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

...in -- in s- -- in as far as I have tried to make you see that the Greek philosopher himself represents the problem of physis, logos, and ethos, by his setup as a school of philosophy. It is quite important for you -- you learn the -- what a school is. You have no idea what a school is. You have wrong ideas. Everything here in this country is one step down. You call an academy something like Northfield, where they train people to be soldiers. Well, in Plato's time, the Academy was something for the people where you had to be 30 at least to enter. And you couldn't enter at 16.

Now most of the terms which you use, gentlemen, are anticipations of the real thing. A college, too, in the Middle Ages, was an institution in which people were, by and large, 25 years of age when they came there. So if you give the same thing to younger people, the thing of course is devalued. You -- the whole idea of education is always, "Give it a little earlier," and "Give it a little earlier." But the thing itself then is changed, obviously, you see, because you can't give to a 16-year-old boy the same food as you can give to a 30-year-old man. It's just impossible.

So it is not easy for you to see what a Greek school of philosophy was. You s- -- talk so much about the Stoa, or the Stoics, or the Epicureans, or the Academy, or the -- or the Peripatetic school. You also talk very big about universities. And I think it's -- the -- the Greek history of philosophy should be used by you to sit in judgment over the things that carry the same name in our time, but aren't the same. And I want today to make the point, gentlemen, that a Greek school of philosophy had this vitality that it contained the three generations, as the logos, and the ethos, and the physis of man would represent. Youth being the physical aspect of man, logos being the wisdom aspect of man, and ethos being the aspect of the fighting generation -- but on the other hand, gentlemen, that the Greeks knew not of a university. And some of you have glibly stated that the Academy of Plato was the first university. And that's the American tradition. But that's als- -- as wrong as if you say that in America, every- -- -body is a philosopher. You can also read this in books that today everybody philosophizes. I see nothing of this. I see a total absence of philosophy even by the people who are professors of philosophy. Because to be a professor of philosophy doesn't make you into a philosopher. Don't think this. If you are teaching mathematics, you are not a mathematician.

I have a friend who is a mathematician here in this country. And he's -- he's one of the 150 mathematicians on whom it depends that mathematics is alive. And he says, "The terrible thing in America is there are 10,000 people who

teach mathematics, and they all are held to be mathematicians. They are not the slightest thing of it. They teach my mathematics which I produce." Mathematics is only something real as long as it is constantly created. And there are -- perhaps 150 is a large number -- all over the world, including India and China, where people produce mathematics. You always take a professor of chemistry to be a chemist. Or a hist- -- a professor of history to be an historian. There's a great difference, gentlemen. A professor of history prevents new historians to teach the things that are needed. All the people who teach something are conservatives, because they have learned in their youth certain things, and they stick to them and think they are true. There is always a tremendous fight between the people who represent something -- as in the New Testament. The people who taught the law, face to face with the living law of the Lord -- of course were all against Him, were they not? Now, who was the law? He or the Pharisees? And that's the situation always, gentlemen. But you are totally blinded.

When I -- I have -- I think can say that in certain fields of human en- -- knowledge, I am at this moment the -- the -- in the -- in the ranks of those who create this field, who do it. It doesn't -- even this doesn't prevent me from doing it that I have to teach here at Dartmouth. That's bad enough. But obviously, gentlemen, if you are -- have the choice to learn something with me, or to -- lear- -- learn some- -- some- -- by a professor in the graduate school, your assumption is always that the man in the graduate school who is appointed to teach it must be much more -- the better man than I, because I have no seal on this, under this, you see. I'm just teaching at Dartmouth. How could a man be good who teaches at Dartmouth? That's just impossible. You -- so you go on to the graduate school.

So here at this moment, some peo- -- boys here -- senior -- Senior Fellows who -- who concentrate on the field in which I am the one authority in Europe, now -- or rated as the authority. But they never think of taking a course with me, because they mistake the appointment in a school for being the man who produces the thing, you see. And since I'm not officially appointed in a graduate school for this field, it's never dawned on them that they might be quite well to come to me, because next year this man will go to Europe. Then he will be told, "Why didn't you go to this man? He knows better."

But in America, gentlemen, there is a constant confusion between school and produc- -- creation. And you think that -- what -- what's your purpose -- coming in or going out?

(Going out.)

What?

(Going out.)

I'm very glad. Now in -- the -- the word in Greece of "school" is a -- is a different word from what you today take it. A school is to you a thing in which that what happens is -- fore- -- can be foretold. You take an exam, and you have the -- the credentials from this school, and then you can become a barber. That's a -- the school. The school then for us, gentlemen, is something predictable, that creates a routine curriculum, and therefore, it is second-rate. Obviously, gentlemen, the -- in the times from 5- -- 600, from Thales' days, to the times of Marcus Aurelius, and even to -- down to the days of St. Augustine, who was -- went to school to the academics for a while as you know. He was very much tempted by the Manichaeans, and by the Pythagoreans, and by the Academicians, by the people in the Academy. This is not true. The word in Greece of "school"--and I would really miss my duty towards you, if I wouldn't stress this fact--the word in Greek for "school" is "leisure." If you entered the school -- skhole -- the word sc-h has to be divided here, as we still -- pronounce "school." And "skhole" [scholay] is the Greek pronunciation -- not -- not the hard "k," but the soft. Skhole. It means leisure. It's -- comes as least nearest to this. A -- leisure, however, a skhole, given to meditation, and to the Muses, and to inspiration. So you joined the leisure class if you became a scholar.

And since this is totally lost today, and we think a scholar is a man who studies, in the sense that he has a special field, you see, in which he -- in which he is then finally appointed, it is well to see that the beginning of the word "skhole" means to risk one's free time at an adventure of ideas, and one didn't know where would one come out. It is the unlimited, the oceanic character of the enterprise which attracted the best minds in Greece for this activity.

So throw it all out, gentlemen. A school of philosophy in antiquity is not a school. And that's why the word "academy" to this day is a kind of glorification for a school. If you say, you see, "the academic mind," you want to say a little bit more than the "scholastic" or the "school" mind. It's not a school man then you say, you see, but it's aiming at Plato.

Now there is still this reminiscence that the school called the Academy of Plato, is an -- is a venture, is an enter- -- free enterprise. You may even say that it is the freest enterprise of the ancient world. It's an attempt to gain influence, to make the philosophers king. Very -- and therefore, since there are no certified credentials in this business, after all, in every generation the great hope is that these boys, who have the guts to spend a few years with the master, you see, will then be -- do great deeds. But without any certainty, without any certificates. No creden- -- no examination. The idea of an examination is perfectly unknown in antiquity. There are no examinations, gentlemen. Examinations

make people stupid. And this is the most stupid generation of students I -- that is possible, because you are examined every half year.

Gentlemen, I in my whole life have taken one exam, one oral exam, when I was -- for my doctorate. I -- that's why I still think I have my mind together. I never broke away from what I had learned, because there came finals, and I could forget about it. This whole thing went -- was all the time a going process. A real skhole, a real -- a leisure, you see. From my first day in grammar school to my last day in the university, I was on my own. I never -- I wasn't ever asked what I learned. I just learned. And so it was all inside of me, and I never made this clear break, "Now the course, History of Philosophy is over, so I can forget it." So I never heard it. After two years, you hardly know that you took the course. That's your case, because you take finals. Finals are the most stultifying process in American education. If you want to reform the college, the first thing is -- you should do, is abolish all examinations, and eliminate all the students who only are learning something because of the examinations. They don't deserve to go to college anyway. And it isn't worth learning anything for an examination. It's only worth learning something for your own sake, as a promise for your own future, isn't it? For whose sake should you take an exam?

Now the Greek situation then is a free situation. It's a freelance situation, it's a free enterprise situation. And therefore, the only certainty the school offers in Greece is that old people, grownups, and adolescents are together. It is not a child's play. But it is the play of grownups who make themselves like children. It's childlike-ness of old people. That's an academy. Grownup people sit there on the bank --. Gentlemen, when I was a young student your age, I had the privilege -- I -- I have always studied preferably with very old men, who were already emeriti. But in Europe, an emeritus is the most dignified teacher. An emeritus is not a man who doesn't -- isn't used more. This list of emeriti in Dartmouth, the directory of Dartmouth College, is one big insult to humanity. There are all the dignified teachers of this college listed as emeriti, and they have nothing to say anymore at this college. In Europe, the emeriti have no duties to perform, but they have the right to teach what they like. They don't examine anymore. They are not in any -- they have no duties, as I said, no obligations. But they have a group of students. They have real pupils. They have real disciples.

And so I took preferably courses with people of -- from 70 -- between 70 and 80, because they of course are the mis- -- most brilliant and wisest men. And they had -- they had no standing anymore in the -- except for the -- what they were. They had no -- I didn't -- you didn't -- you didn't go to these men before, because they were appointed professors. They had outgrown their appointments. They were people like Robert Frost, where you go because this is -- it's

just Robert Frost, you see. No title can ever, you see, do anything but belittle Robert Frost. He's always bigger than all the titles, and especially than all the degrees Dartmouth has given him. He is the man, of course. You look up to Robert Frost as bigger than any office he can hold.

Well, I wanted to say, the students with -- were seated with me on the benches of this seminar with these old men of 80 were themselves between 65 and 75 years of age. And that you should have seen, the ambition the still people had to outwit us young people, I mean, in reading the Greek texts and so. We read Hippocrates, for example, together. And that's what an academy is, where old people learn.

So you have to reverse your whole vision of the Greek world if you think that it is only a world in -- where the young are introduced. But it is a way in which -- where the young -- the old keep learning. And that of course is today -- has a -- a different -- a different name. It's called "research," gentlemen. But you must understand that research is the way of keeping old people young. Research has come into the world, and that again you do not know. It's today a kind of mystery word. Usually graduate students in various schools think research is wonderful because they get stipends, and fellowships, and money. It's today -- first milking cow. It is noth- -- nothing of the kind.

Research has been introduced in Europe as a way of keeping the teachers alive of -- at a time where the man already has to formulate answers to the young, you see, allows him to question. Research is the open attitude, you see, with your hands open to let the rain fall, so to speak, through -- from the sky. That's research. Teaching is being armed to the teeth, you see, and already imposing on you the truth, you see. And in order to be an academician, to be a man in -- in -- in -- in the real fullness of the mental ripeness, I at my age have to stay in research, you see. Therefore I am much younger than you, because you are satisfied with short-lived -- shortcut answers. You listen to the quiz kids, or something like that, $64 dollar question. My questions are still very long-range. I have still -- for a certain question I will have to answer 10 or 20 years ahead of me. And then I may know the answer. I can now -- I have now just published a book which I feel is the answer to things I wanted to know when I was your age. Now I know it. It has taken me 50 years to know it. And that's research.

So gentlemen, the school in Greece is a situation in which grownup people are prevented from being just old, you see, by keeping also the opposite attitude of still learning. It is learning beyond age. It's the opposite from mis- -- from the child prodigy here, who wants to -- to go to the Horace Mann School and finish at 14 and enter Harvard at 15. That's a horror, in my estimation. It's destructive, and anybody who -- who's -- too young is in a terrible, terrible dan-

-- terribly en- -- dangerous position. He's old too early, you see. But we should be kept young, of course, long enough. But you don't do -- keep young, gentlemen, by playing baseball too long. You keep young by doing research. Whether in your own profession or where not. Wherever a man at 50 can question his very existence, you see, he is still young. Not by playing around. It's a much more serious business.

So that's the Academy. Now the opposite -- at the opposite end, I want to stress the fact, gentlemen, that an academy, or a school of philosophy in antiquity is not a university. It's the opposite from a university, just as it is the opposite from a school. So you peek -- do me a great favor if you try for the time being to believe me -- that what in America what is called a "school," and what in Europe is called a "university" -- there are no universities in America--there're all tho- -- only namesakes of the -- that the -- the Academy or the Stoa are neither one. It -- I think it helps us to make this distinction. You grow into the real Greek situation out of which we have developed one way the university and the other way the school. The school is less than an academy, or a school of philosophy. The university is more. Our era wouldn't be a -- a -- a new era if it hadn't transcended the Ac- -- the antiquity in some respect. We have imitated antiquity by schools. We have overcome antiquity by universities. As soon as you understand this, you will begin to understand what Greek philosophy really is. It is something in between, something that does not exist today, in this -- as organized -- an organized effort. And that's not so easy to understand.

So I want to devote to this sociological aspect of -- of philosophy to -- this -- these meetings, because it is terribly important that you should -- should not believe that philosophy is the same 500 B.C. and the same today. And as long as you use all these words "school," "academy," "academic mind," and so on, "doctor degree," as though this was the thing, you see, that existed for 2,500 years unchanged, I don't see how you can understand the history of the human spirit.

Aren't you too hot? With gloves on?

(Okay.)

So we said, gentlemen, the school is today not an adventure. But it is safe. The one thing you can say of a school is that it gives -- is meant to give security, that it gives conformity in this country. That you -- you just are the -- all this -- conditions of going to -- successfully to school are known. You cannot surprise anybody with all the stupid assignments we get. You can't do more than the assignments. And the assignments are certainly limiting your own growth. I mean, obviously the -- modern stu- -- school is so stifling, most people who go to school learn too little. They learn much less than they could learn, like this

mother in Illinois. {Feld}, you know -- have seen the story in the papers, have you? Who -- who was a teacher in Michigan, and then in Illinois she was sent to prison because she taught her own child, feeling that she could teach her child three times better than the schoolteachers. Didn't you see the story? No revolution in this country any more for this. I mean, in -- in -- 100 years ago, they would have tarred and feathered the judge who -- who sent her to prison. It is just incredible. But you don't even feel -- you don't even resent it. You think she was condemned righteously. She was -- that's an injustice, gentlemen, a grave injustice that was done her. She has the duty and the right to teach her child. The school is just a substitute. But you don't -- can't see it. You believe you are school militarists. This whole country is -- is run by -- by school barracks -- the school barracks system, just as Mr. Orozco has put it there on the -- on his fresco. It's one of his -- most important frescoes.

The simple idea that I have to give up my child's education, because a stupid schoolteacher who is 19, and hasn't yet found a husband, is allowed to -- to -- to -- to teach my -- my grandchild now comic strips, and to field all the wrong stuff. Pernicious. Chaff. Empty, so that they -- their whole taste is ruined for life. Nothing serious. Nothing that makes a real -- demands an effort. For -- they are just -- for the rest of their lives, they are worth nothing, these children. You haven't learned how to learn, so I can't teach you anything. That's the school today. And that is today the tyranny of this country. If you want to do better with your child, you aren't allowed to. This -- this woman had a certificate from the state, you see, of Michigan to teach. But the -- the state rights came in and the judge said, "In Illinois, we don't recognize the certificate of the state of Michigan. Go to prison."

So the school, gentlemen, is a limiting concept for growth. It's known growth. That which can already be fore-ordained. And you must see this. Woodrow Wilson always used to say that nobody could come from an American liberal arts college who would be as good as Lincoln. That's quite an indictment if the -- one president of the United States says this, that Lincoln could not be produced in Dartmouth College. He said it here in 1909, officially, in a -- in a great speech he gave at the inauguration of President {Nichols}. If you want -- to read a serious indictment of college education, read the speech by Woodrow Wilson given 1909 at the inauguration of President {Nichols} of Dartmouth College. And he was himself president of Princeton, so he ought to know.

It's very serious, gentlemen. A school today is the opposite from a Greek skhole, from a Greek school of philosophy. And as long as you do not make this radical break in your thinking, I think you -- everything you read about antiquity is misleading. The children didn't go to school then, you see. But the grownups did. And that makes a difference. By the way, perhaps you keep this in

mind: that what -- in the days of scholasticism, gentlemen, in the days of Thomas Aquinas, the school men, as they were called, had students who were all over 30 years of age. The people who went to the University of Paris and studied with B- -- -omas Aquinas, with Bonaventura, with Ab‚lard, they were all grownup people. And that made a difference. You can imagine that you can discuss with grownup people, you see, everything, only very differently from what I -- what you will put up with, before life. They all had lived. They all had sinned. They all had charges already of congregations, and churches, you see, or of courts, law courts, and so -- would -- any discussion in the Middle Ages between Thomas Aquinas and -- and his students was on a different level from what it is now in Manhattan College. I mean, I have heard these boys there talk about God and scholastic philosophy, just to vomit. Same as in Union Seminar. You can't discuss with -- God Almighty with a -- with a man who never had a congregation, never was in charge of souls. He doesn't know how s- -- desperate people are.

The university in the Middle Ages, gentlemen, and today is a conglomeration of various schools. Because in a university we have a -- one -- not one school, but a number of schools represented, fighting each other. In a university of the real, so to speak, type, as in Paris in the Middle Ages, for example, in the 13th century, as I said, it is -- doesn't exist in America. There is no university in America. The principle of a university is that a student is exposed to teachers who teach the opposite. Now that was not done in antiquity. In a Platonic school, you couldn't teach Aristotelianism. You had then to go to another school. You had to leave one and go to the other.

The limitations, gentlemen, of paganism is that the human mind remains impenetrable to each other, that one person does not -- is -- is not a brother with the man who has the opposite opinion. Opposition is not, you see, digested into a symphonic offer in -- in antiquity. It's the -- Christianity which says that the Holy Spirit can reconcile enemies. You have to love thine enemy before you can have a university. Because in a university today, you can have a pragmatist, and you can have a Platonist, and you can have an Aristotelian in the same faculty, you see. And you, as the -- as their student, are exposed in one week, you see, to the opposite teaching of Mr. Mandelbaum and myself. There's -- would be the beginning. It isn't quite the same, because you can here in this college evade it. In -- in a university you would be forced to confront, and to undergo the -- the influence of opposite schools.

(Well, isn't the Platonic dialogue just -- set up like -- for the purpose of a { } a university?)

You see that this isn't true from Aristotle. He had to leave. He had to set

up his own school. Plato tried to squeeze the lemon, to exploit the previous schools. But the result was final. That is, the way the dialogues were set up meant that you couldn't go back to Pythagoras, you see, but he would profit from what was valid in Heraclitus or Pythagoras and then lay down the law that the Platonic school would be based on these and these conditions, like the ideals, you see.

(Wasn't the -- wasn't Socrates in the dialogues { } of { }?)

Well, { } winner. Socrates is defeating his -- his opponent. I told you that the only real dialogue in the modern sense is The Symposion, because the various contributions are left standing, you see. But they aren't left standing in the other dialogues. One is made a fool. And he's refuted.

Oh, no. No. That's very definite. You see then -- from the history of Greek philosophy, after the Academy, you see, existed, every one who -- who had a new principle broke away. They had to. The Stoa, as they -- Zeno was the most peaceful citizen you could have in Athens. He lived in Athens, you see, Aristotle. And you had three schools instead of one. If you -- a university had existed, obviously, you see, the three would -- would have remained or gone together as one. You were either one or the other.

That's why there is no progress in Greek -- in Greek science, you see. Greek science stagnated and just ended in nothingness. The Greeks have had every idea that a man can have in any field of human endeavor, in history, in language, in -- in -- in -- in -- in sci- -- botany, in zoology, in genetics, even. You find--in atomic theory--you find in physics, chemistry, and so on not one great principle that the Greeks have not uttered. Eratosthenes said already, as you well know, that the earth was turning around the sun. That was well known in antiquity as a possibility. But it wasn't followed up. It wasn't fought out. That was an idea. And there was another idea. And what was thought -- taught in one school, and the other was taught in the other. And when the school folded up, it was forgotten.

By and large, the mental stage in America, where also you have the most wonderful fireworks in every generation. You have had here the Millerites, and the Social- -- Oneida Socialists, and the Put- -- Putney people, and if you follow the -- the -- through the list of social reformers in this country, it's a complete list. And nothing has come of it. Absolutely nothing. It's the greatest wasteland there is, is America, with regard to ideas. Because every year somebody else -- tries a very good idea. But then they say, "Oh, that was yesterday," and that's finished it, you see. Americans will only believe a thing of tomorrow. And if you say that the same was sai- -- told yesterday, although it is perfectly true, it's not

good enough to be repeated. You are too impatient.

So in this country you have a little bit the Greek situation in the -- in the sense that not the -- the Greek science, gentlemen, has had all the problems, but it had not the perseverance. It did not carry the thing through. Eratosthenes' doctrine, that the earth towned a- -- turned around the sun, you see, the whole planetary system, wasn't followed up. If -- when Christ came, the whole Greek science was a quagmire of possibilities, of potential ideas, you see. And no system of carrying it through, of hashing it out, of perseverance. The indictment against Greek philosophy is not that it was wrong, gentlemen, but it had no virtue; it had no character; it had no means of sacrificing, you see, sufficiently in time and devotion, you see, to master the thing. You can say that the Greek mind worked to perfection, but it had no seat in reality. And that is the essence of the Greek school of philosophy, gentlemen. A university is anchored in the lifeblood of the people. It brings, for example, forth clergymen, judges. The Greek Academy didn't do that. It was not a preparation for professions, but it was a leisure class, who stood up outside the polis. And I've tried to show -- tell you time and again that the Greek mind is predicated on the fate of the Greek polis. That it went outside the polis, but it couldn't return {inward}.

So perhaps you take this sentence simply down: that a school and a university, whatever they are today, are part and parcel of the community. An academy and a Greek school of philosophy remain outside the community. Therefore they neither undergo the degradation of a school, by which it is compulsory training of known content, nor do they have the greatness of a Christian adventure where enemies -- mental enemies, people who -- who simply would like to scratch their eyes mutually out of their head, you see, stick it out together in free debate, you see, in -- in -- in -- in enmity, in real enmity, mental enmity, you see. But stay together, because they know that the truth is not in one side only, but it must be in -- in the conflagration of both. The Greeks remain or step outside the city, and therefore they have the advantage of giving grownup people a real battleground for their minds. But they cannot find the way back into the city. They cannot force the mayor, and the selectmen of the town, and the ministers of the cabinet, and so on -- to have everybody who wants to become a mayor, or a priest, or a general in -- or a judge in the town to undergo this training, you see, as in a school. Can you see the -- the outsidedness of the Greek school of philosophy?

That gives them, of course, the -- the freelance character, the freshness, the -- in a way, the -- the greatness, the character of a place for adults. Because as soon as you make it a requirement, you know what happens of course to such a thing. It is degraded into a mere school. Well, we help each other -- have had -- out so far in the West, in the western world as the heirs of the Greeks, that we

have split the schools of philosophy, of antiquity into two things: schools for the young, you see, and universities for the real battle of minds.

But so far, gentlemen, in America, you are still finished when you are a controversial person. In Europe, that's a recommendation. You are courted every place because you are controversial, you see. But Mr. Oppenheimer hardly kept his job in Princeton, because he's controversial, you see. That's a recommendation in a university. In America, which is -- lives by the Stevensons, I mean the secretary of war from Yale, by the people who never have a -- you see, say anything. You know how Mr. Stevens became secretary of war. You have heard the story? Well, he said to himself that he had managed in Yale never to utter an opinion -- express an opinion during the four years he was in college, and that he therefore became -- a successful man. That's America.

I had lunch with a boy, gentlemen, a few days ago. And the boy said to me, "Professor, it's so nice"--he's a senior--"it's so nice to have lunch with you. It's the first time in four years in this college that I can speak my mind."

I was very much ashamed to hear that, I mean, for my -- the place in which I am condemned to -- to be. Such a nest of lies { }, if he could say this. If even one man can say this, and if he could think that this was the behavior required from him in this place. I don't understand it. Can you understand it? Would anybody help me, how a man could say such a thing? How can he stand it? Why didn't he go away? Do you understand it? Can anybody explain this to me?

(Social pressure, I suppose. Don't you think?)

Ja, but what do -- would you kindly? -- I'm so stupid. I hear this word often. But what does it mean?

(Well, it means the pressure of having a so-called American respect for the { } parents, where the father expects his son to go through college. And if his son hates college -- whether he likes it or not, he still feels, because he's been brought up in a certain way, he feels obligated to go through with it, no matter whether he hates it or not. That's the way { }.)

So that he already comes here with a kind of aloofness and -- and says, "It is nothing in my life." Is that right? The -- you see, your explanation is probably valid. But I wouldn't call it "social pressure." It's a -- it's -- it's a little more complicated, isn't it -- don't you think? Ja?

(Sir, I think "obligation" may be the important word. The attitude general-

ly seems to be one of obligation; that is, there are a set of regulations, there are exams, and meeting places, requirements, deadlines, and so forth. These -- these one does out of a sense of duty, responsibility, because it's imposed. But this destroys almost the real sense of love that one can have in -- in studying. And in -- { } more free contact with { }. So the approach is one of obligation, rather than love, and I think that's --.)

Well, I think your -- our examination system is at fault. You cannot -- get up love if it is constantly interrupted by these deadlines, what you call "deadline." As I said, I was very privileged in a -- in a university in Europe. You pass your final exam, your doctor's thesis, or what- -- or what is, you see, and that's only a very little of an exam. It's -- you -- it's nothing. You write a book. That's what I -- that is your own, after all, your own creation, your own --. So that's not an exam in your sense of the word, because you make your own contribution. And otherwise I haven't been examined. And I still alive. Ja?

(Where else -- where else can you go? In other words, what other alternatives are open for you? If you're going out to get an education, you want to go to a place where -- that you will have, so to speak, best teachers available for you -- in the overall sense, where you can ask what questions you want to ask, where you can -- it's an idea of -- of having sacrificed something in order -- in order to further yourself in the best way that you see available. And that -- for instance, Dartmouth, or Princeton, or Yale, or any of these universities, while they do have their limitations, they do have certain aspects that are impractical as far as really furthering your learning ultimately. Still, you have to put up with these in order to -- go there and listen to these -- to the -- your teachers.)

Ja, but this boy said he had never said an honest word about his inner workings -- the inner workings of his mind. That has nothing to do with your mind. I side with you. That's probably the situation. And it's a good one. But for this boy, it had turned to poison, because he hadn't made use of this situation at all. Isn't that true? You see, I -- I'm driving further. I'm -- that's the starting point, your situation. But this boy says to me, as a senior after three and-a-half years in college, that he hadn't had a reason or an opportunity to speak his mind to anybody, and he was -- it was very refreshing to do so with me.

(But wouldn't that be saying, no ma- -- regardless of where he went to school? I don't think that -- I don't think that Dartmouth in itself { }.)

No, I'm speaking of all your schools. Of course. I have no axe to grind here. This col- -- this place isn't any worse than any other place.

(So what I'm saying -- I'm not -- I'm not defending -- I'm not defending

the college. The college isn't the issue I'm raising here, just --)

No, but this boy's remark. Can you explain it to me? We are concentrating not on your remark, of which there is no doubt, you see. I have no -- no criticism of your stay- -- standpoint. But this boy had a different viewpoint, didn't he? Because how can you live through three and-a-half years? I mean, to speak your own mind is only part of life. -- If you want to receive opinions and convictions from somebody else, your contribution, of course, is that you open up yourself.

(But you -- you said -- you said you felt ashamed for the school, for the environment. And that -- I wouldn't -- it's not -- it's not that so much, as -- because I would think the boy, regardless of what environment he'd be in, would have this same problem.)

Well, but if even one man out of 3,000--and obviously he is not the only one, but let's take one man--can get an impression that this is a place where you are not expected to speak your mind, there must be something very -- very wrong. Please.

(I think there's practically no place in the world where if you haven't got a little guts, it isn't hard to speak your mind. And so whether you're in Dartmouth College, or you're at Leipzig, doesn't really make much difference. So -- it's going to be hard. And this person's experience -- experiencing just as much trouble as he would anywhere else. { }.)

Ja?

(Professor Huessy, I think there are justifications in all this. First of all, I think the first big question might be { } himself, as you just stated. Second of all, I think the justification for the deadlines and the exams we take -- you yourself have said that a man must learn to follow before he can lead. I think you can apply that equally as well to learning. I don't think the average person that graduates from high school in the United States, being brought up under that philosophy is able to come to college and to study in a free system which you have described, at least not the first few years -- perhaps after that. And even at Dartmouth, they can if they want to, like getting into some of the seminar courses, and into their major work. I know I've come in contact with it. But I don't think I would have been able to handle it personally in my first year at the school and get the benefit out of it that I should have.)

Ja?

(Isn't that the -- the -- perhaps the problem of the -- of the -- of the speaker, that he must have a -- a listener for everything that he has to say? And most of the listeners in -- in Dartmouth -- Dartmouth College or any other college are somewhat -- represent the -- the -- a cult of mediocrity where -- where -- ?)

Ja, but this boy must have felt that he has to do with the informers. I mean, much worse. I mean, why -- if I don't say my -- my truth, it must be because I'm afraid that something happens to me. Please.

(Well, perhaps this fellow you talked to had heard of the senior at Princeton, who was one of the people responsible for getting Alger Hiss, a very controversial figure, to speak at Princeton last year, and because of what he did with this Alger Hiss business, he's now a -- on the American Legion Known Subversive List. And he's { } -- and he's a -- I believe this fellow is going to the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and Politics. He's probably going to try and get a job in the state department. And this would be very tough, seeing this man is not a subversive.)

Mr. {White}, a moment. Here were some people who wanted to say something. Please, will you raise your hands again? I -- Mr. Mandaville, you had talked already once, so I wait. Ja?

(Perhaps this boy hasn't found any professors --)

What?

(Perhaps this boy hasn't found many professors who are interested in listening to what he has on his mind. I -- I know of many that I { } going home, not much else. Perhaps -- education is a two-way affair, not only on the part of students, but on the part of the professor, too. And { } professor { } interested in a class in going home.)

Oh, it is my great interest that you should go home. Yes, it is.

Now Mandaville.

(I was just wondering -- it might be that it's very basic -- comp- -- the idea of competition. You said that -- that the -- the school must -- must be in a -- in a sort of -- of a -- a leisure time. But the way people come to school in the United States { }, and probably in most of the European schools, too, they come to the school with the idea of competition. This is only enhanced by exams, and -- and competition to get into the school, and everything. And once you can't -- you can't study leisurely, because you're so busy competing with others that you're

worried about competition more than studying leisurely and spending your time at your own pace and learning { } things.)

Ja, it comes down again to this question of ex- -- the exam as exhibit of -- of your studies. I still think the curse in this country is the exam system. I think it's an absolute mistake.

(Don't you have the exam system in Europe?)

Well, I told you. I haven't been -- I went from my fifth year to my seventh year to school -- high school, Gymnasium, then I went to the university. And in -- when -- then I took my doctor's degree, you see, the law. And that was the first time that I had an oral exam.

(But today, if you go to the University of Paris, or to {Rome}, don't you { }.)

Same -- same. Oh no, oh no, oh no, Sir. Well, nobody goes to the classes anyway, there. No, they don't. I mean, out of 20,000 students of the law school in Paris -- a friend of mine who's just taught there. I have a friend who was called there to teach a year in Paris, in the Sorbonne. He thought it was great honor. He came back disgusted. Was an American. And he said, "Out of 20,000 enrolled students in the law school in Paris, 350 attend the lectures. And 4,000 come off and on into the school." They have such a small building, that if the 20,000 all came, they couldn't possibly. He said he would never teach at the Sorbonne again. It's an absolutely corrupt place. Yes, perhaps in Lausanne, it's different, yes.

What is it?

(No, { } even in Paris, if you want to enter the university, you have to take an exam.)

What?

(You have to take exams to enter the university.)

Well, that's like College Board, yes. Yes.

(Well, it's a little harder than that.)

Well. This I'm -- I'm not arguing the -- I'm -- argue the point of thinking that you can know a man through constant examining his mind and thereby

stopping his growth, because any exam, you see, is after all, a little finite segment of knowledge. And it is not right. Knowledge is not a staircase. That's the idea -- the mechanical idea of learning. But it is falling in love with a subject and expanding from a first nucleus of knowledge which you know, by constantly assimilating related things, which come into your knowledge either through textbooks, or through life, or through -- newspaper articles. If I take the fields, gentlemen, of which I am keeping track -- there are quite a number of fields--like the classics, like history, like the law, like philosophy, and like theology--of which I am, in a certain way, to this day a specialist. And I have kept now for the last 50 years up with the development in these fields. Whether I read a report in a -- in a newspaper, or in a magazine, or in a new book, or -- heard a lecture, I have my -- my files, and I will those sub- -- topics in which I am interested, will be in evidence there, you see, wherever my experience is, whether I travel in the West and make an experience there about water supply, or -- or moose, or something, it all is quite -- I'm quite indifferent to my source of information, you see. And I'm not drawing my information from the idea that I have to render the account by examination to somebody, who can only ask what is printed in a textbook. The terrible thing that happens to you through examinations is -- in my mind, that you really think that the textbook contains what you should know in this field. Obviously, that's just purely accidental, such a stupid textbook. What you should know in this field is what this field requires to be known, which is partly human experience. A sunset, or astronomical {factors}, you cannot learn from a textbook only. But you have to watch -- observe the stars yourself.

Now today, you all undergo this examination thing without ever having your classroom studies, and all the full range of your experiences in sport, in politics, in family affairs meet, because it isn't required. In an exam, the teacher has no right, you see, to draw on the wider range of -- of knowledge than the one compressed in this little textbook. Now that falsifies the whole matter. It seems to you that you only know the subject matter through the textbook. And therefore, the whole subject matter gets a stilted, you see, character, wouldn't you agree? If it -- you say you know only poetry from a textbook on poetics, you see, then ob- -- obviously the paper you will write on -- on poetics will be very stilted and very stultifying, indeed. Where- -- whereas you should, of course, have 90 percent of your impressions by reading poetry, and then get a little help, 10 percent at best, from a textbook on poetry. See the difference?

It's the same with Shakespeare. What does it help me that you are made to read Hamlet in class, if you don't read voluntarily 35 of the 36 plays of Shakespeare yourself, or go to -- go to plays -- places -- theaters where they are played? The course on Hamlet is silly, because it is -- is -- is isolated. It's like the sulfuric element, the copper element in the sulfuric bath, without the sulfuric

bath. You can't have electricity if you haven't the fluid, and the -- and the copper, you see, getting together and creating the current. The textbook is at best the copper element, in the whole electrifying process of the -- your own mind. And -- and all -- what I'm -- why I'm so dead against exams is that it -- they -- they breathe the illusion that what is required knowledge is the textbook knowledge. But the textbook knowledge is only 10 percent of the knowledge. In every field, by the way. In every field.

What does it help you that you take a course in history if you do not read up your -- voluntarily an autobiography, or the letters of John Quincy Adams, or the -- or -- or -- or documents all yourself, because you are interested in it? And then you go to a course that integrates the -- all this, and covers those things for which you had no occasion to study yourself, you see. That's how a decent person studies history. But you go to Mr. {Gisely} and think that's what history is all about. You are all wrong.

(I want to answer your question about --.)

And by the way, I was 15 when I did my studying in this manner in Europe, because you were left free. I have never thought that my history teacher could teach me history. That's impossible. I was very much, of course, ablaze with -- with historical interest. I would get anecdotes from older people. I would read letters, and biographies, collect works, read documents; and then the teacher could just give the skeleton. Of course, that's -- is a great help. And so in every -- I mean, I think any mech- -- man who works in gadgets -- is a gadgeteer does the same in physics. Who is a good physicist? Obviously the man who steps out and has his own laboratory -- lab a little bit. Isn't that true? And so he knows certain things, whether the textbook says it or not. He just knows how the radio works. And I -- the terrible thing is that you don't cope with the same manner with the humanities as you certainly do in chemistry and -- and physics. Americans are -- have the know-how there. You know how a motor runs. You haven't to wait for the professor of physics to tell you this. But why is that d- -- different from all other -- in all -- in -- in these examined courses, where you really think it's the textbook which tells you the whole story? It never does. Is -- is the textbook is only a -- a cramming device.

Ja, please. Anything?

(What -- what about the problem of the -- in America, which I don't think they have in Europe. In Europe, a very few -- percentage of people went to college. And among the people who went to college were the people who went to college were interested in learning for itself. What do you with -- in America, where you have this idea of mass education, and where a student who might

not be gifted in understanding on his own, Shakespeare, who might not be able to just -- or would never be led by his American background to pick up Hamlet, and --)

Put them in the administration of the college. There they can't do any harm.

Ja?

(About what you said about the exam, the deadline period is true. But I was just wondering, is it necessarily the device of the exam that creates the trouble, or is it the attitude behind the course, and the way it's given. Couldn't -- wouldn't it be possible to have examinations in the course with the grade depending on them necessarily, and still, with the proper attitude, along with the teaching of the course, bolster a feeling in the person taking it, that he could continue on with his education in that course, regardless of the fact that his instruction has stopped?)

My dear man. I fully agree. I think that as -- as all these mechanics, they are below the belt, so to speak. -- One shouldn't much talk about them. An exam is something, which if it is handled rightly, that -- doesn't have to have problems. I think it has now reached proportions of importance, by which the teacher is just disenabled to get beyond it. You see, the -- I had -- the greatest defeat in Dartmouth College I ever have suffered is when I had a class like yours, in a different course it was; it was a smaller class. And we agreed that the fruits of this course would appear 10 years later. At best. Then they would know what they -- what it meant in their own lives. And they all wrote down their names, and they said, "In 10 years, we'll all meet." And not one of them has shown up. They took their exam, and they left. And therefore, I feel that -- that I'm right to complain that the exam, has not, you see, is not in the right salient -- in the right--how would you say it?--at the right height of your vision. You see, it isn't something you can keep under, here down below. But it is the highest aim. And then the story ends.

I don't know what to do about this. But I think the exam has -- is given mutually by all the people, you see, such a tremendous expression by the administration, such a tremendous importance. It is something -- that -- that has absolutely -- can be handled as an in- -- in an innocuous manner. That's why I'm going to repeat the question of my term paper in the final exam. And I'll let you know it ahead of time. You just have to know a little bit about another school of thought. And I -- and otherwise you'll bring the {Freeman} to class, and nothing more is asked, but that you have had some understanding during this course. So I -- I don't think examinations should be surprises, either. That's why

everybody can use his notes, and -- in all my courses, as you may know. And because I feel I can perhaps diminish the damage done by exams, by making them less important -- less formal, you see, { } and less important.

Perhaps we -- we -- since we have been discussing -- perhaps you can stand my taking up the thread now without a break, is that right? Can you stand it?

Will you then kindly -- as a -- as the result of this -- of this di- -- discussion still note that the word "school" in antiquity is not a name for children, and it is not a name -- it is not yet the achievement which we have reached in modern times by following the Christian principle of making ene- -- inimical minds stand, so to speak, the strain, the stress of being put together for one progress of thought. The Greeks have not known progress--that's now my second point--because of their lack of a university. Plato's doctrine remains the same from 387 B.C. to 529. If you were a Platonist, you were a Platonist. You could leave the school and go to another school, you see. But gentlemen, you must understand that the mind of Greek philosophy is miraculous, because every philosopher came out of the head of Zeus like Athene, as a finished product. Paganism, gentlemen, does not know the interpenetration of human people. In our present day, gentlemen, we assume -- and you do it quite -- I think na‹vely, or perhaps -- perhaps you don't, because we are on the way back to paganism at this moment really, a danger for it. But hundred years ago, Emerson, for example, knew that a woman contained in a -- herself also the understanding of a man. And a man underst- -- contained the understanding of a woman, that our soul was polymorph, was richer than our physical layout, and therefore, a university is a very modern and Christian idea, that we can harbor many other people's minds sympathetically within ourselves, you see, and argue with them; and let them stand, and know that the single mind is not wide enough for the wealth of creation, and the profundity of the divine wisdom.

This is the condition of what you call "progress." And since you na‹vely believe in progress, you always look into history, progress. But gentlemen, Chris- -- progress has not existed before the Christian era. Progress in science is unknown in Greece. The Greeks made no progress in science, but they had any number of -- of--how do you call it?--sparks of genius, of Promethean discoveries, here brilliant pla- -- flash of insight. The -- the Greek civilization is flashy in a very positive sense, because as I said, all these flashes together are like a kaleidoscope of everything possible. But nothing was followed up. The Greeks believed not in progress, gentlemen, but they believed in cycles. They believed in the eternal return, eternal recurrence. You must know this, gentlemen, because you believe that there is no difference between paganism and Christianity. And I assure you there is. We have been able to give rebirth to the Greeks' mind. The

Renaissance is a Christian idea, because there is no enemy, no cannibal who cannot come and get a revival for the best that is in him, in the Christian era. You must always understand that the Renaissance of Greece and Rome is a Christian achievement, because they could not give rebirth to Persian, or to Babylonian, or to Jewish things, you see. Not even to their own. Homer was thrown out by Plato, as you have heard, you see.

We can give rebirth to anything pre-Christian. If you could understand the difference between the renascence -- the Renaissance -- what we call the Renaissance, and Plato himself, you would understand that the fact that we teach Plato in a Christian era, you see, in a liberal arts college, is a Christian feat. Because we take a pagan to heart and say, "He's still good enough for us," you see, "to look into everything that is valid -- valid in him. And we will omit slavery, we will omit homosexuality, we will omit, you see, women's -- women's degradation. We will omit all the stupidities and follies in Plato. We will still treasure him. He'll become a Christian saint. We will make him, you see, a member of our era."

Can you understand that this, no Greek could have done in his school? Because the -- Plato's school had to kept -- be kept even free from Aristotle. And people do not understand this. All the books -- textbooks on Greek philosophy which you read today in this country are of this bottomless na‹vet‚ that they think the Greeks would have had a renaissance of Greece, you see, the Greeks spirit. It couldn't. The Greeks cannot give free rebirth to something that is pass‚. We can. We can squeeze out even -- the juice out of Eskimos, and of -- and primitive people today. We have anthropology today, because we have a respect for these people. We want to find out what kept them going. And this is our era, gentlemen, this freedom of not repeating the performance.

You know there are the -- these -- these cyclical obsessions today with us. Mr. Spengler is such a Greek, who has written a book in modern times as though we were all Greeks again; and we had to go inevitably through the same cycles as the Greeks. He has a book, The Decline of the West. You have heard of it, haven't you? The same is true of Mr. Toynbee. Toynbee and Spengler, despite -- Mr. Toynbee's pious exhortations to the opposite, that he is some Christian, he has not an idea what Christianity is, not the slightest idea. The first thing about Christianity is that everything is free, available--if it has been any good--from former civilizations, and that we keep going by freely grafting upon our own tree of life anything we like from others. We have this free selective power. Mr. Toynbee is to me -- I mean, he's much more stupid than Spengler. Spengler was a genius, a pagan who wanted to be a pagan. He had the pride of his convictions. Mr. Toynbee always goes down on his knees and says, "I'm -- really, I pray on Sundays. Only on weekdays I -- am I a pagan."

I -- I hate this. This is imbecile, and it is a coward -- a coward's attitude. It's mental timidity. He doesn't -- he wants to have it both ways, you see: be a Christian on Sundays, and a -- and a pagan on weekdays, because his 23 civilizations are just completely chained, you see, to a cycle. Up and down, and up and down, and out it goes. Madness, even. But Mis- -- Spengler, it is great.

He -- I talked to Mr. Spengler, and he -- he admitted. I said, "How can you know anything about the Greeks? According to your principles, we are all in our own cycle. The Greeks thought this way. We have the -- the -- our own humanities now, you see, so we are doomed to go through our cycle. That's what you say."

"Yes," he said. "That's what I say."

And I said, "Now then, how do you know that anything you write about the Greeks is true? You only sit in your own little ivory tower as of today"--1918 it was--"and therefore the Greeks are just a sealed book to you, are they not? You say that's a different civilization. How do we understand the Greeks?"

He said, "You got me there. That's a secret. It's a paradox. I don't understand it myself. But I am convinced that I understand the Greeks."

And I said, "I am, too." But that's why you misjudge your own time, because we are fortunate, you see, in understanding ourselves and another time. The Greeks didn't. And didn't have to. Didn't even try to.

(Sir, perhaps Mr. Spengler -- he -- he -- he doesn't think that the Greeks are in a different cycle from the cycle that we're in.)

Oh yes, totally different. Yes. Every thousand years. Oh, no, no, no, no. Oh -- {Mr. Danby, Mr. Danby}, oh no, my dear man, oh no, no, no, no. You see, he has the {hellastocracy} -- you haven't read this book yet, have you? Oh, better do. Very good book.

No, the story's very simple. Roughly speaking, it's not quite { } 3,000 -- 300. That's our own time. That he calls this the occidental, the Occident -- occidental civilization. That's the oriental -- he calls it in order to -- he hates Christianity, so he calls it the "arrogant civilization." Nothing of Christianity, just "arrogant." That he calls the Greek. And then he calls the {salatocracies}. He means the -- the sea-faring people. He has this word from a phrase in the Egyptian monuments, where the -- the sea peoples came and invaded Egypt, you see, the Phoenicians { }, covering the whole Mediterranean { } Etru- -- the Etruscans.

Well, I won't go into the detail. But the funny thing about the -- Spengler is that it is a total revival of the Greek Academ- -- spirit of the Greek Academy, of Plato. Strictly cyclical. Every thousand years, there is winter, spring, summer, and autumn, or fall. And then it ends. And then begins a new period elsewhere in a different, you see, what he calls the "maternal landscape." And so it hops from place to place. And its absolutely le- -- lawful order in these thousand years you cannot escape. And he said -- I just quoted it yesterday when I -- I said I -- I'm just in Mr. Spengler's position with saying farewell now through this whole year to Dartmouth. Yesterday I went for the last time to bring a final -- the papers for the final examination to Choate House, you know, where they print these deviltries, and -- and now today I go for the last time to -- to read -- proof on this. I'll never do it again. It's wonderful, you see.

And Mr. Spengler -- Mr. Spengler has this famous line -- has never forgotten it. I wrote his -- read his book in 1918 -- -19, and never again. But I still know this -- this sentence. Well, I wrote such a wonderful -- review about it then that I don't have to reread it, Sir. I know all -- everything that is in it.

And he said, "We shall die consciously. And we shall observe every step which leads to our death with deliberation," you see, "and consciousness." So that's what I undergo at this moment, gentlemen. I die consciously and -- to Dartmouth College. And -- and he was so sure that the only thing at the end of such an era we could do -- or he could do was to die consciously. And you know what killed him? It's a very interesting thing. He was a genius. And he had projected the end of our occidental cycle of western man by and large to the year 2200 and 2300. And then, all of a sudden--and I had, by the way, argued this point with him--he saw that the end which he had foreseen for 2300 wi- -- came with Hitler, for Europe. And he saw Hitler. And he saw, by the way, Mussolini. And he saw what quali- -- caliber of man Hitler was. He -- he asked Mr. Spengler to see him -- from vanity, probably. And then he talked two hours, and Spengler couldn't put in one word. And so he died broken-hearted, Spengler, feeling that the military dictatorship, of -- of these last Roman emperors, was upon us, this tyrant -- tyrann- -- this tyrants. And he saw in Hitler the year 2300 being present in 1934. And when he saw this, he saw that the end of his world had come. And it's a great lesson, gentlemen, in eschatology, in ends of the world. Spengler, as an honest man, saw that the -- he was the end of his own time, of his own world. And he died. And he died a very -- I think he was 50. And I have always -- and a man who dies in his own time I -- commands my great respect. He is in harmony with his own mind. I mean, his mind is his life, his life is his mind. Something you can -- will never achieve, because you have no mind of your own. You have borrowed minds. Every day another.

And a -- a man who is so ingrown into the fate of his civilization that he --

he can even correct his projection, and because he had thought it a -- was still a little off, you see, suddenly seeing himself confronted with this monster from the abyss, he falls into the abyss himself and says, "It's all over. It's -- that's my -- the world I have, so to speak, identified myself with."

And -- so you may be perfectly safe. You are already in the third millennium. You are after Spengler. You see, the world in which we move today, or begin to move is a beginning, gentlemen. It's not an end. It could be for you if you wanted. I have always -- that was the whole point with my contemporaries, with the Thomas Manns, and all these -- Prousts, these philosophers of decadence. I was never interested. I -- I said, "You are right, so I must make a new beginning. I cannot be your contemporary. If you already foresee the end, I can anticipate the end. I can -- what's that to me? I simply assume that you are right. You see, that will run its course. It's over with." And that has saved me. I mean, Mr. Spengler and myself have -- we have very close contact. He's the last. I'm the first. And because I was taught by him. He had done something which had- -- doesn't need to be repeated. If one man--the same is true of Proust--if one man jumps into the abyss, A la recherche du temps perdu, you see, I can perhaps be on the -- "A la recherche de temps nouveau." Why not?

So that the -- this is -- the Greek element, gentlemen, in our civilization has been revived from 1515--will you kindly mark down this year? I give you my reasons for this right away--to Mr. Spengler, to 1917, in an amazing manner, the tradition of Christianity is freedom and progress. The tradition of Greek is cycle. At the very mo- -- last moment of the renaissance of the Greek spirit, in Mr. Toynbee and Mr. Spengler, the -- truth has been reproclaimed of recurrence. Nietzsche has said "eternal recurrence"; Spengler has said "eternal recurrence"; Toynbee has said -- no, he hasn't the same expression, but it is -- "multiplication of the same." Now gentlemen, it is your choice: are you Greeks or are you not? Christianity today is threatened by an increase of Greek influence, because the primary problem of the Greek spirit has been its evasion of progress, its con- -- its -- its having to believe in cycle. It's very strange why these philosophers had to -- because they started with a question of space, with matter, with the cosmos, with the physis, you see, at the end. Physis is the same all the time. It's always -- you cannot explain--if you begin with physis--the creation of newness, you see. You cannot. You must begin with God. Only God can create new things. If you do not begin with logos --. And Heraclitus was the last who began with logos, really, you see. All the others transformed logos into something physical. Even the ideas are just somewhere, you see, things in eternity.

So gentlemen, in 1550, Erasmus of Rotterdam--you have heard perhaps this man's name--is the greatest revival of Gre- -- reviver of Greek. He -- published the New Testament in the Greek language in Europe, and made it as --

the condition of the ministry to know Greek. That's the cradle of Chri- -- of Protestantism, the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. This man, Erasmus of Rotterdam, made inaugural speech at the University of Basel, when he was made a professor there. And he said -- had an invocation. And you'll remember that I said to you, the invocation and the dedication are part of any man's philosophy just as much as the content of the book. You remember Lucretius?

Now I come back to this. And I want to show you today why we no longer understand quite what a school and an academy, or a university is. Mr. Erasmus invoked there Socrates and called him "Sancta Socrates." Saint Socrates. He made Socrates into a Christian. And he said, "Socrates is as good a Christian as any Christian." Now the Greeks, including Socrates -- gentlemen, have not believed in progress. They have not believed--and they have not succeeded--that, for example, the death of Socrates is the fruit of a new life, resurrection. They have practiced it, but they had never this tenet. As you know, I told you that Socrates taught men how to die, you see, but Jesus taught mankind the meaning of death. That's something very different. The fruit of -- you see, the fruitfulness of dying.

And the Sancta Socrates, gentlemen, is the first word of the Greek renaissance. And with the word "Sancta," he gave the pre-Christian Greeks a status of sanctity in the heavens, so to speak, of Christianity, you see. Now all saints are progressive. Any saint has made a contribution which has renovated, regenerated, added to life. We know from every saint a way of life which had -- before hasn't existed. Otherwise he isn't a saint. Otherwise he's just an imitating, so to speak, of a saint. A saint is a man who discovers one more salubrious ways of life.

Now Mr. Erasmus has made you believe, through the Renaissance, that the Greeks can be adopted as children of our era. In the year 1917, gentlemen, when the World War led to the destruction of the whole old world, to the Balkanization of Europe, under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, when all the order of the old world was destroyed, and is -- out of kilter as it is to this day -- look at the Near East; well, what is the question? We destroyed the Ottoman Empire and we put nothing in its place. That's the Near East. What is there is nothing. You call them "states." But Mr. Mandaville will not make me believe that Saudi Arabia is a state or a nation. I told you -- we talked about this. Never shall I believe it, because it isn't. It is just a -- bankruptcy, a rec- -- a mass of countries in receivership. So when we destroyed this, gentlemen, we abolished the hope for progress. We abolished the hope for progress, because the only centers for progress are -- well, are places with universities. The Near East has no universities. Cairo is not a university, gentlemen. It is a s- -- world of superstition. Saudi Arabia has no university. If you want to have a nation, you see, you

must have a center of self-criticism in it. You remember what we said about the Academy? That it was a center of self-criticism. Without such a center of selfcriticism, you can't have progress.

Now you see perhaps the -- the sudden importance of the return of the academy into the city, into the polis, into the nation, into the state. Without this return of the critical -- the Greek spirit, you see, in to the political order, it has no effect. It is useless. And now -- we have now any number of barbarous countries like Indochina, and Malaya, and Egypt, and a -- Saudi Arabia, you see, where this doesn't exist. And we cannot treat these countries like normal countries of our description, you see, because their conditions of self-improvement are -- are lack- -- missing, you see. No separation of Church and state. No separation, you see, of higher criticism and political power.

So gentlemen, the mystery of the -- the reason why the -- the -- the -- this course in the history of Greek philosophy is -- is necessary is to warn you at this moment, that the reception, the renaissance of the Greek mind has run its course to such an extent that we now are endangered by its reception, because unnoticed, and uncriticized, there has slipped in -- into your mind the idea of cyclical thinking. You are poisoned by Mr. Toynbee, and by many others, by the business cycle men before, by all the -- cycle creatures, gentlemen, and all the prophets of doom, that--the Malthusians, by the way, too, and such people--that man is simply in a rut, that he is in a vicious circle, that everything returns. As soon as you believe in eternal recurrence, the renaissance of the Greek mind, the reception of the Greek mind, the re-adoption of the Greek mental figures of thought have reached a saturation point. And I feel I have to show you this, that we have, from 1550 to 1917 increasingly -- increasingly let our -- how do you call those -- let down your -- bar- -- barriers --?

(Guard.)

Well, let down our -- well, there's a techni- -- technical's term. Let down our -- our -- wie? our protection -- I mean, our protective palisades, or what- -- however you call it -- wie? down against the invasion of the pagan spirit of the pre-Christian era. The Christian era is the first era that has said, "Man does not have to return to his starting point. He can go forward." Every other era--take China's, or take Buddha--is -- are convinced that everything returns, you see. Buddha returns every 500 years, you see. The emperor of China was the same all the time for the -- 4,000 years. We don't believe this. We don't believe in the return of the native. And -- or do we?

This is -- that's why you are in such great danger, gentlemen. You fall for all these new things, like Spengler, not knowing that you therefore simply

relapse into antiquity, into the Greek spirit, into the Greek Academy, which doesn't -- didn't love the -- their enemies. We know -- or you should know that America can only survive by loving Russia. That is, by learning from Russia, by accepting all the -- possibly, you see, incentives from -- from Russia. The -- world is too narrow to exclude anything from influencing us and from getting us -- awake. You cannot shut up, you see, and -- and say, "I'm not interested in what's going on there," because God has put the enemy, the devil, as our spur into our flanks. And we -- we don't deserve to exist if we flee our fellow man. He has something, you see, because he's part and parcel of the same family. We cannot get out of the human family. That's the condition of progress. It's very serious, gentlemen. Against everything we sin at this moment in this country.

And that's why the story of Greek philosophy at this moment is at a critical point. I want to sh- -- to announce--we'll study this further on in the next meeting--that the saturation point of your acceptance, of your renaissance of the Greek spirit has -- has come, because you now absorb Greek doctrines without recognizing them as Greek. I have to teach you Greek philosophy for the reason that you must know what is Greek and what is not Greek. If I left -- if you wouldn't listen to this course, you see, you would accept Mr. Spengler as a modern thinker, as a progressive thinker, as a last, you see, novelty, like Mr. Toynbee, or Nietzsche, or any- -- or Proust. And I tell you they are re- -- rejetons, I think, Mr. {Baylor}, can one say in French, "rejeton"?

(Yes, that's right.)

Wie? How would you explain this?

({ }.)

Well, perhaps you take down the word as a precious word. I don't think there is in biology or English this word, a rejeton. You understand what it is?

(Regeneration?)

Oh, the opposite.

(Why do you say { }.)

There is an English word. But I can't --

({ }. { }.)

No. You -- you -- you live in a -- you are a member of a family, it's an old

family. And suddenly a boy is born, as you can find in old -- in old princely families, who looks like an ancestor of 1500. And that's a rejeton. That is, is a throwback. Don't you say a --? -- no, not much of a reincarnation. It's a -- less than a reincarnation. It's a rejeton, Sir. A backthrow. Can't you say "a backthrow"? A throwback?

(Throwback.)

That's what it is, a throwback. Watch out that you don't become throwbacks at this moment into the pagan era. It is perfect- -- as soon as you abdicate the conditions of progress, as soon as you play with the idea of mere cyclical return, in any field of -- whether it's in business, with the business cycle. America went pagan in 1929 in the Republican Party, and they had to do penance for 15 years, because -- they had to, because they were pagan -- they believed that the Depression was necessary. We no longer believe this, gentlemen. We say "to hell with the Depression," don't we? Now gentlemen, that's a conversion in the field of economics to Christianity, because as long as you believe in the business cycle, you believe that a part of human endeavor is under natural, you see, fate, that it is fate, that you can't do anything about it. It's fatalism. Don't you see this?

So the -- the problem of economics today is the problem of Christianity. If you think that you can -- eliminate the law of the cycle, or influence it, you act as a free man. If you say that you have to kowtow to this cycle, you see, you are Greek. But --

[tape interruption]

...of very practical importance, gentlemen, after all. The relig- -- the religion -- all the questions are religious questions, gentlemen. There are no other questions than religious questions. Don't believe in social questions and economic questions. All nonsense. The Rus- -- the Russians have also a religion. That's why they are very important. And that's why they are very dangerous.

But the business cycle was the American businessman's arrest of paganism. And he had to shed it in the last 30 years. He has undergone a conversion. And that's why in the '20s, gentlemen, everybody believed in Spengler. Because everybody believed in some part of his anatomy in the cycle, in the business cycle. So it seemed quite possible that what a businessman believed about the Depression...

[tape interruption]

...and he would also be true, you see, with regard to the wider issues of human life. Today, Mr. Spengler has a poor press, because we no longer believe in this pagan element in our -- in our era. But the -- there -- that is the reason, gentlemen, why you must put the history of Greek philosophy as a part of modern history. The penetration of Greek thought, until it threatened to flood us, to overcome our resistance against its main tenet of cycles, you see, goes in the direction that a little comes in 1515 with the exhortation that Socrates might be called a saint, like a Christian saint, was unheard-of, was blasphemy at that time, can imagine. You no longer feel that's blasphemy. Why not, you say? Saints, you say, are cheap to you. So -- make Socrates a saint. And -- well, in 1957, the majority of your beliefs is already Greek, again. And that's time then to try to wake up. That's why I wrote this book- -- this pamphlet for you, "The { }." You understand?

Thank you.