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

...would you kindly leave your papers after class, right here?

({ } after all the work we've done, and { }.)

I shall try to forget about it, but I won't be able. Bad conscience. So consciousness makes cowards of us all.

Another technical ac- -- announcement I may already -- give you, because the { }. The -- the history room here, of the department has changed its hours. And I think they may be of interest to you. I have been asked to tell you that on Monday, it will be open in the afternoon from 1 to 5. The same on Wednesday. This seems to be an increase in hours. And on Thursday and Friday, it will be from 1 to 4. The only weekday in the afternoon is Tuesday where, it only will be opened only from 12:30 to 2. Probably this is already known to you.

May I remind you of the order in which we are going to proceed? I have to show you that the people of the Church have changed, as church people, since 1800 -- since 1776, considerably. And I give you some samples in which way the people of this country have tried to ad- -- adjust their churches to the new situation of a secular government on their own -- soil. We'll use two examples: the Methodists and the Mormons especially. Then we will go on and deal with the masses and their gradual devolvement, speak of -- little bit of slaves and soldiers, and later come to the modern wards of our corporation society. That is, the last chapter will -- deal with the split of this country into giants and -- yes?

(Sir, before we leave Melville, can I raise a question we have? You said that Melville strides two -- two eras in American --.)

Pardon me. Speak a little more articulate. I can't get --.

(You say that Melville strides two eras in American history.)


(Three eras. I wondered if you could relate that to the story itself of MobyDick and the relationship to the whale. How does your analysis belong to the story itself?)

Well { } I -- I have spoken of Melville. And his books are only stepping stones. Now when he wrote Moby-Dick, he was very much aware that he

wanted to be in the succession of Shakespeare and the Bible. And I'm not dealing with the content so much of the -- of his story as with his style, the way he speaks; and he assumes man is in the face, you see, of the eternal. And if you read Moby-Dick, I gave you an example of the sermon there, you see, of Father Mapple.

(Well, what did he find? That's what I'm curious.)


(What did he find? The meaning then of the whale? The thing that he did- -- )

Well, this -- the amazing thing about Herman Melville is, as you know, that he went to the South Sea, brushed aside all organized ecclesiasticism, found himself out of sympathy with the missionaries in the South Sea, and ruined his reputation at home, be- -- because he wrote against the missions, the Protestant missions. The only people at home who -- who hailed him for this were the Cath- -- Roman Catholic missions. That was not a good recommendation.

And so Melville is in a unique position for having, so to speak, started from scratch by going out to the South Sea and meeting the, you see, Virgin Islands, in the truest sense of the world. He comes back outside the -- the inherited, the ordinary day-by-day frame of reference of the men who live in this country. So to him, when he tries to write, he first experiments simply by writing up his experience in Omoo, you see, in Typee. This is, you may say, a glorified travel lore. That's Robinson -- something like that. But then, he feels that he has to touch the soil like Antaeus, the giant who has to come to earth in order to regain his strength, and the soil into which he delves is Shakespeare and the Bible; because as I told you, man is rooted in time and not in -- in space. And therefore, with this tremendous voice, he now begins to shout on a wavelength which we haven't even gotten on our radio stations, you see, a wavelength of 200 years. This is the remarkable thing.

Also you could say, if you go to the content of the -- Moby-Dick, I mean, that's a -- but that leads us very far, you see. And I didn't want to -- to get lost in -- in literature, you see. The -- obviously the responsibility of man with the absolute, you see, with the standard which does not change through eternity, which is for every generation one and the same, is the outstanding character of Moby-Dick, that in every minute, the whole Church of God, the eternal question of man is asked {from him}. We cannot say, "I am a child of these time -- this time," you see. The law of all times is upon him. And that's the quest of the -- of the whale, you see, that the -- this whale, this iniquity, so to speak, is bes- --

besetting man in any period. You can't say, "Well, in 1959, we just do things like that," you see. And that doesn't free Mrs. {Duncan} from murder, you see. Murder is a category of -- of human reality, you see, which -- which has nothing to do with the spirit of the ages, of the times, of the individual time, you see. There are -- and this eternity, in a very secular way, without -- with this aversion against organized ecclesiasticism, is Melville's as it is Lincoln's. Both, you see, are not members of any organized church.

And when, as a matter of fact, one of the -- of the -- saddening aspects of Melville's failure in society is that his father-in-law then asked him to go later--10 years later--to Jerusalem, and he becomes, so to speak, pious. That is, he makes an imbecile -- effort -- Clarel it is called, this book, you see--to write in -- in verse, in pious verse his experiences in the Holy Land. And that only shows that when he tries to compromise with society, you see, and adapt himself to the meter and the style of his own time, he goes stale, I mean. It's no -- no achievement, and he knows it, by the way. He was never very proud of this book.

(It's -- it's interesting that -- that you almost have to be a 19th-century man to be in this position to stride three eras, that a person in our century, with the kind of debunking of traditions, be they Shakespearean, biblical, or what have you, makes the artist, the writer unable then to work in these modern conditions. But -- { } as one of their own.)

Well, you say this -- yes. Pardon me. I think this remark is -- is a standard remark today about the -- the impoverishment. I would however hold that you -- we will only say this until somebody comes and breaks this to me, and shows that it can be done, because I do think that in any era, this is just the mark of genius, that he does connect the ages. And to what extent this is possible today, today seems very doubtful. You say he can't. I would hold that -- a country, or a nation, or a group of people is lost if they can't { }. This recovery is the story of the -- you see, of life, in all its sides. And it seemed to { } appears, just as it { }. This is how I think it { }.

(It is interesting that you confuse your idea in the -- the poetry of a person like Eliot, who -- who was, above all, aware of so many traditions, and has in his writings { } --.)

Yes, but he didn't go to the South Seas. And so -- I mean, poor Eliot, I think he is -- he's {limp}. { }.

(He's in the 20th century dilemma, if you like. He is aware of the vastness of his tradition, can write about this tradition, but is then forced to create a new kind of poetry, a new kind of vocabulary. I don't think you can condemn Eliot

and say he does not know or is not aware of the traditions.)

Well, yes, but there is no prophecy, whereas you have this in Melville. If you read Typee, you see, he is shot through with the deep feeling that something unheard-of has to take place. And I'm always missing this { } in Mr. Eliot, you see. There is nothing unheard-of. He has heard too many things.

({ }{can find} this in one of the { }.)

I think there is no balance in the other words, in Eliot, between future and past. There is "Waste Land," and there is Thomas … Becket, but that's no { }. You understand { }. He's not a latter-day saint. He's just { }.

(Well, that's why I find it's very difficult for a -- writers in our time to give us a -- a brighter or a braver, or a newer future, because they aren't so -- so deeply concerned about what has happened in the past and how { }.)

Well, to hell with them. They all {go to hell}. That's all. I mean, it is -- it is -- you see, in the -- I think before the mind of a creator, who has set in motion this tremendous slow process of creating us--and in the midst of which we are--the future and the past have -- neither one have any advantage. They are of the same importance, and our own time is, too. And greatness, as in Sha- -- in -- in Dante's -- in Dante's poem, you see, is that there is no preference, you see, for one or the other, that --. I always -- you -- you know The Cocktail Party, by Eliot. Who knows this? Well, too few. Then I can't -- I will talk to you after class then about this. The others will be bored.

What is it?

(I just have one question about the poem you read by Emerson last --.)

We'll read it to- -- again. We'll read it again, because it's too important to -- to miss out on it. Perhaps I'll solve your -- the problem by going back to it now. Would you -- would you adjourn for a moment your --? All right.

The story -- the relation of public masses and people must have to do with the sexes, and with the ages, obviously for the simple reason that people are divided by sex and age. There are parents and children; men and women; sons and daughters; father and mothers. If you come to public, there is an abstraction, which has entered our factory life. In a factory, allegedly and -- or in a hospital where they have these -- their gowns, you neglect sex. Also this college is based on this abstraction. How far this is true you know yourself. And so it is never said that this is a marriage market. But that's all it is, a liberal arts college. You

learn nothing, but you get married. But it cannot be discussed, you see. That's taboo. Because for a public institution, the discussion of sex is not possible, in a serious sense, in the sense in which it leads to the fulfillment of a nation in its peoples.

So it is no wonder that the religious question of the 19th century has been largely concerned with the question: when we develop people into public, what happens to the relation of men and women? And the -- I told you that the great, decisive recklessness of being just public and pri- -- private in Emerson's vocabulary is expressed in this strange poem, "Give All to Love," because, with a kind of {salte mortale} a kind of strange, unexpected turn, he says: "Give all to love and let love take its way." But then he turns around and said, "If the woman goes on with her love, you have to stand back."

That is, with a twist, a legerdemain, with a prestidigitateur's trick, he suddenly is no longer the individual who thinks of love, but he is in love with somebody who runs away from him. And there you have, all of a sudden, behind the mask of an individualistic poem a very, very dualistic relationship, you see. Because he -- { } and Emerson, it seems could afford it, instead of getting furious and raging, enter -- monastery, {breating} his breast, sending everything to the poor, going to war, talk to -- forget his love, he says, "Doesn't make any difference. "If she loves somebody else, I don't care."

Now that's quite something. Very American, it seems. He goes then on and writes the next book.

"Give all to love; Obey thy heart; Friends, kindred, stays, Eskate -- estate, good-fame, Plans, credit and the Muse, -- Nothing refuse."

So to love, we have to sacrifice everything. But then comes the anti-climax:

"Cling with life to the maid; But when the surprise, First vague shadow of surmise Flits across the -- her bosom jung -- young, Of a joy apart from thee, Free be she, fancy-free..."

And this is overstepping the mark of the magic circle of individuality which he had, Emerson, all his life drawn around himself, and this self-contain-

edness, you see, of the infinitude of the private citizen.

My -- you know this very well. I don't have to tell you, that this is all nonsense, that the relations between men and women are of the creative kind. They have consequences. They lead to incarnation, whether you beget children, or whether you -- write The Divine Comedy, in love for Beatrice, something follows. L- -- love is not love unless it has two qualities: that it is selective, and that it is fruitful. Otherwise it is not love. Then it's just kindness, or it is sex, or it is something. But it has nothing to do with love. Love is selective. That is, where there is love, there is en- -- jealousy. God is jealous. And if you are not jealous at all, you don't love. Because then you are just kind.

There is a famous novel, The American, by Henry James, in which this is written up -- down. I mean, you know the book? Who knows The American? Do you remember? This man in Paris. The only declaration of love he can make to this French duchess is that he will be very kind. Of course, she prefers the monastery. He repeats it always: "But I will be so kind, kind." And he's quite surprised that she doesn't like the idea, that the -- that love is kindness. Love is just as much fury, and passion, certainly, than it is not kindness. It's something quite different. It's conquest. It's fruit -- bearing fruit. And you -- where there is a rose, there are spines. There are thorns. And this country boasts today itself, you see, it has all the licentiousness of love -- of -- of sex, and it has kindness. But jealousy?

People -- I told you. The only -- jealousy I have met is -- in this country is mental jealousy. But jealousy is necessary, because it builds a wall around your love. It is selective love. I love him, and not the other fellow. And as long as you have not this power to select, it's not worthwhile -- speaking of love. You can like everybody. And -- Dorothy Canfield Fisher, my -- neighbor in Vermont, once wrote a charming story about a girl who was -- burst into tears in her presence at a ball, because Mrs. -- Fisher said to her, "Well, of course, you cannot be liked by everybody." And she said this girl had assumed she could be like by everybody. And that's the general American dogma, that in the public you can be liked by everybody, like the comedian -- Ben -- Bob Hope probably can be liked by everybody, except me.

You see, that's for the public, this appeal, "sex appeal" you call this, you see. But somebody who's liked by everybody probably cannot be loved by anybody. Because love is selective, it means: him I love, and the other fellow I don't. And as -- you are -- become impotent, because you can't love. You want to like everybody. Perhaps even you want to have everybody. Like Don Juan. But Don Juan is -- is spiritually impotent. That's just the tragedy of a Don Juan, you see, because love means commitment. And he says, "Don't commit yourself." He

says, "Keep thee today tomorrow forever free as an { } of thy beloved," you see. And that's the abolition of love in the eternal sense, in the sense in which we beget children, in which we found universities, in which we make great discoveries, in which we write -- poetry, in which we paint, in which we create, in other words.

Create -- creation is -- God couldn't have created the world at once. He creates one thing after -- one after another. And that's the whole story of creation. The Jews, from their own experience of being a chaste and married people drew backwards the conclusion that God must have acted the same way: first created one thing, and then the next. Because you cannot like every -- you can like everything at once, but you cannot love everything at once, because it takes your life out of you. What do you think?

And this confusion today is ruling you, gentlemen, and that's why the prognostication of this country is so ambiguous. If you try to confuse liking and love, you will perish. And that's what Mr. -- Robinson Jeffers thinks. Sink, "perishing republic." That is not brutality, but that's just the deep insight that a country without love, which has put kindness in the place of love, will perish. Because it confuses generalization, mass production, give everybody something, with the need all -- of us have, to for- -- be loved by somebody exclusively, and to love ourselves with the -- you see, so that we will defend whom we love.

This is very serious. And this confusion goes with the whole 19th-century mentality. The great prophet of this nonsense is of course Walt Whitman, who in his homosexuality and impotence wrote always--and you can really see it in his manuscripts--"I love everybody," and then in parentheses, "men and women."

Well, I { }. What does it mean? I mean, you know that he never has loved anybody, because you wouldn't have as an afterthought then in brackets, "Man and woman." That's impotent, you see. "I love everybody"--in parentheses: "man and woman alike." It's literally in his poetry, in his "Leaves of Grass." That's the end of love.

And so in this sense, it is no accident that Emerson made Walt Whitman, you know he wrote him after the first private edition of "Leaves of Grass" a letter. And immediately Walt Whitman, who was a good advertising man, put the letter in the second edition, which he had -- and that made him. He was Emerson's poet. And they go together.

Now this aroused Mr. Rudyard Kipling's ire to such an extent, I sh- -- told you, and that's why I have repeated the poem today. He's -- Kipling, as you know, married a -- an American lady, and lived in Vermont. And still he re-

mained, of course, as shy as an oyster, and a -- a very touchy man, and a very disagreeable man he was. And anybody who has to do with Kipling's copyright is -- knows that he's still very disagreeable through his -- medium of his wife. And a very disagreeable gentleman, but an Englishman. And therefore, if you read his poetry, sex is always hidden. I mean, he is not -- has nothing of any power even, ever to dare to come out with anything sensuous. I mean, he just can't. And so when he read Longfell- -- Emerson's poem, he must have felt combed against the grain, because in his Children of the Zodiac, which I recommended to you, it's in his volume Many Inventions. And I think for anybody who is serious about American culture, it's really quite a topic to deal with.

Rudyard Kipling, through his wife, very well acquainted with America and living in America, has this to say: At the end of The Children of the Zodiac, which is a mythical story of death coming, even to the half-gods, on the top of the story he has printed Mr. Emerson's last two lines: "When half-gods go, the gods arrive." In Emerson's poem, this means if the next love comes, the old love has to depart. So it's quite a let-down really, in a sense, that always the next -- god is more of a god than the previous one. That can only go in an age of newspapers, I mean, where the later news is the better news. Why the -- the second love should be better than the first, I do not know. You will look at Mr. Lloyd -- Frank Lloyd's Wright life, you would hardly believe that.

I know so many people in this country, great writers like Edgar Lee Masters, or Frank Lloyd Wright, or -- well -- like Richard Cabot -- many people, whose second and third love was completely below their dignity, who loved first right, and then loved wrong. And there is absolutely no guarantee that the next love is the better love. It may be, but that's not -- not a dogma.

It has been said of Theodore Roosevelt, for example, that his first marriage, he lost his life -- first wife very early, was the most perfect marriage, with a Bostonian girl, Miss Alice Lee. And here is this superstition, you see, that it all goes with the -- with the -- with the "later is better." "Heartily know, When halfgods go, The gods arrive." This is the incredible heresy of Emerson. And that is the liberal heresy: later is better. In -- in -- in questions of love, that is simply a lie. And it is an insult, because love is timelessly perfect.

And if you rely on "later is better" -- I -- I had such a -- such a student of mine who -- who got married to a very fine girl. And then he found out that he could write better poetry while making love to the other girl. So he divorced her and married the other girl. But soon -- as soon as they were legally married, of course, no poems were written any more. And it was just the adultery that has brought about the charm, and not the love itself.

So listen to Kipling, because -- he being -- a man never saying anything articulate on matters of sex--and that's the drawback of his literature--I think it's all the more interesting. And he says, "He can't" -- the hero of the story, on the girl's tombstone, the last verse of "The Song of the Soul," which stands at the head of this -- this story. Now the head of this story, The Children of Zodiac is, "When half-gods go, the gods arrive." And now he turns against Emerson and says:

"One of the children of man coming thousands of year later, rubbed away the lichen, read the lines"--When half-gods go, the gods arrive--"read the lines and applied them to a trouble other than the one the lion in the zodiac meant."

He calls -- calls Mr. Emerson's concern "the trouble," you know, and he misapplied them.

"But they teach that ever then"--pardon me--"they teach that whatever comes or does not come, we men must not be afraid."

So Mr. Kipling -- really scorns Emerson and says, "This man who comes thousands of years later, read away the lichen of the divine order of things, rubbed it -- read and applied them to a trouble other than the one the half-god Leo meant. Leo, one of the repre- -- constellations in the zodiac.

I think that's very interesting, because the -- the secular mind has talked up secular love as though it was just an affair from day to day. It was just a stimulation. Just as this case of the student who marries the other person to write better poetry. You can read today in histories of art written by important experts in this country, heads of museums, that -- women are good enough to lead the -- the artist to a greater achievement in his artistry, lowering then the real thing -- real love between real people to just a preparation for painting "{Saskia}," by Renoir, or such thing.

This is a misvaluation. If you put a work of art over the achievement of a real, married life, and there you -- you are caught. If you do this, as it is the fad today, in our discussions of art, if the work of art stands higher than the perfect harmony between real -- two creatures of our -- of our -- of God, then the world stands on its head, and must perish. We do not serve in order that art may be produced. Mr. Verlaine is not -- was not excused for writing a beautiful poem after he had slain his father-in-law. And I had -- I had an American student, however, a good girl from a Bostonian family, who told me that if you can write a good poem, you must be allowed to slay your father-in-law, because the poem obviously was more important, you see, than the father-in-law.

You -- so Mr. Emerson is guilty of this complete perversion of values: that art is the goal, and we are the means. You see this. So -- the -- we living -- I'm telling you these things, because it is the order the society which is changed once you decide that the values of an educational process in a college make law for the real life of the community. It is all right for you to get very enthusiastic about good poetry, you see. But it's a very great difference then to say, "Therefore the poet can destroy the orders of society, because otherwise we would have nothing interesting to read in our classroom."

And this battle royal between Kipling and Emerson is all the more interesting because obviously Kipling was much more sensuous, much more brittle, much more vulnerable, a very pathetic fellow who had been wronged in his youth, and his education. If you read his stories, you know this very well, and who obviously all the time was trembling in his shoes, and who couldn't see a woman without being stirred up. And Mr. Emerson on the other hand, obviously was a very lackadaisical temperament and could -- sleep with 10 women in a room without feeling any temptation. So it's very cheap then to write such poetry.

And he has made law in this country. And most people worship Emerson and don't see what he has done. He has upset society.

Now let's turn from here to the -- my two examples of the attempt of the people to keep the old order of things. Because when we come to the -- to the Methodists' mission in this country in the 19th century, and when we come to the Mormons, you will see the problem of marriage is in both cases in jeopardy. But there is, down to Emerson, and down to 1850, no question in the religion of the people, or in the people who want to -- who -- keep the -- the ties of a people in one face burning. It has been no question that the old order of things, of the leadership of the men in marriage had to be retained. The sacrifices made then, before Emerson's gospel, were all on the side of the women. The sacrifices after the -- the new gospel have been all -- not all, but many of -- on the side of the men. That is, with the gospel of Emerson, the love of women is declared to be more important, or be the regulative, so to speak, power.

With regard to the old Christian religious groups, however, there was no question that if, in this country of new settlers, sacrifices had to be made, they would have to be made by the women. And this is -- therefore shows you how shaky this abstract illusion of individualism is, that it had nothing to say about this equilibrium, or this lack of equilibrium between the fate of women and the fate of men in this new world of expanse, and migration, and the Oregon Trail, and the settlement of millions of immigrants, who -- half of them perish in the process.

Never is the story of the settlement of this country written as a tragic story from the front of -- point of view of the people who died, who were killed. And as you know, 50 percent of the people on the Oregon Trail from Independence, Missouri, to the West Coast did not arrive at their destination. They simply were buried in between. And that's a true story of the immi- -- settlement of this country, that half of the people already on the -- on the first ship of the Pilgrim fathers, did not make land, you see. They had been buried in those months. I think that's after all an important item.

It is one of the reasons, also--I may mention this in passing--that this country decided for immigration, because the expense of the settlement of the West in this manner -- was carried by the immigrant, and not by the old families. If you have to bury 50 percent, you see, on the road, on the way--either on board ship in the 18th century, or on the overland route, you see, in the 19th--then it is easier borne if you don't know these people, if they are not your own children, you see, if the -- the rate of death is laid in part at least on the shoulders of the newcomers. Also I told you that these were grownup people mostly, they were, you see, males, and therefore much more fitted to pioneer.

With regard to the question of immigration, it seems this is never quite discussed. You remember we -- you helped me to -- to figure out the percentage yesterday. But we were a little bit wrong, because it was really 12 and 50 percent, you see, because we talked in the first figure about the two generations, you see: the first in -- the immigrant, first their offspring. And the other case, we only talked about the first generation. So the gap was much wider.

Well, to come back to the proposition then the Mormons had to face, and the Methodists. There are two states which go back to churchmen. Oregon, the state of Oregon and Washington, has been opened up by the preaching of the Methodists. It was the ecclesiastical, pioneering movement that first brought settlers to Oregon and saved this part of America from -- to -- for the United States as against the claims of the British, on -- in the '40s of this century, beginning in the '30s, however. And the second enterprise of course is Mormonism in the state of Utah and the neighboring states of Arizona, and New Mexico, and Colorado to a little extent.

The great change in both cases, compared to the Church of the 18th century, is that the covenanted community, the local church of the 18th century, ceased to be the feasible proposition for these new enterprises. You had to go state- and nationwide if you wanted to survive as a people's religion. This can be proven by the fact that the Methodists and the Mormons, quite na‹vely, when they set out with their gospelizing, first thought only of establishing one settlement.

Now, it is never mentioned in your textbooks again that the Pilgrim fathers, and the Congregationalists, and Roger Williams in Rhode Island, that they all thought of the local community as the ideal spot in which the people could be covenanted to their God. The meeting house is the expression of this idea, you see, that the religious and the political community are here, visible, in one place. And in New England, as you know, we still have the town meeting. And the oldest meeting house is of course at the same time Church and state in one. The political order and the religious order are locally identified.

Anything you talk today about sects, denominations, is all interlocal, it's all nationwide. Even the Mormons--or not even--the Mormons today have, as I -- told -- we spoke already about it--have their temples here in Los Angeles, and they have their temple in Cambridge, Massachusetts, right across from Longfellow Park, which is a better joke indeed.

And therefore what we call "Church" today has no longer its status in the local community. The achievement then of the people's church, or the people of the churches in the 19th century has been to gradually substitute for the covenanted local community something of a nationwide character.

This has very practical consequences. I myself, when I came to this country, knew enough of the pioneering spirit of the old days, of the tradition of this country, that I wanted to be in the people's church. So I became a Congregationalist, which is closest to what Luther had in mind originally in his own Reformation in my own home country. I of course discovered to my amazement that today the Congregational Church has lost this identity with the place in which I live. In my own town of 1200, there are four churches. And the Congregational Church cannot claim to be anything but just that division that is middle class. That is, it is no longer the people's church. When I asked for the review -- for the budget, they told me they had no poor, which is very significant for congregational churchmanship. We have no poor.

And therefore, you can see at this moment why the -- the Catholic and the Episcopal Church are much more popular, because they can fulfill still the requirement of containing the very rich and the very poor at the same time. The Congregational Church had one merit, that it did -- in the 18th century, you see -- comprised everybody in one community. In -- unbroken unity.

So I made, in a sense, I think an understandable mistake. I thought I joined the people when I joined just a very small class of people, as a matter of fact. And the movement today is away from this stratification in the Congregational sense, as I said, to the Episcopal and Roman or the Greek Catholic on the one-hand side, and to the Pentecostal sects on the other. And the Congregation-

alists are left, you see, as a -- as a starting point for American Christianity, but not as its -- at this moment as its magnet.

On the other hand, the covenanted community of the Congregational churches in the 18th century has influenced all other churches in this country to an astounding degree. If you compare what goes on in an -- in a -- Episcopal church in its administration here with the Anglican Church in England, you see that the whole church is completely congregational. Congregationalism is in all other churches of this country as an ingredient. The elections of church officers everywhere is done the style of Congregationalism. The Lutherans, of course, in whom I as a German am particularly interested, are as you know, originally very close to the Anglican order. It is -- after all, the Anglicans are only a -- a sideline of the Reformation of Luther. And only were a little different because of the whims of Henry VIII and of Luther's decision not to have anything to do with this bloody tyrant.

But when the Germans came to this country in droves after 1840, something very strange happened. In the -- I may give you this detail to show you that I'm still -- it is still worth knowing that Congregationalism is the American folk religion to this day, despite the names of the other denominations, because it allowed settlement in groups. That is the great thing about the meeting house, you see, that you can go on your bandwagon, you see, and drive across the prairies and then there are a hundred people, and they know what to do. And they are covenanted under God to establish a Christian commonwealth in -- in small or large measure.

It is this covenant which has invaded Lutheranism in this country. The Lutherans we- -- became quite strong, as you know, in Wis- -- in Wisconsin, in Iowa, in Missouri. I don't have to give you the details; many of you know this. And so they flourished. They drank beer, and they -- succumbed gradually to the influence of American forms of ecclesiastical life.

Because in 1883, I think it was, in the '80s, in -- any case, that they held a -- a synod--at that time, they hadn't as yet the Missouri Synod, fortunately -- but they had a synod, that is, a church conference--and they said, "In our churches, the minister has to stand at the altar and say -- begin the worship with these -- confession of sins, 'I, miserable sinner, confess before thee, Almighty God, my sins.'"

They said, "We can't go on with this. That's too un-American." And they changed it. And you know what they say -- ever since, in good Congregationalist style? "We, miserable sinners," because in a congregation, it's just -- it is just scandalous if one man says, "I," you see. Just if when a vote is taken, it isn't taken

against one vote. I mean, the one vote is just silent, you see. When I try to do this, they all look at me askance, and think I am a rebel and a Communist.

"We," instead of "I" is the essence of the worship of a people that has to migrate. You cannot keep moving with im- -- with personal "I's," you see. There is too much friction. You can in a settled community, and you can in a -- in a city, but the -- I think this change of the Lutheran "I" into "we"--and I could give you similar signs in the Anglican -- in the Episcopal -- Church development on their -- of their conference, you see, when they elect bishops and so on, their annual councils. The lower house and the upper house, you know. It's all the ritual of the American parliamentary and Congregational process. The Congress of the United States is nothing but a secularized congregation. The { } -- et cetera. All the details are -- will lead us here too far. I have n- -- not the right unfortunately to dig at this moment into the 18th century and this great process by which the churches of this country were free first, before the colonies were free. And the -- what we -- is called "freedom" in this country is the freedom of the churches carried over into the state.

What you have to know however, is that in -- when the government began to dominate and to govern these vast stretches of land, the churches were faced with this problem of transition from a local order, you see, to a nationwide order. And if you look today at the religious statistics of the country, they are all na‹vely given on a national scale.

This would have not been understood in 1750, you see, because the Amish men were in Pennsylvania. It makes no sense to -- to say how many Amish men there are in the whole of the United States. You have no idea of their power, if you say there are -- you see, if you say there are 200,000 Amish men in America, you say that's nothing. You go to Pennsylvania, { } and you know that's something. If you are on -- all in one spot, you can be a very tremendous power with very small numbers, like the Moravian brethren, with their great Bach festival. Right now, it's taking place in Germantown, Pennsylvania, in -- in a few days, every year. And -- and so on and so forth.

A group can be a tremendous power if it limits itself to a -- an area in which it can be all and everything, obviously. All our statistics today are completely misleading in this respect, because we -- you do not see this group in operation. The old 18th-century brethren, the sects, they are still locally confined, more or less, like the Amish men in Pennsylvania. I -- we have nothing to say about them, because they have kept up their old, local limitations. They are confined. And that's why they perish today.

The Amish men are destroyed, as I told you before, I think, in this country

at this moment by a scandalous legislation in their state.

How did the Methodists and how did the Mormons proceed? They started quite na‹vely with the idea, as I told you, with local settlement. If you think of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon order, he was born in 1805, and he was murdered in 1844. And he was born in Vermont, moved to -- upper New York State. In Ontario, he had his -- received those -- those famous golden plates with the Book of Mormons written on it. Then he went -- fled to Pennsylvania, to his father-in-law's house, in order to be able to translate these -- this treasure into English. And then he moved to Missouri, to Independence, Missouri, of all places. It's quite interesting how important Independence, Missouri, is to this day.

And -- as a true man, he -- he covenanted there his community, and he was quite convinced that in this place, there should be built the new Jerusalem. And we have a chart in which the -- city, the new Jerusalem was laid out, quite locally as a square of one mile square, with very ample space, nearly as beautifully built as Los Angeles, because he -- everywhere parking space. And -- in -- this na‹ve way--I can only allude to this--in this na‹ve way, still in 1833, Joseph Smith was convinced that his church would be a local church, that it would coincide, you see, with a city, with one place.

Now there were 1200 people at that time in 1833. And in 1837, there were already 12,000. Then they were hacked to pieces and killed off, and robbed of all their property, and the remnants removed into Nauvoo, Illinois. Also I think a name that deserves to be remembered. And here he was murdered in 1844. That is, he was -- the -- the governor of the state, Mr. Ford, came to the town and persuaded him to go to prison in the next town, and promised him his life; and next day he was murdered. Not a great honor for the governor of the state of Illinois. He was lynched by the rabid populace, in prison, which is always the worst, if the public domain is endangered, you see, by a mob, and if a man who is the -- in the protection of the government is not { }.

All this time, Mormonism is still local, and coincides with the establishment of one community. Then comes the break.

Thank you.