{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

...the heart of the whole problem of the historical character of mere -- of religion. The Jewish people are infinitesimal small. In the Cambridge History of the Orient, it's -- they cover one page. And in -- in relation to page 26--I just looked it up {in} the most modern vol- -- { } not the Cambridge one, the German one by { }--and it's quite significant that these people feel that they have already done remarkably well by giving page 26 and-a-half to these little tiny specks on the map, called Palestine.

And in any sense of space and time, the Jewish history is minute. So it be -- remains a riddle. There two great riddles connected with the Bible in history. One: how this little, tiny, and insignificant group was able to reach us, and to -- impress on us its own vision of history. And -- but the second--equally interesting--is: how it was possible for the last 70 years to distort the Bible, and bound by the scientific outlook, to judge the people -- the Bible and the history of Israel as similar -- simply a story of one other country, or one other tribe.

Of this, this book by Mr. Shotwell is of course a shining example. And -- who has looked into this book? I'm very sorry that the rest didn't. I mean -- I -- {all right, so assignment} for next time. You'll have to read it. I think it's the -- a very good summary of this -- follies of modern history as a science. He has absolutely not the slightest understanding of what the -- the Bible tries to achieve. And that's quite a -- remarkable from a very in- -- ed- -- intelligent man.

And so I want you therefore to read, because it's a good--Mr. Shotwell being the great authority in this country on historiography and historians--it is very interesting that he didn't even -- didn't even try to understand what the people tried to -- to do when writing the book. As you know, there are -- there are -- there are these two problems. The Jewish Bible obviously is of an importance that has nothing with the -- with the quantity, you see, the power of this little, tiny speck on the map. Point 1. Point 2: this importance, however, has been denied, so to speak, and has -- it has been made, the attempt, over the last 70 to 80 years, to reduce the Bible to a local story.

We must make an attempt to -- at least find out why the Bible has this authority, this importance for us to this day; what their contribution to our -- to our experience of time has been. We began to read the first chapter of Samuel. We shall go on with it, but -- before plunging into this, I think I should -- draw your attention to a simple fact. It seems to me that perhaps otherwise we might get lost. You have in your own mind three ways of dealing with the -- reality. One is: asking the question "Why?" -- ask for cause and effect. That's--you have

learned in school--is the only reasonable way to do something. That's reasonable. Then there is a -- another question: that's "How?" And that's the question of techniques, as you know today, very -- government is a question of Madison Avenue techniques. That is, the know-how. So you don't know how, then you know how, and then you are happy.

Now the question of course, neither the -- the question "Why?" nor the question "How?" is of any interest to the Bible. And therefore the scientist and the technician meets -- miss the {boat}, I mean. Since the Bible doesn't ask the question of cause and effect, so -- and doesn't ask the ques- -- the question, know-how, you see, and is perfectly unworldly, the -- these two people who think this is the only -- reasonable way of dealing with the world, and the only technical way of -- of survival, do not understand then there is quite a different way of approaching reality, which everybody, by the way, uses for all his own important -- important situation.

I -- I met a lady -- "lady" is perhaps the wrong -- I have to be quite frank about it. She was the -- the daughter of a college president here on the West Coast. And she was married to a very rich Easterner who, as a matter of fact, owned the last primeval forest in Connecticut. So blue-blood and intellectual, you see, high-bred class she was.

And this woman, she had obviously married the man for his -- for his wealth and position--was a diplomat--and was one of these unsatisfied, voracious, aggressive women. And she always asked the question, "Why?" "Why?" And she told -- once she invited me to her house. I had to spend several days there. I left it like hell. And she played with everything in the world--lesbianism, and every other vice you could imagine, as she frankly told me--because she was so bored, that the only interest she had in life was to find out why. And she told me -- she shouted at me, in -- half an hour after I had entered her house, if people only could answer the question "Why?" then the world would come right. Well, she was just a witch; should have been burned at stake; and -- because she answered the question "Why?" which you and I are not allowed to ask. You cannot -- ask yourself why we love your mother. Once you ask this question you are in hell. That's not a question to { }. And "Why don't you commit suicide?"

These are not questions that are permissible, because they are treated -- there -- there is the -- the real region of historical existence, gentlemen, why do you keep the laws of this country? You just keep them. As soon as you begin "Why?" you are already on the way out. Better leave the country and go to Russia.

Most of you act of course quite plausibly on this quite completely differ-

ent level which the -- which the Bible poses. And the question of the Bible is, you see, looked at -- from the angle of the technician and the angle of the philosopher, at best, if I want to state it in -- in worldly terms, I would throw the "What is the Bible import?" "What is the story?" Because these poor people, like this -- this bitch--or witch, or however you call this lady--the only thing you might find in the Bible is: "What funny story?" Creation of the world, and -- and -- and conquered s- -- kings, and crimes, and banalities, and so on.

Now you and I, however, have a -- quite a different question for our own existence, and our family, and our political future. That's "Who?" As you consult the Who is Who, it's also very important whom you meet. If you think of the importance, you see, of being introduced to the right people, of social contacts, and so, the question is not at all "Why?" and "How?" but the question is "Whom?" As "Whom do you people treat me?" You want to be treated as their comrades. You want to be treated perhaps even as their superior. You want to be a star in Hollywood. You want to -- to be treated as the future successor of your teacher, or of your -- of your father; or -- of -- you see, to inherit the earth. You all want to be somebody. This is quite a different question, and -- expressed in the times -- terms of the Bible itself, it is never even only "What am I going to be?" but "Who am I going to be?"

So the only -- approach in which you, in a secular sense, can get in a reading room of a modern library, a view of yourself is Who is Who. Because that's an honest question. The books, you know, the Who is Who, where there is a -- given a list. Because if you ask yourself, it's quite important who smiles at you, and who scolds you, and who is down on you, and who up- -- who encourages you. These are the real questions. "Whom do I meet?" you see, and "Who am I in their eyes?"

And so the Bible asks this question -- this tremendous question: "Who am I?" In the eyes of the world I'm often despised; I'm often neglected. Is there nobody who looks at me and restores my countenance to serve -- to serve -- {put you} security? And the divine face that man can only become a man by -- when people -- other people set eyes on us, is summed up in the -- in the case of God shining upon us. Man is a reflection of the divine countenance.

And everybody who has been in distress knows very well that he can -- goes crazy if everybody despises him in { } keeps him upright, that he knows that these eyes are not the -- final view of his own self. If you think of a -- of a man {quashed}, and -- and poked fun at, and -- because he's not a -- disliked in the crowd, or is sent to prison, or is sent to the scaffold, what holds him up that the passing views to which he is exposed are not decisive as to who he is. They do not finally determine who he is. Everybody knows this, and therefore, there is

nobody who's an atheist. I've never seen one. Everybody expects that someone looks at him understandingly. At least he puts himself before a mirror, and then he's his own god.

So the question, "Who looks at me?" and "At whom do I look?" is the possessing question of every -- in a -- every -- life of humanity. People--the Russians, the Americans, the whole American nation--is for this reason one nation, because they all ask the same question, "How are we liked in the world?" We want to be liked. All Americans want to be liked. And they aren't. And they ask "Why?" "How?" "Who am I, that they don't like me?" And "Who is liked?"

So the question, "Who?" gentlemen, never enters the whole discussion of a scientist, although of course in science, too, the Who Is Who is very important. Of course, Mr. Einstein, and Mr. -- Mr. Teller, and Mr. Oppenheimer, and so -- they all have a religion. The religion of the scientist is, you see, to be liked by your colleagues, and to be taken up on your word, and to be believed as a reliable scientist. They all say, "Who am I?" you see. They usually are satisfied that the -- that this little clan of scientists -- is affectionate about them, you see, and -- and treats them well.

So I mean, if you look at the -- the ambitions of a scientist, all these books now written on science--begin with Arrowsmith by whom? Who has read Arrowsmith?

(Sinclair Lewis.)

Yes. Who has read it? Oh, well, only three people, I mean. Arrowsmith. Never read Sinclair Lewis?

({ }.)

Well, did -- what did you read by Sinclair Lewis?

(Main Street.)

Wie?

(Main Street.)

Ja, but Arrowsmith is very important. He wrote it together with Mr. de Kruif, the microbe hunter, de Kruif. And they were possessed with the idea of giving the scientist his -- his place in American society. There is in Arrowsmith -- Martin -- yes, it is Arrowsmith, the hero is Martin, isn't he? The doctor there. It is

Arrowsmith, ja? It is -- it is the scientists' novel.

Well, then when -- the problem of the scientist is not in his laboratory, but is of course with his wife and his colleagues. And I just received from the Book-of-the-Month Club a rather stupid volume, Sci- -- called Scientist. It's a kind of detective story, or a -- { }. Have you seen it? And -- I had to take it, because I wanted to have the Yale Shakespeare. But now you are -- I'm licked and we are in for this torment of the Book-of-the-Month Club selection. And -- I hope I can get out again.

But -- so I got this -- this very cheap novel. Novels about scientists abound today. It's a trick in this country, because people believe in science, so they think that books on scientists should be interesting. But they aren't, because the scientist of course, is -- has a starvation diet in all human relations, and is of course the last man of any interest in the sense of "Who?" He's boring, mathematicians. I mean, the greatest bore -- in humanity. Sometimes they are musicians, then you can talk -- fiddle with them. But why should they be interesting? They are -- they are -- good mathematicians. And for the rest, they are a semantic blank. So they get, of course, under the domination of presidents, and generals, and -- and produce bombs.

-- Because the question -- the scientists asks the -- the question "Why?" The technician asks the question "How?" And that's the difference between the scientist, by the way, and a technician, which in this country, of course, is constantly transgressed. Most people don't know that scientists do not ask "How?" but "Why?" And after they have found out why, then they hand it over to a plumber; and you call the plumber in this country a scientist. A technician is not a scientist. He's a plumber. That is, he applies, when you have learned the cause and effect, then he says he knows the way then of putting things together. Just as Edi- -- Thomas Alva Edison who invented the electric bulb when all the physicists' work had been done in Europe, you see, and he applied it.

Tinkering is -- the answer to the problem of "How?" So I think this is at least important for you. Most of you are--it's not your fault, but--live of course normally in these two relations. Everybody cares very much whom to -- who is his friend, and whom -- who is maligning him, and who is hating him. We all are directed constantly by this. But you are -- don't admit it. You think that you are really interested in science, or in techn- -- -niques of social behavior. Don't help you at all. If you don't meet the right people -- I mean, you can live on San Pedro in a Japanese colony, and know everything about "how" and "why." If you don't meet the president and his wife, where are you? He doesn't come to San Pedro.

So everywhere in the world the -- the faces of in- -- millions of souls have

been directed toward the countenance of -- of -- that will relieve them from the fact that they are limited in their local and -- and chronological existence on this earth, and will never see kings, and royalty, and princes, and -- and -- and rich men, and -- and is that then to deprive them of bliss and happiness. But where are they? They are destitute. They are alone.

There's a very terrible poem, one -- a man who--like the -- Charles Darwin, sailed around the world for three years in the '20s of the 19th century, a German poet, Chamisso--wrote a poem on a man -- stayed -- who was left behind -- the Easter Island, on a destitute, you see, island. And later on -- that's the -- poem, there were impound- -- engraved in stone his sighs that nobody ever returned. And he was -- he died there -- he lived there another 40 -- 50 years. It's a very great poem. It perhaps even deserves to be mentioned in this connection. It is haunting me to this day. I read it when I was a boy. And I had to learn it by heart, voluntarily. I didn't have to. { }. It's the fate of a man on whom no- -- nobody any longer sets eye. And he finally curses life, as Byron's Manfred does, you see, and -- in -- out of patience, so to speak, with his fate, because that nobody looks at you is the greatest punishment a man can undergo.

With this admission that we are made by other people's liking or hating us, we move into the sphere of the religious problem. Before, if you do not admit this, that this is important to you, who looks at you, and how they look at you, you see, in -- with what countenance, you will never understand that history has to do with the problem of facing, of faces, of human faces. It hasn't to do with figures in mathematics. And it hasn't to do with -- with chinaware, and hardware, and -- and pans -- pots and pans, and forks, and Cadillacs, and -- and cars. Nobody cares. You can be the richest person, stark naked in the desert. If there is somebody who lo- -- looks at you lovingly and affectionately, that's all you need. And you can starve together, and -- and live it out, and be perfectly -- in perfect bliss.

But today, people -- people -- people really talk as though things--the house, and the causes--have anything to do with our historical existence on this earth. It has nothing to do with history. That belongs to the hardware store, and to the five-and-ten, and to the -- you see --.

So whenever you -- you -- you find people speaking of "whats," asking the question "What?" or -- today is also another way of getting out of this commercial world in the world by "values," laugh at them. The word "value" is the imported article from the -- from the commercial, technical world into the world of the divine presence. God is nothing to be joked about or be {left} out. You all believe in Him, because in any moment, where there is a lacuna in your existence, if people look at you as -- in -- as enemies, or -- you have to fill this out by a greater

force which is not yourself, but which pacifies your -- your -- your -- your unrest that before, he doesn't look at you patiently, and peacefully, and expectantly, you don't know where to turn. You commit suicide. You go nuts. You end in the lunatic asylum. You have a nervous breakdown. However these expressions run.

So there is any number of insidious terms, imported from the realm of science, and -- and causes and -- that is, reas- -- ration- -- reason, and this is "practical," you see.

Now history, gentlemen, has nothing to do with the practical, and has nothing to do with the re- -- rational, because it's a condition that you can use the ra- -- reasonable world of -- and can have the -- rest of mind -- the peace of mind that you can find out causes. A madman cannot study physics. He has to be -- first have to be -- peace of mind. The peace precedes his understanding. A neurotic person cannot study. You know this very well. Because sometimes on -- you just have to -- to leave your -- your desk, have you not, and get out of this, because it's just all running mad inside yourself. You have to restore it, your -- your inner security. And this can't be done by reasoning, because it is the condition that you may be reasonable.

The -- the people today in the -- it is very strange that they should confuse -- I mean, premises and -- and -- and superstructure. It's very nice to give -- tell a physicist, "You can become a physicist. I'll give you bread and butter. I'll give you a stipend. I'll give you a fellowship." But he's in the midst of a peaceful society in which he is allowed to go into his laboratory. And there, you see, there is a fire engine that protects the house from burning, and there is a police force that prevents the burglar from breaking into the laboratory. There is a military force that prevents the Russians of invading Ru- -- America. And all this is first, long before there is science. Can't you see this? That the "Who are you?" has to be solved long before you are allowed to do "what" and to ask "Why?" Is this clear? Any question? But people are such cowards that as soon as somebody de- -- says that everybody believes in God, people say that's a -- that's -- cannot be proved.

Well, I -- I -- all the other things--that we should have Cadillacs or dreiund-halb bathtubs--that's a very questionable proposition. Why should we? Perfectly superfluous.

But that -- everybody has to believe in God, because before he can commit himself into the multitudes of criminals, and follies of the day, where people tempt him right and left to buy unnecessary things, to believe unnecessary -- have -- to have unnecessary ideas -- wrong ideas, to mutiny, or to follow false laws, or false standards of behavior, that's up -- every one of you believes that he can survive all these temptations. Here, you sit and assume that I'm not going to

do you harm, which is an incredible assumption, I mean. Which of course, in former days, couldn't have happened in any tribe. You would only listen to the man of the same platoon, of the same skin, of the same language. Now I have a foreign accent. Why do you listen to me? That's a -- very dangerous. I don't belong. Why do you -- because we have enlarged and enlarged our vision, that the same spirit moves in sundry places. Th- -- in all races and regardless of color--how is it called?--race and creed, you see -- that we still can be of the same spirit.

So the question "Who?" is the question of the Bible. And once you understand this, that this is of the -- the only interest in the Bible, "Who is man that you should be mindful of him?" that's the question of the Bible. And then every one of you asks this question every day, "Who am I?" and "Who am I going to be?"

So the -- the Bible comes into -- is written, as I told you, beginning to be written down around 1100 B.C., when the whole earth is already peopled. You have always to keep in mind that in 1100 B.C., the peoples of this earth are already -- dispersed, you see, as they are today. That's the tremendous facet, you see, achievement. If you think of the South Sea, and all the difficulties of the ocean lanes, we have to assume that--except for perhaps South America, where I'm a little doubtful--the people already had reached out over all the oceans; without any railroads, and shipping lanes, and so on, they have done it.

So the Bible comes into the middle of a global confusion. This you have to understand, that this exists. Then you will also understand why the story of the Tower of Babel, you see, is an attempt to -- to make people not disconsolate about the dispersal, to comfort them about it. That it isn't you see, just negative. That -- everywhere are people warring against each other no longer talk in the same tongue, and incom- -- total misunderstanding of each other, the complete magic that sets tribe against tribe, and group against group, and city against city, and empire against empire. Absolute warfare, and absolute hopeless. And in this moment, the -- Bible says -- asks these two questions, you see, "Whence?" and "Whither?"

Because the identity of man, from his starting point to his destiny, is -- is very questionable. Why am I the same person in the eyes of my parents--who love me--and hated I am tomorrow on the streets, and everybody scorns me, is there any identity of purpose? And every one of you falls out of the nest, just as I do, or everybody else since Adam, and finds himself in this question: Is there any identity between origins and -- and landings?

And this is the question then of the Bible, gentlemen: whence and whither, the question of history is its question. In a quite more {pungent} sense and

you think at first, because it is man himself, every one of you has a history -- because he has to, you see -- to identify his beginnings and his ending, which is very difficult. You -- you -- you leave Europe, and you come to this country, you see; you leave Kansas City and you come to Los Angeles; you -- you come from a -- across the ocean, and suddenly you are elsewhere. Is there is any identity, and as you know the -- in America, the identity, the godlessness of man takes the form of this--how do you pronounce it?

(The alias.)

Yes -- the alias is the expression of this loss of identity. And you know, it still exists in this country as a real mental disease. Most mental diseases in this country are more numerous than they are in any other continent of the world, because of this lack of identification. Most people, when they move into a new city, join a new church, find new friends, forget everybody they have ever met before, never see them again, never hear of them again. And so the Christmas cards play a great part in this attempt of the Americans to remain normal, to remain healthy, to keep this identity. You know this very well. They are very important, don't you think? I mean, they -- they -- we -- we couldn't live in this country were it not -- through the Christmas card we testify that our old friends are -- have lived with us. They are out of sight, but they are not out of mind.

And -- now if you ask a question, which no scientist, and no technician ever asks--the question of your identity--you enter into the problem of history. And the Bible has this simple question of -- asking this question of you and me first. The Bible is very honest in saying, "I'm haunted with the identity of past and future."

Obviously, this is not complete identity, but it is -- cannot be complete lack of identity. So -- you see, I -- "Where do I come from?" "Where do I go?" is the -- is the central question of the Bible. And gradually, beginning with man -- with you your- -- with the writer of any chapter of the Bible himself, he expands his vision and says, "Well, in a wider outlook, the whole world probably has the same difficulty of keeping its identity as I have."

So the question of the Bible is always exper- -- exp- -- experimental -- exp- -- empirical. Will you kindly take this down? The problem of the Bible is to begin with your own experience. It is never legendary. It's never mythological. There is no such thing as a Bible except -- to be {fought}, so to speak. The Bible is written against the brand new stories of kings, and -- and tribes, who speak of their, you see, destiny as a special case. It's always starting with the confusions--consciousness of man's own failure to keep his identity--and now look into the world at large has it the same trouble. And it has.

So before we go back to Samuel, which I think is at the heart of the matter -- in the center of the whole approach, the lack of identity is the starting point. And the trans- --how would you say it?--the transfer of my own personal experience in this respect into the history of the world is the method of the Bible. Probably the writer of the Bible story said, "The world was created as I was created." That is, I was created, I got a name, and that's a great promise. And the problem of the -- the answer to the problem of whence and whither is that the first half of life is a promise, and the second half of life is its fulfillment. And that's the good life. And when the promise is not fulfilled, it's a failure; and when it is fulfilled, it's bliss. And that's how the world should be created.

Now therefore, since many promises are not fulfilled, there must come something in between: the devil, the fall of man. The fall of man is the falling-out of the relation of past and future. It -- the -- the fall means that the promise is not fulfilled. and as you know, many promises are not fulfilled. A murder, like Cain, or the -- the desertion of -- of Eve, you see, by Adam, who says, "It's not my fault," breaks the marriage. I mean, if you read all these stories -- it's very funny how little people can read today, the whole fall of man consists in -- in Adam says -- saying, "It's not my fault," thereby defaulting his solidarity with his mate. God asks, "Who did it?" And she -- he says, "Eve." So of course he's in hell. And they are driven out of paradise, because husband and wife are one body, and he should have said, "We." That would have been his answer. Since he says, "Eve," the whole marriage is off.

It's all very simple, because this is the -- the whole -- every word in the Bible is written around this one purpose of -- of explaining that man keep his identity despite his fall, despite his not fulfilling his promise, despite his deficiencies, and how this remission of sins, how this deficiency can be cured is the story which ful- -- fills the Bi- -- it's a very rational book, Sir. It's strictly empirical. And it is strictly rational. And it just studies the question: how can you be re- -- restored?

For example, A- -- Adam has sinned against his solidarity with his mate. Capitalists sin against their solidarity with the workers. Americans -- at this moment sin against their solidarity with the -- starving people of the rest of the world. We have half of the wealth of the world, and we are one-tenth of the people. That cannot last, obviously. So how can we get out of this misery? It's not so simple. We give away our food, then all the other people -- shout that they -- the prices are dropping in the world market. So we cannot even feed the starving Hindu masses, you see, if we wanted to, with all our surplus food. It's a riddle. Can you solve it? And the people in Brazil burn the coffee to keep up prices, you see. All these scandalous things of Colom- -- but they cry to heaven. They are obviously the fall of man.

So there is a promise: there is enough food to go around; and it isn't fulfilled. And -- that may go on before we find the solution. I { }, you see. This will be a hard struggle. And obviously one day we'll say, "This terrible sin of the 19th and 20th century--that on one side of the globe people starve, and the other, they have too much--this was finally forgiven, because people recognized their solidarity." The same with the question of slavery in this country, as you know. And there are innumerable such questions where the fall of man always comes from a breach of solidarity. The whole point of view of the Bible was that man was created as a unity, in -- despite the dispersal of all mankind over the globe, and wherever he befalls his "Whither?" you see, his common destiny, there is bloodshed, there is despair, there is -- there is decadence, and there is dying-out. And you just look at the -- at the Fourth Commandment, you see, the -- the -- we can't help it. It takes three or four generations before such a crime is wiped out, you see. This branch of the human race then usually dies out. And it's not a question -- that's a scientific, empirical experience. There are -- some people say that's very cruel that the sins of the parents are visited on their children, but they are. The child of a drunkard just is visited in his constitution. I -- you cannot change that. But the hope is that he will have no children himself; and nobody will marry him, and so that this strand of life is so to speak, eliminated by -- selfeliminated.

So the whole -- this is just an example. The Ten Commandments are the -- purely descriptive. If you do -- the thing, you see, if you believe in one God, then you can talk with the rest of mankind. But if you don't believe in one god, you have fallen idols, and you must go to war and kill each other.

So the -- the problem of the Bible from the very first is the uniqueness of the divine creator of Heaven and earth. You can't go back of it. And therefore, the -- since 1870, it is the fashion--especially in this country--to pretend that the Bible is the talk of a tribal god, "Him." We wouldn't mention the Bible if this was such an idiotic thing. Why should we intere- -- be interested in a tribal god of some 3,000 years ago? There have been innumerable tribal spirits. Nobody mentions them.

The Jews come in the middle of history. 1100 B.C. dispersal is already a long story. All the pyramids are built. The big empires exist of Egypt, of Crete, of Mycenae, of -- of -- of the Hittites, of the -- everything. And there in the middle of -- of all this confusion, and all this warfare, there is this tiny little group that says, "I'm not interested in this momentary power. Where are we headed for? Where do I start to express my dismay that all these countries are on their own, that they are walling themselves off?" It is the time when the Chinese empire begins to come into existence. I think Chinese history begins, by and large, 1500 B.C., and not earlier. And -- you know the Chinese have built this wall around their

empire, just to express their complete lack of concern for the rest of the world. This is normal among Gentiles. It is -- the Romans built this limes, it's the same thing, the wall around their empire. And -- any family that it has { }, does the same with its -- with its family convictions, you see, that you cannot marry outside the clan, or outside money, or outside the white race, or whatever the -- the taboo is which you uphold.

And -- now the very first word of -- of the Bible is: the failure is always the same. The one high experience--that I am within a hostile world which does not like my face, which is set against me. If you read the Psalms, or if you read the -- any verse in the Bible, it is full of this expression of the dismay that I have so many enemies. They have held this against the Psalms as--the pacifists--as being too belligerent. Well, you -- you yourself are of the same complexion. I mean, you -- you -- you go here through these staircases and -- and floors, and who looks at you, and who hides from you, and who is indifferent to you, and who is supercilious, I mean? We are just exactly in the same situation. It's not our fault. If there are 2 -- 2 billion people on this globe, it is impossible for all these 2 people -- million people to like you.

Dorothy Canfield Fisher, my contem- -- my friend in Vermont--she died, as you know, last year, was an old Vermont writer. Have you heard -- heard of her, Dorothy Canfield Fisher? Well, she told us the story, that she met in Bennington a--the college, a very progressive college--a girl. And she happened to say to this girl, who hadn't been asked to dance while there was dancing going on, "Well, my dear. We cannot be liked by everybody."

And the girl began to cry desperately. She had never wanted to know this simple truth, that you cannot be li- -- liked by everybody. And it was intolerable to this girl. She had grown up under this, you see, millennia -- dream of America that everybody can like everybody. And then you don't need a religion, of course. The -- the American substitution for faith, and religion, and the Bible -- has been that everybody can be liked by everybody, so we keep smiling. And so we weep inside; and so the people sit in the lunatic asylums weeping day and night, and making up for their too many smiles which they have wasted in their -- in their purposive days of life, and then they break down. Because you cannot like everybody.

And the more you know it, the more likable you can then remain. And it made a great impression on me, this story of Dorothy Canfield Fisher's. And I -- trapped myself that I obviously was born on the side of the girl myself, instinctively. We all are. And religion, or faith, or the biblical tradition is an attempt to -- to -- to -- to tolerate the truth. It's always a victory over our own mythology that we can be liked by everybody.

So the ordinary situation, gentlemen, of the rational fellow in this university is purely mythical. Because he entertains the myth that if he ri- -- is right, thinks right, you see, is clever and so, everybody else will, so to speak, open up and say, "Please, go on." you see. This is his fictitious situation.

(Timon of Athens.)

Wie?

(Timon of Athens. Timon of Athens.)

Ja.

And I think you have there the -- the substitute of all Gentiles for religion. It's this fiction -- fictitious state of mind. As -- as you know, the word "myth" is today -- bandied about quite a bit. It's a very useful term if you recognize that all the people who talk about mythology are themselves living a mythical existence, these rationals who -- superior to myth. They all live in this mythical, inexplicable situation, you see, that they are -- suppose -- never -- there must never be a war. That's just national mythology, you see. So -- because they do not admit that they are most detestable people. We all are detestable.

As you know, when John Bradford was led to the scaffold in England, he exclaimed--he saw another man executed in the Tower, you see, led to the scaffold, a real criminal; and he was there for religious reasons under Elizabeth--and he exclaimed, "There but for the grace of God goes John Bradford." Have you heard the story? You see, the -- -- first awakening, rude awakening of the human adult who ceases to be a child is this awakening that in the eyes of the world, we are detestable. And you can always find fault with me; reason enough to send me to the scaffold if you want to. It's just mercy and charity. I mean, if you think of all the ways in which people have been ruined, and have been eliminated from existence -- I just read the story of the six wives of Henry VIII, and the way he got rid of them, you see. These poor girls, I mean, including Anne Boleyn, as innocent as can be, you see. He was guilty, so he had to get rid of six innocent wives, because his own guilt, so to speak, cried to Heaven, and you have to expiate by scapegoat.

Now, since everybody is in the presence of other people who need scapegoats for their own crimes, or their own deficiencies, you see, it is purely accidental that they don't get {axed}. Can you see this? We are in every moment in the danger that somebody has to -- has to find a scapegoat. This alone would show you the -- the terrible dangers of our human existence on this earth.

The Jews know this very well; they have always been made the scapegoat for everything, for the last {2,000} years, because they have taken this position. That cannot be forgiven.

And so I want to tell you: the Bible is written around this fact that people who break into the myth of our existence make themselves hated. Don't believe that anti-Semitism has anything to do with race. It's a religious statement expressed in secular terms. The Bible -- the people of the Bible story are making havoc with the Gentile tradition. It's an aggressive faith. The Bible is not written for the niceties of -- of an existing order. It's totally aggressive. It breaks into the national myth that this whole group is likable as it is.

And you cannot understand history, gentlemen, if you do not see that there would be no history in your and my mind today--critical history--unless the self-consciousness of any group was put to the task, and thrown out by -- as wanting. Because any national group, any family, any clan, the Rotary Club, the -- the Free Masons, the American-Firsters, the -- the British Empire Imperialists, every one group in itself is impeccable, and finds all the evils outside, and always has to pin it on a scapegoat. The power to say to yourself, "I am detestable," is awakening to the true history. Can't you see this?

As -- as long as John Bradford is not exclaiming, "There but for the grace of God goes John Bradford," we live in mythology, and we don't live in history, because we are not willing to be s- -- to distribute freely blame and praise. The extreme case that John Bradford is that he says, "There but for the grace of God go I, myself." In between, the single John Bradford was a virtuous man, you see--though a heretic--and the criminal, with whom he identifies himself, lie all the little color -- shades of reality, every one of us, maybe 1 percent, you see, the criminal and 99 percent {-- you go} everyone in degrees. But you can only learn to shade, you see, and to distinguish degrees of merit, once you wake up to the absolute conflict of the world as it looks at you--and you, as you look outside of you into the world. Can you understand what I mean? The -- the extreme case: here am I, smug, you see, satisfied. Pardon me.

And down to the existence of the -- of the Mosaic revolt, which it was--it was a rebellion, a marching-out of the highest standard of civilization of that time. It was as -- as vast an outbreak as the Mormon upheaval, at least in this country, or much more so, I would say. It was a protest against all the national {sluggishness} in any group. Now here am I--"we" is better, because nobody ever is just an "I"; he's the child of his parents--and say, "We are -- find that the rest of the world has to be conquered, because it is less good than I." I mean, the conviction of any gentleman from South Carolina, that he looks down on the -- on the Negroes and says, "They have just been the" -- you see, "there to serve."

So he -- the rest of the world can be conquered by war. And how they look at you doesn't count. If you, however, start as the -- these poor 12 tribes of the Jews, these -- this -- this really nothing. Between the empires -- look at the map where Palestine is located, or the bridge between Assyr, and Asia Minor, and Egypt, all the existing big empires of the day, including then the -- the -- the sea kingdom of Cyprus, and of Crete, and the Philistines. And if you put yourself here, as a minor -- a minority group, and say, "I must find the unity between all the -- of all this," you see, "I must find how all these people are -- between Heaven and earth still are held together by one common origin and by one common destiny"--and this of -- the first word of the Bible is the last word of the Bible--then you see that they had to fix their attention from the very beginning on this, which these people avoid, that I and my neighbor don't look at the same thing with the same eyes; that as many people there are, there are as many opinions, And as many tastes, And as many likes, you see.

So that I have to find the unity outside of my own opinion. -- My own val- -- {table} of value, and the neighbor's {table} of value is making {law}. And so John Bradford's sentence, which I recommend to you, as the summary of the whole biblical development, so to speak, {of 5- --} of 2,000 years, sums it very nicely up: "There but for the grace of God goes John Bradford," meaning that we all are capable to be transformed into everybody else. You see, the transformability of the human character into everything from hero to sinner is the story of -- is the attempt to explain who we are. And the Bible says -- explains this transformability -- I use this term because it isn't perhaps quite so used up as "metamorphosis," and "change," and -- it is an important problem. And the Bible says, "By every sentence that we speak, we are transformed into the man who has said this."

Now you and I here, sit, and you can think in many terms of naturalism, and say you are just that many cells, and that many weight -- that much weight, and hair color, and so. But maybe, I ask you a question, And if you are kind enough to answer it, you see, after you have answered it, you are either a liar or a truth-seeking person, because you cannot help making the decision in speaking, you see, whether you tell me the truth or not. And accordingly, you are stamped by what you say.

Now this is the relation, gentlemen, of identity between men's -- "Whence?" and "Whither?" We are transformed by what we say, because we come the -- become the person who has said this. You quote a man. You quote Lincoln for his Gettysburg Address. Lincoln is the man of the Gettysburg Address. Well, the day before he gave it, he wasn't.

So the incisive statement in -- in a woman's life is after {he} has said he

will, at the altar, you see. She says -- "Of course, he will." And -- you know the -- the story at the altar when he asks, you see, and she answers him -- for him, "He will."

This word makes her, because from that day on, she has a new name. She has -- bears the name of her husband. This is never -- treated -- with the solemnity it deserves. We have -- if we invoke the public conscience and God Almighty as our witness, we have the power to force the community to call us by another name. Imagine what this means! That you have the power to put into the mouth of other people, you see, a new address, that they have to change. You are no longer Miss. You are Mrs. People don't -- would -- will never understand marriage if they do not see that it is the power invested in an individual to force the community to give her another name.

And this is -- that's why marriage is not free love. Free love means you go off on a tangent, you see. But marriage means that you take Heaven and earth as best witnesses, that from now on, you have to appear as one before the world, and demand from them to give way to your decision. That's the difference between love and marriage. That's -- there's a great confusion about this in this country as you well know, because people no longer understand the whole biblical starting point, because the Bible has invented marriage in this sense of solidarity. Forceful solidarity, compulsory to the rest of the world, and it's breaking up because of your American attitude.

I give you an example. Hundred years ago, every loving couple who wanted to get married would have been saluted by everybody, and everybody would have en- -- en- -- entitled them -- whether the man was in prison, or whether the man was on a boat, the -- girl would have been {helped}. Now this so happens that a friend of mine who lives now in the little town of Hanover, New Hampshire, was an old vintner -- came from an old vintner's family, who for a thousand years had had vineyards on the river Rhine, in {Gunthersblum}. It has a name from the famous Niebelunglied, from King {Gunther} of Worms. It's near Worms and near Mainz.

Well, this family was Jewish, and he was engaged to a girl who was not, who was a Gentile in the next town. And when Hitler came, he had to leave the country, and he had to give up his vineyards; and his -- his parents were -- later were destroyed. And he went to America, and -- to build up a new existence. He -- he's a photographer now, has a -- has a camera shop, which was very hard on him, but he succeeded.

Well, when I came first to his -- this little town in 1935, he had just arrived, and he was -- asking his fianc‚e, and she was from { }, with -- already going

out of Germany, because there were German laws forbidding a marriage between Jew and Gentile, and so she was anxious to join him. And she went to England, because he said, "I can't support you here in America. It's very expensive. Go to England; then you are out of the -- of the encirclement by the Nazis, and we can always get together."

So she became a governess in a home, and survived. But then the war came, and she was interned as a -- presumably German spy and Nazi, and put in a concentration camp in England. An "internment camp," I should think, because they were really not concentration camps. And so she stayed interned until 1945. Now this was -- 10 years had elapsed since they -- they -- he had to leave the country. Then he wrote and wrote, and the English still wouldn't -- the English would let her go, but the Americans wouldn't give her a visa. And he wrote to Bernard Shaw, and he wrote to all kinds of people, trying to --. And finally in '48, this poor woman came. And she was, by that time, I believe -- they -- they only could have one child, and then she was -- beyond the time of motherhood. And so the whole life of these people has been, so to speak, stigmatized by this tragedy, that they couldn't have more children, and that they had to live down 13 years.

Now I assure you, that with all the lack of communication, and all the deficiencies, this would not have occurred before -- 50 years ago or a hundred years ago. People would have helped these people to get together. Now they don't. They are so hard-boiled. Bureaucracy has so victorious, that a whole -- these two lives are -- they aren't totally destroyed, but certainly they have been marked. And formerly you had the smallpox, and now you get the -- the passport pox. Ja?

(In 1935, she was put into the --?)

No, in England, she was a governess for four years. But then she was a German citizen, you see; and since she wasn't Jewish, the English said, "Oh, she may be a Hitlerite."

({ } war came in '39.)

Ja. To England it came in '39.

Well, I mean to say that at this moment, many people are so -- demented that they have gone rational in their human relations, and that individualism is {rampant}. And that the unity of husband and wife is no longer safe and -- sacred. That shows you, I mean if bureaucracy can prevent people, you see, who are engaged to marry, from this, then you know that we are in great danger of

losing the first power of man to form insoluble communities, because every marriage is the beginning of a new nation. But you have the opinion that you marry inside a nation. It's absolute nonsense. Abraham founded a new nation; that's the Jews. And you do, too. How can you know that you don't have to emigrate, that you have to leave this country to go to another, that you don't have to marry somebody from a -- quite a different country? It's all nonsense that -- marriage takes place within America is true, but just look at it. But it is not true that if two Americans marry, they only marry as Americans. Then they'll get a divorce. You can only marry under God's sun, and under the open sky. Because it has to be stronger than the laws of this country.

This is so strange. The -- people -- actually in this country, although this is a melting pot, and there are all nationalities, if you tell them this, that they are quite surprised that to marry is the founding of a new people. Ja? No.

And this is the starting point of the Bible. That's why it begins with Adam and Eve. It is not a myth, because the fight against the myth is {itself} -- that this marriage vow, the power of man to establish a new people from the very first, is lost to him. What Adam says, you see, in -- in saying, "I didn't do it, but she did it," you see, we all commit adultery and fornication. But then we all leave our power to found peaceful societies, you see, by -- from fear, from -- from saying, "Oh, no solidarity. She did it. I didn't."

And th- -- this is the genius of the whole Bible story, that this experiment- -- empirical situation is carried backward, as the seed of all -- of all varie- -- of all multiplicity, so to speak, and then finally into the creations and wor- -- since God created us, man, obviously Heaven was created by -- by His word, too. The -- the whole story that God created the sun, and the moon, and the -- and the plants and the animals, has never been surpassed in truth, because it is an empirical transfer of your and my experience, how we come to life by the word that is spoken to us. Because we are different people after we have been blessed, or after we have been absolved, or after being -- we have been given the bachelor's degree, or after we have proclaimed that we are husband and wife. The whole community accepts you as different people after that. Suddenly you are M.D. And -- you know how a doctor is treated, you see; everybody bows and -- and accepts him as a -- the high priest of America. Well, we have only one priesthood in America, medicine.

So believe me. The -- your experience is never exploited by yourself. But if you would kindly do, you would see that words break the continuity and transform you in this one way in which we can accept our identity without loss of faith.

[tape interruption]

...and there is no loss of {identity}. "Whence" and "whither," if they are promise and fulfillment, they leave no scars.

So the -- the gentle way of -- of -- of history is by promise and fulfillment. That's why you have to get engaged to marry, so that there is a promise that can be fulfilled. But you are, of course, promised, so to speak, a future of your own choosing when you are born. The promise is with any child. The fairies around the cradle all tell this child, "Go ahead and become what you are destined to become. You have to -- discover." A life of discovery.

And so the curve of life, from birth to death, from the creation of the world in general, and your own birth here -- to death and Last Judgment, which of course is the same for the whole and for you personally, Judgment Day, is bound up with what is said. Can we recognize in what has been said before the promise of what has to be said at the end?

And therefore the God of the Bible is the power that makes you and me speak, that makes all men speak. The "spirit of God" it is called in the Bible. And I think you need a--I'm sorry to be pedantic--you need a definition of God, although it is entirely impossible--the best I think then at this moment will shake you, so to speak, out of your slumber--is "the power who makes us speak." God is -- that's the third article of the Christian creed, you see, which in the Old Testament, the term "the spirit," and "God said, Let us make men" -- you and I become humans only as far as we can hear what we say, and change what we say. The mystery of an animal and you is that an animal doesn't hear itself. It conveys, shouts to the rest, you see; but you and I see what we speak. And that's man's humanity, so to speak, that we -- you can see what you say. And you can hear what you --. And if you look up the -- the Psalms, they are therefore written in responsory, because every word i- -- comes back from the -- from the -- second choir, so to speak, you see, the -- the -- the Bible is to be -- con- -- so to speak, read in responsories, because a man -- any man who says something hasn't said it unless he allows it to come back upon him, and he accepts it as being said truly. And the women -- women babble, and prattle, and gossip, and it doesn't mean anything, because they don't hear what they say.

And yes, you become a student as soon as you become aware of the fact that what you say counts. I mean, if you say -- stand in the -- before a higher council where the truth matters. To Mrs. {Duncan}, the truth { } doesn't matter. She doesn't -- she's babbling, isn't she? And I -- I mean, it's a very inter- -- she's a very interesting phenomenon. She is a primeval, pre-speaking. She has learned to s- -- to use words. But I mean, the -- it is perfectly -- she can be free

from identification with what she says. Isn't that true? It's a remarkable case. It always comes back, this archaic, animal state, if -- if people are not told that to speak is a -- is an entering of -- into history. That's the whole difference whether you lie or still -- stand by the truth.

Well, ever -- all I wanted to say, to bring out to you that the whole starting point of the Bible is purely empirical. Man within a totally estranged society, enemy to enemy, dog eats dog, finds -- tries to find the thread by which peace, and -- and -- and order, and -- and meaning can be restored. And finds that only if he can draw together all the original strands, and, so to speak, exploit the Navajo Indians as well, you see, as the Egyptian fellahin to their destiny -- to their desti- -- common destiny. You have to accept all the diffusion, so to speak, you see, as our "whither?" -- "whence?" And we have to patient enough until every one of these trans- -- dialects, idioms, creeds, et cetera, can come to its -- to its interment, or to its conclusion within a common pattern.

And the funny experience of the human race in th- -- on this continent is that the red man is still with us, his soul, unredeemed, before we -- he hasn't received some better spiritual acknowledgement than he has in America. I mean, the Indian -- question of the red Indian is not over by his elimination. He's still asking a question. And I think the solution will be that 200 years from now, no president of the United States can be elected unless he has Indian blood in him. I'm quite sure of some such -- some such -- strange superstition. Because innocent blood shed cries to Heaven. I assure you that anything once created has to be included into this identification -- process of identification. Because we have this feeling deep in us because we speak, that anythi- -- body who can speak is a part of us.

"There but for the grace of God goes John Bradford." If you exploit this one little sentence, you see, you will find it to explain to you the mysteries of the historical process. You see it now in the waking of the African Negro, I mean. It's the same thing. There is not -- no creature on this earth that hasn't to be included into the life process.

And to give you one example, which is never mentioned -- our whole chemical industry, pulp industry, paper, coal, plastic, what else is it but to include the dead materia- -- matter that was created before us into the life process again? Don't look at technique, and -- and factory system and industry as something not religious. It is highly religious to feel that all the substances of this earth, you see, have to be connected again, have to reconnected and have all to enter the stream of life. But this is a religion -- that's a religion of a scientist, you see. That's the faith of any man who goes out to discover the energies of the globe, that all this was one -- at one time one glowing planet and we have to

make it into one again. Half of it lies dead, you see, unused, like the -- the oil in the -- in Texas.

And so please don't -- don't think this is purely commercial, this is purely -- this is accidental. Man's mind is set on including again the more even of course his own -- or -- his human fellows -- and -- and brothers, you see, and sisters, than the oil underneath. One and the other is -- equally -- or at least equally important to us, because God is one. The only reason is monotheism. The only reason is because everybody is faced by everybody else, under the countenance of a common -- of a common faith, so to speak. The eyes of God are upon the whole creation. Gentlemen, this is -- just as scientific as that 2 and 2 is 4. You and I cannot keep our peace of mind unless you acknowledge that we -- acting in the face of somebody. And since I do not want to act just in the face of you, you see, or any special individual obviously, but have to be stronger, I have to -- to defy your anger, have I not at times? And your suspicion, and your aversion. Since a man has to live through adversity, the -- his -- our faith in God is the power that -- that retains our sanity. And you will always find that all these so-called atheists make themselves into their own god. Everybody has a god. The atheist is god to himself.

So I don't quarrel with him. Let him be an atheist. But he -- he believes just that his own satis- -- {-faction} with himself is enough. All right. Then he has enshrined the divinity into his own consciousness. If this is enough, let him do it. He isn't interesting, I mean. He is a limiting case, but today people bow to him; and in all good society, they don't mention God, because they say we know there are several people who are atheists among us, so we mustn't offend their feelings. I don't see why we shouldn't. Because they have their own god, you may be sure. They have god -- they are their own god to themselves.

If you would only see that you cannot talk of God without talking of man, and you cannot talk of man without God. Because, who is God? To ask once more this question "who?" Well, you -- He's the condition whi- -- who allows me to ask, "Who am I?" Who I am. You and I cannot ask who you are, unless there is a God. Because nobody else, including myself, can hold the scales, so to speak, of impartiality, and of judgment. The others are biased, but I'm biased, too. And I know this. I'm biased perhaps in favor of me, you see. Or I'm so abject that I'm biased against me. But I'm biased.

So it is an assumption then, and I think, very, very presumptive on my part to speak in this matter, because it isn't done--but it is a scientific premise for all social science, that men and God are corollaries in our human language. If you omit God from the -- the human presence, you get a bundle of nerves. And you get -- he's ripe for -- for the lunatic asylum. And this whole attempt of the

social sciences to speak of -- of man without his belief in his creator to me is just silly. I mean, it's the -- the antechamber of the human wisdom. I call always the social sciences "the Old Testament" of the social sciences, you see, as they are today. Psychology, and sociology, you see, and so on. But it leads nowhere, you see, because man then moves in a vicious circle. What everybod- -- take a questionnaire. Why should I accept what the psychologist says of me as more relevant than what I say of the psychologist? I say he's a fool; he says I'm a fool. Where are we?

You know the story of the drunkard's wife in -- in -- Long -- Long Island in the slum. And the social worker comes to say -- to see her and says, "Oh. Pity here. I understand that your -- that your man has taken to drinking."

She says, "Not mine. Your, perhaps?"

In -- that's the only answer, you see, between equal people, you see, that she asks the social worker that. This talking back -- in the human society is the -- is the -- it's a real problem. And it is only if -- if the two, the sociologist and his victim, look up to a third countenance that they can ever settle their conflict. The sociologist is not in any higher authority than his victims, his objects, or cases, or how you call them. And it's very significant that he is God Almighty, because he calls with the biblical expression the victim his "case." There are {the} cases. Now what is "case"? That's the fallen man. Take this very seriously. A case is man in isolation, taken out of context, and left, you see, as he is, as a -- as nature, unrestored, unredeemed, without a pray- -- remission of sins.

This is very serious, gentlemen. "Case" in law is a criminal. A legal case that's -- that is paralyzed, that stays there on the docket. And his life cannot go on. It's just a case, fallen down on the job. And the social scientist in his na‹vet‚ has taken over the legal method, and -- and makes you and me, when he asks us, into cases. And that's anti-historical, because in history, the -- what would be -- in -- in -- in history the real solution? I -- always -- I have been a lawyer myself for 20 years, but I always held that the only solution of the criminal law is that every judge is only allowed to judge one case and has to go off with his -- with his accused, with the defendant and live with him for the rest of his life. That's the only way of settling really any such case, by -- because then a whole life would be committed, you see, to the re-entrance of the criminal into reality.

Now we put them behind prison bars; and they're worse off than before, because we treat them still as cases, after they are judged. Now the whole problem of -- of a crime obviously is to -- from the very beginning to -- get this man back into the stream of the full life which he has left, because he has -- because he has fallen down, as we say, on the path. And as long as the judge can sit and

-- and decide 231 cases in one -- he -- he -- you see, prolongs the agony. He -- they makes them -- in --. The -- the only Christian solution is that this judge says, "One case in enough for a lifetime." And invests his lifetime--I mean, I'm exaggerating; but I'm explaining to you what's the difference between a case and a -- {history}. And so you should revolt against the term "case history." There is no case history, if there is no future. History is -- the past seen in the light of the future: that's the biblical story. History sees promises and waits for their fulfillment. And therefore there is -- must be never a case history.

A mere case history means that there is no investment of future responsibility. First, if you become fast friends, then you can look back together at all your errancy of your youth.

Case history is a contradiction in point. You can have history; and you can have cases. And cases are such events that have left the stream of life and are like shells on the beach. No sea life, Sir, but sea death.

So now therefore, you will perhaps now begin to understand the -- the problem of the Bible then is to distinguish between fall and ful- -- and promise. And the Bible is indifferent to the glories of the kings, and the glories of men, and we have read one chapter in which it was brought out that the -- Hannah is desperate. She has absolutely no -- she is despised. {David} thinks she is drunk, you remember. And that's why she had just the real history, because she is not in a myth of her own contention, and her own smug satisfaction.

To give you a parallel of this { } of course, the first -- the New Testament is written in the same vein about the birth of Jesus. And -- take it this way. In the first chapter already, the hero is telling against himself. The essence of the invention of the history of the Bible is the power to speak of man not as a hero of the story. There are no heroes in the Bible. But there are very weak, fallen men who are brought back into the stream of life. "There for the grace of -- but for the grace of God goes John Bradford." That's the whole story of the Bible.

And -- for example, the Gospel of Mark is the second Gospel in the New Testament, and it can be recognized as being under -- written under St. Peter's influence, because the one Apostle who is -- who is held up to derision there is Peter, his -- his slander, his--how do you call it?--his denial of the Lord, you see, his { } denial is only given in Mark. Now in -- in the Bible, you can recognize a book, because the author talks against himself. That's unique in the literature, you see. All pagan, all Gentile literature talks up. The author justifies himself, and the heroes are justified. They are always right. The whole problem of the Bible is to show that man is betwixt and between. Peter is not wholly, so to speak, judged or -- or condemned. But the only book in which Matthew is called

a publican is the Gospel of Matthew. The other three Gospels, being written by other Apostles, saved this very -- you see, indecent label of a usurer, which it was, you see, oppressor of the people, publican. But he calls himself a publican. Peter speaks of the denial, you see, in Mark, because he dictated the -- the -- the -- these pieces to Mark, and -- according to tradition. And so we can go in the Bible by this very simple indication that he who is held up to criticism in the Bible, has something to do with the authorship of the book. That's a very original, so to speak, situation.

Let us now go into it. Wie? {Robert}. We need a break now? Wie? Yes or no?

(No.)

(Yes!)

Now who has said the truth? {Make it} a vote? Who wants to have a break now? Well, we stay together here. Out you go, with the rest. Five minutes. And we'll meet at half-past, again.

[tape interruption]

...that is unheard-of in any pre-biblical { }, this attitude, the smallness, so to speak, of the -- the -- that she is not a heroine, she is not inspired, she's not just an instrument. But she has this double-ness of cheer and -- and -- and despair, this alternation. Here she is full of complaint and grief, and then at the end, "For this child I prayed, and the Lord has given me my petition which I asked for." And so you see in a small way in this chapter already, you have this tension. You begin with identity of bliss and despair, of low and high spirit -- is the problem. Whereas all primitive existence of man is trying to eternalize, perpetuate one attitude: either ecstasy, you see, or wailing. Here is the whole problem of this one chapter is to put 2 and 2 together, and to see that the same person goes through this ups and downs, this high and low. And keeps her {animism}. Now perhaps we go on now. Would you?

(Read Chapter 2?)

Ja.

("And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoices -- rejoi-- rejoiceth in the Lord; mine horn is exalted in the Lord: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation.

"There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside

thee: neither is there any rock like our Lo- -- like our God.

"Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the Lord -- for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

"The bows of the mighty men are broken -- the bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that stumbled are girded with strength.")

Now, may I put in this word immediately? Our -- the recognition is that there is a time element in our empirical experience, you see, that it takes time for man to understand. God is knowledge, because He can weigh, as you see, the actions. We cannot. Therefore "no -- not arrogance come out of your mouth." You don't know what you're saying, if you only live from moment to moment.

History covers the change of mind of people. The "transformability of man," you see, is liter- -- can be taken literally. Those who--how do you say in English?--"Those who sow with tears shall reap in -- with joy"? What { }? Make that the content of course of this whole chapter, you see. And it means that at any one moment on our pilgrimage, you see, we are too elated or too despondent. And therefore, only if we keep the memory of our humiliation in the days of our exultation, you see, and tie them together shall we not to -- go wrong.

With this -- the word with which you perhaps will -- best arm yourself against the common misunderstanding of the divine presence is "perseverance." It's a lost word -- you may recover it. "Perseverance." It -- the -- the Christian creed has tried to say that it takes time to know who God is. That's why -- they speak of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because you cannot at one moment see all the aspects of the divine action. At one moment you are yourself the genius who does it, you see, and another moment you are far from having any influence on the -- on the history in making which you are involved. Just as Hannah here. She's despondent, and she is elated.

Now she says, "Do not be arrogant," because she warns herself against this momentary excess, because the whole story is longer and long-winded. And you may arm yourself against the physicists. In physics, gentlemen, we try to discount the time element. We shorten everything. To be a physicist means to attempt to understand everything, you see, with a minimum of expanse of time. That's why you have electricity now, and you have -- shoot a -- at 1700 miles an hour, you see, you shoot something into the moon. Speeding up is the problem of physi- -- of natural science, and slowing down is the problem of history. Because over 2,000 years, you know more about man than you know about -- this moment. And you know about your own story over 70 years than you know

about -- in one year. And what you need is perseverance.

That's why it is nonsense to take examinations in the history department, because that breaks up your historical instruction into four months' periods. That's not long enough. You have to live into history, you see, for years and years before you can say anything about it. That's why I'm -- the whole carrying over of the examination system into the humanities department and social science department is poisonous. It destroys your brain. You shouldn't -- be examined, you see, in the same way as you can be examined in chemistry. This is possible. In physics, too.

But we -- the whole immersion into the process of historical experience is an immersion into a longer and longer spans of time, and not the breaking up of these periods. And that's why we are in a bad way with -- with history in this country, because everything is done to treat it as though it could be reduced, you see, to five minutes' experiences, to facts and dates, objective examinations. You cannot.

I had a colleague, whom I hated--and still hate--and he gave a course in comparative literature, and I overheard him saying to a student, "What do you want to know about Goethe?" you know, the German poet. "I can tell you everything about him in 10 minutes." He literally said the -- he was a professor of literature.

(Who is it, Sir?)

Wie? Oh, no. No names, Sir. And -- { }.

Wherever you meet such a -- such a -- no, butcher of the spirit, you know that he is just killing the spirit. Because obviously any man you meet in history deserves to be met permanently. May -- become a -- a friend of yours, like Abraham Lincoln -- and I hope you converse with him quite often. And the over -- the longer the time, the more you come to know him. And there are any number of { }. The same with -- with -- a figure in Shakespeare. I mean, Hamlet you do not read once.

Not like the student who came back, how -- you know, and asked his professor -- Professor {Lambeth} on the -- Main Street in Hanover, you know this story, you see. "Professor!" ten years later, you see. "How did you make out with Hamlet? We never went before -- beyond the Fourth Act together."

So he never had -- of course had read -- finished the Fifth Act, so he hadn't known -- learned yet how -- how Hamlet made out.

All historical books deserve to be written innumerable times. And this again you do not know. You think that an assignment means you read a book once, and then you are over with it. Then it doesn't deserve to be read in the first place. All the books you read only once are technical books. And any real book that deserves to be read has to be read often. That's why the Bible is the standard book for real historical -- why it's written constantly -- read constantly, because you read it each time with a different slant, and a new understanding.

And this is one of the things why you can't get an education, because you actually believe that if you have learned something -- read something once, you have read it. I read Homer to this day every year. And I'm always surprised. I am now finally -- I -- and I began in classics, so I -- I mean, I've been { } classics { } all my life, I've now been -- allowed myself to write this in my history book -- in a chapter on -- on the Greek poets. But I wouldn't {have dared} if I hadn't read them time and again. You can't judge them after read -- reading them once. That's absolute nonsense.

And this is again in this -- in this story of the -- this famous Mag- -- this is the Magnificat which returns in Luke, in the New Testament, you see, in which the Catholic Church praises to this day, you see. This -- the Chapter 2. So it's more than a -- it is the -- the historical, I mean, foundation of the praise of women for their faith. "The bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that stumbled are inspired -- girded with strength." Go on.

("So they that were -- were full have hired themselves out for bread; and they that were hungry --")

"Full" would be -- ja, rich, of course, you see, of "satis-" -- or "sati-" -- "satiated" would perhaps be better. Ja?

("-- so that the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble.

("The Lord killeth and maketh alive. He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.")

Now perhaps you again see that always the bad is put before the good. The whole problem of -- of course, of -- of our faith is that despite the fall, despite the misfortune, the promise still can be fulfilled.

And therefore, you will do -- most people do not understand today religion or Christianity, because they do not know that unless death is put before life, we don't live in history. The problem of history is that somebody dies, and

yet something survives. As long as you be- -- say, "The Lord maketh alive, and giveth," you would be in nature. Because an animal and a tree, they come to life and they die by themselves. History means that the dead leave a trace, that despite the fact that you and I die, we haven't lived in vain. You understand?

And therefore, this is the whole -- it's very good New Testament; there's -- there's no difference between Old and -- Testament teaching and --. If you take these words seriously, you see: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive. He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." It's all in reverse. History begins where we bury our dead. And remember them. First He makes full, then He makes rich; first He brings low, then He lifteth up; first she's barren and has no child, and then she brings -- comes forth with child. It is always the -- the surprise that man's idea of himself is -- is defeated, so to speak, you see, that his self-consciousness is not the real story. Will you go on from there?

("He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them.

("He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness.")

You can see how the Pilgrim fathers would enj- -- rejoice in this verse, you see, going to the pillars of the earth beyond the English -- the British Isles, and establishing there the -- His kingdom here on these shores, I mean. That's a good Puritan verse.

("For by strength shall no man prevail.

("The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exhalt the horn of his anoi- -- anointed.")

Now here, that's the end of the Magnificat. "My" -- that's the first verse, you see: "My heart rejoices in the Lord" That's the Magnificat. It magnifies the Lord, you see. That's why it is called "Magnificat." My heart magnifies the Lord. Ja. -- Now comes the history again.

("And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house. And the child did minister unto the Lord before Eli the prince -- the priest.

("Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; and they knew not the Lord.

("And the priests' custom with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest's servants came, while the flesh was in seething, and a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand;

("And he stuck it into the pan, or kettle, or cauldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither.

("Also there befo- -- also before they burnt the fat, the priest's servant came, and said to the man who sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; and he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw.

("If any man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; then he would answer him, Nay; but thou shalt give it to me now: for if not, I will take it by force.

("Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord: for the Lord abhorred the offering of the -- for the men abhorred the offering of the Lord.")

We have "the men" or "man"?

(The "men" -- "for men { }.")

("But Samuel ministered before the Lord, being a child, girded with a linen --.)

Now, here may you perhaps also understand the {fact} of this. It's the constant problem: can spiritual service be paid for? All history, as far as I can see, has been not centered around land, or around all this wealth and so, but around the problem whether human relations can be bought for money. As you know, in the Middle Ages, you -- there has been the so-called struggle of -- for investiture. Have you heard of this? The Gregorian struggle { } empire. Well, it was the question whether the bishoprics and abbots could be bought by money from the king, from the { }.

And the salability of -- of human worth is today again -- with our foundations. You { } because Rockefeller and Ford make people think that you can buy science. You cannot. And -- your whole problem in this country is -- we are in very bad shape, because teachers are underpaid. That -- because teachers cannot get wages. I am paid only so that I do not go into industry, and make money and get rich. I'm supported by a salary, or honorarium, or a stipend, so that I can concentrate on human relations. You must never think that you can pay me for what I'm telling you here. You cannot buy me. Not for sale. Not for money.

I'm -- very serious about this. A very big question. I have always tried to te- -- tell the teacher's conventions why they cannot go to strike. They are on -- parents' stead. As a parent cannot go on strike, and a teacher cannot go on strike, you see. You have to get so much dignity, and esteem, and respect in the community that they will give you -- pay you as much as they earn themselves. As in England, where a man in Oxford is paid by the lords of the -- country enough to keep up the standards of a lord's existence, because the lord says, "My son can only join with lords," you see, with the lordly society.

Here in this country, the rich man thinks that the -- that the -- his -- the teacher of his children, you see, can be of the lowlies, like -- like a -- like a nurse. And so he underpays him. But you cannot strike, because I can never say that I sell for money. I sell my identity with the people whom I teach. Can I? Impossible. But I can be paid for not caring for -- for -- wealth, for not going into industry. That's what the meaning of the word "salarium," "salary" and "honorarium" originally mean. You persuade a man to forget his commercialism. And of course he -- since he cannot starve, you enable him to turn the other way, to be interested in your growth, and in your instruction, you see, and not to think of my own -- my own financial gains.

But as soon as you treat me on a wage scale with a factory worker, you see, an engineer, you get me wrong. It's done all the time in this country. And believe me, the whole economic system of this country is misunderstood. As long as you try to classify a teacher for what he says. I have nothing to sell. You must understand. I have nothing -- really nothing to sell. But I allow you to listen to me, { }, instead of going to the stock exchange and speculating.

When I told my boys at Dartmouth that I could have just as much become a bank president, and -- which in fact was offered me when I was a young man, this career, they didn't believe it, because in this country, they -- you think that a man who teaches is such an idiot, that he cannot make money. "Those who do -- can, do; and those who cannot, teach." And this is why in America I think this is an utterly corrupt society. As long as you believe that teaching can be bought by a high salary, you get me all wrong. There cannot be truth in this, because a salesman is not committed to handing you over the truth. You understand that selling and buying has nothing to do with speaking the truth.

And this has gone through history. And I only meant to say it's here exactly the same. What the people resent is that the services to the Lord can -- presumably be bought, that these people, you see, get rich on the -- on the surface of this. And that's corruption. It is called with a -- with a word from the New Testament, simony -- s-i-m-o-n-y. Have you -- anybody heard the term? Now I only want to tell you. Simony is nothing of the 11th century or the 5th century of

our era. It's constantly with us, you see. Any society breaks down in which spiritual truth can be supposedly bought for money. That's the end of it. The -- Reformation, as you know, Luther came about -- got up wie -- when this was told his poor peasants, you see, that they could buy salvation for money. That was the beginning of Protestantism. But we have today -- see the same thing, gentlemen. You see, I -- today the -- the -- the foundations in this country are destroying America.

I tell you a story. I had a friend in Harvard. And I was called there to lecture to -- before this group of 25 graduate students. One -- this friend of mine invited me to do so. He was the chairman of this little club of historians. And when I came there and we tal- -- I talked, they told me that they had just composed a memorandum for the Ford Foundation. And they had written down reasons why they should--every one of these 25 men who had signed this memorandum--should be given 5,000 a year--at that time, that was a lot of money, 10 years ago--$5,000 for the next three years, each. You see, three times 5,000. And it was a wonderful program. I said, "Do you believe in it? Do you think it should be done?"

"Oh no," they said, "But that's what they want to get. And we want to get the money."

Now here were 25 Harvard scholars -- who were not ashamed to sell their souls for the next three years, you see, to the highest bidder, and to cheat deliberately. And so it worked of course more havoc, because once you are cheated, such a foundation gets very disagreeable indeed. And I've never forgotten the scene. Here were 25 otherwise decent people, who only--because they were American--did not see that the spirit is not to be bought. And the foundations have gone off in this country on the wrong foot for the same reason as here described by Mr. -- by verse 16 and verse 17, you see: "The Lord -- men abhorred the offering of the Lord." They -- as soon as they know that this can be bought, they would have nothing to do with it. We have therefore no -- the teachers in this country have no authority, because people are convinced that they can be bought. How can you trust a man who can be bought? You must see this.

As soon as you think that a man's services can be paid for, he is no longer -- deserves to be listened to. Why should you? Anybody will say what he -- expected to say if you pay him a sufficient number of -- of -- of ounces of gold. And there -- you move in a vicious circle in this. As soon as you would agree that men are independent -- made independent, you see, by the support they gi- -- the community gives them, because we expect them to be disagreeable, you see, and competent, and telling -- unpleasant truths, it will be different.

But I see that in -- in -- the churches are in the same predicament in this country, you see. The -- my -- the big shot in the -- in the -- {just} among the -- the -- vestrymen, you see, will not hear a sermon that is preached against his livelihood.

So we have no class, and that is the deeper reason for an independent clergy, and an indifferent -- you see, and for private property. That's why inflation, you see, will damage the business community without their knowing it, because inflation takes away all the saving from the middle class.

Now when I was young, even as an instructor, I had to {glean} from my salary to build up my own library. Therefore I was independent in my research. No longer is anybody today able to do this. He's completely dependent on the -- you see, public library. Therefore he's less dependent for changing, for example, his field of interest, because he has not his own library. A library means that I'm moving out afield -- under my own steam, because I collect the material, you see. That means -- is the meaning of your own library, that you are flexible, and you do not depend on your appointment in a department for being allowed to make recommendations about the books which you can buy.

So all the new fields of science, gentlemen, in the last 150 years, have been established by people who built up their own libraries in unheard-of directions, in fields that didn't exist before. Can you see this? Ja?

Now if you inflate the means by which these libraries were built up by personal savings, are destroyed. Workers, and capital- -- and entrepreneurs together--the corporation--exploit then the middle classes, their savings. And the spiritual leaders of the community are completely then unable to -- to move even the slightest degree under their own steam. They cannot even afford to buy a book. So they are not independent in their information. They are not independent in their judgment. Everything is through the big trumpet of the television producer, et cetera.

And so -- inflation is played so lightly of -- in this country -- gentlemen, if you do not establish a middle class in this country that is relatively indifferent to the vicissitudes of prosperity and depression, how can ever the truth be said that perseveres over the rich and over the poor? Take these verses. They are very modern, that the "the Lord killeth, and maketh alive," the "Lord maketh poor and maketh rich," "He bring us low, and He lifteth up." Who is going to say this, if you live in a country where everybody is completely subject to the moods of the daily currency, you see? You have a real inflation, you see. Any cent you have has to be spent right away, because in -- tomorrow, the money, you see, loses its value. And any human spirit can only persevere if he is relatively independent

from these vicissitudes of fortune. And so -- this hasn't been solved in this country. We have a -- quite the contrary, established a system in which more farmers, more shopkeepers, more professors are involved in -- to the price level and wage level, you see, of everyday. And if you get an inflation, there is nobody who can escape it.

Now such a country goes mad. It's complete insanity, because everybody has then to struggle for the naked revival -- survival, whereas we have to try to establish certain levels, you see, of -- of security for different groups in the people. The teacher, the minister, and I {see} the doctor, perhaps, too, and writer--they must live on a -- on a longer wavelength than the man at the stock exchange, and the -- the weekly wage- -- wage-earner. And now we try to put them all on the same level, and I think we are -- we are -- we are inflation-bound to this day, still. And then the country can be written off, as a policy-making agency. Then you're just {numbers}.

You cannot have a policy unless you have a sufficient number of people in this country--in a democracy, especially--who are not scared -- overscared by the momentary distress. Can't you see this? If you involve everybody into the immediate catastrophe, then the cries of despair and the cries of impatience must overwhelm everybody.

So here you see -- I hope here I have shown you that the applicability of such a remote chapter and very -- I mean, you may say, obsolete, archaic chapter of the Old Testament is an eternal problem. The -- the -- are these spiritual services for sale? Or isn't your whole problem to make them -- people who serve you, a -- administrate you -- so inde- --. Take a woman. If she is out in business and has children, she is much more involved in the sorrows and scares of the commercial community, industrial community than is good for her upbringing her children. Because her children should be -- remain in an atmosphere of 30 years' future, and not of an immediate, you see, crisis, whether she loses her job or so. That shouldn't interfere with -- with the -- with the goings-on in this family. What should be told in a family has nothing to do with the -- with the moment. You should prepare a child for the years that come after the 13th year of this child. How can you -- if this woman is totally involved in the great question whether you will -- fired or hired tomorrow. I don't see how you can. Anything can take the aspect of -- of daily living.

Well, I only -- would like you to -- to generalize on this term "simony." If you have a better word for -- for corruption, it's all right with me. But it is in every century, the "trahison des clercs" -- treason of the clerks is the issue. And you may have heard that Mr. Benda -- Jules Benda in France wrote this famous book, The Treason of the Clerks. Have you heard of it? Le Trahison des Clercs.

It's another word for "simony." And it's very -- everybody uses -- here in this country, you use it, you see -- it's the treason of the intellectuals who can be bought. An important term. It's another term for "simony." Le Trahison des Clercs by Jules Benda. It's standard -- a standard term. Everybody in the inter- -- field of letters knows this term. Jules Benda. The treason of the -- of the literary -- of the writers, which means -- the people who sell you truth.

Well, Dr. Zhivago is a case in point, you see, because he -- Pasternak's story, that he didn't commit the treason, you see, demanded from him by the -- by the powers that be. And I don't think there is anybody in this country who would have done { }. I mean -- in this country, if you -- if the publisher promises you $10,000, you just write the book.

(Uh, excuse me. What are you saying? I understood that he wanted his story revoked, but when he found out that there was disapproval for it, but the publisher wouldn't do it. It's already on the press and he wouldn't give it back. An Italian publisher { }.)

Ja. Oh, you mean in this sense, yes. Well, he would -- they would have just killed him if he had not officially asked for it, but with the tongue in his ch- -- I mean, he was very glad that the Italian publisher didn't give it back. You must understand; there was this double dealing. Wie? You put it there, and then you say, "Not my fault." Don't you see?

He had managed to get the manuscript before the decision came from Moscow, you see, so it is very obvious that his -- the only salvation to play it on double -- to play it double.

You mustn't forget. Pasternak is the greatest Russian. I knew that Pasternak was the greatest Russian poet as far back as 1930. If you look at the American Encyclopedia, published in 1935, Pasternak is treated as the greatest living Russian poet. So I mean that's not a man who comes to celebrity, except in this country where you have only -- you only live by politics, and because he's -- now political case, so -- and the Russians, you see, have sinned against him, you read his book. You never would have read the book otherwise. I mean, nobody reads here any book on literary merit.

So I -- and that's rather hateful part of it. And -- you cheat yourself when you think that you would ever have read the book unless this had hap- -- had happened. It would have bored you stiff. {It is} a very boring book.

It's still a great book. But boring; that doesn't mean { }, that you wouldn't have read it. Have you read it? Who has? Only two? Is that all? Gen-

tlemen, you are outside history.

{ } give you a final story about this importance of the -- the selling of -- of the spiritual goods. In 19- -- 1849, a great Italian, Giu- -- my own predecessor, I would say, in my historical activities. Giuseppe Ferrari was in exile in--from Italy, because there was then the -- the Austrian prince's governing--in Paris. And he saw how Victor Cousin, the man who invented the French school system of today, that this man accepted the position of minister of instruction and faith for the Napoleonic government -- Napoleon III then being installed as the president of the republic, and then later became emperor.

And he wrote a violent pamphlet, "Les Philosophes Salari‚s," the philosophers who can be bought. "Salari‚," you can, you see, be had for a salary. And that is a brilliantly written, eloquent pamphlet about the danger if you have a society in which opinion can be bought. And I went to Dubrovnik, in Yugoslavia this last year to a con- -- international conference on the university today. That's exactly 110 years later after this pamphlet -- this violent pamphlet by this independent and very poor, destitute American ex- -- Italian exile was written in France. And we discussed the university to {death}. There were 23 nations. And there were the Russians, and the Poles, and the Czechs, and the French, and the Norwegians, and the Swedes, and the Americans. And so it was quite an exciting meeting. But very depressing, too.

A French student from Paris got up and said, "We no longer want to be students -- called "students." We no longer want to have stipends, or fellowships," or what they call "bourses" in France, first. "We want to get salaries like wor- -- workers."

So I got up and said, "My dear man. What a tragic story. In 1849, there was just one bought philosopher in France. Now you all want to be bought."

And it silenced him. He didn't know what to -- he had never heard of this brochure, of course, of this pamphlet, you see, written 110 years ag- -- before. And it was most depressing. All the students at this conference had sold out for a quiet life of being paid for, you see, of getting a salary, taking their exams, and that was their relation to the truth. And so it's nothing to be he- -- hoped for more -- I am -- I'm very serious--I know what I'm saying--from the modern university as such. Because it is taken for granted that you can buy and sell the services. And in as far as this is true, there is no {understanding}. The truth has to be stated, regardless, you see, of -- of -- of profit. Because the truth is the beginning of the next benefit, of the next profit. The truth has to be said, because it doesn't fit into the s- -- into the picture as of today. New truth can only be added under the one condition that in the existing frame of reference, you see, it

hasn't yet received its -- its gratification, its recognition. And therefore, there is no salary for it at this moment, because it hasn't yet proven its value. It's unproved value, is it not, truth?

Ja?

(Well, isn't the Soviet Union -- isn't the way they're making education the -- the --.)

Oh, shocking, shocking.

(They give you --.)

Oh, the -- the clown that existed there at this meeting in Dubrovnik, in Yugoslavia, this Russian commissioner. We just laughed at him, because he said of course nothing can be investigated and -- that the government doesn't want to be investigated. And research has to be governed, and directed, and -- and on it went. No, he was just -- well, I thought you -- you would expect that from them, from the Communists, you see. But that a -- a man -- a student from Paris should parrot this, this was the -- { }, so that the whole western world, you see, so to speak, went -- went down in dishonor.

(So they pay you more for better grades, I think.)

Exactly. Oh, pardon. Then there was the question: should you stay in the university after you are -- have graduated? Is there a place for research, for free study? I mean, after all, you are in this position. And -- because they wanted to -- I mean, to deal with the problem of graduate study, you see, post-graduate study. And I wouldn't trust my eyes and my ears. Up went an old Austrian professor from Prague, because the Communis- -- the Czechs are the greatest -- with the most terrible servility, and these were farrer-gone, so to speak, than any other satellite in -- in the whole Russian orbit. They are -- they are really traitors to the whole western idea of freedom. And this old man, perhaps my age, director of the polytechnical institute of Prague, rushed forward when this question was asked, and said, "Of course, why should anybody study unless he's paid in -- paid for, right away? So for every examination, a man gets an increase of 20 percent."

I wouldn't have believed it. Here was a man who had been -- still lived under old Francis Joseph. He was, after all, my age, you see. He had seen the glory of the great Hapsburg empire, you see, with real science, and real truth -- search for truth. And -- and here he rushes, because he had of course his -- his hangman behind him, his commi- -- the commissar, you see, was there, too. And

-- and he -- could have stayed silent. No, you see. {Tacitus}, the old Roman historian, speaks of ruere {in servitia}, who rushed forth into slav- -- slavery, you know, mental slavery. Great sentence.

And so I give you a collection of phrases, you see, for your benefit, to know the importance of the -- these dangers that beset us. "Les Philosophes"--pardon me--"Salari‚s" is I think an important one. I give you the Trahison des Clercs. I gave you "simony." Now, what did I say with --?

(That this one { } rush into slavery.)

Ja, ruere {in servitia}. That -- that's how Tacitus calls the -- the -- the surrender of the whole {Roman} nobility, and -- and literary men under the caesars. The ruere {in servitia} -- rush in for servitude. So that you go even faster than the -- than the -- than the tyrant wants it.

If you read the history of Henry VIII, of course, this happened with the Reformers, I mean. There was no Reformation in England for this reason, because it was all done, you see, from fear that otherwise you would lose your head, under this bloody tyrant, Henry VIII. And they outdid themselves in denouncing each other, and it was exactly a {ruere in servitium}.

My Italian friend, Gaetano Salvemeni, was -- an enemy of Mussolini. He was a professor of history in Florence. And he had a wonderful library. And when he had to leave the country, because he had first been arrested, and been a year in prison, and then he got out--and so he saw that he had to leave the country in order not to be executed--he wrote to the University of Florence that he gave -- donated his beautiful library to them, as a gift. And his colleagues wanted to please Mussolini. So before answering his letter, they telephoned to Rome and said, "Mussolini, confiscate his library. Then we don't have to thank him for the gift." That's ruere in {servitium}. That's McCarthyism. And we had it in this country just exactly in the same spirit.

I had a -- I have a club there, a little gathering, a so-called Ticker Fel- -- Tucker fellowship in -- in -- at Dartmouth, where 35 professors meet. And when Mr. McCarthy came along 10 years ago, with his { }, he thought everybody was full of suspicion, and the FBI came, and everybody was investigated. And before then, when -- in 1950 to Europe, I met this man in the last evening, farewell party, and he said to me, a professor of history--of modern history--and he thinks he's "honest old John." And he said, "You know, I -- now I can tell you, since you are leaving for Europe, I volunteered to inform the FBI about the..."

[tape interruption; end]