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

...teaching and experimentation. Because if you would learn in a laboratory to set up an experiment, so you learn here how to set up a -- the problem of a -- a source. It has -- is a masterpiece, I think. It has never been done, to my knowledge, in such a masterful way, well, because the man preferred to show the secrets of knowledge and methodology instead of -- of method, instead of coming forth with his own solution. This doesn't exist. Otherwise a peop- -- person -- you may learn something from a brilliant historian, but he always -- has an axe to grind. He wa- -- has a thesis.

Now Mr. {Momigliano} has no thesis. And therefore as an educational experi- -- you see, experience, this is unique. And therefore, I want you to follow this man's arguments, and to weigh them, and -- and say what -- your decision after this. You have to make up your mind. He hasn- -- not to.

So this is the -- the problem, you see. He puts all the evidence before you, weighs the evidence, shows you how to weigh evidence. You have never done this. And you are children in this respect. I mean, this country is the most gullible nation in the world. I mean, you are taken in all by the latest news. Somebody -- and the later news--it may as -- be as wrong as possible--you still believe it, because it's the latest. That's the worst thing an historiographer can do, you see. You leave something -- it -- we have this every day. You find a papyrus. Now these Dead Sea Scrolls, you see. -- Worthless stuff. Well, what -- what -- what literature { }? You see, Jesus -- teacher of righteousness and so. You mean -- here is a monastery, you see, you can call it a printing -- the printing press of Jerusalem, you see. That's the whole story of the Dead Sea Scrolls. But what you read in the last years is just all humbug, because it's new. And since we all do newspaper writing, and even the historians of this country try to be -- have smart -- like smart alecks, have catching titles. So you see, they write books, you see, to catch your imagination. It has nothing to do with history, has nothing to do with truth.

And so Mr. {Momigliano} is -- is -- deserves very well of us, because he brings us back to our senses. Here is the last century before pagan Rome becomes Christian. It's the last century when the -- Roman emperors reside in Rome. Take this all down. It's all important for you. It's the last century in which the Christians are in the catacombs. And -- are persecuted. And -- the only -- or nearly the only history of radical source of this whole century are -- is this strange book, the -- the writers on -- on the history of the {Augusti}. {Rer- -- Rerus, you see, Scriptorius Rerum Augusti}. Now that's a -- that makes the book simply incred- -- it's the last pagan history, of the last century of paganism in


Every history written later falls into the hands of Christians, and becomes Church history. This is the last attempt of having a secular history. And to tell you the truth -- you will -- I hope you will all go to the library and take out the Loeb edition -- or even s- -- buy it. I would advise you, it's worth your while to buy this volume, with the Latin text on one side, and the English text on the other. The only edition with an English version that exists. There is no special edition of an English text { }, per se.

And -- Constantine then leads the children of Israel out of Egypt. He's celebrated as the new Moses. And that's to be taken quite literally. If you look at this book, this collection of imperial biographies of the third century, you begin to understand the necessity of Christianity, the necessity for Constantine to leave the old gods of Rome, who are completely impotent, and to leave the city to the pope. You see, the pope gots this -- got his power from the -- from the voluntary renunciation of the emperor, to part with the gods from the Capitoline Hill, and to -- with whom he couldn't compete, and who were destroying his empire. This is very -- the whole thing is much more serious. For the last hundred years, in your school tradition, the coming of Christianity is either mechanized, as in -- in- -- inevitable evolutionary process--and so it has no value in it--or it is always treated as the downfall of Christianity, because the Church became imperial and secular. That's the Protestant tradition, you see. So for the Roman Catholics today, it is just, so to speak, the invincible march, and costs nothing. And for the -- and they all think that he came, so to speak, by -- under his own steam. The Church conquered. But Constantine made her conquer by ceding Rome to it -- to it.

And we will -- today take a very different view from the last century -- whose tradition has of course tainted and painted your mind--because you are very obsolete, gentlemen. With all you have learned, you are 200 years behind the truth. As it always is in high schools and schools of a country, I mean. They- 're always lagging in -- what the real research today is interested in is, you see, the -- the battle royal between paganism and Christianity, what a miracle it was that -- it did conquer.

Now if you want to understand therefore -- the exciting problem is: these -- history of the third century, of the century of the disintegration of the Roman Empire as a pagan empire is -- has come to us in a book, which was obviously -- written in the Christian age, and which shows no vestiges of Christianity, but which seems to have been published either under Constantine or one of his successors. Or much later. That's a great debate. Now it is nearly all we have in an historical form of this whole -- whole -- third -- third century on a -- from a

pagan -- from pagan writers, from non-Christian writers. And the Christian writers of course are not dealing with the -- with the government of Rome at all. They are dealing with their own church problems, you see, squabbles between heretics and so on, and the Orthodox Church.

So here is the complete shift of allegiance. The book is written in an -- in a time, or composed, or published--we don't know; you will see all these --. Who has read this paper already? Well, you know, it's all open to doubt. But it is not simply, as if we would say, a book composed on the years 1750 to 1850, you see. We ask whether it's written -- 1900 or 1950. You -- it is much -- infinitely more important and decisive, because it is the last pagan century, you see, written in a Christian era -- the first Christian time. By pagans --. That's how it looks, you see.

So it is -- it is fascinating, because one of the disturbing facts about antiquity is, you see, that there was absolutely no progress. The -- your whole dogma of progress, you see, which is very childish, is -- assumes that progress is in evolution. Regress is just as much in evolution. This country is re- -- retrograde at this moment. It's not progressing at all. And why should it? The South retrograded, since -- from 1830 to 1860 slavery was getting worse and worse, and not better and better. And that's why the Civil War was inevitable. It wasn't inevitable 1827, because at that time, slavery was perfectly -- I e mean, mild, so to speak, you see. But 30 years later, it was not mild. It was cruel. It became worse.

Now this is the one thing your mind cannot catch: that things, before they can get better, must get worse. And therefore, Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Pius, the caesars of the second century, were much better emperors than the emperors of the third century. And the emperors of the third century were just beasts. All warriors, soldiers, I mean. Constantly at war. And becau- -- ja?

(How can you say slavery was not bad in 1820?)

Because at that time, the people in South Carolina, the gentlemen of -- South -- Carolina were concerned with dissolving it. So it wasn't so bad. If there was an {outlook} since, Mr. Hayne, the great -- the great opponent of Webster, in 1837 said, "We will abolish slavery." But nobody said this in 1854. There appeared a book, Sociology for the South, by Mr. {Fitzhugh}, one of the greatest -- most scandalous documents of the human mind ever published, in which he wrote a sociology based on slavery, you see. So that society could not exist without slavery. I recommend this book highly.

It's not in the library. Shows you what a miserable library we have. We have no Plutarch -- and -- to speak of. We have no -- all the important books are not in this library. All my books are not in this library. But I went down to get

you some books on Plutarch. There's nothing there. It's a miserable library. And this book by Fitzhugh, one of the most important human documents, if for nothing else, Sociology for the South is not here. I c- -- you see. It's one of the great scandals of the century. And it must be here, you see, because this is the book in which the South took position and said, you see, "That's the only way of life that is reasonable," slavery. That's quite an achievement, you see. It appeared -- of course, inspired by the Count de Gobineau, who two years before published his famous book on the inequality of the human race. And it's all in one -- in one moment.

You see, after 1850, when -- when -- when Melville goes from Moby-Dick to Pierre, that's a complete break in the spirit of the times. Deepest optimism up to 1850 -- Millerites, you see, the -- the -- "the millennium is -- is with us." Everybody is optimistic. And after 1850, black pessimism. And again, that shows you how history really works. History is, you see -- there was a desperate mood after 1850. And one of these desperate -- expressions of desperation of this profound pessimism is -- is the -- this book by {Fitzhugh}, Sociology of -- for the South. And of course Henry Adams is the last of these pessimists, and Brooks Adams, with the degradation of the democratic dogma, and The -- The Law of Decline and -- how is it called?

(Civilization and Decay.)

Wie? and Decay, ja. And that begins all, you see, in 1850 and ends in the two world wars, because people -- began -- it's -- began to smell.

But -- the average American, of course, since he -- since he boycotted the mo- -- mo- -- the movements of the educated class in this country, wasn't touched by this. Now you are driven by this, I think. Yours -- don't think that what your mood -- the official mood of this lost generation, or angry generation is anything but the catching-up of the mass of the people with what the educated people believed since 1850, that man was -- was hopeless, wicked, you see, mass, mob, perverse, you see, homosexual, murderer of his -- of his father, incestuous with his mother. I mean, all the modern tenets, so to speak, they were all developed in 1850. But in this country, with the stream of immigrants, you see, this -- the -- upper classes could live their own mind -- mental life, and the -- the masses of the newcomers, you see, didn't -- were never interested. Now you're just catching up with this.

And therefore in this sense you are obsolete, because you are -- in this coun- -- college, I find the official attitude is that of 1850, of Pierre, of Melville's Pierre. And Pierre -- I assure you, a man like Mer- -- Herman Melville wouldn't write such a book today. He would try to get us out of Pierre, I mean, and the

Ambiguities, if you know the book. Who knows Pierre, or the Ambiguities? It's the American classic. Nobody reads it? Who has read Pierre? Nobody? Well, who has read Freud?

(Excerpts. Excerpts.)

Well, what have you read in psychoanalysis? You have heard it all, have you? Where do you get your information?



(Lectures. Lectures.)

No -- probably by going to the analyst yourself.

Now really it is very strange how the -- sources of information of the most important issues of the time are of the most casual sort. Every one of you thinks he knows what -- what psychoanalysis is, don't you? Don't you know -- think you know?

I -- I -- I talked to a very serious psychoanalyst in this city on Sunday, and the man said that it is "just too bad that I have become popular. Nobody understands what we are doing, but everybody thinks he -- they know what we are doing. And also dogmatically then pa- -- you see, says that things are as such as they have misunderstood us." Was a -- quite a -- quaint complaint of this man.

Well, I want to say -- gentlemen, the -- the -- the -- the people who get their information in this callow way, as you do--on the most important issues--religion, politics, ethics, sex, family, just very casual what you pick up in the newspaper, the radio, and television--you can always be sure that you are a hundred years behind the times. And if you would begin to -- to believe me this, you see, you would be -- come -- be able to educate yourself. But -- in the -- since you believe that what's in the papers is newer than what's in the books, you see, I cannot help you. You really think because this book was printed -- when was it written? Who has a textbook? -- 1948 -- so you think this is, so to speak, older than what's today in the Examiner, you see. That's not true. Because the way the man looks at things in the paper has to have the -- the -- lowest common denominator. Otherwise he wouldn't sell. And the lowest common denominator is always a hundred years, at least, behind the times.

I have -- investigate this on a large scale, and that's -- has to do with this

historic problem, you see, of Mr. {Momigliano}. The -- the reactionary character -- if these people wrote pagan -- were pagans who wrote this history of the third century, you see, we cannot be surprised that they moved in categories, you see, which were already superseded in the time in which they -- at which they wrote. And that is a part of the trouble of Mr. {Momigliano}, you see, that the dating of a pagan writer is much more difficult than the dating of -- Christian writer of that time, of Christianity marching. Because the reactionary of course -- you can read today, a -- a book by a Mormon, you see, and he still believes in the authenticity of the Book of Mormons, you see. God help him, I mean. I mean, there's nothing to be said. He's not of 1959, certainly. Because Mr. -- Mr. Joseph Smith couldn't { } the two plates today, you see. So anybody who believes in the authenticity of the Book of Mormons belongs to this strange era in American history where something was better than nothing. And -- and so when he -- he had this vision of -- in 1829, and he found gullible people to -- to believe this.

And I think even -- there's a famous chemist in this country, Professor Eyring, who's an elder of the -- Church of the Latter-Day Saints, and -- you know it? Wie?

(His name sounded familiar to me.)

Eyring, yes. Famous man -- family. Three brothers born all in Mexico, who came to this country. From American parents, and were naturalized only when they were grownups, and have all played a great part in this country. One became a college president, and the other a university president, and the third, the leading chemist of this country. Eyring: E-y-r-i-n-g. Now, of course, for a chemist, the Mormons may be good enough. And -- I mean, they have no brains. And -- I think all scientists are drawn to superstition. And so he's a Latter-Day Saint.

He was asked, of course, about the Book of Mormons, by a friend of mine. And -- well, he smiled it away. He said that was not to the point, you see, you see. To him, church was a social agency, and truth had nothing to do with it. As you find many people today, who think the Church is a social agency, you see, and -- and what is nice in this group. So the background of the church doesn't matter.

But seriously speaking, I think the -- the -- Mr. Eyring is a good test case to say today that the Book of Mormons -- you couldn't found this -- a church today on the Book of Mormons. So a man who believes really in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon only can be explained from the set- -- immigration -- immigrant situation of 1829, you see. And -- so it's -- in this sense, it's dated. There are no Mormons as of today.

All professions, gentlemen, have such a date. I mean, a doctor belongs to the 1600s, when anatomy was introduced in the modern style of medicine, you see. The psychoanalyst tries to remedy this, and they take a new beginning with Freud. But -- I mean, all the physical doctors of course are against these psychosomatic people, because they are based on -- on the body. And this isolation of the body, as being something in itself, which is -- ridiculous, is Cartesian, and came into being in 1600. And medicine, as it is today in America, at least, treated, is -- be- -- is -- belongs to the 16th century. It's an enlargement of the ideas of 1600. And there's a battle royal now--beginning with Christian Science, and now in psychoanalysis, and psychosomatosis, and what have you--to get out of this, you --.

You see it in the crisis of -- about cancer, you see. Cancer is not in the -- old sense a physical disease. It's -- a disease in which the -- the soul loses its power over the body. And the body goes wild. It's a luxurious growth, as -- as everybody knows, you see. The physical doctors look into the body and try to explain the phy- -- the luxurious growth, you see, from the luxurious growth. So they spend hundreds of millions of dollars in -- in looking at the luxurious growth and -- and saying, "Yes, it's --."

So, I mean, a hundred years from now this will look very stupid indeed. But -- explicable, because all medicine, as officially treated in this country, goes back to the -- to the -- year 1600, and the principles, the main ideas then held.

To give you another example of historical fa- -- lag -- among the writers of texts, or -- or science. In -- in 1100, the great University of Paris began to -- to coalesce, and began to function, under Ab‚lard. You may have heard of Ab‚lard and H‚lo‹se, the great pair of lovers. And -- Ab‚lard is the founder of scholasticism. And -- then came Thomas Aquinas, and that -- were the great people, and -- and straight thinkers.

At the same time, when Ab‚lard was making his revolution and was excommunicated in the process--all decent people have to be excommunicated before they are recognized--so St. Thomas only escaped, you see, by one decade, his being excommunicated, because in 1230, the pope forbade the study of Aristotle officially to the University of Paris. And in 1850, St. Thomas founded its -- his -- his whole book on the study of Aristotle. Twenty years had sufficient -- be -- sufficed at that time, you see, to move the papacy to -- to lift the ban. So if he had lived 20 years earlier, you see, he would just have incurred the -- excommunication.

You must always know that those sayings that are worthwhile are only by a hair's breadth away from hell. Otherwise, they wouldn't be interesting. And it

wouldn't be very risky to become a saint, you see. It's always just by a hair's breadth that they don't -- that they are not excommunicated and condemned.

Now this is what I've tried to tell you about history, that it is such a risky affair, the -- human spirit. And -- well, to tell you this lag of the -- of these writers, of whom Mr. {Momigliano} is writing, is -- it's -- it's one of the exciting problems. And if you think in these terms, you will even get some help in -- in explaining why these people, who wrote before {Momigliano} on that topic, have found no solution, because they hadn't looked into this situation, you see, of the lag. What it means that a pagan writer in the Christian era has to write on the last pagan century, knowing that they -- came to an end, that it was all over. You will not find in this -- in this -- detailed discussion that this viewpoint of mine has -- has find -- found adequate treatment. So that's my -- I would enlarge on Mr. {Momigliano's} paper in this -- this respect.

You always have in mind that the book couldn't have been written probably before--Constantine at least granted tolerance -- -eration to the Christians--probably after he moved to Constantinople, out of Rome. Perhaps after he even was baptized on his deathbed. Then we -- you see how exciting it is to know how we see these emperors, you see, who preceded him, in which light.

But let me finish my medieval story. In -- while Ab‚lard was founding the moder- -- most modern school in the world at that time, the University of Paris, you see, which was the great sanctification of controversialism, you see, and based on -- on the free, you see, opposition of opposite minds, of contrary minds. That's why it's so very funny -- it proves that there is no university in America--except by name--shows you that today it has become here a word of vituperation to say somebody is controversial, you see. In -- in Paris, you couldn't become a professor ex- -- unless you were controversial. That was the basis of being a professor, you see. -- He had to profess something. If you profess something, there's somebody else who professes the opposite. Can't be helped. And to be a professor means to be -- to enter the -- the -- the battle royal, you see, of controversies. That's the university.

And that's -- is Ab‚lard's invention. He invented the idea that a student should listen on the same topic to opposite opinions while he's studying, should be exposed to opposite view. That's the university. That's why the Academy of Plato is not a university. The university is a medieval invention. And all our literature is bunk here in this country, bec- -- of this popular brand. The -- they s- -- tell you that Plato founded a university. He never -- he would have -- fought it. His opinion was law, and nobody had to say anything different from him. That wasn't permitted. You had to emigrate. Aristotle had to establish immediately his own school, because he -- he didn't share all the opinions of the master. That was

enough to excommunicate him.

Now the great liberality of the Catholic era, on the -- Christianity is the Augustinian dogma, you see, that we must have different minds, and the same faith. That's -- is the idea of the university. At the same time, however, while this great step was taken into -- into liberalism: different opinions, but one heart and one soul, the -- appeared a book, The -- The -- The Mirror of the Educated -- for the edu- -- for the education, so to speak, of the people. This became the most popular encyclopedia through 400 years. And while the -- the Aristotelians in the Middle Ages made all kind of scientific discoveries, this book went from one edition to the next, {through vier hundred years}. And until the Reformation, it was always the bestseller.

And so we know simply that this -- underneath, you see, the -- the educated, or the progressive group, there is always this backdrop of -- of -- of a conservative -- mass instruction which doesn't move. And I think that's the case in this country very much, where people still believe in Darwinism as -- as something sci- -- you see, that everybody -- evolution, I mean. All the data which get into your head today just as indisputable truth, you see, are given up at the center of these special sciences where they generate it, you see. And you still believe them for the next 200 years. Because our superintendents of schools have learned nothing, have been physical ath- -- athletes, you see, and don't care for the content of what they teach, anyway, you see. They want to have registrations, and class. And how can you expect that your school system functions when you have people who hate knowledge, as administrators?

So this is the strange situation with the Scri- -- you have in the {Scriptores Rerum Historia Augusti} in the -- something that is eternal. -- The remnants of an older world, which seemed, at least, and to have already cracked open -- cracked up on the top, but -- well, you may say it's a nostalgic memory, or it is a farewell address to the past, or it is accidental. But however you see it, it is in a new world, you see, the old world. And that is always a -- a great spectacle. I mean, it's -- it would be, as -- you see, if -- if in 1850, Massachusetts, people would read Mr. Burnet's -- the famous Bishop Burnet's history of the Glorious Revolution, you see, of the British, you see, which included still the American colonies, you see, and which made for the unity of the English-speaking nations. So this is -- I mean, this -- one example, something of the mood, you see. In 1850, this would be a textbook in the American schools, you see. -- Then -- then this would of course create something, do something, you see. It would make it -- you see, it would emphasize, you see, the -- the past in -- and would, so to speak, hold people, you see, onto this unity of spirit.

And we have this in American tradition, of course, with the trip to Europe.

I mean, all educated Americans did go through the 19th century, you see, to Rome and Europe in order heal the breach of the Declaration of Independence. And your tourists -- tourism today is the last wave of this -- of this attempt to get in touch with the pre-independent world, you see. Now to be introduced to the Court of St. James, as the -- as the -- here, the ladies, you see, of the swanky Americans wanted to be. You have heard of it. So they were so flooded in -- at the Court of St. James that they had to give it up last year, you see. You have -- may have heard that the queen of England was fed up in serving as a target for the American society. It was only given up because of the Americans. Because every -- Mr. Woodridge, or Mr. Aldrich, or Mr. Baldridge, you see, had -- his daughter. If he was the president of the Bank of New York, or City Bank, and he had of course to get an introduction to the Court of St. James, because there he -- he touched ground, the pre-independence, you see, the -- the ground of colonial days, the -- the European ground, you see, of what had been. That's like reading, you see, Burnet's history of the Glorious Revolution.

All books that you read, gentlemen, take you into a certain moment of time. You cannot escape from this. Your novels, too. And -- you see, literature has always either a reactionary or a prophetic character. I think toda- -- at this moment fiction is reactionary, all fiction. Whether it's Lolita by Mr. Nabokov, or whether it is Proust. Pro- -- the prophetic character -- today is -- more readily found in fields of science -- or soci- -- social writings, you see, than it -- or -- than it is in -- in the -- novel. Literature belongs to a past era. Since the Russian Revolution, literature no longer has the same role of taking you into the future. So beware.

A man in 19 -- in the 19th century, if he read War and Peace by Tolstoy, or The -- Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky, was taken -- ahead. And if you read these men, you still are taken ahead of time. But if you read today's literature, it has lost this character of pro- -- prophecy. Hemingway is a case in point. No future in him. Absolutely no future. Not prophetic.

There is -- many reasons. But you see, God goes from one form of writing to another in order to reach us. And once a form has been used for a hundred years, it grows stale. You couldn't go on writing gospels, after the ones -- the first four had been written. They tried it. Gospel has been written after -- well, there must have been perhaps 52 gospels written, you see, all told. And the spirit didn't move in them. So the Church said, "Only the -- these four are genuine. All the rest is deteriorated," you see, is obsolete, is -- is imitation.

And again, I think, in -- all your touching of historical books, you should -- ask yourself whether in that time, it was still the receptacle of the spirit. And again, this book of the -- on the third century is such a perversion, and such --

such a terrible book that it shows that by pagan history, you see, man could no longer be led, or worked, or directed, or -- or see anything with any meaning in history.

The forms then of literature, gentlemen, cannot be relied on, on always presenting the same values. The spirit exactly--how does it go?--blows as it listeth? or?

(Bloweth as it listeth.)

Ja, ja. And -- you see, and you never are sure that because a book has a tempting title of a -- of a drama, that it is a drama in the sense of Shakespeare's dramas, you see. It doesn't. It's -- the form is over. At this moment, the same result, you see, of Anthony and Cleopatra, or Hamlet, cannot be certainly attained by a play. It would have to have a different literary form. Just because in 1959, we already have Hamlet, you see, and therefore, that which must play the role of Hamlet today, must -- cannot be a second Hamlet. It cannot be a tragedy of the -- you see, the same style.

A composer -- a great Italian composer once was asked what he knew about the history of the spirit.

And he said, "I only know one thing: that the next step always is unpredictable, and incalculable, that it never looks like the previous one, that it always comes as a surprise from a corner in which -- into which we -- to which -- towards which we have not looked."

And so I only want to tell you, your -- if -- if your ancestors read Hawthorne and Melville, they did something quite different than when you read Hemingway and -- and Faulkner. And once this begins to dawn on you, you cease to be dogmatic about your -- about your little boxes, you see, of your definitions: history is that, and literature is that. It is not that, you see. It is -- at all times, you must be aware that the -- same label covers a different content. And that's why I think your English departments are -- such seats of devastation, because they cling to this conviction that what is called a novel is a novel at anytime, you see. And has the same function in the economy of your mental life, at any time. It doesn't.

All this I think is not wanton, because -- it may -- whet your appetite for this strange, last century. It is as exciting as if you look into the Dead Sea Scrolls and see the decay of Judaism in the last century before Christ, I mean. Here is the same problem. It's the last century before our own era, you see, before our -- you don't know how much we are in our era. If you -- I wished you would -- I could

provide a text of these writers, at least of one or the other biography. Has anybody taken out the volume from the library?

(What volume?)

You have?

(No. I say, "What volume?" The --?)

With the text of the {Scriptore}. I might have -- it's so expensive only to have it -- to have it copied and distributed among you. When I came here, of course I was na‹ve enough to think that this library had everything. Nobody has taken out a text? The -- the -- the book itself. Well, it shows your profound interest. { }? From now on, you have to do the work, and I won't.

Who -- who is the -- well, you are all familiar with the library. Under -- under PA, in classics, you see, in the -- on the third floor, you will find this. So in the recess now, you kindly will go there and try to get this volume, you see, of the -- of the Loeb edition. Look in the catalog: {Scriptores Rerum}--that's the title--and bring what you find. Or the Greek and Latin texts. I may still decide to have at least one -- one biography mimeographed, so at least you -- you can smell the thing.

You see, at this moment, the emigration of -- of the pag- -- last pagan emperor, Constantine, to Constantinople, is suddenly in the blaze of light of research, that people have suddenly realized that the history of our own life today was -- is much more dependent on the fact of 325, you see, of the Council of Nicaea and the emperor becoming Christian, than on the life of these fishermen in Galilee 300 years before. That you and I only are really immersed into the tradition of free men, and of all the things you take for granted--that all men are equal, for example--that all this has reached you only through this eye of the needle, when the Roman emperor, you see, turned Christian. And that was only the point at which it -- Christianity was able to educate you and me, and the teachers, and the students, you see, of the world over the century.

And -- so all of a sudden, the -- the flash- -- the floodlight, so to speak, is shifting from the year 33 of our era to the year 3300 -- 333. -- And that's a complete change of interest, because if you read Gibbon, or if you read any history, you see, the -- this 3- -- 300 that was just an -- as I said, an evolutionary stage. But it isn't. It is a break. And -- hardly credible, when you go into this. And this -- why I thought it was worth your while, even with all your language handicaps to hear one time about this greatest of historical breaks in our own tradition. You can only compare it to the Declaration of Independence, and the development --

of -- American character after -- after the Declaration, you see. There were no Americans before, you see. And then there suddenly, 70 years later, the Americans have a -- definite character, and there they are.

So you will -- you will kindly run over.

Now have you read -- who has -- has a Pericles? Is a Pericles in this? In your volume? And with whom is he coupled?



(Isn't it Alexander?)

How could it? As a Greek, too. It's always a Roman and a Greek. Oh, Kind- -- children, children, children. Ignorance.




Who is Mr. Fabius? Who is Fabius, Sir?

(I don't know.)

Who is Fabius? Ja?

(He was in charge of the Roman armies against Hannibal, { } had the delaying tactics { } place to place { }.)

And so he got the nickname --?

(The Delayer.)

Cunctator. Yes, that's Fabius Cunctator. Now it is a very strange idea that -- for -- of Plutarch, and it must have been quite despondent to find anything reasonable to put together: Pericles and -- and Fabius. They have really absolutely nothing to do with each other. Because one dies in the moment where his country goes to ruin, and the other saves his country, you see. So it's just -- point in exactly the opposite directions. It's -- it's a des- -- I mean, it just shows that

there -- Plutarch is a very superficial gentleman. Terribly superficial. That's a -- the -- the terrible thing about his biographies. They are very superficial. How -- did you read it? The life. Did you read it? What -- how about the famous -- the famous eulogy of Pericles at the grave of the Athenians? What does Mr. Plutarch say about that? Wie?

Does he say anything? Ah. Does he mention? Have you the book in an English edition? Can you show me the place where he does it?

(I think he -- he just said a little -- one sentence about it or something.)

Find it? Find it, please. He who finds it first gets an A? I'm not going to find it. But you have to find it now. Right away.

It will take a long time. You can stop the machine. They have now to read the whole thing for the first time.

(Didn't the --.)

(Didn't the Pelop- -- Didn't the Peloponnesian Wars begin around the -- the time of the Battle at Samos? Is that one of the early battles?)

What do you mean by that? Why do you ask?

(Well, because the only reference I found that I thought alluded to the -- the speech that Thucydides mentions was on page -- well, it says that in -- in {Comnium}, Pericles spoke of -- of the immortal soldier -- the -- the life that soldiers gained was comparable to the gods. That -- but Phil says that's not relevant.)

Well, no. You -- just give me the -- the pla- -- the -- the chapter.

(My -- my book doesn't -- doesn't have chapters in it. I don't know how to direct you, Sir. Yeah, the paragraph begins, "He has left nothing in writing behind him, except some -- decrees," and "There are but very few of his sayings recorded." And then Plutarch records some of the few sayings.)

Now you are quite right. It's in connection with the end of the Samian War. And what is the -- what is the sentence?

("For, said he, we do not see them themselves, but only by the { } we pay them, and by benefits they do us. Attribute to them immortality; and the alike attributes belong also to those that die in the service of their country.")

Well, I don't think that's the -- there is this quotation, just this quotation. But where is it said that he gave this harangue?

(It doesn't say that.)

Yes, in the ninth one, the Samians surrendering themselves { } up the town. Don't you have it?

(Yes. Yes.)

And then go on and { }.

(The next paragraph says, "Since Thucydides..."--and I didn't know if this was Thucydides of Thrace.)

Yes, that's the historian.

(The same one. "...described the rule of Pericles in a -- as an aristocratical government." So I just connected those two paragraphs, and thought that --.)

Well, you are right, but I am right, too. You had a quotation, didn't you?


A literary quotation. But that's at a different place, isn't it? What I have is this: "Pericles, however, after the reduction of Samos, returning back to Athens, took care that those who died in the war should be honorably buried, and made a funeral harangue, as the custom is, in their commendation at their grave, for which he gained great admiration." Ja?

(What translation do you have?)


(What translation do you have?)

The oldest one.


That's --

(Thomas North.)

Right. Right.

(I looked it up in another book. It said that in the golden age of translation--that was the 16th century--they said Plutarch was translated by Thomas North.)

Oh yes. That's a contemporary of Shakespeare, you see. A little older. And Shakespeare read it -- read Plutarch, in the -- North translation. That's why it's very precious for us. Because Shakespeare got all his incidents, of course, in -- from this -- from the Plutarch's Lives. That's why it is so very important. But this then in the -- a hundred years later, Dryden was the head of a commiss- -- committee, you see, and they -- several translators got together and he wrote the introduction. That's probably his only contribution. And this is what I have here. And then it has been re- -- re-translated several times, of course. And -- I don't -- I don't think this is very excellent. But they had to pay no royalties when they publish it. That's the only reason an American publisher -- for an American publisher to publish it.

Now -- but the sentence is -- is to be underlined. "Made a funeral harangue, as the custom is, in their commendation at their grave for which he gained great admir- -- admiration."

(What's the opening se- --?)

Has anybody Thucydides -- here? Probably no one.

(Yes, I have it.)

Now let's -- let's look up. At what occasion did Pericles make the speech according to Thucydides? Will you kindly look it up?

(Could you tell us the first sentence of that paragraph in which the quotation is used?)

Well, I can't { } Thucydides.

(No, I mean in the -- in the Plutarch, for which the --.)

Well, they -- "the ninth months the Samians surrendering themselves and delivering up the town, Pericles pulled down their walls, seized their shipping --." As you said, then comes Thucydides. What -- you have the pla- -- here. You had it.

(Yes, I have it, but it doesn't say that.)

And before, it's Ephorus, the historian, the paragraph before, tells us. Have you no index of names?

(Oh yes, I have the list of names.)

Well, then let's look up Ephorus.


Or {Elpinike} is even simpler. {Elpinike}, if she is in the index, because she comes on the stage right in the next sentence. {Elpinike}. Wie? You don't have her?

(No. Oh yes, yes.)

Well, let's look her up.

(Well, what page is { }. You mentioned --.)


(...the last one.)

German History, very famous, by Mr. von Treitschke, it was five volumes, 600 pages, by and large, each. And I was so disgusted that it had no index that I sat down and made the index myself. And -- offered it to the publisher. And he said they could do well, but without the index. But I felt that already at 16 that a book without an index was just a scandalous affair. Was not a book at all.

Well, prove to me in the Thucydides that -- that the -- the Samian War hasn't gone on before this funeral speech. I don't find it. That's quite strange. -- In Thucydides, there is no connection between the Samian War and the funeral speech. And in the -- in the biography, there is. That's after all, very -- very strange.

Do you find anything about the Samian War in Thucydides? That's -- we must look for. Look up "Samos."

(It was -- I don't have the book, but I -- I remember that there is { }.)

Is there?

(In the campaign.)

(Because that's where he mentions that Thucydides was -- went over there, into the Samian War. He was one of the generals. Wasn't it? I'm not sure.)

Well, I would like you to find the place. Because, you see, Mr. Plutarch quotes Thucydides for this. He says, "Thucydides speaks of -- not of the cruelty of Pericles towards the Samians." In other words, Thucydides mentions the Samian War. So I -- before -- { } to identify one funeral speech as given by Thucydides, and the funeral speech as mentioned by Plutarch, we have to be careful. There could be two. There have been many occasions of burying people. And we have to find out: is there only one speech?

This is a simple, historic expression. Did -- Pericles -- he might have given the annual speech, I mean. You see, the convocation address, as the president does, you see. Would be something -- or several -- inauguration addresses, as Lincoln. There's a first and a second. And before you say that one funeral speech, you see, meant -- the one mentioned by Plutarch is identical with the one given in Thucydides, in full text, you have to watch out. We don't know. And I don't know. I haven't gone into this specifically.

(Well, undoubtedly he gave more than one { } speech { } quoted himself.)


(He quoted himself that -- "Pericles, however, after the reduction of Samos, returning back to Athens, took care that those who died in war should be honorably buried, and made a funeral harangue, as the custom is.")

Ja, certainly they -- every { }.

(So it ought to { }.)

Well -- wheth- -- whether he was speaker more than once, that's not settled in your way. If it has a custom, there can be a different speaker each time.

(-- Didn't they give Pericles the first opportunity during the war to give the speech?)

Well, that's what we are asking. You have to try to find --.

(Well, I don't have my book, but I -- I think I remember they gave him the

first -- the honor of making the first oration { }.)

(Well, here, at the same place, that -- says, "Are these actions then, Pericles, worthy of crowns and garlands, which have deprived us of many brave citizens, not in a war with the Phoenicians and Medes, such as my brother {Simon made}, but in destroying a city united to us, both in blood and friendship." That's { } Plutarch { }.)

(This translation has "allied" and "kindred" said.)

[overlapping conversations among the students]

Well, Plutarch follows this up after he has mentioned this famous speech with the strange line: "Sometime after this, when the Peloponnesian War was about to break out --." In other words, he places the funeral oration before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Now, anybody who reads Thucydides would be inclined to say it was inside the Pelo- -- therefore Plutarch -- wie?

(That translation must be wrong, because according to this, it was after the -- the -- Samos was -- was destroyed.)

What? Well, exactly. Exactly. We are -- you misunderstand.

(Oh, that's right.)

This is really an interesting question. I don't know the answer. "Pericles, on his return"--listen to this--"Pericles, on his return to Athens after the reduction of Samos, celebrated in a splendid manner the obsequies of the -- his countrymen who fell in that war and pronounced himself the funeral oration, usual on such occasions. This gave him great applause."

Now in my translation of the older style, it doesn't say it "gave him great applause," interestingly enough. But "It great him -- gained him great admiration." So that's typical, you see, of the modern style. "Applause" and "admiration." Admiration is a -- is an inner attitude, you see; and applause is the noise you hear. Or whatever it is. Ja, it's very interesting. The word is not "applause." It's of course "admiration." But for a modern American, it has to be noisy. Very -- applause.

So he got in. Here is then -- and then comes the next paragraph, "Some times after this, when the Peloponnesian War was about to break out --." There is no doubt that the funeral oration happens before. Now if -- will you go back to Thucydides now and try to find a dating of the funeral oration, because it would

give -- shed some light on our friend Thucydides, on his power of even engulfing a thing of a different date, you see, into his canvas, because he wants to get it in, in order to be picked -- Pericles, you see, no holds barred. Simply the funeral oration, Mr. Thucydides thinks, must be in. So if it isn't the Peloponnesian War, it makes no difference. Ja?

(Maybe Plutarch here is -- is a hundred years behind Thucydides in breaking up the Peloponnesian War into different -- maybe he means by the "Peloponnesian War" something different from { }.)

(Samos is not in the translation).

We have to find what Thucydides -- when he mentions Samos. So you kindly will -- is this -- is this Thucydides, Sir? Is this Thucydides?

(This is -- no. This is Plutarch, but it's a different translation. And according to this, you get a different idea. "After this war was over"--talking about the Samian War--"the Peloponnesian War beginning to break out in full tide." From this, I infer that Samos was considered the -- an initial stage of the Peloponnesian War.)

Exactly. It's all very exciting. Mine is quite different, you see.

(No, this is right.)

I mean, my translation is quite different here. I read to you my translation. I said -- my translation says the Peloponnesian War had not yet started. And you say it's only full tide, which is quite right. Then it would be the beginning. Now where is the word "Samian" in your index? You must find "Samos" in the -- Thucydides. You -- one -- one of you had the Thucydides.

(I gave it to you. You still have it.)

And that's the only text on Thucydides we have here?

(The -- the Modern Library Edition --.)

Yes, the Chapter 8 of the First Book has the -- the break between Samos.

"In the sixth year of the truce, war broke out between Samos and Miletus over the question of { }. Now the Miletians came to Athens and lodged violence -- protest against the Samians. There, { } was supported by various private individuals from Samos itself, who wished to set up there a different form of government.

So the Athenians sailed to Samos with 40 ships, and established a democracy there."

But that's -- "When the Athenians heard of this" -- also, the counter-revolution in Samos against the Athenians--"they sailed against the -- Samos with a fleet of 60 ships, under the command of Pericles and nine other commanders. The result was a victory for the Athenians."

Ja, that's -- so in this Chapter 8 of Book I of Thucydides, the Samian War is very briefly given. And then, when we come to the funeral oration, that's just a little later. And it is perfectly possible to reconcile. "First year of the war." This -- it is, you see. In the second book only, of Thucydides, the first year of the war is described. So that the Samian War is not made a part of -- that's our question, you see: Is the Samian War a part of the Peloponnesian War? According to Thucydides, it is not. But according to your translation, it is, "in full tide."

(No, no. "It was beginning to break out in full tide." Yes { }.)

The -- his t- -- well, what does --?

(Yeah, { } is.)

(No, because this translation says, "After this war was over"--referring to the Samian War--"the Peloponnesian War, beginning to break out in full tide --" and so forth.)

There's no doubt that he makes a difference. Chapter 8, I have given you the story shortly of the Samian War. Now it come -- goes on to Chapter 9 of the first book in Thucydides. "It was only a few years later that there took place the -- events already described." So there is a break of several years. And he doesn't make any attempt to attach the Samian War to the -- Peloponnesian War, so it -- I cannot help feeling that the first year of the war, where the funeral oration is placed, cannot include the -- the Samians. But that's very contradictory.

So will you kindly go -- for the nec- -- and come back for the next time with information? You can read up a life of Pluta- -- of Pericles. In the various {source- }. There is -- Cambridge History of Antiquity, and so they -- must settle the question. Because we really are at sea, because the funeral oration only occurs in the second book of Thucydides, which is quite impossible if it would have anything to do with the Samians. On the other hand, it is true that Plutarch's -- praises the speech of Pericles as though it was given right after the Samian War, outside. It would -- {deal} something for our -- judgment on Thucydides, if for rhetorical reasons, just to get this wonderful piece of eloquence into his canvas, you see, he would have transposed the thing. I think

that's -- important, really, for our -- our whole judgment, how much he was an artist, you see, and a Shakespearean writer, just having his canvas, you see, of Anthony and Cleopatra drawn according to aesthetic standards, or whether he was an historian trying to report chronologically the events as they happened.

(Is he have -- in the first year { }?)


(I would say that would be foolish of him, if he did anything like that. There would undoubtedly be people living in his time who would be able to detect the error.)

Well, I'm -- I'm completely ignorant of the facts in this matter, you see. And therefore I have no judgment. But you will admit that before saying anything, we would have just to try to find out. So you -- I charge you to read the life of Pericles by Plutarch once more, and to find if there is another such speech mentioned. Is there a second or- -- funeral oration mentioned, as -- as -- written by Thucydides, perhaps?

(Thucydides says here { } oration mentioned in the first year of the Peloponnesian War?)


(In the first year of the Peloponnesian War, that's when the --.)

Of course. Of course, there's no { }, you see. Because he says here, look here. Look. "It was only a few years that there took place the events already described" -- you see, later. So this is a break. Then comes the funeral oration in the first year of the war. There's no doubt that for Pericles, the funeral oration was given in the first -- after the first year of the Peloponnesian War. And there is no doubt that in Plutarch, the oration was given at the end of the Samian War. And that's not the same time -- date.

(-- We haven't { } Thucydides, what he said? { } Thucydides made the date as, or when it occurred?)

Well, here, look here. He -- I -- just talked about the Samian War, that Pericles goes there by ship and to- -- pulls down the walls, establishes a new government. And the -- Plutarch then says abou- -- of this that he was supposedly very cruel. And -- however, Plutarch goes on to say that Thucydides is silent about the special cruelty of Pericles, that this has been held against -- against

Pericles by -- by dramatists, by Douris. But that one doesn't have to trust a man like Douris, because they exaggerate.

(Yes. I -- I have that in mine, too. But I'm -- I wondered, if Thucydides mentioned the actual time of the oration.)

Now -- yes. Now I have come to this. After the Samian War has ended, and it is reduced--Samos--to obedience, we get in the first book -- and books after all are -- mean something, because they mean breaks in continuity. At the end of the first book then, in Chapter 9, it says as follows:

"It was only a few years later"--after the Samian reduction--"that there took place the events already described here: affair of Corcyra, the affair of Potidaea, and the other occurrences, which served as causes for the war between Athens and Sparta."

So there is no doubt that there are several years between the reduction of Samos and the affairs that led to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. That's what Thucydides literally states. And he also says in Book II --.

(I was going -- it's not in -- in this biography of Pericles. "After the -- after this war -- the Peloponnesian War began to break out in full tide," the next paragraph down, he mentioned where Pericles sends ships to Corcyra, and they arrive too late, because the war there was over. So maybe Plutarch is considering the causes as part of the war. He took what Thucydides has said and -- and considers the causes and -- the beginning?)

Oh no, no, no. The -- we are just asking when the funeral speech was made. And Mr. -- our friend Plutarch says, literally -- you -- don't you have the place? You can't get out of this, that he --. "Pericles, however, after the reduction of Samos, returning back to Athens -- Athens, took care that those who died in the war should be honorably buried, and made a funeral harangue, as the custom is, in their commendation at their grave, for which he gained great admiration."

There is no doubt that these are the people killed in the Samian War.

(This is -- the question is now: this is the funeral oration that is the famous one -- of the later -- the one subsequent to the Corcyran or the Corinthian campaign. This just -- simply says, "...pronounced himself the funeral oration, usual on such occasions." This may just be another funeral oration which isn't the funeral oration, which we were referring to earlier.)

Ja, but -- since Plutarchus says, "...for which he gained great admiration,"

there is the one -- of course, one speech that made him famous, you see. You aren't -- if you have a customary address every year, the -- all these addresses are not of the same { }. Obviously Thucydides meant to bring to us the great oration of {Thucydides}. And Plutarch says, "The great oration, which -- who gained him this admiration -- "was given in -- after the end of the Samian War." And Thucydides said, "No. It was given in the first war -- year of the war." Peloponnesian. You can't get out of that.

(Well, Plutarch doesn't say that was the great one. He says the { }.)

Well -- well, that's just a question of your translating. You see, that's a adj- -- a participle in Greek. "They -- in their commendation -- he made a funeral harangue, as the custom is, in their commendation at their graves, for which he gained great admiration." "For which he gained great admiration," you see, would be in Greek, you see, "This oration producing great admiration." Therefore, it is the oration for which he is quoted. There's no doubt about it. Ja?

(Well, the reason I came up with that thought is because I read in this paragraph that the -- beginning of Plutarch -- Plutarch's analysis. It says, "Pericles, however, took care not to make his person cheap among the people, and appeared among them only at interval. Nor did he speak on all points that were debated before them, but reserved himself--like the {Salominian} galley, as {Critolaus} says--for greater occasions.")

You are quite right. I -- I know this -- this paragraph very well, because it -- he shows his way of government. But that has nothing to do with -- with his being the annual speaker, and having a -- {rich pay} for more than one of these funeral orations. That's highly improbable. You see, if -- if -- if the -- then Plutarch would say, you see, "It was one of the -- the few orations which gained him great admiration," because he has read Thucydides, always think that he -- the man writes after Thucydides has established his reputation. In the same paragraph, he quotes Thucydides.

So -- all you could do is only to try something about the Peloponnesian War in a later -- part of the -- biography of Plutarch, and tell me if you can find anything there.

Where is the -- this -- on the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War?

(It's --.)

It comes later. That's the -- the pestilence.

("He neither wept nor { }." Is that { }?)

Very tragic, you see.

("He neither wept nor attended any funeral { }.")

Quite. Individual funeral. That means individual, private funeral. And then he breaks down because his son -- because, as so many things, you see. It's quite misleading. Biography in antiquity has nothing to do with -- what is called a "biography" today. And that's the first law. All pagan things -- pre-Christian things--Plato included--are quite different from what the name, the identical name, covers. That's why today a university is not a platonic academy, because we invite controversies, and Plato excludes controversy. That's a very simple example of -- that we cannot -- transpose our Christian tradition, you see, of a university, in which people live in one -- as one heart and soul, although they are quite different in opinion, you see, that we cannot -- must not carry this back into the ancient world.

Because if we -- we are today -- we have used Greek words for everything. We use "psychology," "politics"--these are all Greek terms. Now you know that we translate, for example, Plato's book, The State, "politeia." That's a great misfortune. And in the last 30 years, the -- the great- -- the best classical scholars have tried to remedy this by showing that of course for Plato, Athens was his church, as well. And since we have the div- -- separation of Church and state, when you read Plato, The State, you instinctively think that this is a book on a secular state. It isn't at all. It's a religious book on the di- -- on the religion of the city. And therefore it shouldn't -- can just as well be -- translate "The Church." It would be wrong, too, because it would be { }. You see, the ancient city was a church-state, or a state-church, or whatever you call it. But it certainly was not what we call a "state."

And Mr. Werner Jaeger, who is the man in classics at Harvard, has now devoted a whole book to the theology of Plato, you see, in --. Because he says, "But in antiquity, Plato was called The Theologian." That was his great honorary name. Plato "Theologus" was his nickname, you see. And -- in your schools, since you are so completely secularized, you only pick up what you are interested in--the forms of government, or what-not. But in Plato, the many forms--aristocracy, monarchy--are only explicable if the same gods ruled the city, you see, regardless of who governs. In this country, if you would abolish democracy, there would be nothing left, because America has as its only religion, democracy, you see.

Therefore you cannot -- you are -- absolutely static, you are fixed; you are

petrified. I mean, you have a rigid system of democracy, because the only tie that -- that ties Americans together is democracy. You see, there's no state religion. But the -- Greeks could very well go from -- from tyrants to democracy, to monarchy, because their religion remained unchanged. They were all in the same church.

So you see, the -- only to give you an example how this little word "state" simply doesn't mean the same in antiquity as it means today--or "politics," you see. "Politics" includes worship of the gods, and -- today it doesn't. When you say, "It's just politics," you mean it is nothing religious, you see. Very typical. When you said in Greek, "This is politics," this {meaned} that you kneeled at the altar and slaughtered your daughter, you see, Iphigenia, as Agamemnon did when he went to Troy. That's politics. You can see the difference.

And so I warn you that "biography" is not biography. And if you -- if we should be able to establish today and the next time why it isn't biography in our sense, you would also be able to -- finally understand that the Gospels never intended to be biographies of Christ, of Jesus. The whole hunt, the whole goose chase for the life of Jesus in the last 150 years is just a hoax. It is now dissolving at the center of theological study. People know by now that -- that Jesus didn't want to have a biography. And that is His great merit, that He knew He couldn't have a biography. That's why He went to the Cross instead. And the life of Jesus doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist, because He tried to get out of His time and not into His time. And a biography is how a man appears in his own time.

And we wouldn't care for Jesus if He had been a contemporary of -- of Herod. He -- we don't -- you are not interested in Pontius Pilate, or in Herod; forgotten men. And the only reason why we think of Jesus was that He managed to have no biography in the usual sense of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

And so the word "biography" has been so abused in the last 150 years that you have to -- know that as little as politics in Plato has anything to do with politics today, so the word "biographia" in Plutarch -- this has nothing to do with what you mean, when you -- read now the new, wonderful biography of Theodore Roosevelt by Mr. {Putnam}. Has anybody seen this book? You should read it. Very great book. Good book. Wie?

(I -- I didn't hear { }.)

{Putnam. Putnam}. The newest, I mean, just the first volume has appeared. But for a student of history, I think, that you must know what important books come out.

(Is it Samuel {Putnam}?)

I don't know his initials.

So -- when I was a boy, your age, and finished -- the Gymnasium, I was a good student, so I received the book by Friedrich Leo on the style of ancient biography. And this was my bonus. This was my premium at the school, and so I know a little bit about Plutarch. From this day on, I had written myself a biography of an ancient {writer} -- told -- we dedicated this to our school. That was the habit. And for this I -- was very fitting that my class teacher thought that the premium I should receive as a bo- -- as a good student, should be on the -- on biography.

Now Mr. Leo was a professor in G”ttingen at that time, and he has a very neat {proof}. I wanted to bring the book to class. But unfortunately it is not in the library. That's why I was very angry when I came here, about this library, you see. He made this point that the ancients are completely geometrical, spacethinkers. All pagans are, you see. They try to arrange things in space, just as geometers today, I mean. Mr. Einstein says that time is the fourth dimension of space, you see. That means that time, you see, is subdued to space. First is space, and then we put time into it, so to speak. And that's of course against your and my living experience of life. And since they think in these terms, they first have the man; and then they have a list of qualities, which they distribute. One, birth; second, nobility; third, wealth; fourth, virtue; fifth, you see, acts; si- -- seventh, pronouncement. And therefore, since this is classified by one, two, three, four, that's not a biography in your and my sense of the word. Your biography begins with what?

({ }.)

With birth, you see. And it doesn't in -- in Plutarch. It's not the important thing that a man has a process, you see, through which he grows and changes. The -- what -- what the man wants to show through -- the ancients want to show the constancy of a man's character. They characterize him. A good biography in our sense of the word tries to show the transformation the man goes through, you see. And the constancy is the problem of ancient biography, and for us the change. We are interested in the -- in the change that comes over Lincoln when he becomes president, or in the -- Douglas, you see, just -- famous -- how do you call it?




Debate. That he wasn't before, and now -- what he -- was -- after, you see. In this, the ancients simply didn't believe, because they had not conversion, metanoia, growth, transformation. All these terms which you now take for granted, like "evolution," you see, are quite foreign to an ancient mind. They are all of Christian origin. Mr. Darwin is unthinkable unless he's a Christian. He has inherited from Christianity the idea that interesting in you and me is our change: of heart, of mind, of appearance, of opinion, you see. That's the important thing in life in -- for you and me, you see. For an ancient, the important thing in life is what he is always, what he is -- you see, as rich he was created. The constancy, not the transformation, not the education -- of Henry Adams, or s- -- any such things. These are all Christian themes. They are quite unknown in antiquity.

And they are hated. And a Greek would tremble and -- if you told him this; this was for a slave. He could -- have to transfer his loyalties from one city to another. That's why an ancient man, when he couldn't be a -- a member of his city, he committed suicide, like Themistocles. And when a man -- a man in a -- Europe didn't know how to live any longer, he came to America. That is, we are allowed to live into another loyalty; and in antiquity, you couldn't.

[tape interruption]

...and -- he was as schizophrenic as only I think educated people in this country can be. And when he founded these -- departments of biography, he tried to forget that he had been a Christian minister--and a very good one, by the way, a very good preacher. And he took Plutarch as his model, for his department of biography. And to this day, they are giving courses, as you know, in Dartmouth, on 12 famous men, you see, or 12 -- eight famous men in one course, and jungle them -- I mean, jumble them around. And since he wanted to keep in watertight compartments Plutarch and the Gospels, he wrote down, exactly in the Plutarchean sense for every of his heroes, these characters--as I told you--birth, genealogy, temperament, behavior towards women--he was a -- very much haunted by sex, this gentleman, and he was a widower; and he forbade himself to marry again, so all his -- all {his} thinking was abou- -- on sex, so it interested him terribly whether these people behaved, you see, or married a second time, or so, or { }. His best sentence, very anti- -- ancient, very pagan, you see, as though you could say of anything -- man, you see, what's his best utterance. All these classifications are childish, because this means that you can know what a man says outside the temporal, the -- the moment, you see. But the hour decides on the value. There are many hours and you can then many -- make the best utterances, if you have presence of mind. And they are just incomparable.

And you can never say of -- of Lincoln that the Second Inaugural is better than the Gettysburg Address, you see. They both fit the occasion. That's all you can say of a human word.

And all these -- whenever you have this terrible idea of "better," you see, you know that you have a pagan. If you write -- receive a letter, it says -- the man says that you are one his best friends, tear it up, send it back, and say, "So I'm not your friend, am I?" All these qualifications, you see, "one of your best friends," is Greek. Perfectly valueless, because -- you have lost -- the -- impotent, because you are classified. "One of my best friends" means that I am nobody, you see, for whom you express your -- your real, personal relationship, you see, which always would be Christian. I mean, the -- the Lord could not say to John, "I like you better than Peter," you see. -- They are Apostles. There the story ends. And then there -- are individual relations which are absolutely untransferrable, you see.

This is one of the most offensive utterances I always receive in America -- where the -- just this pagan influence of the liberal arts college has, I think, allowed even women to s- -- to write such { } as "You are one of my best friends," or "It's one of the nicest things I have ever seen in -- in my life," you see, or "I have experienced in my life." That's quite -- as you know, it's just style. I mean, everybody writes these letters. I don't think that a -- that a simple person, a folksy person would -- would say such a thing. It's -- it's not -- it's hypocritical. Just hypocritical. Commits you to absolutely nothing, you see. You do not coin your phrase for the occasion. It's a ready-made phrase; you cannot be caught. You haven't said it's the best, you see; but you haven't said it's the worst, you see. You've just said, "One of the best." Absolutely noncommittal. It's a classification. And personal relations die -- are dying from classification. If you hear that somebody says, "He's one of my best friends," mistrust the man. Then you are just an acquaintance. Ja?

(Would Heraclitus be an exception to this?)

Ja. The one -- one -- that's -- I've a whole -- written a whole book on this, for this reason, on Heraclitus. Heraclitus has the great word, you see. Whenever you meet Plato, you have this classification. "The divine." Many things can be divine. This is divine, this is divine. Then there's no God. And Heraclitus was so angry with -- on -- with this whole dilution of "one of my best gods," that he said, "I will never say 'the divine.' But I will say 'Zeus.'" That's one of his -- of his -- I mean, phrases which has come -- haven't come to us -- frag- -- one of the fragments. I think it's a very great saying, you see. He wanted to have the unique name, you see. Zeus is "Zeus," and he's not -- "one of my best gods." And you see how funny that is, as soon as you transfer it to "one of my best gods."

For a set of china, of course, where 12 cups -- teacups are all the same, you see, you can say, "This is one of the 12 teacups of my best service." But then this is the best china, as a whole. And of course the members of this set, they are all the -- the same.

But whenever you classify, you are Greek; and whenever you name, you are Jewish or -- or Christian. And you cannot get out of this. We are all Greeks and Jews at the same time. And if you could only learn that Christianity is the -- is the -- is the holding onto this fact, that whenever we have to -- classify, we are deadening a relation. You see, this is a table, because this table is dead. And for my satisfaction, when I go home, you are "one of my students." But you will admit that then I have not yet known you. You -- just beginning to come to life, you see. That's a preparation of a relation that is so definite that I know who you are. And -- as long as you are just "one of my students," you are in the -- in the antechamber of human relations, you see, and it doesn't say much. And it's noncommittal, I mean, and you pass out again of the picture, you see, when the term is over.

But yesterday, I suddenly was stopped on campus by a car. Out jumps a man, and he says, "Min- -- Mintz."

And Margrit sa- -- says to me, "Who is this man?"

And I said, "Oh, that's Mr. Mintz. He graduated in 1937. He helped me to get my friend Riel out of Germany by his affidavit."

Well, he beamed all over the face. You see, he hadn't expected me to know after 22 years--we hadn't seen each other for 22 years--his one action by which we became personal friends. I had asked him for -- his father, you see, wrote the affidavit for this friend of mine who was persecuted by the Nazis. And for his father--was a great thing. It was an Orthodox Jew, and he had -- was asked to do this for a Gentile. And he said -- that much at that time, that he had never done such a thing before, and it was pretty much a shame that he should suddenly -- he hadn't cared for the Gentiles. But he did.

And so I only -- want to say: this man Mintz, you see, when I quoted him for the one immortal deed, you see, by which he has stuck in my mind, beamed, of course, radiant, you see, because I did not classify him as "one of my students." I did not introduce him to my -- my wife as, "Oh, that's one of my students at Dartmouth." But I said, "That's the man who rescued our friend Riel, you see, in Germany." So -- we -- we were real friends at that moment. And I hadn't seen the man for 22 years. And I -- I was surprised that he had recognized me, and I was very proud that I recognized him! Because he certainly had changed. He's a

professor here now at -- at -- at the university.

Only to show you what it means to personi- -- personalize, you see. If I had only said, "He -- oh, he must be a student of mine," you see, it would have been a let-down. You understand?

But I warn you against this -- this -- this is -- epidemics in this country, now. "It's one of the finest books I've ever read." Throw it in the wastepaper basket, if it's only one the finest books. It has to be the book that you had to read at that moment. Then it's a good book. It just came when I needed this book. That's a description, perhaps, I mean, it's only a formal description. But it -- it at least gives the -- the book the character, you see, of -- of hitting you at the time when you were ready to be hit by this book, and by no -- none other. And you -- most of you live, of course, in this -- in this sepulcher described by Plato, you see, the cave. That's it, you see. The cave is the world of classes, and definitions, and concepts. And when I read a man describing -- saying that the word -- word pictures, that's not a -- you see, "word pictures," the man is not -- has no speech. If he can -- word pictures are of -- you see, all general concepts. The uniqueness of a poem cannot be -- ever be called a "word picture," because a word picture consists then of a number of words set together, but a -- an impression gained by you, made on by you--or anything living--on me, you see, creates a new speech. All these words get in -- take on new meanings by my -- trying to articulate an impression that is unique. That's what a poem is. Not the word picture putting together green, and red, and blue, you see, but from a new light, creating a new rai- -- a new rainbow. Out of the whole, you see, the parts--I explained--are not out of the parts, the whole is composed. And you all try to compose your human relations out of these generalities, "one of my best friends," "one of the nicest persons I ever met." Mistrust yourself. It's impotent. You cannot make love that way. You can't tell your -- your girl that she's one of the nicest girls you have ever slept with. As soon as you classify, she will -- I hope, she'll say, "Thank you."

I hope I'm right, ladies. Wie? I mean, if a girl is not unique, then -- well. You see, the -- my Dartmouth boys, they are all athletes; and they have no brain, and they have no -- and they have no speech. But at least they have one sentence by which they admit that they should have speech. And -- you know the phrase, too. They say, "You are so unusual," you see. Now "unusual" is the minimum, you see, of personal speech, because classifying speech is usual. And so, as -- when you begin, that's the basic, there's a threshold of events, between persons that you say, "This is unusual," because at that poi- -- moment, you begin to speak to a person. You should always speak in an unusual fashion to any hu- -- living being, you see, because it's the first and only time that you and she meets, or --. That's a new situation.

So the word "unusual" in -- Dartmouth is the saving grace, you see. -- These athletes don't say much, but at least they say sighingly, "You are so unusual." And -- these poor girls, of course, have to put up with this scarcity of spiritual means. You should ask {for more}.

So will you kindly now go to the library. We -- we meet again at quarter { }.

[tape interruption]

...nobody will throw any dirt there, you see.

Now, that's a purely physical reaction, you see. You don't -- people won't throw things, like dogs, into a radiantly white corner. So this man is not treating his -- his labor force as people, but he's treating them as dogs. Which is all right, because as far as we are in this -- in this physical, you see, atmosphere, I think we should be treated behavioristically as people who can be influenced by light, by shade, and so on. There's no harm done. And so in a -- in an -- in a -- employment office, people are handed around as -- more or less as things. I mean, because one knows their characteristics, that they can be classified. You have classified ads, which is the same thing, of course. And part of us, you and I -- as far as we are finally to be laid -- into the coffin, we are things. We are physical entities. We weigh 155 pounds, and we are 5 feet 5 high, and so on and so forth. And therefore, all these -- newspaper reports on you and me, you see--blue eyes and green hair--they are -- they are that part of our anatomy which can be classified. And there is a lot of us -- in us of course which is classified.

Now comes, however, "when we see eye to eye," as we say. I must name you. I must give you a name. I must say, "Mister," and other -- or I must say, "John," and tap you on the shoulder. That is, equals. See -- must see eye to eye. That's not trying to handle you, not trying to manage you. But we grow into each other by seeing eye to eye. We form a -- a dual or a trilog. You see, "where two or three are gathered in His name," there -- he is amidst it, there is a common spirit, here in this classroom. I must see -- look at you. I must not only treat you, you will understand, you see. But I must entreat you. And I can only entreat you to do something by looking at you and by making our eyes correspond. And that's a new layer of language, be- -- as soon as we speak man to man, I treat you as my equal. I treat you as alive, you see, and that's why they put the names in the -- behind the -- behind the--how do you call it, the -- in the banking, the Post Office, behind the --? and say, "Mr. Smith, clerk," you see, so that you treat him as a person, and are not tempted to treat him as an automat. You understand.

So this whole language -- there's a whole language which our dictionaries

omit; it's a language of proper names. And it is degraded today, because people at this -- in this country, as you know, only feel at ease -- when they can call a 70year-old lady "Sweetheart," tap her on the shoulder--or "Girl." And this seeing eye to eye is with us such a natural that it has a -- no degrees. But I think if you -- if you -- it's a problem when -- when living eye to eye is to see degrees of authority, and of dignity, and to call your mother "Mother," and not just "Sweetheart."

-- In my own family, there -- was a tremendous rift -- my -- when my sisters decided to call their parents with their first names. And I decided that they were -- had to remain my father and mother, and I have never called my father and mother till my dying -- their dying day with anything else but with the -- their title. And I would have felt falling from grace if I just suddenly began to call them by their first name. And I think you are -- you have an under-developed speech here already when -- between people, because you have to call everybody "Johnny," and "Helen," and -- and "Billy." And that's a very one-sided -- it's a -- it's a nursery, speech. And you never grow up in your relations to -- other human beings, because it only begins to be difficult when you speak to the prime minister or the president of the United States, and tell him the truth. Although you call him "The Pres-" -- "Mr. President," you see.

I -- always have the hunch that in a -- an American feels that anybody who tells -- whom he calls "Mr." he can lie to. He is only cordial with a man whom he calls by his first name, you see. Then he is at ease. And then the man has, so to speak, the moral requirement of a -- of a partner. But as soon as a man is -- is a foreigner, he cannot make any demands on your morality.

This is very strange, but you -- once you estab- -- I mean, you behave differently, and with regard to your frankness to people whom you call by your first name, and -- those who -- do you not call by a first name. And in society, of course, the greatest achievement would be, you see, if you would tell the pope the truth, in an audience. That's not so simple. { } somebody like him, you see.

(But at the same time, you don't call him by his first name.)

That's what I mean, because it is much more diff- -- don't you understand what I'm trying --? I'm just saying this. It's no merit if you can tell -- tall -- tell the truth to Johnny. But it is highly difficult to tell the truth to somebody whom you call, you see, "Mr. Archbishop," or "Your Grace," you see, or "Your Highness." Then you begin to lie. Because you feel -- you see, you do not see eye to eye.

I only want to bring out then that there is a tremendous wealth of speech, you see. Take the -- hospital. I have seen people--or the dentist chair, I mean--the authority of the dentist, I mean, or of the doctor is very often such that the

people take lying down all their prescriptions, never daring to say, "But that's not for me," you see. "You -- you mistake me. I mean, I cannot stand this operation."

I have seen a friend who knew that he couldn't be chloroformed, that he couldn't be anes- -- you see, was too old for this. And he didn't dare to say anything. The doctors decided -- had to be operated upon, you see; and of course, he went -- he lost his mind by this anesthet- -- by the anesthesia operation, you see. It wasn't for him to undergo such a treatment. And -- it took him months and months to recover, because he just had not dared to say anything to these great professors, you see.

So I feel that people who -- who do tell the truth to Johnny and Billy will hesitate to tell the truth to Professor Such-and-Such, and Doctor Such-and-Such. I wonder if Mr. Eisenhower tells the truth to Dr. {White}. The great man who saved his life, you know, the heart specialist. It's very difficult. You do -- watch your step, I mean. Ask yourself to whom you tell the truth, what you really think. And -- and blush, because all your examination papers are pious lies. As far -- I can determine, I mean. This country, it is not {reckoned} disgraceful to make confession of -- of opinions in your examination paper, which you only write because you think I want {that} to hear -- or to read. And that didn't exist in any other country. It can only come from your moral weakness that I -- you do not owe me the truth.

(-- How do you know that that's the case?)

I have found out, I mean.


Not with you, personally, but I have found out with students, that they will tell me that they'll write down anything they think the man wants to read. And they'll think that is not personal. They are not attached to what they're writing. They're -- that's an examination paper. "I -- write exactly what this man hopes to read."

So there is no -- your relation between professor and student in this country are completely corrupt, because you don't owe your professor the truth. And you don't think you do, because of this stupid examination pa- -- this -- that's why the examinations have to be destroyed in this country, because they are making for hypocrisy. You are all mendacious, Sir.

(Don't you know such people?)

(Well, sure, I do. I -- I said, no, not in this case. I think I can write anything. I think it depends on the professor.)

How do you know? That's a -- poor professor. He's { }.

(Well, as far as I know, you do not think I -- I -- I could write almost anything. But --.)

It is a scandal, you see. The -- when teaching is demoralized, when the devil has entered the relation between student and teacher, then there is nothing to be hoped for in a community. And this is rampant in this country. And nobody mentions it, even.

(In many ways, don't you think it's the professors who are destroyed by this system as well, I mean? They --.)

Of course they are.

(It -- it encourages them to hear themselves --.)

Repeated. -- Well, then there is a third thing, you see. -- When you and I { } --. (No, I wanted to ask a question. Where do -- where could you -- I -- where -- show me a teacher that you could express your opinions, and he'll grade you on your opinion and not parroting back what he has given you?)

Oh, I know three in this college alone. And I know very few -- I mean. I know perhaps a dozen men. Of the others, I wouldn't even say "yes" or "no." I mean, I don't know how they work. But I know of three for certain that they would be delighted to "A" you just for a contradiction.

(Well, I -- I'll give you an example. I have a course right now. The first test, I put my opinion down. I got a D. The second test, I gave what the teacher said; I got a B.)

Well, what's the third paper, you see?

(Well, we have the final coming up. What are you going to do? You -- have to graduate.)

Pardon me. The D may just be as well deserved by -- when you just contradict without giving any material, and any -- knowing nothing, I mean. Just spitting out an opinion of course is not a paper. So I -- I will not follow your

suggestion right away, because I don't know what the paper -- it can be D, just the same, although you did contradict the man. It's not meritorious just to contradict.

(Well, I read a -- I read a book on the subject by a man that he disagrees with. And I followed the other man's argument. And I thought the other man's argument was good, because he is always contradicting the man in class, and so that interested me to read the other man's argument. And I liked the other man's argument.)

Well, did you know at least his own argument?

(Well, I thought I did. I --.)

Well, did you -- did he, I mean -- I think that any teacher, when you weigh argument, and -- and show that you know both sides of the case, will -- will not ever -- ever penalize you for not taking his side.


But of course -- { } the other argument, he says, "Well, you are ignorant of my own. That's -- and I have taught you, after all, so please, you didn't come to class."

(Yeah, I think everyone is responsible at least to show the professor that he understands what's being dispensed { }.)

I mean, that's the minimum. So I -- I cannot -- you see, your -- what you bring up is inconclusive, because I haven't seen your paper -- how much it did -- comprehended the -- the -- the teacher's view.

He has a perfect right to -- to -- to ask that you first state what is to be said on his side. We are all --.

(Well, in the -- in an hour, in answering two questions, you don't have time to express his viewpoint, when he asks you a question. You just don't have the time. I mean, you can't --.)

({ } {amphetamines?} Just take {amphetamines}.

(Well, it sounds easy when you're sitting there, and --.)

Well, I -- I have -- I allow -- I have my -- I've always allowed my students

to bring all their notes to class -- books to class. I have never cared, I mean, because I have wanted them to show judgment. And I'm afraid, { }, there is plenty of time. I mean, I don't believe you that two hour -- two questions cannot be answered in an hour to satisfaction. I don't know your questions, of course. But in general, I feel that our examinations would be liberal in time -- in the time span given. And if the student really would -- would know { }. But since he is only out -- "What do I have to say in order to satisfy him?" he never enjoys the exam. I try to make my exams -- you may recall this, I mean, an occasion in which -- that you { }.

({ }.)


(That's true. I can vouch -- I found suffering, a great deal of suffering in the first -- first, I think, one or two exams. But then it became more enjoyable. But I find that the better I know the subject, the less time it takes to -- to answer it than --. If you know it well, then you { } -- you { } compress. Say -- you can say it in very few words, and then go on, spend the -- enjoy the rest of paper and -- in -- po- -- posing alternatives, or -- elaborating some thoughts you've had yourself.)

You see, the -- the thing is so dangerous, today, the { } of the campus; and { } look so very innocent. And this inner break between the loyalty to the teacher and the loyalty to the truth is -- is -- is not an issue. That's why I feel this -- you -- must become aware that we always speak on three levels. We speak of things; then the -- we classify. And as far as the world goes by, you have to classify. You say, "A thousand cars just went by." You don't care who is in this car, you see. It's a thousand car. These are motor- -- motorists. And in this sense, you -- you treat them at this moment what we call "world." This is a speech -- the man of the world will always say, "He's one of my best friends." That's noncommittal, you see. Then you find out he has no best friends. I mean, he has no friends. He is just a man of the world.

As soon as you begin to -- to define and use definitions, you deal with the world, the outside world. You are here, and objectively -- you objectify. You can also -- whether you say "objectify" or "classify," that doesn't make any difference.

Now I want to bring -- wake you up to the fact that you do something when you speak, that you decide that this is the part of your out- -- the outer world, and you have the right to speak of me as a short fellow, you see. I'm short. That's my physical quality. Therefore, you qualify me, there -- I mean, you classify me under the -- the small people, and not the tall ones. That's all right. I mean,

I have no objection to this. But it is -- it is -- it makes me a part of the outer world of appearances, of phenomena. And as long as you -- you think you have -- you have -- this is all, you are in world, a child of the world. Then you are a child of socie- -- member of society. And here we identify. As soon as we see eye to eye--you find me in mourning, or you find me sick--you must express what we call "sympathy." Now "sympathy" means to -- to be a colleague, to be a comrade, to be on the same level--companionship, partnership--whatever you have, you see, the group. That is, identify. That is, you and I stand on the same level, and here we are in society, of men. And here we are in the world of things.

And here, you see, we are in the world of authority, of the gods. So we meet here in the name of history. You cannot help that the -- admitting that the only point of conduct we have at first is that you want to study history. So you take 198, section 3. And therefore, in the -- we meet -- the basis of our agreement is that there is above our crown of our heads an admission that history has the power to draw us together. And therefore this is not a story of our -- identification, but of command, of authority. This authority may be science, or in the physical field, it is -- sports, and your -- your coach has authority to tell you how to play the game. And sports is the god, or the -- the -- the little Newman, the little authority at this moment. While you are on the -- out there, across the street, you are -- sport is an authority, or is the authority to which the coach refers when he gives orders. And you are very glad to comply, because there is complete agreement that for this moment you are trying to train your muscles. And since there is agreement of what should be done, I call this a "command," which you do not like. But all real importance in serious life is -- is {led} under commands. You have to do it. And you are hateful of commands and of authority. The overthrow of authority is the constant attempt of American public life to show that you have no authority. It's a child's game. You are always under authority. Then independence is your god, or self-reliance is your god. In the name of selfreliance, you are ruled.

So -- nobody can open his mouth without de- -- without deciding this -- this three-partition, this three-pronged fork. You open your mouth at this moment, you say something to me. It can be done on a personal level, of sympathy with my toothache. I look pale, you say, "You don't feel well." It's -- you can do this, because we are just human beings then. You -- can meet in the name of Plutarch and -- and history. And any sentence you say is then dictated by the respect for the field for the -- activity which we both at this moment are asked to per- -- pursue. You see, that's a command: history--that directs our -- our activity here. That's why I could send this gentleman to the library; and he did go, you see. And he didn't feel that I was abusing my authority, because he admitted that he wanted to study history. And a student of history must find the sources. And so he went.

And -- so we have three -- at any moment, you have to decide when you meet a person: do you meet under a higher authority? Soldiers in an army. Citizens of a state. A -- students of a science. Sportsmen for a game. And then there will be a tacit agreement that at this moment, this spirit should -- this authority, this god--I have called it "god"; the Greeks called it "god"--will direct you -- us, and will keep us together, and will select what we have to say to each other.

In a good game of Whist, you see, the -- the god of the game, the spirit of the game directs us what to say. At bridge, you mustn't talk nonsense; otherwise you hurt the game, you see. You have to be silent, when the cards are distributed; you cannot -- talk politics. That's excluded. You see, peo- -- bridge players have nothing at that moment but the bridge. Or at chess, you mustn't talk at all. The game is simply -- cannot be played, in chess, if people begin to talk. You know how strict it is when people are allowed to look at a game -- in ch- -- of chess. The third man who looks on is not allowed to say a word. He cannot even cough, and -- and -- and -- express his -- his displeasure or his excitement, I mean. Why? Because he knows what he -- is expected he -- of him, you see, is to attend to this game. And the god of the game is in authority.

Now if you only would see that at every moment you decide which part of the environment -- of the reality here, you can treat as things, which part of the reality you can treat as companions and partners, and which part of the reality in which you stand is demanding your -- your opinions, your loyalty, your--you see, your -- your selective -- selection--you would know that to speak means to divide the reality into gods, men, and world. You can treat your dog as a -- your so- -- as your society, and -- talk to him. And many people do, the -- much better with cats and -- and dogs, as you know. All the old spinsters do this. And their dog is their brother, and a sister, and sweetheart and what-not.

-- So we are completely able, or -- the -- the art collectors, they can deal with a piece of -- of canvas in this admir- -- admiring way. That it is much more than a thing, you see. It's revelation, they say. And they personify it, this piece of art.

And -- in every moment you open your mouth--you must know this, because it's -- has been completely forgotten--before you say, "Oh, this is black here," you make the decision that you want to describe this as a thing. You have made a decision that you have the right --. If you meet a new person, and she looks very black, you cannot say, "But you look black," you see. Then she would feel insulted, because she want -- you wants -- you -- she'll -- expects you to see eye to eye to her, and to speak about something in common. And once you begin to tell her, "But you look black," she feels that this is an insult, because you are tre- -- she is treated as a piece of the world, and then you have no right to talk to


So it's very simple. Any -- anybody or anything you treat as belonging to the world, you have the right to speak of them. In this, here, you have to -- be -- you are allowed to speak to them. Speech of the -- of the -- we speak of things as though they were absent. And we speak to people.

And now the third thing, which is completely denied in this country, even by the ministers, is: we speak out of our gods. They dictate. Any -- what we call "divine," or "God is the power that makes you and I -- me speak," and to select the words that are fitting the occasion. So if you would see that all speech is dictated, you see, out of some decision you have made--"Now we are s- -- we are good sports," "Now we are students of history," "Now we are in the Church," "Now we are in politics"--you would know that all the time we are moving under an authority. All the time. We -- you say, "We are at home now," and you put on your slippers. And you get out of, so to speak, of the formality of the -- of the behavior on the street. You change the authority which dictates your -- your speech, your utterance, your expressions.

This is completely lost. You -- we speak always under an authority. We always try to speak to other people. You write letters to our friends. That's why people need friends. We have to speak to people who whom we can identify ourselves. And we always have to speak of things. We -- you cannot speak of God. That's already an impiety. And you cannot speak of living people in their absence differently than you talk to them to their face. That's gossip and slander, you see. You can say anything of a person after you have told them sa- -- person the same thing to her face. That's the condition, you see, of transforming gossip into -- into con- -- human conversation. There's no s- -- harm done if you say -- a person to her face, "You are a niggard," or "miser," or -- you see, or "wicked." Then you can say also to the neighbor, "She's really wicked." But you can't say it before. If you say to the -- your neighbor: the third person is wicked--you see; if you never tell the person who is wicked to her face, you begin to go schizophrenic. You -- you split. You -- you are -- your { }

So, better to say to nobody about a third person, you see, something, un- -- unless you are -- have the courage -- the moral courage also to tell the person to her face. And as you know, our whole society is constantly disintegrating, because you -- we all take the liberty of telling other people what we think of somebody, you see, and never telling them.

And -- it's the hardest thing to tell the truth to a colleague, I mean. I can assure you. It's very difficult.

I -- I was so put out by the -- the -- the corruption of our schools, that I left the -- schools three times in my life -- four times. I { } -- just in order to get up my -- screw up my courage to tell them what I thought of them; I had to get out of this. Now I feel I -- I have the right to say it inside, too, because I said it loud enough.

So will you kindly observe this -- this strange triplicity of -- of all human utterance? When you s- -- you -- we all the time make the decision: what we think should belong to our living group; what should belong to the world of mere world, what we call "world"; and what should be our -- our -- well, I don't even dare to use the word "gods," but our commanding, directing forces, the forces under which we make this decision now to -- to divide this world of ours into dead things and living beings. Here is dead -- the dead things, you see. Here are the living, and that's the -- the gods are the power who decide between life and death.

You see, in the name of spor- -- take -- the best educator -- education, as you know, in this ca- -- on such a campus as of today is the -- is in the athletic field. There the teachers -- the coaches have the right to make you go through real sacrifices. They can -- they can really rough-handle you, and we can't. And so there is discipline. And -- why? Because they can tell you that all your superfluous fat has to go, you see, that this is dead matter. In order to come out right, I mean, you have just to do -- keep a diet, and sleep enough, you see, and do not drink before the next match, and so on. So you -- the coach is em- -- empowered to remind you what is your life of the future, and what is the dead weight which has to go, and has to be left behind.

And so any divine power, any inspiration, what we call -- makes this decision between what is life and what is death. What is dead, and it should be left behind; and what is life and could -- should be carried into the future. And as I said, in a -- you can study this best in a -- in a football coach, and what he is allowed at this campus to do with his football men, I mean. He just is allowed to -- to -- to completely -- transform them into different beings. Isn't that right? And that explains the -- the admiration in which this guy was held, you see, this shoddy creature. Here, the las- -- the last one you had here.

-- As long as you do not know this mystery of the tri- -- of the crown of your head, which is under authority --. Wherever you enter a room, you by and large know whether you are here to a cocktail party, whether you are to enter a classroom, whether this is an examination, whether this an election booth, whether this is a courtroom, you -- this is a hospital, and you behave accordingly. That is, you say the things that belong in this -- you see. And the power to know where are you -- where you are, that's our divine -- the divine order of thi- -- of --

of our lives. And it always comes to this that part of the -- of the world is -- our -- are we ourselves, written large. America is -- you identify yourself with America's history, I hope. I mean -- to that extent that her miseries are your miseries, and her illnesses are your illnesses, and her victories are your victories, and the -- her defeats are your defeats.

Wherever you do this, where you really share the -- the sentiment and the -- the unhappiness and the happiness, you see, you see eye to eye. And where you try to manipulate -- "manipulate" comes from the word "main" -- "manus" in Latin. It means "manage" -- the same thing, you see. It comes from "handling." And only things can be handled. And as far as you try to handle men, you try to get out of them their thing-character, their character of being material parts of the world, you see, who follow certain strains of gravity, and laziness, and -- and -- and zest, and ambition, and competition; and you can handle them. Because they just respond to your little stimuli, and just -- what they try now -- in our psy- -- psychology experiments. That they try -- how fast the retina of your eye reacts, or Mr. Pavlov -- you see, sees that the spittle is gathering in your -- in your mouth when you -- when you are told that the sausage is near. And in this sense, we are things, because you can -- we are predictable.

Everything, you see, in this world of things is pre- -- is -- we -- try to make predictable. When we shoot a -- a -- shoot a satellite to the moon, it is a great victory. -- We can predict that he will reach the moon in so many seconds. Then we have managed the satellite, have we not, you see? We have handled it right. And it is a triumph of co-operation to do this, as you know, when you have five parts of such a satellite to be shot into space. Everything is full of admiration, because these things have been manipulated right. We have talked of them, in their absence, and -- to -- described them, you see, to perfection.

So everything here is predictable, which means -- when somebod- -- -thing is predictable, that you do not have to talk to the thing. Because we predict what the thing is doing. The thing is dead, and we have the life of the thing in us. We know more about its -- future behavior than the dead thing itself. So the man whom you call "predictable" is dead, for all practical purposes. As far as politicians handle us as predictable, you see, they are -- we are treated as raw material.

-- I have heard the nice story about the American stamps, you see. Jefferson was on the 3-cent stamp, so they wanted to {uppen} the -- the Democratic Party wanted to have the 4-cent stamp, for mail. So half a year before they brought this before Congress, they put Jefferson on the 4-cent stamp. Nothing said. So when then the new law went through -- the Democratic president, Jefferson, was on the -- every letter stamp, you see. Very good politics. And then -- a

friend of mine wrote to them and said, "Was this done on purpose?"

And they said, of course "Pure accident -- purely accidental." They had managed this, you see. If they had changed the picture of the president at the same time as they -- {uppened} the -- fare, there would have been an explosion, you see. So they -- they treated us, you see, as we deserve it, too, as -- as children.

(But observe. The new 1-cent stamp has Lincoln, and you have to put the 1-cent stamp with all the old 3-cent letters to make the 4.)

Well, now he's on the 4-cent stamp. The Republicans change it again. Oh, that's very clever change. And if we say, "Just politics," we mean just this, that we are manipulated. Isn't that right?

So I -- now Mr. Plutarch and -- all the pagans do not have this tripartition of speaking. They knew nothing about it. The ideal of the Greeks was to have the divine reason of men; and all rationalists today have the same --. "My reason is God, and the re- -- the world is the world." And "You, too, are just treated as an object of my understanding," you see. They don't know of identification, and they don't know -- but they are in authority of their -- on the -- as scientists, as rationalists. Their reason is God, and all the rest is manageable. That's called "ob- " -- in this country "objectivity."

But you ought to know that "world," "God," and "man" are already in existence in your own consciousness, in your -- the working of your spirit before you open your mouth, because you choose at every moment what to call "God" -- whom to call "God"; whom to call "partner," and "comrade"; and whom -- what to call "thing." And every moment you -- world and -- and God, and man are methods of approaching or dividing reality. They are not things, as you na‹vely -- God is not a thing. But God is a direction, the direction into you. What is it?

({The rearrangement?})

(Catching up.)

Ah-ha. Now come back to your -- to your book.

(Well, { } by { }.)

It's wonderful to have all this big volume. There is a second copy in the college library, I think, of this, because they have a whole collection of Loeb. You see, this is -- very nice biologist, Loeb, created this endowed fund -- endowment, you see, and -- for all -- for having this book collection. And -- what would be a

way of -- you see, if I take this here to the secretariat --.

(We just got it for the day, because I told them I could bring it back today { }.)

Pardon me? You put it on reserve, you mean?

(No. We got it -- we took it out on our reg -- on our reg card, on the promise that we would return that today. But you can probably get it through the department, by just -- calling them up. Because it's "restricted use," it says.)

Where did you find it? In the college library?

(In the regular stacks.)

Well, I -- I want -- would like to put it at your disposal, in the most practical manner. And I think it is too late to have copies made of -- all the -- would only be possible of a few pages. I mean, it's too expensive. So you can read this -- and shall I put it on reserve, downstairs? It is -- there is no --. And I'll put it under 198, under my name. So you all can find it. And I advise you really -- you have, after all, fully three weeks -- a little more. So -- that at least you get an impression of what these people are saying. What?

[miscellaneous overlapping student comments]

Well -- do I have to know your name in order to make them find out about it? I suppose, because that hasn't been --.

(Otherwise they'll start charging him { }.)

(Well, I could take it back { }.)

We go together, perhaps. Do you have a moment's time? { } or are in a hurry. { } could go now. Wie? That's what I mean. We go right after class, together. Thank you very much.

Now, my ta- -- my -- this is for the paper. But the -- the second thing is -- oh yes, another. Who has { } -- learned Latin? You have?

(I had Latin three years ago. But { }.)

You don't wish to make any use of it? Of Latin?

(Oh no, I'll try and { }.)


(I'll try speaking { }.)


Now, would you try to find in -- between Fabius and -- and Pericles, and--this is your work for the next week, the assignment--the -- the -- the parallels in the -- in the form of the biography? I told you that this 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, -- 5, 6, was dictating Plutarch's ethical approach to biography, that the man was classified, I mean, as to his behavior and --. Ja?

(Unfortunately Fabius is not in this paperback volume which everyone has. Are there enough copies of the other?)

{ } of these editions. I mean, a man writes parallel lives, you cannot cut out the -- the one bias or the other. Is it really true?

(Yes. It's not in there. It's not in the Harvard Classics, either, he says.)

(No, it certainly isn't.)

Well -- { } what?

(It's in the Great Book.)

It is?

(Yeah. { }.)

(It's not even in the Harvard Classics.)

Now, why don't you read then Caesar in comparison. After all, that's very interesting and -- and -- in itself. And it also has -- poses exactly the same problem, the -- the division of --.

(Caesar -- Caesar isn't here, either, in this paperback version.)

(Could we take one of these --?)

(Yes, it is.)

As a model, you mean. Well, Alexander's too rich, you see; it's not so simple. Why don't you take Solon? Solon. Well, take one second. Alexander -- is too diffuse, I mean, the world conqueror, you see -- there are too many facts that obscure the -- just too many things to report that this -- this order of simple qualities -- disappears, I mean it's such an ocean of -- of facts to be reported. Hence I feel this is a little too difficult. But Solon and Caesar will do.

There's another thing about Plutarch which I -- like to mention. Plutarch read -- writes under the good emperors. But he begins already to read -- write under Nero and these be- -- and Domitian, the -- the wicked ones. So he does not mention any person later than Caesar. And the tragedy, I think, of the -- of the Roman world was that people preferred to be driven into antiquarianism, and to deal with people of former ages more than, you see, of their own age for fear to say anything of -- against -- which the powers that be would -- would dislike. And -- that of course is the constant threat for free speech, that people in -- in Russia --. I mean, Doctor Zhivago is so outstanding, because it's the one book that is dealing, you see, of -- our own times. And that makes it a great book. I think otherwise it isn't a great book. But it has the courage to -- to speak out about the present, under a dictatorship. And the -- the temptation, you see, under any form of government, is for the literary and the intellectual to escape. And I think Mr. Hawthorne is -- is a case in point, with his Scarlet Letter, and so. That was too difficult for him to describe anything contemporary. And so -- I think he made his reputation, really, by -- by escaping into another time in which he was very truthful. But -- it's a different thing.

And Plutarch I think is therefore, you must know, that he is already a Greek, who leisurely deals with a past that for him is safe, secure. And to find this already in antiquity can -- is a good lesson, I mean, object lesson for our own temptation, you see, to -- to --. If you want to be frank, it is of course safer to be frank about 200 years ago.

And -- so never overestimate the -- your own courage when you pass judgments on the founders, or on King George, or something. That is, if you haven't first passed judgment on the present day, I mean, and then -- you do not know if you really are, so to speak, allowed to pass judgment on the past. I think one of the necessities of the historian is to be involved in the present by some decided action or participation, because otherwise he will not be able to understand his own judgments about the past. You are all in this quandary, you see, that historians--if they want to be historians--have to participate in the future and in the present, because otherwise they will make judgments that cost them too little, about the past. -- You will -- because, you see, the degree of danger in which we make a judgment educates us to refine our judgment. And I feel that most American historians writing on European affairs are so very blas‚ and they

know all about Louis XIV, of course. Terrible man. And -- and of course, I mean, and George -- George III. Because they never come in a position to tell anybody like Louis XIV or George III something to their face. And so they are not qualified to judge. I mean, this is -- costs nothing. That's too far away, you know. That's not refined enough. You haven't really entered into the spirit of their day.

And well, I feel also, I mean, with Cas- -- Mis- -- Del -- Cas- -- Fidel Castro, now. These newspapermen say we -- have totally forgotten that their fathers once rebelled against George III. And since they do not put themselves into the shoes of a man who throws out Batista, they have no right to talk to this man: "Are you a Communist?" This is just fatal, you see. These -- these newspapermen are hiding in a great security of -- of -- of -- cold definitions of their status. And they have no right to talk to this man. Should be forbidden, I mean. I think this is abs- -- I -- there hasn't -- one -- made a terrible impression on me, the treatment of this man in this country. It is a scandal, and it has to do with history.

I mean, Mr. Crane Brinton is a case in point. He's a real rascal, a real scoundrel. He's insolent about all the people outside, because he doesn't -- never -- he's quite impotent with regard to his own time. And so he passes wonderful judgments about the past. Where he -- so to speak, gives vent to his passions, you see, because of course he wants to be courageous. And so he's courageous in a phantom fight. And -- beware of such historians.

Demand from the -- the great historian will always be engaged in his own time, and therefore have learned to weigh his words. Because he will have living opponents, and living companions, you see; and therefore he will have learned what you can say about people in the -- hot battle of life. How can you be -- just to Pericles, you see, who lived -- 400 years before Plutarchus, you see, if you don't say a word against the bloody tyrant Nero or Domitian in your own time? You don't even say of a man -- even the word "cruel," or "benign," or "ungracious," or -- or all these, you see, all the etiquettes of -- about the character of a man mean nothing to me when I only see that an historian applies them to people a thousand years back. And he'll never say a word, you see, about anybody who lives in his own time, in a responsible fashion. Can you see my point?

We learn to speak among the living, and the historian must transfer the judgments passed among the living to the past, but not just -- have this liberty, so -- that's a kind -- libertinage, today, you s- --. That's why -- why -- most historians today are very different from the historians a hundred years ago. An historian a hundred years ago built up the nation. Bancroft built up the United States, you see, Cabot Lodge, or whomever you take, who wrote history of the -- American people, you see. They were involved in the story as -- as of this moment. When they said something about Benedict Arnold, they knew what treason was. But

today, Benedict Arnold is just dismissed as a traitor. You think that's so simple. Benedict Arnold was not just a traitor. It was a very complex situation between Loyalists and -- and Revolutionaries, you see. And if you have seen today people trying to -- do right between the world and the United States -- between nationalism and your obligation as a citizen of the world --. If you look at Robert Oppenheim, you see, he didn't want to break with his Communist friends in France, as you know. And for this he was hounded down -- out of the Atomic Commission. Now this man has a right to write history, you see, of Galileo. He knows what the revocation of the scientific truth, you see, may mean or not mean.

But otherwise, I'm -- most -- most people are -- who write history in this country write with a complete safety, that they never have to tell this anybody who is alive. And so we get, I think, a -- a new code for the historian. The historian should not pass any judgments on dead people, on past events, unless he has learned how to make those judgments on living events, and living { }, and living people. Distrust him.

(He has to depend always for his history on the -- the -- record made by people who were themselves involved in their own time.)

True, but in order to have them -- reverberate in his inner mind, he must be able to identify themselves with experiences of his own.

(That's why I'm -- would mistrust him, if he hasn't learned from -- from his own documents, what it means to be involved in one's time.)

Ja, exactly. The documents themselves wouldn't tell him. That's what I mean. You see, the report or -- I don't think they would.

This is --. {Alcibiades} is just called a "traitor" here. No, he died from this balderdash. Alcibiades "traitor." You call this "dictator." The legislator of Sparta a dictator! That doesn't mean -- say anything. What you mean by "dictator" is something -- you see, somebody who abolishes the liberties of a people. Here, is the -- founder of a state is called a dictator. It's -- just like George Washington, a dictator. Alexander, a conqueror. Alexander carried out the dreams of -- from Homer to Aristotle, you see -- of Greece. And the -- such a man is not a conqueror. He's a disciple of Aristotle, after all.

All these terms just show you all these people are blatant -- I mean, radio broadcasters. They have no responsibility for any of the terms they use there, you see. They have never been face-to-face with the mighty of the earth today.

You must come to despise these kind of -- this kind of -- of -- of journalism. That's what it is. Headline {painting}. It's an attempt to write history with -- mere headline. I wonder why they don't call Alexander "murderer," because he slew his friend.

Ja? Let's give it up, the direction. Will you kindly come { } me? So you try to have either Solon or Caesar. Or best, of course, would be Fabius, because that's the easiest, the clearest comparison. And try to find the order and the -- the list of qualities which Plutarch thinks he must give in order to write a biography. What are the things -- you will also see that he doesn't ob- -- that you will observe certainly that chronology is not his -- is not his intention. He doesn't want to write an evolutionary, educational history of the soul of the man, you see. But he wants to characterize him, and to define him, to classify him as a type.

({ }.)