrial system to all parts of the world; the concomitant recognition of each individual’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property; and the elimination of all prejudice, intolerance, and privilege. His inspiring essay, written in hiding during the Terror, addresses these issues: “Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind” (1793), reprinted in part in _Selected Writings_ pp. 209–282, and in its entirety by Noonday Press (New York: 1955), translated by June Barraclough. Unfortunately, Condorcet was not completely consistent. His radical liberalism was diluted by his advocacy of compulsory state education (which he felt was the only way to produce “virtuous” and educated citizens), state finance of public works, such as canals, and state provision of other public goods, such as a unified, reformed system of weights and measures, and a national currency. However compromised, his defense of the market and his optimistic view of human progress are worthy of serious attention by modern liberals. Useful discussions of his thought can be found in Keith Michael Baker’s introduction to the _Selected Writings_, and Baker’s much longer _Condorcet: From Natural Philosophy to Social Mathematics_ (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1975). In order to understand what the Physiocrats were struggling against, one must appreciate the extent to which French society had been tied up by mercantilist restrictions. The classic work on the mercantilist system is still Eli Heckscher’s _Mercantilism_, the revised edition by E. D. Söderland in two volumes (New York: Macmillan, 1955). An abbreviated version of Heckscher’s thesis appears in the article “Mercantilism” in the _Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences_, (New York: Macmillan, 1933), vol. 10, pp. 333–39. A useful collection of essays discussing the Heckscher thesis has been edited by D. C. Coleman, _Revisions in Mercantilism_ (London: Methuen, 1969). The restrictions and injustices of the mercantilist system inevitably provoked opposition. The development of this opposition during the reign of Louis XIV has been described by L. Rothkrug in his _Opposition to Louis XIV: The Political and Social Origins of the French Enlightenment_ (Princeton University Press, 1965). ## VI. The German Enlightenment > The time will therefore come when the sun will shine only on free men who know no other master but their reason; when tyrants and slaves, priests and their stupid or hypocritical instruments will exist only in works of history and on the stage; and when we shall think of them only to pity their victims and their dupes; to maintain ourselves in a state of vigilance by thinking on their excesses; and to learn how to recognize and so to destroy, by force of reason, the first seeds of tyranny and superstition, should they ever dare to reappear among us. > > — Condorcet, _Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Human Mind_ ## Key Introductory Readings Hans Reiss (ed.), _Kant’s Political Writings_ (Cambridge University Press, 1980). Reiss’s introduction is a useful discussion of Kant’s political views. Paul Sweet, “Young Wilhelm von Humbolt’s Writings (1789–93) Reconsidered,” _Journal of the History of Ideas_, vol. 34, no. 3, (1973). Marianne Cowan (ed.), _Humanist without Portfolio: an Anthology of the Writings of Wilhelm von Humboldt_ (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963). The organization of the translations is very confusing. The section “Political Principles,” pp. 29–64, is the most useful and contains selections from most of Humboldt’s important works. There was also a German component to the European-wide phenomenon of Enlightenment. Goethe, Schiller, Kant, Fichte, and Wilhelm von Humboldt all contributed considerably to the Enlightenment in general, and to classical liberalism in particular. Friedrich Schiller was especially concerned with the problem of authority and State power. The relationship between the individual and authority is a dominant theme in his many plays, especially in his earlier and more radical ‘Die Verschwörung des Fiesko zu Genua,’ (“Fiesko’s Conspiracy in Genoa”). “Fiesko” was translated by Henry G. Bohn in _The Works of Friedrich Schiller: Early Dramas and Romances_ (London: Bell and Daldy: 1873). A useful introduction to Schiller’s ideas on power is Gordon A. Craig’s “Friedrich Schiller and the Problems of Power” in _The Responsibility of Power: Historical Essays in Honor of Hajo Holborn_ (New York: Doubleday, 1967), edited by Leonard Krieger and Fritz Stern. An intellectual giant of the 18th century, Immanuel Kant, deserves to be read by modern libertarians. As the “philosopher of the French Revolution” he sympathized with the aims of both the American and French revolutionaries, and sought to defend the independence and dignity of the individual in the face of authority. Kant is perhaps best known for his attempt to derive philosophical principles upon which a lasting, morally just, and peaceful world order could be based. His essay, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” (any edition, although Kant’s _Political Writings Cambridge University Press_, 1980, ed. Hans Reiss, translated by H. B. Nisbet, pp. 93–130, is a very useful collection) is an attempt to view peace as “the quest of justice between men through justice between states.” (See the intelligent and careful chapter on Kant in W. B. Gallie, _Philosophers of Peace and War: Kant, Clausewitz, Marx, Engels and Tolstoy_ (Cambridge University Press, 1979.) > Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. > > — Immanuel Kant, _Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals_ Kant made important contributions to classical liberal thought, not least of which was his use of natural law concepts, first to oppose Frederick the Great’s doctrine of enlightened autocracy, and then to help shape the idea of the rule of law (Rechtsstaat). Kant’s other contributions to liberal thought include: the view that man’s inner life must not be subject to coercion, that all individuals have a fundamental right to acquire property, that individuals have inalienable and equal rights, and that no individual should ever involuntarily serve as the means to someone else’s ends. Kant expressed this last principle in the following way: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time and as an end.” See Kant’s _Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals_ (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), edited and translated by H. J. Paton, p. 96. The most important German liberal of the period is Wilhelm von Humboldt. His 1792 essay, _Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen_ (“The Limits of State Action”), is a passionate defense of individual liberty and an exposition of the need to protect the individual from the state, so that one’s potential may be fully developed. The essay is also important for the effect it exerted on more influential, but less consistent, classical liberals such as John Stuart Mill. The relationship between Mill and Humboldt is discussed in Robert Leroux, “Guillaume de Humboldt et J. Stuart Mill,” _Etudes Germaniques_, vol. 6, nos. 3–4 (1951), pp. 262–274 and vol. 7, nos. 2–3 (1952) pp. 83–87. Unfortunately, few of Humboldt’s writings have been translated into English. His 1792 essay was first translated by Joseph Coulthard as _The Sphere and Duties of Government_ (London, 1854); this translation was recently reprinted (with a more accurate title) as _The Limits of State Action_ (Cambridge University Press, 1969), edited by J. W. Burrow. To investigate Humboldt’s life and thought, one would do well to begin with any one of the following sources: Burrow’s introduction to _The Limits of State Action_; the recent article by Paul R. Sweet, “Young Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Writings (1789–93) Reconsidered,” _Journal of the History of Ideas_, vol. 34, no. 3 (1973), pp. 469–482; Sweet’s _Wilhelm von Humboldt: A Biography_, (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1978) especially Chapter 3, pp. 83–120 and the appendix on “The Publication, Reception and Influence of _The Limits of State Action_ pp. 303–307; or the article by Ralph Raico, “Wilhelm von Humboldt,” _The New Individualist Review_, vol. 1, no. 1. (1961), pp. 18–22. (Incidentally, _The New Individualist Review_ has been reprinted in toto in a handsome edition by Liberty Press: Indianapolis, 1981.) The best biography remains the old and still valuable work by R. Haym, _Wilhelm von Humboldt: Lebensbild und Charakteristic_ (Berlin: 1856; reprinted, Osnarbrück: 1965). On Humboldt’s political thought, the study by Robert Leroux, _Guillaume de Humboldt: La formation de sa pensée jusqu’en 1794_ (Paris: Société Edition: les Belles lettres, 1932) is important. Also see Siegfried A. Kaehler’s _Wilhelm v. Humboldt und der Staat_ (Munich: 1927; reprinted Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1963), especially Chapter 5, “Die Abkehr vom Staate” (“The Renunciation of the State”), which stresses Humboldt’s hostility to the State. Although Humboldt compromised his early radical liberalism by his later support of the Prussian state, (he became Minister for Public Worship and Education), his earlier writings are valuable contributions to the corpus of classical liberal thought. Apart from his major work, _The Limits of State Action_, Humboldt’s letter to his friend Gentz (the basis of his later work), is well worth reading. It has been reprinted and edited by Albert Leitzman in “Politische Jugendbriefe Wilhelm von Humboldt an Gentz,” _Historische Zeitschrift_, vol. 152 (1935), pp. 48–89. Humboldt’s other essays worth reading include “Ideen über Staatsverfassung, durch die neue französische Constitution veranlasst” (“Ideas on government, occasioned by the new French Constitution”) (1791), “Über die Gesetze der Entwicklung der menschlichen Kräfte” (“On the Laws concerning the Development of Human Powers”) (1791), “Das achzehnte Jahrhundert” (“The Eighteenth Century”) (1796–97), and “Betrachtungen über die Weltgeschichte” (“Observations on World History”) (1814). Some of these essays have been translated in extract form in the curious and badly organized collection, _Humanist Without Portfolio: An Anthology of the Writings of Wilhelm von Humboldt_ (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963), edited by Marianne Cowan. Humboldt’s theory of history is put forward in the essay, “Über die Aufgabe des Geschichtschreibers” (“On the Historian’s Task”) (1812), which has been translated into English as the appendix to _The Theory and Practice of History_ (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973), ed. G. G. Iggers and K. Moltke. For readers fluent in German, all of these essays can be found in Wilhelm von Humboldt, _Werke in fünf Bände, vol. 1, Schriften zur Anthropologie und Geschichte_ (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung, 1960), ed. A. Flitner and K. Giel. Before leaving the German enlightenment, the liberal phase of Johan Gottlieb Fichte must be briefly mentioned. Fichte is more commonly regarded as a socialist thinker than as a classical liberal forebear. In _Der geschlossene Handelstaat_ (“The Closed Commercial State,” 1800), Fichte advocated the organization of society and production in such a way as give near-total control over property, and hence power, to legally-privileged guilds. Earlier, when the influence of the French Revolution on his thought was at its height, Fichte had been a radical, individualistic liberal. He began with a spirited defense of the freedom of expression, “Zurückforderung der Denkfreiheit von der Fürsten Europas, die bisher unterdrückten” (“Demanding Freedom of Thought back from the Princes of Europe, Who Have Suppressed It up til Now”) (1793), and then moved on to write one of the best and most radical liberal defenses of the French Revolution ever written, later in the same year. > _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 itself is left unfashioned by any human agency, but only receives the impress given to it by each individual by himself and of 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._ > > — _Wilhelm von Humboldt, The Limits of State Action._ A much more theoretical and generalized defense of individual rights, “Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums über die französiche Revolution” (“Contribution to Correcting the Public’s Opinion of the French Revolution”) was an extreme development of the Lockean notion of natural rights and the autonomy of the individual. Fichte saw the earlier phase of the French Revolution as the embodiment of the right of the individual to his or her life, liberty and property and went so far as to push the theory of “contract” to its logical end: the right of each individual to withdraw their consent from the State and to form a separate political community within the confines of the old State and without being molested by it. Unfortunately, these two important essays have never been translated into English. They are readily accessible, for those who read German, in two books; the first is _Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums über die französische Revolution_, edited by Richard Schottky (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1973). Schottky’s “Introduction” stresses the Lockean radicalism of Fichte’s pamphlets as well as what he calls “The anarchistic radicalization of the rationalistic-liberal theory of the State.” The second, edited by Bernard Willms, is _Schriften zur Revolution_ (“Writings on the Revolution”) (Köln und upladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1967). Both books have useful bibliographies. ## Key Introductory Readings ## Part II. From the Radical Whigs to the German Enlightenment ## IV. The Radical Whigs and the American Revolution David L. Jacobson (ed.), _The English Libertarian Heritage. From the Writings of John Trenchard and_ _Thomas Gordon_ (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965). Introduction. Bernard Bailyn, _The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution_, (Harvard University Press, 1967). Especially Part II, “Sources and Tradition” and Part III, “Power and Liberty: A Theory of Politics.” Cecilia Kenyon (ed.), _The Anti-Federalists_ (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965). The Introduction. ## V. The French Enlightenment Peter Gay, _The Enlightenment: An Interpretation_, vol. 2, _The Science of Freedom_ (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977). Chapter 7, “The Science of Society,” pp. 319–96, for a discussion of the _philosophes’_ insights into sociology and the humane sciences; Chapter 8, “The Politics of Decency,” pp. 397–447, on the powerful sense of natural right and justice of so many enlightenment thinkers. Keith Michael Baker (ed.), _Condorcet: Selected Writings_, (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1978). Baker’s introduction is a good guide to Condorcet’s thought and his historical setting. Eli Heckscher, “Mercantilism,” in th _Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences_ (New York: Macmillan, 1933), vol. 10, pp. 333–39. A short statement of Heckscher’s classic views on the mercantilist system. ## VI. The German Enlightenment Hans Reiss (ed.), _Kant’s Political Writings_ (Cambridge University Press, 1980). Reiss’s introduction is a useful discussion of Kant’s political views. Paul Sweet, “Young Wilhelm von Humbolt’s Writings (1789–93) Reconsidered,” _Journal of the History of Ideas_, vol. 34, no. 3, (1973). Marianne Cowan (ed.), _Humanist without Portfolio: an Anthology of the Writings of Wilhelm von_ _Humboldt_ (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963). The organization of the translations is very confusing. The section “Political Principles,” pp. 29–64, is the most useful and contains selections from most of Humboldt’s important works.