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

I -- unfortunately we have not enough to go around, because my friends in the other section haven't obeyed orders, and haven't brought back their papers in time. I had for -- have for you this article, and I think in contrast to what we have been doing here, this may supplement very well a- -- round out your picture of the problems of an historian. So I want you to read this, and write a paper on it during the month of May, so that I may have it back on May 20th.

This is the -- quite off the beat- -- the beaten track. Twenty years ago, there was a symposion--or it isn't 20 years ago, I think--there was a symposion in London held about historical problems in general. And the -- this contribution is by the Italian historian, Mr. {Momigliano), who had to leave Italy, when Mussolini was raging mad--in the Hitler days of Mussolini, when he already had lost his brain really. Because there are two Mussolinis, you must always think: one intelligent one in the first half, and one broken man in the second. And he -- {Momigliano} lived in Buenos Aires, as far as I know. He's now back in Italy. And he has done something unique.

He has put before any student of history, as he calls it, an unsolved problem of historical forgery without solving it himself, but only showing the situation. And so it's a -- like a quiz, or like a puzzle, and -- showing you the intricacies of our dealing with genuine -- or false sources. And I think this introduction--since you never will get hold of it; published in an Amer- -- an English publication of the {Warburg} Institute in London, I thought I should make it accessible even on the Pacific coast, although you are, of course, far out of reach of civilization.

And I have, all told, I think, 12 copies. Now, we are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. But my friends in the other section, just ha- -- as I told you, haven't been very good about it. They sh- -- were ba- -- expected to give it back to me yesterday. So I make an attempt to -- here. And you will have to give this back to me. It's quite precious. It cost me $26 to have it made. So I spent a lot of money for you. And -- if they don't come around--I still think they will--you will have to share this. Every one of you will have to share with his op- -- opposite number here, you see. So look -- look at it.


Will you?


That's your opposite number. So -- and -- so you here will you -- this will go here, this will go here, this will go here, go here, and then you two.

(You want me to pass it on?)

Yes, you two. You will be. You have one, haven't you?

(No, no. They didn't --)

Oh, oh yes, it goes across here, and you go across here. { }. So she is privileged on this side of the house.

(Now, one of you must pass one over to --.)

No. It's all right. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 copies, and there are only 12 people.

(Oh, I thought you wanted us to look at them now.)

Oh no, no, no. This is to May -- for May 20th.

(I know that.)

I shall receive the paper, no. At this moment, we will put it aside, and we won't go into this now, because that would just be a waste of time.

I -- perhaps you make some -- yes, you -- I want you to review it and give your own conclusion, what you think of this situation.

Now the interest may -- I may have to say one more thing. It deals with our main source on the history of the 3rd century A.D. Now the 3rd century of A.D. on the one-hand side is the most important one, because it is the time at which the Roman Empire succumbs to the necessity of going Christian. At the end of the 3rd century, Constantine becomes a Christian and capitulates, and moves his capital from Rome to Constantinople, which is the biggest event of ancient history, you see. He says, "The ancient gods of my city of Rome, you see, will -- will pursue me, as a Christian. I have to leave and -- have to leave -- leave it to the bishop of Rome, you see, the pope later, to cope with Jupiter Capitolinus and Juno on the Capitoline Hill."

Now this greatest exodus of -- is -- is never celebrated in your historical tradition, that the -- it isn't the Christianing -- Christianizing, the baptism of the emperor; but his exodus, you see, imitates of course the exodus of Moses from

Egypt. It is the exodus from the false gods of Egypt, you see, to a new city. And it should always be taught in this way; it isn't. And I think all your textbooks leave you therefore in the dark. For the world, gentlemen, and the history of the world the mo- -- exodus from Rome to Constantinople is the -- the only -- the event of the Crucifixion, arrived. That is, it took 300 years before what had happened on Golgotha made epoch in the history of the -- visible world. Before, it was just invisible, lived in the basement of the -- history, so to speak, in the Catacombs.

So the -- this is why I think: to cope with this document is just more than -- than coping with some historical document. The 3rd century is the darkest of centuries, because we only have this source of which we do not know how much it is genuine, and how much is a rhetorical forgery in honor of Constantine, the great Christian emperor, who is now already, you see, putting the finishing touch, so to speak, on the victory of the Christian Church. The "Historia -- August-" --how is it called? You -- you read the -- out the text. No, it's on top. It's on the top.

("{ } Historia Augustae.")

"Scriptorum." It means, you see -- it is the collection of the writers on the 3rd century--dedicated to Constantine, officially--to show that he was -- inevitable, so to speak, to show that the -- the -- the empire couldn't go on like that. So it is our only document purposely written as a history of the 3rd century. We have -- we have fragments of other historians, of course; we have inscriptions; we have coins; we have -- but we have no history. And this is -- has a -- something to do with our attempt now to dabble with ancient history, because it must make you sit up and think, "What is antiquity?"

An antiquity is still a time in which time can be dissipated, and break down. The later times and tales of antiquity are less known than the time of Thucydides, you see. That's an incredible fact. That is, the people in the last 300 years of antiquity, just as the -- perhaps the -- the -- the government of Montezuma in Mexico was one of terror, horror, human sacrifice, cruelty, and agonizing dissipation, and complete disintegration. Now it's opposite from your idea of progress. You think history must be a straight line. That isn't true. People have just as many times gone back on what they had known, you see, forgotten. As you know, it was known 250 B.C. that the earth rotated around the sun. It was totally forgotten a hundred years later. And -- remained forgotten for another 1500 years. And don't believe that it isn't possible that this happens again. The -- the idea of progress is -- stultifying your brain. History doesn't go in this -- in this way at all. And the -- this 3rd century is therefore, as it is one of the darkest, one of the most instructive things of history, because something very great came out of it: the first time that an empire survived its own gods. Will you take this


You see it in China, how brutal such a -- survival of one's own god is. In 1911, the last Chinese emperor, you see, was deposed. Ever since, China has been in turmoil. And you speak of Communism and Mao. Don't be betrayed, I mean. -- The breakup of China is the story of the next 300 years, and nothing that happens now is very important. Don't read the papers with such exaggerated interest. These are all -- mome- -- momentary things. Developments -- if an empire, like China, with 600 million people, has to give up its pagan script, which they are doing now--its gods, because they were hieroglyphs, as in Egypt of old, you see, 40,000 literary minds--breaks, as the Egyptians did, when they got Christian -- became Christian, you see, breaks down its temples, and gives up its whole literature, which they will have to, because they take up now our Latin script -- that cuts very deep. And you can't be surprised that this leads to an incredible change and transformation.

And if you study the 3rd century, you may get a picture of what is going on in China now, and how long it will take them -- to -- to achieve this. They are giving up their gods. They are giving up their -- their history of 3- -- 4,000 years. And -- so don't -- don't think this can be done -- is -- these slogans, "Communism," or "socialism," or whatever it was, is -- is very important. They don't care. They want to get out of something. They -- what to get into is a very, you see, they can't -- they can't tell.

Now I -- I mention this because you may compare 1911 to something like the year 300 in Roman history. And if you read the history of the 19th century in China, you know wh- -- what a terrible story it is. Boxer in 1900, the Opium War -- against the -- against the British. And nothing, so to speak, counts. -- It's just disintegration, you see. No -- all the efforts made in every decade of Chinese history in the 19th century can be -- can be imparted too late, you see, or too early. Too late as far as the empire goes, you see--the inner -- the -- purely Chinese solution--and too early for any integration into the industrial world of the West.

So nobody can be successful, so to speak, you see. Now this is part of the story -- of the 3rd century. It is too early to go Christian, and to give up the Roman gods, you see, and it is too late to try to -- to restore Roman piety.

The best emperor the Romans had is the last pagan emperor, Diocletian. And he governs, as you may know, from 284 to 3- -- and, what is it? -08? And he is -- known only for his Diocletian persecution, usually, in history books. But there's a law in history, which I'd like to mention to you, that never is a bad ruler the cause for a great revolution. Because revolutions are not made for people, for

individuals, you see, but for a mis-rule in the bones, in the structure of a government. So Louis XV, who was a bad king, did not sta- -- lead to the revolution, because people said, "Perhaps a better king can still cope with the problem of the French constitution." But when Louis XVI came, who was a good king, then they have to behead him. The same with James I. James I was drunken every day. So they didn't make a revolution, because they said it has to be -- perhaps it's just the fault of King James I, in England, you see.

But when Charles I, who was a nice king, had to do the same tyrannical thing, they said, "Something is rotten in the state of Dane," and beheaded him.

One of your illusions is, you see--since you are just moral people--is that wickedness leads to revolutions. The czar of Russia, in 1917, was a very nice person, and meaning well. That's why he had to be murdered, because the constitution of Russia was impossible, you see, and not the -- not the czar. The -- King George III, as you well know now, was a very decent chap. But the ri- -- the -- independence of this country was ripe for quite inner reasons, you see, so whatever they did, even when they -- took back the -- the Stamp Act, you see, it didn't work -- help any. After all, the -- the Parliament in Britain was very reconciliatory. The -- they revoked the Stamp Act, you see. But it didn't work.

Will you kindly then take down: revolutions have nothing to do with individual wickedness, because people will always forbear an individual's wickedness, hoping that the next will prove better. You didn't overthrow the -- the -- this government because of Mr. Harding. He certainly was an unscrupulous man. And Mr. Grant's misrule in -- was just horrid in 1870, following years, you see. And you wait until you elect another president.

So wickedness in high places, as it is called, you see, is not a reason for a revolutionary change. Now that is against -- against all your moralizing stories in the little red schoolhouse. Since you are all teached by women teachers, you all get a wrong impression of history.

History has nothing to do with morality. History is efficiency. And the individual can be very well rejected and forborne, you see, as an exception. But when -- after the exception, you see, has -- is tri- -- thrown out, and the rule proves to be impossible, something has to be done. So Christianity came after the best emperor of the Roman Empire had proved a failure, and not the worst. Diocletian is a very great ruler. And he was so wise that he even--as you may not know--survived the -- his father's -- his nephew's, Constantine's, Christianization. He simply retired to the famous -- palace in Spala- -- in Split, and -- and planted his -- his chard and his cabbage, and said, "Empire? Not for me, anymore." They called him back one time, and asked him to "Come back and for

Heaven's sake, help."

He said, "Sorry. I'm only interested in my own garden now."

So -- God favored him, you may say that the mercy of God was on Diocletian, the last persecutor of Christianity, because he had no ambition of his own. And -- so he was spared. And -- in -- as a human being, as in the flesh, so to speak. Carnally he was not the -- again, not the victim of this transition. But Rome had to be given up, the city of Rome. And at that very moment, the -- the empire entered the history of God with man, instead of remaining under -- his private god, so to speak, under Romulus, and -- and Jupiter Capitolinus.

All these things have completely slipped your minds. For the last 50 years, people have been -- told about the Roman gods as though there were no gods. And the Christian gods certainly as though -- Christ wasn't God. But if Christ is not divin- -- divine, certainly the history of the world can absolutely not be told. The divinity of Christ is in the fact that 300 years after His Crucifixion, He rose from the dead and moved the emperor of Rome to Constantinople.

What is it? Please come in. Well, this is not a good place to sit.

Well, this is -- has all to do with my attempt to arouse your interest in the 3rd century of -- our era. It's the most -- the darkest, the most obscure, the most misjudged, you see. -- Hundred years ago, if you went to college in this cont- -- country, it would always have been taught that Constantine was the -- the receipt for Pontius Pilate, you see, that the Romans 300 years later knew better than what they had done in -- in Jerusalem. Today, as you all concentrate on a so-called "life of Jesus," which cannot be written, and which doesn't exist, you are completely unable to understand history. Because without the -- Christian era, history -- there is no universal history. There are only the history of China, or the history of Japan, you see. All pagan history is disconnected. The only attempt to be -- get into a world history is -- has been made by the people who wrote the Bible, who prophesied that there would be one history of mankind, and the Christian who did it. And otherwise there is no -- just no history.

I have a friend who is a pagan. And he was very true to his -- to his paganism. He composed a world history, in five big volumes, in German -- Helmolt -- Hans Helmolt is his name. One is Europe; the second is America; the third is Australia; the fourth is Africa; and the -- fifth is Asia. Now you look at the Australia volume, and you can imagine how thin it is, you see. There is just noth- -- no Australian history. But nevertheless, he was at least true to his paganism. In paganism, space comes before time; and in Christianity, time s- -- comes before space.

And you take down this rule, you will look through all the paganism that is rampant around you, which disconnects the times, because it falls for spaces. All the American history which you learn today is pagan history, because every attempt has been made in the last 40 years to dissociate America and give it a special place, as though it had -- was an historical entity of its own, you see, whereas obviously it goes from independence to interdependence, from -- in 1776, it can only be explained as a revolt against Britain, and now it can only be explained as a pivot around which the world is integrated into one -- global system. And if you omit this, you falsify everything. This country, after all, is peopled by immigrants. They are no native Americans, except the poor Indians. You are not -- Americans. You are people who have come to America.

Therefore America is on the run. It's a dynamic force. It is -- has been used as a bridge, to bridge over the differences between the various continents. As soon as you take today -- of a nationalistic American history, you try to become an ancient pagan again. And this is of course, with the Renaissance mood in all people's mind, the great heresy today, you see. You read Plato, you read Aristotle; and you read into your American history something in space, something local. It's all a racket. This whole university is riddled with this paganism, of course.

And what does it mean? That space dominates time. That's Mr. Einstein's doctrine, that time is the fourth dimension of space; therefore time can be neglected. You first take a -- take a -- here, a square, they call this America, and then say, "I write the history into this."

Therefore you find nothing that points beyond or before this space, you see. The space is then not the crystallization of time, as Constantinople is the result of the Roman Empire becoming Christian, you see. But you look at the map and say, "Byzantium lies in such a wonderful position that of course it had to become one day the -- the capital of the world." But the force that drew the Romans into Byzantium, you see, it's simply omitted. It's all geography.

You find this in all your textbooks today. You have to decide. Everybody has these -- this decision every day again to make: is -- is space dominant of time, or is time dominant of space? If you move your house, you see, then time is dominant of space. You decide where to live, you see.

If, however, you inherit an old farmhouse, and have a white elephant on your hands -- as I know a boy. He married -- he was a boy from New York. The only thing that connected him with his past was this heirloom of a white elephant. His father, who was a big bank president in New York, had rebuilt--because he came from this farmer -- farming community. The father

committed suicide. He was left all alone: no mother, no father, no relatives. He was an adopted child, by the way. He lives now in this little house -- in this little village in New -- upper New York state. He has married the town's -- belle of the town. She's very ugly. And then he was so homesick that he had to find somebody. This girl has completely emasculated him. He's not allowed to go to New York. He wanted to go to Norway, establish a business there. He's wealthy. She is a poor girl, from a foreman there of the factory.

But she has stripped him of all her -- his locks, like Delilah, the -- Samson, because she insists that he has to stay in Granville, New York, because that's all she knows. She is a country girl; she's frightened by the big city. She couldn't stand up with the -- there with anybody, and couldn't hold her own. And this boy, at the ripe age of 25, we had to give him up. He was my student. And one of my colleagues, we were very close to him, we have seen him go down and go down, because the space nightmare, you see, that he has to live in Granville, New York, where he doesn't belong at all, has -- has destroyed him. Generation of wi- -- vipers.

And so I see this all the time going on in this country, now. The -- the -- the lure of mere space, you see -- it is the same as -- as -- as the mother complex, of course, similar, you see. The womb. Because the womb is also something, you see, not you choose, and you decide for, but you go back into. It's the same story. And as you know, this problem is -- is very much with --.

If you say at this a- -- ripe age of yours, "I have to live in Southern California," you can't have any life. You ha- -- can't -- you don't have to say, "I must leave Cali- -- Southern California," but you must be free to say, sometime, you see, "I don't know." As soon as a person decides that it is a certain s- -- place where he has to live, you see, he loses a -- part of his freedom.

In 1935, when the Oxford Group movement came about, I met a -- a number of interesting people in this connection. And one was a Mr. {Musselman} from Pennsylvania. And I tell you this story, because I think it's -- has very much to do with our being historical -- diseased today. The -- he said, "I come from the deathbed of my father. My father was a Mennonite minister in Pennsylvania; so am I. So my father knew that he was going to die, so he called me in and said, 'My son, we came to this country 300 years ago, because we didn't want to take arm -- up arms. We are peaceful people. And because the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire demanded from his subjects that they were ready to serve, and, you see, to be put consc- -- put into the army, we left, and came to America.'

"'Now I am afraid. I look around, and I feel"--it was after the First World

War, and before the Second--"that we may have conscription in this country. So you have to promise me that you will keep the congregation fit, so that if this calamity should occur, we can leave again.'"

Now my contemporary, my friend, the son, said to me, mournfully, "My father didn't consider our quandary that now -- to -- there is no place to go to. You could go to America, you see, 300 years ago, but what do we do today?"

And so we are so space-ridden today that you live already as though space could contain you. And that's why you have to make a special study of the conditions of human freedom today, because if you cannot emigrate, you see, if the passport can be taken away from you by the -- our -- your state department, you see, then you are licked indeed. Then you are just cogs on the wheel. The free movement over the -- you see, the -- decide in which country to live is the great privilege of everybody who lives in this country, because in his ancestry, he has this one exodus of Constantine to Constantinople. Every one of your parents, grandparents, or so, sometime made a decision at one time to come to this country.

And I think one of the problems of the Negro question in the South is that the Negroes did not make this decision. They were kidnapped and brought here, you see. So there isn't this great event in their lives, that in one time in the family history, you see, they said, "We go." You understand? And if you could find for the -- for the colored people in this country such a decision, the whole integration probably would look different. They have never, in their strain of blood, you see, made this spiritual decision, that time comes before space, that you create the next space yourself.

All the important questions of the Negro -- problem are never -- never mentioned in this country. It's a very strange situation. You write volumes, and you have Supreme Court decisions, but what it's really about, nobody ever cares to -- to know. There -- it seems that you don't want to know. One is, that everybody else in this country came as a -- not as a slave, you see, or at least ninetenths. There have been, of course, servants, the indentured servants. That's a -- but that's such a small group, and it could be amalgamated with the rest.

So will you kindly read then this paper with some -- with some interest with the historical problem itself, this -- if you can penetrate into the darkness of the 3rd century, then you understand the eternal problem of history to move out of a given space into the next.

Today this is so difficult, because you have to move out of America as a mere nation, or as a mere self-contained isolated continent into its becoming a

part of the universe, you see. This is a spiritual movement, which doesn't consist in your giving up the space here, you see. But looking at it in a new light, you see, as being part of the globe. You understand the difference? This is a new spiritual emigration, which is much more difficult to perform, because if you take a ticket, so to speak, your legs are informed that you are moving, you see. But mere thought will not do this. That's why I'm still advocating a worldwide service, because -- if you do not move into Vietnam, or -- or China, or -- or Tibet, you see, for defin- -- or Africa, you see, the globe will -- will not become a reality to you.

Today we have -- the decision has to be made in every generation. Some people put space before time. Their homeland before the -- that which is due at this moment, like the South in 1860. In order to defend states' rights, you see, they neglected the -- the -- the hour which even the czar of Russia heard in his ear when he emancipated the serfs, you see. The czar emancipated the serfs before the -- before the Southern gentlemen decided to do that. Do you know when the czar emancipated his serfs?

(In 1863.)


Wie? Before Mr. Lincoln. It's very important.

You -- we just followed the Russian example. And again, you see what paganism does. This is not in the American textbooks in connection with the Civil War. It's just not mentioned. You speak of Alaska, because that's space. That was bought in 1867. But gentlemen, what you bought from Russia is the example of the emancipation of the slaves, and you got it for nothing. That's not in any textbook. It's somewhere mentioned perhaps in a footnote, but not in -- in the -- under the real, spiritual pressures of the atmosphere of your daily newspapers. How can you read in a paper that the czar has set the -- the serfs free, you see, in 1861, without this working up steam in this country?

I think all American history at this moment is absolutely polluted. The people who wrote the history in 1870 give you a much better picture of the American Civil War than the people who write on it today, because the -- America has lost its faith in the unity of world history. It's now trying to have a nice, happy, national history, at a time when all other nations have to give up their -- their national -- national pride.

And so I think all history books written at this -- as of the last 20 years are lacking in faith and perspective. And there you have a good example of back- --

backward -- backsliding. Take the educational system. Since 1910, America has not made progress in edu- -- its educational system, but regress. Now you have to understand that nobody is the -- sure of progress. The more you say "Progress is automatic," the more you may be sure that it isn't; then you go backward. Progress is a constant uphill fight. And the -- the tragedy of this great country is that since 1910, when William James died, and Roosevelt--Theodore Roosevelt--lost -- went out, this country has -- has lost its soul to pragmatism, as you well know. And pragmatism means there is no continuity. It all comes by itself, automatically. Nobody has ever before believed in automatic progress. But you are made to believe this.

So what happens is that you move in a vicious circle today, and -- and the issues are just endless, because nothing is ever solved. Imagine, that since 1914, this -- this mighty republic has not been able to conclude peace. Do you think the treaty with Japan is a peace treaty? Do they have anything to eat? Do they have anything to live? This is not -- this may be in paragraphs written, but that's not a peace, because we haven't given them a place in -- you see, no trade with China. Obviously the only peace treaty we can give the Chi- -- the Japanese is to give them a certain area within which they can -- they can trade.

One of the ridiculous phrases, this Treaty of Versailles. Is this a peace treaty with Germany? We said -- they said, "Peace is declared." Oh, that's not a way of making peace. With the Russians we are at cold war. For 40 years, this country has struggled desperately not to make peace. And it has succeeded.

And this comes all from the idea that America can, so to speak, can hold off, and you go places. I mean, the Haiti statehood -- Hawaii statehood and the Alaska statehood shows you the unimportant steps that are taken by the Congress, you see. It's very nice that Hawaii and Alaska are states; will never be. This is, I mean, it's a pipe dream. It's very nice, we have two more stars. But they are -- they are not states in the original sense of statehood. You -- with 35,000 people in Alaska and--white people--you -- you cannot -- that's not a state. It's just -- a nice occupation for the Congress. And the aunts and daughters who write the letters there.

I mean -- Congress just does superfluous things at this moment, because the great solutions are too difficult. I mean, it -- that's -- that would tell the people that hard times are ahead, and not prosperity. So the poor president has to haggle over $3 billion foreign aid, I mean, when it should be 15.

Because we are in a global situation, and we are not in a -- in a local situation. It has all to do with the -- with the sermons on history which you hear in your -- in your schools, you see. You see, if you dance around the flag, then of

course the two more stars in the flag are the important thing, you see. But if -- if -- if America is a star-spangled banner -- inviting all the nations of the world to join the open sky of our real creator, you see, then the -- the -- the story is very different, you see. Then it isn't the two more states of Hawaii and Alaska, you see, that matter, but whether the other states would also feel -- stars -- to be stars in one galaxy with us.

And that is the promise of America. On -- all this to be told about the year 300.

So -- May 20th, may I have this paper on your -- what you think? And it -- as you see, it has great implications, whether you say this is written as the -- at the end of a -- of such a critical era, when -- when Rome was given up, or whether you think it's a belated forgery of people who had really no political standing.

Did you get a machine?


Well, after the recess then, we should do --. You -- we -- we plunged into Thucydides, didn't we? Did you find -- is there any- -- anything about the man in the book? Who is Mr. Thucydides?

(An historian.)

Well, is this true?

Here, the little word "F" is the -- the -- the -- stumbling block. What we call "history" has been determined by Mr. Thucydides. He's the first historian. Herodotus has been called the father of history, but I think Thucydides is the first brother of modern historians, the oldest. What we call "history" has been -- has been determined by Thucydides. That's quite a strange thing. What -- what our departments of history now proclaim is Thucydidean history. And so he's more than an historian. He's the historian, the yardstick of history. Ja?

(He's been called the father of scientific history.)

Ja. We come to this. Sure. It's -- it's the Greek aspect of history. It's the anti-Jewish aspect. And we have -- live on two strands. For everything we speak today, or we think today, you see; always the Greek, and the Jewish--the Israelite. "Israel" is perhaps better, because the -- only -- that it -- has the -- the spiritual connotation of a -- of a different language, of a different approach. The Israelites are indifferent to space, and the Greeks are given to space. That is, in -- for the

Greeks, the history is predetermined by the people who carry it out. By the Israelites, it is the epoch, you see, which is determined, you see: "At one time, God sent His son. At one time, the -- Egypt has been relinquished. At one time, the great flood comes."

So it is always the -- Israelites have to do with the epochs of the world, with the eons of eons, with the ages of ages. The Greeks have to do with the fate and destiny of cities, of the individual entity, of the body politic and its history.

So everything I have said against American history has of course its protagonist in Thucydides, you see.

You have to look through these two eternal strands of our human thinking. Christianity is an attempt to -- not allow one or the other to get the upper hand. It is the synthesis of these two. There is an American history, of course, as a part of the universal history.

The Old Testament doesn't write such an interesting story as Thucydides about the individual, you see, story of the -- it's not interesting, I mean. It goes by. But the Greeks are. So Thucydides is the father of scientific history. That's Point 1 about him. When did he live? Would you tell me?

(Um, 455 B.C. to 400 B.C., according to the --.)

Well, is it known?

(No. I say, according to this book { }.)

Well, there is great uncertainty about his -- his life, as a matter of fact. But what is the outstanding event which makes him, so to speak, authorizes him to write the history of this? What was his position?

(Well, I -- { } he was a general --)

Yes, but on the basis of what?

(On his -- the basis of his wealth and citizenship.)


(On the basis of his wealth and citizenship.)

I think wealth, yes. He was -- it mean -- there has even been a suspicion

that he was not a simply an Athenian, but may have been mixed in with -- with the Thracians, with Thracian origins. That he was a -- so to speak, a -- half a native of a non-Greek country, which I think adds -- adds zest, because firstgeneration people--as I, really care to think, of course, very much being one, you see, an immigrant--are the best. Because they make the greatest effort. Thucydides has every reason to make a real effort to prove his Athenian value. He had to do more than the ordinary. So -- he had -- what was his -- he was like a '49er in California. He owed gold mines -- owned gold mines, you see, in Thra- -- in Thracia. And where is this, his -- his home? Where is this? Could you give -- show it to me on the map?

(I think I can show it to you on the map. Just I haven't got a map. But it's -- I -- I can tell you -- is there a map here? By looking in the book. Um. I guess -- the closest to { }. No, it isn't. They show Macedonia in here. Yeah, I know that's here; it is. No it isn't, either. It's to the right of Macedonia. To the east.)

East. To the east. On the way to Constantinople. Well, there is in -- I told you -- I asked you to look up the places in which he is mentioned, did we? Didn't I?

({ }.)

Did I? Did you find his own participation in the war? Could you tell me? What does he do? I think it's very significant -- a very significant way of mentioning his own actions. Can you tell me?

(Well, I just remembered that in Thrace, he was supposed to --)

A little louder. Everyone wants to hear.

(In Thrace, he was supposed to go there as general to -- I can't remember the names right now -- to fight off this Spartan general. But he comes -- I think he came too late, or the day after the Spartan general had taken over, and { }, something like that, yeah. And -- and then he is put into exile after this { }.)

Well, "put into exile," that's not good English. How do you say that?

(Sent into exile.)

(He was exiled.)

(He was exiled.)

Always try to keep the verb a verb. Don't use these circumlocutions, will you? This is horrid. This is the death of language, I mean. That's really always the end, when you have to -- to kill the -- the power of the verb. This country is riddled with -- with noun-mindedness, you see. So the -- the language becomes brick. I mean this, you see. You treat language as consisting of bricks out of which you build houses and "mental pictures," as you even call it. And as soon as you treat language as visibility, it dies. Language -- nouns are subordinate to verbs. We speak because we have to describe the -- our place with regard to an act, you see. Language means--which you do not know, and again there is this complete pagan teaching about language in this country at this moment. You see, I can say, "I shall be exiled," "I am to be -- going to be exiled," you see, and "I am exiled." And the three tenses describe your position towards an act. Language is not the power to say, "I am exiled." Or "I am green," you see, but is the power to place myself with regard to the time of another event. It has -- therefore the three tenses are pre-given.

We speak in order to be able to say what is behind us and what is in front of us, because we have to live. Now living means, you see, to leave something behind in time, and to go forward, to decide what is dead and what is living. That's why we speak. And therefore, if you can't say, you see, "I am exiled," you have mis- -- abusing language as all schoolmasters do abuse it today by saying, "We want to say that this is a book." We don't speak in order to think -- claim that this is a book. This you can throw on the table. And everybody sees what it is, you see. For this purpose, we don't speak. But we have to say, "I'm through with Europe," you see. "I'm all for Asia." In this moment, you decide what's the future and what's the past. That's why we speak.

So all the tenses of grammar are simultaneously given. We speak, "This was," because we want to be able to say, "This shall be," because we have. Otherwise we are suffocated as in a -- by the lack of oxygen when we dive into the water, you see. Life is full of corpses. Every human being at every moment has to breathe freshly and has to bury his dead. And we speak in order to decide what we have to leave behind, and what we -- is coming, at what we are in.

So the three tenses of grammar give you the skeleton of speech, you see: "have been," "is," "shall be." And you have to decide where you are at this moment, you see, what you decide: my parents, that's the past; my wife, that's the future, and my children. If you can't do this, as most Americans can't, they can't speak. That's why most boys here can't get married. They have mistresses and mothers. Because they never can say that they have to leave their father and their mother, and cleave to the wife of their choosing. That's why we speak. The marriage vow is a good example; that means a break in time. And from this moment on, your father's home is behind you, is the past. And your home which

you are going to build is the future. And that's why we have to speak. Any oath you take, the -- is -- is such a decision: from now on, this is -- alive, and this is dead.

You come to this country, here, an immigrant, you take an oath to become a citizen of the United States, you forswear allegiance to all the past gods, you see, to the -- to the emperors and kings of -- of Europe, you see, and you become a citizen of the -- America. For this you have to speak. Because it is only -- speech is made to mention breaks in time. That's why history is a natural with human beings, you see. We are historical beings, because we have -- otherwise we will be killed by the masks of the dead. You could never leave Europe, never become an American citizen, you could never marry if you couldn't say, "This has been," and "This is now."

So I want you to understand that to speak historically is the first breath of life for a human being by which -- which makes that we are able to transform the world, whereas all the animals have to stay put and remain where they are. An animal cannot say, "Has been," you see. And we can.

And all you learn about speech, or what a -- what a lesson it could be, is all wrong, because today in this country, people undertake to tell you, "This is a newspaper," "This is a book," "This is an envelope," "This is a chair," and they call this language. For this, nobody would care to -- create language. But you have to create language in order to say, you see, "One thing has been, and the other thing is to come," because you have to date your life. You have to emerge.

So this is Thucydides' -- Thucydides' attempt to show that he is an Athenian. And I think now -- could you give me the chapter in which he speaks of this -- of this event? I think it deserves some scrutiny. Where is it? Where { } Thucydides { }?

({ }.)

Well, I think it deserves scrutiny, how he puts his own en- -- engagement and his own participation. I think it's very subtle. What is subtle about it, { }? Will you tell me?

(Page 290. I think it's the page 2- -- about the gold mine?)

Ja. Now, by the way, what -- which chapter is this?

(288 -- Chapter 8.)

May I say that is one of the most horrid translations that exists, which you have? It's only cheap, but in every respect. Which chapter?

(I have 290.)

I don't mean the pages.

(Chapter 8. Book IV, Chapter 8.)

Let me try to find this.

(It's about the fourth paragraph, according to this translation.)

See? Are we with --?

(When he { } Sparta { }.)

Ninth paragraph. Now I have here an old, stodgy translation, by the greatest British translator of the 19th century, Mr. Jowett, who was m- -- master of Balliol. You may have heard his name here. Translated Plato, too. B. Jowett, M.A., master of Balliol College, Regis Professor of Greek, University of Oxford. And -- it came out in Boston, too. And it's infinitely more -- more trustworthy than this translation, which is -- which is made readable, and thereby forced to -- to simply go off from the truth.

Let me read then my text. "The appro-" -- now where is it? Paragraph --.

"The -- the -- the passage of the river was a complete surprise. Against Amphipolis now Brasidas led his army here."

Allow me then to bore you with the text, just as a case of -- of historical analysis, so to speak, of text analysis:

"Against Amphipolis Brasidas now led his army. Starting from Arne in Chalcidice, towards evening he reached Aulon and Bromiscus."

Do you have this?


It is worth your while to compare, how it -- the two translators call it { }.

"At the point he reached Aulon and Bromiscus at the point

where the lake Bolbe flows into the sea. Having there supped, he marched on during the night. The weather was wintry and somewhat snowy."

I make a -- I'll pass over this, and we go now over to the next -- paragraph.

"The general to whose care the place had been committed by the Athenians sent for help to the other general in Chalcidice, Thucydides, the son of Olorus"--now Olorus, as I told you, is not a Greek name--"who wrote this history. He was in Anthasos, an island colonized from Thasos, and distant from Amphipolis -- Amphipolis about a half-a-day's sail."

Half a day's sail, I would suspect, means 12 hours. I'm not sure. But it -- whether it raises -- the question whether a day is 12 hours or 24 hours at that time, you see. I -- I -- I'm afraid the -- 24-hour day didn't exist, and it could well be there's just six hours. It's quite interesting, you see.

In a -- natural, I mean, for the -- human beings, day and night are clearly divided. That we speak of "day" as 24 hours, is the result of the last 400 years only, you see. And of the Coper- -- the abstract reckoning of modern mathematics and physics, it's very late. The daily laborer is a man who works from dayri- -- sunrise to -- you see, to sunset. And that's what we mean by a day, you see. "A day's work," and all these things. I think it's quite interesting. I don't know what they say in the Greek text. I don't -- didn't bring it.

"As soon as he heard the tidings, he sailed quickly to Amphipolis with seven ships which happened to be on the spot. He wanted to get into Amphipolis if possible, for -- before it could capitulate, or at any rate to occupy Eion."

Where's Eion? Do you have a map? I'm not -- not { }.

({ }.)

Is it near Amphipolis? Is it further -- out to the sea?

(Yes. Yes.)

It's so to speak, the -- the harbor of Amphipolis, is it? Like the Piraeus, on Athens.

"Meanwhile Brasidas, fearing the arrival of the ships from Thasos, and hearing that Thucydides had the wor- -- right of working gold mine in the neighboring district of { }, and was

consequently one of the leading men of the country, did his utmost to get possession of the city before his arrival."

Now I -- there you have the subtlety. The tragedy of Amphipolis, you see, is now laid to the great respect which Brasidas held for Thucydides. So the failure of Thucydides to dis- -- you see, to -- to come to the rescue of Amphipolis is here turned into a merit of Thucydides, because he -- filled Brasidas such respect for his importance. I think this is the crown- -- I mean, if you understand this, this is clever indeed. It may even be true. We don't know. But it certainly shows that Thucydides turned a very awkward situation, you see, in his favor, because he's said -- explained now the victory of Brasidas, with the respect for Thucydides, you see. This I think is the -- is the subtlety of the -- of the performance. Without saying a word, without telling you that he's interested in Thucydides at all. It's all put at the doorstep, you see, of Mr. -- Mr. Brasidas.

"Fearing the arrival of the ships from Thasos," you see, and "hearing that Thucydides was -- one of the leading men of the country, did his utmost to get possession of the city before his arrival. He was afraid that if Thucydides once came, the people of Amphipolis would no longer be disposed to surrender." You understand the -- the whole logic of this? "From their hope would be -- for their hope would be that he would bring in allies," you see, such an important man, he could bring in allies by sea from the islands, or collect troops in { } relieve them. He therefore offered moderate terms for claiming that any Amphipolitan or Athenian might either remain in the city"--a very -- very mild conditions, indeed--"and have the enjoyment of his property on terms of equality, or if he preferred, might depart, taking his goods with him within five days."

It seems to me that since this is the only place in which he is shown as engaged in the history which he writes, we -- you should give a certain importance to this one and only case. And at the end of the paragraph after the surrender, then he says -- Thucydides says of himself:

"On the evening of the same day, Thucydides and his ships sailed into Eion, but not until Brasidas had taken possession of Amphipolis, missing Eion only by a night. For if the ships had not come to the rescue with all speed, the place would have been in his hands on the next morning.

"Thucydides now put Eion in a state of defense, desiring to provide not only against any immediate attempts of Brasidas, but also against future danger. He received the fugitives who had chosen to quit Amphipolis according to the agreement, and wished to come into Eion. Brasidas suddenly sailed to Eion, hoping that he might take the point which -- which runs out from the wall, and thereby command the entrance to the harbor. At the same time, he made an attack by land. But in both these attempts, he was foiled.

Thereupon he returned and took measures for the settlement of Amphipolis. The Edonian town of Myrcinus joined him" and we don't have to go into this.

"The Athenians were seriously alarmed --."

Now what is said about the fate of Thucydides?

({ }.)

(Chapter 3?)

Will you read this, now in your text?

(The sentence, or -- ?)

All about Thucydides.

(All right.)

("The history of this period has also -- has been written by the same Thucydides, an Athenian, keeping to the order of events, as they happened by summers and winters, down to the time when the Spartans and their allies put an end to the empire of Athens and occupied the long wall and Piraeus. By then, the war had lasted altogether 27 years, and it would certainly be an error of judgment to consider the interval of the agreement as anything else except a long period of war. One has only to look at the facts to see that it's hardly possible to use the word 'peace' for a situation in which neither side gave back or received what it -- what had been promised. And apart from this, there were breaches of the treaty on both sides in connection with the { } and the Epidaurian waters, and in other respects, too. The allies in the Thracian area continued hostile as before, and the Boeotians were in a state of truce, which had to be renewed every ten days.

("So -- so if one puts together the first ten years' war, the uneasy truce with -- which followed it, and a subsequent war, one will find, reckoning by summers and winters, that my estimate of the number of years is correct within a few days. Also that, for those who put their faith in oracles, here is one solitary instance of their having been proved accurate. I myself remember that all the time, from beginning to the end of the war, it was but -- it was being put about by many people that the war would last for thrice nine years. I lived through the whole of it.")

So how many years would this be?

(39. Thrice -- 27 years.)

"I lived through the whole of it, being of an age to understand what was happening, and I put my mind to the subject so as to get an accurate view of it. It happened, too, that I was banished from my country for 20 years after my command at Amphipolis. I saw what was being done on both sides, particularly the Peloponnesian side, because of my exile. And this leisure gave me rather exceptional facilities for looking into things. I shall now therefore go on to describe the disputes that took place after the 10 years' war, the breach of the treaty, and the warfare which came afterwards."

This is the heart of the book, of the whole work of Thucydides, this chapter. And it is strangely interwoven with personal faith and his real concern, his concern is which? What does he -- against whom does he argue here? And the -- I may tell you one thing. It's the only place in which there is even the slightest hint of any religious interest of -- in Thucydides, religious in the sense of mentioning an oracle, which was given there about the war, beforehand, you see, some -- some connection with the priestly or templar traditions, or judgments on the matter. Otherwise, Thucydides, as -- being a scientific historian, is absolutely secular, I mean. It's just a question of cause and effect, and of reason. And he -- is really a Greek. But he has this one great concern. What does he want to prove? What's -- what does he want to prove?

(It's one, continuous war.)


(Is it one continuous war?)

That it's one continuous war. And this is his stroke of genius. It's his inspiration. The Greeks are the nation of geniuses, gentlemen. Every Greek is, so to speak, whom we mention today--whether it's Aeschylus, or whether it's Prometheus, or whether it's -- Demosthenes--we worship the Greeks as a nation of geniuses. Now a genius is able to the hold onto us a specific inspiration: the poem, you see. That's an inspiration, you see. Later, he may be very stupid, this man. Like Edgar Allan Poe, he may be -- even go insane, you see. Or he may -- up the spirit, like Melville, before his -- his death.

The inspiration is, in regard to history, the opposite from what the prophets, or the Bible tries to do. The Bible insists on the continuity of the history of creation. All creation is one breath of God. A thousand years are before him as one day. The Greeks say the opposite. They say, "I don't know anything of what has gone on before." Thucydides begins and say, "We know very little of the past. But this event I shall stamp with the inspiration of my genius as the outstanding event of all times." And he made it so.

And if we read Thucydides, we actually believe him, that the events from 431 to 404 are the Peloponnesian War. And he has made you believe this, as far as you are interested in Greek history at all. And this isn't true. From the purely skeptical point of view, you can just as well hold that in the year 423, peace was established for nine years -- the -- the -- the so-called Peace of {Artedimus}. And so he has here this one, you see, that's his great enemy, the possibility that somebody denies his -- his vision, that man should look at the times -- here, I have put them, the dates there--the three times nine, my dear man--as -- as being one.

Now in order to make you understand what importance this can have for the decisions of mankind, I am, you see, engaged in a profound battle with the pagans at this moment by -- who try to say that World War II is a war by itself, fought against Mr. Hitler, and that World War I is something different. And I insist that there was an armistice between--just as Thucydides, you see, in my -- you may say I don't claim great originality--but the inspiration which guides me in my historical attempts is to prove that 1914 and 1945 must be considered a unity if we want to understand what we should do about it, you see.

I have given an address on January 30, in Germany to this -- that was the -- the program, so to speak, which I developed there before a group of influential business people, and I tried to show them why, if the -- we do not -- we do not make this effort to see Mr. Wilson and Mr. Roosevelt as one, you see, having one and the same problem to solve, we will never understand that the -- World War II was not accidental, just the brute, Hitler. But that it did answer -- attempt to -- to -- like any vaccination, to bring back the virulence of a poison that's in your body, you see, and to make it virulent again, and -- so that you can operate now on -- on the patient there.

You know when you have had the {digiteria}, and the consequences are with you, there are doctors now--the doctor who treated Lenin, for example, had the idea, the first man who operated on the brain, Mr. {Foerster}, that you should bring back the old infectious disease which had become latent, you see, in order to be able to cure it. You have a disease, you see, it -- it -- it becomes chronical, it weakens you constantly, but it isn't -- there is no fever anymore, you see. It doesn't work -- actually. So he had the idea he would vaccinate the patient with the same poison, so that he could treat it, you see. Then he would get the diphtheria poison, so to speak, or the scarlet poison, or whatever it was, out of your body.

This is the problem of the historian. The things latent, the things not mentioned, the things inarticulate, you see, and the first effort is: since you live day by day, by the daily news, you are inclined to think that one year is discon-

nected from the other. And therefore you do not see that we are paying the penalty for Versailles today -- for the Treaty of Versailles and the Americans' marching out of the Treaty of Versailles. And that's why we have the Cold War, because we have not learned to make peace. An historian has just published a book, The Art of Making Peace, and shown how it has completely gone by default. After Mr. Grant demanded the unconditional surrender at Vicksburg in 1864, it was, I think, or 1863.


Wie? -3, you see. This formula has poisoned all international relations, because Mr. Roosevelt had learned in school, you see, that Grant asked for unconditional surrender at Vicksburg. Now you can ask within -- in a civil war, you can ask for unconditional surrender, because allegedly you know where to go back to, you see. But you cannot ask for unconditional surrender and have no terms for the peace, you see. That's no solution. That's what we have done, you see.

Unconditional surrender is one of the most stupid formulas, because it has lulled to sleep, not as -- to ask it from the enemy is all right. But it dispensed, you see, on the side of the Allies with all mental effort to understand the future. And to write a -- just an adequate peace. And so it blinds the victor himself. It -- it makes him -- it paralyzes him. Oh, { }. Well, we have dealt with the red Indians in this manner, you see, and -- but you can't deal with the -- half of the world in this manner.

So the -- today we have this chapter of Thucydides. You should learn it by heart. It is the -- the -- the power of Greek genius to make you understand an epoch, the unity of an epoch; and that's the creation of the human spirit; that's an act of faith. Nietzsche, the German philosopher who is -- I mean, is there still to -- with us, to plague us for the rest of our lives, I can assure you, said, "History will always be an article of faith."

Now you understand, this has nothing to do with any special creed or faith. It means that you can only write coherent history if you bank on the unity of an event. You create this { }. You can always also -- tear it apart. You can say that 1917, when the United States entered the World War I, you see, that's a new event, that's the American war. And you can distort thereby the whole picture, and cut it -- the World War I even, into little pieces and say that the first three years is European war, and the second -- last year is the World War. Obviously, it would make no sense, you see. The thing is a little more complicated. You cannot separate America's entrance into the World War from the previous events. You understand.

Still in your country, I think, if I read the books right, the attempt is always made to begin the history of the World War I, for America, at least, with the entrance in the war, which is not true, you see. If you want to understand the -- America's contribution to the World War, I will remind you of two -- two dates. And again, it's Russia and the United States who share the laurels of the event. Only to show you that epochs are inspired, insights, acts of faith.

I had -- we had this 1861 emancipation of the serfs in Russia, and 186- -- when is it, in America?


Now, look at these two dates. In 1914, the Russians make war. And they have no other way out, I mean. It wasn't a question of -- already they were in the throes of their own revolution for the last nine years. So the -- the government just simply couldn't go back down, because they had to -- at least had external successes, since they had only defeats at home.

And at this moment, Mr. Henry Ford of this country gave his workmen the $5 day. That is, he solved for all practical purposes the cleavage between capital and labor in declaring that his -- his workmen were his customers. Which is an absolutely, you see, new idea, and which made the sol- -- for the solidarity of capital and labor. Because if the workman is himself the customer and can have a -- buy a Ford car, Mr. Ford is just as much interested in the wealth of the worker, you see, as in his exploitation.

In 1917, the -- Russians make a social revolution, and the -- America enters the war. And you have this exact reciprocity. The -- the Ger- -- Americans have first solved their labor problem, and then gone to war, to impart it to the rest, so to speak, their -- their possibilities, their industrial system. And the Russians had no industrial system, of course. So they first go to war, you see, then are forced to give up the war, and do something different. And -- industrialize, what they are doing ever since.

That's why Russia -- is really peace-loving, because it has paid the penalty of, you see, being -- having to go to war, and then finding that the work -- didn't work -- war didn't work.

Now you had again -- nobody in this country has the imag- -- the imagination, strangely enough; they look at events day by day, to see that when America did this in 1914, you see, that Henry Ford acted for the United States mo- -- much more -- was much more important in this moment than president, and Congress, and anybody else, you see. He changed the system of the United

States, the social system. And you know how it -- how it is expressed? We even have a great symbol of this. We have Labor Day. In all other countries, including this country down to 1914, Labor Day was May 1st, and it was a day exclusively of labor, of the proletariat. It was invented in this country, 1889, May 1st; and it has now become the national holiday of the Russians, as you know. It is celebrated in Paris. It's celebrated in Berlin. It is celebrated in -- in -- in Rome. But in this country, it was quietly moved to Labor Day in September, because it is not a class day.

With the resolve of Mr. Henry Ford in 1914, you see, the -- the whole idea that it had to be an action of protest on the part of the workers against the existing order has broken down. And you know all -- what Labor Day involves in this country. It is no day of opposition. It's one of the grandest histories of the world, but the Americans don't care to write it up. You see, the -- the -- the dislodgement of the revolutionary May 1st, and its -- replacing it by Labor Day in September means that capital and labor in this country are reconciled. That's all what it means, but that's quite a bit.

And therefore, the Americans went to war with the good conscience to export an article of faith. And the Russians went to war in order to start their own revolution. I can tell you that the leading -- Russian Bolshevik in -- in Am- -- in Europe, a man who was shot then in Munich in 1919, as a -- as -- when he headed the government in Bavaria for a while, went into the barracks of Munich in 1914. And when he found that the Bavarian farmers were not at all eager to go to war in July of '14, he said, "What? You do not want to help us to abolish czardom?"

He was so revolutionized himself, you see, that he thought these poor Bavarian peasants and farmers had to be very keen to abolish czardom in Russia. Of course, they weren't. But he thought this was the great global event, you see. The war was fought for the abolition of Russia's, you see, despotism.

Only to show you the en- -- the universal engagement of men's hearts and minds in this struggle, you see; this is a true story. And it shows you that wars are always fought for spiritual {points}. They are never fought on -- for these -- what you read in the books, for economic purposes and so weiter, because you can't get people to be shot dead, you -- on the ground for somebody else getting rich.

[tape interruption]

Oh, very kind. Very kind. See you tonight?


Here? So let's have a break here.

[tape interruption]

It means that genius has always to perform in every generation a task. People live through events and call all them "happenings." "This happened." Now happenings have to be transformed into events...

[tape interruption]

...because we -- we run through so many things. They may happen to us, you see, but they remain haphazardous. The Peloponnesian War is not an -- haphazard, thanks to Thucydides, in our mind, you see. It's a necessary event.

And this has not yet been done for the last 40 years, I assure you. And this is why we are in bad shape. As soon as the stamp of inevitability, of necessity can be put on these last 40 years, you see, the Homer of this Trojan War has been found; and then the Trojan War can come to rest. And every event has to be made into an event, by this act of faith that we cannot have lived in vain: these sufferings, you see, "These dead cannot have died in vain." The Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural of -- of Lincoln have done exactly this to the Civil War, you see. Then it became an event that had its meaning. And mere happening, Fort Sumter and so, this is all meaningless. It could have been wrong to -- to -- for example, to -- to -- to go out, you see,

and -- call of arms after Fort Sumter was taken.

Why not -- why not abide by it?

I told you perhaps that in -- on Monday, December 8th, 1941, my students in class argued that we didn't have to go to war against Japan. They said, "Pearl Harbor? We just refuse to accept that." you see. "That's not war." Twenty-four hours after the event. Wie? Wie?

Now, will you --.

[tape interruption]

It is incredible that scientists will deny that they know anything of the future. Well, they know certainly that there shall be science. That's dogmatic. And then these same scientists rant about dogma. But they have a very peculiar

dogma. They say, "Science comes first. Science is important. Science is necessary. Everything has to be sacrificed for science." Isn't this dogmatic? And isn't this absolutely -- hand -- stemming from the future? Because science is very imperfect of -- as of this moment, and only if it is later making progress is it the real science. Many things in medicine today, for example, are believed that--in my mind -- in my mind--are mere superstitions. Well, we keep going in medicine, because we hope tomorrow there will be the true medicine. So it is with, of course, with every -- with every field of human endeavor.

Now if you could see that the scientists are nothing but the branch of the human prophecy turned towards the earth, and earthly things, the things of matter, you would understand that we all--you at this moment, living here at -- UCLA--are preparing for the future. What keeps you here is the firm faith that it's worthwhile studying here and preparing yourself for the rest of your life. And as soon as you would give up this idea of preparation, you would become a very unpleasant hangover. You would become a student who could never leave this place, you see. And there are such individuals, but I think they are -- everybody feels that they have just missed the boat. Yet, according to your philosophy of time--if you go to the logical semanticists of this college, you see, and listen to their philosophy--time -- future doesn't exist. Nobody is here except as of the moment. Every one of you is here, because he has a -- quite a firm conviction that for the next five -- 50 years, he should be equipped here.

So you know much more of the future than you care to admit. Everybody who is a- -- -live is drawn by the future. And you remember what we said at the first half of this meeting, that -- the pressure from the future is the -- the agent that makes us try to say of those things that are past, "have been." I told you that all human speech, all human articulation is this attempt to get your elbows in -- working both ways, moving in time, not moving in space. The scientist, who deals only with space and can tell you that time should be treated in the laboratory as the fourth dimension of space, at the same time, of course, is ambitious and wants to progress, and he believes only in time. And he has nothing to do with space in his own personal career, you see. He is called from one country to another, like Mr. von Braun, who goes from Germany to -- to -- to Florida. And it doesn't matter, you see. He wants to execute his -- his great dream of the future. So where is space with him? He is only making this progress from year to year to come nearer to the realization of his dream. That's an historical ev- -- process.

And so I think all scientists themselves are just blind to what they really live. They have all -- the life of a scientist today is the outstanding example of an historical example -- of an historical li- -- existence which is dictated to, which is articulated by the future, and therefore takes a profound interest in the preparatory steps already done in this -- in this regard by people in the past. Any scien-

tist is engaged in dealing with the history of his science, because he -- has to select all those data which are still there, so to speak, unfinished in -- by -- by -- former explorations.

I remember the simple story that in 1938, Mr. Otto Hahn, in Germany, the father of the atom bomb, of the -- of the atom fi- -- fission, published his results. I mean, when uranium could be cut into halves. And they'd no idea at that time that there would ever be a bomb made out of this. But Mr. Fermi, Enrico Fermi--the man who's in this country now--he -- he had made the experiments leading Mr. Hahn to this statement four years ago. And he didn't know what he had done. It was Mr. Hahn's business then to go over the record, and to interpret these experiments. And they might have been done 50 years before, and say, "This is it."

And -- only to tell you that people in scie- -- in the history of science don't know what they are doing, why they are doing it, you see. That the reinterpretation of such an experiment is very often due to another man. And you find this time and again, in mathematics. Who is -- has anybody a special interest in mathematics? You? Well, you may have heard of the -- of the quat- -- how is it called in English? quaternio -- theory of Mr. Grassman. He -- he made this discovery and his statement in 1849, if I'm right, or 1846. And he was so disgusted with the people of his time--no mathematician understanding what he had done--that he went off into Sanskrit and wrote then an equally elegant and important volume on Sanskrit -- Sanskrit -- Hindu culture for the last 30 years of his life. He just gave up mathematics, and became a reasonable man. And then 50 years later, the mathematicians discovered that this had -- was the next step, you see, in this study of higher equations. And Mr. Grassman, all -- all of a sudden, became a terribly important stepping stone, you see, for the new theory.

This is how science rediscovers the past constantly. And if you would understand that this is just an example as how we -- you have to rediscover World War I at this moment, you see, as the -- the cradle of all the problems besetting us at -- as of this moment, you would understand why I am long- -- waiting for Mr. Thucydides as of today, you see. A man who -- who makes all the schoolchildren see that they have to live after the last 40 years, and cannot go back to the orange groves, and the go- -- and the wild western films of 1900. And as long as you go to the westerners, you see, without relating these westerners as a mere past to your real, present problems, you live in a dream world, because there is not this intermission; there is not this break with the past.

I think our western movies are an excellent example of this desperate attempt of any -- of any group of people, you see, to hold onto something that does no longer exist, you see. And that's all right. I mean, fairy tales are all right.

But you must know that they are fairy tales. As soon as you say, "These are fairy tales," you see, it's all right. But as long as you -- you take the sheriff there and the -- and the -- and the cow puncher too seriously, all our young boys will shoot each other, as they do.

And I think this is a dream world, most -- for most youngsters today. The -- the -- and -- and you should me- -- you should measure Sunday school and school instruction, both, by the power they have to break up the dream world of the youngster. If they enter this dream world and s- -- and sup- -- and support it even, entertain it, and don't make them into historical beings, they have missed their task. Religion and -- and history have this -- make this attempt to make us aware, shoot us into this decision, this decisive point that we decide at what time we live, you see.

Ja. It -- is there still -- you care to still listen to the rest? Or don't you? Then we'll -- we shall go on.

So may I -- add my criticism? I want you to understand, I haven't given back these papers. I would have to have been quite violent. And -- this whole list--past, present, and future--you have to throw out as a --. It's a curse of this naturalistic tradition, that people write these three things in this -- in this fashion. Try to always write "future" first, "past" second; and then see that the conflict between the two, that's the present.

Look at your own life. You live as a child at home, and in school under the routine. You fall in love. That breaks -- brings a break. All of a sudden, you have to -- to use subterfuges to stay away from home; you have to -- begin a life of your own. You can't tell everything; there are secrets. And there should be secrets, by the way. You shouldn't tell your { } such a thing. It is a secret. It's your whole life. And you cannot explain it to anybody else, if it is worth anything.

Now this little seed, which it is, you see, the more the seed is in the ground, the more hidden it is; it has to grow. And all of a sudden, you develop a tension, and you have to let the seed grow, and the old tree from which you are a chip that has to die of -- in your -- inside yourself, has to become less. You have to be able to give less and less to the authority of your -- your elders, and to -- trust more and more to { }. That takes time, and it takes 10 years, before you say -- {marry}. If you -- if you overdo it, you -- elope. That is, you make an artificial break, where you should make a transition, where you should -- you have no presence then. You have just the future, you see, as an urge, and the past as effect.

The present then, is the process during which we ab- -- are absolved and redeemed from the past, and are made ready for the future. So the present is all the time a process of -- of -- how do you call this? -- "abwickeln" in German--liquidation, you may say, I mean it's this -- you see, you have a firm that's already -- you know you want to close down. You see, the old firm, you want to establish your own firm, a new one, you see. And the process of transition in which you have to liquidate the old firm, and prepare and register with the new. That's by and large what the present is. It's a constant involvement. Here you are in college. You are still partly living on the -- on a scholarship, or on your parents, or on some sideline income, you see. You are preparing, and at the same time, you are liquidating links with the past. You are still in school, but it's a high school. We call "university" a higher school of learning, an institution which is definitely not simply an annex of the customs of the past, which was also as my -- I tried to say, contains some germs which -- which the older people did not receive into their {care}. I mean, the university and a school are distinguished by this one fact that a school tries to transmit what the parents also know, the three R's, you see; and the university tries to transmit you certain things which your parents have not known, yet. That's the difference between high and -- and low.

All this is unknown, and therefore the present has this very strange connotation with you. In -- in nature, there is no presence. You must always say that in nature, while I am speaking here, physically, you see, my -- the second half of my word, which I haven't yet -- of the sentence I haven't finished yet, is a part of the future; and the first half, which I already had pronounced is -- is -- is past, and there is no present.

And would you kindly keep this in mind? All the natural scientists borrow from us--the historians, the theologians, the religionists, the faithful people--the notion of the present. All -- any scientist who talks to you of the present, as a scientific fact, lies. It's always an act of faith, present. Never is the present in existence as -- except on faith. You believe that you are between your parents and your grandchildren. But that's all. If it isn't in you as a power of the future now working into you, your grandparents aren't represented. As we say, "represented," you see.

Representation is by you only taken to be a local representation. You elect a representative and send him to Washington, you see. That's your representative. But my dear people, the present is the meeting ground of the future, which -- in which you believe, and the past which you have experienced, or which has left your -- his -- its mark on you.

And therefore, throw out the word "present" as often as you can. Scruti-

nize it. Use it not -- then you will only find where you have -- where this is legitimate. And I read, I mean -- you read all these gentlemen--Laplace, Euler, Einstein, Planck, I mean all the great physicists--they all bandy around this word "present" as though -- had any right to it. You see, because they need it of course for their scientific studies, for the laboratories. But that's an act of faith given them by the community. We believe that they should have their day in court, because we believe in their future vision, you see. We create the present.

And I give you -- perhaps it may help you. Or it may not. It may complicate matters, I don't know. The word "present" of course comes from the religious faith of the presence of God, that God is omnipresent. Present is always connected with the divine, with the superior spirit; whereas past and -- and future, in a mechanical sense, you see, come from -- from physical observation. It would be too long a story to explain to you how the -- even the physicists stole this word "future" from -- from religion. That's { } -- a sidelight.

But the main point is: never allow your atheistic, agnostic colleagues in the science departments -- to use the words "present" as though it had any meaning within their mouths, unless they admit that they have it as faithful laymen, as citizens of the community, as -- as members of the human family. But not as scientists, you see. The scientist has no right to use the term "present," because it doesn't exist in any of its -- his experiments. You can never have a present when you look at things in a laboratory, you see. There are only past and future. Can you see this? I would even call the -- their future just an elongated past, because it's pre-calculated, and they say that goes on for another 60 minutes, or if -- it takes three days, or what -- I won't go into this.

But my main point is, as a practical thing of you, I think you will emerge from this smog, which today is not in Cali- -- so much in Southern California as it is in the minds of men. They -- they can only sell you science as a religion, because they have stolen this word "present" or -- to which they had no right and claim. Where is there any present in their scientific picture of the world? Everything is rushing on. It's just a mere maelstrom, you see, of constant change.

Now here we -- meet, and they meet in their lectures in a good spirit of peace, of friendliness, of presence of a -- one spirit, you see, and that's an act of faith. I can -- here we meet for two hours; and this is one present, is it not? And that's a miracle. That's a creation of the human family. It has nothing to do with nature. It's not a natural event, that I can go -- and you allow me to talk here, you see.

Well, { }.