ng if the country were an autocracy or oligarchy,
there remains in the United States greater room for the development
of idiosyncrasy than, perhaps, in any other country. It has been
paradoxically argued by an English writer that individualism could not
reach its highest point except in a socialistic community; _i.e._,
that the unbridled competition of the present day drives square pegs
into round holes and thus forces the individual, for the sake of bread
and butter, to do that which is foreign to his nature; whereas in an
ideal socialism each individual would be encouraged to follow his own
bent and develop his own special talent for the good of the community.
To a certain extent this seems true of the United States. The career
there is more open to the talents; the world is an oyster which the
individual can open with many kinds of knives; what the Germans call
"_umsatteln_", or changing one's profession as one changes one's
horse, is much more feasible in the New World than in the Old. The
freedom and largeness of opportunity is a stimulus to all strong
minds. Lincoln, as Professor Dowden remarks, would in the Middle Ages
have probably continued to split rails all his life.

The fact is that if the predominant power of a few great minds is
diminished in a democracy, it is because, together with such
minds, a thousand others are at work contributing to the total
result.... It is surely for the advantage of the most eminent
minds that they should be surrounded by men of energy and
intellect, who belong neither to the class of hero-worshippers
nor to the class of _valets de chambre_.

The truth seems to be that with an increased population and the
multiplicity of interests and influences at play on men, we may
expect a greater diversity of mental types in the future than
could be found at any period in the past. The supposed uniformity
of society in a democratic age is apparent, not real; artificial
distinctions are replaced by natural differences; and within the
one great community exists a vast number of smaller communities,
each having its special intellectual and moral characteristics.
In the few essentials of social order the majority rightly has
its way, but within certain broad bounds, which are fixed, there
remains ample scope for the action of a multitude of various
minorities.--_"New Studies in Literature," by Prof