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

(Philosophy 10, May 12th, 1954.)

[Opening remarks missing]

...will be asked again in the -- in some connection, and I shall be very agreeable if you have a favorite hero like Beethoven, or Mozart, or Rembrandt, or Raphael -- some such question on any one hero of your own liking, and { } with the 10 commandments will also be asked. That's your private preparation. So is this clear?

These two -- these two pamphlets you'd better read right away. Go -- do them in the next week, or the next fortnight, ju- -- not just in the last days.

Today I want to tell you some very simple facts about the academies. Gentlemen, we have an academy of science in this country, but it's very late. It's only all 19th century. The first academies were founded in Florence -- in Florence in the middle of the 15th century as the center of the new Platonism, as the center of the new Platonism. Academy and Plato are one. All those of you who have written a paper on Plato know exactly why they're one. Plato founded the academy.

And may I remind you, and this -- I should like to stress once more, because I don't think all of you have understood it -- Plato invented the academy, but he did not found a university. Will you take this -- all this down, what I say pedantically, because these are formulas which you just have to kn- -- have down on paper. Plato invented the academy, but he did not found a university. A Platonic academy is not a university, because it does not expose the mind of the student to opposite convictions of different people on the dubious. The academy is continuation of the master-mind Plato.

On the other hand, gentlemen, the academy is not a school, because it doesn't dismiss all its members into life as in a grammar school -- as you think of a school. But the idea of the academy is between a university and a mere school. It is an institution of higher learning, but it is not a medieval university. Why? Because Plato learned in a bitter struggle with all his enemies -- the city of Athens, the tyrant of Sicily -- that he could not teach princes, kings, or democracy, but that he had to hand over his wisdom to other teachers. So the academy is the teaching of teachers, of scholars who remain by themselves and who wait and have to -- bide their time because never is the group of the day capable of receiving the highest in education.

This country has neither an academy today nor a university, because it is timeserving. You always want -- the -- we -- you are only interested in the bomb because it can be made and thrown.

Now the people in Europe who developed the idea of mass and energy, like Einstein, were quite satisfied to think about this. And if it had taken another 50 years, wouldn't have mattered. They begin to think about it in 1500. You don't understand that, gentlemen, because you don't have the academic spirit, but you have the salesman's spirit. You are only interested in that what sells. That's an end product, what sells. But that -- the line of thought, gentlemen, that goes into the cohesive work of any science goes on over centuries and cannot be applied right away.

And you must allow me to tell you -- give you this warning that the United States of America are not a sovereign country mentally, or scientifically, or autonomously. The bomb has not been made by Americans. That's not true. It has been bought by Americans. Bribed, hoaxed, coaxed. You have taken people -- for example in '45, the leading German physicists -- and have flown them here, put them to work. You can always get these people as slave workers, but you cannot say that this is American work.

This goes into all niches of America's industry. Only to warn you that they -- we are not an autonomous country to this day. My own nephew had to become a carpenter in England -- a skilled worker there. And when he came to this country, he was a very important person at the age of 18, because he had to fill a job in a factory in Chicago for the forms for foundering, for casting, which is a very difficile -- delicate operation. Always the heart of any foundry -- steel foundry is the workshop where the forms -- the models in wood are made. He was able to do this.

Now what did he find, gentlemen? He was 18. There was a 70-year-old Swede whom he succeeded. There was no American in between. A Swede had come to this country -- he had learned the trade in Sweden -- and he had learned it in England. And that was the tradition of the central and most skillful part of the factory in Chicago. You see how frail this civilization is, you see.

You must understand this, gentlemen. It's the same with science. You cannot buy it in the long run, because science is produced by loyalties between teachers and students. You have no such loyalty, because you leave this and become a businessman. I haven't found any one student in this college in 20 years. That would be impossible in Europe. You don't care. You don't go on with what you learn here. You are not a future teacher. You are not in an academy nor in a university. You are just in a school, because in a school, you do with what you

learn as you please. In an academy, you do what the subject matter requires. And the subject matter requires further study and meditation. This you do not know. And the people who are drilled here in teachers colleges and so certainly don't know it. They just are tur- -- taught a method. And then they go out and -- and drill these poor children in progressive education.

But gentlemen, the academy is therefore something between a school and a university. It means that the time in which a thought, an idea, a science is developed is unknown beforehand. It is not true that everything can be taught the next day. So will you kindly take down: in the academy, the time element is placed inside the academy and not into the world. You cannot call these -- academician to order because he doesn't deliver the goods, gentlemen. And society that says you have to deliver the goods can't get goods, but it can only get the semblance of goods. You can of course ask such a man to popularize or prostitute a science. And if you bribe him sufficiently, like Emerson, who -- he says, "It was a bargain with Chicago. They paid me $1500. So I went. I shouldn't have gone. But that's too much money."

So -- and he wanted to say, "I -- you can't tell this -- such a large audience the truth. It's impossible. But if you pay me enough, I'll try."

You always think you can have everything if you just buy tickets. You can't. Would you kindly keep this in mind, gentlemen? Because it leads to a re-definition of those of you who have written this paper on Plato. They have not mentioned really what he did by founding the academy. Gentlemen, in 40 years, he was spanked, and tortured, and pilloried because he tried in his eagerness, as any teacher beforehand tried to do, to teach the people who were contemporaries. And he found that his contemporaries just wouldn't accept it.

First Socrates was executed. You all know this, you see. And then the tyrant in Sicily didn't accept it, and -- throw -- throwed him into slavery. And on it went. And so when he died, he had resigned himself that the wisdom which he had deposited in the world would have to be carried on by a group of friends in the academy. And that's like a monastery, gentlemen. It is not a part of the political world. In this sense, gentlemen, the academies are mental pre-formations of the Church. It's outside the real world. But it is- -- -n't -- different from the Church, because it has no ways of imposing its ways on the world by sacrifice, as the priest does, or the monk by his vow, because sacrifices make an impression on the world. Anybody who gives up something like smoking or television does something to the world. He changes the world. Sacrifices change the world.

But the academy did not change the world, because it didn't ask for anything else but by staying apart. It's a halfway house, the academy. And as such, the

modern academicians have called -- the life of the academician. It's a halfway house, gentlemen, preparing possible other new solutions, but not imposing it on the world, and not being sure that anybody of the century in which they live, will listen -- hoping against hope that there will be a time when people will listen. And for that time, the academy is ready -- stands ready to offer solutions.

In this sense, you must imagine, gentlemen, that the academies of Europe from 1450 to 1939 have stood ready -- made ready to be be able to empower the rulers to throw atom bombs. That is, to ma- -- make energy out of ma- -- ma- -- matter, which is much better than atom bombs. You call all this bomb-throwing, you see, with such a villainous name. It is the dream of mankind to be master of matter.

And everything in this country which is just a big Macy's, is deteriorated, it's ruined. I mean, if the Americans hadn't bought the bomb, people would now speak of men's mastery over matter, over nature, over that part of reality which doesn't speak. And that would be a perfectly positive claim. Here it has been tainted by its military purpose. But don't forget that it's a tremendous item. It's a tremendous achievement. It's a -- 400 years of natural science, gentlemen, which it has taken to understand that the problem was not to make gold, but to make energy.

And gentlemen, all natural sciences then begin in 1450 with the dream of mankind to be an alchemist, that is, to produce gold, which at that time seemed to be the foundation of the world, of man. And you must not forget that the atom bomb is the form of the dream of making gold which developed in 400 years of academic studies. But we are still chemists, and chemistry is nothing but the purge -- name, purified name of alchemy.

So 400 years, gentlemen, it has taken to make the bomb. And if -- I want you today to get a little bit today a respect for the march of science. It's not a one-year enterprise. It's not a five-year enterprise. And if you 10 times now eliminate Mr. Oppenheimer, you will still have to de- -- respect the centuries of devotion of which he is the last link. He is a man devoted -- to science, a typically academic man. They are all very poor politicians.

The academy in Florence, gentlemen, peeled the concept of nature out of its previous ancient pagan wrappings. The new term "nature," which you use, has nothing to do with the use "nature" in antiquity. There is a book by Cicero in antiquity, for example, on the nature of the gods. Such a book could not be written since 1450, because the modern nature does not include the gods. Plato in his city -- sta- -- in his Laws and in his dialogues, and Aristotle, in his Politics -- they were both theologians. That is, they included religion into that which had to be

investigated as the physical parts of the universe. And to them physis, gentlemen -- will you kindly take this down, too -- physis was the growing garden of Eden. Physis -- p-h-y-s-i-s, from which our modern word "metaphysics," "physics," "physiology," sci- -- chem- -- all these words with "physics" -- meant to them the same what it meant for the Jews to speak of Eden in the Old Testament.

That is, physis included in antiquity God, man, and things. You could Plato -- or you should Plato, to understand him, call a "theologian." And he has been called in antiquity this way. Plato is a theologian. He is not a philosopher in your sense of the word. Whereas in Dartmouth College -- and will you kindly contrast this -- Plato is a theologian, because his idea of nature, or physis -- physis is the Greek word for nature -- includes gods, men, and things. The nature, since 1450, is reality minus gods and men. It's a pure -- purified thing; it's a reduced thing.

Now you can understand then that the Renaissance of the 15th century, gentlemen, of which you talk so much, without knowing what it did -- loved the ancient world -- is the love of antiquity using that which the Greeks had done well, and omitting that which they had done badly. The Greeks had slavery. They had no women's rights. They had eternal war. Therefore, modern man could not accept their doctrine on men. They had idols. They had statues of gods. They had fantasies -- fantastical myths on the gods.

Therefore, we had to strip in our Renaissance the Greek tradition from all this nonsense, about -- Zeus and Hera. So we could only accept their careful study of the plants, and the animals, and the as- -- stars, their astronomy, their physiology, their great observational character -- qualities. In Philosophy 5- -- in 58, I have given -- who is -- is anybody in 58, too? Well there I have given a -- a great -- story of the greatness of Greece with regard to the observations of reality around Greece. Something that the Jews never did because they concentrated on their divine worship, and they didn't look at the thing for their own value, so to speak.

But if you read Aristotle, you find that plants and animals are so classically described that when the modern -- greatest botanists of the 18th century, the Swede Karl Linnaeus, wanted to write his -- his famous classification of plants. He for many years as a boy already in his youth studied Aristotle, and improved on Aristotle's classical description of plants, you see, and took his own style from Aristotle, because with regard to the -- description of non-speaking things, the Greeks are unbeatable, insuperable.

So gentlemen, the nature of the Renaissance is purified of gods and men. And the Renaissance -- perhaps you'll -- it's worth your while to take this down, gentlemen, because there's an endless confusion today about this -- the nature of

the Renaissance is that the academy of Plato was reborn with regard to obs- -- the observation of facts, but not with regard to politics and religion. The Renaissance omitted -- omitted -- will you kindly take this down? -- omitted the dealing with Church and state of Plato. It concentrated on his mathematics, and on his understanding of the natural world. The same of Arist- -- must be said of Aristotle.

So I repeat what I said last time, gentlemen, that -- the modern academic world reduces nature to the reality minus the speaking elements of the universe. When your conscience speaks to you, that's not a question of nature. I enter this class, gentlemen. We close the rooms. The windows are unfortunately -- the one is open -- also closed. We are here a piece of nature at this moment. What is the only thing, gentlemen, in this moment which is not natural in this room? Which nobody who observes us from the outside can predict and measure? What is this?

The word that I say next. Even I am just a corpse, gentlemen, going to die very soon. But not what I say. I keep you -- the living and going by that which the man who looks into this with his telescope doesn't know: what I'm going to say next. You can actually test this, gentlemen, by -- you can describe us here as just a little -- microscope of the zoological universe. Everyone has some features of an animal. In men, you know foxes, and lions, and ravens, and everybody re-appears. Some are chicken-hearted. Some are wolf-hearted. Some are ravenous, like ravens. And so on. In humanity, as you know, the whole zoological and -- and botanic kingdom is -- is repeated. The women look like all the flowers in the world, and the men look like all the animals in the world. It would be quite a good attempt of you to draw us all here in picturesque style as the animals we come nearest to.

But the speaker, gentlemen, defies all caricatures of man. A speaking man has something superior to the animal world. And while I speak, gentlemen, I know one thing: I may be as ugly as I can, and -- and as ridiculous, but I don't look like a beast when I speak. I'm not natural. To speak is what the philosophers call, "to transcend nature." And perhaps this is your only way of understanding this terrible word "transcend." That is, you and I, in the moment where we can speak, we fight the death, the thermodynamic law, the anihil- -- disintegration of the natural world. The natural world, gentlemen, ends in death. And speech is in the world to fight death. That's why you get an education, because you must help us to overcome the dying society of America at this moment, because everything nearly natural is doomed. There is nothing natural that can last. Nature is -- ends in death. And speech ends in resurrection.

That's why you must understand that the academic world is only one-third of

the world that deserves to be investigated. The academic world, I have tried to tell you, has been placed inside the university after people had studied how to speak to each other. And that was inherited from the academic people, the free discussion, the toleration of different doctrines, the love for each other -- young and old -- that the young should serve up to become teachers themselves and not just be drilled in -- in West Point to become apes of military tradition.

So gentlemen, the academic spirit is Plato, because it sets aside dynasties of academicians. Wherever you get dynasties of science, you get more than a school. But you don't get a university already. This you have to take from the the Middle Ages.

I now want to give you three examples of the working of the academic tradition: was -- first, and the simplest for you perhaps to understand is the dynasty of the four generations who discovered the heliocentric system in astronomy. They were four men who had to follow each other before you and I now assume that the earth turns around the sun. And by being four, I prove my point that the academic spirit is not a spirit of a school, but of an institution of higher learning for which society has to make room, which you cannot buy, but for which you have to -- wait -- and where every member of the dynasty, gentlemen, enters with a free mirac- --mira- -- miraculous decision.

Gentlemen, the miracle of science are the scientists. It's not miraculous that you can make the bomb. But it is a miracle that in every generation, one scientist came with the {ducta ignorantia}, with the learned ignorance, to say, "We don't know enough. I have to begin from scratch." That is the miracle, gentlemen. Since the Renaissance, gentlemen, the miracles of life are not taking place between the -- in the streets, but in the life of the scientists. The scientists are the miracles. They cannot be predicted. You can never predict a scientist.

This you do not understand. That's why you live in a dead prison of your own making. You live in a de- -- house of corpses, because to you all the -- everything is natural. You can't see it, otherwise. You have never understood that the man who says, "Everything is natural," while he is saying this one sentence, is not natural. The sentence, "Everything is natural," is not natural. The sentence, "Everything is relative," is not relative. Therefore Mr. Einstein is a miracle in a world of relativity, because he tells the truth, and the truth's not relative.

The first man of this gen- -- this dynasty in astronomy was Copernicus. Copernicus was a canon of the cathedral of Danzig in so-called western Prussia, which is now Polish again. And he died in 1543, as I told you, while his book on the revolutions of the heavenly bodies went out to the Emperor Charles V in Spain and was dedicated with the dedicatory -- first page to the Pope Paul in

Rome. It dis- -- disputed the Ptolemeic solution of the order of the universe, and suggested that it was a simpler expla- -- explanation to assume that the earth turned around the sun. But Copernicus could not prove this, because he could not explain the so-called "epicycles," the cycles within cycles, which the planets describe. The planets do not describe perfect cycles around the sun.

Therefore, it wasn't so simple as you now think to say, "Well, let's turn the whole thing topsy-turvy and stand on our heads, and look through our -- through our legs." As you know, then the earth does appears very different. And you think it's just such a hypothesis which made the new hypothesis. That's the -- that's {the -- new theory}. That's not true. Copernicus had to admit that he could not explain the irregularity of the movements of the planets around the sun. But he suggested that one ma- -- might look in this direction. That's all.

This theory was debated, hated, rejected, but some adhered to it. For example, a friend of Shakespeare adhered to it, Mr. Dee -- D-e-e, in -- in England, an astronomer, at the end of the 16th century. But it an opinion, an hypothesis, and we couldn't -- he couldn't prove it. Then there came a man who was a violent opponent of the Copernican solution. And his name was Tycho Brahe. He was a Dane. Copernicus was a Pole, or if my fellow countrymen, the Germans, hear this, I have to say, "he probably was a Pole." Brahe lived in Copenhagen, and the King of Denmark was so impressed by his learnedness that he bau- -- built him an observatory, an "urania," as it was called, for the first time. Something to study the heaven. Uranus is the heaven. You have a urania, haven't you, in -- in -- in New York? Or is it called the planetarium?


Well, that's the smaller word. What it really is, is this. In Europe, you have places -- in Vienna, for example, very famous -- also in Berlin, called "uranium," from Uranus. Now, what -- uranium is very modern again today in -- as an element in chemistry. But uranium means "heavenly," "the heavens," "the skyworld," and is astronom- -- an astronomical term.

Now Tycho Brahe built such a uranium for himself and for 40 years, he collected data of observation which had not been done since the days of Ptolemy. And -- you see that the Renaissance of the 16th century -- 15th century consisted in following in the wake of Plato and looking for yourself again. Neither the Arabs, nor the late Romans, nor the medieval monks had been able to establish -- the same continuity in observation in which the ancients already had made progress.

Gentlemen, the occasional observations have all been made at all times. But to

observe facts through 30 years, that takes a budget. And you have to win over the interests of society, because you cannot do 30 years a certain thing without somebody cooking your meals, you see, somebody giving you the support. And for this then, gentlemen, you discover that the academic world relies on an interest of society in allowing academi- -- -icians to do useless work, research, useless work.

It is not true that society supports science because it is useful. As soon as you think this, you have no science. You must believe in the miracle, gentlemen, that the useless is the most useful. The idea of Plato is that leisure, which is the Greek word skhol‚, school -- that leisure is so ennobling that man will put leisure to use, to unheard use. But gentlemen, will you take this down? The use that the man of leisure makes of his leisure is beyond any use known before. Therefore the society can never understand what the scientist does. It will always call what it do- -- he does "useless."

Give you a very famous story. Lionel Rothschild was the youngest son of the great banker's family in London, of the Rothschilds, these very rich people who made their fortune in the Napoleonic wars. And the banking house of Rothschild is well known all over Europe. It was -- had banks in Frankfurt, in Paris, and in Vienna. And a Lord Rothschild was Hou- -- a member of the House of Lords.

This heir said he wanted to study zoology. And the family was dismayed and said, "That's nothing practical. Useless." And then they were even more dismayed when he said he wanted to go to Tibet and investigate a certain flea. Now that was the limit, so dis- -- they disinherited him, and said that they didn't want to risk the finances of this famous banking house on such an idiot. But he left, and he went to Tibet. And he studied the flea. And he discovered that this flea was the carrier of the bubonic plague. And that's why there is no bubonic plague any longer in the world.

And that's a great story, gentlemen, if you would only notice what it means. It means that no public contemporary opinion can ever judge the enterprise of the scientist. And therefore, gentlemen, if you happen to have a General Groves, or now this terrible man, {Lewis Strauss}, to judge Mr. Oppenheimer's science, then we are lost. If you have to prove to a general or to an admiral why you are doing something, then he will always support the stupid project, and always reject the really scientific project, because -- how can he understand, gentlemen?

I can give -- could give you chapter and verse on my -- exp- -- my own experience in my own life on this. This is just unbelievable. But you -- this is why -- science in this country is in such danger, because it depends on foundations. The foundations is -- run by administrators. And the administrators are contempo-

raries, but they are not scientists. And therefore they are always on the safe side, and they'll always support the -- more stupid project, the more obsolete project -- always the project of yesterday. I have told it many times -- that they for the example -- still support projects on cancer which are just -- cut out according to Mr. Pasteur's idea of 1880. This is 1954. Can you assume anything more obsolete than to investigate cancer with methods developed 74 years ago for dog's bite -- or how do you call it?






How do you spell it?

(W- -- r-a-b-i-e-s.)

Ja. But that's done all over the place in this country. Always something analogous. That they can understand, you see. If a man today comes with cancer and says, "Oh, I treat it like Pasteur." He says, "Oh I've heard of Pasteur; as a boy, I saw the movie." You see, "This I can understand. Wonderful." You see. So he gets $10 million.

That's why science is so expensive in this country, because 99 percent goes down the sink. Impossible projects have nothing to do with the progress of science. But with the -- with conscience money by these foundations, they must get rid of it, you see. And so they give it to the most degenerate fellow who has just -- is just the grandson of Mr. Pasteur. But science doesn't go by grandsons. It doesn't go by flesh, and imitation, and by learning by rote. It gets by boldness and originality. Do you think -- American college professors don't belong there. They have no courage. They haven't -- they are not bold. They want -- must play safe. The alumni must -- must recognize them as good men. Now an alumnus cannot recognize a bold man as a good teacher for his son. He wants to play safe.

Ten years ago, I made a student of Dartmouth into a scientist. His father went immediately to the president and said I influenced his son, and I had to be dismissed. I was a Communist, because the boy had an idea of his own. It's very dangerous to {deal} with alumni. It's even dangerous to deal with you, because

you also want to be -- be a run of the mill. You want to conform. You want to. You don't really feel happy if I say something that isn't conformist.

I have however to try to get one or two of you to support the real endeavor of society, keep free. Free from not -- free from -- from externally, but free from its own routines and prejudice. I have to appeal to some among you who understand that life is always in danger of dying. And I speak to you, gentlemen, in order to resuscitate some life. And not this derivative life of -- of just repeating always the same jokes and the same how-do-you-do phrases, you see. While you are dying, and I ask you, "How do you do?" you still say, "Fine." Don't you do that all the time?

I just met a dying person on the street the other day. And she looked it, and she said, "I'm fine."

We live just in this prison of repetitive utterances. Who ever says something original? And life is only with the original, gentlemen, with the word spoken in order to -- to end this misery of the moment, which is dying.

Now Tycho -- Tycho Brahe was allowed by this king of Denmark was allowed to give 40 years to the -- nonsensical study of data about the stars. And he had innumerable papers, lists, and facts written down. And as I said, he was an enemy of the Copernican theory. But he observed. And he was the first man to do this, as I said, in 500 years, or 600 years of human history, whereupon Tycho Brahe to leave his country for some external reason and came to Bohemia -- only to show you how migrating academic knowledge is.

He didn't stay. There was no university {for him}. It was just an observatory. Copernicus was dead by this time long ago in -- in Poland. And this was in Bohemia, in the city of Prague. And in Prague, there was a man called Kepler, who came from Swabia, from Germany, from Ulm. And Kepler came to know Tycho Brahe, the old man, and said, "May I use your data -- your figures?" And he saw that these figures bore out the Coper- -- Copernicus' contention. And with a tremendous imagination, devotion, and piety, he was -- all -- all great scientists have been religious people, gentlemen -- he saw that the glory of God could now be served as he expressed it himself in a new vision of the order of the heavens. There is a very wonderful chapter in which he says this is a new psalm in the glo- -- the glory of God, because he recognized the elliptic character of the -- of the mo- -- the revolutions of the planets. As you know, we know that they do not describe a pure circle.

So he did away with the Ptolemeic epicycles -- who has heard of this before? You must have heard this -- all right, I just remind you -- and saw that there was

a mathematical equation by which he could explain the Martian -- Ma- -- the convo- -- the revolutions of Mars, especially. That was his first great discovery. And in this enthusiasm, he proved the Copernican theory with the modifications that the earth did not turn simply around the sun, but in certain ways, which were simpler than the cycles and epicycles assumed by Ptolemy for the reverse. That's all we know today. It may still not be the final solution. Perhaps the whole solar system is dependent on larger and larger revolutions in size. Or -- as you know, there are people today who are skeptics and say, "It makes no difference whether we say the -- the earth turns around the sun or the sun turns around the earth. It's just relative." I'm not going to -- to -- to -- into this now. But I want to give you the dynasty. Kepler uses then the facts collected by an opponent of the Copernican theory to modify the Copernican theory and thereby to prove it.

And the fourth man is Galileo, the only man of whom you really seem to know, always in this country that has deep reasons of neglect. You all begin the Renaissance with this damned fool Bacon of Verulam, and -- who did nothing. He was a journalist, the Mr. {Kemper} of th- -- his days. And -- but it's just as well, you see, if you appear in the New York Times, the people think you're very important. Like this Mr. {Kemper}, who is a very good writer on natural science, but just -- he doesn't discover anything himself. And so didn't Bacon. He was wrong in everything he presented himself. But he became popular. And that's why you date all knowledge from 1600.

Now that isn't so. At that time, the old way of thought -- this -- the mere schools, gentlemen, of the universities for the first time had to suffer the collision with the academic world. And we know -- learn now that Galileo was a man who brought the thing to an issue. Galileo faced the Roman Catholic Church because of the textbooks for students. Neither Copernicus, nor Tycho Brahe, nor Kepler had any reason to think of students, because they were in the academic world, you see, of faithful, slow, continuous, and patient research, and didn't pay any attention to what the Jesuits, or the Protestant ministers at that time taught in the schools to the boys. They learned the old stuff.

But at one time, the textbooks had to be purged. And that comes only 100 years after the new ideas. And you will be surprised. You don't know this, gentlemen. I will only influence the American textbooks in a hundred years, because all the time they won't make -- make it an issue. They will just ignore what I have to say and my friends have to say. I'm out of the running, because they are still hipped on their mechanic thinking, on their natural thinking. That takes so long. You can't alter it. I always hope to --

[tape interruption]

...Galileo had this tremendous conflict with the Church, became a public knowledge that there was such a strand. You find the same with all important movements, you see. The Jews existed centuries before anybody in Greece ever knew that they were there. Plato seems not to have known that Moses had lived. And certainly Seneca, the philosopher in Rome, and Tacitus didn't know anything reasonable about Peter, and Paul, and Jesus. The early Christians were quite unknown for 200 years in the world.

When I grew up, gentlemen, in my family and in the world at large -- Karl Marx and social -- democrats, socialists were so pooh-poohed as though they had never existed. And -- it was the same in this country, of course, you see. They just hadn't existed. You don't know this, gentlemen, but science has a time and a world of its own, or it cannot form itself in its preliminary stages. So we get four men.

Will you ta- -- you have them, I suppose, down. And will you perhaps take the trouble to say that they relate to each other with a simile of course, just an -- analogy like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Abraham already has the faith, but he cannot realize it. This is Copernicus. Isaac, as you know, is a very mediocre man who has in every way the opposite opinions for -- from his father Abraham, and a weak man, like Tycho Brahe. But he has to ec- -- fill out this period of waiting, of inc- -- would you call this a period of incubation.

Every academic idea, gentlemen, needs a period of incubation. The seed, that is Copernicus. The incubation, that is the pregnancy. So we have conception, and pregnancy if you like, or you have "incubation." It's a more neutral term and I think it does just as well. For the semination -- for the first idea -- and then the -- incubates. Then you get the conclusion, the conclusive -- the birth of -- really of the fully ripened idea. What is it, gentlemen, what has happened in the incubation? It is saturated with facts. Tycho Brahe's 40 years of list -- of observations of star-rises and star-settings, you see, fill the idea of Copernicus with reality, with body, just as a baby, received from a male, you see, as a sperm, has to be filled with body -- five pounds, six pounds, seven pounds so that the child may be born.

Gentlemen, science is for the mind the parallel to birth in the physical world. A man in art and science conceives and is pregnant as a woman is pregnant with a child. If you have not this awe for your own mental world, this purity of conception, you can never be -- neither be a scientist nor an artist. If you want to sell out with a bestseller, you cannot become an artist and conceive Dante's Divine Comedy.

But you also cannot conceive of a new idea in science. That takes a complete

seclusion. Just as a woman needs protection from the world while she's nine months with child, gentlemen, so a scientist has to be with his child -- with his brainchild outside the world. That's the academic attitude. That's not the ivory tower, gentlemen. But that's the womb of time. Will you kindly take this down, gentlemen, that science needs a womb of time. Very serious I am, gentlemen. And you must understand this.

It is unknown in this country. When the war ended, there was a tremendous exhaustion of course all over Europe. And people discussed what they should do for the science and the educators there. And I pleaded with the American foundations that they should allow these people to come over to America and to stay for a certain time in New Mexico, or in Florida, or whatever there -- would be best -- the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, and have time. You know what they did? Took these men, and made them give speeches and addresses in the Great Issue courses all over the country. And so they were dead on the ground after having already been exhausted, because leisure is not appreciated in this country as creative.

I once was sitting in Paris at the -- on the -- on the -- in the Caf‚ de l'Op‚ra, across from the Palais Royale, with an American friend. And he suddenly turned to me and said, "Isn't it 3 o'clock in the afternoon?"

I said, "Yes, it is a wonderful hour. The sun is slowly setting." It was April. A bit earlier.

"And I -- you know, I got such a shock. I said to myself, if my boss in New York could see me sitting sipping coffee at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, he would fire me."

"That," I said, "That's the difference. In Paris, there is leisure. And in America, there isn't."

And therefore, gentlemen, these -- these poor scientists, if they didn't die from pneumonia or jaundice, they certainly were completely exhausted when they returned to Europe, because you could not bring any foundation in this country to pay for leisure for these men, which they needed most. That's not in the program of any American foundation, that a scientist needs a womb of time. That's the -- what he needs more than anything else. Oh no. Make him make speeches. Applaud him. He's introduced by the -- { }, not one word of truth. All this spectacle, you see, they think that is creative. It's destructive.

Leisure is creative. All this talk -- here, this women's club business ruins all the good men you have. You want to ruin them. You want to see them destroyed,

because you treat them by piecework. This is infamous. We at Dartmouth can boast that -- did a very good job at just -- ask -- { } asked, for example, and -- Robert Frost to live here, you see. That's the honor of leisure, an artist-in-residence. That's a very good term. And this was must be expanded in this country, because that is the way in which you could honor creative life, by trusting man -- that their leisure is much more valuable than their work. And that's what is so hard to understand.

Will you take it down, gentlemen? Artists and scientists are on the opposite end from workers. A worker is paid for what he does. And the scientist and artist is paid so that he doesn't have to do anything, because he's so much a miracle that he does something that is not {called work}, that is not useful in the eyes of anybody, and that he doesn't know himself in the beginning. But it will happen to him. And in order that it can happen to him, you must set him free. He cannot go to his office at 9 o'clock in the morning. Perhaps he has to lie back at that time. How -- who can know? Or go through the wal- -- woods, or something like that.

Leisure, gentlemen, is the Greek ground -- type of the academic mind, leisure. Because as I said the word is -- that's the Greek word skhol‚, and that's in Latin -- pardon me, this is wrong. The -- no, it- -- it's right. The Greek sigma. So this is Latin, schola -- we have made out of this, this word "school," you see. And that's why you have so much -- so much absences here, because you don't know it's a privilege to have this leisure hour with me. You think it's school, so you stay away, because school is work to be avoided. Leisure is a situation to be sought, because it exposes you to infinite possibility. What can happen to you in this hour you don't know. But certainly something unexpected. Whereas in a piece of work, you know exactly what you have to do. You have to deliver 5,000 words in a paper, or some such stupid thing.

So Abraham -- now we go on to Isaac -- I also told you. Jacob is the energetic man, Kepler, who really brings the two periods of father and grandfather in the spirit together, and the Joseph, who goes down to Egypt and becomes the power in the public eye is -- is our friend Galileo Galilei, the Florentine physicist, who has the open crush with the -- with the authorities, just as Joseph in Egypt, as you know, who was sent to prison for his story with the lady there, Potiphar's wife. But also became chancellor of the empire and became renowned. And after Galilei, the thing couldn't be kept silent. That is the -- importance of Galilei. After Galilei, everybody was -- you see, it was the talk of the town. Before, it was the secret of the people who did it.

Now if you look back into Jewish history, nobody in the world of their days knew who Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were. They were just herdsmen, patri-

archs. They had not made -- didn't make history, you understand. History -- the early man who made history is Joseph. If you had -- asked in the Who's Who of 1500 B.C., they would have not noticed Abraham, because he had no house on Park Avenue.

So gentlemen, the ways of the spirit are eternally very interesting. It always takes three generations before a really new issue can come into the public limelight. This is a very practical knowledge for you, gentlemen. If you want to raise a good family, if you want to understand America, you must understand that the good -- great people, Jefferson and Washington, you find all in 1776 -- all look back to three generations of quiet American family life, you see, in which nobody had ever spoken of any one of their ancestors. You take it for granted that these founding fathers already are people of good family. Well, I assure you, when their great-grandfathers landed in this country, they were not good families. They were just broken -- broke, and broken-hearted probably, too.

There's a great story to this effect about the reli- -- Protestant Church in this country, gentlemen. In 1716, a man landed in this country from North Ireland, Scotch Presbyterian, and settled in Pennsylvania. And he established a log cabin, and he had six sons -- eight sons. And the eight sons had six friends. And he educated these 14 people. And you have never heard of him, of course, because you only look at the limelight, and never at the roots, at the seed, at the incubation.

But this is one of the greatest men in America. His -- one of his sons preached the famous sermon -- I think it was 1739 -- on the dangers of an unconverted ministry. And that led to a split between the Church in New Jersey, and New York, and in Pennsylvania, and created the great revival movement all over America at that time. This revival movement created the style for the election campaigns of your political existence in this country. And 40 years before the Revolution, that is, the American people went through the experience how to be ecstatic for four months. We are now in a secular form by slandering each other from July to November. But gentlemen, without the elections and your belief that the will of the majority is at that moment the will of God, we couldn't run this country. It's one of the fam- -- most -- strangest taboos in the world that American people believe that the candidate must not come into the limelight before the end of June. And then everything is settled on -- the Novem- -- on the first Tuesday in November, and the Wednesday, nobody mentions anybody -- any of the other candidates. Just -- that's it. It's over.

You know that doesn't exist in any other country in the world? And it was created by the revivalists. And the revivalists were created in the Log Cabin College in Pennsylvania. And the Log Cabin College was founded by a man

called Gilbert Tennant. And perhaps you'll notice his name, because he is the Copernicus of the American political history. Gilbert Tennant -- T-e-n-n-a-n-t.

And because he's so important, no American textbook ever mentions him, because this country knows only of the Hearst crimes on the front page, you see. And they are quite unimportant. They bear no fruit. A crime is a thing that by its very nature cannot bear fruit. And has no incubation. But what I have told you, gentlemen, is the true story of America. You get Gilbert Tennant. You get his son. You get the people educated in the revivals, and then you get the habits for the election of the Continental Congress in 1774 and '75. And that's why you know how to -- how to run a campaign. And that's the story.

And there was nothing in the 17th century which had any similar character, because there were no revivals. And people didn't wallow in enthusiasm for three months, and were friends with everybody, you -- you see, trying to get votes {and such}. Of course it -- if you understand the political campaign, it is the secular home of this story. But Gilbert Tennant -- you know what his great idea was? That in every generation the spirit should have the same force as it had in the Pilgrim father. And as the Pilgrim fathers had the faith over in Europe, before they came to this country, and were brought by the storm and tempest to this country on the basis of this, their own, you see, high pitch of emotion, the high pitch of emotion had to immigrate to this country, too. And being an immigrant himself, Gilbert Tennant said, "These people who are born in America, they are all softies. They are all soft. You are also. And you have to get the spirit of your ancestors who crossed the ocean. But unfortunately this spirit has to be brought over especially. It isn't in your bodies. Your parents spent it while they were seasick on the boat. So when they landed, they had already lost half of the spirit, because it took -- takes such a toll. So you don't receive it." You only receive it in this -- high points of the American political life, in the election campaign, when everything suddenly is different.

And if you don't respect this, gentlemen, and never have a revival yourself, you cannot become an American. Gilbert Tennant has created that element of American history by which American history is in constant re-creation from its cradle in Europe. Can you understand this?

And there you see that this is not a part of natural history. Your natural history of America begins in this country. The true history of -- began when people began to dream and to speak of America in Europe. And I told you last time, you see, that the natural history -- nature is that which we are, without speech, or try to be without speech. And that's why modern American history is so boring. And that's why Gilbert Tennant has not a central place in your textbooks on American history, because they think they should treat American history -- as I tel- --

told you, you can treat this classroom by looking at it from the outside, and not {treating} what I have to say next, and not knowing what brought you into this room.

These are the two words that have to be spoken. One word is Philosophy 10. That's spoken out{side} because otherwise you wouldn't come here. And the natural animal who just smells the dead odor in this -- room at this moment, doesn't know that you were quite enthusiastic when you signed up for the course. You didn't know what you were getting. And I'm saying something now. And these are the two things that are outside nature. But they create a womb of time, both of them, because they make you come in for four months into this room, speaking to it. And they make me ask you to join the army of people who have thought before and went after you. And if I can do this, gentlemen, I have created you into a partnership with all the generations of scientists before and after you. If I don't succeed, you see, I have miscarried and something is destroyed. The womb of time {is destroyed}.

The second point, gentlemen: the academies were at first just talking about Plato's idea of the universe. You can see from the dates, 1455 the first { } academy, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler, and Galileo working only in 1600 -- down to 1620 and '30 from -- 1543. So gentlemen, what happened was that the -- these miraculous free thinkers, free creators and the places in which Plato's memory was celebrated -- and his books -- had to get together. And this was done in the 17th century by the creation of academies for the sciences, natural sciences for research.

And you know of the French academy, and you know of the so-called Royal Society in England, which is the most typical academy of the 17th century. The Royal Academy -- the Royal Society in London was founded in 1665. The academy in Paris was founded in 1635. But the Royal Aca- -- Society is a pure academy of the new type which Paracelsus had invoked when he said, "You have to go everywhere to every part of the globe and report the observed facts there and collect them back by correspondence." I told you that the academies need corresponding members. Now the Royal Acad- -- Society in London to this day, gentlemen, consists of corresponding members in the main. And this little center group, which communicate the correspondences to the letters -- members in residence and then print the so-called proceedings. Now the word "proceedings," gentlemen is the scientific term for progress, for that which pro-ceeds, which goes forward in factual information. And the word "proceedings" of any academy is therefore an insignificant term. You know the word "process" today. Don't think please of processed cheese. That's regress.

But the word "process" means that a mental process -- thing is not considered

statically, but dynamically. When we are in process, you see, we are growing. We are not repeating -- repetitive. Therefore the word "process" and "proceedings" are very important books -- words, because they say, "You may deal with facts, with stones; but your own mind must be in a process." Your own mind is not just a photographic -- how do you call it? A photographic plate, but it is working. It is developing. It is growing. It is changing. It is proceeding.

So the word "process" belongs to an academy rightly, because it means that the academy at every moment is a kaleidoscope from -- of facts and a constant demand to re-organize these facts every minute. You have a different state of science, a different code of behavior. Today the doctor has to tell you, "We must operate. Everybody operates."

I got a famous -- a queer letter the other day from England. A girl had a -- girl! -- 25 -- had a -- had too-large tonsils. And she was going to be operated on. And the English doctor said that they wanted to have total anesthesia. And the parents living in Europe, on the continent, said -- wrote to me and said this girl, in English -- "under English scientific rule would have a total anesthesia, but she is -- has a weak heart. And we really think that's terrible, and she should have a local anesthesia. And would you kindly inquire of the American doctors what they think is right to be done in this case?"

"Well," I said, "really this is wrong. I mean, I cannot dabble in medicine over the ocean." But it so happens that I ran into one of the doctors here at a concert, and I said, "Well, I have this queer demand, if you care to answer it, I'm very pleased to give -- pass it on and -- without benefit of clergy," and -- .

And he said, "Well, as a matter of fact, we -- we prefer local anesthesia -- this much you can say. But there are exceptional cases in which we have to -- also to do lo- -- total anesthesia."

So I was just as clever as I wanted to be. It was, you see, one way or the other way. It's always the same. I reported. So the question was solved in a very interesting way. They took the daughter to the continent and had her operated there according to the standards of the continent: by local anesthesia.

Well, the case is just queer. But it means that the doctors of any one time and country are under the impact of a ru- -- ethical code. Fifty years ago, there was no anesthesia. But the tonsils had to cut out without anesthesia, you see. Thirty years ago, the only thing that existed was total anesthesia. Therefore, you had to take out the tonsils with total anesthesia. Today we have local anesthesia and total anesthesia, so you can be doubt -- doubtful about it, you see.

But these are three times for academic decisions of scientific character, you see, preliminary to the operation itself. And you see how the mind of the academic world has to proceed all the time. In other words, gentlemen, science is nothing you can quote of yesterday. When science is popularized, you always know the science of yesterday. What you think, for example, about evolution is just sheer nonsense. That's obsolete. Nobody believes it anymore who's really doing real research. And so on.

But you are the cultural lag, my dear friends, because you go to schools in which you hear the science of yesterday. But the man who has to operate on a patient must have the science of this moment. Otherwise he's immoral. And he can be -- if he would deal with the tonsils as the doctors could do 50 years ago, you see, without anesthesia, he would would be called, you see -- what would he be called?

({ } 50 years ago.)

If he treated the person as he -- as a doctor 50 years ago did.

(He'd be { }.)

But how would he be treated?

Oh no. More than that. Don't you think his license would be withdrawn? No, the medical association would intervene. The doctors would say, "He's not a doctor." That's much worse. They would { } already { }. That doesn't { }. They would say, "You are not my colleague. You're a quack."

Gentlemen, that's very important. The truth about God must be the same through all times, because He is the power who keeps us going progressively from generation to generation. God created science, for example. He made you and me capable of joining the army of truthseekers, because man has thought -- for -- the truth from the beginning of time; otherwise we wouldn't speak English. The grammar of which you speak is reasonable. And they did right in creating it. Otherwise everything we say would be nonsense, if there was not 1, 2, 3, 4. They invented that, our ancestors, because they wanted -- had already part in the truth, a share in the truth. But they didn't have science in our sense, because science is that of the moment which at this moment has proceeded so far and is expected to proceed even further. Can you see this? Because it deals with the changing universe, with that part of nature which is not the same -- all the time.

You don't believe it. I know. You still think God is just nature. But if -- you and I can only speak of nature, because we are not nature.

Now gentlemen, the third thing. The academies split open into two parts. It was clear that the simplest thing for the academies was to observe the facts in the dead universe: the stars, the stones, the behavior of minerals, of the investigation into the layers of the earth, the crust of the earth. All geology, you see, it's all a creation of the last 300 years. Nobody knew in an- -- in the Middle Ages or antiquity that there were different layers, you see, deposited in great periods of -- of time. The fossils were quite known in the Middle Ages, but nobody formulated any -- any logical conclusions, you see, of what -- what had happened.

So these are typical new sciences, gentlemen, who have sprung up in the academies. Not in the universities, gentlemen. Not in the universities, but in the academies. The university was the enemies of all this new stuff at that time, because they were just going on with teaching young men, you see, and not doing any research in the things of the world. That wasn't the business of the university { } at first.

But these academies had also tremendous facts. There were people in China who spoke Chinese. There were Latin texts; there were Greek texts; there were Hebrew texts.

So they added so-call- -- to the mathematical, philosophical section a second section, which they called the philological and historical section. And it means to say -- means that in every academy where you go now through the world, you find two parts of their publications. One is filled with grams, and pictures, and graphs, and lists, and statistics, and weight and measurements, and new formulas in mathematics, non-Euclidian mathematics, probe into there and such things, and relativity is discussed, and uranium, and the isotopics, and so, and it's -- you have to -- it's tough sledding. And then you get another class of publications of the same academy, in Berlin, in -- in Vienna, in Paris, in the Royal Society in London, it still goes on, Edinburgh, Bologna, Rome, Naples, and even Philadelphia.

And -- and what is in this? Well, there is -- may be an article on the Egyptian calendar by Mr. Winslow, who was {former} -- the head of the Metropolitan Museum. Or there may be an article on a text of Cicero in an old manuscript found in, let's say, Verona, as it actually was found in the last century. And these correspondents in Verona, that was the famous Cardinal Angelo Mai, would send in to the academy in Rome and said, "I have found a new manuscript of a text," you see, "of a Latin author in Verona, in the cathedral library there," and they would publish it there.

That is, gentlemen, the letters or literature is language and history of people treated as nature. That's very important. What you call "letters" -- doctor --

George Wood is doctor in belles lettres, as you may know in this college -- treats the letters as done, as monuments, which you can treat as archaeology, as just being what they are. Modern philology has treated the documents and monuments of the past as merely documents of the past, just as you treat the Bible, as something written by somebody else for somebody else. That's a very good definition, gentlemen. The -- what people call philology means the treatment of a text as written by somebody else for somebody else.

Now if you read the Bible religiously, it is written for you by somebody who speaks to you. Isn't that right? If you treat the Bible as literature, in this famous course here in the English department, it is treated as written by somebody for somebody else. And you look at it. That is, gentlemen, you learn from this department of letters, or in this -- college, it's called the humanities, because they are so inhuman, the treat- -- treatment, that you can look into other people's bedchambers, through the keyhole and ask yourself, "What did they say to each other?" You can be an observer, as the Americans were from 1919 to 1938 in the League of Nations in Geneva, you see. And it ended disastrously because it is shameless to be an observer. Not good. Looking through the keyhole is like going to a burlesque show and seeing a strip-teaser. And that's forbidden.

Take the girl and go with the girl. That's -- highly virtuous. But don't allow her to strip-tease her -- in your eyes -- before you. That is the -- miserable state, gentlemen, at this moment of our study of speech, history, and the great texts of ours, that you read the Bible with the sneer of the expert who looks at somebody else's writings, written for somebody else. If the Bible isn't written to you and me, don't read it. For Heaven's sake, what's the matter? What do you have to do with a -- such an old book written 1500 years B.C.? It's nonsense. It's poison. It's much better that you have never heard of it. The only hope in this country at this moment is that we'll pass a law very soon that nobody is allowed to read the Bible before he's 40 years old, because if he's 40 years old and then reads the Bible for the first time, he'll read it with a burning interest, as written for him.

But you read it as literature. You are told that this was written 500 B.C. by the -- somebody in trouble, prophet Isaiah or Jeremiah, and he was a very cantankerous cuss. And most of the tradition is wrong, anyway. Half of it was forged. And the Jews didn't like it. And we don't like it, either.

And so gentlemen, I'm very -- very earnest now. From 1500 to 1900, the world of speech has been relegated to an observable fact. And therefore it has been treated as dead. And that's why you have a wrong view of American history. You have a wrong view of Shakespeare. You don't go to Henry IV, Second Part. No, you don't. There were more actors at one time here in the performance -- on the stage than in this -- in the -- in the -- how do you? -- the audience, because --

Dartmouth students don't have to go to hear Shakespeare, because they think he has not written for them. That's just a curiosity. You have a course on Shakespeare in which you are taught this way: that's a poor play, I -- we are told. That's a typical treatment of an academic mind. It is utter nonsense, because the worst play by Shakespeare is still better than the plays your write in your fraternity contests.

So you live in a dead universe, gentlemen, because even the history of America has been debunked, and is written off. You look into it and you say, "All the speeches made by Daniel Webster -- were just a stupid people, we wouldn't be taken in by Daniel Webster." But gentlemen, you have some exceptions. The farewell address -- letter from -- of Washington, and the Declaration of Independence, and the Gettysburg Address we still read as though they were addressed to us. Isn't that true? And what do we do then, gentlemen? We are not in the academic world. We are outside the womb of time created for scientific research, and we are dealing with this as addressed to us. We are back in the speaking universe.

I am mentioning this, gentlemen, because you are so -- tragic creatures. You have no relation to science, except idolatry. That is, you say, "Other people have science, and I believe in it. I have no science. I don't care for it. I want to make money."

That's your -- by and large, your situation. You are neither a scientist, nor are you free from the scientific blight which -- transforms everything into death and dead matter. So you don't {play} with the Bible and Shakespeare, and the songs of Longfellow and Tennyson -- or anybody else for that matter -- because you have heard the critics say, "Oh that's nothing. But Melville was a neurotic." And so, you see, you know all about him. Or -- as I have said -- a colleague say at this college, "Oh, about Goethe, I can tell you everything about Goethe in five minutes."

Now gentlemen, that's academic, because if you can say everything about Goethe in five minutes, then you certainly don't have to read it. Isn't that true? You dismiss it as being on the dungheap of facts, of nature, of no longer speaking to you, and without any reverence.

Gentlemen, the words which you and I must read are words which still wait for coming true. That is, every word that I try to tell you has future. And it isn't finished by your saying you have heard it. When you go out of this class and you say, "Today he said something quite interesting," you have killed what I have told you. You have killed it, because the only remark you must make is, "Is it true?" Inasfar as you ask this question, you decide whether it's -- must live with

you, because the truth you cannot give up. It must be unforgettable. You never ask this question. You only talk about whether I spoke lively, or violently, or wittily, or such perfectly ridiculous remarks.

This fellow Schnabel, the great -- pianist -- at one concert he played Beethoven. But he had bad luck with the chairs. And so the chairs had to be exchanged five times before he could be seated. And when a friend of mine who attended this concert talked about the greatness of his playing, later he found that the only thing the people recalled were the chairs and this exchange of different seats. And they hadn't been able to receive his message, because he was a very great Beethoven player. And that's by an large how you treat my -- my classes and all classes, you see. You remember whether I had to change my chair.

But that is not -- that's why you are so -- in such a tragic twilight, gentlemen. You neither are related to the truth, nor do you know what the truth -- how the truth { } you into life. You want to be under the wings of science, but you haven't learned enough to participate in the research in the progress of time. And yet science serves the one purpose, that you are not baffled or not puzzled by anything. You say of society, "It will { } this for me. So I don't have to admire it. I don't have to be moved. I don't have to get excited. I can take it easy."

And you have no participation in anything. And that's, by and large, your {existence}. And I don't think I exaggerate, gentlemen, because you have made up your minds that this should be { }. You don't wish to be excited. "Don't get excited" is everything you say to each other. Isn't that true? I've never heard a student say to each other, "Get excited." The only thing you say to each other is, "Don't get excited."

And thereby you imitate the scientist who, for the sake of trying to investigate all the dead matter, has to get as dead as the matter. {He measures it}. But gentlemen, you ought to know that what he investigates is only part of the sciences -- of the world. Over the existence of a real scientist, you should get terribly excited, because the scientist in his asceticism, in his renunciation of immediate success, in his patience, in his courage, he's a very exciting man. Couldn't you be a little bit as exciting as he?

This is your problem, gentlemen. I have to -- tried to show you, gentlemen, the medi- -- the limitations of the academy. They have investigated the dead part of the world successfully. But they also have estranged you by your idolatry of science from all the living voices who have tried to excite you, and still try to excite you, because you carry over the department of research of dead matter, of nature, into the world of your human relations: your parents, your teachers, the -- the -- the Great Books, and what- -- as it is, and you have no immediate voice

contact with the people who have spoken for you only. There is no Christianity if Christ hasn't spoken to you. And there is no Bible if it isn't written for you. And there is no Gettysburg Address if it isn't addressed to you. And there is no Shakespeare if it isn't written for you. If you say that Shakespeare was written for the Jacobite drama, it's a lie. The man was not appreciated in his time half as much as he should have. He was mistaken for one of the many men. We know that he is the only survivor, and we can only { } if you don't listen to Shakespeare, he is curtailed of his -- of his deserved success, that he is the voice of the past in which drama really came into its own.

Gentlemen, a great theologian { } in Germany has said that any human being must have two books in his home, Shakespeare and the Bible. And he meant to say, you see, one was the book of the world speaking directly to us, surviving the academic life of Mr. Bacon of Verulam, and Copernicus, and -- and Tycho Brahe, and Galilei. Despite the fact that the earth turns around the sun, there has -- are voices on this earth, gentlemen, which are more important than the turning around the sun. Shakespeare is your and my sun. And the Bible is the -- or the moon, if you like. And the Bible is the sun, because there is something that these people have appealed to.

What have they appealed to, gentlemen? They have appealed to the womb of time that you and I must form. That is, Shakespeare and the Bible make up you and me into the equals of the scientist. Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, and Galilei, and Kepler have formed a womb of time over 120 years. After that, astronomers came and you take it for granted that today there is an astronomical society, and there is a Link Observa- -- the Link Observatory and how is the other called? Pala -- wie?

(Mount Palomar.)

Ja. In -- in California. That's all for you common knowledge. But they are just the heirs of this womb of time. And they -- they are still in the same womb of time created in the 16th century.

Now gentlemen, in competition with all the scientists, you and I too live in a womb of time. We also have to create the good life. We don't dabble with these dead stars, these {fires} in the sky. We deal with real {children}, with real people, with the Negroes, and -- and the Hindus, and the Americans, and the Germans, and the Russians. And this is our {affair}. We are better off than the scientists, I can assure you. But only as long as you read Shakespeare and -- the Bible; that is, as long as you are called into Church and state, into a womb of time which is waiting to be -- to mature and to be -- give birth to new creatures of peace, and glory, and delight. And you do not feel that you are the equals of the

scientists by listening to Shakespeare and the Bible. You have completely forgotten this. You really think that by imitating the scientist, by reading his stuff on relativity, that you become his equal. This you can never. You will always be a very little frog in the field of science. But we can all be their equals by forming a womb of time through history between free men. You can just as well -- may be as miraculous as Mr. Einstein, not by discovering relativity, you see, but by loving your neighbor as yourself, for example.

And gentlemen, therefore the academic world of science has always to be balanced by a world of poetry, and by -- of art. The last 400 years have transformed the monuments of { } into something natural under one condition: that you and I will be nourished by something living, to keep us out of science, to preserve you and me as not objects of science, you see, but as singers of the universe, as speakers of the universe, as unnatural. If you do not remain unnatural, then science will kill you. And you -- how do you remain unnatural? By first of all listening to the most living voices and then by writing poetry yourself, by {calling to a bird}, or making political speeches, what you like; but certainly by speaking and listening, by entering this strange process of the {climate}.

Give -- can you give me one more minute? I'm wrong, I know I shouldn't keep you, but look. I'm sh- -- I'm so -- it's so -- so pressing. Look. You remember my climate of the mental processes? And you said -- we said that living man is a man waiting to be recognized, so that what he thinks of himself, and what the people tell him that they think of himself, and what they say to each other, what I am, that this comes to an equation? That's life. You remember? That's all done by speech. That's the tremendous tension and polarity under which you and I live, that you are so interesting that it's worth your consciousness, and it's worth other people's consciousness, and you -- and it's -- the -- the judgment that other people pass over you, even when you are absent, that they leave you a place, that they give you a job, where they promote you, where they dismiss you, when they love you, when they invite you, when it is important to accept. All of this is going on all the time. You are treated as a person, as a student, as an American all the time by the others who speak about you for what you say also to them, and make them think about yourself. All this is abolished in the natural world -- of the scientist.

And therefore, gentlemen, this is the ending word today: science is a tendency which cannot go unbalanced or unobstructed. Science is the -- the tendency of treating everything as nature, that is, als -- as reality without speech, and observable reality. And the arts are the conter- -- counter-movement of making you and me again feel that we are unique, that we should have self-consciousness, that our self-consciousness makes an impression on other people and forces them to think differently about {us}.

So gentlemen, the academic spirit is fatal unless it is balanced. And we are out of balance in this college, because you do not go to Shakespeare, and you do not go to chapel. And therefore you are not receiving any life, but you are only allowing yourself to be treated objectively, as an object of science. And the more you do this, the more boring you will be.