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

I think I should start out with two -- ja?

(You asked me last time -- I thought I might bring this up before you start.)

Please.

(Bring up something that I -- I mentioned to you after class about -- intercourse being what it is, maybe we should have made it more like -- it should have been made more like childbirth. Remember, you wanted to discuss it this time? You remember, from last time.)

Isn't this an abbreviation, however? I -- I'm not quite back -- I -- at that time it seemed very pertinent. But at the moment you said it so briefly.

(It is in relation to your statement that so many people marry nowadays for merely -- so -- making social { } -- {approve} their -- their intercourse, and deriving pleasure therefrom, and I thought --.)

Oh ja. Very good. Very good. This helps. Thank you.

It's in connection with this question that I thought I should write -- read to you some critici- -- critic's remark by Dowden, famous Englishman, on Henry IV. You all know Henry IV, I may be sure? Who doesn't know Henry IV? Never?

(No, Sir.)

Well, did you read Henry IX at least?

(Pardon?)

Did you read Henry IX?

(No. I haven't read much Shakespeare.)

(Achoo!)

That was a Falstaffian remark.

We -- you all are in trouble in -- with regard to sex at times. And -- all

young men are. And the qu- -- I told you already before that in this strange situation of a household of energies in humanity, where you have the father-son, daughter-and-mother relation in every one of us, whether he belongs to a household practically or not makes no difference, but whether you at every day have to decide whether you already are responsible in the first front -- forefront, of the first trench, where the battle rages, of life, or whether you are still under some protection and therefore can afford to play, and to fool around, or to wait at least. In this connection, this critic of Shakespeare's Henry IV makes a point, which may help you to understand the ambiguity in which you, and I, and everyone during his life lives. In every one situation, you and I have to decide: is this serious? Is this still just exercise in preparation for the real thing?

He quotes the great line, which I now read for the benefit of our unique student here. When Henry IV soliloquizes about leaving Points and Falstaff, his two boon companions, he says:

"I know you all, and will a while uphold The unyok'd humor of your idleness: Yet herein will I imitate the sun, Who doth permit the base contagious clouds To smother up his beauty from the world, That when he please again to be himself, Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at, By breaking through the foul and ugly mists Of vapors that did seem to strangle him."

That is, Shakespeare is fully aware that there is a preliminary state -- in life, where we do all kind of -- commit all kind of follies. And where in this strange world we hope to be -- not to be taken to task for it. Especially we do hope that nobody will see it. And as it -- pardon me?

(Well, I was going to say for his benefit, better make it clear, it was Henry V who said that, not Henry IV. That was Hal who said it.)

Well, that's Henry V.

(Yeah.)

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. In Henry -- but it's in Henry IV. The play is -- I was just thinking of the play. The person who speaks is -- you are right -- is Henry the future -- Henry V as Prince of Wales.

The preliminary situation and the final situation in us are with us at the same time, and that's for you a little difficult to understand. The critic asks:

"Has Shakespeare erred? Or is it not possible..."

Will you kindly listen to this carefully?

"...to take energetic part in a provisional life, which is known to be provisional, while at the same time a man holds his true self in reserve for the life that is best, and highest, and most real? May not the very consciousness indeed, that such a life is provisional, enable one to give oneself away to it, satisfying its demands with scrupulous care, or with full and free enjoyment, as a man could not, if it were a life which had any chance of engaging his whole personality? And that finally, is it possible to adjust two states of being, one temporary and provisional, the other absolute and final, and to pass freely out of one into the other? Precisely because the one is perfect and indestructible, it does not fear the counter-life. May there not have been passages in Shakespeare's own experience, which authorized him in his attempt to exhibit the successful adjustment of two apparently incoherent lives?"

I think that's your problem. And that's every human being's problem. And it's very comforting. The problem, however, for me, for somebody who tries to teach you, is that you usually counter my statements about the true life with your student phrases, which are in order as long as it is all provisional. You don't like to be quoted for patriotism. You blush, and it's an annoyance. Then you go to Korea and are killed, and -- and know you have to do it.

So it is very difficult to reach you in such a course on reality without your feeling that this isn't all so serious, because that is your privilege at this moment, to say, "I'm in this provisional state, and I don't wish to face these gruesome facts of reality," you see, with finality. But at least you must allow me to draw your attention to this dualism in your own heart and soul, and to make it understand why on the marketplace, b- -- be it a college, or be it the newspapers or the magazines, you will support the provisional statements -- that is, the not-serious description of the facts of life, or the shameless descriptions of the facts of life, or the frolics, or debauchery -- and you will have a hearty laugh for this, because you prefer, of course, as long as necessary to move in this provisional, you see, protected realm which is screened against your own better, or final self. You will find that Hen- -- the Prince Hal in Henry IV is a perfect, normal human being, because he does at that time postpone his own final manhood. You understand?

It seems to me then that my description of -- as a son, has even this important point in its favor, that if you know that although you are independent at this moment -- perhaps you -- already earn enough to support you in college -- may have a scholarship or -- work here at the same time, with some such way of feeling independent from home, you are still with your frolics a son. That is, you still rely on somebody else footing the bill in the last analysis. It hasn't to be in -- in

money, obviously. But somebody else is there to make sure that nothing really goes wrong with the country, or with the order of society. You understand?

Therefore, I thought this is a very wonderful ex- -- description of this dualism: that we live one provisional, and one final life. And in one respect, for example, when you are a counselor in a youth camp, which is a good example of final responsibility at your age, you see, you cannot be provisional, because people have to rely on your really getting up in time, and doing this and that, and your getting drunk at mid- -- after midnight, or carouse with the girls -- girl counselors. That's just impossible to -- you see, because you would thereby break up the -- the life of the camp. On the other hand, in the -- in a quite a different position, you may -- go obviously quite another way and say, "Well, I'm only young once, and let the others watch out for the serious consequences of life. I try to evade them."

As you know, there is promiscuity at a certain age in -- with the youngsters in this country quite common. I think we shouldn't moralize upon this too much. We should understand that this provisional, this preliminary element forms every one act of daily existence, you see, into a different meaning. If you could caught -- catch these youngsters, and enforce that this has relevance for their future, you see, if they were already ripe for it, the thing would be a different matter.

But I think before any cheap moralization, keep in mind this very decisive freedom, that a man has to say, "Well, this is still just a game." If you say, "All life is a game," you destroy yourself and you destroy society. If you say, "Nothing is a game," you are too serious, you see, before you are really ripe for the important step. Do I make myself clear?

I think therefore your morality, gentlemen, is really very much your own. I am not the judge of any one of your frolics, because I do not know in which context this has happened. And there is therefore no course on ethics possible. You must see this, because it -- the difference in any ethical behavior is whether this was meant to be your own self-declaration for good, your self-realization, you see, or whether it was an idling-away of time, where of course, the understanding must be that your boon companions, girls or men, understand it this way. But I think we would not get by with the realities of life, as it is really lived in -- in any -- in our community here, if I would wink at the fact that -- many of you commit all kinds of excesses which they wouldn't in cold blood commit again if this should be made an example for the rest of the world. They would say, "This is to be forgotten. I don't know how -- why I ever did it." And he doesn't know why he ever did it in a -- in a way, you see.

Now, you understand. This is not an invitation to licentiousness. But it is an invitation -- invitation to take your own trouble quite seriously as being divided by this one strict, dividing line, you see. Where there are consequences for other people involved, you have to be strict. Where you can think that everybody has forgotten it the next day, you live in a world -- in a fools' paradise, so to speak. And it seems to me that boys want to be boys. And this fools' paradise is very hard to create. Usually some china is broken. And -- however, I think, that this is meant by the "forgiveness of sins," by the "remission of sins" that these things, if done in the light vein can be forgiven if the man or the woman understand that they have acted as sons and daughters, and not as setting examples or as -- as hurting others.

What I -- I'm trying to say is -- at this moment that here really every hour of your life differs, that you can even not know in the morning when you wake up and are very serious whether you can keep up this idea of definiteness all day long. You may relapse into a juvenile and -- and childish state, and take to playing. I mean, any man -- hardworking man may be just taken by a complete desire -- desire of -- to complete relaxation.

I think the more the society understands these two states, and the more you read then Henry IV and Henry V, the more you will free yourself from any monotony, from any idea that we really can, all the life long, live by the same standards of performance. This is, I think, impossible. According to my observation of life, the people who are one-gauge minds, so to speak, and hearts, are not very much alive.

May I parallel, therefore, this story of a boy's excesses with his companions with the problem of the woman on the other side. We have so far put on this blackboard these four attitudes. All the first 30 years you are spoken to, and the -- Henry IV reigns and speaks with all his policies, with the laws of the realm, to his son, the Prince of Wales. In this same way, we try to speak to you, but it's out of season. The word which I say to you now may only be important in your life 10 years from today. And obviously therefore, I'm speaking to you, but you at this moment have to tell you -- say to yourself, "But I have nobody to speak to. I have no responsibility at this moment. Well, I'll pass the exam, I'll repeat what this man has said, but do I know if I shall ever have to say such a thing to somebody in earnest, you see, in seriousness?" It's all preparation, in other words, for you.

So these past streams of tradition, which at this moment I am trying to bring into you, have at this moment no other meaning than to prepare you to be kept, so to speak, in store -- in cold storage, or in warm storage, as you like it, you see. And one day you may have to make use of them. But obviously, not quite

immediately, because what can you do in a classroom at this moment?

This has been overlooked so often in teaching that -- teaching is a very artificial situation, because it keeps you -- holds you in suspense. You are already willing to listen, yes. But what it all means, you cannot fully at this moment answer for. Your reply has to come much later. If this is so, you understand that your thanks to the tradition of -- the -- founding fathers of Christianity, of the past, is a very relative one. You will answer fully only when you invite people to the same table again, by saying "Please." That is, your own state at this moment is receptive, that even if you are polite to me and say, "Thank you for the course," it's a very conditioned thank-you. Because the full thanks would only come if you would really take it up, you see, and do something with it, obviously. And you will always found -- find that people who thank profusively at the moment are the first to forget it all after five minutes. And the people who do not say a word, and are rather bitter and -- and -- and gruffy and say, "No I don't understand it," may be the ones who understand much better a year from hence, you see. The -- there are always two kinds of books, the ones you give to everybody else: "Oh, you must read this. This is wonderful stuff." And the other book, which you do not mention to anybody, because it's made such a terrible impression on you that it works on you and in you for a hundred years.

Every generation should have such a secret book. I'm afraid you haven't at this moment. Hemingway was this, 20 -- 15 years ago, you know, for your elders. That is, it was a book you didn't give to everybody to read. But there was one page, perhaps in such a book which shocked you. And you said, "You -- this -- is this true? Then everything looks different from what I thought it was."

I have made -- had such an -- give you a small experience of this. As a boy, I was reached by the writings of Nietzsche. And Nietzsche at the time was ra- -- rather little known. He was called an atheist, the antichrist, and many other bad names. And I once gleaned this one sentence -- from his writings. I may have been your age, or younger. And it read, "To love means to spare somebody a shame." That me- -- love means this, to spare somebody to be ashamed -- from being ashamed, { }.

I was shocked. I had never thought of this in my desires, in my juvenile aspirations, in my -- my hopes that girls would be nice to me. This turned it all around. If this was love, I certainly hadn't known what love was, so far. At least not consciously. I think anybody who is in love does behave very much as Nietzsche describes it. But it was a revelation.

Now I am quite sure of one thing, that it was only a few years ago that I was willing to mention this sentence as having had a decisive influence on my

life, you see. All the time between these -- after decades, the word -- word has worked on me and in me, but I think I am quite sure that if I say that I never mentioned it to anybody else in conversation, and yet the word came back to me, and came back to me time and again, all these years. And that's how the important message, gentlemen, is revolving inside yourself. Not by getting it out of your system either by saying profusively "Thank you," or by writing a good review, or by giving the book to others. Mr. Guthrie here made once this wonderful statement that, he said -- The Grapes of Wrath, by Steinbeck, it's forgotten now, but it was a bestseller at one time -- "You give this to Aunt Elizabeth out in California. She ought to read it. She ought to read it." You know, this wonderful feeling that you can improve the morals of other people, which of course you cannot.

And that's a bestseller. But my story of Nietzsche, you see, and my relation to Nietzsche, it has {honed} my whole life. If I am -- now can say that I'm in his line of succession, I can say it only because it has grown on me in such a reluctancy, you see, and with such a small process -- small -- in the small, still hours of the night, so to speak, and not on the marketplace, you see, by waving a flag.

Why do I say this? Well, I say this because your good women are before this great catastrophe: that whereas you may still have a relative easy time to receive the goods of the past, and you may know or feel in -- inside you that there is plenty of time, and one day it will bear inspection and also bear fruit. With our girls, we have made something rather terrible. They are brides. You are suitors. In the true man, in any real, full-grown man, there is a bridal attitude, and a suitor's attitude both. Any artist is a bride, because he receives into his -- his womb his piece of art, his creation, his vision. And he has to bear it in -- with such -- same travail as a woman bears her child. Artistry is terrible. It's painful, as you all know. And you go through these tremendous birth throes, of giving birth to something, some creature, which then leads an independent life from you, as the artist who is forgotten after the painting is up on the wall, with all his agony, and his excesses which enabled him to paint this painting.

With our women, the thing is not so easy, if you today can well understand that in every human being, there are these two states: the bridal state of receptivity; and the suitor state of winning, of courting, of wooing the universe, and especially a girl. Two things are -- have happened that deprive a woman of this security at this moment, of this certainty of having these two roles inside herself. One is the disappearance of the daily work at home. The household is no longer -- you remember what we said about economics -- is no longer a place in which she has to perform. The less she there performs, the better the household, so to speak. If she has a dishwashing machine, that's fine; a was- -- washing

machine, that's still better. And on it goes. That is, the glory of a housewife really today is not to be a housewife, or to minimize her housewifeliness. And the -- so she is sent out into the world into a business, where she is in great danger of becoming one in three. That -- as a bride is an impossible state, because the essence of brid- -- the bridal state is to be unique. You remember that we said of art, it has to be original, because {it's} in the forefront of life.

Everything that points towards the future, gentlemen, has to have this now-or-never, this this-and-nothing-else, her-and-nobody-else. When a girl cannot feel that it is she, and nobody else -- we took -- spoke about this before -- she cannot listen to you. You must speak to her with the full force of her being singled out as unusual. That is the minimum of any declaration of love, that you say to the girl she's unusual. If you say she's usual, she is through with you.

Therefore, gentlemen, at the -- at -- the orig- -- the original bridal state is singularity, or uniqueness. And what a bride makes into a bride is that her soul calls upon my name, with this power that Romeo says, "she or nobody else, because she's the only person who really knows who I am, who calls me," you see. "I'll never find" -- this you can only find once in life. There life begins. Your children, her friends, her -- your in-laws, they may later learn. You can say that to be loved is the experience that somebody has made the beginning with your self-realization. That -- means to be loved. And this you expect from the woman who says "yes" to your proposition that she is the first one who understands who you are. That's why the soul calls upon your name with this singleness of purpose, you see.

You -- take the old fairy tales, "The Sleeping Beauty," and so on, where the prince first is a bear, and later he becomes a prince, you see -- and live happily hereafter. What does this all mean? It's a very simple description of your and my life. At first, we are very craggy, and look very uncomfortable, and not at ease at all and -- you do. And the first person who really takes you up on what you can be, that is the wife of your choosing. And it takes 30 years before the rest of the world comes to the conclusion that she saw in you the person they didn't see in the beginning at all.

So to be loved is to get your entr‚e into self-realization. It's very simple. And it is always the starting point of a history. Anybody who is really loved can get an -- biography. Or he's really hated, this may -- have the same effect. Before, he's just a generality. But as soon as somebody says, "Really, you -- you have spoken with responsibility," and answers, I believe you. I take you up on this. If you do this independently, if you do it with full force, you are somebody. I haven't seen any -- { } like it. How can you do it? How can you dare to -- to attach yourself to me, or to work, or to a career? Anybody who gives you this

recognition puts you on the railroad, so to speak, of life, because from then on, every one step is meaningfully connected with this first discovery. All the others steps are -- as I -- we talked before -- are provisional, preliminary. You meet one man, then the other. They say, "Nice chap," you see, "Good joiner," et cetera. But what does it mean? You forget him again, and you say, "I know all the people in the United States. They are very nice to me. But I -- they don't give me direction." But this one person that suddenly says to you, "Really, this is you," in some form or other -- allows you to connect with this first discovery all the further discoveries which the world has to make about you.

This is very strange to you, this idea. But you must learn that you do not live by yourself, by -- under your own steam, you see. You live by the gradual discoveries the world makes about you, because without their complying with your offer, with your constant, making efforts, if there is not give and take, answer and response, you wouldn't be able to live on.

For example, take a man who wants to enter a society, a club, for example. Well, I know a man in Montreal. He came from Europe. He changed his name into a good, old Scotch name. Even the -- even the name of a whisky firm, so it couldn't be more Scotch. And he tried to enter a not even very exclusive club. He moved Heaven and hell. He went to the governor. He was quite a wealthy man, so he had some means at his disposal. Well, the governor intervened with the club -- what I want to say is, it took the man five years to get in. You can see that these five years were concentrated effort on one thing. After he was in the club, he still had to go on and conquer other -- positions of honor and reputation in Montreal. This was a steppingstone. That's why he wanted it so much. But he had to spend four -- five years of courtship, so to speak, for this one goal.

Obviously, if he had re- -- succeeded in the first year, or in the first halfyear, his biography could have then consisted of more steps of offering. Any one offer to the world which we make therefore, by our desire, our -- even our affection, you see. In this case, it was a true affection. He wanted to become a good Can- -- full -- full-fledged Canadian, so to speak. Any such offer consumes time.

So part of our life is consumed by these offers until they are fulfilled. Anybody who wants to start in a business career will have the same problem. He thinks that he will only be a filing clerk for half a year, and then it takes him three years before he makes himself known that he can do better than being a filing clerk. Well, there you have answer -- offer and response. You offer -- to yourself to your firm. She at -- the firm at first thinks you are not good for anything but being a filing clerk. You have to wait. You have to wait until they give you the pay raise, until they say, "Really, now we have come to know you, and you can do something more important."

In other words, even the most ambitious man who thinks he is self-made, always has to wait for this response, for this answer from the other side, because the answer determines the time schedule. You want to go with the fast train through life. Usually the answers come much later.

I was told today by the German consul who visited here on campus -- yesterday night, has anybody gone to the party? No? In the German club? Well, he told me to- -- this morning a little bit of his life story. He was sent to Geneva in 1927 for half a year for a disarmament conference. It's long ago. And they told him this would last at best half a year. He said, "Of course, as always in those things, I stayed there two years."

Which shows you how life is composed, by three elements: my offer to do something, my readiness to do something; the response from the other side to take you up on this, to acknowledge it; and the time span that elapses between your offer and there -- these people taking you up on it.

So what I mean by the first love of a woman is of course that she enters you upon life by bridging this time gap and saying after a while, "Yes, I'll -- I'll believe this man." And by her "yes," she gives you the first experience of a biographical chapter. Any real chapter of biography is formed by offer, time -- elapse of time -- suspense, and reply. Then the next chapter can begin, because you can make a further offer to the world. And again, time will -- go by. And most people don't see this. You are so logical, and so rational, and so ethical that you think time is not of the essence. And there you overlook therefore this element of response, which -- even the greedy man has to wait for. Even Mr. Rockefeller had to wait until all his unfortunate competitors had died an inglorious death. It took some time before he had beaten them all over the head.

Time is of the essence to understand your and my own life, because during this time, your offer is put to the test whether you really meant it, and whether the world really, you see, needs it. And whether you can cope with it. You always omit this in your picture of life, as being dependent on your intentions, your will, your plans, your purpose. It doesn't at all. You can have 20 purposes, and -- and make -- to the world 27 and 99 offers. If nobody takes you up on it, obviously the whole thing is -- you see, is a dream. It's just juvenile delinquency.

What about the bride? Today she has not in her home this provisional life, which the daughter in the household always has had. Where she fits into a going concern, without being taken to task as having to organize it, or sign responsibly herself for it. The modern secretary, the modern nurse, and the schoolteacher, and the nursery teacher are ramifications of this old situation at home. A daugh-

ter would fill in when the mother was sick. She would fill in when the -- some work had to be done around the house. She had -- could teach the younger children -- help out there, you see. And so on and so forth. These vocations are simply ramifications still of this old attitude of the daughter.

But when you come to the secretary in the factory, and when you come to the woman worker in manual work, it's a little different. This is no longer daughterly protected, this situation. That's a very final and serious situation. And if you see these poor secretaries go in through -- in the subway with -- in all her -- in all her -- their makeup, and into these -- disappear into these big buildings in New York, I think they are really more like hunted deer than like daughters of the human family. They are terribly exposed. This is not a family business, to go in the New York subway.

Well, it's quite serious. They -- they -- I think what these people -- these girls have -- have to achieve is quite tremendous. I think that, however, affects their nervous system. It affects their sense of security of wait -- being able to wait. It makes them of course more restless, and more dissatisfied.

Then you take the component part of their upbringing, the college education. A bride has to be trained in one power, to say "please." To say "please" to the one and only person with whom she will be able to stand it for the rest of her life. That is painful, Sir, that -- this -- this power to say "please" has to be trained into a person by very great strictness, and very great -- many reservations are attached to it. Because the word "please" may seem to you unimportant, but it is an invitation, an introduction into life.

These very two beautiful words, of introducing a man into life by saying, "You are Mr. Smith, I'm very glad to meet you," and the -- following invitation, "Yes, Mr. Smith, you are welcome," these two, simple things, which you treat as trite, are for a girl -- that is -- her decisive choices. Who is the man to whom she is ready to be introduced, and who is the man to whom she is going to be invited? The -- the willingness to be -- have somebody introduced to her is the engagement situation, so to speak, for which she trains. Selectivity can only be exercised if you have more than one who are around you. So you have to allow the world to be introduced to you in numbers, in quantities. A girl, in other words, at the -- her -- in her own home will come to know all her brothers' friends. And that was the old way in which the selection for future marriage was quite reasonably made, you see. You came to know all the friends of the brother, and one of them, you see, was then married. In the old days when the distances were large, and the people -- were scattered in this country, how did it happen? You had a marriage, you had a wedding. On this wedding, you see, people got drunk for three days and three nights. They -- all -- everybody in the family

drove up, you see, and there were plenty of youngsters present as bridesmaids, and best men, and -- and dancers, et cetera. Now in those wedding parties actually, the selection of the next bride usually did happen. Weddings are the best opportunities for getting engaged. Isn't that true? And I think it's perfectly normal. There is an exalted situation. You see already what -- the worst has happened. There is already one, you see, who is in chains -- has been put in chains. So you -- you can size up the whole -- consequences, and on the other hand, the -- the whole milieu is inducive to this -- what is it?

(Well, I have a question -- I don't want to interrupt you in the middle of a sentence. I don't understand this "please" yet, Sir. "Please" in what respect? You mean, a bride has to be trained to say "please." Could you elaborate on that a little more, please? Well, I'm quite sure you don't mean it just by humility -- humbling herself. And yet that's all I can see right now.)

Will you kindly allow me to -- dismiss at this moment this simple word "please." For me, you see, that opens up a whole world. For you, it will not. You -- get stuck with the too-great a simplicity of the term. Let us speak of the two orders in any family -- tradition and invitation. Tradition and invitation. That there is a Christmas party, that's tradition, you see. But that you invite this year to the -- let's say to the Thanksgiving party, some stranger, you see, who has not made his home yet in the United States, who is not even a citizen, that's invitation. Now any living cell of humanity, just as any living cell in -- in the so-called nature, that is, in the simpler forms of life, being alive has to invite and has to hand over. You have to have something -- a nucleus of any cell, that keeps its shape and its functioning. And therefore you have Thanksgiving dinner every year. But you have to invite each year with great selectivity the man who needs the invitation most. That would be the "please." And the tradition that you have a Thanksgiving dinner party would be the "thank you." The old part of any moment of our life is traditional. And the new part is based on the risk of inviting an element of life which before has not been integrated into this tradition. Otherwise, you couldn't live, because we have to grow into new forms of life, because old people die and new people are born.

Therefore, say it "tradition" and "invitation." Then you will understand that it is very dangerous and risky for a girl to invite. Like -- as in the South, they tell you why you wouldn't like your -- daughter to marry a colored boy. So that's how they say you shouldn't invite this man to your house. That's a famous racial problem there, isn't it? It's exactly what I say, this daughter is not allowed to say, "Please come and see us in this house." She isn't, you see, because it means that one day she may be wiling to marry him.

Any invitation means that you are willing to take this man into your

familiarity, into your intimacy, and to your heart, because the heart can be reached by any human being when you give an opportunity. You know when you can always -- expect to be able to win a person's heart? When she allows you to talk to her. Therefore the invitation, or -- and the introduction are the two points at issue here. I say any introduction of a human being to you allows this human being to speak to you. Speech always is most dangerous. It has unknown consequences. We live by persuasion. We live by -- by conversation. This you overlook most days, you see. Nobody is, really, behaving to a person the same way after he has talked to him 24 hours than he did before the 24 hours. Isn't that obvious? While you converse, you are nearer, and nearer, and nearer to this person. Is this good enough for you?

So by in- -- being introduced to a person, you open an infinity of possibilities. Life begins with introduction. The famous Schacht, the director of the Reichsbank in Germany, you may have heard his name in politics. He was acquitted in Nrnberg. And he's a very energetic, ambitious, and disagreeable man. And -- but very able. Well, he had gone to college, and then he had studied economics, as you all do. And -- that hadn't helped him any further than being the librarian in the bank. He had to keep order among all these economic pamphlets there, and magazines. But one Saturday afternoon at 3 o'clock, the president of the bank needed a secretary, and they all had gone home. And he rang the bell, and who turned up? The librarian, and said, "Can I help you, Mr. President? I happen to be here."

"Oh, are you here?"

"Yes, I'm working on our catalog. And that's such a big work, that I thought I'll continue over the weekend."

"Oh, that's fine," said the president. He -- they began talking, and Mis- -- the president found that this Mr. Schacht was a very intelligent boy. Man of 26 at that time, or 27. Well, to make a long story short, that was his introduction to the president of the bank. And three months later, Mr. Schacht came home and said to a friend of mine, "I'm made. I'm invited to the dinner of the -- of the board of directors." And he was made. He was just invited to this dinner, you see. But that was enough. And he knew -- he was able enough to foresee that by being invited to the dinner of the board of directors, from now on, it was -- there was no question in his mind that he -- one day he would end up as president of this bank, which he proceeded to do.

Only to show you that dinner invitations are much more becoming to a man's career than work. Nobody has ever made a career by work. It is understood that it doesn't do any harm to work, you see. It doesn't -- it is useful to

work on the side, you see. But the dinner invitations, they are the conclusive evidence of your success.

Let's have a break here.

[tape interruption]

In former days, when the household was an economy by itself, the girl could work without being overstrained, because it was work she did for herself; it was within the economy of the house. Canning, and washing, and mending, and sewing, and doing all these works, she did without really going really into this -- for -- with more than part of her energies, the daily part, this provisional part. And what a boy does in frolics, a girl did in this homework, in this housework. And it kept her -- protected her. Nobody has in such a home thought that the daughter was responsible for the running for the household, but she fitted in. And this is a great preservation, of course, a great protection. She learned all these things. She could also reserve the right to say to herself, "Well, one day I do different. My mother is just too clumsy in these things --." But she couldn't interfere in the schedule of the household, and she had just to do what she was asked to do. All this is changed, as you know. She is outside the house. She is paid. She is already in serious business early in her life. And then we send her to college.

And let me now point out what happens in the college in a destructive manner. One thing about -- is true about all liberal arts colleges of any description, even the so-called professional schools are not very distinct. She hears a multiplicity of voices and authority. It's a polyphonous world, to say the least. It's even a very confusing world. -- Anyone -- I teach one thing, and Mr. {Gramley} teaches the opposite. So you can take this. That's for men at this moment, because you are -- a suitor. That is, to you, the whole world must serve as a selective ocean, so to speak, from which to bring your jewels and your choices to the bride of your choosing. But the girl has exchanged her father's and her mother's religion, which is one and the same. And if these people are married, it is really one faith that is exhaled, and -- and breathed out, so to speak, and fills her with the tradition of the house. And now suddenly she is in a college where she has 50 professors. And she-professors, by the way, too. And -- very shrieking voices.

And at a moment where her whole training should be for oneness, for the training in deciding when she could really give a full response, a f- -- a complete, total surrender, when, so to speak, the future of the whole race depends on her making the right selection, on listening to 10 men, but saying only to one, "This is he," she is trained with her mind in the opposite direction of having to evaluate, and to respect, and to compromise between 10 different convictions, 10 different religions, 10 different political programs, and 10 different environments which

she -- are represented, so to speak, in these 10 different teachers.

I'm convinced, gentlemen, that in a purely truthful society, that is, given really to an investigation of the truth about you and me, and our girls, mothers, and brides, we would find that a woman is polytheistic, or polyphonous, or multiform, or however you call it, later at -- in life than you are. That is, the same mentality which you develop between 18 and 25, that you want to know everything and then to -- to say, "This is -- has some good in it," and "This has some good in it," and "This has some good in it," comes to any woman after 40. Her years of change would be filled with much more energy if at that time we would give them -- the strongest intellectual food. Then you can expose a women to all the difficulties of opposite ideas, which you are exposed to now. But by imitating -- no, you forgive me. This is a difficult line of thought, and I have tried to -- to say it at all, you see. And I don't know yet if I succeed.

This changes the whole reality about the getting together of two elements of life. The woman is there in any marriage to hold onto the firm tradition, and not to sacrifice any value that has been experienced by the race. You wouldn't expect to have a real Christmas in a home in which the woman doesn't care, and the man alone tries to uphold the tradition of Christmas. There won't be much Christmas very soon. She'll do the duties. She'll go get some money and get some presents.

I have this case in our town where the old mother of the couple says, "Well, Christmas means so much to me. That's why I cannot celebrate it with my son and his wife, because the -- daughter-in-law is a very nice woman, but a professional woman, and just is completely dedicated to the drive," you see, "of action in business." She's a quite -- has a -- quite an important position in the state. And -- so it breaks this -- this mother's heart to see the Christmas, you see, changed into a mere routine. Everybody gets something. That's by and large the story. That's not Christmas. Because the woman does it only from a sense of {duty} -- the younger one, you see, and not from feeling that she thereby dignifies her home, that she has this privilege of keeping Christmas as an institution going, as though it was celebrated for the first time.

We can only do these things with conviction, gentlemen, which we would do if nobody else did them, you see. That's the test. And a girl in the wilderness -- take an -- English -- British girl, marrying a man in the Foreign Service, or a -- an -- a former -- somebody who migrated either to Canada or the United States. Obviously in this girl there was vested the whole authority of declaring which holidays, and which weekdays, which kind of routines on weekdays, and the treatment of the servants, and the treatment of the -- of the animals, and the treatment of the windows, and the treatment of the furniture had to be pre-

served. And you have heard these stories, how faithful they are even to the menu, you see. On Thursday -- you had cabbage. And on -- on Friday, you had cauliflowers.

And they tell the famous story of such a rich merchant's wife, who came out in the kitchen and said, "What weekday is today?" And the -- they were very rich people. And she had many servants. And she had this special cook and -- did nothing but the cooking. And the cook said, "It's Thursday."

And the woman said, "Oh, my, then we have to have cabbage." And the question has never been answered, why she -- they had to be ca- -- have cabbage. If she had said they -- "We won't have cabbage," you see, it wouldn't have been cabbage. But in the old Calvinistic tradition, you didn't bother with the menu for the week -- the weekdays. Every day had its own dish. And it would have been luxury, you see, and dissipation if you, by the whim of your mind, had suddenly said, "Thursday? Oh, we have something -- caviar." You see.

You must see in your own environment how much this sacred belief, that only they uphold the tradition, and there is no book to uphold, no Emily Post, you see, but it's this one good woman who alone does it. And you see this, then you tremble what we are doing today. We are inviting the girls, you see, to make no distinction, not to say one thing is better than the other, but to say they are all good. Which means that nothing is good or bad, you see. It makes no difference. So they finally have only some tin cans, which they open in a hurry, leave on the ta- -- them on the table and say, "Nicky, when you come home, you will find the bread, and butter in the refrigerator," you see. "I have gone to a concert." That's how and -- by and large millions of people have to live today.

Now if you increase this by the mental stress on the girl's mind that there are an infinite number of religions, an infinite number of arts, an infinite number of values, you see, she of course begins to be broken up into fragments in her own heart. She is no longer convinced that this marriage, which she -- upon which she is to enter is the only one.

I have heard nice, good girls say to me, "Well, I am engaged. I think he's wonderful. But will it last?" Now I don't think you can marry with such an idea in your mind: will it last? You see. If anybody already sees the end of a story threatening, then something has gone wrong, obviously. This is not rapture. This is not ecstasy. This is certainly not Romeo and Juliet. No soul calling on this man's name, you see. But a very little, trembling bird fluttering and say, "I'll try. I'll try." But no conviction. It's all experimental.

In this sense, gentlemen -- not you so much, but your girls -- are led to

believe that even marriage is experimental, because it doesn't -- the choice come -- doesn't come after maturing, and after having learned how to be one, and singular, and unique in your household, where you take all the values of your parents for granted. Instead you are told that your father is a monster, and your mother is a whore, and you would like to be both. Well, you begin to doubt everything. Once you don't see the sacred union of your parents as the first thing, and husband and wife as poles inside this ellipse, once you try to really segregate your mother as a separate unit from your father, you are already disrupting your own power to form this next unit.

Only -- most of you have, I think, in your childhood, at least, experienced this complete unity, that -- for example, in my family -- our family, it was this way, that my parents wished something to be -- to see happen, then my mother would tell us. And my father had spoken it over -- with her. The -- the eloquent part in the family towards the children was the mother. Also the same way, if we wanted something, we talked -- told our mother. And she reported back that the parents had decided it could be done or couldn't be done. Now it may be in other families a -- a different agent. But obviously the parents have always, until I was 18 years old, have never entertained one moment the idea that they were not a complete unit with regard to me.

And this solves your whole analytical problem. Wherever such a -- such a union exists, the outside members of this union receive their orders from this body politic called "a married couple." All this is broken up today. A woman today can retain her statehood in Europe -- her cit- -- citizenship. In Switzerland, when you marry -- a Swiss marries an American, she can remain a Swiss citizen and become an American, which is a recognition that she is broken up into two parts, you see. When war wokes -- breaks out, she is on two sides, so to speak, because people no longer assume that marriage makes for union, complete surrender. Here, {Emil Ruepp} in town, as you know, had to wait 10 years for his bride, for Mrs. {Ruepp}. She was retained in England as a potential Nazi, which is very witty, because she had fled the country for his sake. And -- and they couldn't get married. Well, a hundred years ago, everybody would have surrendered to two lovers, and would -- they would have sent her with flying colors to this country, and paid the ticket, you see, because people had then respect for marriage. They would -- they said that two people who -- who stick it out are one, and you cannot separate them. But what do we do today, in every -- ways? We treat these people as two individuals, and we say, "They cannot coalesce into one, in unity." And this all comes, I think, from the treatment of a -- woman's biography, as having to follow the same steps of complete experimental attitude of Prince Hal, and the Prince of Wales, and a Dartmouth student, also for girls.

To give you proof of this -- that this is not an invention of mine, in all

languages, the word for "bride" is ambiguous. It means the girl at the moment of deciding and -- in the first year of married life, before she is a mother. "Bride" therefore has the twofold meaning, you see, of being already married, and having still her -- her bridal beauty with her, or being just before the brink. So the next step for a girl is to become a mother. And it is only after she has become a mother that she will call her a "housewife."

Now you take the boy who is a suitor. When he gets married, he is by no means a father. If he is really honest with himself, he -- only becomes a father when his children are -- 10 or 12 years old. Before, he is a perambulator carrier. That is, he is an agent of the mother. I mean, he's the -- the wet-nurse and the helper. But he's purely feminine, in regard to his children -- with regard to his children. He becomes a father when his wife becomes a housewife. But here he becomes -- in the first { }, he becomes a husband. Woe to the family if he doesn't become a husband. They will very soon not have enough to live on.

So the sequence, gentlemen, is: bridegroom -- you can put this in, "bridegroom," instead of "suitor," because that's a more familiar word -- husband, father. That's the sequence, and { } separated by a whole decade. Ten years you are a husband without becoming a father. And if it is a childless marriage, you remain a husband and never become a father. However, this is not true in any normal marriage, here, because the first transformation a woman experiences in her home is that she becomes a mother. And then, in virtue of being a mother, she has to develop the housewifish qualities which make her wrinkly, and -- and tire her out, and are, so to speak, only the environment around her being the mother of the house. She takes up these chores then later. But the father has to go -- the husband has to go out right away and make a living and get the -- back the wherewithal.

Once you see this strange, disproportion or difference, you will understand what's right and what's wrong with the suffragettes. The suffragette movement, the women voters' movement, the rights for the equality of women, as embedded now in most laws we have, do take cognizance of the fact that the home economy has been replaced by a worldwide economy, that all the acts of production and consumption are now staged in an industrial process, and that no one house can boast of being a center of production. House and factory are distinct. We produce in factories and we breed in homes.

Therefore the unity of -- between production and family raising is definitely over. And therefore, I am all for the recognition by society that a daughter today is not a daughter of any one family in economic respect, but the daughter of humanity, the daughter of society. She, with her daughterly faculties, keeps together most companies. What would -- a -- any president at any company do

without the secretary? You see. Very often she is much more important than the president. She -- she has just to avoid his pitfalls, you see, from ruining the company.

You must know such secretaries. They are just indispensable. They are the daughters exactly in the same sense as the daughters in the family. That's why you -- there is nothing wrong about this relation. It's a very beautiful relation. It's -- usually is not, as you know, any sexual relation, but it's one of great confidence as to a child of the family. And this child of the family is able to substitute, and to cover up, and to make connections, and to make for peace in -- in a way as any daughter will when a quarrel in the family occurs. Just by being there, she usually is able to soothe over the conflict between father and sons, especially.

This has happened. And that's the positive side of the anci- -- emancipation of women. But intellectually, gentlemen, this has just been imitated now by education, instead of being supplemented by education. And the supplementation of educa- -- the educational process cannot be that the bride is now just made into a secretary, and then is asked to change over from a secretary into -- into a mother. Where is there tradition? She can't get from the filing index in her office any sense of celebration, any sense of religion, any sense of -- of church, or belonging, or making a home. And so she has to write to Emily Post, and she is desperate for all these books which tell her about homely cooking, or cookly homing.

And I do think you have to ponder over this. The only way in which you in you and -- your generation will be able to reestablish the primordial situation between husband and wife is that you recognize this sequence. You must first of all be prepared to be very selective. Your, however, own faith must give to your wife the sense of security. You cannot be a boy when you get married. You must have made up your mind on the important things.

I told you the story of this boy who -- married in our house. And after a week the wife dismissed us from his friendship and her friendship, of course. Well, this boy is wrecked for the rest of his life. There was a moment where he had to stand upright and to say, "Sorry, my dear. You may not be able to stomach this now, but I am unable, without losing face with you, you see, to give up a -- a relation on which our -- after all, our wedding has been based. And our getting married. I will not sacrifice this home." That was not in my interest or my wife's interest. But it was in his interest, and his wife's interest that he should have said so, you see. Because that was the moment where he -- had to stand for singleness, for the reality that their life -- was unique enough to respect all the chapters out of which it was composed.

I have, in all these experiences here at Dartmouth, seen two men -- virile enough to insist that their wives took me in to their home, or friendship, although I had a strong influence on their husband. Where their husbands had the guts to say, "But I'm proud of this relation. This means something in my life. And that's no reason for jealousy. It's a -- quite a different relation. It's the relation between student and teacher. And that's a serious relation. And if I should decapitate and uproot this relation, I'm no longer the man who deserves your respect, because I have capitulated with something higher in my life before a whim of your nerves. You are neurotic. You are weak. You are jealous," which is vegetab- -- as a -- for a vegetable quite right, for your organic being. "These nerves are not very serious. They are part of our -- of our physical equipment. But in the higher realm of history, of fate, of destiny, this man has enabled me to choose you. I have chosen you because of the merits of my relation to him."

I -- in one case, it was actually true that I -- we had -- I had opened her eyes to this man's values. And still she said she -- I had lent him a book of mine. It was a unique copy. And they went together in the train, and she took open the window and threw the book out. And then she wrote to me, "You must understand that I want to scratch out your eyes."

I said, "I didn't."

And she said, "But yes. I am jealous."

Now this is the American situation very much in general today, gentlemen. And you cannot sacrifice your important decisions and choices to such whims. The woman will not thank you for it. She will run after strange gods some years after this -- your sacrifice. She will know that you surrender always. So next time, she will herself become Christian Science, or she we will go -- Mormonic, or she -- I don't know. They may have a sect where you have -- can have more than one man. Why not? And -- that's probably the next sect, you see, after the Mormons. And she will say, "But my dear man, I am accustomed to -- to your doing my bidding. You sacrificed this friend. You sacrificed that friend. Now please, you also sacrifice your convictions." And on it goes. This is very serious.

For the success of your marriage, gentlemen, if you think that by simple surrender you can establish peace and unity, you are quite wrong. In unity, it's as in a melting pot. They always talk here in this country about the melting pot, but I don't see it. Because in a melting pot, there is much hissing; there is much force. The two elements must -- enter it whole. They can't keep one element of their being back, and behind. Then otherwise it's not a crucible. It's just a purposive stretching-out of your hand tentatively to the woman across and

saying, "Well, in as far as our hands meet, we shall meet," you see. "But here, in the back of my mind, I have all possible reservations," or fears, or anxieties, or what-not.

So, this will happen to all of you, this problem. And by the measure of this decision, your marriage will stand and fall, because marriage is real unity and not fictitious unity. It isn't kindness, but it is fusion. And fusion -- you just look at two metals. Any alloy you want to produce can only be begotten in the white heat of passion. You cannot omit or leave behind a real part of your life's truth, of your life's values, of your life's experiences, of the -- affirmations which you had to make in order just to survive. And I mention my -- person, because that's my own experience. It can just as well be your religion. It can just as well be your politics. I mean, obviously today, Roman Catholics and Protestants intermarry in grea- -- large numbers. Obviously the solution for such a marriage is not that one husband or one wife -- the wife or the husband -- simple become fictitiously members of the opposite church. But your marriage is a much larger arc of two faiths. It is -- I know many marriages, and you may know too, where open part is -- a practicing Catholic, and the other is an Episcopalian, or is an agnostic, or what-not. And the beauty of the marriage is of course in the tension between these two visible incarnations. It may not be the -- the mo- -- simplest solution, but it is probably the most outstanding, the most -- greatest excellency in such a marriage, where your love can even contain two different articulations of the same life force, and your faith in the future -- and your destiny.

But this means to me to give up the spirit in the very beginning, when the woman simply says, "Well, of course, you are Episcopalian; I'll become an Episcopalian," or the husband says, "You are Roman Catholic; I'll become a Roman Catholic so that we may have this wonderful veil -- veiling ceremony in church." Don't sell out for the wedding ceremony, please. Many people do this. It's so beautiful to have the church service that you'll do anything, you see.

I know one couple. I mean, they were married the same day first by a rabbi, and then by the minister, because they wanted to have -- to satisfy the whole family. You can't go through two ceremonies without devaluating both of them.

But that is today the lack of belief that one day there will be complete union. Just begin with some disagreements left to your solution, but know that the great task is to reach an agreement on these. And don't try to be so nice and polite to say, "There are no differences at this moment," you see. I think that isn't the point at all. But the holding back, and the -- the deliberate capitulation of one side before the other leads to all these nervous strains which you have in such marriages.

You know the story of the car, you see, "Do- -- won't you drive?"

"No, you will drive," you see. And the person who didn't want to drive drives; and the person who did want to drive doesn't drive.