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

[Opening remarks missing]

... of the sciences. And I tried to show you last time -- it was, I think, on Friday -- that there had to be the three ages present in the construction of a university, of an institution of higher learning.

Gentlemen, when you go to school, and you only go to school, and you call this even a class -- you don't call it a real lecture -- and you say, "This is school," then you always think that mankind is divided in two generations: the adult and the children. And you are somewhere in between. And you think that the older people teach the young. That is all right for the schools of a nation. And since we live in an era of blind nationalism, most people like you think that this is what a school is about: to teach the young something the old don't know.

But that isn't the whole story of the institutions of higher learning and we wouldn't have to bother about schools in a -- in the Western world if there hadn't been more to it than just schools, where children read -- learned the three Rs. Mothers and fathers can teach that just as well.

Gentlemen, obviously what we call a system of education today always is open to the future, and it implies that the child must be exposed to certain processes, which at the same time go on in grownup society, and which the parents or the children otherwise would not be -- become acquainted with. That is, gentlemen, there are three generations present in ed- -- institutions of higher education. Three generations. You remember, we had the three as the priest, as the fighter, and as the artist; or as the elder, and the adult, and the child.

Now gentlemen, you live in a dialectic, in a dualistic, in a rational society. Everything to you is simple. That which isn't black is white; and that which isn't lust is pain; and you always think it's either-or. Oh, gentlemen, if life was so simple! Mankind is much more complicated. It is -- cons- -- consists of at least three generations present at any one moment. And that's what I tried to show you in the 10 commandments of education. And now we have tried to -- are trying to tell you, which you do not know, which you want to ignore, and for what reason education today is a -- some -- simply a racket today, in America, the seventh big racket. I don't know which the six others are. But with the press, and television, and advertising, it goes very well together. It's a racket because nobody knows which direction it has to take. It's just a habit. If you look around what this country spends on education, it is absolutely, you see, dogmatically bound that education is something wonderful. And then you come to these

people in education, including New Testament students. You say, "But we are all without any dogma. We are all undogmatic."

Now, there you have the first abstruseness of this country. You see, you are absolutely dogmatic that education is good. But then you come -- I talk to -- to any one of you and you say, "Oh, I have no dogma. I'm open-minded." But gentlemen, why then isn't education perhaps bad? Why is education good? Isn't it a strange dogma in which you all -- to which you all belong? You don't belong to a church, but you belong to education. "Churches are bad; they are narrowminded; they are bigot," the -- many people among you say. But "education is always good."

Well, gentlemen, you can only be educated into a church. There is no other education. So if there is -- if the churches are bad, because they are bigoted and dogmatic, then you are certainly in a strange process. You are in a headless process, an education without direction, without aim and purpose, just for the purpose of entertaining you for the first 25 years of your life and getting you off your parents' hands, and making the -- your poor mother go to work, so that she can spend -- you can spend all the money during your educational process. That's why so many mothers have to go into business, because their children have to get the higher education, including the girls at Smith College. Is this a higher education they get there from you?

But gentlemen, you don't even give it a thought. You are in the midst of the greatest corruption there is -- has ever been in the world: a -- a waste of decades of life on a process called "education," which has no head, no direction, no purpose, no meaning, no values, no dogma, no faith; and this is all wonderful.

Gentlemen, higher education, or the institutions of higher learning have escaped this tremendous corruption by making present in their processes what I have tried to tell you in the definition of a university. The three facts of life, gentlemen, that there has to be unity in the necessary, there has to be liberty in the dubious, and there has to be charity in all -- you remember? I bring back what I tried to develop. But gentlemen, this is not pious phrasing. This means the presence of the child, the adult, the fighter, and the elder in every one of us. Because if you have to have charity, you have to act like a priest. If you have to have doubts -- in liberty for your doubts, you have to act as a fighter. And if you have to have faith, and obedience, and loyalty, you have to be like a child: trusting, and dogmatic, and believing in the dogma proposed to you by society.

And once you begin to think through this great sentence of St. Augustine, gentlemen, that we live by unity in the necessary, by liberty in the dubious, and by charity in all -- in both the dubious and the necessary -- you begin to discover

the secret of man's trinity.

Today people laugh at the Trinity. They think, "Oh, God is my own idea." Very nice idea. "God is a supreme being." Somebody here said in class -- after class to me, "Why isn't God just infinity?" Because -- this asinine character of a student's brain at least God has escaped from, in human tradition, gentlemen. God is not your idea. God is the power that makes me speak at this moment, and that makes you listen, and that makes us understand each other. And that's infinity? Isn't it more personal than you and I? What are we, this piece of dirt, gentlemen? The only person there is, is God. And you don't know what a person is, except through Him. You are not a person. I'm not a person. We are little -- little apes without Him.

But you believe that you are a person, a personality, you even say, of some successful executive who gets $20,000 a year. That you call a "personality." But God is "infinity"; God is "an idea"; God is "a concept." Gentlemen, how can you have an institution of higher learning? How can the stream of the divine spirit go through the ages? How can Dartmouth College exist in 1770? It has nothing to mold you into some frame of ref- -- into some person -- personal life, so that you are little better than -- when you leave Dartmouth than you came here.

Now, what is this "better," gentlemen? What is this "higher"? What is this "more" in education? Certainly it is nothing you contribute. You receive it here. If you brought it here, you wouldn't have to come here to have it.

But the megalomania of your generation is total. I mean, you really think that you are human beings per se. Without your father, without the spirit of -- of -- of -- of the Christian era, without any background, and without the institutions which mold you, gentlemen. You go to -- school and say, "What do you have to offer?" instead of asking, "Would you be kind enough to allow me to enter and to become a human being?"

Well, what I'm trying to say is, gentlemen, the educa- -- institutions of higher learning can be lost in every civilization. And I told you that at this moment, this country has no institutions of higher learning. It has just big freightyards of knowledge. But knowledge is not education, because knowledge cannot decide what is necessary, what is dubious, and what is the charity between Mr. Oppenheimer and Mr. McCarthy.

And we have to know this, gentlemen. And it has to be learned in every hour of life again. We never know it as knowledge -- goes, you see. Knowledge you can consult in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but the relation of the three generations of your mentality, of the child in you, of the priest in you, and of the fighter

in you, you have to re-discover with every breath of life every morning, because it is different every day. The solution of the problem which besets the modern society, gentlemen, or which besets society since the first days of Adam, presents itself in a different manner every day. That which is dubious, you see, differs every day.

It is -- didn't seem dubious 50 years ago that science should be public. At this moment, it's a deep secret. As you know, the scientists are all locked up behind -- lock and key, because the -- the United States thinks they couldn't survive if the science would be publicized. Now, isn't that strange, that these things can change from day to day? But this is with everything, gentlemen.

You have been allowed to go into -- into schools, gentlemen, away from home under the assumption that morality, and religion, and the spirit is taught you at home, and that we have to brush up on your languages, and on your technical knowledge, on your mathematics, and physics. Now what has happened in the last 50 years, gentlemen? The homes have ex- -- ceased to function. That is, everything you s- -- so far, down to 1900 received at home -- the English language, the poetry, the admiration for Shakespeare, the -- the power to speak and write poetry, the interest in making love in a poetical and an imaginative way, the power to -- to inherit enough to re- -- lead your own life, and your own economy, to learn a real, special profession so well, you see, that you could {make} up an independent farm or an independent business -- all this has vanished from the surface of the earth. You live in apartment-homes in -- in house- -- in cities. You never see your parents work. They go elsewhere, where they do the typing or the telephoning. You never see how they are cheated or do cheat.

So you don't know what life is all about. You go to high schools. You see cops. And -- and that's the most of an adult you can ever come to know. Your teachers don't -- can't -- aren't allowed to act like adults. They have to be like children -- as you are. So you never meet adult people in life, for the first 20 years of your life, in action. You don't.

And now we have this college system, gentlemen, which was invented in order to add to your experience of a sound and full homel- -- community life, you see, and to act to you a little of the Graces, and the Muses, and the spices of life -- history and -- and -- classical civilization. Now what shall we do, gentlemen? You have learned A from B. You think that motherly love is -- is -- is an obsession, is a psy- -- psychoanalytic complex. You are -- haven't learned to conquer jealousy. You haven't conquered anything. You don't know what friendship is. You are only chummy with 200 boys at school luncheon. That you call "friendship." You never have a friend.

Now, all the -- whole college, look even at Mr. {Hovey's} poetry -- is still -- was still based on the assumption that all the better powers of our life -- of your childhood would be learned elsewhere, and that the education -- institution of learning would just add, as I said, some instruction, some languages, some facts. As you well know, today a boy goes to college to learn how to live. And {usually} he doesn't, but at least he tries.

Therefore, our whole curriculum is changed. We don't teach you Latin and Greek. Do you think that's accidental? It makes no sense to teach you Latin and Greek, you see, because you don't know English. You know perhaps basic English. That is no English. You can telephone, but can you write a poem?

And so gentlemen, only to show you that higher education is the power to discover what is lacking in the equilibrium of educa- -- education at any one moment. At this moment, you are a student of Dartmouth if you help us to discover the next curriculum. If you understand that you are the guinea pigs, because you receive an inadequate education for the changes of the times, you see, because everything is different, because the homes no longer furnish this college with educated children. The -- half of the -- children are -- come from broken-up families, and from psychoanalyzed families -- that is, from broken-up, from destroyed, cauterized remnants of -- of the old tradition.

How many of you come from an integrated church life? Perhaps you go to Sunday school, but do your parents go, too? Most -- most chil- -- parents -- the houses today are not just divorced between husband and wife. Much worse is the fact that the parents go one way, and the children are sent to Sunday school the other way. Every child knows very well if the parents have one religion, and ask the child to have the opposite religion. This is one of the canker of our society, you see, that the parents and the children are expected to have two different religions. So that's a -- of course, there is no religion, then; it's a joke. It's diabolical.

Now with all this diabolical background, you come here to Dartmouth, and you wish now to receive an education. Gentlemen, if there was just a school system, we would go on -- be able to go on and teach you the three Rs, because there would be just adults and { }. But gentlemen, the priest, the elder -- you remember what we said of Newman, and Plato, and -- and John Quincy Adams -- is the man who at any one moment has to decide between the fighter and the child, between the adult and the {children}. He has to say who's right and who's wrong, and in what respect, you see.

And that is very revolutionary, gentlemen. The institutions of higher learning, gentlemen, abolish the mere sequence of time from old to new. No responsible

educator can say something is good because it is new, and he cannot say something is good because it is old. He cannot say that the class of '54 thinks in this manner, therefore that's what it is. And the class of '36 in this manner, so we have to acquiesce and satisfy the alumni. Otherwise, we don't get the Alumni Fund.

Gentlemen, neither the Alumni Fund nor your interest in satisfaction is any reason for determining the direction of education. But you think that is. You really think that the fact that you elect my course is a reason for my giving the course in such a way that more will elect the course. Gentlemen, I probably should give a course in such a way that less and less -- fewer pupils -- students get the course -- take the course. That wouldn't be any way proof that is a poor course. Isn't that clear? It's perhaps the right -- the better course, which is difficult for you to -- to find access to and to approve of. It's no reason why I should have 200 students in this course. Perhaps I only should have five.

There you see the real dilemma, gentlemen, of higher education. Take it down, gentlemen. The institutions of higher learning conquer the automatism of time. You have two -- choices, gentlemen, in higher education -- in all -- in all thinking: the old is good and the young are wrong. And you have the opposite: the young are wrong- -- right, you see, and the old is bad. Now, we live today in a time where more or less it's taken for granted that the children are right and the parents are wrong. And a hundred years ago, of course was the other way around: the parents were right, and the young were wrong.

Now both are asinine statements. They are equally stupid. But how inveterate they are, gentlemen, I have to give you an example. My friend {Bartlett}, here, the professor in biography, once asked one of his students to read up on St. Augustine. St. Augustine, the man whom -- from whom I have quoted this great sentence, you see, how to rise above mere time: that we can only do this if we have unity in the necessary through all the ages; liberty in all the dubious things through all the ages; and the charity in all times. Now this man, St. Augustine, was born, I think, in 354 B. -- A.D., and he died in 428 of our era. That's a long time ago.

And so this student, who was a senior at Dartmouth, and expected to be made a senior fellow for his great understanding, wrote the following outburst: "Here I am a senior in Dartmouth College" -- year of the Lord 1940 -- "and I already think that the boys of 1917 were very stupid because they were sold down the river and had to go to war," in the First World War. "And I prize myself far superior -- appraise myself far superior to them. And since I think this way, with regard to people 23 years my elders, how can I be expected to read what this old man, St. Augustine, wrote, who died in 428?"

Now don't laugh, gentlemen. That's by and large your real conviction. You cannot explain why Jesus is of any interest to you. He lived 1900 years ago, and according to your deepest dogma, that was a time of superstition and vanity, and it's long gone. And you cannot explain why you should ever listen to anything He said. It's un-understandable. You even think of your father that he's obsolete. You -- behave just like this student.

So gentlemen, the whole -- the whole situation in college is really very exciting, because you never are brought up short -- face to face with your mo- -- deepest, inner conflict, that you actually believe that later is better, and that everything we try to teach you is obviously in conflict with this; because why should you go to Henry IV? Shakespeare died at least in 1616. Now these were the days of the religious wars. You have neither religion nor interest in religious wars. You just go to war for -- for pieces of land, or bombs, or some such superfluous reason. You don't go for -- to war for a decent reason. They did. They did -- they fought for something that was worth it. But you think the opposite. You think they were fools. They think you are knaves, because you only fight for things that aren't worth fighting.

But there is this conflict in you, gentlemen. Please, I invite you today to give some consideration to your own dilemma. Do you believe that any man who has lived before 1900 is more stupid than you? In fact, you do believe this. And it is best that you first admit it to yourself and say, "Yes, instinctively I do. I think he's obsolete." Then you have to dig into this and try to find out in how far you believe it. You probably believe it with regard to his choice of an automobile. He probably would make the wrong choice; and in other respects, too.

But you have to -- very -- in -- if you are in a great hurry, gentlemen, you have to determine that this isn't true in every respect, that there are certain ways, and choices, and decisions in which people were much wiser than you are, much greater, and much more important, and much more useful to consult today than you care to admit in the first place. I would -- propose to you, gentlemen, if you analyze your own mentality, to admit that you live in a two-chapter compar- -- mentality, that your first reaction is "That is old, therefore it is obsolete," and that it takes an effort of your imagination to say, "Well, this is not the whole story, because I have seen myself do stupidly, although I am so much younger than my father."

So since you know that you are also apt to be stupid, despite the fact that you live in this advanced age and time, there comes this great {quest}, gentlemen: not one of us is ever able to escape this dilemma by instinct either to say this is good, because it is proven, you see, and tested by time; or it is good, because it's the latest invention. These are two great temptations, gentlemen. And they are

both below -- beneath your human dignity. Throw it off.

Gentlemen, nothing is good or evil because it is new or old. If you could find the -- this sentence to be true, gentlemen, you would for the first time become free agents of your choices, because then you could choose something very old as the latest news, as the best news, you see. And you could reject something despite the fact that it is the latest news -- the latest discovery. As long as you do not this, you are the servant and the slave of time -- of the time process. You are just -- as Shakespeare calls it, you are the subjects. "We are time's subjects," he say- -- let's his -- {his prince} say. We are time's subjects.

And therefore, in -- in -- in -- if you look at the -- Shakespeare's drama, the hell of politics there drags all these people down to death and to the abyss. Only in comedy is Shakespeare out of the time-stream. But his time is tragic, because he who is a slave of time, gentlemen, must be ruined by time. All his kings and all his queens go to pieces. The hell of politics, gentlemen, that is your hell. The hell of politics, because in politics, gentlemen, time is the master. And although you don't know it, and you may say you are not interested in elections, with regard to your personal tastes, you are the time's slaves.

I have a neighbor who worked 70 -- 84 hours a week. He has no Sunday. He'll work 12 hours a day. He of course is not organized. He takes care of animals seven days a week, 12 hours. He lived with his family. It's -- this is a scandalous situation. But you have in this country all this contrast, you see. You have here unionized labor, where people work 40 hours, and here you have a man who works in the same town 84 hours.

Well, he fell out with his children when they grew up. And he had to build himself a little cabin next to his own home. Left the house to his wife and children, in their -- there you see a typical development: the younger are always in the right, so the old man was left stranded. So he built himself a little shack next to them. The only thing he has is television. So he has 84 hours a day -- a day wor- -- hours of work and television. And that's the symbol of his liberty: to follow the political nonsense by television. And that gives him a feeling a being a human being. Now this man is really in hell, because the only moment off he has is that he is allowed to participate in the nonsense of the times.

But that's very typical. I think it's a tremendous story, this man, Mr. {Wiley}, Sr., in my town. I -- it is an outstanding example of the double way in which the human candle today is burning itself up. He's burning himself up with work, and he's burning himself up, you see, by being a nonentity, by being just a drop in the bucket of the political sensationalism of the time, you see. And of course, who is he? You see, he pays the television people his good money, you see, in

order to be dragged down to the -- to the gutter with the whole, that what comes over television, which isn't worth looking at, anyway, by -- even by a man with much time, but let alone by a man who is so tired that when he comes home, you see, the only thing is that he looks at this television and, so to speak, they substitute life for him. That's what they do. Vicarious living, this poor man is, all -- all told, you see. Twelve hours a day, he is a cog on the wheel with his minks, and -- and the rest, he can open -- keep his eyes open. Somebody has lived in -- instead of him, an -- an -- worthy life.

There you see, gentlemen, what the superstition that rid -- governs you has done to you. You believe in education, but you don't know the first condition of education. Education, gentlemen, is the process by which -- which man rises above his own time, by which the fact that something is of his own time ceases to make law for him. The uneducated person cannot escape the pressures of his own time. He's molded by his own time. You, gentlemen, could, if you still would go to a liberal arts college, rise above your own time.

But this has ceased to function, gentlemen, since there were only 30 students in the performance of Henry IV, Second Part, the other day. That is, 3,000 Dartmouth students were not willing to go to three performances of Henry IV, Second Part.

Now if you don't read -- this liberal arts college, gentlemen, this instrument of higher education, this institution by which people are weaned from this maelstrom of their own time, was based on two foundations: the Bible and the classics. And one went to the school in order to read Shakespeare, or for that matter, Homer -- which was the sa- -- the same, you see -- and the Bible. You neither read the Bible nor the classics. You don't go to Shakespeare, nor to chapel, gentlemen. Nothing can help you. You are just a cog on the wheel of your own time. And you may get 10 diplomas from this college; you are not educated. I'm sorry.

You can't be educated because you are not -- what is "educated," gentlemen? To be lifted, educated, and stretched out between the times before you and the times after you, so that you can fill the time gap between the past and the future as an original, a free generation. But you remain inside your own generation, and therefore, you can't contribute anything to the order of the times, to the sequence of the times. Like Mr. {Wiley}, you work perhaps -- he works 12 hours and looks at television. You look at television 12 hours, and you work one hour. That's the only difference.

But the two things together don't make a plus. Mr. {Wiley}, with his 84-hour a week of work, and one hour or two hours a day of television, you see, is in -- in no way more a slave of the time than you are.

May I ask when you -- please help me. I must know this. Who went to the movie during the last four weeks?

(To a what?)

To a movie during the last four weeks? And who went to Henry IV? That's one-third. So, the liberal arts college, you see already has been paralyzed for the last 40 years, because the Bible and chapel went out of {use}. Now you have abolished Shakespeare, too. Now there is nothing left. Nothing left. I don't see why it isn't a question of your honor -- personal honor, gentlemen, to go to Shakespeare as you go to football match. I cannot understand why a baseball meeting -- is not -- is more pertinent than -- than a Shakespeare play given by your own comrades. Can you explain this to me? There were 50 boys acting in this play. Every one of you must have -- know one of them.

These are -- gentlemen, how long do you think the Army and the Navy are going to pay the bill for Dartmouth College, which they do now? You're just the laughing stock of the country. You can become a truck driver without taking an exam here. We need truck drivers, but we don't no -- don't need people who sit here four years and do nothing.

I mean, the privileges, gentlemen, of the college, are doomed, because you don't take advantage of them. If you don't know Shakespeare by heart, and the Bible by heart, you have no superiority any more over the rest of the country. And it is better then not to go to the college. Huey Long who was, as you know, a very simple-minded man, in Louisiana, he held with his political antagonists duels and competitions: who could quote Shakespeare and the Bible for a longer time. He won, Huey Long. He won. He knew it better. He was still straight, simple, bigot, but he had worked. He had filled himself with something. You are filled with nothing. Not even hot air.

You don't even know what education is, gentlemen. Look at this beautiful word "education." It always means the word -- syllable "e," ex- as in "existence," and "ecstasy," it means to get out of something. Well, in the duct of life, of time, where you would be born in 1934, and now here live out to 1954, you are just in this duct, in this narrow channel of impressions, of climate, of environment, of what happens day by day. The way you live, I mean, -- on -- on your daily breakfast, and your daily lunch. I mean, that's a purely physical existence from day to day. This is where you are, in this duct. And you are inducted, and educted now into all kinds of things, inducted, also in entry -- we have these introductory courses, which all are trying to prevent you from being educated, because they try to introduce you into something that is just on the level. As we say, "on the level," {very} { }.

But gentlemen, education can only be had if you can look back before you were born, and if you can look forward after your death. A person only is a person if at this moment, gentlemen, to you the year 2000 and the year 1900 is as real as the year 1954. That's the minimum. Now I assure you, once you have conquered 1900, you have also conquered 0. That is, anybody who is educated, and who can read Ezra Pound with understanding, or Theodore Roosevelt, or Owen Wister, The Virginian, or the Constitution of the United States of 1776, you see, has reached a level in which all the times begin to shine, and to -- begin to talk to you as your contemporaries. And the same is true of the future. If you can really make the choice of your -- of your wife with regard to the final goal of man- -- the human race, all told, in the year 5000 of our era, then of course every moment of the future is of equal importance to you then, and not just tomorrow.

Now, where are you, gentlemen? You don't even know what I'm talking about. You have never heard that education means to place your time between the times. But -- that is the meaning of the use of the word "the times," gentlemen. It was an attempt to stay {with} the times, in the plural, to make one live one's own time as a limb, as a member of all time.

So you cannot have education, gentlemen, without being lifted out of your context. But don't be afraid. It is not -- doesn't mean that you are lifted out of your family, or you are lifted out of your class, or lifted out of your country. You are lifted out of your time, because the time has a blinding or corrupting influence in anybody: rich or poor, noble or -- or -- or yeoman, slave or -- or -- or president. They -- everyone has to be lifted out of -- out of his time. Mr. Eisenhower just as much as you.

So gentlemen, the -- the -- the outcry in America against the real education has been, "It's not democratic," because it would set you aside, you see, apart. That's not true. All the good sects in this country, all the religious congregations have -- have managed to get man outside th- -- his own mere time. It's the essence of religion to do this. That's why a religion without education, education without religion is impossible to have. There is no education unless there is religion, gentlemen. And there is no real religion, unless it does mold education. And this whole talk today, that you can have one or the other, is all nonsense. You can have no education, sure, if you -- to -- want to stay secular. But don't say that not everybody shows his religion in the way he -- he educates his children. What a man really believes he proves by the way he educates his children.

There's your {place}. Cannot escape it. You have to do something about it. And that shows, of course, that most parents have no religion, because they -- they let -- allow their children to get a basis they themselves don't have, which is of course diabolical, which is -- is ambiguous, and is worse than lying, because

it's trying to have two truths at the same time.

Have you read Evelyn Waugh's Brides- -- what's the name -- word? Brideshead?






Pardon me?

(Revisited. Brideshead Revisited.)

Ja. Have you re- -- read that book? Who has read it? Well, this is -- the -- the hero there, this gentleman who tries to become a Catholic. He is the great type of -- of our time, you see. He doesn't even know what truth is. You remember? Who has -- who else has read the book? Very important book. The Jesuit who tries -- to -- to whom this man, this rich man comes says, "Oh, I want to become a Catholic," says, "It's a new paganism. I've never met with it." This -- this man is -- is unable to -- to see the difference between truth and untruth. You remember? It's a new sickness. You are all in this sickness. You are all noncommittal.

Now gentlemen, let them -- me define then my institution of higher learning once more. In order to make any man participant of an institution of higher learning, he must become immune against the old and the new. It must make no difference whether a thing is old. It might be true, just the same, and deserve your dying for it. And it doesn't make a difference when -- if a thing is new. It might be good or bad, just the same, you see, and again deserve to be defended or to be rejected. That is, good and new, or good and old, become separated by education -- higher education -- by higher learning, which, you will learn, gentlemen, in your life, this is very difficult every day.

You become a doctor, gentlemen, and you have learned that a certain procedure is good for your patients, or you {haven't} -- you think it is. There must come a day, gentlemen, where you, under your own responsibility, look at the new patient and say, "In this case, I must not apply what I have learned." If you cannot do this, you have ceased to be a doctor. And yet, the profession will say,

"This man is a heretic. We have always done it this way."

You have no right to say, "This medicine is good, because we have always given it." And you cannot say it the other way around, "This medicine is new, therefore it is good." You have to look at your patient. If more doctors would look at their own patient individually, we would have -- no, I won't say what.

But this is the tremendous problem today. Ma- -- most people in the professions think that either when -- if they do the newest thing it is good.

I once -- last year I went to -- in Washington to a family. I stayed with them. There were four little children. They had a cold. And you know we have all these tremendous medicines now. But for a simple cold, a child should not get neither terramycin, nor oreomycin, or penicillin. But the doctor had just learned that, so he gave these four children all the things he had. And they paid him all the money they had.

This is terrible. You see, he had not the nerve to resist the nervousness of this mother of these four little babies who just sniffed. That's all. He was the slave of the latest news. And he ruined these children, their nervous system, because these are not things to -- to tamper with, these new drugs. They're ruined. You can't give them the second time with the same efficiency, when it is really necessary.

But that's what this country believes in, the latest news in medicine. Take the appendix out, and next day put it in again.

Gentlemen, an institution of higher learning must therefore expose a man to opposite opinions on the same subject at the same time, in the same place in such a way that he can respect the few people who hold these opposite views, and cannot feel that one is just obsolete, and -- the other is just modern, you see, but they are of equal validity. And he has to make up his mind by other criteria than that of old or new, or tradition and { }. They are not good enough, these criteria, in an institution of higher learning.

I told you, we don't have this, because you have 50 opinions in Dartmouth College on every topic. That's as good as having no opinion. Fifty opinions, gentlemen, don't educate you. Two opposite opinions would. But then you would be forced to side with one or the other, or implement it -- your thought in such a way that you can include both. Nobody can have 50 opinions, you see.

So the old university is dialectical, gentlemen. And now, in order to round out the picture, this dialectics -- that two different sources of the truth were imping-

ing on your mind and asking for your loyalty, for your allegiance, for your taking sides, for your working and fighting for this kind of looking at the thing -- this took shape in three great schools: in theology in Paris, in the law in Bologna, and in medicine in Salerno. Of the Salerno bridge- -- bridgehead you may have some recollections as a boy, when the American troops landed in Salerno, south of Naples.

To give you in a short way these -- the layout of these three schools, you will see that in their set- -- setup, in their -- in their situation was implied this polarity, was implied this dialectic in a strange manner. Let me give you slogans. In Paris, there was opposition between the school of the archbishop and the free schools on the left bank of the river Seine. We talk -- talked about this already, earlier, that the free schools, the free teachers, around the Sorbonne, and Ste. Genevieve on the left bank of the river Seine, under the protection of the king in the Louvre, and in competition with the school of the archbishop here on the Ile {St. Louis}, as it is called, that these schools together with the school of the archbishop offered competition in the doctrines of theology. More than one conviction, you see, could be taught in this University of Paris. And that then, gentlemen, is the difference between a school and a university. In the school of the archbishop, one opinion for everybody. In the school of Paris, as a universe, as a corporation, more than one conviction on the same topic.

You never think how close, gentlemen, body and mind lie together. I do not believe in the split of mind and body. Because this was a new principle, it was also incarnated in the form of the school that these professors actually talked against each other in the same building, on the -- at the same time, and attacked each other. As you know, the two greatest teachers of Christendom in the Middle Ages were St. Bonaventura and St. Thomas Aquinas. And St. Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican, and St. Bo- -- Bonaventura was a Franciscan. Now to this day, the Dom- -- Dominicans and the Franciscans don't hold the same truth, for example, on the St. Mary, on the cult of St. Mary. They have different opinions on very serious matters.

Now it is a great story that when St. Thomas once visited St. Bonaventura, he asked for St. Bonaventura's library. And it is well known that St. Augusti- -- St. Thomas Aquinas was very widely read and that he knew his Aristotle by heart and quoted him left and right. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, being his, you see, authority to debate with, to argue against, or to reconcile St. Paul with. He always has two sources -- in St. Thomas. If you read the -- his book, it's either the philosopher, Philosophus, or the Apostle. Always Paul and Aristotle conversing in the mind of Thomas.

Now, he comes to St. Bonaventura -- or, he wasn't a saint at that time --

Bonaventura, and says, "Where is your library, brother Bonaventura?"

And Bonaventura just goes to a curtain, as this one here, and pulls it back, and there's the crucifix, the Lord on the crucifix. "This is my library."

There you have the contrast of two teachers: one basing all his theology on the life of the soul, from inner experience and meditation; and the other basing it on libraries and books written in the past in, you see, in -- in Greek. And that's the difference between Dominicans and Franciscans to this day, by and large. It's the difference between St. Augustine and Plato or -- or Aristotle for that matter.

And in St. Augustine, you also have, as in St. Bonaventura, this, you see, this -- which you have in this sentence, in dubious, libertas; in necessary, unitas; in everything, charity. A man who says this, you see, lives it. He knows these things only because he's fully alive to all the problems of life in his own -- in his own struggles, in his own excitement, whereas Thomas is very apathetic, and very indifferent, and never mentions his own passions and emotions. He looks into a book and says, "Well, the Apostle tells us, and the philosopher tells us."

Well, this is the same in the university. Here you have two people teaching at the same time, the same students, the same future doctors of theology, and filling them obviously with quite two different ducts of mental life, you see. The one, Bonaventura, appealing to these people's ex- -- inner experiences, you see, and the other appealing to a classical text, to its logical understanding.

This I only mention as an experience -- as a -- the greatest -- the -- the perhaps the high -- high point of the Parisian university when, between 1257 and 1274 -- you -- perhaps you mark these 17 years -- when these two people taught at Paris, there was a real university, because both taught in the most different manner and method, and yet they taught the same topic. They taught on the Trinity. They taught on thinking. They taught on progress, on science, on pope and -- and Church and state, you see, on the sacraments. But their -- their frame of reference was illuminated -- one, you see, by this turmoil of a human heart, and the other by the collected tradition of Christendom, both very respectable authorities.

Don't forget this picture. St. Thomas, the learned man, asking for Bonaventura's library, and having to put up with the fact that the crucifixus teaches man enough.

The school of Bologna, gentlemen, is situated in the north of Italy, just north of the Apennine. When you come from Rome to Milan, or from Rome to the Alps, then you cross the Apennines, and there you reach the Adriatic Sea north of the

Apennine. The Apennine swerves -- that is, the -- the backbone, the spine of the Italian peninsula. And this -- Apennine Mountains go from north of Genoa -- that is, from the western end of the -- in the north of Italy, over to the east. And Bologna is then that city, gentlemen, that is on the Adriatic Sea just north of the point where the Apennine reaches the Mediterranean -- the Adriatic, crossing over from the -- from the -- here, let me put it roughly. I can't draw, but you will forgive me. These are the Apennine Mountain here. This would be Rome. This would be Florence. And this is Genoa. Then you have here Bologna.

In other words, gentlemen, any emperor of the north, any Roman emperor marching to Rome to be crowned for 600 years from Charlemagne to Charles V, from 800 to 1530 -- every emperor willing to receive the crown of the Holy Roman Empire had to pass through Bologna.

So in Bologna, gentlemen, the school that was established there was the school that -- of two fa- -- of two different traditions, just as you have the crucifix -- Christ, and Aristotle in Paris, or the cathedral school of the archbishop, and Ab‚lard's congenial, ingenious school of free enterprise, wall by wall, so you have in Bologna the imperial lawyers and the papal lawyers who teach canon law and Roman law in Bologna. The two laws. To this day, gentlemen, a man who studies the law has to end up, if he wants to get -- become a doctor of law, as a doctor of two laws. I am doctor juris {utri usque}, a doctor of both laws, of canon and of Roman law. That's the official formula. Mr. {Moran}, I think, our librarian, has the same degree. He is a doctor of law in Fr- -- I think, given him in Paris.

Because to this day, gentlemen, if you become a doctor, you are only a doctor if you can compare the two great systems of law: the law of the state and the law of the Church. Canon law is the law of the Church, or you can say, is the legal order of the universe under the aspect of the Church. That's the first translation of "canon law." The canons try to describe the legal universe as viewed from the point of view of a Christian -- Church. The Roman law aspect is that of the old Caesars, a legal order for property, of contract, of family life, of marriage, of inheritance, looked upon from a legislator who must keep peace among people, regardless of their religion, regardless of the highest unity, you see. The state, gentlemen, is always satisfied with the minimum of unanimity. The Church is always aiming at the highest degree of unanimity.

So the canon law assumes: how should a society be organized under the assumption that all people are on the way of total agreement. And the state must always organize society, you see, on the basis of minimum agreement: that this chair is neither your property nor my property, you see, we must agree, whether we are Jews, or Catholics, or Mohammedans, you see. That's the minimum re-

quirement of secular law, that this is the chair -- to whom does it belong? Does belong to Dartmouth College, you see. It doesn't belong -- neither to you nor me.

But in a family, there must be some amount of charity. Husband and wife must have some things in common, or there can be no marriage, so there is always some religious faith in any human group, and the legislator must assume that there is a certain peace, you see, a certain imagination, a certain solidarity in a family.

To give you very simple example how urgent this -- such a -- such an understanding is, that in every element of law, gentlemen, under which you live, there is one element of canon law, and one element of state law. You don't know this. We have no jurisprudence in this country, no science of law, because that's lost. This country is barbaric again. It thinks all -- law is uniform. That's not true, gentlemen. All law is two-fold. It has to comply with the minimum of agreement, you see, because otherwise you would murder each other, you see. But it has to aim at the possibility of a maximum of agreement. Otherwise we can't organize society in any progressive manner.

Give you an example. In a family, you have to admit that pardon can reconstitute a marriage. If a -- the husband and wife quarrel...

[tape interruption]'s a poor law, it's a pure state law, it's a police law, you see. It's intolerable. It abolishes really the whole institution of marriage.

Another case. In Massachusetts, when a husband has a poor wife, he has to support her. But these damned suffragettes in that state of Massachusetts have managed to put through the rule that a woman who has property has not to support her husband. Now I have a -- I know a man. He was a minister here in the neighborhood, in Lebanon. And his wife, who was wealthy, said to him, "Oh, I'm fed up with Lebanon."

I don't blame her. And they moved away, and he -- she, being a person of means, became selectman in a little town in Massachusetts. And one day she was fed up with him. He was then 72, and the child that had been the link between them had grown up and gone -- and been married, and she said, "I'm no longer going to support { }."

So he had -- she had, you see, determined his whole career, that he was no longer a minister, and had no pension coming to him. He had ceased to be a minister at 56 -- from 56 or so, so that their pension fund, you see, just hadn't


Well, to make a long story short, he finally committed suicide, or tried to commit suicide, and he is now in the charge of a friend of mine in this town. His wife, to this day, doesn't pay a cent. That's a devilish law in Massachusetts. It's a pagan law, you see, this side of Christianity, which the suffragettes have put through there. And you see how the relapse into paganism can happen any minute in the law, because it is immoral that a wife can get out of her duty to support her husband. It's shameless. Nobody cried "wolf." We live in -- in a nice society in which you see the -- the -- after 400 years of secular law, it is possible for the legislature to put through such a draconic measure, that this man is ruined for life. He's, as I said, he's clothed -- he's clothed by collecting -- this friend of mine collects old clothes for him, and she tries to scratch together. She is herself an old lady -- and has earned har- -- in a hard life the little bit she has, because his wife just declined to do anything. The -- the former congregation does a little bit, here in Lebanon. And that's why he's here -- around here. And that's why I know the story. That's a terrible story. And it shows you what a pure imperial law, a pure, secular law can do. How -- what an existence. Can you see this?

So gentlemen, the Bolognese people, by basking, or by balancing every student of law between two extremes -- the law of the Church and the law of the state -- taught these people that at any one case, there had to be some creative and imaginative solution.

For example, gentlemen, peasants, farmers always want to have the property stay together. So they want to marry their first cousin, or their neighbor's daughter, because that is good for the property. That's an old problem of Europe, from China, or all countries of pure pagan agriculture, you see, that it's wise to keep the property together. And that's -- that influences the marriage rules.

Now the whole Catholic Church, as you may know from the famous novel from Manzoni, I Promessi Sposi -- have you heard of that? Who has heard of the -- Manzoni's novel? No? Not one? Well, it used to be one of the great stories of the world's literature, and I think it still is. But the world's literature just has no luck with you.

The -- the Church, down to the days of Henry VIII of England, as you know, lived by the maxim that a woman could not be forced to marry a man without her free consent. And the Church, you may say, from 800 to 1500 did just nothing but that: to inculcate that the personal bond of marriage was the free act of a soul, and not of a member of a family. But if you read the old epics, you also know that children were betrothed in the cradle. You read that a prince and a

princess were put together so that the countries wouldn't go to war against each other. That is, gentlemen, marriage is always politics. And it should be considered as very serious when a Roosevelt marries a DuPont. That's politics; you can't help it. It's good politics. That's how the way makes peace. Marriage is nothing between you and a girl of another sex -- a person of the other sex. It's an attempt of peacemaking in the largest possible sense.

If you don't understand this, you don't know that you have to -- it takes you 50 years to marry what you get when you marry a woman with real background. If you just marry her beautiful looks, they will not be there after five years. When you buy -- why don't you buy lipstick straight away? Wouldn't have to get the girl.

Gentlemen, when you are married 30 and 40 years, you -- you -- and you are married, then you haven't married for the looks, but you have married for that which behind the looks. And that is a long story. That's the whole story of her family, of the religion of the family, of the background of the family, of the character -- features of the character of the family. That's one branch of mankind otherwise taken from you, inaccessible to you. And that's why marriage is so interesting.

Now this is the doctrine of the medieval Church and the canon law of Bologna. Gentlemen, there had to be a compromise. The Bolognese school said, "With regard to property, the emperor and the ki- -- communities, and the burg- -- masters of the cities, and the princes can make law how the property of the girl that marries shall be handled by her husband, or by her own family. But as to the personal decision -- who can marry whom -- that's under strictly papal law, under strictly ecclesiastical law, under canon law."

So we get here, gentlemen, a problem between canon law and imperial law which today still is undeci- -- is in the same way in abeyance. Who can marry whom is to be decided by one source of law. What are the material consequences when one marries whom, must be decided by quite another consideration and source of law.

To give you a very practical example today. When people marry today, the marriage can either be favored by the tax laws, or it can be ruined. If you have five children, and you get no exemption, and you -- earn the same wage as without the five children, you see, there's a premium on remaining a bachelor. And the society, the secular order of society in this sense then favors no children. It's a decision that society takes. As you know, it has been a headache for all legislators: what shall we do with a -- with the child's wage, with the -- with people who have many children, you see? Shall they get many exemptions? Or

shall their wages be increased by the employer? It has been decided in various countries in a different manner. I'm not going to tell you what the right decision is. I'm only trying to show you that there is a tremendous decision to be made as to the material consequences of a family life, you see, the material side of it.

Now take the other side. Who decides who can marry whom? In this country, you are allowed -- an 11-year-old child can be married to a 76-year-old man. You saw this asinine story of this Anglo-Saxon gentleman who married an 80 year-old lady. He was 68. She died fortunately 11 days later. Is this a marriage? Isn't that a caricature of a marriage? Is it permissible to say that these people should marry? I think it's blasphemous. It's terrible. But that's the custom in this country, because if people are good friends at 87 in Vermont and at 89 in New Hampshire, they marry.

You must -- should -- you should rise in an uproar of disgust of this miscarriage of justice, gentlemen. Marriage is no longer marriage when it can be used for such ridiculous and obscene purposes. It is obscene when a 90-year-old person and an 87-year-old housekeeper get married. It's obscene. You have no revolt in you, because you have no relation to marriage. You don't know what a wonderful revelation it is that God, and society, and human speech, and the physical urges of your body -- that they all should be in harmony. That's the greatness of marriage, that what is done by the body is also implemented by the soul and spoken by the mouth. But if the -- only the mouth speaks empty words that we are married, nothing -- that's nonsense, you see.

In the old canon law, that's not a marriage. A marriage that cannot be physically contrived and consummated, according to -- a Roman Catholic canon is under annulment, is no marriage. Our Protestant, willful, Renaissance mentality has said, "We can will anything." Gentlemen, no man can will to be a woman, and no woman can man -- to be -- a man. And a man who is neither -- a person who is neither a man nor a woman cannot say that he is a man or a woman, you see. Impotency and lust have no course in the -- courts of justice. But in this country, impotency wins. Look at all these Hollywood stars with their adopted children.

So gentlemen, we are full in a world in -- which has lost the distinction between canon law and imperial law. You don't even know that there is a higher authority, which must explain you what marriage is. Marriage is the unity of the moment and eternity in your existence, gentlemen. Here we are flesh, mortal, living 70 years at best on this earth with our physical urges passing, our passion, our seasons, you see. And yet the spring of your -- spring fever, gentlemen, of your passion can be exalted -- look at this figure of education once more -- so that it means something in the rhythm of the generations. That which -- in itself is

just of the moment and not worth consideration at all can be exalted by your meeting the right partner and speaking the right word to the key into eternity, because mankind only lives by generations, and by marriage. And so the same transient passion of the moment, in the moment in which the right word is spoken between the two, becomes a -- the groundwork of the whole order of society, for the rest of the -- of the world. All Jews come only from one couple, Abraham and Sarah. Mankind doesn't go except by generation. It doesn't exist.

So this is the funny thing, gentlemen, about the -- about the -- the law, which is very little in -- under consideration at this moment. I think it's a very great example of the -- of the profundity of the to- -- constant -- process of higher learning, of higher education, gentlemen, in a good country, as we should discuss who can marry whom. Very serious, gentlemen.

If you think that modern man discusses incest all the time, the time is very near where people no longer will understand why a mother shouldn't marry her son. We are told they all want to. No, that's the story of psychoanalysis. You are surprised, Sir. Have you never heard of psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis says that every mother wants to sleep with her son. It's ridiculous, but they say so. Terrible. But if you go on like that and read -- enough Thomas Mann -- long enough, then you begin to believe it. And then you are faced with the question, "Who can marry whom?" Why isn't it impo- -- impossible that brother marry sister?

Well, you and I feel still that it is impossible. But obviously the law has in every generation to teach again. Why it isn't possible. Otherwise at one time, you see, the -- the handicap would disappear. People will just plunge as they do in India, I mean, where these children are put together. They are neither sister nor brother. They're nothing. They are just, you see, below parity. India is ruined, as you know, by the early marriage system, where children {again} can get married. They have no canon law fighting, you see, the interests of -- of the family business.

India is, as every Hindu will tell you, ruined by its lack of fight, by its lack of higher education with regard to the law. They have no Bologna. They have no constant fight between the material interests of the family group, you see, and the sensuous interest of these children, and the higher aims of a society that must live by perpetrating real marriages.

I can't go -- I only wanted to hint, because I have to be so -- so short today, that in the law, there is as much excitement as in the discussion of St. Bonaventura and St. Thomas. The schools of theology, gentlemen, aren't any more interesting than the schools of law. But in Bologna, you became a doctor of both laws. And the great compromises on which our modern legislation still is based were

reached there. For example, the material interests of marriage are under the jurisdiction of the state. The personal interests of the marriage partners are under the jurisdiction of the Church. By and large, this is still our law, because we still understand for -- the court has to acknowledge that forgiveness, you see, wipes out his {right} { }. That's a religious truth. It has nothing to do with secular law.

(But Sir, what about the state that recognizes divorce, and the Church which doesn't, the Catholic Church?)

Well, this is of course very -- very profound. It isn't as simple as you make it. There are two things I would like to adduce { }. I would love to go into this for many hours. It could be a whole course, so to speak.

Gentlemen, there are two things. The Church -- the Roman Church doesn't give a divorce, but it has annulment. So therefore { } physically not consummated marriage, you see, is no marriage. That makes, I mean, for some difference, you see. In a Protestant marriage, that would be not, you see, a valid reason, I mean, it's then -- to annul the marriage. They would still say these people had been married; now they can be divorced.

The Catholic Church -- have -- handles many of these cases by saying the -- the marriage never took place. And there are more such cases than you would think, I mean -- where just -- in this special case, these people just can't get together, you see, because of -- of incompetency. These people may perfectly -- be perfectly potent, as you know, with other parties. But between the two, the magic of love just doesn't work.

And -- so that's -- I know two cases of very famous men in the last generation who -- who married in a -- in a brotherly spirit, so to speak, from very generous and heroic reasons, you see, and never could -- could -- could get married to these women, where -- and there was no doubt that they were perfectly potent men. In such a case, the Catholic Church would insist that they should not treat themselves, you see, consider themselves as married. One person -- both these men were Protestant, and thought they had to stay -- married.

So you see, sometimes it works the other way around, that the Roman Church would make more readily for separation than the -- than the secular, or the Protestant.

The other {thing -- case} I would like to mention, you see, are faced, of course, with the fact that many people don't know what they're doing when they get married. And I think the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church are faced

with your problem. It's your problem too, gentlemen. And I'm quite serious about this, that many of you think they do something what they don't do. To sleep with a woman is not to get married. And this is the twilight in which we move. Formerly, gentlemen, only 60 percent of the people physically fit and mature were able to marry for economic reasons. This is unknown today. The Church -- the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages could uphold marriage, because innumerable people could never marry for economic reasons, because you could only marry if you had your own household, you see, and your own livelihood. Servants couldn't marry; {they just couldn't}.

Today we have the opposite, 120 percent of the people marry, instead of 60. So everything is in reverse. Many people marry who are really just children. They -- they are ashamed to go into a brothel, so they get married. That's no good reason, you see. Puberty is no reason for getting -- for marriage. It's -- has nothing to do with each other, puberty and marriage, you see. Puberty is select- -- marriage is selective, and puberty is unselective.

And so I do feel {my friend} that you have put the finger on a very sore spot of our civilization, you see. The Church had never -- has never been faced for the first 1800 years of her existence with the fact that more people can use the term "marriage" than are actually able to understand what they're doing in getting married. They can marry out of season, earlier at 17 or 16, and 18, you see, all these things. And so, I have been in this {prayer} { } by Catholic friend, who's a priest. We have written together on this marriage problem. It's an utterly new situation for the Church because, as long as you had slavery; as long as you had economic inhibitions; as long as you had crafts, and guilds, and all kinds of professional, you see, restrictions -- the indentured servant, for example, could not marry. Have you ever read Paradise by Esther Forbes? Well, that describes in -- in 17th-century Massachusetts there the fact that the indentured servant just couldn't marry. He couldn't, because he had no economic independence.

So the Church was -- has -- has developed her whole -- her whole policy, so to speak, in a world full of restrictions on marriage. And nothing suits today where people call marriage, you see, what we shouldn't, what re- -- what Barbara Hutton {certainly is not married}, neither one -- not once, you see. And -- and so, it's -- it's odious to call these things, you see, "marriage," and to try to -- to determine them by the standards of the Church. I mean, this is only the beginning of the discussion. And I only want to show you there are these two {points}: that the Church, by annulment, has tried to keep -- to keep him aware that the full man, body and soul, must enter such a union, or it is {not a union}. And on the other hand, that the Church has never been prepared to think that anybody could just go within 24 hours and get married. That's unheard-of.

I'm sorry. We have to stop here.